CRS-Challenge Review System Definition/Basic Rules 18.1.1.1 - The challenge review system (instant replay) is a process whereby video review is used to confirm, reverse or replay specific decisions made by the officiating team. 18.1.1.2 - The second referee may reverse a ruling only if the video review reveals by indisputable evidence that the referee s ruling was incorrect. 18.1.1.3 If the second referee determines that the video review is inconclusive, the original decision stands. 18.1.1.4 All reviews shall be limited to the challengeable action. 18.1.2 Eligibility and Participation - Any member institution or conference may use the CRS, but there is no requirement to do so. Equipment, Personnel and Location and Related Interpretations Personnel 18.1.3.1 - Instant replay personnel shall consist of a video review technician to operate the review equipment in an efficient and timely manner. Equipment 18.1.3.2 - The type of equipment and number of cameras used for the CRS shall be determined by each conference or member institution. 18.1.3.3 - A monitor must be located at the scorer s table. The second referee should have direct and easy access to the monitor. 18.1.3.4 - Any camera used shall not alter the integrity of the net or interfere with the officials performance of their duties. Challenge Review System-Challenge Cards - The challenge cards must be a minimum of 3 x 5 not to exceed 4 x 6. The color is jasmine green (pantone color 15-0545). It is recommended that the cards be laminated. FAQ s How many cameras are required to use the Challenge Review System? The NCAA Women s Volleyball Rules Committee did not establish a required number or location of cameras for the challenge system. The committee recommends using at least three cameras one in each end zone to capture the sidelines and end lines, and a camera attached to the top of the net. The net camera must be firmly attached as far outside the antennas as possible so that it does not alter the integrity of the net or interfere with the vision of officials. It is recommended the net camera be on the second referee s side. What else should be provided by the conferences using the Challenge Review System rule?
The institution s assistant scorer will record the necessary information about any challenges, reviews and decisions on the appropriate form provided by the host institution. This form must be given to the second referee after the match. The officiating staff must record match report details on the PAVO web portal and include information about any challenges, reviews and decisions. Can the coaches review the monitor prior to the start of the match? Prior to the start of the match, the coaches may ask the home event management to show them the monitor and view the camera angles. Can television feeds be used as an adjunct to the CRS system? Yes, the TV feed(s) can be viewed as part of the review process. If the CRS equipment is not functioning, the second referee can use the television feed (only) for review. The television monitor can also be used if it is in very close proximity to the CRS monitor. What if the match is ready to start and event management does not have the challenge cards available? In this rare instance, acknowledge verbal challenges from the coach. At the end of the match, notify the conference coordinator. Reviewable Decisions and Related Interpretations BALL RULED IN/OUT OR TOUCHED 18.4.1.1- Ball ruled in or out as defined in Rule 16.2.1 and 16.2.2, and whether the ball was contacted by a player before landing outside the court boundary lines. For example: End line/sideline decisions. Whether or not the ball contacted an antenna. Whether or not ball was played before contacting the floor on pancakes or similar defensive plays. Whether or not a ball contacted an obstruction 18.1.4.2 Whether the ball contacted a player, including a team that may have had four or more ball contacts before returning to the opponents court; Note: A review of an in/out decision or a touch decision can result in a final determination of in, out, or touch. Related Rule Interpretations Scenario 1 During a rally, there is a pancake attempt by Team R. Instantly after the attempted pancake, the ball caroms off of another Team R player, landing out of bounds. A line judge indicates that the pancake was not successful and signals the ball down; the first referee signals ball in and awards the rally to Team S. The Team R coach attempts to challenge that the pancake was
successful. The second referee tells the Team R coach that the challenge can be accepted; however if the video shows that the ball did not hit the floor on the pancake attempt, it also will likely show that the whistle for the unsuccessful pancake would be considered an inadvertent whistle, with no change to the original call. This decision is based on the rare situation where the ball is dead immediately after the pancake attempt, making the decision on the pancake extraneous. Ruling: The second referee s decision and technique is correct. The challenge can be accepted but preventing a wasted challenge on this extremely rare situation is good technique. If the coach insists on challenging, and the video replay shows that the pancake was successful, but there was no chance of a subsequent play on the ball, Team S is still awarded the point. Scenario 2 Team A attacks a ball, and the ball lands near Team B s sideline. The line judge signals out. The Team A coach challenges the call, saying the ball landed in. The video review shows the ball was out, but it also clearly shows that a Team B player touched the ball before it went out. The second referee signals touch and awards Team A the point. Ruling: The referee s decision is correct. The coach challenged whether the ball landed in or out, not player touching the ball. However, a challenge about an in/out or touch decision that terminates the play can result in an In, out, or touch decision. The second referee correctly signals touch and awards Team A the point. Scenario 3 Team A attacks a ball that lands near Team B s sideline. The first referee and line judge signal touch by Team B (inferring that the ball landed out of bounds). The Team B coach challenges, stating that there was no touch. The video review shows there was NO touch by Team B, but the ball landed in. The second referee indicates in and awards Team A the point. Ruling: The referee s decision is correct. The coach challenged whether a Team B player touched the ball, not whether the ball was in or out. However, a challenge about an In/out or touch decision that terminates the play can result in an In, out, or touch decision. The second referee correctly signals touch and awards Team B the point. Scenario 4 A Team A attacker tips the ball. A Team B player attempts to make a pancake save. The ball is called down by the referees. The Team B coach challenges the call, saying that the pancake was successful. The video review shows that the pancake was successful and the ball was up, but also clearly shows a Team B player committed a net fault on the play. The second referee signals a net fault and awards the ball to Team A. Ruling: The referee s decision is incorrect. The coach challenged whether or not the ball contacted the floor not a net fault, so only the pancake can be considered in the review. The correct result would be replay, since the referee s whistle ended a rally incorrectly. Scenario 5
Team R player #9 is near a non-playing area as she plays the ball, saving a teammate s errant pass. A teammate then passes the ball across the net, where it lands on Team S s court. The Team S coach challenges that Team R player #9 was not legally within the playing area when she played the ball. The referee accepts the challenge. Ruling: The referee s decision is correct. Playing a ball while completely off of the playing surface results in an out call, and in/out decisions are challengeable. Scenario 6 A Team A player attacks a ball that travels near two Team B blockers and then a Team B backrow player before landing out of bounds. The first referee whistles and awards the rally to Team A, and signals touch. Team B coach asks which player touched the ball and the R1 indicates the back-row player. The Team B coach challenges the touch call. The video review shows that the back-row player did NOT touch the ball, but one of the blockers did. The second referee awards the rally to Team A, indicating that the original touch call stands. Ruling: The second referee s decision is correct. The second referee s responsibility is to confirm whether or not a Team B player touched the ball. When video is reviewed to determine if there was a touch, the challenge is not limited to only look at a certain player or position. Associated Technique: When a touch call is challenged, as the R2 accepts the challenge, it is a good technique to confirm, Coach, you are challenging that no one on your team touched the ball before it went out of bounds." Scenario 7 Team A attacks the ball into the tape and/or block and the ball returns to Team A s side. The first referee whistles and indicates four hits on Team A. Team A s coach challenges, saying Team B s block touched the attack. Video review shows there was a touch by a Team B blocker. The second referee signals replay. Ruling: The referee s decision is correct. Since the first referee s whistle ended a rally incorrectly, a replay is directed. Scenario 8 Team A attacks the ball into the tape and/or block and the ball returns to Team A s side where it is played again by Team A. The referees allow play to continue for several volleys, ending with the ball landing on Team B s court. Team B coach challenges, saying Team B s block did NOT touch the attacked ball, and Team A should have been called for four hits. The video review shows there was not a touch by the Team B blockers. The second referee awards a point to Team B. Ruling: The second referee s decision was correct. The rally should have ended after Team A s fourth contact. Scenario 9
Multiple Team B players (including player #2) are scrambling to save a ball coming from Team A. The ball rebounds off of an arm that is in the area of the save, and then player B2 sends the ball across the net, where it lands on Team A s court. The Team A coach wants to challenge that Team B player B2 hit the ball twice. The second referee denies the challenge. Ruling: The second referee s decision is correct. In general, a team may not challenge any action that would result in a double contact. Scenario 10 Team B back-row setter #8 is jumping to save a teammate s overpass; the ball is entirely above the top of the net and in the plane of the net. The Team A middle blocker attacks the ball, and it lands out of bounds on Team B s side. The referees whistle and signal a back-row block on team B8. The Team B coach challenges saying that Team B s back-row player #8 did not touch the ball before it landed out of bounds. The referee accepts the challenge. Ruling: The referees decision is not correct. The coach cannot challenge a back-row block fault. Scenario 11 Team S s back-row setter (#10) is near the net, reaching higher than the net, and attempting to save a pass from a teammate who is headed for the opponent s court. A Team R front-row player legally attacks the ball, which immediately goes out of bounds on Team S s side. The referees do NOT think that Team S #10 touched the ball on the way out; they call out on Team R, point Team S. The Team R coach challenges that #10 touched the ball as it went out of bounds after the attack. Ruling: The referees must have determined that the Team S back-row setter did not touch the ball, or else they would have called a back-row block. The opposing coach can challenge that the Team S setter did touch the ball before it went out of bounds. This is the only situation where a potential back-row block, back-row attack or reaching over can be challenged. Note that can only occur if the challenged play terminates the rally. It is important to remember that a situation like #12 above is an exception, where the issue of whether or not a player touches a ball takes precedence over a back-row block decision. In general, back-row block decision are not challengeable, and only the take-off point (not the ball position) of a back-row attacker is challengeable. In this instance, if video review shows that the Team S setter did touch the ball, the second referee should signal touch when communicating the result of the video review. Scenario 12 The Team S back-row setter is near the net, reaching higher than the top of the net, attempting to save a pass from a teammate that is heading for the opponent s court. The Team S setter possibly contacts the ball, then the opposing blocker contacts the ball. The referee whistles and signals an illegal attack on Team S. The Team S coach wants to challenge that his/her backrow setter did not touch the ball. The second referee does not allow the challenge. Ruling: The second referee s decision is correct. The only challenge allowed on an illegal attack is in regards to the player s take-off point.
Scenario 13 The Team S back-row setter is near the net, reaching higher than the top of the net, and attempting to save a pass from a teammate that is headed for the opponent s court. The referees feel that the Team S setter does not contact the ball before it enters the plane and is contacted by the opposing blocker, so play is allowed to continue. The play ends with a kill by Team S, but the Team R coach wants to challenge the play at the net, stating that the Team S back-row setter did contact the ball before the Team R blockers, and should therefore be an illegal attacker. The second referee does not allow the challenge. Ruling: The second referee s decision is correct. The only challenge allowed on an illegal attack is in regards to the player s take-off point. Scenario 14 Team R player #5 attacks the ball (Team R s 3 rd contact), and the ball hits tape and/or blocker and returns to Team R s side. The referees whistle and signal 4 hits. The Team R coach challenges the 4-hits decision, saying the opposing block touched the ball. The second referee accepts the challenge. Ruling: The second referee s decision is correct. The challenge is allowed, and the call can be reversed if the video review shows that the blocker did touch the ball. NOTE the opposite decision could be challenged as well. If the referees had allowed play to continue (because they decided that the opposing block DID touch the ball), the Team B coach could challenge, saying that 4-hits should have been called. PLAYER TOUCHING THE NET 18.1.4.3 Whether a net fault occurred, as defined in Rules 15.2.1-15.2.3 Related Rule Interpretations Scenario 1 (see scenario 4 BALL RULED IN/OUT OR TOUCHED) A Team A attacker tips the ball. A Team B player attempts to make a pancake save. The ball is called down by the referees. The Team B coach challenges the call, saying that the pancake was successful. The video review shows that the pancake was successful and the ball was up, but also clearly shows a Team B player committed a net fault on the play. The second referee signals a net fault and awards the ball to Team A. Ruling: The referee s decision is incorrect. The coach challenged whether or not the ball contacted the floor not a net fault, so only the pancake can be considered in the review. The correct result would be replay, since the referee s whistle ended a rally incorrectly. Scenario 2 During a play at the net, a Team A player is whistled for a net fault. The Team A coach challenges, saying we weren t in the net. Video review shows that no Team A player contacted the net, but does show a net fault by a Team B player during the same action. The second referee whistles, signals a net fault on Team B and shows the appropriate player
number. The first referee awards the rally to Team A. Ruling: The referee s decision is correct. The referees should call the first net fault seen during the action that was challenged. Scenario 3 During a play at the net, Team A player #5 (outside blocker) is whistled for a net fault. The Team A coach challenges, saying #5 was not in the net. Video review shows that #5 was NOT in the net, but #8 (middle blocker) did contact the net during the same action. The second referee reiterates the point to Team B, as the original net fault decision stands. Ruling: The referee s decision is correct. The challenge is whether or not a Team A player committed a net fault. When challenging or reviewing a net fault decision, a coach or referee does not have to specify the player at fault. Scenario 4 During a play at the net, a Team A player is whistled for a net fault. The Team A coach challenges, stating that a net fault by the opponent was missed on the play. The video review shows that no Team A player was in the net but a Team B player did commit a net fault. The second referee signals a net fault on Team B and the first referee awards the point to Team A. Ruling: The second referee s decision is correct as long as the Team B net fault occurred during the action that resulted in the challenge. Scenario 5 The referees whistle a net fault on Team B. The Team B coach challenges the net call ( we weren t in the net ). Video review shows that neither team contacted the net. Ruling: Since the referee s whistle ended a rally incorrectly, a replay is directed. SERVICE FOOT FAULT 18.1.4.4 Whether a service foot fault occurred, as defined in Rule 13.2.2.1.1. Related Rule Interpretations Scenario 1 As the Team S server contacts the ball, the first referee whistles and signals a foot fault. The Team S captain questions the call, and the first referee states that, at the time of service contact, the server s foot was outside the short line that limits the service area. The Team S coach challenges the foot fault decision. Ruling: The challenge should be accepted and video reviewed to determine if the server was in legal position at the time the service was contacted. The service foot fault category includes both end line foot faults and service contact while touching the surface outside the service area. BACK-ROW ATTACK FAULT
18.1.4.5 Whether a back-row player was an illegal attacker as defined in Rule 14.5.4.2.1. This rule is limited to the back-row player s feet having touched or crossed the attack line or its indefinite extension. After the attack-hit, the player may land within the front zone. This does not include a back-row setter attacking at the net or whether or not the libero was in the front zone setting a ball using finger action. This cannot be used to determine the height of the ball. Only the player s foot/feet in contact with the attack line will be accepted as a challenge. Related Rule Interpretations Scenario 1 The Team A middle back player jumps and attacks a ball that is entirely higher than the top of the net; the attacker s take-off point is very near the attack line. The referees allow play to continue, and eventually the ball lands on Team B s court. The Team B coach wants to challenge the play because the Team A back-row attacker s take-off point was on the attack line. Ruling: The challenge should be accepted and video reviewed to determine if the Team A backrow attacker s take-off point was legal. Scenario 2 The Team A middle back player jumps and attacks a ball that may or may not be entirely higher than the top of the net; the attacker s take-off point is clearly behind the attack line. The referees allow play to continue, and eventually the ball lands on Team B s court. The Team B coach wants to challenge the play because the Team A back-row attacker illegally attacked a ball that was entirely higher than the top of the net. Ruling: The challenge should not be accepted. The position of the ball when attacked by a backrow attacker is not a challengeable decision. Good referee mechanics can help this situation. If the height of the ball is questionable, and the first referee determines that the ball is not entirely higher than the top of the net, using the below the top of the net signal to indicate that decision is good communication. Scenario 3 The Team A libero is in a position very near the attack line as she sets a ball to a teammate. The Team A left front attacks the libero s set while it is entirely higher than the top of the net. The first referee whistles and signals an illegal attack due to the libero set. The Team A coach wants to challenge that decision, saying the Team A libero s feet were behind the attack line at the time of the set. Ruling: The challenge should not be accepted. Decisions regarding the legality of a libero set is not included in the categories of challengeable decisions. CRS PROCEDURES
18.1.5 Procedures 18.1.5.1 A team is limited to three challenges per match (exception see rule 18.1.5.1.1). 18.1.5.1.1 If the match goes to a 5 th set each team is awarded an additional challenge. 18.1.5.2 Only one challenge per team is allowed each time the ball is out of play. 18.1.5.3 Only the team that lost the rally may challenge. If the call is reversed as a result of that challenge, the team that lost the review would be able to challenge. 18.1.5.4 Only the head coach must request a challenge. The head coach may request a challenge by holding up the challenge card. 18.1.5.5 A challenge must be requested before the first service after the play in which the challengeable action occurred. 18.1.5.6 A challenge must be accepted by the second referee (see Official s Mechanics #31) provided it is one of the challengeable actions. If an attempt is made to challenge a nonchallengeable action, the challenge shall be denied and a delay sanction may be assessed. Related Rule Interpretations Scenario 1 The Team B head coach has been disqualified during the set. The Team B assistant coach (designated on the lineup sheet for set one) wants to challenge a touch call. The second referee denies this request since only the head coach may challenge. Ruling: The second referee is incorrect. If the head coach has been disqualified or has left the team area (becomes ill) an assistant coach (designated on the lineup sheet) may challenge. Scenario 2 Team B head coach has been disqualified during the set. There are no other coaches designated on the lineup sheet for set one. The second referee allows the playing captain to request a challenge. Ruling: The second referee is correct. If no coach is available, the playing captain may assume all duties and responsibilities of a coach. Associated Technique: The playing captain does not have to display the challenge card. They must inform the second referee that they want to challenge. Scenario 3 Team A outside hitter attacks a ball that lands out of bounds. The Team A coach challenges that the ball hit the Team B blocker s hand. The second referee determines that the blockers did touch the ball and awards the rally to Team A. The Team B coach then challenges that the Team
A attacker touched the antenna prior to the ball touching the blocker s hands. The referee allows the challenge by Team A. Ruling: The referee s decision is correct. Even though the referee will review the same video clips of that play, the second challenge was regarding a different fault that preceded the one already reviewed and should therefore be accepted. Scenario 4 While the second referee is reviewing a challenge by Team B, the Team A trainer brings water to the sideline for the players on the court. The first referee whistles and signals the trainer back to the bench. Ruling: The first referee is incorrect. The trainer may bring water or towels while the challenge is being reviewed. However, Team A may be at risk of a delay sanction if resumption of the match is delayed by a clean-up of water or liquids on the court. Scenario 5 While the challenge is being reviewed by the second referee, the spirit squad goes on the home team s court to cheer. The first referee asks event management to have them stop. Ruling: The first referee s decision is correct. The spirit squad may stand up and cheer, but they may not be on the court. Scenario 6 During a broadcast match, the 15 th point is scored by Team S on an attack hit close to the line. The timer sounds the horn for the media timeout. During the media timeout the Team R coach challenges that the ball was out. The second referee denies the challenge, stating that the challenge had to be requested before the media timeout was taken. Ruling: The second referee s decision is incorrect. A coach can challenge any time before the referee extends their arm to authorize the next service. Once the timeout is over the second referee should whistle and indicate accepted challenge. The teams will remain in their free zone until the end of the review protocol is completed. The second referee will then whistle the teams onto the court. Scenario 7 During a challenge review all the substitutes in the warm-up area join the coaches along the sideline to talk to the players on the court. The second referee tells the substitutes to return to the warm-up area. Ruling: The second referee s decision is incorrect. Substitutes should be allowed to participate in team discussion along the sideline during the challenge. Teams must be ready to immediately resume play as soon as the challenge has been decided. Scenario 8 While the challenge is being reviewed by the second referee, the Team R players go to the bench to get a drink of water. The first referee whistles the Team R players back to the court.
Ruling: The first referee s decision is correct. The players must remain on the court while the video is being reviewed. Scenario 9 At the end of a rally, the Team R coach is very upset and vocal about a potential missed net fault. The coach holds the challenge card and tells the second referee that he wants to challenge the missed net fault. The second referee accepts the challenge. As the second referee begins the video process, the Team R coach continues to display unsporting conduct. The second referee whistles and asks the first referee for a yellow card. Ruling and Technique: The second referee correctly requests an individual sanction on the Team R coach. The sanction should be assessed at the time, even if the challenge review has not been completed, including recording the sanction on the scoresheet (See rule 6.4.4.1 & 6.4.4.2). The second referee requests the card and informs the coach that they have been assessed a yellow card. The first referee displays the card and may call the captain over, however, it is not required. After completing the sanction procedure, the second referee completes the challenge review process. Scenario 10 The score of the second set is Team S 24 Team R 22. At the end of a rally the Team R coach, who received a yellow card earlier in the set, is very upset and vocal about a potentially missed net fault. The coach holds the challenge card and tells the second referee that he wants to challenge the missed net fault. The second referee accepts the challenge. As the second referee begins the review process, the Team R coach continues to display unsporting conduct. The second referee whistles and asks the first referee for a red card. Ruling and Technique: The second referee correctly requests an individual sanction (red card) on the Team R coach. The sanction should be assessed at the time, even if the challenge review has not been completed, including recording the sanction on the scoresheet (See rule 6.4.4.1 & 6.4.4.2). The second referee whistles to request the red card and informs the coach that they have been assessed a red card. The first referee displays a red card. The first referee may call the captain over for an explanation, however, it is not required. The second referee confirms with the scorer that the sanction is recorded, awarding the 25 th point to Team S. The second referee turns to the first referee and signals end of set. Scenario 11 The score of the fifth set is Team S 14 Team R 12. At the end of a rally the Team R coach, who received a yellow card earlier in the set, is very upset about a potential missed net fault. The coach holds the challenge card and tells the second referee that he wants to challenge the missed net fault. The second referee accepts the challenge. As the second referee begins the review process, the Team R coach continues to display unsporting conduct. The second referee whistles and asks the first referee for a red card.
Ruling and Technique: The second referee correctly requests an individual sanction (red card) on the Team R coach. The sanction should be assessed at the time, even if the challenge review has not been completed, including recording the sanction on the scoresheet (See rule 6.4.4.1 & 6.4.4.2). The second referee whistles to request the red card and informs the coach that they have been assessed a red card. The first referee displays a red card. The second referee confirms with the scorer that the sanction is recorded, awarding the 15 th point to Team S. The first referee may call the captain over for an explanation, however, it is not required. The second referee turns to the first referee and signals end of match. There is no need to review the challenge because the match is over. Scenario 12 The second referee instructs the scorers not to record the point that was just scored, since a challenge is likely. The scorers delay writing down the results of the previous play until the opportunity to challenge has passed Ruling: The second referee s decision is incorrect. The result of the previous play must be recorded when the referees signal. If there is a challenge and the play is reversed the scorers should use the mind change notations to correct the score sheet. Scenario 13 During a rally a ball rolls on the court. The first referee blows the whistle and signals replay. The Team R coach wants to challenge a net fault that he feels was missed earlier in the rally. The second referee accepts the challenge. Ruling: The second referee s decision is incorrect. Only the team that lost the rally may challenge. Since there has not been a completed rally, the challenge should be denied. Scenario 14 During a rally the second referee whistles Team R s middle blocker for a net fault. The Team R coach challenges that the player did not touch the net. The second referee reviews the video, determines that there was no net fault and signals replay. The Team S coach wants to challenge that a pancake attempt by Team R earlier in the rally was not successful. The second referee allows the challenge. Ruling: The second referee s decision is correct. There was a completed rally prior to Team R s challenge. Since the call was reversed as a result of that challenge, the team that lost the point on review would be able to challenge a different issue in the same rally. Scenario 15 A Team B player attacks the ball. The ball lands near the end line in front of line judge 1. Line judge 1 signals in. The first referee agrees and signals in, awarding the rally to Team B. At the same time line judge 2 signals a touch, which the first referee agrees with as well and subtly acknowledges. The Team A coach wants to challenge that the ball was out.
Ruling: Before the challenge is accepted, the second referee should tell the Team A coach that the in/out decision can be challenged, but the outcome would not change even if the review shows that the ball landed out since there was a touch by the Team A blocker. This is similar to the pancake play interpretation. Even if a review shows that a pancake is successful, if the ball immediately ricochets out of play we would not reverse the original decision. Frequently Asked Questions Can a coach request a challenge at the end of a timeout? Yes, any time prior to the next authorization for service. At the end of a set, how long does the coach have to request a challenge? The challenge must be requested before the first referee signals end of set. If the last play of the set was controversial, the referees should not rush to end the set. At the end of the match, how long does the coach have to request a challenge? The challenge must be requested before the first referee begins stepping off the referee platform. If the last play was controversial, the referee should not rush to end the match. If the head coach is disqualified, can an assistant coach lodge a challenge? Yes, any individual who is listed as a coach on the first set lineup sheet can lodge a challenge if the head coach is disqualified or not available for other reasons. The second referee should ask which of the listed coaches will be the acting head coach. Can a conference coordinator, national coordinator or regional advisor on site review the video with the second referee and help decide the call? No one but the second referee is allowed to assist in making the decision. Can a team lodge a challenge at the end of the fifth set court switch before play resumes? Yes, a challenge can be lodged any time before the first referee s arm is extended to authorize the serve for the next rally. If the outcome of the challenge results in a reversal of the 8th point, teams will remain on the new sides of the court and not switch back to continue play. Can a team lodge a challenge at the end of a media timeout? Yes, a challenge can be made any time before the first referee s arm is extended to authorize the serve for the next rally. If the outcome of the challenge results in a reversal of the 15th point, an additional media timeout will not occur when the 15th point is re-scored. Challenge scenario that are no longer valid Scenario 1 Team A attacks a ball near Team B s sideline. The line judge indicates the ball is out. The Team A coach is looking for his challenge card at approximately the same time the Team B coach is holding up their challenge card. The second referee accepts the Team A challenge.
Ruling: The second referee is correct. The second referee should always look towards the team that lost the rally first for a challenge. If both teams have their challenge card raised at approximately the same time the team that lost the rally challenge will be accepted. Current Interpretation - Only the team that lost the rally may challenge. If the call is reversed the team that originally won the rally has the right to challenge another action. Scenario 2 During a rally, there is a pancake attempt by Team A; instantly after the attempted pancake, the ball caroms off of another Team A player, landing out of bounds. A line judge indicates that the pancake was not successful and signals the ball down; the R1 awards the rally to Team B based on that information. The Team A coach attempts to challenge that the pancake was successful, but the second referee tells the Team A coach that no challenge is permitted, since immediately after the pancake attempt, the ball went out of bounds off of a Team A player, and Team A would have lost the rally. Ruling. The second referee is incorrect. The challenge should have been accepted. If the video replay indicated that the pancake was successful a replay should be directed. Current Interpretation-The second referee tells the coach the challenge can be accepted, however IF the video shows that the ball did not hit the floor on the pancake attempt, it also will likely be considered an inadvertent whistle with no change to the original call. This decision is based on the rare situation where the ball is dead immediately after the pancake attempt, making the decision on the pancake extraneous. The challenge can be accepted, but preventing a wasted challenge on this extremely rare situation is good technique. If the coach insists on challenging, and the video replay shows the pancake was successful but the ball was immediately dead, Team B is still awarded the point.