"Hidden" Rotations

[kayla vb]

Got the idea from a local college that has been been doing it in their matches, and I am curious to know what your opinions are.

Basically, when this team begins a set in receive, they start in either rotation 1 (setter is RB) or in rotation 6 (setter is RF). However, their alignment for these two rotations is identical.

O=====================O
l.........MB....................................l
l...OPP.........................................l
l................O1.............................l
l.............................................S..l
l.........................O2...........L........l
l_______________________________l

If they are in Rotation 1, S is RB, O1 is RF, MB is CF, OPP is LF, O2 is LB and L is CB

If they are in Rotation 6, L is RB, S is RF, O1 is CF, MB is LF, OPP is LB, and O2 is CB.

If my little diagram above is readable, you can see that that alignment is legal in both cases.

Obviously, it can be an advantage that your opponent doesn't know whether the setter or the opposite is in the front row. However, if I'm coaching at a club tournament and we line ourselves up like that, then score a first ball kill on a setter dump am I going to have issues with R1's calling BR Attacks on my setter and losing kills to inadvertent whistles and replays? Or how can I remedy this situation?

Thanks for your help

[Antonio.King]

Whether or not your setter is called on an illegal attack has no relevance to her position at the start of the rally. If she is legally in position at the start of the rally, then you shouldn't be penalized with an out of rotation.

However, if she illegally attacks the ball while in the back row, then she will be nailed for an illegal attack. Illegal attacks are judged on the player's position above the vertical plane of the net during the act of playing the ball. Nothing more, nothing less.

Hope that helps!

[Andy]

Kayla - first of all, your notation shows two players listed as LF in Rotation 1. Probably just a typo, but I had to look at it a couple of times to figure it out. In Rotation 1, assuming that O1 is actually the RF player, the rotation is legal.

Antonio - I think Kayla's question is not so much an "out of rotation" question as it is a question of the R1 not knowing whether the setter is front row or back row at the start of the set and improperly calling a back row attack when the setter is actually a front row player.

Kayla - if you have a sharp R2, when the lineups are checked before the start of the set, he will discreetly indicate the setter's position to the R1 prior to releasing the court to him. It may be to your benefit to mention what you are doing to the R2 and ask him/her to relay the info to the R1 to prevent the erroneous back row attack call.

[FMadera]

Originally Posted by Andy

Kayla - first of all, your notation shows two players listed as LF in Rotation 1. Probably just a typo, but I had to look at it a couple of times to figure it out. In Rotation 1, assuming that O1 is actually the RF player, the rotation is legal.

If the Setter is RF, then OPP would be LB. If setter is RB, then OPP is LF.

[FMadera]

Originally Posted by kayla vb

Obviously, it can be an advantage that your opponent doesn't know whether the setter or the opposite is in the front row. However, if I'm coaching at a club tournament and we line ourselves up like that, then score a first ball kill on a setter dump am I going to have issues with R1's calling BR Attacks on my setter and losing kills to inadvertent whistles and replays? Or how can I remedy this situation?

Thanks for your help

If your R1 is paying attention, the only chance of this being an issue is if you're in serve receive in rotation 6 to begin the set. Every other rally the R1 should know exactly where the setter is even without the lineup.

Do you run the risk of mistaken illegal attack calls? Probably. How can you avoid it? Maybe have those players stacked under the R1 discretely tell the R1 that the setter is front row, and not to be faked out. Either than or hope your R1 is aware enough to know where your setter is.

[kayla vb]

Originally Posted by FMadera

If your R1 is paying attention, the only chance of this being an issue is if you're in serve receive in rotation 6 to begin the set. Every other rally the R1 should know exactly where the setter is even without the lineup.

Do you run the risk of mistaken illegal attack calls? Probably. How can you avoid it? Maybe have those players stacked under the R1 discretely tell the R1 that the setter is front row, and not to be faked out. Either than or hope your R1 is aware enough to know where your setter is.

The trouble is that it doesn't matter how "aware" the R1 is, he doesn't know if the setter is front or back row. I'm talking about USAV juniors club tournaments here.

The R2 will be a teenager, so the odds of having a "sharp" R2 are also extremely low.

We'll see if the scenario plays out this season and I'll let you guys know how it goes.

[Antonio.King]

Unfortunately you may then just have to correct the situation as it occurs. You'll undoubtedly encounter different calibers of officials; some more "aware" than others.

The best you can do is correct it should it occur, and provide feedback to the tournament staff about your experiences with said official(s).

[FMadera]

Originally Posted by kayla vb

The trouble is that it doesn't matter how "aware" the R1 is, he doesn't know if the setter is front or back row. I'm talking about USAV juniors club tournaments here.

The R2 will be a teenager, so the odds of having a "sharp" R2 are also extremely low.

We'll see if the scenario plays out this season and I'll let you guys know how it goes.

It just depends. Once your team serves, I know whether your setter is front or back row. If it's the opening set, I'm looking at the lineup to determine where your setter is, even when I'm R1. If it's the second set, if the rally progresses and your opposite is not up and blocking, I can pretty much figure out that your setter is likely front row. If there's a mistake, then we fix it.

If you don't want to be whistled for it, I'd suggest finding some way of letting the R1 know what the deal is if you aren't confident in their ability to figure it out. It just seems like a lot of subterfuge in order to get the first point of the set. *shoulder shrug*