Do all regions handle religous exceptions the same way? Do you require participants to sign additional waivers to protect officials or is it handled informally within the region?
Does your region specify what can be accepted for religous reasons or is left wide open for anything “claimed” to be religous in nature? Nobody wants to get involved in making those types of decisions so does your region leave it up to the individual referee or have a formal process or an informal one in your region?
I have come across this a few times, even from fellow referees acting as line judges, and I think some people have the mentality that the line judge position is more important that the servers position on the court.
The situation is when you have limited space behind the endline and the server wants to serve from the LJ side of the court. If the server wants to serve near the wall the LJ moves all the way back to the wall and refuses to move anymore. This forces the server to move to where they don’t want to or worse you get the server elbowing the LJ trying to get the room they want to serve.
In my opinion this is just an unexceptable situation. The LJ should simply take one step away from the server and move quickly back once they make contact. Unfortunately I have been told too often that “This is my spot and I am not moving”. As an R1 I would tell the LJ to move but as a player it is frustrating to deal with that mentality.
Does anyone else have an opinion on how to handle situations like this? A different opinion then mine?
I have observed many libero replacement issues being handled differently (and often incorrectly) by officials. The DCR doesn’t do a great job of addressing some libero situations, and I think there is a fair amount of confusion (especially with those who work multiple rule sets). Perhaps a number of different scenarios, such as the following, could be addressed:
Libero (or replaced player) enter/leave outside of the replacement zone.
Libero replaced by a player other than whom s/he replaced.
Libero replaced by a player other than whom s/he replaced, and whom the coach immediately wants to substitute out.
Two replacements (in/out) during the same dead ball.
A team attempts a double replacement (like NCAA/NFHS) where two non-libero players replace each other with the libero going back to RB to serve.
Of the 99 voters in this poll, 74 (75%) voted “Legal play, play on” and 25 (25%) voted “Two hits.
In determining if a play is a block or not, you need to be certain that you know the definition of a block:
Rule 14.1.1 Blocking is the action of players close to the net to intercept the ball coming from the opponents by reaching higher than the top of the net. Only front row players are permitted to complete a block.
If a contact meets all the of conditions (close to the net, intercepting the ball from the opponents, and reaching higher than the top of the net), it’s a block. Conversely, if a contact does not meet all the conditions, it cannot be ruled a block and must be a first team contact.
In this case, the contact is clearly not an attack and it meets the standards in Rule 14.1.1. Therefore it should be considered a block followed by the first team contact by the same player.
Play on.
When players wear a ring or rings what criteria do you use to determine if the ring is legal or not? I have received conflicting information in the past about this.
The rule states:
USAV 4.5.1: It is forbidden to wear hats or jewelry. An exception will be made for religious or medical medallions and, for adult competition, a flat band ring worn on the finger.
This would seem to indicate only one ring is allowed. Is this one ring per hand or one ring total. If the ring is worn on the thumb is that legal?
Below is a picture of a typical “flat band ring”.
How far away can a ring stray from this typical style before it becomes illegal? Obviously a diamond engagement ring would not be allowed but what about Irish Claddah rings?
I would not consider this type of ring to be a flat band so it would not be acceptable but I have been told that if the ring is “smooth” then it is OK. Except, smooth, is not part of the description in the rules. There are rings that would be considered “smooth” but not be anything like a flat band. The point of the heart on the claddah ring is certainly not smooth but the upper surface is but it is not “flat”.
At what point does not allowing a type of ring become judgment and not subject to protest? Or is this always subject to protest if the player disagrees with your assessment of the ring?
Basically, anything that “looks like” a wedding ring is always OK but the further you stray form that typical shape what are the guidelines for Referees and players?
R6 sends an overpass to R4. R4 goes up to send the ball over the net and before he gets to the ball S3 blocks the ball. The up Official stated that the ball had “broken” the plane of the net so S3 had a right to reach over and block the portion of the ball that was on R’s side of the net. S3 only touched the ball on R’s side to block the ball. R4 was in a position to play the ball if S3 had not blocked the ball.
The question is once the ball reaches S’s side do they have the right to play the ball on R’s side of the net if it is not a follow through from thier side?
I know if I was the official I would have stated by explaining the call by stating the blocker started blocking the ball on their own side.
Loading ...