couple situations to check on

[FMadera]

And illegal attack by a back row player is only called if that player is the one that completes the attack, with the exception of the libero setting situation. In the original example, since the setter is not the one who completes the attack, you cannot call in a legal attack on her. Assuming the attack was completed by a front row player, it was legal and the illegal attack call was incorrect.

[refinks]

Thanks guys! I think I got it now. So in my situation I was wrong. I don't know why, apparently I was misinformed or misunderstood the rule, but I had always thought if an attack was completed at all by anybody after a back row setter set the ball while it was above the net, it was illegal. Now I know differently, and when I see that coach again I can tell her that I was mistaken, but that it didn't excuse her actions.

To add to that, a back row attack can only be illegal if the ball is completely above the height of the net, correct? I'll throw another situation at you and hope I didn't go 0 for 2 on these.

Setter serving, after serve comes up to the net, when the ball comes back on her side of the net, after a bump from a teammate, she jumps and dumps the ball over while it is above the net. This is a classic case of an illegal back row attack, and I called it, my partner said great job, that's not a call you see a lot in a middle school match.

Later on, a couple points later, setter still serving, same type of situation, only this time the setter, who is in front of the 10 foot line, bumps the ball over when it is clearly below the height of the net. I give the signal for a legal back row attack. After the play ended, the other coach wanted to know why that one wasn't an illegal back row attack, I simply told her that it was 2 different scenarios. In one, the ball was above the height of the net, and the other, it wasn't. I told her it's only illegal if the ball is above the height of the net. She didn't agree, telling me she thinks I am wrong and to please look it up. Very respectful, I said I would, but I'm 100% sure I'm right. So please tell me I'm right. *crossing fingers*

[Altor]

Originally Posted by refinks

Now I know differently, and when I see that coach again I can tell her that I was mistaken, but that it didn't excuse her actions.

I have admitted to coaches before when I kicked a rule and they asked me about it politely and then let it drop. I'm not sure I'd extend the same courtesy to someone who had to be penalized for sportsmanship.

I most certainly would not mention the second part. It would likely just come off as confrontational. No reason to start out a contest on that foot.

After thinking about it more, saying you were wrong and not mentioning her sportsmanship may give her reason to think that it's ok to act that way. So, I definitely just wouldn't say anything at all.

[FMadera]

Originally Posted by refinks

So please tell me I'm right. *crossing fingers*

Spot on.

No attack is EVER illegal unless the contact of the ball is entirely above the height of the net AND the attack is completed. A back row attacker can attack the ball in front of the attack line...provided the ball isn't entirely above the height of the net.

[chapmaja]

Originally Posted by refinks

Guys, let me preface by saying that while I have officiated volleyball for 5, 6 years now, I still feel like a rookie because I came into it never having played or even watched a volleyball match (well, maybe I watched a couple when I was in high school or college) so for the most part, my knowledge of volleyball has been very limited. A couple situations took place over the last few days that I want to get your guys insight on, as I know there are some very knowledgeable people on these forums.

Situation 1: Middle school tournament last Saturday, I'm R2, in my position checking for overlaps (which I still struggle with mightily btw). In looking across the court, I notice that the front left player is straddling the sideline with half the foot inbounds and half the foot out of bounds. For some reason, I was thinking this was the same situation as the center line, where the entire foot had to be over for it to be a violation. So I had nothing, nobody said anything about it. In looking at the rulebook, it seems that this should have been an illegal alignment as the way I read it, no part of a players body may be touching outside a boundary line during contact of serve. So in my situation, am I correct that I should have had an illegal alignment?

Situation 2: JV game, definite talent discrepancy between the 2 teams. I'm R1. The significantly better team (for lack of a better description) likes to use quick attacks, where the setter will set the ball and almost immediately an attacker is spiking it. So, in this situation, the setter came from the back row. In this particular instance, for whatever reason, she decided to jump set, and clearly set the ball while it was completely above the net. As soon as the hitter hit the ball over the net on the next hit, I had a back row attack. Coach was very upset, insisting this could not be a back row attack because the setter is not the one that put the ball over the net, but rather one of her teammates did on the next hit. I disagreed, and the coach ended up getting a yellow card from me. A few points later, my partner gave her a red for continuing to argue the call. She eventually quieted down and stayed in the match, but had a few choice words for us after the match. No big deal, but now I'm second guessing myself. Did I make the right call on the back row attack? My partner thought I did, but he, like myself, was unsure of the rule.

Admittedly, illegal alignments, overlapping, and back row are things I struggle with most. I feel like I've gotten better at identifying illegal hits based on prolonged contact, mishits, and quadrant changes. But as for the rest, it's still a struggle. Thanks in advance for any help I receive on these matters.

situation 1.

I specifically asked this of an association president, trainer and state finals official last year. The answer I was given was that this is only a violation when a foot is completely outside the boundary line of the court. This does not seem consistent with the way the rule reads, but I will officiate using that guidance unless the NFHS actually puts a situation in the casebook specifically stating this situation, or our state says something (despite multiple requests they have not said anything).

Now as for the practicality of making the call. At MS I would not call this unless the player had been warned about it first. This is one of those I would call at a level when the player is gaining an advantage by it. At MS she was likely unaware of where she was on the court. As the R1 I would simply say "watch your foot" if I saw it, or as the R2 I would mention something quietly to the coach to have her correct it. I am not looking to make a call when there is another alternative.

At a higher level, I still try to warn, but after that I nail the team for it. When you at the JV and Varsity level you should know where on the court you are.

Situation 2: As I read it, a back row setter came up from and jumpset a ball that was then hit by a teammate. This is nothing but a good play by the offense. Now, if the ball has been set up the height of the net and drifted into the plane of the net and was blocked, illegal attack. If the setter was above the height and the ball was quickhit back off her hands by a block of the attack, the it would be an illegal back row block. If the person who set the ball was a liebro, then it would be an illegal attack because of where the set occurred. The situation in the OP is not a violation.


To me there are certain rules in each sport that are cardinal rules for successful officiating. Know the rules on service order, substitutions, replacements, and attacks are the critical rules in my opinion. Yes some of us may struggle with alignment, and may miss back row attacks because we are confused about the location of the player (something I know I've messed up in the past). Not knowing the rule is a bigger issue than misapplying the rule.

I am not trying to be critical of a newer official on this situation, just pointing out what in my opinion are the most important things to know.

I know personally that there is a learning curve in officiating, and most learning comes from doing. The officials I have an issue with are those who make the same mistakes I saw them make 5 years ago despite being told there were incorrect then.

[chapmaja]

Originally Posted by refinks

Thanks guys! I think I got it now. So in my situation I was wrong. I don't know why, apparently I was misinformed or misunderstood the rule, but I had always thought if an attack was completed at all by anybody after a back row setter set the ball while it was above the net, it was illegal. Now I know differently, and when I see that coach again I can tell her that I was mistaken, but that it didn't excuse her actions.

To add to that, a back row attack can only be illegal if the ball is completely above the height of the net, correct? I'll throw another situation at you and hope I didn't go 0 for 2 on these.

Setter serving, after serve comes up to the net, when the ball comes back on her side of the net, after a bump from a teammate, she jumps and dumps the ball over while it is above the net. This is a classic case of an illegal back row attack, and I called it, my partner said great job, that's not a call you see a lot in a middle school match.

Later on, a couple points later, setter still serving, same type of situation, only this time the setter, who is in front of the 10 foot line, bumps the ball over when it is clearly below the height of the net. I give the signal for a legal back row attack. After the play ended, the other coach wanted to know why that one wasn't an illegal back row attack, I simply told her that it was 2 different scenarios. In one, the ball was above the height of the net, and the other, it wasn't. I told her it's only illegal if the ball is above the height of the net. She didn't agree, telling me she thinks I am wrong and to please look it up. Very respectful, I said I would, but I'm 100% sure I'm right. So please tell me I'm right. *crossing fingers*

The two things to judge on a back row attack are the height of the ball (above or below) and if above, the location of the attackers feet when they leave the floor. If the ball is below, it can't be an illegal back row attack.

As for the coach telling me to "please look it up". At that point, I am either telling the coach to drop it, or pulling out the yellow card. I know the rules and I don't like being told to look it up. I find that unsportsmanlike.

[MD Longhorn]

Originally Posted by SCalScoreKeeper

burlakaUS- so when is it a back row setter?

Um... why are you asking this? Back row setter is not illegal.

Back row HITTING (i.e. a back row player hitting the ball above the net and jumping from in front of the 10 foot line) is illegal, and a back row setter can be guilty of a back row hit if other things happen...

But back row setter is not illegal, regardless of where she hits the ball. The play you describe is completely legal.

Seems like you're confusing the libero rules regarding setting with that of a normal back-row setter.