|
Interpretations for “Completed Rally”
Rules 6.1.3, Rule 15, USAV 17.1.1, Rule 19.3.2.1
-
The Libero is legally replaced at the conclusion of a rally.
During the next rally, a back row player is injured and the referee
whistles to stop play, necessitating a replay. Rule 19.3.2.1 says
the Libero must stay off the court for a completed rally. In this
situation, there has not been a completed rally. HOWEVER, USAV 17.1.1
allows a Libero to replace an injured (back row) player if the Libero
wasn’t on the court at the time of the injury. What is the correct
way to handle this situation?
RULING: A Libero replacement is one of the allowable
outcomes in this situation. Rule 19.3.2.1 allows a Libero replacement
due to injury/illness without an intervening completed rally
-
The referees stop the rally when a Team A player is injured.
After 25 seconds, the coach for Team A says that the player can
continue to play. As the first referee prepares to beckon for the
next serve, the coach for Team A requests a time-out and the second
referee whistles the request. Should Team A be allowed this regular
game interruption?
RULING: Since there has not been a completed rally
in this situation, and the coach has already indicated the player
is ready to play, there can be no regular game interruption request.
Since the time-out request was acknowledged, a delay sanction would
be assessed.
-
In the above situation, assume Team A had been assessed a delay
warning earlier in the match. As a result, Team A must now be sanctioned
with a delay penalty, resulting in a point and the service being
awarded to Team B. Team B would now like to make a regular substitution
for their defensive specialist who is rotating to position 4 in
the front row. Since there has not been a completed rally, can this
substitution occur?
RULING:The spirit of Rule 15, which requires a completed
rally for there to be a regular game interruption, is to prevent
delay of play, and to provide an orderly and fair environment for
teams and officials in the administration of the match. It is not
to offer one team an advantage, or to put the other team at a disadvantage.
The team, in this case Team B, which did nothing wrong, is being
put at a disadvantage by their forced rotation of the defensive specialist
to position 4. The Libero replacement rule, Rule 19.3.2.1, provides
a remedy in this situation, allowing a replacement without an intervening
completed rally if the replacement is, "…due to injury/illness or
there is a forced rotation caused by a penalty." The same remedy
should be allowed for Team B in this situation.
-
If a rally-in-progress is stopped due
to an (extreme) unsporting act, and a team member is immediately
sanctioned with a yellow card is this considered a completed rally?
If this penalty forces a rotation, can the rotating team make a substitution?
RULING: As in question #3 above, the rotating team
should be allowed a substitution, even though there has not been
a completed rally.
-
If a rally-in-progress is stopped due
to an (extreme) unsporting act, and a team member is expelled or
disqualified, would this constitute a completed rally? If not a completed
rally, should we still allow for the substitution that would need
to occur if the penalized team member was one of the players on the
court?
RULING:While not a completed rally, in order for
the team to remain complete, they must be allowed a substitution
- USAV Rule 17.1.1 states: “If the injured
player cannot continue playing within 30 seconds, the player must
be replaced by substitution, a legal Libero replacement (if the Libero
is not on the court at the time of the injury), or the team must
take a legal time-out if the player is to remain in the set.”
a. If we stop play to handle the injury, we will have a replay. How
can we allow a time-out if a completed rally has not occurred?
RULING:
USAV 17.1.1 modifies the "regular" rule by allowing a
time-out as one of the options for the injured player's team in
this situation.
b. Since we have a rule interpretation that allows for the time-out
even if a completed rally has not occurred, why does USAV 17.1.1 state
“if the player is to remain in the set”? At the time of the injury,
it is difficult to assess whether the player will remain in the set.
What if the coach asks for the time-out thinking the player will be
ready to play after the time-out; then after the time-out, it is decided
the player should NOT continue to play? Is there a penalty for this?
RULING: First, it is not the referees’ role to determine
the extent of a player's injury. When referees stop play for what
they deem an injured player, and subsequently the coach of that
player wants to call time-out, this is allowed under the DCR. The
option in USAV 17.1.1, "…or
the team must take a legal time-out if the player is to remain
in the set", should be read to mean that if the first two
options (substitution or Libero replacement) are not taken, and
the coach wants more than the allowed 30 seconds to assess the
player's injury, a time-out must be taken in order for the player
to remain in the set.
- While playing the ball outside the antenna, a player contacts
the top band of the net.
RULING: Rule 11.3.2 takes precedence in
this case. It states, "Players may touch the post, ropes, or
any other object outside the antennae, including the net itself,
provided that it does not interfere with play." The intent
of this rule is to allow the same contact with the entire net outside
the antenna as the contact we previously allowed with the net cables,
ropes or post. Consequently, it is not a fault to contact any part
of the net outside the antenna (including the top tape).
- In order for a penetration fault,
as outlined by Rules 11.2.2.1 and 11.2.2.2, to be whistled, must
there always be actual contact between opponents?
RULING: No, it
is not always necessary for there to be contact for a centerline
penetration fault to be whistled. The common scenario involving
penetration into the opponent's court involves a blocker’s or attacker's
foot/feet coming down partially on the opponent's court, possibly
contacting the opponent as well. Previously, a penetration fault
could only have been whistled if there was contact with an opponent,
and this contact, in the referee's judgment, prevented the opponent
from making a play on a ball. While that situation has not changed,
the new provisions of 11.2.2.2 create the need to now consider
additional parts of the body as well. If the penetration of other
body parts is very near the centerline, it is the actual contact
with the opponent that must cause interference with the opponent's
play, the same as we previously ruled regarding the foot/feet.
The mere apprehension of contact in this case should not be judged
as interference. While certainly a possible consideration in these
situations, "safety" is not mentioned in the rule. With
the new provisions of this rule, however, there will be situations
where a player penetrates a significant distance into the opponent's
court. In this case, interference with the opponent's play may
take place, even if there is no contact between the opponents.
The referee must decide whether the opponent’s legitimate attempt
to play the ball was impeded as the opponent tried to "get
out of the way" of the penetrating player. In explaining a
penetration fault call or no-call, we must use the language of
the rule, "The player interfered (or did not interfere) with
the opponent's play.” Remember, in USAV competition, if some part
of the penetrating foot/feet (that touches the opponent's court)
does not remain in contact with or directly above the centerline,
it should be whistled immediately as a fault, no matter if there
was interference or not.
- Rule 5.2.3.3 says “… the coach
may request time-outs and substitutions”, and Rule 5.1.2.3 says
the captain may act “… in the absence of the coach to request time-outs
and substitutions”. But Rule 15.10.3a says “the actual request
for substitution is the entrance of the substitute player(s) into
the substitution zone, ready to play, during a regular interruption.”
Don’t these rules contradict one another?
RULING: No, there is
no contradiction here. Rule 15.2.1 refers specifically to “regular
interruptions”. Rule 5.2.3.3 is intended to allow the coach to
request a substitution only in the case of unusual or exceptional
situations – substitution prior to the start of a set, an injured/ill
player, a disqualified or expelled player, or a situation in which
a forced rotation after a replay results in a scenario as described
in Cases 3, 4, 5 and 6 above. Rule 5.1.2.3 affords the game captain
this same authority to request a substitution in unusual or exceptional
situations in the absence of the coach.
- Rule 15.2.1 says that regular
game interruptions (i.e., substitutions and time-outs) may be requested
by the coach or game captain by showing the corresponding hand
signal. Doesn’t this also contradict Rule 15.10.3a with regard
to substitution requests?
RULING: The hand signal described in
15.2.1 is only recognized in the unusual or exceptional cases as
described in the previous example.
- A coach calls, "Hey ref,
sub!" while the ball is out of play. How should the referee
respond if there is no player approaching, or even near, the substitution
zone?
RULING: The referee needs to be in an "educational" mode
in this case. Technically, this can be treated (as long as the
coach is not rude) the same as if the coach had said, "Great
weather we're having, eh?" But, ignoring the coach will not
help the situation. So, respectfully inform the coach that the
only way to make a substitution request is for the player to "enter
the zone", and that a verbal request, while not illegal, will
be ignored.
There is some confusion as to the meaning of Rule 15.10.3b,
which states, "If that is not the case, the substitution is
not granted and the team is sanctioned for delay." This should
not be applied in the situation above! This sentence applies to
the "ready to play, during a regular interruption" portion
of Rule 15.10.3a; for example, a player entering the substitution
zone wearing warm-ups, or an earring in their earlobe, etc. If
a referee is alert and proactive and sees an incoming substitute
entering the zone wearing warm-ups, it is appropriate to quickly
wave the incoming substitution out of the zone and continue play
without whistling the "request", avoiding a delay sanction.
In this case, an improper request is recorded at the end of the
rally. If the second referee is able to wave the incoming substitute
back before he/she enters the substitution zone, the improper request
is avoided as well. If the coach calls for a sub, remember, there
really has not been a request. So, if there is no player approaching
the sub zone, play should continue with the first referee authorizing
the next service.
OTHER RULINGS
- A team would like to put players’
last names on the back of their jerseys. Is this legal?
RULING:
Yes, in the spirit of promoting fan interest, the name of the player
may be placed on the back of the jersey.
|
