Missed this one yesterday

[DaveASA/FED]

Originally Posted by FMadera

...which really isn't the criteria you'd use to determine an illegal attack...

Ok enlighten me. How can it be an attack if the offensive player wasn't directing the ball toward the other court? If I look at 5.1b I see:
"Attack — Any action other than a block or a serve that directs the ball toward the opponent's court. A team's third hit is always considered an attack. A completed attack occurs the instant the ball completely crosses the vertical plane of the net, or is legally contacted."

So if her action was to direct the ball away from the other teams court and it was only that teams second hit, how could it be considered an attack? Again I'm trying to learn here, my thought is if it isn't an attack by definition then it couldn't be an illegal back row attack. What am I missing?

[FMadera]

Originally Posted by DaveASA/FED

Ok enlighten me. How can it be an attack if the offensive player wasn't directing the ball toward the other court? If I look at 5.1b I see:
"Attack — Any action other than a block or a serve that directs the ball toward the opponent's court. A team's third hit is always considered an attack. A completed attack occurs the instant the ball completely crosses the vertical plane of the net, or is legally contacted."

So if her action was to direct the ball away from the other teams court and it was only that teams second hit, how could it be considered an attack? Again I'm trying to learn here, my thought is if it isn't an attack by definition then it couldn't be an illegal back row attack. What am I missing?

For example, if the ball were in the plane of the net when contacted by her, then legally contacted by the blocker, regardless of her intent, it would be a completed attack, and thus, illegal by rule. Intent is not the consideration here, and shouldn't be the determining factor.

[blueump]

Originally Posted by FMadera

regardless of her intent, it would be a completed attack, and thus, illegal by rule. Intent is not the consideration here, and shouldn't be the determining factor.

Exactly! Call the ball and the action, not what the player is TRYING to do.

Had this same exact call the other night myself. Back row setter tried to go up to save an overpass above and over the plane of the net and the ball was hit back into her hands. I know what she wanted to do, but it had no bearing on what really happened. Back row block - period!

[DaveASA/FED]

Originally Posted by FMadera

For example, if the ball were in the plane of the net when contacted by her, then legally contacted by the blocker, regardless of her intent, it would be a completed attack, and thus, illegal by rule. Intent is not the consideration here, and shouldn't be the determining factor.

I see what you are saying, if the ball is still moving forward as she touched it and it's then contacted it's an attack regardless of intent. My case the setter hadn't contacted it yet, so no attack....but as I admitted should have been a back row block.