|
Post by hookshott on Jan 13, 2022 17:45:32 GMT -5
This might be an unpopular opinion, but, I'd vote in favor to not allowing the libero to serve. I also want to change the pursuit rule back to the old rule. ^ both of these are different than NCAA Men's (at my last check). The only place in the world that the libero can serve is in the USA...again, the FIVB does not allow the libero to serve so the player the libero is going to replace, must serve and play back row defense for as long as they are serving.
|
|
|
Post by moderndaycoach on Jan 13, 2022 17:50:07 GMT -5
This is what I have been trying to say every time oldnewbie keeps trying to tell me that by using a libero you are forcing a MB to be specialized. When Boise State (and DR's NT) were playing 6-rotations with a MB, their libero would still come in for the other middle but then when the 6-rotation middle served, the libero would replace an OH/OPP who is already in the backrow. So the OH/OPP would only play 1 or 2 rotations in the backrow depending on how exactly they put it to use. The libero will likely be off the court for one additional serving rotation than normal though, this also depends on how it plays out. For example, when the MB who is playing 6-rotations is serving, the libero will come back on the very next point whether she continues serving (her team wins the point) or her team loses the point. So the effect of playing an extra (partial) serving rotation without libero on court could be negligible because the libero could be on the court while the 6-rotation MB is serving as long as her team wins their first service point, whereas in almost every team we never see the libero on the court when a middle blocker is serving. However, no matter what, the libero will always be on the court still when receiving serve even when using this system. It's a little interesting to see it in use. Right, the libero can go in for any backrow position. The only stipulation is when you change the rotational spot you are on the court for you must leave for one beckon, meaning that if you are in for the MB that is not playing 6 rotations and that position then rotates in the front row, the only way you could stay on the court is if you were to serve for the MB coming into the back row. If you wanted to leave that MB in for 6 rotations and then libero another position you would need to be off the court for one beckon then you would be able to come in for any new position you want. However if you serve for a specific position regardless of who it is, only you and the person you libero in for are allowed to serve in that service spot for the remainder of the set.
|
|
|
Post by moderndaycoach on Jan 13, 2022 17:52:25 GMT -5
This might be an unpopular opinion, but, I'd vote in favor to not allowing the libero to serve. I also want to change the pursuit rule back to the old rule. ^ both of these are different than NCAA Men's (at my last check). The only place in the world that the libero can serve is in the USA...again, the FIVB does not allow the libero to serve so the player the libero is going to replace, must serve and play back row defense for as long as they are serving. Libero was allowed to serve in woman's NCAA starting around 2004 or 2005, correct me if I am wrong, but you still can not have a libero serve in men's NCAA.
|
|
|
Post by mikegarrison on Jan 13, 2022 18:00:42 GMT -5
When Boise State (and DR's NT) were playing 6-rotations with a MB, their libero would still come in for the other middle but then when the 6-rotation middle served, the libero would replace an OH/OPP who is already in the backrow. So the OH/OPP would only play 1 or 2 rotations in the backrow depending on how exactly they put it to use. The libero will likely be off the court for one additional serving rotation than normal though, this also depends on how it plays out. For example, when the MB who is playing 6-rotations is serving, the libero will come back on the very next point whether she continues serving (her team wins the point) or her team loses the point. So the effect of playing an extra (partial) serving rotation without libero on court could be negligible because the libero could be on the court while the 6-rotation MB is serving as long as her team wins their first service point, whereas in almost every team we never see the libero on the court when a middle blocker is serving. However, no matter what, the libero will always be on the court still when receiving serve even when using this system. It's a little interesting to see it in use. Right, the libero can go in for any backrow position. The only stipulation is when you change the rotational spot you are on the court for you must leave for one beckon, meaning that if you are in for the MB that is not playing 6 rotations and that position then rotates in the front row, the only way you could stay on the court is if you were to serve for the MB coming into the back row. If you wanted to leave that MB in for 6 rotations and then libero another position you would need to be off the court for one beckon then you would be able to come in for any new position you want. However if you serve for a specific position regardless of who it is, only you and the person you libero in for are allowed to serve in that service spot for the remainder of the set. That's why I figured a coach would need to have both middles be better in the back row than both outsides. I had no idea Boise State had already done it with just a single middle and absorbed the cost of the libero not quite getting to play as many rotations.
|
|
|
Post by oldnewbie on Jan 13, 2022 18:25:55 GMT -5
There is absolutely no part of the libero rule that says the libero must replace a middle. For that matter, there is no such thing as a middle, a setter, an outside hitter, an opposite, etc. in the rule book at all. If some coach had two middles who were better backrow players than the two outsides, the libero could simply be used for the outsides instead of the middles, and the middles could play the back row. Nothing would stop that. Washington for a year ran a 6-2 where the setters were opposite the middles rather than the right-side hitters. The libero came in for the right side hitters and the setters came in for the middles. (They were pretty much forced into this because they had two setters and two middles, but for some reason neither setter had a good connection with both middles. So eventually McLaughlin just paired each setter up with the middle she was good with and ran a 6-2.) I completely agree that the rulebook was 100% neutral on position and that all rules applied to all players equally, until the creation of the libero. That is one reason I don't like the rule. Despite moderndaycoach squawking to the contrary, I am perfectly aware of the current rules and the various coaching adaptations to use them. Your example of swapping out the libero for a player other than the middle is the very definition of the exception that proves the rule. There is a reason why such examples are so few and far between and why when they happen it is usually due to some deficiency in personnel and not some novel new scheme that will catch on anywhere else. The libero rule necessitates swapping the libero for the middles in virtually every case where a team has proper personnel. I would love to see a rule set that encouraged innovation, where you could see two different schemes meet between two high level teams. There is no room for such innovation in today's volleyball, because the libero rule and substitution limits essentially dictate that a high level team run a 6-1 and sub the MBs out for the libero. I think that is a shame and causes the game to stagnate. I loved the wrinkles you described that Washington tried, and wish there were more opportunities for creative coaches to innovate.
|
|
|
Post by JT on Jan 13, 2022 18:31:09 GMT -5
Allowing doubles // sloppy play on the set increases the hitter options. Allowing doubles // sloppy play on the set decreases the impact of a less-than-ideal dig/pass.
Increased hitter options makes for a more offense-oriented game -- blockers will be spread out and/or missing more often. Serving to "limit the opponent's options" may have less effect (if you interfere with their patterns, it still can work). Strategic attacks (e.g. going after the opposing setter) may have less effect.
I don't like the current situation, where each ref seems to have their own opinion on what constitutes a "double", and where some refs appear to have differing judgment based on who performed the set in question... but I don't like where I think this will lead.
(Then again, I had similar concerns with the change in legal serve-receive and handling of a "hard driven ball" ... and I adjusted.) <shrug>
|
|
|
Post by isaacspaceman on Jan 13, 2022 21:47:29 GMT -5
If you've never seen a picture of a ring avulsion, do yourself a favor and don't look it up on the internet. That being said, I always assumed the ban was mainly because they didn't want stoppage of play as people tried to look for stuff that had broken and fallen to the floor. I get that with earrings (even though non-dangling earrings are OK under the rule), and I get that necklaces can cause actual problems because they can get caught in the net or fall off. My sarcastic post was just about the overbroad statutory drafting of "below the chin," because none of the jewelry that people actually wear below the shoulders (which are below the chin in most volleyball circumstances if you're doing it right) is likely to fall out. I don't want to start itemizing those things on a family site, but let's just say if you get them, you're not taking them out for very long, if at all.
|
|
|
Post by oldnewbie on Jan 14, 2022 2:58:14 GMT -5
There is absolutely no part of the libero rule that says the libero must replace a middle. For that matter, there is no such thing as a middle, a setter, an outside hitter, an opposite, etc. in the rule book at all. If some coach had two middles who were better backrow players than the two outsides, the libero could simply be used for the outsides instead of the middles, and the middles could play the back row. Nothing would stop that. Washington for a year ran a 6-2 where the setters were opposite the middles rather than the right-side hitters. The libero came in for the right side hitters and the setters came in for the middles. (They were pretty much forced into this because they had two setters and two middles, but for some reason neither setter had a good connection with both middles. So eventually McLaughlin just paired each setter up with the middle she was good with and ran a 6-2.) This is what I have been trying to say every time oldnewbie keeps trying to tell me that by using a libero you are forcing a MB to be specialized. Anyone who still thinks this is only the case likely has little to no understanding of the libero rule or how to correctly and/or creatively use the position. As I mentioned a year where my best athlete played middle for us but went on to play D1 as an OPP, there was no reason for her to ever leave the court as she had ball control but helped us the most as she was totally able to move pin to pin not only on office but with her block as well so we would libero our weaker outside in those back row rotations. Same with the fact that even though unconventional, the libero absolutely could act as the setter as I explained the situation we were forced to do it mid match with our setter getting hurt and next best hands in the moment happened to be wearing the different colored jersey. I am fuzzy on the complete specifics and what year it was, but I believe perhaps during the Hancock years Russ would libero out the OPP back row and play the libero (Kendal White maybe?) in the back right position for those 3 rotations. I've lost interest in your narrow-minded, repetitive and insulting responses. OTOH this is actually interesting. Feel free to butt heads with these guys for awhile instead. The Role of the Libero in Volleyball as a Paradoxical Influence on the Game: Logical Debate and the Proposal for a Rule Change
|
|
|
Post by c4ndlelight on Jan 14, 2022 3:05:09 GMT -5
There is absolutely no part of the libero rule that says the libero must replace a middle. For that matter, there is no such thing as a middle, a setter, an outside hitter, an opposite, etc. in the rule book at all. If some coach had two middles who were better backrow players than the two outsides, the libero could simply be used for the outsides instead of the middles, and the middles could play the back row. Nothing would stop that. Washington for a year ran a 6-2 where the setters were opposite the middles rather than the right-side hitters. The libero came in for the right side hitters and the setters came in for the middles. (They were pretty much forced into this because they had two setters and two middles, but for some reason neither setter had a good connection with both middles. So eventually McLaughlin just paired each setter up with the middle she was good with and ran a 6-2.) This is what I have been trying to say every time oldnewbie keeps trying to tell me that by using a libero you are forcing a MB to be specialized. Anyone who still thinks this is only the case likely has little to no understanding of the libero rule or how to correctly and/or creatively use the position. As I mentioned a year where my best athlete played middle for us but went on to play D1 as an OPP, there was no reason for her to ever leave the court as she had ball control but helped us the most as she was totally able to move pin to pin not only on office but with her block as well so we would libero our weaker outside in those back row rotations. Same with the fact that even though unconventional, the libero absolutely could act as the setter as I explained the situation we were forced to do it mid match with our setter getting hurt and next best hands in the moment happened to be wearing the different colored jersey. I am fuzzy on the complete specifics and what year it was, but I believe perhaps during the Hancock years Russ would libero out the OPP back row and play the libero (Kendal White maybe?) in the back right position for those 3 rotations. Russ didn't do that. He had a DS come in for the Opp, and the DS played left back and the libero took the line behind the setter blocking the OH. Asymmetrical libero subs are possible but are inefficient, and, considering the sub rules allow for a DS, it's practically never worthwhile to do it. Also, because no coach grows players in their own lab for their own personal use, there's a huge push toward conforming skills toward what is useful for the position generally. It does effectively limit middles.
|
|
|
Post by moderndaycoach on Jan 14, 2022 9:38:06 GMT -5
This is what I have been trying to say every time oldnewbie keeps trying to tell me that by using a libero you are forcing a MB to be specialized. Anyone who still thinks this is only the case likely has little to no understanding of the libero rule or how to correctly and/or creatively use the position. As I mentioned a year where my best athlete played middle for us but went on to play D1 as an OPP, there was no reason for her to ever leave the court as she had ball control but helped us the most as she was totally able to move pin to pin not only on office but with her block as well so we would libero our weaker outside in those back row rotations. Same with the fact that even though unconventional, the libero absolutely could act as the setter as I explained the situation we were forced to do it mid match with our setter getting hurt and next best hands in the moment happened to be wearing the different colored jersey. I am fuzzy on the complete specifics and what year it was, but I believe perhaps during the Hancock years Russ would libero out the OPP back row and play the libero (Kendal White maybe?) in the back right position for those 3 rotations. I've lost interest in your narrow-minded, repetitive and insulting responses. OTOH this is actually interesting. Feel free to butt heads with these guys for awhile instead. The Role of the Libero in Volleyball as a Paradoxical Influence on the Game: Logical Debate and the Proposal for a Rule Change I'll be happy to read it this weekend as it is an obviously well thought out study, but if you truly do understand the current libero rule and how you can apply creative adaptations to it, then I would argue you are the narrow minded repetitive individual and probably that guy that tells the interns and new hires at work how things were done 30 years ago and why they should still be the standard today. All your arguments about rally scoring are the same arguments you read when you google newspaper articles about it changing in high schools in 2003, and the fact you are stuck in the mud about the last two decades of having a position that revolutionized the game and disliking it with crazy person hypotheticals about outsides, tells all you need to know about how you refuse to advance and is actually insulting you would call someone else narrow minded with these stances.
|
|
|
Post by moderndaycoach on Jan 14, 2022 9:43:42 GMT -5
This is what I have been trying to say every time oldnewbie keeps trying to tell me that by using a libero you are forcing a MB to be specialized. Anyone who still thinks this is only the case likely has little to no understanding of the libero rule or how to correctly and/or creatively use the position. As I mentioned a year where my best athlete played middle for us but went on to play D1 as an OPP, there was no reason for her to ever leave the court as she had ball control but helped us the most as she was totally able to move pin to pin not only on office but with her block as well so we would libero our weaker outside in those back row rotations. Same with the fact that even though unconventional, the libero absolutely could act as the setter as I explained the situation we were forced to do it mid match with our setter getting hurt and next best hands in the moment happened to be wearing the different colored jersey. I am fuzzy on the complete specifics and what year it was, but I believe perhaps during the Hancock years Russ would libero out the OPP back row and play the libero (Kendal White maybe?) in the back right position for those 3 rotations. Russ didn't do that. He had a DS come in for the Opp, and the DS played left back and the libero took the line behind the setter blocking the OH. Asymmetrical libero subs are possible but are inefficient, and, considering the sub rules allow for a DS, it's practically never worthwhile to do it. Also, because no coach grows players in their own lab for their own personal use, there's a huge push toward conforming skills toward what is useful for the position generally. It does effectively limit middles. Ah ok, I knew he had the libero play behind the front row setter for those rotations, but like I said I was fuzzy on on the specifics but knew he used a non traditionally defensive scheme involving the libero in those rotations. A lot of my experience and creativity with the libero has come from coaching jr's club volleyball, it's hard enough to recruit your perfect makeup in college that still has you wind up doing creative things, let alone having a new unpredictable crop of girls come in every year and having to adjust mid season, mid set, mid match for whatever comes up. While it may effectively limit middles immediately, how many of those middles actually want to play backrow when they know they are not great defenders, and how many others that want to have- you had to say hey we just can't be efficient with you back there? Sure, all of us have had those freak athlete middles that can do it all, but realistically with only 12 subs the libero is incredibly important to your success as a team long term and I don't think increasing the subs to get more playing time for the bench makes the game better or more interesting when likely those players are on the bench for a reason.
|
|
|
Post by BigTenVball on Jan 14, 2022 9:55:17 GMT -5
If they allow this to happen, what is next?? Allowing the players to overhead dig with their hands and not call doubles?? Talk about ruining the skill set. Will ruin the game.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 14, 2022 10:52:34 GMT -5
If they allow this to happen, what is next?? Allowing the players to overhead dig with their hands and not call doubles?? Talk about ruining the skill set. Will ruin the game. Being able to touch a volleyball with your hands such that it doesn't spin (or has minimal spin), is an arbitrary "skill" that isn't particularly interesting or beneficial to the game. In my opinion.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 14, 2022 10:53:27 GMT -5
This might be an unpopular opinion, but, I'd vote in favor to not allowing the libero to serve. I also want to change the pursuit rule back to the old rule. ^ both of these are different than NCAA Men's (at my last check). What do you think in general about allowing a sub to come in for a player who is rotating into the serve?
DS subing in and serving and playing defense for a pin, for example.
|
|
|
Post by bbg95 on Jan 14, 2022 10:59:31 GMT -5
This might be an unpopular opinion, but, I'd vote in favor to not allowing the libero to serve. I also want to change the pursuit rule back to the old rule. ^ both of these are different than NCAA Men's (at my last check). I would go the other way and let liberos serve at all levels.
|
|