USA rules....sub rule

[oldsetter]

Conversational exercise:

A team sends up their 12th and 13th sub. What do you do R2?

[Antonio.King]

Allow one of them (should they decide quickly which of the two they want to actually use), and deny the other and issue an improper request.

[FMadera]

Originally Posted by Antonio.King

Allow one of them (should they decide quickly which of the two they want to actually use), and deny the other and issue an improper request.

In a perfect world, you're already telling the coaches they've used the 9th, 10th, and 11th, so when two people come up, you let them know they need to choose which one (quickly) and allow that sub. I wouldn't issue an improper request because the request for sub was legal (since they had a sub remaining), and we're not really denying anything, just making them choose (like if someone crosses the attack line and we blow the whistle).

Now, if they hem and haw over which sub they want, etc, you can deny both of them and issue a delay warning, but if you've done your due diligence ahead of time, you can just say "only one of you" and they'll get the hint without issues.

[Antonio.King]

Originally Posted by FMadera

In a perfect world, you're already telling the coaches they've used the 9th, 10th, and 11th, so when two people come up, you let them know they need to choose which one (quickly) and allow that sub. I wouldn't issue an improper request because the request for sub was legal (since they had a sub remaining), and we're not really denying anything, just making them choose (like if someone crosses the attack line and we blow the whistle).

Now, if they hem and haw over which sub they want, etc, you can deny both of them and issue a delay warning, but if you've done your due diligence ahead of time, you can just say "only one of you" and they'll get the hint without issues.

In a perfect world, yes, but alas...

I think the casebook has a scenario like this with that being the correct response. You're denying the 13th sub since you're essentially recognizing both of them when you blow your whistle.

Suppose when you do give them the option of choosing, they want the other sub? There has to be some consequence for the team's actions, otherwise you're relaying that it's okay for them to do that without repercussion.

[FMadera]

Originally Posted by Antonio.King

Suppose when you do give them the option of choosing, they want the other sub? There has to be some consequence for the team's actions, otherwise you're relaying that it's okay for them to do that without repercussion.

They've made a legal sub request. If they make a legal sub after that request, and there's not a noticeable delay, administer it and move on. Don't look for trouble.

[Antonio.King]

Originally Posted by FMadera

They've made a legal sub request. If they make a legal sub after that request, and there's not a noticeable delay, administer it and move on. Don't look for trouble.

I'm going to disagree with you on this. It's not about looking for trouble, but about following protocol. They've made a partially legal sub request as you're acknowledging the presence of both substitutions, but you're administering them one by one.

They're requesting two substitutions; one of which they can have, however, the other they cannot due to it being the maximum allowed number. With that in mind, you have to deny the request of the sub that would make the 13th.

So it's an improper request in addition to allowing the 12th sub.

[FMadera]

Originally Posted by Antonio.King

I'm going to disagree with you on this. It's not about looking for trouble, but about following protocol. They've made a partially legal sub request as you're acknowledging the presence of both substitutions, but you're administering them one by one.

They're requesting two substitutions; one of which they can have, however, the other they cannot due to it being the maximum allowed number. With that in mind, you have to deny the request of the sub that would make the 13th.

So it's an improper request in addition to allowing the 12th sub.

I'm going to disagree. You have one request. You can only make one request for substitution (in which you can make several at a time, all as part of the same request). This is one request. If you issue an improper request, you're saying there were multiple requests, which there were not.

[Antonio.King]

Originally Posted by FMadera

I'm going to disagree. You have one request. You can only make one request for substitution (in which you can make several at a time, all as part of the same request). This is one request. If you issue an improper request, you're saying there were multiple requests, which there were not.

Yes, you're right in the sense that only one request for substitution can be made, and that's by a player entering the sub zone. You're also correct in the sense that a team is allowed as many entries in the same dead ball request.

For a team to make multiple substitutions in the same dead ball, they need to be waiting outside the sub zone until the first pair is clear. In this instance, they are to be considered acknowledged under the same initial request.

15.10.14: "If a team intends to make simultaneously more than one substitution, all players being substituted must report to the substitution zone at the same time to be considered in the same request."

You're not inferring multiple requests in this instance considering their request is still being acknowledged. Just because the first sub has received authorization to enter doesn't mean their request is complete because they have another pair awaiting entry. Per 15.10.14, they're making a single request to allow multiple substitutions; when multiple pairs arrive, they are to be treated as one request. You allow their legal request (12th), but deny the 13th due to being over their maximum allowed number, thus making it an improper request.

[FMadera]

Originally Posted by Antonio.King

You allow their legal request (12th), but deny the 13th due to being over their maximum allowed number, thus making it an improper request.

...if you want to officiate entirely by the book, and not by what is best practices. When they both come up, you remind them they can only have one, and the other one should then go back without you having to deny anything.

Let's say #5 comes into the sub zone, and the coach realizes that #6 should be subbing in instead. You sub in #6, #5 goes back to the bench, and we play on without further sanction unless there is a delay in the match.

Let's also say #5 steps into the sub zone for request 13, then realizes they are out of subs before you blow the whistle. No improper request here; they go back to the bench and we play on.

Same principle. We would treat that second player as if he is not part of the equation at all (if and ONLY if there isn't a delay caused by said action), administer the correct sub without delay, and we play on. Again...don't look for trouble, or you'll find it.

Antonio, your answer may be "correct" by the strictest interpretation of the rule, but if you handle it that way in a rating session, you're more likely to get dinged for it than if you handle it the way I describe. Trust me.

[oldsetter]

Interesting responses. I handle it like Felix. Let's say number 5 comes into the sub zone for the 2nd sub and number 16 is waiting outside the sub zone. You blow your whistle recognizing the sub, 16 realizes she is early and goes back to the bench....I'm putting 5 in the game and going on with no penalty. There is no delay. I don't think when a player comes into the sub zone there is an implied number or there is a definitive number of inches that the second or third player are required to be from the attach line. If a second player comes up a 'little late'...before I have finished confirming the scorekeeper has recorded the 1st sub, (not too outside my rhythm) I will allow the second sub as well...with a warning to be more timely next time. Game administrator versus rules police.
Good discussion friends.

[Antonio.King]

What the defining factor in all of this is whether or not as the R2, you acknowledge their request with a whistle or not while the two subs are waiting (the 12th and the 13th). If you're preventative, which I think is what you're getting at Felix, then yes, catch it before either of them enters the zone.

However, if you're unable to (handling something with the other team or just don't realize it), then the process involves the IR should the R2 whistle it.

I was speaking from the stand point that you whistled the request with the pending outside. In which case, you have to issue the IR. If you catch it before you acknowledge the request, then you don't.

[MCBear]

I was going to agree with Felix until I read this exact situation in the Case Book (page 46).

Situation 15.22
A team requests two substitutions which will result in the 12th and 13th team substitutions.

Ruling:
The second referee allows one substitution, denies the other, and charges the team with an improper request. When a substitution request includes a legal and an improper substitution, the legal substitute may enter the set. In this case, the coach or captain may decide which substitution is preferred, provided this is done without delay.

Reference:
USAV 15.6a
USAV 15.9.1c
USAV 15.10.4a

So, according to this, the IR is the proper procedure.

[FMadera]

Originally Posted by MCBear

I was going to agree with Felix until I read this exact situation in the Case Book (page 46).





So, according to this, the IR is the proper procedure.

Again, I think this is assuming we have lost track of the sub count (the casebook doesn't usually take into account preventative actions). The scorer is telling the R2 no, they can only use one, then we have to take care of making sure which one they want, etc., so there is a penalty that CAN be assessed, but doesn't necessarily need to be.

We can assess a penalty (not a yellow card, just the generic definition) for an overlap, and yet, we can also warn and prevent things from getting to that point. I see this as no different IF the R2 is aware of things and can deal with it quickly.

[oldsetter]

Interestingly, a sub request is defined as a player entering the sub zone. If a player approaches the sub zone but does not enter, we do not recognize the sub and do not penalize. So for multiple subs, if a player left the 'stack' before entering the sub zone why would that be an IR....they were requesting nothing. I know we assume multiple subs and I know what the case book says, but wouldn't this be more of a delay than an improper request? In the case of a player entering the sub zone and leaving before we could recognize them would you administer an IR or a delay penalty even though it had no effect on the game?

This was a conversation generator......

[Antonio.King]

Originally Posted by oldsetter

Interestingly, a sub request is defined as a player entering the sub zone. If a player approaches the sub zone but does not enter, we do not recognize the sub and do not penalize. So for multiple subs, if a player left the 'stack' before entering the sub zone why would that be an IR....they were requesting nothing. I know we assume multiple subs and I know what the case book says, but wouldn't this be more of a delay than an improper request? In the case of a player entering the sub zone and leaving before we could recognize them would you administer an IR or a delay penalty even though it had no effect on the game?

This was a conversation generator......

They are a part of the original request by the legal pair. This is why we stress that if teams have multiple substitutions, that the pair we're not dealing with patiently be ready and waiting outside the zone for authorization to enter.

Otherwise, if we've already administered the sub that we whistled, and all of a sudden here comes another sub from the bench after we've already sent in the one they've requested, that's dangerously close to two separate requests. Normally, we'd allow it, tell the coach "Hey, speed it up back there, otherwise I can't guarantee she'll get in." (not verbatim, of course. ).

But, since a team is only allowed one regular interruption per dead ball, that's why multiple subs are to be considered one request should they properly be standing and waiting while we're administering the sub pair that initiated the request. So even though they're not the pair that entered the zone, the pair before them that did step in technically "requested" entry for both of them.

A team delay wouldn't be appropriate because that's usually team initiated. They would have to be causing the delay. They (the subs) did what they were supposed to do in the sense of being there ready to go in, standing outside the zone, but unbeknownst to them (they don't know what they're doing half the time) they aren't allowed to enter because of reaching their maximum. So a "wave off" is all that's warranted. Now, if they were to stand there in the zone after you've waved them away looking dumbfounded, then you could sanction with a TD since they are now causing the delay.

In your latter example, you'd do nothing (unless you as the R2 feel it delayed the match, you can request a TD from the R1). If you didn't blow your whistle, there was no delay. It's not an improper request, because you as the referee didn't acknowledge it to determine whether or not it was improper. So, play on.

Here's a great video demonstrating some of the techniques used in FIVB when dealing with substitutions. One in particular, you'll see the coach motion for sub, in which case the R2 gestured that there's no one in the zone. Once the sub headed toward the zone, he waved off, basically telling him "too late". You can't see it in the clip, but the R1 gave them a team delay because it delayed the flow of the match, even though it wasn't technically "requested".

But, the key, which I agree with Felix, is catching it before you acknowledge the request. That saves the hassle (if it's considered one) and they generally appreciate it anyway (the teams). But if you don't catch it, and you whistle their request, it's an IR at the point for the 13th sub.

FIVB Multimedia teaching material for referees - substitution.flv - YouTube