Kevin_K

I too am a volleyball official and I have found over the years that volleyball has replaced baseball in my hierarchy of sports. When I first started I did not understand the basics of the game and was simply watching the game from the sideline. I now have a far better understanding of the strategies, the nuances, and the intricacies of the game that has allowed me to become an official who is considered to be a true volleyball official rather than a converted (other sport) official who decide to switch over to volleyball because, as so many people inform me, it's easy. @SeeingEyeDog is so right in his description of the atmosphere of a volleyball match. It's worth considering that I have never been at a volleyball match where it was raining, it was so cold that I looked like Randy from A Christmas Story, and had participants who barked the entire match about a call/non-call in the very first rally. If you try it you may like it. And then you might reserve 75% of your available spring days for an inside sport that never gets rained out!.

That's on the NJ coach for not knowing the rule as well isn't it?

Perhaps I wasn't paying attention. Wouldn't be the first time. The NCAA made it clear it was looking for someone to replace George Drouches, who was leaving the post. In March the NCAA named Scott Cline as the baseball umpiring coordinator after a national search. When did the NCAA indicate that Cline withdrew from the position? Last I heard was on ESPN from the commentators that Cline wouldn't be on the field any longer and this year's Championship was his swan song. Apparently, in July Cline took the position as the AACC Supervisor of Baseball umpires. What aren't we hearing and why didn't the NCAA open up the search again (or did they) ?

Oh the irony of a shin guard with Oscar the Grouch!

I like this approach sometimes.

This may be a great example of using the rule book to create a problem rather than using it to solve a problem.

Too far up/down to be that far out

I think you may have just pwned @Richvee

At the risk of sounding like a d-bag..... @Richvee and @Replacematt are going back and forth on a hypothetical situation. One might say a unicorn of a play. It seems like a lot of time and effort on something discussed here once in 8 years and probably never in any of their games. The conversation on this thread is taking the same arc as the one from 2017. And the logic from then was once the UI occurs the other stuff doesn't matter. That hasn't changed.

I think there is some over thinking with this. If UI precedes the BI, use the remedy under UI. Using BI places the offense at a disadvantage and provides the defense a significant advantage for something neither had a part in creating Can you explain this further? If F2 is not making a play how there by interference? if F2 isn't hindered how can there be a call of either UI or BI? Or I am just being obtuse?

My thought is that if my actions started the interference that's where I start with assessing how to fix the problem. If I didn't interfere would the runner have been retired? We'll never know. Ergo, I cannot assume the runner would not have been retired because of BI. By using UI there is a rule based resolution to the runner not being retired that does not include any speculation of what could have happened.

I would probably go with the order of hinderance. If my actions started the process of interference it seems to make sense that it should be the first decision to make on how to adjudicate the results of F2's actions. This has no basis in any case play that I am aware of. I am using the common sense approach which also offers the best foundation of an explanation when some one wants to discuss the results of the play.

I think I might have seen a tag.

As our resident @maven suggests on a regular basis, interference is akin to hinderance. No hinderance means no interference.

An interesting conversation with Patrick and Bob Leader from the NFHS rules committee https://youtu.be/KlZQSgRXUMM?si=zhYeGHitEFnRr-SV