The Official Forum  

Go Back   The Official Forum > Volleyball
Register FAQ Community Calendar Today's Posts Search

Reply
 
LinkBack Thread Tools Rate Thread Display Modes
  #1 (permalink)  
Old Fri Sep 29, 2023, 10:02am
Official Forum Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2017
Posts: 61
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?
Reply With Quote
  #2 (permalink)  
Old Fri Sep 29, 2023, 11:21am
Lighten up, Francis.
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Posts: 4,673
Quote:
Originally Posted by genetoy71 View Post
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.

Quote:
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.
Reply With Quote
  #3 (permalink)  
Old Fri Sep 29, 2023, 11:25am
Official Forum Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: Janesville, WI
Posts: 754
Send a message via ICQ to FMadera Send a message via AIM to FMadera Send a message via Yahoo to FMadera
Quote:
Originally Posted by Scrapper1 View Post
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.
__________________
Felix A. Madera
USAV Indoor National / Beach Zonal Referee
FIVB Qualified International Scorer
PAVO National Referee / Certified Line Judge/Scorer
WIAA/IHSA Volleyball Referee
Reply With Quote
  #4 (permalink)  
Old Fri Sep 29, 2023, 01:05pm
Official Forum Member
 
Join Date: Aug 1999
Posts: 18,139
Quote:
Originally Posted by genetoy71 View Post
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.
Reply With Quote
  #5 (permalink)  
Old Fri Sep 29, 2023, 02:29pm
Official Forum Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: St. Louis, Missouri
Posts: 832
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
Reply With Quote
  #6 (permalink)  
Old Fri Sep 29, 2023, 07:38pm
Official Forum Member
 
Join Date: Aug 1999
Posts: 18,139
Quote:
Originally Posted by Zoochy View Post
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.
Reply With Quote
  #7 (permalink)  
Old Fri Sep 29, 2023, 11:03pm
Official Forum Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: St. Louis, Missouri
Posts: 832
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
Reply With Quote
  #8 (permalink)  
Old Sat Sep 30, 2023, 07:00am
Official Forum Member
 
Join Date: Aug 1999
Posts: 18,139
Quote:
Originally Posted by Zoochy View Post
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).
Reply With Quote
  #9 (permalink)  
Old Mon Oct 02, 2023, 07:32am
Official Forum Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2017
Posts: 61
Quote:
Originally Posted by Zoochy View Post
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.
Reply With Quote
  #10 (permalink)  
Old Mon Oct 02, 2023, 07:35am
Official Forum Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2017
Posts: 61
Quote:
Originally Posted by Scrapper1 View Post
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.
Reply With Quote
  #11 (permalink)  
Old Mon Oct 02, 2023, 07:38am
Official Forum Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2017
Posts: 61
Quote:
Originally Posted by bob jenkins View Post
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
Reply With Quote
  #12 (permalink)  
Old Wed Oct 04, 2023, 10:10am
Official Forum Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: Janesville, WI
Posts: 754
Send a message via ICQ to FMadera Send a message via AIM to FMadera Send a message via Yahoo to FMadera
Quote:
Originally Posted by Zoochy View Post
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.
__________________
Felix A. Madera
USAV Indoor National / Beach Zonal Referee
FIVB Qualified International Scorer
PAVO National Referee / Certified Line Judge/Scorer
WIAA/IHSA Volleyball Referee
Reply With Quote
  #13 (permalink)  
Old Tue Oct 10, 2023, 07:31am
Official Forum Member
 
Join Date: Aug 1999
Posts: 18,139
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.
Reply With Quote
  #14 (permalink)  
Old Fri Oct 20, 2023, 09:15pm
Official Forum Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2001
Posts: 99
Arrow

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.
Reply With Quote
Reply

Bookmarks


Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is On
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are On


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Illegal back row attack Raybo Volleyball 2 Mon Oct 05, 2015 12:11am
Illegal player...libero oldsetter Volleyball 13 Wed May 14, 2014 11:01pm
Illegal Libero Replacement blueump Volleyball 4 Wed Oct 05, 2011 03:38pm
Libero Back Row Attack? illiniwek8 Volleyball 2 Sun Sep 12, 2010 07:45pm
Libero attack / attack over the net DaveASA/FED Volleyball 2 Fri Oct 13, 2006 08:03am


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 04:08am.



Search Engine Friendly URLs by vBSEO 3.3.0 RC1