couple situations to check on

[FMadera]

Originally Posted by SCalScoreKeeper

burlakaUS- so when is it a back row setter? setter from the back row tips a ball that is completely above the height of the net? back row setter sets the ball from in front of the 10 foot line above the height of the net?

Same as any back row player completing an illegal attack...back row player completes an attack contacted entirely above the net while in the attack zone.

The OP made an incorrect decision as the back row player was not the one who completed the attack.

[refinks]

Sorry guys, haven't been back to check in for a few days, but I'm totally confused. Let me run the situation by you one more time, because I feel like I'm getting conflicting answers. In situation 2, the setter started in the back row, came in front of the 10 foot line, jumped to quick set the ball which was entirely above the height of the net, and very shortly thereafter, another player jumped to spike the ball which was entirely above the net. My understanding of the rule is once the ball completely crosses the net, the attack is completed. Because of this, I call an illegal back row attack. Maybe I'm misreading the posts, but it seems like some of you are saying I was correct, while others say I was incorrect.

Maybe it would help if I had a rules reference to the play in question and I could look up the rule, because I'm just as confused, and I've gotten no help from the officials I know locally, who seem to be just as conflicted.

[dshauver]

I'll try to simplify for you reflinks....
-If the jump set by the back row setter, on or in front of the attack line with the ball above the height of the net at time of set, crosses the net, that is a Back Row Attack.
-If that same jump set is then followed by contact by another player on their team to complete the attack, that is legal, as long as the attacker is a front row player.
Keep in mind who it is that completes the attack.
*The Libero setting can make things more complicated, but I wont mention in this post as that does not apply with your situation.
***From the Case Book:
9.5.4 SITUATION A:
The RB on Team R, while positioned in front of the attack line, attempts to contact the ball. At the point of contact, RB and the ball are higher than the net. The RB a) directs the ball toward a teammate; b) uses a fist in an attempt to save the ball but accidently directs the ball toward the opponent.
RULING: a) legal and play continues; b) illegal.
COMMENT: A back-row player cannot complete an attack while above the net.

Does that help you out?

[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

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.