The purpose of this paper is to bring into focus philosophical and logical concerns relating to specific rules that govern the role of the libero in volleyball. The authors contest that the introduction of the position of the libero in volleyball may have actually undermined the continuing logic of the rules of the game. In addressing these questions the authors offer theoretically based rule-change proposals for the sport of volleyball that could be used to inform future training methods or development programmes at both the participatory and elite levels. Discussion may also inform the development of new tools of analysis (e.g. computer software) or the creation of a new breadth of match simulation resources to enhance athlete performance. These tools and devices could then be presented to volleyball coaches in an effort to resolve the issues that have come to light and further inform the philosophical and logical debates about the role of the libero in volleyball.<\/p>\n
Key words:<\/strong> Volleyball, rule-change, laws, coaches<\/p>\n <\/p>\n INTRODUCTION<\/strong><\/p>\n This paper is an extension of the research undertaken by Uhlrich, \u00c9loi & Bouthier (2011) and \u00c9loi & Uhlrich (2011) into the analysis of team sports. It follows on from the work initiated by Vigarello (1988) and Durey and Bouthier\u2019s study (1994) and comments relating to the cultural history of sport as well as the philosophy and logic that support technological developments in sport. Up until now the philosophy and logic underpinning changes to the rules and regulations of volleyball have been based on the intention to redress the imbalance between the attack and defence. Recent rule changes have endeavoured to enhance the defence. However, there is now evidence to suggest emergence of the role of the libero contradicts this logic. The authors believe that discussion offered within this paper confirms a breach in the historical logic of the development of the rules of volleyball which has now led the game into deadlock. The proposed solution will take the form of an alteration in the design of the court and an amendment to a section of the game\u2019s regulations.<\/p>\n As sport researchers, the authors believe it is important to maintain and develop an effective dialectical relationship between the researcher and the practitioner. Thus, it is hoped that comments contained within this paper help to contribute towards the development of new coaching approaches valued within the volleyball coaching community and to promote further understanding and use of technological innovation in volleyball. We therefore posit the use of a technological approach to resolve the anomalies that have emerged in the evolution of the rules and regulations of volleyball.<\/p>\n THE DEVELOPMENT OF THE LAWS OF VOLLEYBALL<\/strong><\/p>\n In general, the laws (rules) of a sport are aligned to the\u00a0technical developments of the game and are endorsed by the sport\u2019s practitioners including the players, coaches and match officials. Some rule changes however originate from outside the immediate context of the game and\u00a0are a result of discussions that\u00a0are derived from a different perspective. For\u00a0Vigarello (1988),\u00a0\u201cthe regulation is\u00a0often more\u00a0than just a result.\u00a0It is\u00a0a compromise,\u00a0a synthesis.\u00a0Regulation\u00a0is a meeting point between\u00a0different stories. It\u00a0is also\u00a0to some extent the outcome\u201d(p. 188). Volleyball is a good example of this compromise and for good reason as it is arguably the team sport that has undergone the most law changes over the past two decades. The height of this change was probably reached during the 1998-1999 season in which (among other things) the scoring system was changed radically. Indeed, the French professional championship followed an unusual scenario. During the first half of the season the old scoring system was used whereby teams with service could only score points. For the return matches, the new rally point scoring system was adopted where both teams regardless of who served the ball, could be awarded a point. This new departure provoked a reaction throughout the volleyball world. The new rally point system was blamed for altering the outcome of the championship. The media reflected this contention and in some cases exaggerated the point (See the French newspaper \u2018l\u2019\u00c9quipe\u2019 – January 1999). It was contested that the gap between the better and poorer teams was reduced, with the more able team being disadvantaged. However Eloi\u2019s (1999) study at the time concluded there was no evidence to suggest that the balance of power had been altered. In reality, the study was conducted at a time when the prevalence of the libero on court was still in its infancy and the role and contribution of the backcourt specialist was still to be fully developed. \u00c9loi (1999) revealed during the second half of the 1998-1999 French Professional Championship, teams only included a libero on the team sheet 92 times out of a possible 152 matches. Today, except in exceptional circumstances, all teams use a libero. Current Federation International Volleyball Regulations (FIVB, 2013-2016) now stipulate that teams can include two liberos on the team sheet to replace the first choice libero in the event of an injury.<\/p>\n This paper will contest that the introduction and development of this very specific role in a volleyball team, goes against the logic of development of the rule identified hitherto. However, first of all, it is important to consider the essential issues in order to identify the principal elements of the development of the rules of volleyball.<\/p>\n Based on the work of Deleplace (1979), one can categorise collective sports in to two distinguishing sectors: 1) the rules and regulations, and 2) the tactical constraints of the game (\u00c9loi & Uhlrich, 2001). In this article, the authors limit themselves solely to an analysis of the development of the regulations. Traditionally, game rules are presented as successive articles organised under a set of themes, making it possible to refer to this collection as the manual. Deleplace showed that the rules could be articulated in a completely different logic (Deleplace, 1979, 1983). His works led to the interpretation of the rules in two parts, a central core and then additional rules. The central core is made up of \u2018permanent\u2019 rules which constitute the \u201cgenetic code\u201d of volleyball. Additional rules, on the other hand, accommodate adaptations and innovations to the game in response to, among other things, strategically-tactical, tactical-technical, and the physical development of players.<\/p>\n Double logic of regulation composition <\/strong><\/p>\n \u201cRules have a function of making the game reproduce itself\u201d<\/em> (Deleplace, 1983, p. 100).<\/p>\n According to David (1993) if the game has always ontogenetically preceded the rule then the game can only live by the rule. Coulon also supports the hypothesis of rules having a double nature suggesting that \u201cat the same time technical rules govern the game, social rules enable it to proceed concretely\u2026\u201d (Coulon, 1991, p. 185). One can therefore conclude, to successfully reproduce the game one has to consider this double necessity. Further still, of significance to the reproduction and development of the game are considerations of time<\/em> and space<\/em>: Time<\/em> being that the rules must preserve their substantive essence while accommodating the evolution of the physical, technical and tactical aspects of the game, and Space<\/em> being that it must be possible to organise matches between protagonists from all countries. Historical recognition of the influence these factors have had on the rules of volleyball can be linked to 1947 when the International Federation of Volley Ball (FIVB) unified the regulations issued from different zones. This double \u2018space\/time\u2019 requirement therefore leads to a double logic in the composition of the rules. On the one hand, there are the rules that preserve the essence of the game as an original discipline (e.g. within a larger family of over the net or wall sports such as tennis, badminton or squash) known as the core regulations of the sport. On the other hand, there are rules that allow for intelligent additions to the core regulations accommodating advances in techniques and tactics and developed by coaches, performance analysts and the players. These are the additional rules.<\/p>\n The central core of <\/strong>regulation (CCR)<\/strong><\/p>\n Historically, these rules are the stable core of volleyball. They guarantee its specific logic. These laws cannot be changed without fatally damaging the essence of the game. It includes information relating to the aims of protagonists and their basic rights (rights related to achieving the goal). In volleyball, they can be defined as:<\/p>\n Table 1: Chronological development of central core regulations of volleyball<\/em> Please note that the final element highlighted in Table 1 marks for us, the true birth of volleyball as a modern sport. From a didactic point of view, the core regulations contribute to the representation of a game directly orientated towards the consideration of the opponent. It can also be delivered from a player\u2019s first exposure to the game. On this occasion the coach, by revealing these four rules, and by explaining the dialectical relationship between them, allows beginners to immediately access the specific logic of the game. This logic can be expressed as follows; <\/em>\u201cThe material configuration of targets determines an original confrontation as the play areas are separated by a net. The inability of the opponents to come and get the ball, results in an impossibility to block the ball. The ball must therefore be hit\u201d (\u00c9loi\u00a0&\u00a0Uhlrich,\u00a02001,\u00a0p. 118). It is only then, during the onset of random actions of the practice, that the coach can add precision to the rules and regulations.<\/p>\n Additional rules<\/strong><\/p>\n These have been introduced throughout the history of the game. Only in retrospect can one adjudge whether or not the legislators by passing these new laws have preserved the balance between attack and defence, therefore ensuring the competitive nature of the game. The equilibrium between attack and defence remains a \u2018vital issue\u2019 for modern volleyball.<\/p>\n Bernard Jeu (1983) informed us that \u201cAbove all, what keeps the attention is the confrontation of two heroes, two champions, two teams\u2026 the precise moment of the switch from equality of chance to the inequality of result. It is the tragic separation of fate, the privileged moment of its liberty and its uncertainty\u201d (p. 31).<\/p>\n If volleyball is to remain enjoyable to play and watch, then this balance between attack and defence as a strategic concept has to be maintained. A fair competition will take place when both teams have equal opportunity to 1) reduce their opponent\u2019s space while creating time to play the ball when defending, and 2) increase the space that can be exploited in the opposing court while reducing time of the defending team to play the ball when attacking. It is then during a unique match on the occasion of a single confrontation that the winners will be revealed. The second part of Jeu\u2019s quote, (often neglected), supports this strategic concept of having a balance between attack and defence. The symbolic death or defeat, of one of the parties, has to happen without interference. It is then as free people that protagonists confront each other, accepting the uncertainty linked to the battle they choose to undertake. It is therefore crucial for the game\u2019s survival, to ensure above all, the balance between the attack and defence. This is the reason why it is necessary to determine which; if the attack or defence; dominates. There is a simple way of knowing this in volleyball. One must just count the number of times the serving team wins the exchange. Article 6.1.3 of the rules and regulations entitled \u2018<\/em>Rally and completed rally\u2019 defines a rally as follows: \u201cA rally is the sequence of playing actions from the moment of the service hit by the server until the ball is out of play. A completed rally is the sequence of playing actions which results in the award of a point\u201d (FIVB Rules of the Game, 2013-2016, p. 21). However during a performance level match, in the majority of rallies, the ball crosses the net just over two times. According to a study by Fournier (2005), in 2000 the average was 2.39 times and in 2002 the average was 2.31 times per rally. The first passage over the net occurs when the server accomplishes his service. The second passage is when one of the players of the receiving team attacks. \u2018The introduction of the libero rule has therefore not had the effect of increasing the number of exchanges, but of reducing the number instead\u2019 (Fournier, 2005, p. 132). This data can be explained by the fact that the imbalance between attack and defence is such that the first attack if often decisive. Thus, two out of three times, the team initiating the exchange loses. In a study conducted during the 2009-2010 French Super League season, it was calculated that the ratio between the number of points won and the number of exchanges initiated for the league winners\u2019 tour was an average of 0.38 (Albert, 2010). This data represent 1.14 points won out of three services performed. At this stage of the argument, it is useful to illustrate why the team with the service is the one in defence. In fact, immediately after the player serves, three situations can arise. The first possibility, the server misses his service (ball in the net, ball \u201cout,\u201d or fault). There has been no response from the opposing team and the other team must now serve. The second possibility is that the server wins the point directly (either an ace or winning service). In this case, the opponent\u2019s intervention is limited to the simplest form (in the case of an ace: watching the ball fall out of range; for a winning service: the receiver fails to control the service which makes it impossible to play by a partner) and the same server, serves again. The third and last possibility, is when the opposing team receiving the service organises itself to attack. The serving team must then defend. It is therefore logical that the serving team is the defending team. On digesting these facts, we can highlight a significant shortfall for the defending team in volleyball against the attacking team. If we assume that the ideal balance is at a ratio of one out of two (one service out of two leading to the winning of the rally), it is obvious to see that for the most successful team in the French championship, the ratio is just over one in three.<\/p>\n It now seems that this deficit has become a \u2018genetic\u2019 constant of volleyball. Despite the efforts of the game\u2019s legislators to change the rules in order to counterbalance this deficit, it continues to persist.<\/p>\n What would have occurred if the rules had not changed?<\/strong><\/p>\n Demiselle (2005) notes that \u201c<\/em>this search for a systematic adaptation of a sector relative to the other, attempts to balance attack and defence. But even today, the equilibrium between the balance of forces has not been found; the offensive phases are always on top\u201d (p. 236). Thus, traditionally, members of the rule committee have used two complementary approaches to try to remedy this situation. On the one hand, they have passed laws that aim to increase the power of the defence. On the other hand, they have passed laws reducing the power of the attack (see Figure 1).<\/p>\n Figure 1: Current model of volleyball regulations<\/em> Additional rules increasing the power of defence players<\/strong><\/p>\n In volleyball, defensive actions are divided into the \u2018block\u2019 defence (an over-the-net intervention that aims to directly deflect the ball back into the opponents side) and the \u2018floor\u2019 defence (which takes place further away from the net and occurs when a player prevents the ball from falling on to the floor by bumping it into air so that a counter-attack can be initiated).<\/p>\n The rules reducing the rights of attack players<\/strong><\/p>\n It is clear then that rules which reduce the rights of attackers are far fewer than those which increase the rights of defenders. We can therefore see the will of preserving the spectacular character of spike actions. Following the history of volleyball rules can help us to understand decisions made by the FIVB rules committee and their attempts to rebalance the attack-defence ratio. However, the authors believe that existing attempts have not been sufficient enough as a significant imbalance persists. Arguably, rule changes made over the past few years have been implemented to increase viewership and make it more attractive to watch \u2013 a commendable intention which is not without its consequences.<\/p>\n THE DEVELOPPEMENT OF VOLLEYBALL IN THE MEDIA<\/strong><\/p>\n It is arguable that any sporting activity has an intension to develop and one of the key points of modern communication is image. \u201cThe image has recently become the means of promotion and valorisation of an object. It even sometimes gives it existence and meaning. As a form of social link, it often replaces facts themselves\u201d (Vigarello, 1988, p. 149). Today, volleyball suffers from a very poor image in France. Thus, when the Paris Volleyball team won the Volley Ball Champions League in Paris (Halle Carpentier, 2001), it was impossible to get unencrypted channels to retransmit the final. Similarly, when in 2009, the French men\u2019s team played the final of the European Nations\u2019 Championship, the final was only broadcast on one cable channel. It is perhaps difficult to imagine similar limited media coverage for other major team sports in the country such as football, rugby or even handball. However, poor media coverage is not just specific to France and has prompted the decision makers for the sport to attempt to make volleyball more attractive to the media. Perhaps it is for this reason that international bodies are striving to improve the way matches are played. Philippe Blain, previous coach of the French National team and Chairman of the FIVB Coaches Committee reminds us that what volleyball needs in the future is: To enhance the spectacular side of our sport for fans, sponsors and media.<\/p>\n To increase the number of exchanges of the ball in one point.<\/p>\n To keep the same rules for all volleyball users regardless of age or sex.<\/p>\n Blain, 2010, p. 32<\/p>\n Media issues<\/strong><\/p>\n The authors believe there are two main challenges associated with making volleyball a \u2018television-friendly\u2019 product. On one hand the overall duration of a match must be reduced.\u00a0On the other is the necessity to control the inconsistency between a short match (in three sets) and a long match (in five sets). Indeed, television programmers often argue that these uncertainties prevent any programming from being possible, since it is impossible to predict the duration and thus the end time of a game.\u00a0Vigarello (1988) noted that an increasing pressure is exerted on game designers who are aiming for a greater television presence in their sport.\u00a0It is forcing them towards regulatory evolutions that are not without repercussions on the technical developments of the game.\u00a0In this context, the control of game-time is a major asset in gaining access to television coverage.\u00a0One of the first rules to reduce the overall length of matches was the so-called three-ball system introduced in 1978.\u00a0A significant time saver was discovered (approximately a 20% reduction in game time length) following the instant availability of a ball on the serving team\u2019s side.\u00a0With the presence of three ball retrievers, one ball is made available at each end of the court with the ball used in the previous point being re-circulated to the last server during the exchange. However, this reduction of game-time is not enough and falls well short in reducing the differences between the duration of a match won and lost in straight sets and a match played over five sets.\u00a0Further measures were therefore required.<\/p>\n Development of the first model<\/strong><\/p>\n The authors have classified the rules of volleyball into two categories; 1) the central core of regulations and 2) the additional rules. However, it seems that the three-ball system, of which the purpose is to reduce overall game-time, does not influence the attack-defence ratio.\u00a0It is for this reason that a different model for the rules and regulations of volleyball requires consideration.\u00a0The desire to make volleyball more spectacular and popular for the media led to the creation of a number of game-rules that can be grouped into a new category: additional rules that are not influenced by the core concepts of the game. These new categories clearly reflect the proposals made\u00a0by Vigarello (1998) when he stated that \u201cthe regulation is at the intersection of (often separated) dynamics.\u00a0Its formulation indicates the influence of each of them, it reveals their respective weight\u201d (p. 190).\u00a0It is the representation of these influences (dynamics) that we now need to consider in our updated model. The additional rules should now consist of two sub-categories.\u00a0First, additional rules built into the game designed to redress the imbalance between attack and defence.\u00a0Second, additional rules that are not influenced by or fail to enhance the core concepts of the game but are designed specifically to make volleyball more conducive to television and other forms of media coverage.<\/p>\n Additional rules independent from the game<\/strong><\/p>\n In this new category, it seems appropriate to separate the two areas.\u00a0First of all, the rules of which the purpose is to reduce the duration of the match.\u00a0Secondly, the rules that aim to make the volleyball \u2018product\u2019 conform to television.\u00a0This gives us a more complete representation of the rules and regulations of volleyball (see Figure 2).<\/p>\n Figure 2: Proposed model of volleyball regulations<\/em> Independent rules that reduce the duration of the match<\/strong><\/p>\n At first, this was done with the introduction of ball retrievers who had the task of managing three balls (in 1978). Ten years later in 1988 the Rally System Point was introduced to decide the fifth set.\u00a0This decision resulted in reducing the duration of only the closest and longest games (e.g. a match over four sets). Then, in 1999, the Rally Point System was applied to all sets. Twenty-five points now have to be scored to win the first four sets, and 15 points for the final fifth set.<\/p>\n Additional rules independent from the game, aiming to make the volleyball \u201cproduct\u201d conform to TV norms<\/strong><\/p>\n Reducing the overall time of matches has certainly helped to make volleyball more television-friendly.\u00a0However, it has not proved decisive in attracting broadcasters to the game. Other elements also need to be put in place to increase the potential for income generation when covering a match which is why when the new scoring system was introduced; it was also accompanied by a new category of time-outs. They are automatically called by the referee when the leading team reaches the score of 8 and 16 points (introduced in 1999).\u00a0These \u2018technical\u2019 time-outs have duration of one minute.\u00a0So why impose such gaps which end up increasing the duration of sets?\u00a0Economic reasons prevail over any other factor.\u00a0The ability to place advertisements in the middle of the game can help \u2018finance\u2019 the distribution costs.\u00a0Of course, coaches still have two 30-second time-outs available to them that they may or may not take depending on the circumstances of the game. It is interesting to note that the \u2018publicity\u2019 time-out is given more prominence within the current regulations than the traditional coaches\u2019 time-out.<\/p>\n The second way to enhance the presentation of volleyball on television is to make the game more of a spectacle. It is in part for this reason that the position of the \u2018libero\u2019 was introduced in 1999.\u00a0It should be noted here that the primary purpose of this role was to strengthen the defence.\u00a0Further analysis of the real outcomes of the libero in this specific aspect of the game will be discussed later. According to the regulations, the libero is expected to \u201cwear a uniform which has a different dominant colour from any colour of the rest of the team. The uniform must clearly contrast with the rest of the team\u201d (FIVB Rules of the Game 2013-2016, p. 41).\u00a0But apart from the difference in clothing, what are the strategic consequences of the introduction of this very specialised role in to the game of volleyball?<\/p>\n THE ROLE OF THE LIBERO <\/strong><\/p>\n The aim of making volleyball more spectacular was argued for by the highest technical authorities of volleyball.\u00a0In his editorial called \u2018<\/em>Revolution by the show\u2019, Andr\u00e9 Glaive, then French National Technical Director, predicted that:<\/p>\n In the wake of the appearance of the libero, here are the three winning sets with Rally Point System up to 25 points.\u00a0This is not just a change, it is a revolution: the era of volleyball, where the score could sometimes remain the same for several minutes without change is over, no longer boring the audience and diminishing their interest\u2026leaving room for a live performance with a score in constant evolution, where the libero enters the match, and where the coach can be in constant movement!\u00a0Spectators will love this new game, simple to understand because each exchange will be ended by a point but also by a shorter duration of the match.\u00a0Television channels will find it easier to broadcast a match without having to juggle with the number of sets. (Glaive, 1998, p.2)<\/p><\/blockquote>\n So how was the introduction of the libero going to transform the nature of the game and make it more media friendly?\u00a0In short, the libero was supposed to be a defensive specialist whose skills were going to prolong rallies making the game as a whole more spectacular and exiting to watch. The libero was introduced to \u201cincrease the number of saved balls and to put an end to the dry succession of reception-pass-smash points to benefit longer and much more spectacular points\u201d (Fournier, 2005, p. 127).\u00a0Examination of the regulation explains why such a player can be dedicated to the defence.<\/p>\n The libero: rights and duties<\/strong><\/p>\n Four pages (Chapter VI, p. 41 to 44) within the 48 page FIVB regulations are devoted to the libero (FIVB, 2012). Essentially, the regulation says:<\/p>\n To summarize:<\/p>\n A particular fact: while all other player substitutions must be noted onto the score sheet, any libero can go in and out of the court freely if these changes occur between two points. But who will he\/she replace?<\/p>\n The Libero: strategic aspects<\/strong><\/p>\n To answer this question, we need to provide some additional knowledge. How a libero is used is integrally related to the type of player he\/she is brought on to replace. The strategy for using a libero should not only uphold the regulations of the game but also be compatible with the core concepts of volleyball.<\/p>\n Specialisation in volleyball<\/strong><\/p>\n Since the birth of volleyball, we have made the journey from an arranged universalism to an inevitable specialisation.\u00a0The regulatory requirement of rotations for the serving team (which became mandatory in 1916) shows a structural universalism. This statement can be supported by the fact that players intervene in front and rear positions in order to successively perform all actions including serving.\u00a0Thus, the idea of universalism can be defined as the principle of a collective organisation where all the players can play in all the different roles depending on the circumstances of the game. But it appears that the strategic-tactical development of\u00a0volleyball has followed a path similar to other human activities.<\/p>\n As suggested by some concepts of the organisation of the work (the Taylorism for example), the activity, in this case playing the game of volleyball, can be divided into tasks.\u00a0The efficiency of the team then depends on the increase in players’ performance in certain specific tasks. The idea of specialisation then led to the introduction of a collective organisation in which each player has a clearly defined role regardless of the circumstances of the game. This is what led to a division of tasks according to the different positions. This development was supported through regulations relating to training methods. A whole set of rules helps define what a positioning fault is. It would be tedious here to make a detailed description of these rules.\u00a0But we will, however, note two essential rules which clarify this concept.\u00a0\u201cThe team’s starting line-up indicates the rotational order of the players on the court. This order must be maintained throughout the set\u201d (Article 7.3.1. b. FIVB Rules of the Game, 2013-2016, p. 23). The team’s starting line-up is given to the referee by the coach before each set, indicating the order of service for the entire set. Players serve one by one without ever missing a turn.\u00a0There is therefore a certain importance when choosing who will serve first based on the player\u2019s quality of service, and\/ or the positional set up of the team.\u00a0\u201cAt the moment the ball is hit by the server, each team must be positioned within its own court in the rotational order (except the server)\u201d (Article 7.4. FIVB Rules of the Game, 2013-2016, p. 24). These positions must be respected until the server hits the ball.\u00a0Then each player can occupy the position that suits him.\u00a0However, front and rear players retain their prerogative.<\/p>\n The various position profiles and team composition<\/strong><\/p>\n Since the libero can replace any back row player, which player will he\/she replace? To answer this question, one must deconstruct the composition of a team and then analyse the roles and responsibility of each position in relation to each other (as the team has to rotate).\u00a0At the professional level, there are currently five different position profiles:<\/p>\n Due to the fact that the teams are constantly rotating, it is necessary to balance the players\u2019 positions against each other.\u00a0One must therefore put equivalent position profiles on each (front and back) line.\u00a0The historical evolution of strategic-tactical organisations led to a division of each speciality in the following way.\u00a0Here is the most common pattern today (see Figure 3):<\/p>\n Figure 3: Traditional formation of a high-level volleyball team<\/em> It is observed that the middle blockers and the outside hitters\u00a0are placed in opposition in the same way that the setter and opposite are.<\/p>\n Which player does the libero replace?<\/strong><\/p>\n The appearance of the jump serve requires the presence of three receivers.\u00a0It is therefore impossible to remove an outside hitter.\u00a0The setter distributes the ball to set up the attack, and is therefore essential during all phases of the game. The same thing applies to the opposite player who can be called upon at any time. Therefore, it is only the middle blockers whose presence is not essential when they are backcourt.\u00a0The libero therefore, in most cases, replaces each of the two alternative middle blockers (after their service, as the libero is not allowed to serve). But since the last volleyball rules (FIVB, 2012), each team can have two libero players noted onto the score sheet. So, as we can see in Cannes Volleyball team, one libero can play when the opposing team serves, and the other when his\/her own team serves. This new regulation allows to have two libero profiles, one expert in receiving and the other one in defence. The second libero can replace the libero on the court freely between each point.<\/p>\n Organisation of the adversarial relationship in volleyball<\/strong><\/p>\n It\u00a0is generally accepted that the balance of power in volleyball consists of six match-ups. There are six players, so six rotations, and then six match- ups with the opponent. It appears that people must deepen their thinking if they are to truly analyse the balance of power in the discipline. While it is true that the two teams occupy six successive positions, one must not forget that these\u00a0rotations are done alternatively. As depicted in Figure 4, a set is a succession of 12 different match-ups that cyclically occur. A set comprises approximately 2.5 whole rotations\u00a0per team (Albert,\u00a02010). This study\u00a0by Albert\u00a0showed that out of\u00a021 games\u00a0played by the Tours Volleyball team\u00a0(French champion for the\u00a02009-2010 season)\u00a0the average was 2.54 rotations for 25 point sets. This average drops to 2.51 if all types of sets (including tie-breakers) are included.<\/p>\n Figure 4: Succession of 12 different match-ups that cyclically occur in a volleyball set<\/em> Effects caused by the use of the libero on the attack-defence ratio<\/strong><\/p>\n We have already established the fact that the inclusion of a libero can enhance a team\u2019s capacity to receive service as well as defend an attack. When calculating the attack-defence ratio, it is important to recognise that a side\u2019s capacity to launch an attack is closely linked to the strength of its service reception. Similarly the libero is also a specialized defender who can enhance the team\u2019s defensive capabilities. Current opinion suggests it is primarily the libero\u2019s contribution to team defence that has more significance. However, if one was to collate the number of opportunities available under the current rules for the libero to support the team\u2019s defence against the opportunities to initiate an attack from service reception, the net result clearly indicates that the libero makes a greater contribution to the offense.<\/p>\n Take the case of the team that is on the upper part of the court (see Figure 4).\u00a0By observing this pattern one can see that out of a total of 12 match-ups, the libero is involved in service reception in six positions (match-up 1, 3, 5, 7, 9, and 11) but only defends in four (match-ups 2 , 6\u00a0, 8, and 12).\u00a0The libero is off the court for two defensive positions, when the two middle blockers are required to serve (match-up 4 and 10).\u00a0One can therefore conclude mathematically that the libero contributes to the attack more often than the defence. Thus, the introduction of this new role has not had the desired effect of redressing the imbalance between attack and defence.<\/p>\n So what are the circumstances that led to this innovation? Originally, it was the volleyball playing countries of Asia who advocated the introduction of a specialist defensive player.\u00a0Influenced by their slighter, physical profile in contrast to their European and American counterparts, Asian players were recognised for their speed, agility, and intelligence in defence. Their initial proposal, however only permitted the specialist defensive player to participate in the game during the six phases of service.\u00a0Of course in two out of the six phases, the middle blockers are required to serve, which meant that the libero could only remain on the court for four out of a possible 12 phases of play. This was deemed to be insufficient to justify the creation of a new position. After much discussion and experimentation, a compromise was found which resulted in the introduction of the position of libero as it is used today.\u00a0But the current examination shows that this player is actually helping to strengthen the attack as opposed to diminishing it. This reality totally contradicts the intention of the original Asian proposal and undermines the natural evolution of the rules of volleyball. And since 2013, despite the introduction of a second libero, he\/she still does not help defence. In fact this new regulation allows now having an expert in receiving, and therefore helps the attack more.<\/p>\n WHEN \u2018ATTACK-DEFENCE RATIO\u2019 AND \u2018SPECTACULAR QUALITY OF VOLLEYBALL\u2019 CONTRADICT<\/strong><\/p>\n It can therefore be argued that the introduction of additional rules derived from external pressures to make volleyball more attractive to the media has failed to redress the attack-defence imbalance and has even undermined the essence of the game.\u00a0The introduction of the libero to enhance the game as a spectacle has in fact had an opposite effect. The attack continues to dominate the offense and the duration of rallies is shorter.\u00a0Additional side effects have also become more apparent.<\/p>\n Strategies induced<\/strong><\/p>\n In reality, the disproportion between the power of the attack and the defence led to the development of strategies that guided the evolution of the game itself.<\/p>\n Ensuring the \u2018side out\u2019 (receiving phases)<\/strong><\/p>\n To compensate for the relative ineffectiveness of the defence coaches now focus on developing their team\u2019s service-reception and side-out efficiency. In training, the teams repeatedly rehearse their service\u2013reception and the ensuing predetermined offensive combinations. The training of the libero mirrors this strategy. Greater time and emphasis is placed on refining the libero\u2019s service reception skills at the expense of the development of more extreme defensive techniques. In other words the position of the libero has contributed greatly to enhancing performance volleyball side-out efficiency while failing to counter the decline of the effectiveness of the defence.<\/p>\n Tempting anything and everything during the service phase<\/strong><\/p>\n Extremely high side-out efficiency has also had a direct influence on serving strategies. Statistics show that the serving team has only a one in three chance to win the point.\u00a0The server is therefore encouraged to take considerable risks to disrupt the opponent\u2019s reception in order to either win the exchange outright or stay in the rally. If executed effectively, powerful serves can limit the opposing team\u2019s attack options. Usually, serves of this nature are combined with a well organised blocking system that reduces the attack choices even further. The offense therefore becomes more predictable and easier to defend. The \u2018serve block\u2019 strategy relies heavily however on adopting, high risk extreme serving techniques that normally result in a very high error rate.<\/p>\n Implications for the evolution of the game<\/strong><\/p>\n This analysis on how the game is now played is universally accepted throughout the volleyball world (idea first mentioned during professional training courses for coaches in the French National volleyball league).\u00a0It helps to explain and account for the very typical scenario that is described in the following section.<\/p>\n A show \u2018under the influence\u2019<\/strong><\/p>\n The modern game of performance volleyball has now been reduced to a series of brief exchanges. An exchange is when the ball passes over the net twice.\u00a0The first passage occurs when the ball is served; the second is the attack of the receiving team.\u00a0Current data informs us that performance volleyball teams have a 65% success rate in service reception defined by the team\u2019s capacity to offer all of its attack options. In these situations, the three blockers in defence have to cover at least four attackers, with one if not two of these attack options being launched from behind the three metre attack line. Thus, the four threat offense is incredibly difficult to defend against.\u00a0The second passage over the net is therefore often the only exchange in a rally. As suggested earlier, in an effort to nullify the quadruple threat, teams resort to high risk serving strategies resulting in errors that disrupt the flow of the game. Matches can be marred by a string of serving errors from both teams that seriously tarnish the game as a spectacle.<\/p>\n The change to the texture of the ball surface may help to reverse the trend. The new ball, when contacted firmly, floats, or changes direction in the air more readily. As a result, teams are resorting back to adopting lower risk float and jump float serves, as opposed to the higher risk top spin jump serve, as a potent weapon against the service reception. It remains to be seen how effective this strategy will be in redressing the attack-defence imbalance. Until this issue is resolved the game will be mainly characterised by brief encounters when the ball is hardly in play, punctuated with occasional longer and more exiting rallies. Gibout and Mauny (2006) stressed the importance of bridging the gap between \u2018the performance\u2019 and \u2018the spectacle\u2019:<\/p>\n Performance is conceived in achieving a raw result, an advantage on the scoreboard. The pleasure is gestural with a feeling of freedom and the intellectual control of the situation.\u00a0Through the performance more intense emotions can be generated, often reflected in increased gestural creativity of the expert and the creation of the show, \u2018the spectacular.\u2019\u2019 (p. 154)<\/p>\n In these exceptional rallies where defensive actions are often perceived as quite stunning, the spectacular side of volleyball reveals itself while showing a glimpse of the potential for outstanding entertainment.<\/p>\n Influence on recruitment<\/strong><\/p>\n Due to the heavy emphasis now placed on the reception phase of the game, the main remit of the libero (based on information collected from other coaches and players\u2019 agents) is radically changing to that of a receiver.\u00a0Coaches are now recruiting liberos based primarily on their ability to pass.\u00a0Similarly the training and development of the libero reflects market demands with more time and resources being spent on developing and refining reception techniques at the expense of more dynamic and extreme defensive skills.\u00a0The risk of allowing this trend to continue is that the libero makes only an effective contribution to the service reception and offense.<\/p>\n The valence of the libero as an aggravating factor<\/strong><\/p>\n The libero profile may then in turn contribute to the growth and sustainability of the imbalance between the attack and defence.\u00a0But is this gain really worth it? It may then seem legitimate to ask how the libero reinforces the spectacular side of volleyball. It is rare that a good service reception is considered to be spectacular.<\/p>\n GETTING\u00a0OUT OF THE IMPASSE<\/strong><\/p>\n Volleyball continues to suffer from the mismatch between the power of the offense against the organisation and athleticism of the defence. The introduction of the libero may also be hampering advances in the technical development of the defence. The argument is pragmatic. It is a requirement of the game to defend, so it is preferable to strengthen the offensive potential. But the more offensive potential is developed the less it is possible to defend. Proposals to change the regulation of the game must be able to break this vicious circle.<\/p>\n Proposed rule change<\/strong><\/p>\n Arguably the presence of cheerleaders on the court during technical time-outs has done little to improve the spectacle of the game. So what are the options available to legislators to improve the \u2018volleyball show\u2019? The authors believe the solution has to remain in the realm of the rules which are inherent to how the game is played. What makes the \u2018volleyball show\u2019 attractive is the uncertainty of the outcome of the exchange.\u00a0First, we must restore the balance between the serving and the receiving teams.\u00a0\u201cMore than the duration of the exchange, the evaluation of the number of times the ball passes over the net seems to be the right choice\u201d (Blain, 2010).\u00a0The game must break away from the normal passage of play when the ball passes over the net no more than two times. Opportunities for longer rallies need to be created while still ensuring the uncertainty of the outcome in each exchange.<\/p>\n This leaves the legislators with two options.\u00a0The first is to increase the rights of defenders.\u00a0Much has already been done to make the rules of contact on the ball less stringent. If even greater tolerance was afforded to the contact, the rules will start to contravene the very essence of the game. In volleyball, the ball is played by volleying, striking, or bumping. The ball cannot be caught or thrown. We must therefore address the rights of the attacking team.<\/p>\n The large number of offensive options available for a performance volleyball team are made possible by the position of the attack line situated three metres away from the centre line and net. An interesting solution would be to reduce the offensive potential of the backcourt players. The authors suggest moving back the three metre attack line to a position of 4.50 metres away from the net; therefore dividing a team\u2019s court into two equal sized front and back court areas. It is anticipated that by increasing the distance from the net the effectiveness of the spike of backcourt players (those permitted to execute an attack) would reduce drastically without compromising the dynamic nature of the action. The height of the action, its synchronisation with the frontcourt offense and the power of the spikes would remain the same.\u00a0Instead of attacking at an actual distance of one metre (or less) from the net, we estimate that backcourt attackers would now spike at a distance of approximately 2.5 metres away from the centre line.\u00a0This change would update the 1922 rule which introduced the three metre line to separate the front and back court in the first place.\u00a0Restricting the offense of the backcourt player also takes into account the advancements in physical prowess of the athlete over the last 90 years. Changing court markings will obviously have an economic downside. Initially, adhesive tape can temporarily overcome this difficulty until permanently painted markings can be phased in.<\/p>\n A number of the rules pertaining to the backcourt attack would remain unchanged (numbers correspond to article numbers stated within FIVB regulations):<\/p>\n One rule that should undergo a change:<\/p>\n Implications for the opposition ratio<\/strong><\/p>\n Let one now try to anticipate the effects of these new provisions.\u00a0For blockers, only the front line opponents become prominent threats.\u00a0The blockers can focus on the attacks at the net.\u00a0The balance of power at the net is restored. When the offensive setter is backcourt the three blockers are able to match up against the three opposing frontcourt attackers.\u00a0When the opposing setter is frontcourt the three defending blockers now only have only two main attackers to cover.\u00a0Backcourt spikes now become easier to control for the floor defence. Increasing the distance of the path of the spiked ball by at least 1.5 metres means that the impact of the ball on the defender is significantly reduced. Another consequence, is the area that the backcourt player has to defend is significantly reduced.\u00a0Indeed, as shown in the diagram below by bringing back the contact point of the spiker, even when the height of contact remains the same, the possible angle of attack is considerably reduced. The area to defend is therefore smaller.\u00a0With these key constraints, defences can become effective again.<\/p>\n Figure 5\u00a0: The difference between the potentially accessible areas of the ball hit by a spiker from 1m or 2.5m behind the net.<\/em> Required parameters are missing or incorrect.<\/strong>Thus, the presence of a libero as a specialist defender can become a genuine asset to the team.\u00a0Team defences can start to develop again while re-establishing themselves as a key facet of performance volleyball.<\/p>\n CONCLUSION: ANALYSIS OF THE OPPOSITION RATIO WITH A REAL-LIFE TEST<\/strong><\/p>\n When exploring the possibility of making changes to the rules and regulations, the authors chose to adopt a technical approach.\u00a0They attempted to highlight the tensions between the long established desire to increase the effectiveness of the defence to redress the imbalance between the attack and defence against the legislation (from 1999) advocated by the FIVB to improve the game as a spectacle. By reviewing the various elements presented one is able to consider a possible solution to the impasse created by the power of the attack.<\/p>\n Assuming that the Rules Committee of the FIVB show an interest in the proposed rule change suggested, it is unlikely that this rule could be applied immediately without further research.\u00a0This research could take the form of field tests conducted at all levels of the game. Competitive opportunities for males and females at universities for example could cater for the recreational up to elite performance level players. In depth analysis could be conducted on how the new 4.5 metre attack line impacts the attack-defence ratio at all levels of the game. This \u2018experiment\u2019 would create a unique playing experience for students playing the game; different to the game presided over by the FIVB. University sports federations would have responsibility for administering the new legislation, while their associate universities could lead on research. Such a rule change may also encourage the development of new tools of analysis (e.g. computer software) or the creation of a new breadth of match simulation resources to enhance athlete performance. These tools and devices could then be presented to volleyball coaches in an effort to resolve the issues that have come to light in this paper.<\/p>\n References<\/strong><\/p>\n Submitted by\u00a0Serge \u00c9LOI (1), Vincent LANGLOIS (1), Kendall JARRETT* (2) […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":3,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"closed","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"jetpack_post_was_ever_published":false,"jetpack_publicize_message":"","jetpack_is_tweetstorm":false,"jetpack_publicize_feature_enabled":true,"jetpack_social_options":[]},"categories":[290],"tags":[],"jetpack_publicize_connections":[],"jetpack_featured_media_url":"","jetpack_sharing_enabled":true,"jetpack_shortlink":"https:\/\/wp.me\/p4btio-Mi","jetpack-related-posts":[{"id":8014,"url":"https:\/\/thesportjournal.org\/article\/evaluating-the-impact-of-concentrated-match-scheduling-in-college-volleyball-during-the-covid-19-pandemic\/","url_meta":{"origin":2994,"position":0},"title":"Evaluating the Impact of Concentrated Match Scheduling in College Volleyball during the COVID-19 Pandemic","date":"October 8, 2021","format":false,"excerpt":"Authors:\u00a0 Mark Mitchell, Yoav Wachsman, and Monica Fine Corresponding Author:Mark Mitchell, DBAProfessor of MarketingAssociate Dean, Wall College of BusinessNCAA Faculty Athletics Representative (FAR)Coastal Carolina UniversityP. O. Box 261954Conway, SC\u00a0 29528mmitchel@coastal.edu(843) 349-2392 Mark Mitchell, DBA is Professor of Marketing at Coastal Carolina University in Conway, SC. Yoav Wachsman, PhD is Professor\u2026","rel":"","context":"In "Sports Management"","img":{"alt_text":"","src":"","width":0,"height":0},"classes":[]},{"id":2023,"url":"https:\/\/thesportjournal.org\/article\/normative-profiles-for-serve-speed-for-the-training-of-the-serve-and-reception-in-volleyball\/","url_meta":{"origin":2994,"position":1},"title":"Normative profiles for serve speed for the training of the serve and reception in volleyball","date":"July 23, 2014","format":false,"excerpt":"Submitted by\u00a0Jos\u00e9 Manuel Palao\u00b9 and\u00a0David Valad\u00e9s\u00b2 1 Department of Physical Activity and Sport, Faculty of Sport Science at the University of Murcia, Spain. 2 Department of Biological Sciences, Faculty of Medicine and Health Sciences, Alcal\u00e1 University, Alcal\u00e1 de Henares. Madrid, Spain. ABSTRACT The objectives of the present study were: a)\u2026","rel":"","context":"In "Contemporary Sports Issues"","img":{"alt_text":"1","src":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/thesportjournal.org\/wp-content\/uploads\/2014\/07\/1.jpg?resize=350%2C200","width":350,"height":200},"classes":[]},{"id":1821,"url":"https:\/\/thesportjournal.org\/article\/differences-of-body-dimensions-in-female-volleyball-players-cadets-in-relation-to-volleyball-playing-position-2\/","url_meta":{"origin":2994,"position":2},"title":"Differences of body dimensions in female volleyball players (cadets) in relation to volleyball playing position","date":"April 24, 2014","format":false,"excerpt":"Submitted by Aleksandra Vujmilovi\u0107 and Tamara Karali\u0107 ABSTRACT This research presents a test of the hypothesis that there are differences in morphological characteristics, which affect effective realization of the elements of the game, which are influenced by many factors from the area of anthropological status of the volleyball players. The\u2026","rel":"","context":"In "Contemporary Sports Issues"","img":{"alt_text":"Capture","src":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/thesportjournal.org\/wp-content\/uploads\/2014\/04\/Capture1.jpg?resize=350%2C200","width":350,"height":200},"classes":[]},{"id":6236,"url":"https:\/\/thesportjournal.org\/article\/comparison-of-coinciding-anticipation-timing-and-reaction-time-performances-of-adolescent-female-volleyball-players-in-different-playing-positions\/","url_meta":{"origin":2994,"position":3},"title":"Comparison of Coinciding Anticipation Timing and Reaction Time Performances of Adolescent Female Volleyball Players in Different Playing Positions","date":"January 10, 2019","format":false,"excerpt":"Authors:Ahmet Rahmi G\u00fcnay * (1), Halil Ibrahim Ceylan (2), Filiz Fatma \u00c7olako\u011folu (3), \u00d6zcan Sayg\u0131n (4) (1, 2, 4) Mugla Sitki Kocman University, Faculty of Sports Sciences, Turkey. (3) Gazi University, Faculty of Sports Sciences, Turkey. Corresponding Author:Halil Ibrahim Ceylan, Research AssistantMugla Sitki Kocman University, Faculty of Sports SciencesKotekli\/Mugla, 48000halil.ibrahimceylan60@gmail.com\u2026","rel":"","context":"In "Commentary"","img":{"alt_text":"","src":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/thesportjournal.org\/wp-content\/uploads\/2019\/01\/Figure-1.png?resize=350%2C200&ssl=1","width":350,"height":200},"classes":[]},{"id":6606,"url":"https:\/\/thesportjournal.org\/article\/evaluating-the-two-game-road-trip-in-college-sports-does-a-travel-partner-scheduling-approach-affect-team-competitiveness\/","url_meta":{"origin":2994,"position":4},"title":"Evaluating the Two-Game Road Trip in College Sports: Does a Travel Partner Scheduling Approach Affect Team Competitiveness?","date":"November 1, 2019","format":false,"excerpt":"Authors:\u00a0 Mark Mitchell, Samuel Wathen, and Robert Orwig Corresponding Author:Mark Mitchell, DBAProfessor of MarketingAssociate Dean, Wall College of BusinessNCAA Faculty Athletics Representative (FAR)Coastal Carolina UniversityP. O. Box 261954Conway, SC\u00a0 29528mmitchel@coastal.edu(843) 349-2392 Mark Mitchell, DBA is Professor of Marketing at Coastal Carolina University in Conway, SC.Samuel Wathen, PhDis Professor of Management\u2026","rel":"","context":"In "Research"","img":{"alt_text":"","src":"","width":0,"height":0},"classes":[]},{"id":5891,"url":"https:\/\/thesportjournal.org\/article\/relationship-between-physical-training-ratings-of-perceived-exertion-and-mental-toughness-in-female-ncaa-division-i-volleyball-players\/","url_meta":{"origin":2994,"position":5},"title":"Relationship Between Physical Training, Ratings of Perceived Exertion, and Mental Toughness in Female NCAA Division I Volleyball Players","date":"August 9, 2018","format":false,"excerpt":"Authors: Mathieu Castello, Jacob P Reed, Robin Lund, Mick Mack Kinesiology, Allied Health, and Human Services University of Northern Iowa Cedar Falls, IA 50614 Corresponding Author: Jacob Reed University of Northern Iowa 203 Wellness and Recreation Center Cedar Falls, IA 50614 Phone: 319-273-2071 Email: jacob.reed@uni.edu Relationship Between Physical Training, Ratings\u2026","rel":"","context":"In "Sports Studies and Sports Psychology"","img":{"alt_text":"Table 2","src":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/thesportjournal.org\/wp-content\/uploads\/2018\/08\/Table-2.jpg?resize=350%2C200","width":350,"height":200},"classes":[]}],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/thesportjournal.org\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/2994"}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/thesportjournal.org\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/thesportjournal.org\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/thesportjournal.org\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/3"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/thesportjournal.org\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=2994"}],"version-history":[{"count":4,"href":"https:\/\/thesportjournal.org\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/2994\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":4645,"href":"https:\/\/thesportjournal.org\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/2994\/revisions\/4645"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/thesportjournal.org\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=2994"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/thesportjournal.org\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=2994"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/thesportjournal.org\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=2994"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}
\n![\"Table](\"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/thesportjournal.org\/wp-content\/uploads\/2015\/10\/Table1.jpg?resize=899%2C395\")
<\/p>\n
\n![\"Figure](\"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/thesportjournal.org\/wp-content\/uploads\/2015\/10\/Figure1-1024x567.png?resize=620%2C343\")
<\/p>\n\n
\n
\n<\/em><\/p>\n
\n![\"Figure](\"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/thesportjournal.org\/wp-content\/uploads\/2015\/10\/Figure2-1024x724.png?resize=620%2C438\")
<\/p>\n\n
\n
\n
\n
\n![\"Figure](\"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/thesportjournal.org\/wp-content\/uploads\/2015\/10\/Figure3.png?resize=729%2C376\")
<\/p>\n
\n![\"Figure](\"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/thesportjournal.org\/wp-content\/uploads\/2015\/10\/Figure4-589x1024.png?resize=589%2C1024\")
<\/p>\n\n
\n
\n![\"Figure](\"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/thesportjournal.org\/wp-content\/uploads\/2015\/10\/Figure5.png?resize=977%2C578\")
<\/p>\n\n