What's the Penalty?

[varefump]

NFHS Rules.

Team is using a Libero and the Libero has already served once during the game.

The Libero is in left back and the team is awarded a point/loss of rally.
The legally replaced player comes in for the Libero and the right front leaves the game with the Libero going back to serve.

However, the Libero did not serve in this position in the line up previously.

Should it be a violation at this point since the Libero is not allowed
to serve in this position, thus making it an improper replacement,
or does the violation not occur until the Libero/server contacts the ball for serve as the wrong server.

Is the penalty Improper Replacement (unnecessary delay) or wrong server (point/loss of rally)?

Thanks in advance for your response.

[TimTaylor]

It's not an illegal replacement since the libero can legally replace any back row player. Nothing illegal occurs until the libero contacts the ball for serve. Correct procedure to to wait for contact of serve, then whistle & signal illegal server & award point/lor to opponent.

[MCBear]

varefump, refer to the rules interpretations put out by NFHS.

Originally Posted by NFHS Rules Interpretations

SITUATION 15: The Team S libero has served in the current game in position No. 3 in the serve order (in replacement of starting player No. 5). Later in the same game, the libero is on the court in replacement of starting player No. 10. The team wins a rally and rotates to serve. Starting player No. 7 is the next legal server. Player No. 7 leaves the court, player No. 10 returns to the court, and the libero goes to the service area and prepares to serve. The officials are aware that the libero cannot serve in this second position. The officials (a) whistle/signal delay of game and indicate illegal libero replacement; (b) whistle/signal illegal alignment; (c) whistle/signal for serve followed by a whistle signal for illegal alignment/improper server. RULING: (b) Incorrect procedure; (a) and (c) correct procedures. COMMENT: The libero replacement is illegal since the libero can only avoid sitting out a rally between replacements IF the libero is the next LEGAL server. (10-4-5a) If the officials intervene prior to the beckon for serve, they can assess the delay of game penalty for illegal libero replacement as the libero did not sit out a rally between replacements. Player No. 7 would be the legal server and the libero can either remain in the game for player No. 10 on the back row, or go to the bench. If the officials do not intervene until the libero illegally contacts the serve, they would need to assess the illegal alignment/improper server penalty. Once the loss of rally/point is awarded, the libero can remain on the court in replacement of No. 7 as a rally has occurred. (10-4-5a)

[varefump]

Thanks Jan.

I should have looked at the NFHS interpretations first. This was a situation that occurred in a match last night.

[TimTaylor]

Jan,

I didn't see that one, should have looked further. I was looking at the situation at the top of page 6 of the case book. I know it refers to the replacement for an injured libero that has already served, but it specifically states that the replacement of the back row player is legal & nothing illegal occurs until there is contact for serve. If as the book says any serving constraints of the original libero are passed on to the replacement, wouldn't it follow that in this situation the replacement would be illegal as you described? Seems there is a discrepancy here......

[MCBear]

Tim, the thing about this situation is that the replacement is NOT legal. Since the libero has already served in another position during the game, she cannot legally go from LB to serve in an incorrect position. By rule, since she cannot serve in this position, she MUST sit out one rally before she can legally reenter the game. Therefore, in this instance, we do not wait for contact because the replacement itself is illegal, not the fact that she is an incorrect server. Hope that I explained it clearly.

[FMadera]

Jan,

Good explanation. In this scenario, the illegal replacement takes place before the contact of service (or even the beckon for service), thus, should be penalized before any illegal alignment penalty.

[TimTaylor]

I agree guys, but this applies only if the libero is already on the court & doing the double replacement (which is the original situation posed in the post). If libero comes off the bench to serve in the wrong service order position, then there is no UD.....wait for contact & signal IA.

SITUATION 7: The Team S libero has served in the current game in position No. 3 of the serve order (in replacement of starting player No. 5). Later in the same game, the libero comes from the bench to replace starting player No. 7, who has just rotated to the right back position and prepares to serve. The officials are aware that the libero cannot serve in this second position. The official (a) whistles/signals illegal alignment; (b) whistles/ signals for serve, waits for the contact of the serve by the libero and whistles/signals improper server; (c) whistles/signals delay of game. RULING: (a) and (c) Incorrect procedures; (b) correct procedure. COMMENT: There is nothing improper or illegal about the libero coming from the bench to replace a back row player. The officials should treat this situation as any other potential wrong server and wait until the contact of the serve before assessing illegal alignment/improper server. Once the penalty is assessed, the libero can remain on the court in replacement of No. 7 as a rally has occurred. (8-2-5d, 10-4-1a)

Also in situation 15 both options a & c are noted as correct - which one you go to depends on when the officials intervene.......

[MCBear]

Toolman, you are correct, however, the situation posted by varefump WAS while the libero was on the court, not coming from the bench to serve in an incorrect position.

[TimTaylor]

Originally Posted by MCBear

Toolman, you are correct, however, the situation posted by varefump WAS while the libero was on the court, not coming from the bench to serve in an incorrect position.

No argument from me Jan. The thing is, situation 15 is pretty ambiguous in that it says that both the UD/TO and IA/LOR are correct procedures in this situation, depending on when the officials intervene - and it doesn't indicate in any way which is preferable.

I'd hope to catch it before the serve & use the UD/TO route, but the way the interpretation is written, either procedure is technically correct.

[FMadera]

Tim,

As a rule of thumb, anytime you can assess a penalty that is less severe than a loss of rally, it's preferred. Ideally, you want to catch the illegal replacement before the beckon of service, so as not to have to assess an illegal allignment penalty.

I don't think they are trying to say that there is no preference, just that if you can get it early enough, the penalty would be UD, and if after the beckon, IA. But UD is almost always "better," so catching it as early as possible is most preferred.