Bra / brb
 

Don't know if this board is still being used (and, if not -- is there another that's NOT FB?), but here's a play from our association meeting last night that generated some discussion:

Back row setter A1 attempts to set a ball that's above the height of the net. The ball travels near the net. Back row B2 touches the ball that's still above the height of the net (a) before the ball enters the plane of the net; (b) while the ball is in the plane of the net; (c) after the ball completely crosses the plane of the net. Ruling?

Assuming that the back row setter contacted the ball while on or in front of the attack line AND the blocker on team B is a front row player;

a. If a player on team A still has an opportunity to play the ball, it is interference (aka 'reaching over') by the Team B blocker. If no one on team A would have a legitimate chance to play the ball (in the judgement of the R1), it would be a play-on.

b. and c. Illegal back row attack on the setter.

If team B blocker is a back row player;

a. and b. Illegal back row block on team B

c. Illegal back row attack on team A. Once the ball completely crosses the plane of the net, the ball is dead due to the b.r.a.

Just curious - what did the discussion at your association meeting center around? Seems like a fairly cut and dried situation made simple by the fact that both of players you highlighted were back row. Given your scenario, it would be illegal attack by Team A if and when the ball is legally contacted by Team B or hits the floor on Team B's side. If the ball is not legally contacted by Team B (a. and b. in your scenario) then Team B is penalized for an illegal block. Illegal attack on Team A in c. A smart Team B will just let the ball go (assuming they realize the Team A setter is back row).

The discussion centered around play (b) -- double violation or BRA or BRB?

9-5-5 Note says it's an illegal attack when the ball is "contacted" (not "legally contacted") and 9-4-4b says the ball has crossed the net when its' "partially over the net and is contacted..." (again, no "legally").

On giving Situation "b" further consideration and reviewing NFHS rule book and case book, I believe the correct ruling would be double fault, replay. The attack was illegal but the fault is not called until the ball is contacted. If the contact is also illegal then there is a double fault (simultaneous faults by opposing teams) during a live ball - double fault, replay.

From 2020-2021 Case Book and Officials Manual - 9.5.5 NOTE SITUATION E, COMMENT: "An illegal back-row attack shall not be called until the ball has completely crossed the net or is legally blocked by the opponent."

Yep -- more confusion; thus the discussion.

Is this the Federation rule? The ball has to be touched or hit the floor to be a completed attack hit? I thought it was a completed attack when the ball completely crossed the plane of the net.

Correct - contacted or cross the net. When BRA situations happen, I try to have a "patient" whistle to make sure I mentally process everything correctly. My mechanic is to wait an extra split-second and let the ball hit the floor if it is not going to be contacted. You are correct, though - my mechanic does not equal the definition and I should have been more clear on that.

Understood. Thanks for the clarification.