Non-Contrasting Libero Uniform

[timasdf]

Not sure about the coaching staff at UCLA, but I know for certain that many coaches will try to get away with stuff like this in an effort to create a (typically very small) advantage for their team.

The instant they get called for it, they have the contrasting uniform in a bag.

I suspect that UCLA has several other uniforms that the libero could have worn. Unfortunately, the officials on the match decided to ignore the rule, which stipulates that the uniforms must be contrasting. Not visually different. Not noticeably different. Contrasting.

[pavbref]

The NCAA Secretary-Rules Editor for Volleyball is aware of the questionable uniform for UCLA. She has numerous messages in her email mailbox asking the same question as the OP.

[MD Longhorn]

There is ZERO advantage gained by having a jersey not as contrasting as someone else. And contrasting is in the eye of the beholder. Given that this is a college, the NCAA itself (not the referee of the day) is going to be the final arbiter... but if referees can tell the difference from 25 feet away, it's not going to be an issue, even if it's hard to see on a side view on television.

[timasdf]

I completely disagree that there is no advantage gained by having a non-contrasting libero uniform.

If the libero sets the ball in front of the attack line with a very similar color, it may not be immediately noticed by the referees.

The purpose of the contrasting uniform is so that it can be immediately recognized with peripheral vision.

The referee *IS* the arbiter of this at the match site. The referee may not always be correct. "The NCAA is the final arbiter." Huh? "The NCAA" doesn't make any decisions. People acting on behalf of the NCAA make the decisions. Again, those people are not always correct (as in this case).

The definition of contrasting is NOT in the eye of the beholder. The definition is clear...Definition of contrast: Strikingly different.

Very simply, royal blue and baby blue are not contrasting.

Contrasting Colors:
What Are Contrasting Colors?

[MD Longhorn]

So ... you are the NCAA Rules Committee Interpretor now?

That is not the purpose of the contrasting jersey. You're on this board, so I'm going to assume you referee... you KNOW who the libero is, and picking them out when they set near the 10 foot line is easy. Further ... this call happens incredibly rarely, as any libero anywhere near the line bump-sets the ball. No one is trying to get away with this call... the advantage gained is minimal in contrast to the easy in making the call and the penalty for getting caught. (I ask you in all seriousness when the last time you called this was... for me it was, I believe, 4 seasons ago in week one after a normal libero was replaced due to injury and the other girl simply didn't know the rule... I doubt this is called an average of once a year at the college level in all college games combined)

Teams (esp Div 1) announce in advance what uniforms are being worn. The NCAA would have told them in advance if what they were wearing was not in compliance. The NCAA ... not your dictionary ... determines the definition of this rulebook term with respect to the game they oversee.

[timasdf]

Simply looking for some friendly debate/discussion, not trying to upset those that reinterpret the rules. I certainly didn't make any claim to be the NCAA Rules Interpreter, so I'm not sure why that was mentioned?

The rule specifically states "contrast." It doesn't say, "as long as you can see the difference" or "as long as you know who the libero is." Perhaps I have the reasons behind the rule completely wrong (I don't think I do, but maybe)...but the rule is the rule.

I don't like all rules. I would amend some others. However, I do my best to enforce the rules as written. What other rules should we reinterpret to suit what we think they should be, since they happen rarely? What other words in the rule book should we redefine for our own convenience?

Locally, I know of many times that the team intentionally wears non-contrasting uniforms. In some cases, it's simply because the libero likes one over the other. In other cases, it's gamesmanship. Testing to see if the officials will enforce the rule.

I personally know a coach (in another state) that intentionally does things to see if the referee(s) will enforce the rules. Examples:

• Team has dark green (forest green) uniforms. Libero wears dark gray. They have a bright orange libero uniform, in case the referees decide to enforce the uniform rule as written.

• Libero moves (near the end line, within 2-3 feet of the server) across the path of the server at the moment of serve. Libero does this at EVERY serve throughout the match.

• Tells back row setter to dump an (unintentional) overpass early in the match to determine if referees know about alignment.

According to her, these are often not called/enforced. Sometimes it's because the referees are clueless. Sometimes, it's because the referee decided that their rules were better than those written in the rule book.

[pavbref]

Originally Posted by timasdf

Locally, I know of many times that the team intentionally wears non-contrasting uniforms. In some cases, it's simply because the libero likes one over the other. In other cases, it's gamesmanship. Testing to see if the officials will enforce the rule.

I personally know a coach (in another state) that intentionally does things to see if the referee(s) will enforce the rules. Examples:

• Team has dark green (forest green) uniforms. Libero wears dark gray. They have a bright orange libero uniform, in case the referees decide to enforce the uniform rule as written.

• Libero moves (near the end line, within 2-3 feet of the server) across the path of the server at the moment of serve. Libero does this at EVERY serve throughout the match.

• Tells back row setter to dump an (unintentional) overpass early in the match to determine if referees know about alignment.

According to her, these are often not called/enforced. Sometimes it's because the referees are clueless. Sometimes, it's because the referee decided that their rules were better than those written in the rule book.

This happens all the time at all levels. In the current USAVB National Referee Clinic, there is an entire section devoted to this topic because many referees do not call/enforce the rules in regard to back row attack/block. Is it because they choose not to enforce the rules or is it because they aren't aware of the positional alignment?

Having a libero in a clearly contrasting jersey is an aid to making the correct call. The game is getting faster and more athletic, and the coaches will use every thing available to them to gain an advantage.

In my area, about five years ago, a team had a libero jersey that had blue side panels and yellow front panels. The main jersey was solid blue with yellow trim, but a referee using peripheral vision would have a hard time finding the libero unless she was facing the referee. Everyone had problems with this team determining where the libero was at game speed. The coach knew this and used it for the team's advantage. Many illegal sets and attacks were missed because of the difficulty in quickly finding the libero from a side view. This was not a case of the officials choosing not to enforce a rule, but a case where the jerseys made enforcement very difficult

[timasdf]

Originally Posted by pavbref

Is it because they choose not to enforce the rules or is it because they aren't aware of the positional alignment?

In my experience, it's both clueless/unskilled referees and referees that simply don't choose to enforce the rules as written, depending on the situation.

In the three scenarios mentioned above...

• Libero Uniform. Mostly because the referee doesn't want to enforce the rule.

• Screening. 50/50 between lack of rules knowledge and referee wanting to enforce the rule.

• BRA/BRB. Mostly because referee is unable to track players / alignment. Typically due to inexperience. I know when I started, I had no idea at all. : - )

[MD Longhorn]

Originally Posted by timasdf

I personally know a coach (in another state) that intentionally does things to see if the referee(s) will enforce the rules. Examples:

• Team has dark green (forest green) uniforms. Libero wears dark gray. They have a bright orange libero uniform, in case the referees decide to enforce the uniform rule as written.

• Libero moves (near the end line, within 2-3 feet of the server) across the path of the server at the moment of serve. Libero does this at EVERY serve throughout the match.

• Tells back row setter to dump an (unintentional) overpass early in the match to determine if referees know about alignment.

On the Libero uniform, I strongly suspect this is not a college team you're talking about --- which is what I was disagreeing with early on. On a high school or club team, all that matters is that the referee him/herself (and the scorer's table) can tell the difference. If that referee decides he/she can tell the difference, he/she is not going to rule that combination illegal.

On the screen ... why do you think that action is illegal? This goes back to my point that most coaches don't know the screen rule. It does not say a player cannot walk in front of the server ... and the case plays on this subject never talk about a player way back near the server. Please re-read this rule.

On the set ... assuming this overpass is above the net, this is an easy call that all but the very newest of referees should be catching. This is specifically mentioned at referee clinics numerous times.

[PaREF]

Originally Posted by MD Longhorn

So ... you are the NCAA Rules Committee Interpretor now?

That is not the purpose of the contrasting jersey. You're on this board, so I'm going to assume you referee... you KNOW who the libero is, and picking them out when they set near the 10 foot line is easy. Further ... this call happens incredibly rarely, as any libero anywhere near the line bump-sets the ball. No one is trying to get away with this call... the advantage gained is minimal in contrast to the easy in making the call and the penalty for getting caught. (I ask you in all seriousness when the last time you called this was... for me it was, I believe, 4 seasons ago in week one after a normal libero was replaced due to injury and the other girl simply didn't know the rule... I doubt this is called an average of once a year at the college level in all college games combined)

My experience is different than yours. I've either made or seen that call made at D1, D2, and D3 matches this past season. Certainly at the high school level it is much more common.

[timasdf]

Originally Posted by PaREF

My experience is different than yours. I've either made or seen that call made at D1, D2, and D3 matches this past season. Certainly at the high school level it is much more common.

Here's my experience about the frequency of this call....

I've seen the libero setting on / in front of attack line much more in college matches than in all of my HS matches. I find that this occurs far more often in college than in high school.

That said, college liberos tend to be more aware of attempting to keep their feet behind the attack line...but sometimes they have a toe (or side of foot) on the line. When it (rarely) happens in high school, it's more blatant, because they forget or don't know.