VOLLEYBALL

LET’S GO TO THE VIDEO

A Close-Up View of the Challenge Review System

It’s important for referees to understand all the rules regarding the Challenge Review System when working collegiate matches. Kaili Kimura, Monterey Park, Calif., listens to a coach explain a challenge during an NCAA tournament match.

By Bill Thornburgh

After years of coaches, players and fans thinking referees got a call wrong or referees beating themselves up and questioning a call (or no call) they made during a match, we finally have a tool that can help us get the call right.

The Challenge Review System (CRS) entered NCAA volleyball as an experimental rule in 2015 with use in a few Power 5 conferences. In 2016, it was included in the rulebook for all conferences and when CRS made its first appearance in an NCAA Championship match. Seeing the many benefits it provided, more schools at various levels of collegiate volleyball have implemented CRS to help make contests (specifically, certain calls) fair by allowing coaches to challenge referee decisions. Over the past seven years, the rules committee has made updates and experimented with what can be challenged, how many challenges are allowed, and the referee techniques and communication used during the challenge process.

What Is Challengeable?

There have been some minor changes along the way regarding what can be challenged, but the current rule allows coaches to challenge the following: •In/out/touch/net. •Illegal attack, block or contact over the opponent’s court (that is dependent on whether there was contact by an involved player). •Service foot fault. •Illegal (back-row) attack fault. •(New) Whether the libero’s foot/feet or take-off point is in the front zone when setting the ball to a teammate.

Beginning with the 202223 season, coaches will get two challenges per match. If they challenge and “win,” they will retain

that challenge. If a match goes to a fifth set, each team will get an extra challenge, but teams cannot have more than two challenges going into that set.

CRS Reliability

The biggest factors that contribute to reliability are the number of cameras in use, the position of the cameras and the quality of the cameras. As many collegiate referees know, it is very frustrating when there are a limited number of cameras, meaning CRS is unlikely to be helpful; the positions of the cameras are not in line with boundary lines or they are located in an odd area, meaning that certain plays will be difficult to review; and/or the cameras are of poor quality, meaning we do not have a high enough frame rate, which is measured in frames per second. The game is fast-moving and if the cameras have a low frame rate, we are missing micro touches, whether the ball contacted the floor (pancake attempts) and identifying where the ball contacted the floor (in/out).

CRS Data

More cameras and higher quality cameras would do wonders for the possible outcomes of a challenge. However, schools are under financial restraints, which contributes to CRS not being a totally reliable tool for referees and coaches. Let’s take a moment to look at some data on challenged calls, which result in one of three outcomes — the call is confirmed (the referee team was correct), the call is reversed (the referee team was incorrect) or the call stands (no camera provided conclusive evidence to confirm or reverse the original decision).

The Professional Association of Volleyball Officials (PAVO) has been collecting data on challenges, and Chart 1 provides some interesting numbers from the last four seasons (removing the unpredictable and shortened 2020 season due to the pandemic). A special thanks to Katy Meyer and Rachael Rodriguez from PAVO for providing the data.

I believe there are more challenges because more schools at various levels are using CRS, not because more referees’ decisions are being questioned. You can see this by looking at the average number of challenges per match, which has not changed, even though there have been more challenges.

One would think if referees are improving with experience, the average time to complete a challenge would get faster. But referees with less experience are now getting exposure to CRS as more and more schools are implementing it — there is a learning curve when working with the technology. Plus, we never want to rush a review.

Not all schools have volleyballsavvy technicians/camera crews working matches and that may slow down the average review time for referees. Schools should recruit good, fit people into these roles and train them for improved efficiency.

As you can see with the types of challenge (Chart 2), they are occurring at the same rate each year. Referee teams (R1, R2, LJs)

Chart 1

Total Challenges

Average Challenges per Match

Average Time of Challenge (minutes) 2018 3,545 2.61 1:27 2019 5,146 2.66 1:29 2021 5,442 2.64 1:27

Type of Challenge

Chart 2 Ball contacting a player Ball in or out Net fault Attack line fault Service line foot fault

2018 43.7% 34.6% 20.4% 1.1% 0.2%

2019 43.3% 36.7% 18.8% 0.7% 0.4%

2021 44.7% 35.4% 18.6% 1.0% 0.4%

SIDELINE

Big Ten Hosts Inaugural Volleyball Media Days

The Big Ten Conference became the first collegiate conference to host an in-person preseason volleyball media event when it hosted the inaugural Big Ten Media Days, Aug. 1-2, in Chicago.

Seven of the conference’s 14 schools arrived at the Big Ten Network on Aug. 1 for a series of interview sessions and other creative content opportunities to preview the upcoming 2022 season. The other seven schools arrived Aug. 2 to do the same.

“I’m extremely proud and excited that the Big Ten is hosting the first-ever volleyball media day,” said Marcia Alterman, Big Ten coordinator of volleyball officials. “It will give a boost to the status of our sport in the eyes of the public, and hopefully some attention to rules and officiating will be a part of the exchange with the media representatives.”

QUICK TIP

If you are working a match and lucky enough to have a ball crew, spend a few minutes before the match having a conversation about what is

expected of them. Discuss when and how you would like them to roll balls to each other or the server. An errant ball being rolled during live play could lead to a disruption of play or potential injury.

TOOLS

Rule Comparisons

Do you referee multiple codes? Do you sometimes forget the differences in the codes you work or want to compare rule sets? The Professional Association of Volleyball Officials offers a free guide on its website to help you. PAVO offers two different PDFs — one comparing all three major rule sets (NFHS, NCAA and USAV) and one that compares NCAA and USAV. Go to pavo.org/Rules-andTools/Rule-Comparisons for more information. The guides are perfect for a quick refresher on rules before each match.

TEST YOURSELF

In each of the following, you are given a situation and possible answer(s). You are to decide which answer(s) are correct for NFHS, NCAA or USAV rules, which might vary. Solutions: p. 85.

1. During a multi-court tournament, the second referee instructs the assistant scorer(s)/timer to avoid using the buzzer on the scoreboard to end timeouts and the interval between sets. The second referee notifies the assistant scorer(s)/timer that a whistle will be used instead. a. Correct procedure. The second referee may use a whistle to end timeouts and the interval between sets when multiple courts are used. b. Incorrect procedure. A buzzer from the assistant/scorer(s)/timer is required in all matches to end timeouts and the interval between sets, regardless of the number of courts being used.

2. After a point, the second referee is conferring with the table to sort out a substitution issue. Before the first referee whistles to authorize service, S1, frustrated with the delay, intentionally serves the ball over the net with a low trajectory, narrowly missing R2’s head. a. The first referee should award a re-serve since the authorization for service was never given. b. The first referee should issue a yellow card warning to the serving team for unnecessary delay. c. The first referee should issue a yellow card warning to S1 for unsporting conduct. d. The first referee should issue a red card to the serving team for unnecessary delay. e. The first referee should issue a red card to S1 for unsporting conduct.

3. During pre-match inspection of the court, the referees notice there are no attack-line extensions marked on the court. a. Attack-line extensions are not required to be marked on the court. b. Attack-line extensions must be marked on the court and the referees should contact the host/event manager and explain the marks are required. c. Attack-line extensions are only required at nationally sanctioned events. If this match is a nationally sanctioned event, the referees should contact the host/event manager and explain the marks are required.

Outcome

Chart 3 Original decision confirmed Original decision reversed Call stands

2018 46.8% 36.4% 16.4% 2019 46.8% 36.1% 16.4% 2021 39.2% 38.6% 21.2%

*Mechanical or video failures excluded from table

need to be positioned and focused in the right place at the right time to see touches and make decisions on line calls, as these two areas account for approximately 80 percent of all challenges.

We need to continue to review challenges of this nature for training purposes — hopefully this will lead us to better decisions using CRS. Additionally, this should also improve the consistency of decisions from one referee to the next.

In regard to the outcome of a challenge (Chart 3), we had almost identical numbers in confirming or reversing decisions in 2018 and 2019. However, in 2021 we observed more reversals and a slight uptick in “call stands.” Why?

A few ideas:

Reversals — In 2021, an experimental rule allowed coaches to keep the challenge if they were correct. Maybe they were more selective in when and how they used the green card (the color of the card coaches show to indicate a challenge). This made coaches more accurate, which led referees to reverse calls more often.

Call stands — More schools using CRS with less-experienced officials who were conducting reviews may have resulted in missing crucial evidence to confirm or reverse the original decision, schools implementing CRS for the first year may have been using few cameras, and/or these new schools were using low-quality cameras.

Did You Know?

There were some interesting CRS data from the 2021-22 season. While a few conferences participated with the experimental rule, most others continued to use the standard CRS rule (Chart 4). The reported data showed there was no difference in the total number of challenges per match and there was no difference in the type of challenge. However, when comparing the experimental data to the standard data, we observed a statistically significant shift in outcomes.

These were statistically significant results using the sample size and percentage response to calculate comparative error, difference and significance.

This would explain why the NCAA rules committee decided to make the challenge rule permanent, and coaches retain their challenges if successful. With this change, it is more likely players will be honest, coaches will be more selective when they challenge and challenges will not be used as a delay tactic or extra timeout.

CRS Wrap Up for Referees

We can all hope for better equipment to improve CRS, but we cannot control that. So, let’s make a commitment to do the following things that we can control: •Build positive relationships with your partner and line judges. •Improve your verbal communication and eye contact with your officiating team. •Be focused and in position

Chart 4

Outcome

Original decision confirmed

Original decision reversed

Call stands 2021 Experimental 2021 Standard

Sample size Percentage Sample size Percentage

909 35.9% 1,303 41.7%

1,050 41.5% 1,133 36.3%

547 21.6% 658 21.1%

to increase the accuracy of your decisions. •Know the rulebook and understand the nuances of what is challengeable when using CRS. •Listen to and communicate clearly with coaches — don’t try to talk them into or out of challenging a call.

•Follow the approved CRS procedures and use the proper referee techniques. •Communicate with your scorers, replay technician and announcer. •Use self-talk and communicate with your partner (if using headsets) before showing the decision to avoid errors.

•If possible, review your own CRS decision and those of others, for training purposes. Bill Thornburgh, Shelbyville, Ky., is a National USAV and PAVO referee, as well as a FIVB International referee. He works in the Big Ten, Atlantic Coast, Southeastern and other D-I conferences around the Midwest. *

Get Out of the Way

Second referees and line judges are used to working in confined spaces, especially at the high school and tournament level. It is even true in some college venues as well. Because of these close confines, there are times when officials hinder play.

While officials should always have their heads on a swivel and do everything possible to avoid play, sometimes plays happen too quickly and there isn’t time or space to get out of the way. These types of plays should be the exception as opposed to the rule.

What can officials do to make sure they stay clear of interfering with a play? First, let’s start with second referees. The easiest way to avoid getting in the way of play is to stay far enough away from the court. Too often, second referees want to be up close to the net. This takes away your field of vision and makes you vulnerable. Second referees should stay back away from the net to help see the whole court and to give themselves time to read and react to plays. As they transition from side to side, they should know where players are to avoid a collision as seen in the PlayPic. If play comes toward the second referee, the referee should have time to read the movement of the players and transition to the other side of the court to get out of the way.

Never be in a hurry to transition if there are players in the area to which you would be transitioning. Stay opposite and continue your duties from there. The one time interference is more likely to occur is when the second referee moves up to the side of the net to judge whether a ball crosses inside or outside of the antenna on the second referee’s side of the court. It is important for second referees to know where blockers are in this situation and make sure to quickly get in to position to see the ball and then get out of the way as quickly as possible after clearly seeing the ball cross the net.

And while second referees are not all that likely to interfere, line judges are often in the line of fire. To avoid contact, line judges should always be in an athletic position and ready to move if play comes toward them. Being alert and able to read and react quickly is key. One thing to remember, line judges should try to stay on one of their lines if possible and not give up all angles. There will be times when multiple players and the location of the ball make this impossible, but again, this should be the exception and not the norm.

Once an area becomes clear of players and the ball, line judges should hustle back to position and continue officiating. Don’t think because the ball came to your area and you avoided it, you can now relax. Stay alert to players getting back onto the court, know where the ball is in case you have to make a ruling and be prepared for the next play.

When a collision does occur, it is important for the first referee to know the location of the ball. Just because there is contact between an official and a player, or if the ball hits an official, doesn’t mean interference occurred. The first referee needs to make a determination if the collision prevented a team from making a legitimate play on the ball. If so, a replay should be issued. If in doubt, give the player the benefit of the doubt and issue a replay. If the first referee determines there was no legitimate play to be made, the play stands. Be prepared to explain to a captain why no replay was issued and remember, it is a judgment call. *

ball is in case you have to make a ruling and be prepared for the next play. When a collision does occur, it is important for the first referee to know the location of the ball. Just because there is contact between an official and a player, or if the ball hits an official, doesn’t mean interference occurred. The first referee needs to make a determination if the collision prevented a team from making a legitimate play on the ball. If so, a replay should be issued. If in doubt, give the player the benefit of the doubt and issue a replay. If the first referee determines there was no legitimate play to be made, the play stands. Be prepared to explain to a captain why no replay was issued and remember, it is a judgment call.

CASEPLAYS

Net Play

Play: B1 goes up to set a ball that is passed close to the net. A2, a front-row blocker, reaches across the net and does not contact the ball, but touches B1’s hand after the ball is successfully set. The first referee blows the whistle and awards a point to team B and signals illegally reaching beyond the net. Ruling: Incorrect in all rules codes. If there is no interference on the play, play continues. Since B1 successfully set the ball and there was no interference by A2, play should continue (NFHS 9-63, 9.6.3A; NCAA 15.1.3.3, 15.2.3; USAV 11.4.1).

Changes to Lineup

Play: Team A’s head coach turns in the lineup sheet with three minutes remaining before the start of the match. After returning to the bench, the coach realizes A1 is listed in two locations on the lineup sheet and returns to the scorer’s table and makes a correction to the lineup, leaving A1 in one spot and changing the second number to 11. There are still two minutes remaining on the clock when the coach finishes the change. Ruling: In NFHS and NCAA, the change is legal and there is no penalty. In NFHS, a coach may correct the lineup until the two-minute mark remaining before the start of the match. In NCAA, a coach may make changes up until the oneminute mark remaining before the start of the match (NFHS 7-1-2; NCAA 10.1.1.7). In USAV, once the lineup has been submitted, no changes may be made without a regular substitution (7.3.4).

Spectator Conduct

Play: During play, a fan in the front row becomes unruly and harasses players, which ultimately interferes with playing action. The first referee stops the match with an official’s timeout, orders a replay and sends both teams to their respective benches and has the second referee contact the proper person in charge to address the issue. Ruling: In all codes, the first referee’s decision is correct. The first referee has the authority to suspend the match until the spectator issue is addressed. Player safety should be a priority (NFHS 12-3; NCAA Conduct of Spectators and Ancillary Participants (p. 83); USAV 17.2).

High School Handling Hints

By Rick Brown

Recently, the NFHS published a change in philosophy for how first referees should call ballhandling. This special guidance is used to continue to try to teach what is expected, including first referees calling only clear ballhandling faults and striving for consistency.

Training has been influenced by changes at the college level with the belief that fewer whistles on marginal double-hits are good for the game. What’s been taught is egregious double-hits should always be called as faults and we should not allow players to send the ball over the net with multiple contacts, except on the first contact. We expect the first referee to whistle a ballhandling fault when players “double” the ball over the net to the opponent’s side on second or third contacts or use prolonged contact to catch/throw the ball on any hit.

Overall, the evolution in “calling hands” has tended toward loosening how ballhandling is called in the interest of “keeping the ball flying.” This translates into avoiding whistling marginal hands as faults, preferring to have a rally ended by the ball hitting the floor. A longer rally is perceived as providing an opportunity for the incredible athleticism that is part of our game to shine through, helping to grow the popularity of our sport.

With most referees working in multiple rule sets, the reality is we still have many first referees who struggle to be consistent from the start of a match to the finish in terms of what they whistle as ballhandling faults and what they allow. The pace of today’s game and the athleticism of today’s players only makes the

A first referee’s top priority during a match is being consistent in judging ballhandling. Joe Cullumber, Milleville, Utah, must determine if this is prolonged contact or a throw and then must stick to that standard for the entire match.

job of the first referee more difficult. For greater consistency in making ballhandling judgments, referees need to remember the following in judging legality.

To promote consistency, the first referee must get eyes ahead of the ball so the eyes are steady and focused to see the ball arrive. A key is to judge the point of contact without preconceived notions based on who is playing the ball or how. Only the contact point and playing action are to be judged. Sight is the only factor for the first referee to consider. You can’t determine what you can’t see.

Not every double-hit needs to be called. Minor double-hits can be let go in the interest of making the game more about the players.

When evaluating ballhandling, it is important to understand there is a current focus on an increase in continuation of play when judging second-ball contacts directed to a teammate. This guidance is focused specifically on the second team contact and, especially, setting action. A player in good position to make a play on the ball is expected to play the ball without discernible double contacts, taking into account level of play.

At lower levels of competition, fewer calls may be made in the interest of what is good for the players and good for the game, allowing more points to play out, setting and staying with a reasonable level that avoids the first referee taking over the match.

The biggest change in ballhandling philosophy relates to second contacts directed to a teammate. Less severe judgment is to be applied by the first referee to a player making a challenging or spectacular play without the ball coming to rest or resulting in more than a minor double-hit. Bad double-hits are still to be called, and the ball still can’t come to rest or be caught or thrown.

To help ensure referees do not have a predisposition that a fault will occur, only sight should be used to judge the contact point of a player and the ball when determining whether player-ball contact is legal or illegal. There is no player position or technique used in playing the ball that should automatically result in a ballhandling fault.

Referees should strive for consistency in a manner that is predictable from the beginning to the end of a match so that teams are able to figure out what ballhandling is considered legal and illegal and adjust their expectations accordingly.

To promote consistency, each first referee needs to develop a clear line regarding what he or she would whistle as a ballhandling fault at set or match point. This comes from experience, critique and observing top referees officiate in terms of how hands are called at various levels of

Master UPDATED for 2022 Volleyball’s Volleyball’s Toughest Calls Toughest Calls

Updated for 2022, see why Net Gain is the best selling volleyball training book of best selling volleyball training book of all time. Improve your judgments around all time. Improve your judgments around ball-handling, overlaps/alignment, net play, ball-handling, overlaps/alignment, net play, and line calls. Mastering these areas will and line calls. Mastering these areas will instantly help you be a better referee and instantly help you be a better referee and help you make great calls with consistency help you make great calls with consistency and confi dence. and confi dence.

DIGITAL PRINT $1395* $1595*

COMBO $2095

*NASO member discount available.

play. Within a range, first referees should be able to be relatively consistent if they view the ball contacting the body part and don’t call setting faults based on spin as the ball sails high into the air. Then, the first referee should be careful to avoid whistling a ballhandling fault early in the match that he or she would not be willing to make late in a set, or with the set or match on the line.

With this awareness, first referees should be very deliberate regarding that very first ballhandling-fault call since that call may frame the expectations for what is called and not called throughout the match. Referees need to avoid painting themselves into a corner with that first hands call.

As a match goes on, first referees can slightly adjust how hands are called, but can do this with less impact by not calling hands too tightly from the start. It’s considered easier to do a slight tightening up on hands than easing up, but that’s only within the margins of what has been established. Otherwise, what gets established early in the first set tends to set the tone for the rest of the match.

Following this philosophy helps first referees be more consistent and reduces “surprise” calls and non-calls that understandably produce major reactions. Players and coaches are rightfully upset when a ballhandling fault is called late in a match that has been allowed to play on earlier in the match. They are equally upset when something that was a clear ballhandling fault earlier in the match is passed on later in the match by the first referee.

At the highest levels, the belief is most first referees are incapable of being tight on calling hands consistently from start to finish while still allowing the match to be about the players. Many more first referees can be more loose and be more consistent from start to finish.

Consistency is balanced by reasonability in terms of referees having a different standard for ballhandling regarding double-hits based on level of play or level of competition. Ballhandling standards should be different where players are learning the game compared with the top level of varsity play, where skill execution is clearly better and the expectations of coaches and players are more exacting.

How ballhandling is being called continues to evolve at all levels of volleyball throughout the world. Various rule sets are considering doing away with double-hits that are set to a teammate and don’t go across the net to the opponent’s side. As previously noted, keeping the ball flying has been translated into not whistling marginal hands.

The NCAA tested a change in ballhandling for spring 2022 matches where teams will be allowed to experiment with a rule that eliminates a double-contact fault when the ball remains on the same side of the net it was played on for second contact only. The general belief among the coaches who are promoting these changes is a marginal set offers no inherent advantage and even somewhat of a disadvantage to the offense. The stated rationale is to see if this rule change relieves pressure off the referees to make controversial double-contact calls in critical moments of a match. It will be interesting to see if this becomes the new standard. Rick Brown, Westerville, Ohio, is a longtime girls’ and boys’ high school volleyball referee, working 22 state tournaments. He is a state and local rules interpreter, USAV Regional Referee and formerly a PAVO National Line Judge, working multiple D-I postseason matches. *

Kick Save and a Beauty

During a match, it is not unusual, especially at the high school or tournament level, to see players use their feet to play the volleyball.

And without fail, when this type of play happens, someone either on the court or from the stands will yell, “Is that legal?”

In all codes, the answer is “yes.” NFHS, NCAA and USAV rules allow the player to play the ball with any part of the body, provided the ball does not come to rest and there is not prolonged contact with the ball (NFHS 9-4-5; NCAA 14.2.1; USAV 9.2.1).

There are times when a player may not have the time or distance to play the ball traditionally with the fingers or forearms. Instances include a ball near the net and low to the ground where a player may not have a chance to dive without crossing the centerline or a ball that is driven hard and low to the ground. Instead of laying out, a player instinctively sticks out a leg to kick the ball, as seen in the PlayPic.

Regardless of the reason, referees need to stay alert to these types of plays to avoid an inadvertent whistle, causing a replay. Typically, when a player kicks the ball, it causes momentary “shock” to the players on the court and sometimes the referees. Be prepared for kicks and remember to keep the ball flying. *