Line calls
 

I'm almost embarrassed to even ask this question. I guess I'll *really* be embarrassed if I turn out to be completely wrong!

I was working a middle school match tonight, and instructing the line judges on in/out calls. I generally illustrate by centering a ball on a line and rolling it slightly away from the court to show where it transitions from "in" to "out". My general instruction is that if more than half the ball is beyond the line, then call it "out"; halfway or less, call it "in".

Well tonight a coach came over to inform me that this was all wrong. She claimed that as long as any part of the ball was over any part of the line, then it was "in". So I placed a ball such that a small portion was over the line, and showed her that it several inches away from touching the line. She remained adamant that she's "played at all levels for 40 years and nobody has ever required the ball to touch the line; it only needs be over it". I was dumbstruck.

I told her the rule stated that the ball was out if it touched the floor completely outside the boundary lines. She claimed that the ball was not "completely outside the boundary line" as long as it was above it. I tried to emphasize that the rule said "touch", not "over", but to no avail.

How would you explain this better? Am I correct that the cylinder or shadow of the ball has nothing to do with these calls?

On a related note, should we make any allowance for ball compression on impact that would make the "footprint" of the ball larger, thus allowing balls to land a little further away from the line while still touching it? I'm thinking of the tennis replays where the ball "smears" as it lands.

Thanks in advance for your insights!

If ANY part of the ball touches ANY part of the line, it should be ruled as "in". If at the point of the ball contacting the floor it is outside the line, it should be ruled out.

The point of contact, and location of contact should be the only determining factor.

The ball must touch the line for it to be in.

Suggest to the coach that if her reasoning is valid, when her server contacts the ball while her foot is above the end line then she has committed a foot fault. Just wait for her screaming to subside and then show her the bottom of page 99 of the 2011-12 NFHS Volleyball Case/Manual:
Isn't it nice when we can actually find hard copy that proves we are correct?

And there is where I think you made things more difficult by introducing a concept that isn't supported by rule. Focus on the point of contact with the floor, not "halfway here or there."

I had originally heard the "any part of the ball OVER any part of the line" is considered in "interpretation" about 30 some years ago, when I was still playing. At that time, I just accepted it.

When I started officiating a few years later, I learned the correct interpretation by rule....

I like to explain it by the "electric fence". the ball has to touch the line. If it gets 'shocked', it is in.

There is a classic argument about the ball that lands out but compresses and touches the line. some want this to be 'out' because the ball is a sphere and was 'out' before it touched the line. My response to this argument is: You are absolutely right...in physics class, but this a a sport and the 'rule' makes this ball in.
:D