|
Post by The Bofa on the Sofa on Sept 14, 2013 8:32:03 GMT -5
***Besides, I love the challenge of the losing team having to serve - it creates a really tough strategy question, do we serve sufficiently conservatively to avoid the error? Or do we serve tough and maximize our chances of scoring? (actually, in real life the question isn't really that tough, because the answer is obvious, but you'd be amazed at how many people think they should not choose the best strategy for scoring in that situation) I'm interested to hear the "obvious" answer here, since it really is pretty dependent on your team and the exact situation. No, it's not (note how I worded it very carefully on purpose) Find an example. Go ahead. If it is such a serious issue, it should be trivial to come up with examples of it. You show me where it i has happened (and not in your rec league) and I'll admit it has happened. I don't think you are going to find an example of it (no one has that much time on their hands), but if you do, then I'll admit you found an example. However, that doesn't make it a problem, and you will not find anything to make it a problem. Because it clearly isn't, it's Ruffda's worst case possible scenario, that's all.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 14, 2013 10:24:06 GMT -5
I don't know if this is mike's point, but the receiving team only needs to win by one service point in rally score. Maybe not a big deal to 25, but to 15 it is. No, it's not a "big deal" in a set to 15. That's because it never happens. In all the years you have been complaining about this, has there been a single example of it happening. I don't think so. It's not a problem. It happens all the time! Not sure what you're saying here unless you think I'm talking about 1-0 games. I'm talking about ANY one point game -- 4-3, 7-6, whatever. This happens all the time. The receiving team only has to score one more serving point than the serving team. The serving team has to score two more. There can't be a clearer case of an unfair scoring system than that. I don't lose sleep over it, mind you. But it's there. (And why the coin toss winner should always choose to receive, at higher levels of play.)
|
|
|
Post by The Bofa on the Sofa on Sept 14, 2013 10:33:19 GMT -5
No, it's not a "big deal" in a set to 15. That's because it never happens. In all the years you have been complaining about this, has there been a single example of it happening. I don't think so. It's not a problem. It happens all the time! Not sure what you're saying here unless you think I'm talking about 1-0 games. I'm talking about ANY one point game -- 4-3, 7-6, whatever. This happens all the time. The receiving team only has to score one more serving point than the serving team. The serving team has to score two more. But doesn't this also apply to sets to 25? I guess I don't understand your distinction.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 14, 2013 13:07:26 GMT -5
In case you missed this ...
If you didn't and are just wondering why I said maybe not to 25, it's just that I think 2-1, 3-2, 4-3 is even less fair than 11-10 or whatever. Yes, it's not really fair either way, but at least to 25 you have more time to overcome it -- and it's not the deciding game of a 5-game match.
It's just the way the game is, with rally score. But it's an inherent flaw in rally-scoring, in my opinion.
You know what I'd like to see? 5th game to 5, win by 2, with sideout scoring. I think that'd be a nice homage to the old scoring system, more fair, and more dramatic.
|
|
|
Post by meanmug on Sept 14, 2013 20:40:05 GMT -5
Actually, the coin flip is a bigger advantage in sideout scoring than it is in rally scoring. It's a small (to the point of being negligible) difference, but technically from a mathematical perspective it is a bigger advantage to start serving in sideout scoring than it is to start receiving in rally score. So rally score actually makes 5th games ever so slightly more fair.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 14, 2013 20:48:29 GMT -5
I don't know how that's possible.
|
|
|
Post by VBCOACH on Sept 14, 2013 23:38:23 GMT -5
Actually, the coin flip is a bigger advantage in sideout scoring than it is in rally scoring. It's a small (to the point of being negligible) difference, but technically from a mathematical perspective it is a bigger advantage to start serving in sideout scoring than it is to start receiving in rally score. So rally score actually makes 5th games ever so slightly more fair. You got some evidence about this?
|
|
|
Post by meanmug on Sept 14, 2013 23:47:12 GMT -5
Think about it like this: what are your chances of getting a 1-0 lead in sideout scoring? Well think about how it can happen: (1) You score on your first serve (2) Your opponent sides out, then you side out, then you score on your second serve. (3) Your opponent sides out, then you side out, then your opponent sides out, then you side out, then you score on your third serve. (4) And so on.
If we say the sideout percentage at this level is X, then your "chance of scoring on serve" is: (1-X). So then we can rephrase those situations as: (1) Zero sideouts before a point-score: X^0 * (1-X) (2) Two sideouts, then a point-score: X^2 * (1-X) (3) Four sideouts, then a point-score: X^4 * (1-X)
So basically it's an infinite series where you add up all the even terms to get the serving team's chance of scoring first and all the odd terms to get the receiving team's chance of scoring first.
Plug in 60% (a reasonable number for sideout between two evenly matched teams in women's college volleyball) as the sideout number and it seems the serving team in a sideout scoring game has a 62% chance of scoring the first point. So in this case, sideout scoring is slightly more "unfair", meaning it gives a little extra bonus to the team that wins the coin toss. Of course, that's a fairly negligible bonus, because we are only talking about 2% of one point or a 0.02 point bonus. As the sideout% climbs higher, it tilts more toward rally being more unfair. The break-even point is about 62%, where they are both "equally fair" (or unfair, depending on your perspective), and anything over that and rally scoring becomes slightly more unfair.
So I think it's certainly reasonable to say that rally scoring does not make 5th games any more "unfair" in the sense of the team who wins the flip gaining more of an advantage in one system than the other.
Also, as Bofa mentioned, the doomsday scenario of the receiving team winning a 5th game 15-13 while only scoring 1 "real" point is so unlikely that I would bet it's never happened in women's college volleyball.
|
|
|
Post by ironhammer on Sept 15, 2013 5:51:53 GMT -5
If the rationale for the 21 point system is to shorten the match duration to make it more "TV friendly", then I really don't get it. Indoor volleyball hardly has the longest match time for group sports. Take soccer for example. If you add in the 30 mins half-time, it's a total of 120 mins (usually more if you add in injury time), comparable to a five-set match for volleyball. And baseball matches can go 3 hours+ if it goes to the ninth inning. And do I need to mention cricket? Baring the 20/20 version, normal cricket matches can last the entire day.
|
|
|
Post by ironhammer on Sept 15, 2013 5:59:27 GMT -5
By the way, FIVB is looking at potentially messing with more than just the scoring. You can read about them and some of the opinions going around in this article (which links to a few others). I wonder if the FIVB is ever held accountable for their decisions? Nope, like so many international sporting federations, FIVB aren't run by the athletes themselves but bureaucrats who creased the palms of certain influential people to get their positions. So they operate with a certain degree of impunity from outside scrutiny. Is it any wonder then they will come up with absurd suggestions?
|
|
|
Post by mikegarrison on Sept 15, 2013 7:53:13 GMT -5
What is the purpose of "win by two"? I can only think of three reasons:
1) As a skill challenge that makes it harder for a team to close out a game. 2) A (misguided) attempt to account for the fact that one team started in an advantageous serving position. 3) Something to excite fans by making it more likely that the trailing team might have a chance to stave off defeat.
I like the idea of "must win on a serve" more than "must win by two" because:
1) It's a more pure skill challenge 2) No effect 3) It would be more exciting, as the trailing team crept back into it, sideout by sideout.
(Item 2 is a complete red herring anyway, and this change wouldn't affect the initial serving advantage either way. Whether you have to win by one, win by two, win by three, or win by 50, the starting advantage is unchanged. If it's easier to win by one because of how you started the set, it's exactly the same amount easier to win by two.)
Bofa is coming at this from the viewpoint that the rules should be oriented toward making the game more deterministic. That means the best team should win as often as possible. But that's counter to the "on any given Sunday" idea that sports should be unpredictable in order to be exciting. By introducing a skill-based factor that makes it more likely that the trailing team could catch up, it would make those 23-19 endgames more tense. And in the 24-24 sets, it would mean that every point was set point for one team or the other. With win-by-two, any time the score is tied there is no set point in play. Sure, it might be argued that this extends the set and gives us more volleyball, but I think there is a quality over quantity argument that says having a set point on every serve is "more volleyball" than only having a set point on every other serve.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 16, 2013 8:30:40 GMT -5
Does anyone else think meanmug's math is seriously flawed?
The point of winning by two in sideout scoring, mike, is that a team cannot lose without having a chance to run their offense. This has been taken out of rally-scoring AND a team can win by one service point.
|
|
moody
Banned
Posts: 18,679
|
Post by moody on Sept 16, 2013 9:26:56 GMT -5
Here's an idea. If you want to make volleyball more "TV friendly" PUT IT ON TV!!!!!!!!
|
|
|
Post by garnet04 on Sept 16, 2013 9:50:08 GMT -5
While I really enjoy all the analytical posts, This is anecdotal:
It seems to me the "better" team has a higher probablity of winning a 25 vs 15 pt match. So often, the teams play hard for a long time, the sets are tied, then one team starts the last set to 15, gets a couple of lucky let serves or other bad breaks, the score is 6-1 and match over because there is not enough time to catch up.
I think the last set should be to 25. Anyone agree?
|
|
|
Post by bumpkill on Sept 16, 2013 10:26:57 GMT -5
Require servers to land behind the end line DOESN'T AFFECT WOMEN'S GAME AS MUCH AS MEN'S GAME Back row attackers must land behind the 3-meter or 10-foot line I LIKEY AND SEE ABOVE I THOUGHT THERE WAS ONLY ONE LINE DOWN THERE AND ITS A 3 METER IN MY GYM Eliminate open-hand tip I LIKEY - Violators of the rule get slapped with an open hand Eliminate overhead serve receive serve MY PLAYERS WOULD NO LIKEY AND I WOULD STILL ASK THEM TO MOVE THEIR FEET TO NO AVAIL Penalties for a missed serve THAT'S CALLED A POINT FOR THE OTHER TEAM Free substitution – any player can sub for any player at any time I LIKEY Any contact with the center line is a violation *add with anything other than the foot* I REALLY REALLY LIKEY Any net touch by an athlete is a violation I REALLY REALLY LIKEY Decrease the number of points per set NO LIKEY
Can we also add that Overhead setting motion by someone other than the setter AND WHILE MAKING AN ATHLETIC PLAY OR MOVEMENT isn't automatically a double contact? If anything, I would think that someone other than the setter making an athletic play/move to set the ball should at least get the same LENIENCY and maybe even a golf clap from the R1.
|
|