NFHS double libero wording issue?

[SNIPERBBB]

Looking at the wording in the new books, I'm wondering if this will cause issues...

ART. 1 . . . Procedures for libero replacement:
a. The libero designated on the lineup for that set is allowed to replace any player in a back-row position. The libero may serve in one position in the serve order;

b. The libero may only be replaced by the player whom the libero replaced;

As per usual NFHS hasnt copied directly from another rule set that allows double liberos.

So if we have Libero #1 and Libero #2, and #1 has replaced back row player #3..can #2 replace #1 or does #3 have to come in because of the way B is written or does the wording in A allow the lib #2 to replace #1

[SNIPERBBB]

I'm hoping I have jumped the gun on this as it seems like the digital book hasnt been updated. The first part of the new book lists the new rule changes but in the actual rules there doesn't appear to be any changes in the texts of anything.


The casebook has been updated however.

[IK13]

Libero <-> Another player = “Replacement”
Libero1 <-> Libero2 = “Exchange”

[SNIPERBBB]

Theyve fixed the books

ART. 1 . . . Procedures for libero replacement and exchange:

A maximum of two liberos may be designated on the lineup for that set. Only one libero is allowed to be on the court during a rally. A libero is allowed to replace any player in a back-row position. A libero may serve in one position in the serve order. When two liberos are designated, either libero may serve in that position;

When a team designates two liberos, a libero is allowed to exchange with the other libero at any time the ball is out of play per Rule 10-4-2.

A regular player may be replaced by either libero. A libero may only be replaced by the player whom a libero replaced;

[FMadera]

Originally Posted by SNIPERBBB

A regular player may be replaced by either libero. A libero may only be replaced by the player whom a libero replaced;

I'm assuming that for this sentence to make sense, they are deliberately making a distinction that "player" means "regular player" as opposed to a libero (who is technically also a player).

[SNIPERBBB]

Originally Posted by FMadera

I'm assuming that for this sentence to make sense, they are deliberately making a distinction that "player" means "regular player" as opposed to a libero (who is technically also a player).

Which is.rather redundant because what else would they be replacing?. They might as well say you can't exchange with an opposing teams player.

[FMadera]

Originally Posted by SNIPERBBB

Which is.rather redundant because what else would they be replacing?. They might as well say you can't exchange with an opposing teams player.

Unless they're distinguishing a replacement as being only involving a regular player; otherwise, it's an exchange. It'll be interesting to see how they define everything to make it all consistent and clear.