Illegal attack - libero set
 

NFHS, Ohio situation. In a high school match last night, I had an illegal attack call due to a libero setting in front of the 10' line for an attack that was completed above the height of the net. It wasn't a typical 2-handed set but rather a defensive action that resulted from a hard-driven ball being directed toward the libero's face. She instinctively threw up her hand in front of her face but not above her head. The ball went off her one hand, up in the air and the left side hitter killed it. Of course, one coach agreed with the illegal attack call and other argued that she was just defending herself.

NFHS rule book references "overhead" finger action and the case book references "overhand" finger action as not being legal by the libero on or in front of the 10' line for attacks that are completed above the height of the net. Has anyone else 1) ever had an illegal attack call for a setter that was one-handed and defensive in nature as opposed to offensive, and 2) had any situations where finger action was overhanded (as differentiated from underhanded) but not overhead?

Can't speak for everybody ;) but I have not.

Not that I can recall.

Having answered your questions directly (and utterly unhelpfully), I mostly wanted to say that I have a hard time picturing a defensive, one handed contact that includes finger action. I doubt you have a clip, but it would be interesting to see the play.

Agreed on all of this. I can't picture the above play involving finger action. Just because the hands were involved doesn't automatically make it finger action, even if it contacts the fingers.

1) Impossible (by rule) to have an illegal attack given this description. I think there are NFHS and NCAA case plays or interps on this.

2) Yes -- sometimes the setter uses a "deep dish" set that would be finger action but not overhead. It's harder to do this without it being prolonged contact, but it happens with some regularity.

fast forward to 30:25
 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6Bx1Eemczxc

Forward to 30:25. Is this a Back Row attack violation?
Libero is in front of the attack line. Contacts the ball with 2 hands over the head. The next resulting hit is attacked from above the net into the opponents side of the net

I'd support the call.

BTW... that was me last year. The play surprised me. But I was awake and realized the infraction.
Thanks for the support.
So to answer the question in the original post. Yes, the 2 hand set by the libero inside the attack line because she is basically in a defensive mode

Let me expand -- I'd support the call because I do NOT think the L was i=just reacting defensively to the ball. I think she had time to determine that she would play the ball up and toward the net.

Others might interpret her actions differently, and the determination might depend on the level.

(Part of the problem might be that "set" does not seem to be a defined term in the rules).

That one looks like a no-brainer. Not sure what the offending team was questioning.

I am working on getting the clip and will try to share it on here if I can figure that out. I haven't shared photos or video on this forum so I will have to figure that out.

After the play happened, I went to the NFHS case book to try and find a definition of "set" as well as a case book example. I couldn't find either. Had never really thought about defining "set" before. I just know it when I see it:)

Except I wouldn't call that a defensive reaction, which usually looks like flat hands. She's just setting the first ball. Easy call.

This was just posted on the NCAA portal on RQ+:

NCAA Women’s Volleyball
Libero Overhand Finger Pass
Date: October 6, 2023
Rule: 12.1.2.4
Question:
I was R1 on a match where this play happened. The libero overhand finger passed the ball to a teammate who then attacked the ball over when the ball was completely higher than the top of the net. My judgement on the play was that it was a defensive movement/reaction, and I did not whistle a fault. However, my partner did not agree with my interpretation of the rule. Since then, we have been asking other high-level referees from around the country in an effort to find clarity. The result of these questions have led me to believe that there is ABSOLUTELY NOT a clear consensus, as some believe that there is no judgment to be had in this situation, and any overhand finger pass in this situation is a fault. I've been trying to find a rules interp from previous seasons which addresses this situation, but I have not been successful. What is the correct interpretation/ruling?

Answer:
Rule 12.1.2.4 applies in this situation. A teammate may not complete an attack-hit when, at the moment of the attack-hit, the ball is entirely above the of the net and the ball is coming from an overhand finger pass by the libero in the front zone. In this play, the libero used an overhand finger pass and thus a fault should have been whistled for an illegal attack.

An overhand finger pass is when the libero uses fingers to play the ball, and there are currently no exceptions that allow certain “types” of finger passes to be used by a libero in the front zone. A defensive, reactionary, protective action where fingers are not used (such as the ball being played with the sides of the hands or palms of the hands) would not be considered a finger pass.

The clip shown in this link is unquestionably a violation. That was definitely not a contact with the heel of the hand. It was a set.

Same link, but with embedded time stamp:
https://www.youtube.com/live/6Bx1Eem...C_Sga-q&t=1824

R1 did a nice job to catch that.