Non-Contrasting Libero Uniform

[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

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. : - )

You talk like a coach. Are you a coach?

I don't know a single official who doesn't want to enforce the libero uniform rule. In fact (I referee, and I own a club), 3 years ago when my club changed jerseys, we had a plethora of referees at the beginning of the season enforcing a uniform rule against us when we thought we were compliant, but were borderline enough to bother the officials. (We changed jerseys within a couple of weeks). My point above, however, was that at the college level, these things are decided before the teams take the court. I rarely see a high school or club team come out with a libero jersey that is not contrasting enough who doesn't get called out on it immediately.

Screening --- 2 things. 95% of the coaches out there don't really know the rule, and what appears to be illegal is not. That said, this IS a difficult call from the R1's angle sometimes --- as it does happen that a screen that is in fact illegal doesn't necessarily appear that way from the side angle that the referee has.

BRA - you are likely correct on this one. Tracking who is back row at any time requires experience. 1st-3rd year officials have not developed mental systems for being aware of that. Good 2nd year refs and most 3rd year refs start to catch back row SETTERS and their illegal attacks, but have not yet figured out how to catch the other 1 or 2 players. I would not include libero illegal sets in this category though... most 1st year refs can see that --- and it's usually a lot easier on a player who is perpendicular with the net (like a setter would usually be) than one parallel with the net like a hitter would be.

[bob jenkins]

Originally Posted by timasdf

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. : - )

I resemble that remark.

I can (usually) tell / remember whether the setter is back- or front-row before the serve, but remembering it during play in time to make a judgment and ruling.... is a different story.

[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.

[timasdf]

Originally Posted by MD Longhorn

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.

Which is in conflict with the rules. This is what causes trouble for the next crew that works a match for the team that wears royal blue and baby blue. "The ref in our last match let us wear it."


NFHS 4-2:
ART. 2 . . . The libero shall wear a uniform top that is immediately recognized from all angles as being in clear contrast to and distinct from the other members of the team.

Note that the rule doesn't state: "The libero uniform is acceptable if the referee(s) and scorer can tell the difference." Clear contrast is the measure. Nothing else.

Originally Posted by MD Longhorn

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.

When the rule definitively describes the action in question, a case is not needed to determine a violation. See bolded rule below.

Is this the rule that *I* should re-read?
NFHS Rule 6-5:
ART. 1 . . . Players on the serving team shall not take action to prevent receivers from seeing the contact of the serve or the path of the served ball.
ART. 2 . . . Potential screens exist, but are not limited to:
a. When a player(s) on the serving team waves arms, jumps, moves sideways or stands close to the server, and the ball is served over the player(s);
b. When a group of two or more players on the serving team stand close together, and the ball is served directly over them.
PENALTY: A loss of rally/point is awarded to the opponent.

The scenario I described had the libero (but could have been any player) doing exactly what is prohibited by rule. Moving or standing in directly in front (2-3 feet away) of the server at the time of serve EVERY TIME. Please explain how you can find this anything other than a screening violation, when officiating according to the rules?

Originally Posted by MD Longhorn

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.

I've worked in four different states and both attended and presented numerous training clinics / seminars. I have yet to find an official that didn't have significant coaching or playing experience be able to effectively track/call BRA/BRB early in their career as a VB official, no matter how many clinics they have attended. If you can direct me to an online clinic or curriculum that can help a new official do that (while first doing all of the more obvious R1/R2 duties), that will be greatly appreciated.