referee signal for illegal set by libero
FalkirkVC
I referee in the National League in Scotland, which gets underway this weekend
(well, the National Cup does, for any pedants out there - the league doesn't
start until October).
Scotland didn't adopt the new rule-changes last season, as was our right, as
the competition was still in progress. However, the amendments have been
ratified for this season. I have to officiate a match on Saturday, and I have
an urgent question.
viz.
What is the referee signal for an illegal set by the libero. e.g. libero
enters the front zone, sets the ball "with the fingers" above the height of the
net, and the front row attacker creams it. The FIVB rules which I downloaded
from the site in Switzerland don't seem to make mention of it. I would go on
instinct with the "illegal back row attacker" signal, but that doesn't seem to
be right.
I've even spoken with our top officials on this, and they've never come across
it. Can anyone _please_ shed some light and tell me what the signal is, either
here in the group, or by private mail. I just know that, sure as fate, someone
is going to come up with this one on Saturday, and I'll make the wrong signal,
and wreck my entire season.
Thanks
Steve Scott
Falkirk VC, Scotland
Kevin Lentin
> What is the referee signal for an illegal set by the libero. e.g. libero
> enters the front zone, sets the ball "with the fingers" above the height of the
> net, and the front row attacker creams it. The FIVB rules which I downloaded
> from the site in Switzerland don't seem to make mention of it. I would go on
> instinct with the "illegal back row attacker" signal, but that doesn't seem to
> be right.
It is right. It is a back court attack fault on the front court hitter :-)
Well, effectively, that's what you're saying but the signal is exactly the
same as the back court attack.
Kevin Lentin
Australian National Referee
Snogfest Hosebeast
falk...@aol.com (FalkirkVC) wrote:
> Hi all,
>
> What is the referee signal for an illegal set by the libero. e.g.
libero
> enters the front zone, sets the ball "with the fingers" above the
height of the
> net, and the front row attacker creams it. The FIVB rules which I
downloaded
> from the site in Switzerland don't seem to make mention of it. I
would go on
> instinct with the "illegal back row attacker" signal, but that
doesn't seem to
> be right.
>
I'd suggest, if you're really worried, and this happens, just blow, and
say
"OI ! YOU ! NO! "
:)
--
R1, TDM.
Kiwi.
Phat Phuck.
Youth and fitness will always lose to experience and treachery
Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Share what you know. Learn what you don't.
Greg Gall
signal is the illegal hit signal, which is described in the rules. As you
say this is the same as the signal as for the back row hitter hitting in the
front court.
Victor Lindal
Is it 5 and 3 or 4 and 4 fingers?
Vic
--
vicl...@home.com
250-383-4623
Fax 250-385-6142
http://hypbus.com/vicvball
----------
In article <7sc91k$t6m$1...@news1.mpx.com.au>, "Greg Gall"
Rainer Perske
Hello.
In article <19990922183243...@ng-fp1.aol.com>,
falk...@aol.com (FalkirkVC) wrote:
> Hi all,
>
> What is the referee signal for an illegal set by the libero. e.g.
> libero enters the front zone, sets the ball "with the fingers" above
> the height of the net, and the front row attacker creams it. The FIVB
> rules which I downloaded from the site in Switzerland don't seem to
> make mention of it. I would go on instinct with the "illegal back row
> attacker" signal, but that doesn't seem to be right.
Your instinct is right.
The libero _may_ set in the front zone, that is no fault. But completing
an attack hit anywhere above the top of the net after such a setting is a
fault, thus use the signal for illegal attack hit; it fits the situation.
- --
Rainer Perske (Webmaster/News/System/PGP-Admin)
WWU Münster Zentrum für Informationsverarbeitung (Uni-Rechenzentrum)
http://www.uni-muenster.de/ZIV/Mitarbeiter/RainerPerske.html (Beruf)
http://www.muenster.de/~perske (Privat/Sport) (darf geDUzt werden)
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: 2.6.3ia
Charset: latin1
iQDVAwUBN+olds9UbnbjB8C5AQGuogX9FsPwzLDleVWyLGF6vANWVqb/HsUgD3TB
nuInmj30NpfSZUsbxbUC7g0/uqei97b0wb4pVZyYM33pMmfVEZ4VGkhQbSfTq6B8
qDRbOshKuyzcrt54ck5mmHqrh+D2GBGhG8JLyr3UrZOHet+tjCmWZPCaGgIHlhrv
LvGSOgUtY2fwUhZcW/sfOvcQv0xUgbTS0gN+6zT6WbAk0+ptrNc08kDGgAuHaUHJ
BgQM2QvcFuxmoWO3j6Jr4jEbr2j09wr7
=pXTp
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
Kevin Lentin
> Now how do you signal 8 seconds.
> Is it 5 and 3 or 4 and 4 fingers?
crix
FalkirkVC ha scritto nel messaggio
<19990922183243...@ng-fp1.aol.com>...
>What is the referee signal for an illegal set by the libero. e.g. libero
>enters the front zone, sets the ball "with the fingers" above the height of
the
>net, and the front row attacker creams it. The FIVB rules which I
downloaded
>from the site in Switzerland don't seem to make mention of it. I would go
on
>instinct with the "illegal back row attacker" signal, but that doesn't seem
to
>be right.
>
you're right!!!
in Italy we use that signal
ciao
-----------------------------------------------
CRISTIANO CRISTOFORETTI cri...@libero.it
italian national referee
Koray Uyar
New rules were applied last season in the Turkish Leagues. I remember the
referees using the error signal that represents the invalid back row
attack when the libero passes the ball from the front row for an attack
AND a spiker uses this to attack.referees did not use any kind of error
signal in the case where the spikers did not use this to attack.Thus,the
game went on.
Koray Uyar
p.s:for those who can understand turkish, the official site of the turkish
volleyball federation is available at www.voleybol.org.tr
Have a nice day
Christian Perrier
>It is right. It is a back court attack fault on the front court hitter :-)
>Well, effectively, that's what you're saying but the signal is exactly the
>same as the back court attack.
We have been instructed to use the BR attack sign but *after* it is
suggested to show the libero first, then the attacker so that it
becomes evident that this is not a classical BR attack fault.
Something else : remember that such as fault (as well as BR attack)
only becomes a fault when the attacked ball crosses the net, *not*
when the player hits the ball.
--
Christian Perrier
>: Something else : remember that such as fault (as well as BR attack)
>: only becomes a fault when the attacked ball crosses the net, *not*
>: when the player hits the ball.
>
>So a blocker reaches across the net [as he/she is allowed to do] and
>blocks the ball before it crosses the net..
I should have added "or when it is blocked"...:-)
The situation is the same with BR attack. All comes from the
definition of what is an "attack hit".
The rule states that a hit is an attack hit when the ball is sent
towards the opponents side. It may thus become an attack hit only
when the ball crosses the net OR is blocked (legally blocked of
course).
>Also. Hitter continues to hit a 'illegally finger set ball' by the
>Libero, and the blockers are penetrating into the hitters side of the
>net. Hitter hits the ball high and hard off the block.
>
>Illegal attack... CorrecT?
Well, for me, yes...
The attack becomes illegal when the block hits the ball.
*if* the "illegal hit" was the second team's hit *and* an attacker's
teammate is able to play the ball before it crosses the net plane,
then there is no more illegal attack hit after libero's set, but an
illegal block (playing the ball in the opponent's side and
interfering with opponent's play).
When still come back in a known grey area with illegal block in the
opponent's side : the referee has to estimate if the ball could have
been played or not. Usually, blocking in the opponents side when one
or touch team touch remain is always considered a fault as there is
nearly always a possibility for another team membr to play the ball.
--
Kevin Lentin
> The rule states that a hit is an attack hit when the ball is sent
> towards the opponents side. It may thus become an attack hit only
> when the ball crosses the net OR is blocked (legally blocked of
> course).
Effectively, yes but the wording is not like that. An attack hit is any
ball (except a serve or block) that is directed towards the opponent.
Such an attack hit is COMPLETED when it completely crossed the vertical
plane of the net or is touched by an opponent.
The ball is an attack hit regardless of whether it crosses or not. All
faults regarding attacks speak of completed attacks (eg a back row
player may not complete an attack hit from blah blah).
Secondly, the 'touched by an opponent' does not have to be a block. A
back court player (often a back court setter) can put a ball above the
net tape and the opposition can smack the life out of it and it's a back
court fault by the setter.
> The attack becomes illegal when the block hits the ball.
> *if* the "illegal hit" was the second team's hit *and* an attacker's
> teammate is able to play the ball before it crosses the net plane,
> then there is no more illegal attack hit after libero's set, but an
> illegal block (playing the ball in the opponent's side and
> interfering with opponent's play).
My understanding of FIVB rules here is that the block must actually
interfere with that third hit. I contend that if a ball is set from
inside the 3m line heading towards the opposite antenna and towards the
net and a blocker blocks it half way to the antenna, it's not a fault
since s/he never intefered with the attack. S/he prevented it, but
didn't interfere.
> When still come back in a known grey area with illegal block in the
> opponent's side : the referee has to estimate if the ball could have
> been played or not. Usually, blocking in the opponents side when one
> or touch team touch remain is always considered a fault as there is
> nearly always a possibility for another team membr to play the ball.
This is the big FIVB difference. We don't estimate. We don't guess
whether or not somebody might touch it later or not.
Christian Perrier
>Secondly, the 'touched by an opponent' does not have to be a block. A
>back court player (often a back court setter) can put a ball above the
>net tape and the opposition can smack the life out of it and it's a back
>court fault by the setter.
Yes, you're right. I was abusively vague. Anyway, the experience
shows that "touched by an opponent is nearly always a block, of
course...
>My understanding of FIVB rules here is that the block must actually
>interfere with that third hit. I contend that if a ball is set from
>inside the 3m line heading towards the opposite antenna and towards the
>net and a blocker blocks it half way to the antenna, it's not a fault
>since s/he never intefered with the attack. S/he prevented it, but
>didn't interfere.
Again, I agree with you. This is how this is written in the
rulebook. But you will admit that such cases are so rare that
practically we call all blocks in the opponents space when one team
touch still remains.
>> been played or not. Usually, blocking in the opponents side when one
>> or touch team touch remain is always considered a fault as there is
>> nearly always a possibility for another team membr to play the ball.
>
>This is the big FIVB difference. We don't estimate. We don't guess
>whether or not somebody might touch it later or not.
Hey Kevin, remember that I *also* use FIVB rules...:-). The wording
is different but the conclusion is the same anyway : the FIVB rule
speaks about "interfering with opponents play". For me, this is
estimation. We, as referees, have to estimate whether the player
interfered with play or not.
So, imho, your statement above is quite inexact. It tends to say
that FIVB referees never have to estimate situations. We have to,
imho. The case we are discussing is one example. Another example is
the net fault : in some rare cases, we have to decide if the player
who touched the net was "playing the ball". Another situation is the
penetration in the opponent's space (except foot or hand contact
with the opponents curt, of course) : we have to decide if this
"interferes with play" or not. Again, this will be what I call a
guess.
>
>Kevin Lentin
>Australian National Referee
Any chance to become international some day? For me, this is
certainly too late, even probably for the highest grade of french national
referees (too old...:-( ).
--
DinoVB
contact the net while playing the ball that was struck after the illegal libero
set, but prior to a blocker contacting the ball, or the ball crossing the plane
of the net ( thereby completing the attack)?
richard rall
You people on this thread are all morons arguinng about how many angels can
dance on a pinhead(your brain). Liberaces are a perversion of volleyball
and we need neither the concept nor the rule.
Kevin Lentin
> Yes, you're right. I was abusively vague. Anyway, the experience
> shows that "touched by an opponent is nearly always a block, of
> course...
Of course. But you can be guaranteed there's at least one coach you'll ref
this season who doesn't know that :-)
> Again, I agree with you. This is how this is written in the
> rulebook. But you will admit that such cases are so rare that
> practically we call all blocks in the opponents space when one team
> touch still remains.
More precisely, I'd say we call all blocks in the opponents space when a
player is about to play the third hit.
>>This is the big FIVB difference. We don't estimate. We don't guess
>>whether or not somebody might touch it later or not.
> Hey Kevin, remember that I *also* use FIVB rules...:-). The wording
Yeah, I know. Maybe it's just different interpretations around the world,
or maybe just a word meaning thing.
> is different but the conclusion is the same anyway : the FIVB rule
> speaks about "interfering with opponents play". For me, this is
> estimation. We, as referees, have to estimate whether the player
> interfered with play or not.
Yeah, I thought so. We're dealing with the meanings of words. Maybe I see
it as more clear cut than that. We certainly see it more clear cut than
the USAVB alternative (at least under previous rules - not sure if they've
changed here recently with all their changes) where they seemed to speak of
opportunity to play the ball as opposed to an actual interference in a
playing action.
> So, imho, your statement above is quite inexact. It tends to say
> that FIVB referees never have to estimate situations. We have to,
> imho. The case we are discussing is one example. Another example is
> the net fault : in some rare cases, we have to decide if the player
> who touched the net was "playing the ball". Another situation is the
> penetration in the opponent's space (except foot or hand contact
> with the opponents curt, of course) : we have to decide if this
> "interferes with play" or not. Again, this will be what I call a
> guess.
OK, fair point. But the circumstances are rare and the 'interferes with
play' under the net thing I've never seen called when there wasn't contact
that obviously prevented one player from getting to the ball. And that was
probably the only time I've seen it called.
You're right about the net touch, although we still work within quite
well defined boundaries of what 'playing the ball' is. The most common
case is the landing blocker - where we count them as playing the ball until
they land. If the touch is on their turn away from the net it's legal, if
it's on the way down, it's not.
> Any chance to become international some day? For me, this is
> certainly too late, even probably for the highest grade of french national
> referees (too old...:-( ).
I'm currently 29 so International for me is definitely possible from the
age point of view. Near future - no. Australia already has too many refs
(I believe we rely on inactives to get us down to the limit) and I'm down
the pecking order a bit - I still have one National Level to climb until
I'm at the top level within Australia.
Kevin Lentin
Net touch. The first fault counts.
Kevin.
Doug Norris
>You people on this thread are all morons
Oh, *that's* mature.
Doug
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Douglas Todd Norris (norr...@euclid.colorado.edu) "The Mad Kobold"
Hockey Goaltender Home Page:http://ucsu.colorado.edu/~norrisdt/goalie.html
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
"Maybe in order to understand mankind, we have to look at the word itself.
Mankind. Basically, it's made up of two separate words---"mank" and "ind".
What do these words mean? It's a mystery, and that's why so is mankind."
- Deep Thought, Jack Handey
Glenn Johston
1. blow your whistle
2. indicate the point for the other team
3. place the back of your right hand agianst your forehead extending your index
finger upward and the thumb out. The result will be the shape of an "L" which can
represent either "libero" or a personal comment as to the recent rule changes.
Just a thought
FalkirkVC wrote:
> Hi all,
>
> I referee in the National League in Scotland, which gets underway this weekend
> (well, the National Cup does, for any pedants out there - the league doesn't
> start until October).
>
> Scotland didn't adopt the new rule-changes last season, as was our right, as
> the competition was still in progress. However, the amendments have been
> ratified for this season. I have to officiate a match on Saturday, and I have
> an urgent question.
>
> viz.
>
> What is the referee signal for an illegal set by the libero. e.g. libero
> enters the front zone, sets the ball "with the fingers" above the height of the
> net, and the front row attacker creams it. The FIVB rules which I downloaded
> from the site in Switzerland don't seem to make mention of it. I would go on
> instinct with the "illegal back row attacker" signal, but that doesn't seem to
> be right.
>
Christian Perrier
Same for me. This is precisely why it is very important to nderstand
that the illegal attack after the libero set only becomes effective
when the attack is completed. As the attack is completed only when
the ball crosses the net plane or is touched by an opponent, in the
situation above there is a net touch.
(BTW, I messed up again last Saturday on such occasion : I had to
blow a BR attack as second and I blewed nearly immediately after the
hit by the player, not wainting the ball to cross the net plane. I
was the only one who noticed it, of course, but I was angry....:-)))
--
Christian Perrier
>
>You people on this thread are all morons arguinng about how many angels can
>dance on a pinhead(your brain). Liberaces are a perversion of volleyball
>and we need neither the concept nor the rule.
Thanks for reminiding me to keep my ~/News/Score up-to-date...
--
DinoVB
new rules. Thankx all
mcmath_jim
Two years ago USA Volleyball adopted the FIVB rules for illegal back row
attacks, basically, if the ball is legally contacted by an opposing legal
blocker or group block after being contacted by a back row player who is in
the front zone and who's last contact with the ball was completely above the
height of the net, an illegal back row attack shall be declared. If the
ball was illegally contact by an opposing front row blocker, e.g., contacted
over attacker's playing space before a legal attacker could complete an
attack hit or intefered with a ball that was being directed by a back row
player to another player on his/her side of the net (and never penetrated
the plane of the net), a "reaching accross the net" fault will be declared
against the blocker or group block. With the libero rule in effect for USAV
Open level compititions this year (matches where 6/1 substitutions are
used), we will be following the FIVB interpretation which states that a
libero player who is in the front zone and sets a ball completely above the
height of the net using a setting action to a teammate, an illegal attack
hit will be declared when the ball is legally blocked or completely crosses
the net. We will also be using the illegal attack signal.
The US Women's collegiate rules are slightly different for definition of
back row attacks which allow for "play on" if in the first referee's
judgment the back row setter who is in the front zone and sets a ball which
completely above the height of the net towards an eligible teammate and it
is in/drifts into the plane where it is touched by an opposing player.
Also, under USAV rules and US Women's collegiate rules, we allow back row
setters to contact the ball while it is the plane of the net between the
antennas for the purposes of bringing/saving the ball from going over on the
first or second hit. According to Tom Blue and Neil Lubke, two of the USA's
more prominent FIVB Referees, this is different from the current FIVB
interpretations which do not allow back row players to contact the ball
while in the plane of the net between the antennas.
Many times when people are posting about rule changes from the US, you have
to ask, what game were they watching/playing because there are slight rules
interpretations between the various rules.
Jim McMath
USAV National
PAVO State
P.S. I do plan some day to get to Australia and France!
Kevin Lentin <k...@yoyo.cc.monash.edu.au> wrote in message
news:7sp0ce$i6u$1...@towncrier.cc.monash.edu.au...
raul.la...@fmpsd.ab.ca
> Hi all,
>
> I referee in the National League in Scotland, which gets underway this weekend
> (well, the National Cup does, for any pedants out there - the league doesn't
> start until October).
>
> Scotland didn't adopt the new rule-changes last season, as was our right, as
> the competition was still in progress. However, the amendments have been
> ratified for this season. I have to officiate a match on Saturday, and I have
> an urgent question.
>
> viz.
>
> What is the referee signal for an illegal set by the libero. e.g. libero
> from the site in Switzerland don't seem to make mention of it. I would go on
> instinct with the "illegal back row attacker" signal, but that doesn't seem to
> be right.
>
> I've even spoken with our top officials on this, and they've never come across
> it. Can anyone _please_ shed some light and tell me what the signal is, either
> here in the group, or by private mail. I just know that, sure as fate, someone
> is going to come up with this one on Saturday, and I'll make the wrong signal,
> and wreck my entire season.
>
> Thanks
>
> Steve Scott
> Falkirk VC, Scotland
Does the word anywhere above the top of the net...applies consistently to all of the back playing court zone and extension ? .....likely when the attack hit was done in the backcourt zone behind the attack line ....or very far from the net ...how about in the serving area or outside the lines back and side....