Approved Corrections to 2005 Rules Book - Part I

[MCBear]

At the moment, there have been three corrections to the 2005 NFHS Volleyball Rules Book approved by the NFHS Volleyball Rules Committee:

* Rules Book, Page ii - 2005-06 Volleyball Rules Changes: 6-3-2 The libero: Change "Must" in second bullet point to "May" - "May enter..."
......................which is also reflected in...................
* Rules Book, Page 26 - 6-3-2-b. Change "Must" to "May": "May enter..."

* Rules Book, Page 30 - 8-2-6-a.1., 2., 3.: Change "(Signal 13, Ball Lands Inbounds)" to "(Signal 6, Net Foul or Net Serve)" - aligns NFHS with NCAA and USAV mechanics.

* Rules Book, Page 45 - POINTS OF EMPHASIS: Overlapping - delete "provided at least one of the feet of the center back player is closer to the backline." - overlaps between front row players and back row players do not reference the endline of the court.

There are others that will be coming, but they have to go through channels to be approved for correction and change.


In addition, we were told that there is a multi-colored ball out there somewhere that has been released from the manufacturer with the NFHS authenticating mark on it. You may encounter some coaches who have that ball and want to use it for a game ball. Hopefully you will not allow it! Rule 3-2-1 takes precedence over the mark on the ball - i.e., "The ball shall be spherical with a laceless molded cover of 12 or more pieces (all of which shall be white)..."

More later as changes and corrections become available.

[refnrev]

[QUOTE]Originally posted by MCBear
In addition, we were told that there is a multi-colored ball out there somewhere that has been released from the manufacturer with the NFHS authenticating mark on it. You may encounter some coaches who have that ball and want to use it for a game ball. Hopefully you will not allow it! Rule 3-2-1 takes precedence over the mark on the ball - i.e., "The ball shall be spherical with a laceless molded cover of 12 or more pieces (all of which shall be white)..."
-----------------------------------------------------------

Let's hope it was a soccer ball that someone mistook for a volleyball!
--------------------------------------------------------
And by the way, thanks for the heads up on the corrections. I went to a RI meeting in Indiana last year and we spent the first 20 minutes correcting mistakes in the rule and case books.
(Edited for spelling)

[Edited by refnrev on Aug 5th, 2005 at 10:48 PM]

[Vb Scrub]

Most other governing bodies have gone to colored balls haven't they? They are a lot easier to see and pick up and see than the white ball. Guess it will take high school several more years before they catch up.

[devdog69]

* Rules Book, Page 45 - POINTS OF EMPHASIS: Overlapping - delete "provided at least one of the feet of the center back player is closer to the backline." - overlaps between front row players and back row players do not reference the endline of the court.

When I went to delete the last part of the second sentence under the overlapping POE, I now question the first part of that sentence. This means the center front may have one or both feet beyond the front foot of the center back. If the CF has both feet beyond the front foot of the CB wouldn't we have overlapping?

[FMadera]

* Rules Book, Page 45 - POINTS OF EMPHASIS: Overlapping - delete "provided at least one of the feet of the center back player is closer to the backline." - overlaps between front row players and back row players do not reference the endline of the court.

When I went to delete the last part of the second sentence under the overlapping POE, I now question the first part of that sentence. This means the center front may have one or both feet beyond the front foot of the center back. If the CF has both feet beyond the front foot of the CB wouldn't we have overlapping?

No, what it means is the CF can have one foot in front of the CB and one foot in back of both of CB's feet and still be legal. There is no requirement that the CB have part of a foot closer to the back line than the CF, only that CF has part of a foot closer to the center line than CB.

For illustration sake, this is legal...of course, not to scale...

------------------------------------------------ center line
CFL
CBL CBR
CFR

------------------------------------------------ back line

CFL = center front left foot, CFR = center front right foot, etc...

Note center front is closer to back line, but is also closer to center line, so this play/formation is legal.

[officialtony]

Felix,
Great description.
We had trouble with this in our state class until people understood that all the rule is saying is " do not use the endline for any reference for two players to be overlapped. It is the centerline which will determine what is an overlapped situation. " ( my quotes )
But your " picture " demonstrated it very clearly.
It also helps to determine overlap much quicker. Check the front foot - period.