Libero serves in multiple rotation spots

[Back In The Saddle]

Had a match early last week (which I ranted a bit about), where I caught the libero serving in two spots in the rotation. I think I handled that correctly.

However, is this an "illegal replacement" and, if caught before the call for service would it be proper to call IR and assess a UD. Or is it proper to wait for the serve, and call it an Improper Server?

[Scrapper1]

Originally Posted by Back In The Saddle

However, is this an "illegal replacement" and, if caught before the call for service would it be proper to call IR and assess a UD. Or is it proper to wait for the serve, and call it an Improper Server?

Just call the loss of rally and have the R1 slap the coach.

[Back In The Saddle]

Originally Posted by Scrapper1

Just call the loss of rally and have the R1 slap the coach.

She might just like it!

[MCBear]

Originally Posted by BITS

Had a match early last week (which I ranted a bit about), where I caught the libero serving in two spots in the rotation. I think I handled that correctly.

However, is this an "illegal replacement" and, if caught before the call for service would it be proper to call IR and assess a UD. Or is it proper to wait for the serve, and call it an Improper Server?

BITS, no, it is not an "illegal replacement." Read your casebook situations that came out earlier this year. If the libero has legally entered the game (sat out one rally prior to entering, and is in a back-row position), then nothing is illegal until she contacts the ball and serves illegally in the second position during that game. Then, the penalty is Illegal Serve and LOR (Rule 8-2-5d).

[OmniSpiker]

That new rule's got some kink that needs to be worked out....

Just like getting somebody for illegal alignment or server taking too long for serve contact when there's a rush for service authorization because things are running behind schedule...

[Grrrrller87]

while I have to admit, I would have called an illegal alignment, that would have been incorrect, but I think the rule is good as it is. They have gone to giving you a complete definition, which allows for a more consistent ruling. You wait until an action is completed to make it illegal, which lets them possibly correct it, but does remove all doubt in the error.