Illegal attack - libero set

[genetoy71]

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?

[Scrapper1]

Originally Posted by genetoy71

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,

Can't speak for everybody but I have not.

and 2) had any situations where finger action was overhanded (as differentiated from underhanded) but not overhead?

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.

[FMadera]

Originally Posted by Scrapper1

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.

[genetoy71]

Originally Posted by Scrapper1

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.

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.

[bob jenkins]

Originally Posted by genetoy71

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?

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.

[Zoochy]

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

[bob jenkins]

Originally Posted by Zoochy

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.

[Zoochy]

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

[bob jenkins]

Originally Posted by Zoochy

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).

[FMadera]

Originally Posted by Zoochy

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

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

[genetoy71]

Originally Posted by Zoochy

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

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

[genetoy71]

Originally Posted by bob jenkins

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.

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