Make your own free website on

Home Up

Competition Commission Advisory Committee
Recommendation Sheet
August 2001


Note:  Text in BLACK was offered to the Committee by the Commission.  Text in BLUE is the Committee’s recommendation.  Text in RED is the Commission’s Motion.  Bill J.

 SUBJECT #1:  Should the total number of days for JOVC’s be limited to 8? If such a limitation could be accomplished, what tournament format would be utilized?  

Rationale For:  Enhanced quality of event… ie. ability to schedule so that younger age divisions are able to view some portion of older play divisions, a ‘big event’ atmosphere that comes with increased use of courts and more teams/spectators in venue, supported by questionnaire.  

Rationale Against:  Limitation of available venues at fiscally ‘do-able’ cost.  Potential for lack of hotel blocks.  

The Advisory Committee recommends that:

Any Structure adopted be in place for not more than three (3) years, to be reviewed regularly based on the venues chosen during the program.

The Advisory Committee strongly endorsed changing the format of the event to 8 days.

The Rationale in favor of the shortened event included the festival atmosphere of the qualifiers as an overall experience for the athletes; the opportunity for collegiate recruiters to see several age groups (age 16-18) inclusive; the quality of the tier one venues, and the participants expectations based on the number of qualifiers held in tier one cities.

The Committee further requests and recommends compilation of a list of what cities will have the 280,000 + square foot facilities available in the next several years.

SUBJECT #2:  Should the proper and consistent use of divider nets at JOVC’s be made a requirement for all future JOVC’s?

             Rationale For:  Improved safety, fewer game delays.

             Rationale Against:  Potential increased cost for set-up.

 The Advisory Committee recommends that:

The unanimous vote of the Committee is to require the retention net systems at all venues, unless specifically prohibited by the site’s building use or fire code.

The Rationale relied upon the committee in favor of this recommendation was heavily influenced by the safety of the athletes, and the flow of the event.  The discussion clearly indicates that the net systems should be the rule, subject only to limited exceptions as unavoidable.


SUBJECT #3:  Should the All-Tournament process be modified or eliminated?

Rationale For:  Elimination of complaints from parents and coaches as to selections made (or not made), and process used.  Outsourcing option to a volleyball magazine or online volleyball enterprise could represent cost-savings as opposed to cost of current All-Tournament staff.

Rationale Against:  Potential for complaints that such recognition is not given at the premier tournament in our sport (if eliminated altogether).

 The advisory Committee recommends that:

By unanimous vote, that the All-Tournament process continue in its present format.  The Committee suggests that the award criteria be defined and published in advance, with such information made available to all the teams/participants.  The Committee also inquires whether an independent body, such as Volleyball Magazine, etc., could make or participate in the selection process to improve the appearance of impartiality.

Rationale For:  In discussion, the committee heavily favored maximizing the opportunities for junior Olympic competitors to receive awards and recognition for their efforts and successes.

Secondly, the committee felt that the complaint process is a result of a lack of knowledge and communication of the selection criteria.

 SUBJECT #4:  Should it be required that the entry deadline for Boys events be at least 3 weeks (21 days) prior to the first day of competition?

             Rationale For:  Facilitates seeding, scheduling, and event operations. 

             Rationale Against:  Potential conflicts with high school seasons.

 The question is deferred for determination by the Boys’ Committee of the number of days necessary to satisfy the needs of USA volleyball, with the needs of the Region, considering particularly the unique needs of Keystone and California Regions arising out of their scholastic high school schedule.

 SUBJECT #5:  Should there be a set, “no earlier than” entry date for national qualifiers no matter when the event is scheduled?  

Rationale For:  Allows for teams to compete prior to the deadline.  Early deadline could potentially compromise the criteria of strength. 

Rationale Against:  Issue of air travel arrangements/cost/vacation time for parents.

 The Committee requests clarification of the question.  There was confusion as to the interchanged terminology of “no earlier than” vs. “deadline”, as used in the suggestions of rationale for and against the question.  The committee requests clarification of the question.

SUBJECT #6:  Is clarification needed for the procedure in dealing with double-qualified teams…. Where one bid is in Open division and one is in Club division? 

 Rationale For:  Trickle-down gives bid to next finisher at the event…. it is settled on the court.

Rationale Against:  Trickle-down should only be administered as a Regional Allocation bid.

 The advisory committee recommends:

That the bid “trickle-down” to the next eligible team that competed in the event, and NOT be returned to the Regional allocation pool.

The Committee understood the question to apply to the circumstance where a team wins a club bid, and THEN wins an open bid in a qualifier.

Rationale.  To return the bid to the Region pool would be to the disadvantage of the smaller regions.  Teams that compete for bids, should be awarded bids, not excluded for general default of the bid back to the Regions.

SUBJECT #7:  Should Arbitrators be doing evaluations of the events or be dealing with eligibility issues only?  Should event evaluations become a formal part of the Arbitrators responsibilities?

 Rationale For:  Dual responsibilities would represent most efficient use of time.

Rationale Against:  Expertise of an individual in both eligibility policy and proper qualifier  format and procedural standards could severely limit the number of available personnel.  Conflict with role of Evaluator and role of Arbitrator.  Too many Arbitrators can lead to inconsistencies.

 The advisory committee recommends that:

All events should be evaluated.

Whether the arbitrators should perform the evaluations was not determined, although the committee felt that the evaluation process should be consistently applied, (contrary to reports that some arbitrators evaluated, and some did not during last season.

The committee was unable to evaluate whether the arbitrators have the experience, knowledge, or ability to perform the evaluations.  The Committee did not have the Arbitrator selection criteria, or the evaluation forms they were provided to evaluate the events.  This information is critical to discussion and determination of part two of the question.

SUBJECT #8:  Should the effectiveness of Arbitrators be evaluated?  By what entity?

Rationale For:  Continuity and appropriateness of rulings (expertise of individual Arbitrators) could be ascertained for purposes of training needs or or rules clarification or modification.  QD’s, Competition Commission, and staff can provide input and evaluations.

Rationale Against:  Additional personnel would be required to implement such an evaluation program….. cost?

The advisory committee unanimously recommends that:

The arbitrators should be evaluated.

For reasons set forth in Subject #7, the committee requests more information to consider HOW, and WHO should perform the evaluations.

SUBJECT #9:  Should all competition results, regardless of the age division in which a team competes, be included for use by the Competition Commission in its efforts towards team selection and seeding for JOVC events, and should team ‘performance history’ be allowed as an additional tool for such selection and seeding efforts when (in particularly for the first of the season qualifiers) competition results are minimal or non-existent for many teams?

Rationale For:  Many teams ‘play up’ in older age divisions.  The ‘policy’ of using only those results within a particular teams age division very often has resulted in those teams having ‘insufficient’ results for selection and seeding purposes….. allowing all results to be considered would provide the seeding committee additional information regarding a teams strength to be used for a more realistic and more accurate ranking.  For early-season qualifiers, utilizing recent team performance history would provide the Competition Commission with an additional tool for ranking teams at a time when competition results are limited for many teams.

Rationale Against:  Potential issue of how to ‘weigh’ the value of playing up when considering results outside of a teams age division or losing to a younger team.  Additional time required to determine current, early-season strength of teams when comparing with last year.

The advisory committee recommends that:

All Results should be submitted, weighed and considered in seeding.

Rationale:  The committee consistently believes that the more results, criteria, and indicia of skill and competition level are available for seeding, the better the seeding process and results will be obtained.

SUBJECT #10:  Should it be made a requirement that all teams applying for JOVC events submit in an approved spreadsheet form or results reporting system, complete competition results, with failure to submit in complete form and by the required deadline resulting in a sanction including monetary fine….. etc.??  How should this be ‘enforced/policed?  Should such instruction be published?

Rationale For:  Submission of competition results in a standardized, timely and complete form allows selection and seeding committee to complete their process in a more timely manner.  This will aid in expediting notification and scheduling by /for JOVC events.

Rationale Against:   Possible minimal expense to purchase software.  It can be time consuming for a team or club rep.

The Advisory Committee recommends:

Nearly unanimous vote in favor of requiring all national events (including qualifiers) report ALL event results.

The committee was unable to determine the type of penalty for non-compliance.  It was noted that filing a report that a team has “no results to report” should be accepted as compliance.  The discussion leaned toward ma the report a condition of entry, with the sanction for non-compliance being an incomplete application for participation and preclusion from the tournament.

Recommend $50.00 at site for failure to comply.  Approved spreadsheet form=Excel.  $50.00 surcharge for non-compliance by any team failing to properly submit results for the JOVC by the deadline.  The “surcharges will be collected at the gate.

SUBJECT #11:  Should the list of current considerations for team selection and seeding as may now be published in the Qualifier and JOVC Pre-Tournament Manuals, be further clarified insofar as their priority and further, should these publications also include an overall review of the seeding process and its purpose?

Rationale For:  Teams preparing for their competitive seasons will have a better idea of the types of competition necessary for selection and seeding.  Some of the ‘mystique’ may be removed from the selection and seeding process.

Rationale Against:  None Determined.


The advisory committee recommends that:

All criteria should be published and made available.

Rationale.  More information is always better to keep the membership knowledgeable of the processes and determinations that affect their enjoyment and rewards of the game.

So Recommended.  No action required.

SUBJECT #12:  Should clarification of 3-team pools at JNC events be made… ie. three games to 25 pts. or two games to 25 pts. and one game to 15 pts. with match record and game record used as first line of results.  How  are ties broken?

Rationale For:  Continuity in application of results.  Number of games is an important consideration. 

Rationale Against:  Not a perfect fix.

The advisory committee unanimously recommends that:

Whenever three games are played, regardless of the outcome of the first two, then all three games will be to 25 points.

The rationale in favor was that teams in three team pools should have the maximum number of games.

This question was coupled with discussion of Subject 18 wherein the pool play results are determined first by match results, then by games, with only teams tied in matches and games proceeding to tie-breaker process.

SUBJECT #13:  Should the current age cut-off of September 1st  used in determining level of participation, be changed to January 1??

Rationale For:  Continuity with that which is currently used internationally.  USAV Junior National, USAV Youth National, and USAV Regional High Performance Team programs all utilize the international standard.

Rationale Against:  The make-up of teams may differ in terms of players in the same school grade being able to participate in the same age division.

The advisory committee unanimously recommends that:

No change be made to the current computation of age based on September 1.

Rationale.  This system is expected by most clubs and teams, and many of our USA teams will never typically have opportunity to participate in competition under FIVB rules.

No Action to be taken.

SUBJECT #14:  Should teams be allowed to compete ‘up’ in older age divisions at JOVC events?  If disallowed, should exceptions be made for teams having a single ‘older’ player (and consequently, an older team I.D. #) who ultimately drops from the team?

Rationale For:  Convenient venue for ‘local’ teams wishing to compete up at a high level event.

Rationale Against:  Potential for a younger team to eliminate an ‘in-division’ team in the selection process.  It could be perceived that a premier JOVC event is being used as a ‘training’ session rather than a stage for showcasing the top teams in an age division.

The Advisory Committee Recommends that:

Yes, they can compete Up in JOVC events, but …

Teams playing “UP” at Qualifier events cannot displace teams when that Division is over-subscribed.

Motion:  Following the Advisory Committee recommendation


SUBJECT #15:  Should the use of confetti or similar material at JOVC events, be prohibited?

Rationale For:  As a safety issue, confetti is particularly difficult to remove from ‘sport court’.  From an event management standpoint, unnecessary delays may occur.

Rationale Against:  Eliminates ability of teams/fans to ‘celebrate’ their successes on the competition courts.

The Advisory Committee unanimously  recommends that:

The use of confetti, glitter, and similar airborne celebratory substances and projectiles should be PROHIBITED at eh JOVC.

Rationale for the Prohibition:  Safety, cleanup costs, maintenance of the facility an safe area.  Additional rationale is that the teams, parents, etcetera are free to celebrate in less potentially dangerous and costly ways.

Rationale against:  The interest in “celebrating” is not compromised by this limitation, and does not outweigh the Rationale favoring prohibition.

Motion:  The Commission believes that the rules already prohibit confetti and glitter.  No action taken pending review and confirmation of the present rule.

SUBJECT #16-AMENDED:  Should the use of electronic aids by a team competing in a JOVC event for the purpose of gaining a competitive advantage during an event be disallowed?

Rationale For:  Prevents one team from having an unfair advantage over another.

Rationale Against:  Use of electronic aids has become common among teams scouts and their agents and such a prohibition would impair their ability to perform what most perceive as an important function.  How would such a prohibition be enforced?  By what entity?  Sanctions?  What about college scouts?

After discussion about the practical unenforceability of such a regulation, and the difficulty in identifying the “purpose” of such device usage, the Committee unanimously voted the NO ACTION should be taken to restrict use of electronic aids.

Rationale.  Blatant improper or illegal electronic devices are still excludable as unsportsmanlike conduct, or ethics and eligibility violations,  when used by the team.


SUBJECT #17:  Should the current number of allowable substitutions (12) per game be modified for JOVC events to international rule set or some other number?

Rationale For:  Promotes all-around development of some athletes while allowing for Libero and additional subs.  Continuity with the international set of rules.  Review of current substitutions recommended in light of recent Libero rule modification by game.  In addition, higher number of subs slows down the game.

Rationale Against:  Potential for limiting play opportunities for Junior athletes depending on how sub limits are modified.  Some teams desire the option of using one or the other.


The Advisory Committee unanimously recommends:

That the twelve substitution rule remain in place.

Rationale.  Teams will carry more players on their rosters, and the twelve substitutions increases individual court play opportunity.

SUBJECT #18:  Should the current tie-breaker criteria be modified to include both matches and games?

Rationale For:  Eliminates potential competition delays for pools and the accompanying late night finishes.  Some events are successfully using this method to decide ties.  Statistically, if matches are used as the discriminator, then a match should be used as a tie breaker playoff- which is impractical.

Rationale Against:  Eliminates the ‘perception’ of the loss of ability to “settle it on the court”.

For gold level JNC events, the advisory committee recommends that:

Except as provided in subsection a and b, the definition of a tie is now limited only to situations where the teams are tied in both matches and games. 

If two  teams are tied for the last position where one team will advance in a bracket, their head-to-head results will determine the relative ranking of the two teams.

If more than two teams are tied for the last position to advance in playing bracket, 15 point tie-breaking games will be played among those three teams.   The second place team plays the third place team, with the first place team as work team.  The losing team then works the tie-breaking game between the winning team and the first place team.  The winner of this tie-breaking game wins the last position to advance.

Those tied teams will be seeded in accordance with their results in the following order:

Game Wins

Total point differential in the pool

Coin toss.

Tie remains defined as match record.  Tiebreaker procedures with be “Method One” in the Guide.


SUBJECT #19:  All rostered coaches at JOVC events must have the minimum of an IMPACT certification.

Rationale For:  Continuity of coaching methods.   Proactive stance in terms of team ethics and eligibility.

Rationale Against: Difficult to police, more burden on coaches and clubs to obtain certifications.

The advisory committee recommends that:

The rule should be changed to require that ALL rostered coaches at JOVC must have the minimum of an IMPACT certification.

Rationale:  Coaches who are not minimally IMPACT certified need not be listed on the roster, and may still participate in coaching the players.

SUBJECT #20:  All roster additions at the JOVC must have written authorization by the proper regional authority.

Rationale For: More accountability, cuts down on roster changes that do not have regional  approval.  Improves the efficiency of team registration at the event.

            Rationale Against:  Harder for teams to make roster changes at the event.

The advisory committee recommends that:

All Roster additions at the JOVC must have written authorization by the designated  regional authority, provided such written authorization includes all written forms, such as facsimile, electronic mail, or correspondence.

Rationale for:  The committee felt that the responsibility should be specifically for the Commissioner of the Region, since the Region has the authority to enact more stringent eligibility or roster requirements than required by USAV.  Such written authorization should include e-mail,   This change would need to be published to the Regional Authorities to allow them to designate a responsible person who is both available, and capable of submitting verification in some transcribed format.

Rationale Against:  No discretion at the tournament level to allow any emergent changes to roster where the designated regional authority cannot be located, or submit the appropriate verification.

All Roster additions at the JOVC must have written authorization by the designated regional authority, provided such written authorization includes all written forms, such as facsimile, electronic mail, or correspondence.

SUBJECT #21:  Once competition starts for a specific team at the JOVC Championships, there will no roster additions allowed.

Rationale For:  Eliminates potential of manipulations of rosters.   Almost impossible to police.

Rationale Against:   Limits ability to make roster adjustments due to extenuating circumstances (ie sickness, injury, non-arrival.)


The Advisory Committee recommends that there should be no roster additions allowed after the start of a team’s competition.



SUBJECT #22:  A final roster verification will be conducted courtside prior to a team’s initial match at the JOVC Championships.

            Rationale For:  Additional assurance that the official roster is correct.

            Rationale Against:  Potential additional time added to correct a roster.     

The Advisory Committee recommends roster verification by a coach listed on the roster at courtside prior to each team’s first match of the tournament of the JOVC.

Motion:  per the recommendation



Should JNC players be required to wear the same rostered number throughout each JNC event?

Rationale for:  For recruiting, continuity, and tracking purposes, and consistency of the roster, using the same number each day of an event.

            Rationale against:  On unexpected problems or blood rule questions, an identical number may not always be available.

The Committee unanimously recommends that for every JNC event, players should be required to wear the rostered jersey number throughout the entire event, with limited exceptions as required by emergent, or blood rule applications


Should 16 Open pool format at JOVC be changed from best 3/5 to 2/3.

Rationale for:   The teams typically have no significant prior experience, training or preparation to compete in consecutive 3/5 matches.  Player fatigue may have been a factor in the outcome of these competitions.

            Rationale against:  Player endurance, stamina, physical ability, and perseverance are criteria collegiate recruiters may be looking for.

The advisory committee unanimously recommends that the play format for 16 Open JOVC competition be amended to best t

            Motion:  per the recommendation  

Motion to adjourn for private executive committee at 9:23 p.m.


Home ] Up ] Law ] VB Index ] Misc ]