Libero setting

[gair-z]

I don't have my books with me but....
What is the call for a L setting in the Attack Zone. NFHS
L sets with finger action in attack zone to RF who attacks ball completely above height of net.
illegal hit or illegal attack? I'm leaning attack but not totally 100% positive.
Thanks!

[FMadera]

Assuming the attack was not caught, thrown, or had prolonged contact, you wouldn't have an illegal hit by rule, which leaves... ��

Also remember that you don't have an illegal attack (ever) until the attack is completed, so if the above example resulted in the ball not going over the net and not being contacted by the block, you wouldn't have an illegal attack by rule either. Your question hopefully assumes completion of said attack.

[gair-z]

Thanks for the reply.
The assumption is correct. She smashed the ball straight down.
I know its an illegal play...just dont know what the right call as a referee would be.

[FMadera]

Originally Posted by gair-z

Thanks for the reply.
The assumption is correct. She smashed the ball straight down.
I know its an illegal play...just dont know what the right call as a referee would be.

"Hit" in the rules refers to contacts, not necessarily attacks. This would be an illegal attack since the hit (the contact itself) was executed legally.

[chapmaja]

The correct ruling on this play is illegal attack. The issue with this being the correct call is that the call makes it appear as if the attacking player did something illegal (back row player in front of 10 foot line, ect), when in fact the mistake was made by the libero who set the ball.

What we have been instructed to do is signal the back row attack, then point to the libero as an indication that the fault was her setting location, rather than the actions of the attacking player.

I have made this call three times in my career, and the first time resulted in the coach being red carded for arguing (and dropping an F-bomb) about the attacking player not being a back row player and not listening to the R2 who clearly stated the set was from the libero who was at the net when she set the ball.

[FMadera]

Originally Posted by chapmaja

The correct ruling on this play is illegal attack. The issue with this being the correct call is that the call makes it appear as if the attacking player did something illegal (back row player in front of 10 foot line, ect), when in fact the mistake was made by the libero who set the ball.

What we have been instructed to do is signal the back row attack, then point to the libero as an indication that the fault was her setting location, rather than the actions of the attacking player.

Or, to play devil's advocate, the attacker needs to know what he/she can do when the libero sets the ball, particularly when the libero hand sets the first ball, which is where the majority of these violations occur.