Missed this one yesterday

[Andy]

HS V game.

Team S setter is in the back row, she is up near the net waiting for a pass from her teammate. The pass is long and goes over the net. Team R player jumps and hits the ball down into the Team S setter. Setter is facing the net with her hands about at the height of her head, she does not jump and her hands were not above the top of the net. The ball rebounds up off of her hands, then she is the first to contact the ball.

I believe this should have been called a double contact, am I right?

[outathm]

Yes

[FMadera]

Originally Posted by Andy

HS V game.

Team S setter is in the back row, she is up near the net waiting for a pass from her teammate. The pass is long and goes over the net. Team R player jumps and hits the ball down into the Team S setter. Setter is facing the net with her hands about at the height of her head, she does not jump and her hands were not above the top of the net. The ball rebounds up off of her hands, then she is the first to contact the ball.

I believe this should have been called a double contact, am I right?

Yes, as it was successive contacts. If you were going to call the first contact a block, then you would have had an illegal block. In either case, a fault should have been whistled.

[DaveASA/FED]

As mentioned you should have had something on this one. Don't feel bad I missed one last week similar situation bad pass setter went up to get as it entered plane of the net blocker sent it back into back row setters hands which were over the height of the net. Should have been a back row block by rule I know this NOW as I looked it up afte the game I was worried about illegal back row attack and talked myself out of it since setter was not attacking the ball but trying to set it back to her side.... Totally missed the part if she's above the net and blocker legally sends ball into her it's a back row block. I learned something which as you know Andy with my thick skull it's hard to get much through it

[FMadera]

Originally Posted by DaveASA/FED

I was worried about illegal back row attack and talked myself out of it since setter was not attacking the ball but trying to set it back to her side....

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

[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?

[Andy]

Originally Posted by FMadera

Yes, as it was successive contacts. If you were going to call the first contact a block, then you would have had an illegal block. In either case, a fault should have been whistled.

This was exactly my line of thinking after the fact.

Just came here for a second opinion. My partner was one of those guys that wouldn't know a back row fault if the the player announced it to him....

[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.