Despite an obvious erroneous call, the umpire received only a "verbal warning," while the protesting coach was given a "one-year suspension"... What exactly is happening in women's university volleyball?

*This content was translated by AI.

Controversy has erupted over a controversial call in university volleyball and the subsequent disciplinary action taken against the coach who protested it.

The Korea Volleyball Association's Sports Korea Fair Trade Commission will hold a rehearing on Wednesday, the 16th, regarding the one-year suspension imposed on Gwangju Women's University head coach Choi Sung-woo (34).

In this retrial, it is expected that a judgment will be made not only on the responsibility for a single erroneous decision but also on Coach Choi's post-game conduct, the disciplinary procedure, and the appropriateness of the one-year penalty.

The ruling that sparked the controversy was issued during the match between Gwangju Women's University and Woosuk Daejeon at the 2026 Korea University Sports Federation (KUSF) University Volleyball U-League, held on June 6 at the Gwangju Women's University gymnasium.

In the third set, with the score tied at 1-1 and the game locked at 23-23, Gwangju Women's University's attack was ruled out. According to the released KUSF video, the ball landed inside the LINE.

Subsequently, Gwangju Women's University formally raised the issue, and the Korean University Volleyball Association (hereinafter the Association) determined that the ruling in question was incorrect. The request for recusal of the referees submitted by Gwangju Women's University was also accepted.

There is no dispute between both sides that the call was erroneous. The league has excluded the relevant referees from all remaining Gwangju Women's University games this year and issued separate warnings. According to Sports Korea Fair Trade Commission regulations, referees may face disciplinary actions such as reprimands, suspension from participation, or disqualification.

However, during StarNews' investigation, it was confirmed that the warning issued to the umpire in connection with this erroneous call was a "verbal warning." A league official told StarNews over the phone, "The school requested an umpire avoidance, and we accepted that request. A warning was also issued through other procedures; however, upon checking with the Umpire Committee, it turned out to be a verbal warning."

Coach Choi strongly protested the ruling at the time and was sent off. On June 10, the league imposed sanctions on Coach Choi, including a three-game suspension, and restricted Gwangju Women's University from hosting remaining U-League home games, in accordance with the U-League operating regulations. Subsequently, on June 18, the league's Sports Korea Fair Trade Commission deliberated on Coach Choi's actions after the game and decided to suspend his coaching license for one year. The league stated that "the two sanctions are separate."

A league official stated, "The three-game suspension is not a disciplinary penalty. It is an automatic measure that follows expulsion in accordance with the U-League operating regulations, and additional suspensions may be imposed depending on the severity of the situation." The official added, "Inappropriate behavior cannot be justified simply because there was an erroneous call. The one-year sanction issued by the Sports Korea Fair Trade Commission was not given as a protest against an erroneous call."

The two sides are presenting conflicting claims regarding the post-game situation, which is one of the core reasons for the one-year suspension.

Manager Choi admitted to the fact that he entered the area where the umpires were located after the game ended. However, Manager Choi explained that the location was normally his own manager's room and had been temporarily provided to the umpires on the day of the game.

Coach Choi said, "I thought my phone was in the office and went to look for it. However, since there was a fuss, I complained along the lines of 'Our children worked really hard, and even from my perspective, it was clearly an (In) call.'" He continued, refuting the claim by saying, "The umpire was smiling while talking. If I had been threatening anyone, could we have had such a conversation with smiles?" Regarding the parents who entered shortly after, he explained, "They came to the coach's office asking how to handle dinner since the children's game had ended."

The league also did not claim that the initial conversation had a threatening atmosphere. A league official stated, "At first, the manager spoke as if complaining, and the umpire was said to have spoken while smiling. However, the situation changed after a parent entered and protested strongly." The league cited the umpire's statement of facts at the time and the testimony of an official who intervened at the scene as grounds for its judgment.

The remarks about "match-fixing" are also a point of contention. Coach Choi argued, "I did not say the words 'match-fixing.' There is actually another person who said those words, and there is someone who heard them. I have even identified who said it."

On the other hand, a league official said, "We did not witness it directly at the scene either. We made our judgment based on accounts from referees present at the time and supervisors who intervened in the situation," adding that "the facts will ultimately be clarified through materials submitted during retrials or legal proceedings."

Interpretations also differ regarding the issue of signing the score sheet. After a game, there is a procedure in which players from both teams confirm the results and sign the score sheet to make the official game valid.

A league official stated, "After the game ended, Manager Choi asked a player he had signed whether they had signed it. Upon receiving confirmation that they had, he told them in substance, 'Why did you sign? Go erase it right now.' There is also a fact-checking document from the scorekeeper at the time." The league determined this to be an act subject to disciplinary action related to disputing a ruling.

On the other hand, Manager Choi said, "I wonder why they did that. It was not to negate the entire game. The 23-23 situation was an obvious umpiring error, so I believed that part should remain in the records. Even the league should be able to verify the incorrect parts." He also stated, "We did not interfere with the progress of the game such that the actual match was stopped, and the game had already ended by then. It is not understandable to interpret that as game interference," refuting the claim while explaining that it occurred during the 'Remark' procedure for an official objection.

The disciplinary procedure included an admission of fault by the league. Under relevant regulations, officials and employees of affiliated organizations cannot serve as members of the Sports Korea Fair Trade Commission; however, among the two individuals initially sentenced to a one-year suspension, both were serving as executives of the Korean Volleyball Association at the time.

A league official admitted, "When we first formed the Sports Korea Fair Trade Commission committee, we failed to check that the committee members were listed as officials of the Korean Volleyball Association. Since it was our mistake, we immediately acknowledged it and reconstituted a new Sports Korea Fair Trade Commission committee."

According to the league, the Korea Volleyball Association has formed a new Korea Fair Trade Commission composed of qualified members to re-examine the case from the beginning. The newly formed Sports Korea Fair Trade Commission Committee decided on August 21 to impose a one-year suspension on Coach Choi again.

Manager Choi is currently seeking a retrial regarding the second penalty. In the second review, Manager Choi did not appear in person but submitted a waiver of statement along with an attorney's opinion letter. The one-year suspension has not yet been finalized.

While administrative procedures and legal disputes continued, the players were directly affected. A Gwangju Women's University player said, "It has been very difficult since June. We had to train on our own, and as we faced these hardships, we bonded even more tightly and achieved both the championship and runner-up positions, yet the situation kept getting worse. Even now, injured players continue to emerge, and it has been truly exhausting. I felt like 'we have no one on our side,' and I cried a lot."

Coach Choi also found the reason for his continued dedication in the players themselves. He said, "The kids trained really hard, and I felt their efforts were being undermined," adding, "The reason I am fighting this battle is because of them. I just didn't want to bow my head."

There were erroneous calls. There were also issues with the composition of the Sports Korea Fair Trade Commission that initially imposed a one-year suspension on the referee. The measures taken against the referee in question were exclusion from assignments for Gwangju Women's University games and a verbal warning.

At the same time, acknowledging that there was a misjudgment does not grant a free pass for all actions by the coach. However, it remains undetermined whether Coach Choi actually threatened the umpires, used the term "match-fixing," how far his actions regarding the scorecard constituted legitimate objections, and whether a one-year suspension from coaching duties is an appropriate penalty when considering all these factors collectively.

Confirmed wrongdoings and allegations at the stage of claims must be distinguished. The venue to determine right from wrong will open on the 16th.

<© STARNEWS. All rights reserved. No reproduction or redistribution allowed.>

*This content was translated by AI.