|
Post by david on Jul 26, 2010 14:28:31 GMT -5
Reading the setter thread there were a few opinions on height as it related to setters, with what ultimately seemed a consensus that more height is good as long as it's not at much expense of speed and hands.
So here's a follow-on question- does height matter for DS/liberos?
While speed is critical, it would seem reach could also be important- so is there an advantage to a 5'8" libero over a 5'1" libero?
Also, out of curiosity, how good is "good enough" when it comes to serve receive for a libero: 2.8? 60% perfect?
Last- there's not a shortage of DS- or is there? What would lead a D1 coach to offer a full scholarship for a DS?
|
|
|
Post by rbball02 on Jul 26, 2010 14:33:03 GMT -5
A DS would have to be outstanding to offered a full ride as an incoming freshman. the advantage would be just as you said more reach means more court can be covered. I believe you want your team to pass about a 2.4 to 2.5 so you would want your libero to pass better than that especially because they likely will recieve less serves than your other primary passers unless struggle. I believe your numbers would be a pretty good number you would want from your libero in order to make it a punishment for serving them.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 26, 2010 14:42:12 GMT -5
First of all, setter height is overrated. Volleyball is played close to the floor as much as it is played above the net.
Second, liberos should be measurable. In theory, a libero with no dimensions could be on the roster, but how's she going to wear the jersey?
|
|
|
Post by baywatcher on Jul 26, 2010 15:03:00 GMT -5
I used to think height in the back row was overrated. But watching high level volleyball there are so many hits off the top of the block at velocity that go shooting over the back row. Taller players have a better chance of reaching up and keeping the ball in play on numerous occasions. As to side to side, not sure longer reach outweighs reflexes and the ability to sky the ball.
|
|
|
Post by Pirate VB Fan on Jul 26, 2010 15:11:23 GMT -5
One problem you run into is that liberos can't attack the ball above the height of the net anywhere on the court, not just in front of the 10' line. So a taller libero should get called for that easier.
|
|
|
Post by BearClause on Jul 26, 2010 15:18:37 GMT -5
Has anyone here actually seen a libero called for a high (above the height of the net) finger dig that went over the net? I started thinking about it, and apparently setting it wouldn't be a problem - i.e. a teammate tipping over a poorly controlled ball - as long as the "set" is from behind the 3 m line.
For the most part I think most refs would be hesitant to call it unless it's a deliberate attempt to play it over, and because it would likely be borderline near the top of the net for most players.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 26, 2010 15:27:00 GMT -5
That brings us back to the "can a dig be an attack" argument. The ref that makes that call is over-estimating his/her vision, too. Can you imagine how hard that call would be to make?
|
|
|
Post by BearClause on Jul 26, 2010 15:51:16 GMT -5
That brings us back to the "can a dig be an attack" argument. The ref that makes that call is over-estimating his/her vision, too. Can you imagine how hard that call would be to make? A few years back I was watching a little bit of HS volleyball, and saw liberos taking full three-step approaches with full swings. I didn't see a single illegal attack-hit called. Personally I don't think they were attacking from a point high-enough, but in NCAA D-I I don't think the players want to test the officials.
|
|
|
Post by lonewolf on Jul 26, 2010 15:51:41 GMT -5
Has anyone here actually seen a libero called for a high (above the height of the net) finger dig that went over the net? I started thinking about it, and apparently setting it wouldn't be a problem - i.e. a teammate tipping over a poorly controlled ball - as long as the "set" is from behind the 3 m line. For the most part I think most refs would be hesitant to call it unless it's a deliberate attempt to play it over, and because it would likely be borderline near the top of the net for most players. Haven't seen it yet...only time (that would make sense to me) where I could see this happening would be a libero playing shallow for the tip and jumping to dig a deeper throw.
|
|
|
Post by lonewolf on Jul 26, 2010 15:57:06 GMT -5
I used to think height in the back row was overrated. But watching high level volleyball there are so many hits off the top of the block at velocity that go shooting over the back row. Taller players have a better chance of reaching up and keeping the ball in play on numerous occasions. As to side to side, not sure longer reach outweighs reflexes and the ability to sky the ball. I'm going to agree here (everything else being equal between the players)...taller is better. -Watching high level volleyball...all of those big bodies make the back court look very small for hitters to find an opening (and seams smaller in SR) -Taller players can move further into the court and still defend the line/high shots with their hands (SR also). -Taller players tend to have longer arms: which equals bigger platform to play balls in front and to the sides. -Taller players tend to have bigger hands (watch players with small hands dig/pass the ball with their hands, and it becomes evident that many of the shorter liberos struggle with using their hands in S/R due to not enough surface area to control the ball)
|
|
|
Post by ladeda on Jul 26, 2010 16:01:40 GMT -5
Tall players don't like to bend over ......Corinne Cascioppo.
|
|
|
Post by sonofdogman on Jul 26, 2010 16:28:57 GMT -5
I'll have to support Lonewolf's arguments - they really seem to contain all the pertinent facts - especially: - Primarily, with all else - speed, reaction time, vision, etc. (everything you believe makes a libero/DS great) - being equal, longer reach makes a difference. (Reach certainly correlates to height, but is not always identical.)
- The court stays the same dimensions and longer reach reduces area open by extending area which can be defended. So as the deep court can be covered from a defensive position closer to the net than from a player with a shorter reach, so too does the shallow court become narrower and easier to defend.
- Completely concur that bigger limbs and hands creates more expansive platforms to extend surface area of contact and the control of balls dug.
As regards the illegal attack call, I too have seen club and high school libero players (collegiate players not so much) taking approaches, jumping and swinging at balls. I have called one an illegal attack from the stand and heard an earful. An earful of "nobody calls that." And I did hear at least one "how could you see that from there" and a "she can't even jump that high." While I can certainly see myself swallowing the whistle when a high-reaching dig might travel across, the libero just cannot be intentionally set and then have anyone expect me to just ignore it. Plenty of liberos can reach above the height of the net I do not understand in any way, shape or form why this is not called more often.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 26, 2010 16:37:19 GMT -5
That's not the call originally described. It was getting called for an attack on an overhand dig.
I think liberos attacking, actually swinging at the ball, should be called on principle, whether they are above the height of the net or not.
Either way, it's a difficult call to make accurately. For the former, I'd error on the side of swallowing the whistle. For the latter, I'd error on the side of calling the illegal attack.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 26, 2010 16:39:07 GMT -5
By the way, a standing reach of 7'4"+ is not going to be very common for a libero, so I'm not sure about this "plenty of liberos can reach above the height of the net" comment. There will almost always be a jump involved.
But what's the real intent of the rule? They don't want liberos being used as a 6th attacker. To me, there's a difference between calling that and being picky about a cm in reach.
|
|
|
Post by sonofdogman on Jul 26, 2010 16:47:14 GMT -5
By the way, a standing reach of 7'4"+ is not going to be very common for a libero, so I'm not sure about this "plenty of liberos can reach above the height of the net" comment. There will almost always be a jump involved. But what's the real intent of the rule? They don't want liberos being used as a 6th attacker. To me, there's a difference between calling that and being picky about a cm in reach. I mean their reach when jumping, not standing. Sorry for the confusion. I like your perspective, but I think I've erred on the side of caution likely way too many times while officiating. But I have not ignored it and I have called it. Just wish I wasn't one of the exceptions.
|
|