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.
ADVISORY COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION:
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.
NO MOTION REQUIRED
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.
ADVISORY COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATIONS:
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.)
ADVISORY COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATIONS:
The Advisory Committee recommends that
there should be no roster additions allowed after the start of a team’s
competition.
NO ACTION
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
SUBJECT #23 – NEW BUSINESS. ON SUGGESTION OF GLENN LIETZKE, THE COMMITTEE CONSIDERED THE
FOLLOWING QUESTION:
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
SUBJECT #24 – NEW BUSINESS ON SUGGESTION OF GLENN
LIETZKE, THE COMMITTEE CONSIDERED THE FOLLOWING QUESTION:
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.
