What’s wrong with this?
1) Watch this clip.
2) Watch it again and identify what’s wrong.
3) Have a good giggle (and be glad you didn’t miss this one)
What would you have done if you were the R1? The R2?
Now, think about it this way… What would you have done if you were the coach of the team on the far side of the net?
The correct fault that should be whistled (by the R1) is 2 contacts by the setter. There was a BRA, but that occurred after the 2 contacts, as the BRA fault does not occur until the ball is legally blocked or completely crossed the plane of the net. Too bad the R1 missed the call.
The R2 is not empowered to whistle a fault for 2 contacts. He/She can (and should) provide assistance to the R1 on the call. Good refereeing technique calls for discreet assistance from the R2 and then, depending on the situation and the pre-match discussion with your partner, the R2 has a couple options. Either the R2 could step to the sideline to indicate that he/she wants to be invited to discuss the matter with the R1; or, if discussed in advance, simply walk across the court to the R1.
This situation, highlights the importance of a pre-match briefing and good understanding of R1/R2 teamwork. Be sure to conduct a real pre-match briefing and address the question of “What should the R2 do if he/she has important information the R1 needs to know and needs to know now?”
Depending on the situation, there are some circumstances where the R2 might come across the court uninvited; this is probably one of them. We do want to get the call right and we want to demonstrate to the participants that we will work hard to get the call right.
The fact that the attacker is a BR player does give the R2 an opening to whistle THAT fault and get the correct team winning the point. Although as pointed out above, BRA is not the correct call, by the R2 whistling and signaling BRA, it may jog the R1 memory to what has just happened.
Lastly, it is valuable to take a moment and consider the coach/captain/participant view of the play. CLEARLY, the other team committed a rather blatant fault. And it shouldn’t be a surprise for the coach to expect that fault to be called.
Loading ...
Back row attack
My god,
I’ve never thought i would ever see the day….when the setter passes the ball and the setter spikes it also.
R1 should have sanctioned a double hit.
R2 should have given a discrete signal about the double hit in question.
HOWEVER, thinking that the setter was also a back row attacker, due to current FIVB rules, R2 had the authority to sanction a back row attack. The rally would have been given to the team that was entitled for it.
The coach should have protested through the team captain at the first referee. The decision should have been contested in the scoresheet also by the team captain
The setter set the ball and then played the ball a 2nd time.
R1 should signal double hit since the setter played the ball two separate occasions.
R2 should present themself and show a discrete two signal
Even though setter was back row the double hit occurred first before the backrow attack.
Having seen this footage circulate around on the internet for some time now, I am sure we all know what the correct manner to address this type of action. Can I also ask, what type of training is needed for referees in order to be able to change their decision at high level games?
R2- should give decrete “2″ – then step out and whistle BRA. That would have stopped all the confusion in its tracks. END of STORY- LOL!!! The teamwork of the R2 here is crutial as the R1 clearly didn’t reconize who actually attacked the ball.
Step in and help. Make the call and the confusion goes away.
It can’t be a back row attack, because it’s not an attack unless and until it completely crosses the net or is legally blocked. The 2nd contact by the same player had to have occurred first. Therefore, the only possible correct call is “2 hits”.
A technicality, I know, but this IS a referee training blog…
Yes, the initial call should be a double contact, since the hitter was also the setter. It’s also a back-row attack.
Very clever.
With quickness and smarts like that, the setter ought to be given two-points. But yeah, 2-hits happened before the backrow attack.