|
Post by BearClause on Jul 26, 2010 18:09:05 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. However - there is a difference between the intent in instituting the rule, the scorekeeping manual, and the rulebook itself. The rulebook is supposed to be absolutely neutral in regards to intent. An "attack-hit" is one that is hit by a player and which completes crossing the net. If the ball is contacted while it's completely above the height of the net, there are limitations set on which players can be part of such a "completed attack-hit". That's why a back-row setter making a mistake and jump setting it over the net is called for an illegal attack-hit. The ref is supposed to evaluate where the ball is and not judge by intent, although I understand that some officials do err one way or another based on the intent.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 26, 2010 18:15:56 GMT -5
I just think it's a shame when refs are more interested in showing off their knowledge than following the spirit of the rules. *Especially* when they can't make the call accurately.
|
|
|
Post by baywatcher on Jul 26, 2010 18:51:02 GMT -5
I have seen high school teams with one of their better, and taller, athletes dressed as libero and intentionally set that player for back row attacks. That's disregarding the intent of the rule, as opposed to an inadvertent pass on a reach. Never seen a club do that, but I suppose you could count on club tournament refs calling a leaping attack by a libero.
And per the other thread, smaller can be quicker in the back, the reason for the libero to begin with. Is 5'5 quicker than 5'8"? Probably not. 5'10"? Maybe. 6'2"? I would say yes; better able to get into position. But I did enjoy watching Janet Okagbaa make some nice reaching saves on the few occasions she served last year.
|
|
|
Post by lonewolf on Jul 26, 2010 20:01:41 GMT -5
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. I think it should be called anytime the setter intentionally sets the libero...especially in-system and when the libero is in left back, and is only 5'. Drives me nuts...because there's normally a 6'+ that can rip the ball hanging out in middle back. After the play is whistled dead, there should also be a 2 min break to give the coach time to beat the setter with a stick like a pinata (2min break can end early if candy comes out of the setter). Sorry...bit of a pet peeve. Back to topic-I think as with most of the positions on the court, ds's are getting taller. However, I think this is not just due to general population growth, but at least partially due to the libero position. Shorter outsides (or ones that just couldn't score enough) have a 6 rotation (11.5/12 in NCAA) position to go to that has garnered much respect, and some $.
|
|
|
Post by david on Jul 26, 2010 20:21:40 GMT -5
One of my pet peeves is when a set goes in the air in the back row (on purpose or not) and the libero immediately yells "mine" so as to run under it and send over a free ball. Yay.
As you said lonewolf, there should be a hitter back there to give it a rip- get out of the way, please.
|
|
|
Post by Babar on Jul 27, 2010 1:01:27 GMT -5
Height matters more for the middle back digger than a crosscourt digger because middle back plays significantly more balls that come off the top of the block. In college volleyball smaller liberos tend to play angle.
As pointed out by others height does make a difference in passing. Taller players with long levers are more comfortable drop stepping while smaller players tend to begin deeper and rely on their quickness to move forward.
If everything is equal in terms of quickness and hand eye coordination the longer player has an advantage.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 27, 2010 7:14:13 GMT -5
My favorite post I've read on this board: . . . 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 oldman on Jul 27, 2010 7:58:05 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. However - there is a difference between the intent in instituting the rule, the scorekeeping manual, and the rulebook itself. The rulebook is supposed to be absolutely neutral in regards to intent. An "attack-hit" is one that is hit by a player and which completes crossing the net. If the ball is contacted while it's completely above the height of the net, there are limitations set on which players can be part of such a "completed attack-hit". That's why a back-row setter making a mistake and jump setting it over the net is called for an illegal attack-hit. The ref is supposed to evaluate where the ball is and not judge by intent, although I understand that some officials do err one way or another based on the intent. YES!!! Officials that try to judge intent always get themselves in trouble. The questions is was the ball completely above the height of the net. Yes or No. This is not a conditional question. Judge the height ... make the call. If I have a libero that is small enough to attack without being above the height of the net I should be allowed to use them in my offensive if I choose to.
|
|
|
Post by pogoball on Jul 27, 2010 8:53:32 GMT -5
However - there is a difference between the intent in instituting the rule, the scorekeeping manual, and the rulebook itself. The rulebook is supposed to be absolutely neutral in regards to intent. An "attack-hit" is one that is hit by a player and which completes crossing the net. If the ball is contacted while it's completely above the height of the net, there are limitations set on which players can be part of such a "completed attack-hit". That's why a back-row setter making a mistake and jump setting it over the net is called for an illegal attack-hit. The ref is supposed to evaluate where the ball is and not judge by intent, although I understand that some officials do err one way or another based on the intent. YES!!! Officials that try to judge intent always get themselves in trouble. The questions is was the ball completely above the height of the net. Yes or No. This is not a conditional question. Judge the height ... make the call. If I have a libero that is small enough to attack without being above the height of the net I should be allowed to use them in my offensive if I choose to. Well put. I would further support that thought with the point that the libero was partly instituted with the idea that they wanted to create a position where a smaller player was not at a significant disadvantage. If you try to interpret intent and say that if a player jumps, that they are more likely to get called, then you are unfairly penalizing the smaller players once again. A taller player can hit a down-ball from a point higher than a smaller player. Jumping allows the smaller player to hit the ball from the same point and levels the playing field. Besides, if a team has a significant problem digging a backrow ball hit from below the net height, they don't deserve to win very many matches.
|
|
|
Post by iuzoom on Jul 27, 2010 9:50:48 GMT -5
Apparently the Ohio State coach thinks height matters, and I'll always believe an athletic tall player offers more advantage. Look at the upcoming OSU list which includes a tall setter who will also add extra blocking. DiSalvatore, Davionna L 5-8 From FL 2010 Leary, Kaitlyn OH 6-1 2010 Otto, Marissa 5-10 DS/L 2010 Schwarzwalder, Amy OH 6-2 2010 Faul, Anna MB 6-3 2011 Sekinger, Erin MB/OH 6-3 2011 Sherwin, Taylor S 6-0 2011 Winner, Alyssa DS/L 5-9 2011 Kacsits, Andrea MB 6-5 2012 Mitchell , Katie MB/OH 6-2 2012
|
|
|
Post by jgrout on Jul 27, 2010 9:58:30 GMT -5
An "attack-hit" is one that is hit by a player and which completes crossing the net. Illegal attack-hits only count as legal when they are completed. The obvious case is something like an overhand libero pass in front of the 3-meter line on one that was attacked on two... if a front-row player can brush it on three, the third contact becomes a legal attack-hit (the second contact is an overhand set by a non-libero, which is legal). There are less obvious cases that involve the opponents. Until this season, an opponent's net violation before the illegal attack-hit completed would be a violation solely on the opponent... with the new net rules, I'm not sure what would happen there. I believe that when an attack-hit completes, establishing an illegal attack-hit as a violation, is more complicated than the ball having completely crossed the plane of the net. For example, an attack-hit is completed when the ball touches an opposing block... that can be when the ball is entirely on the attacker's side of the net, when the ball is above the net, or (I believe) when the ball is entirely on the defender's side of the net. Since the rules say that an illegal attack-hit completed by an illegal back-row block is a simultaneous fault, how could the ball crossing the net be enough to complete the attack-hit? Can't an illegal back-row blocker jump straight up with her hands entirely on her own side of the net? P.S. Officials who want to invent a violation for libero attacks that fall within the letter of the rules remind me of the old-time NBA officials who invented (and enforced) the "force-out"... rather than calling a ticky-tack foul on a player who caused the ball to go out of bounds off an opponent, they would call a "force-out" and award the ball out of bounds to the "correct" team.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 27, 2010 10:22:41 GMT -5
And I will repeat again that an up ref cannot judge whether a ball is completely above the height of the net when a player is behind the 3 meter line. What I am saying is that SINCE this is an impossible call, they should follow the spirit of the rule.
|
|
|
Post by azvb on Jul 27, 2010 10:23:21 GMT -5
How tall are liberos/DS's on the US team? Internationally? That info would probably answer the question.
Of course, there is always an exception to the rule, but I would say 5'8", 5'9" would be sort of "perfect" for a libero. I'm thinking these 5'8", 5'9" girls are probably playing OH in High School with the littler girls playing back row.
When I watch a guys match on TV, it seems like the liberos look A LOT smaller than the rest of the team. Not so much on the when I watch a women's match.
Side note - I watched a team at the Festival this year with a libero that looked about 5'6"- 5'7", over 200 pounds. Forgive the generalization, but she looked like a softball catcher. I saw on the sidelines all these little squirts and couldn't imagine why the coach would use this girl. Well, she passed 3's the whole match and got to balls that I just couldn't believe. My daughter's team tried to quit serving her, but she covered 2/3 of the court. Match went 3, and she was a big reason - digging, covering, passing, and a wicked serve. Can't judge a book. . . . . . .
|
|
|
Post by azvb on Jul 27, 2010 10:27:24 GMT -5
And I will repeat again that an up ref cannot judge whether a ball is completely above the height of the net when a player is behind the 3 meter line. What I am saying is that SINCE this is an impossible call, they should follow the spirit of the rule. Agree - very hard to tell the height of the ball from behind the 3 meter line. Trajectory of the ball would be a better determination. A flat ball, not going to call that. A ball hit down with some force and an approach, okay, call it. ANY DOUBT at all, don't call it.
|
|
|
Post by lonewolf on Jul 27, 2010 11:00:07 GMT -5
Well put. I would further support that thought with the point that the libero was partly instituted with the idea that they wanted to create a position where a smaller player was not at a significant disadvantage. Shorter players at a disadvantage was at best a minor consideration, if at all. The position was created to help extend rallies in the international game with a roundabout change to their sub-rules, as opposed to a direct change in number, or entries.
|
|