Illegal player...libero
 

USAV:

Ref asks coach of team A to have player change libero jersey because it is marginally contrasting.. Team has only one libero. Coach agrees.

Team wins Set one 25 - 14.

Set two score is 22 - 12....someone notices libero number is not the same as on the line-up and score sheet.

The alternate jersey has a different number than the original that the coach wrote on the lineup.

Forfeit set one 0 - 25, set two is now 0 - 12....set two lost 24 - 26.

Team A is now not in the gold bracket...good news is they blow everyone away in the silver.

Is this the intent of the 'illegal player on the court' rule? This does not seem to be in the spirit of the game.

Is it the intent of the rule? No, it's not. Though a big POE this year was for extra care when it came to line up submission, both on the officiating corps as well as the coach. Ultimately, though, the responsibility relies on the coach.

What'd they do about the libero situation when the set resumed 0-12? If the coach was smart, he would've redesignated.

Redesignated Libero
 

Wouldn't this be illegal? With an illegal player listed as the libero on the line-up is the same as having no-one listed. You can't re-designate midway through a set for a player that doesn't exist.

What makes this situation any different from a phantom substitution? A libero can be redesignated for any reason at any time during the match.
Nothing about the player on the lineup as libero is illegal.

So by rule, redesignating liberos is permissible.

when did the ref ask for the libero to change jerseys? If it is after the lineup was submitted, then this falls on the officials as well as the coaches. If it was prior to the lineup submission, it falls squarely on the team, and as a result their mistake caused the problem, not the officials actions.

This is covered in the latest rules interpretation.
https://www.volleyballreftraining.co...s_Interp_1.pdf

Yup. So if he were smart, he could've redesignated. Curious to know what he did after the situation.

the coach re-designated the libero with the correct number.

So in essence this match was lost due to a typo - like we did not know who the libero was because the number was not matching. What I really don't like about this rule is the potential for a scorekeeper or libero tracker to make a typo or miss a sub and cause a huge problem.

So, not that it was not important, but now the most important part of the match is to check the lineup and make sure the libero numbers are correct because this can have an enormous impact on the match, way more than any call you make......:D

Note, I dont work USAV, so I'm not familiar with the rule particulars, but in the Interp referenced it has:

NOTE: Attention must be paid to the difference between a player whose name is not listed on the roster
and a player who is listed on the roster but with the wrong number. This case specifically deals with a
player whose name is not listed on the roster, and is the only time the referees may go back to previous
sets to remove points. In addition, tournament eligibility rules, such as region guidelines or the USAV
Qualifier Manual, may supersede the roster (eligibility) rules.

So with this qualifier, was it correct to cancel the points in Set 1?

I remember talking about this in Atlanta a couple of weeks ago. Technically, by rule, we would be allowed to go back into the previous set if it was impacted. However, that's not something that's being encouraged to do as an "industry standard" because of how dicey it can get.


.

Agreed. My first encounter with this rule this year was in Omaha where the coach wrote #13 in position 6 instead of #3 (didn't have a 13). 13 was the middle and was going in and out for the Libero. At 16-16 in the first set, the libero tracker finally spoke up about it. 16-16 turned to 17-0.

Coach was not pleased (as he shouldn't be, despite it being his error first) more so because it was an error that could've been caught early on instead of at 16-16. The coach R2 didn't catch it, and neither did the table until 16-16.

When I went down to see what the problem was, I asked the AS how she just now noticed it. She said she thought it was wrong from the beginning but didn't say anything. She finally said that something was wrong after telling the SK, who also had the same incorrect number down.

*facepalm*

The problem with the industry standard is that we only have the written rules to go by. What they do one weekend in Atlanta is not in the rule book. I personally think this rule is a little squirrelly. I can see an illegal team member playing in a match would invalidate a match. But having number 8 instead of 18 in at the beginning of the set does not really have any effect on the outcome as long as rotation and substitution rules are preserved. If it is discovered latter or a substitution or rotational error occurs then a LOR and correction would be sufficient. Think of a team of only six players and there was a typo on the lineup sheet, 6 instead of 8 discovered at the end of the match. Was the opponents really 'cheated' out of a win? I know this has been an FIVB rule for some time, but we are not playing international volleyball here, USAV is mostly teenage kids. The way we used to handle this and the way NCAA and HS still handle this seems to have worked pretty good. I just don't know why we went nuclear this year....well actually I do.

That rules interp specifically says you cannot go back to the previous set though. The original post seemed to pretty clearly say that it was a legal player on the roster who was simply wearing the wrong number. That interpretation specifically states you may ONLY go back to the previous set if a player's NAME doesn't appear on the roster. That doesn't seem to be the case here.

I understand. Again, it's a practice that's not encouraged because of how dicey it can get. They're only encouraging it in the instance of roster usage ergo highlighting that note in the interp.
However, by rule, you are allowed to go back into previous sets if it's discovered that the illegal player was on the court during that time. Like I said, it's just not encouraged as an "industry standard".

The contradicting interp and the rule below was also something discussed in Kansas City the following week.

Note this incident occurred before the rule interpretation came out. :(