|
Post by bumpkill on Sept 16, 2013 10:40:05 GMT -5
I would also suggest that you may block the serve to combat the effectiveness of the jump serve or any serve for that matter. But you may not attack the serve.
|
|
moody
Banned
Posts: 18,679
|
Post by moody on Sept 16, 2013 11:09:03 GMT -5
RE: 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.
//////////// What does that mean?
|
|
|
Post by bumpkill on Sept 16, 2013 11:23:58 GMT -5
Setters have been given some leniency on double contacts when making an "athletic movement" (or difficult set) and the ball comes out with spin. Yes I know spin doesn't mean that there is double contact. Other players on the court have made similar moves to set a difficult set and very little to zero leniency is given. My point is why give leniency to the person whose usually performed skill is setting and making athletic movements are what they do all the time. Shouldn't the player who rarely sets the ball, but still makes an athletic move be allowed the same if not more leniency since that is not their usually performed skill? I'm sure there's an easier way to say that, but it's not happening for me at the moment. My apologies.
|
|
|
Post by mikegarrison on Sept 16, 2013 12:05:52 GMT -5
RE: 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. //////////// What does that mean? Haven't you noticed that the refs call doubles on non-setters much more stringently than they do setters? I wouldn't go as far as bumpkill does and say other players should be given more leniency than setters, but they should at least be given the same leniency.
|
|
|
Post by volleytology on Sept 16, 2013 12:25:49 GMT -5
RE: 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. //////////// What does that mean? Haven't you noticed that the refs call doubles on non-setters much more stringently than they do setters? I wouldn't go as far as bumpkill does and say other players should be given more leniency than setters, but they should at least be given the same leniency. How about collegiate players just setting the ball without mangling it ?! It's unbelievable that players of this age and experience level (regardless of position) struggle with this basic skill.
|
|
|
Post by meanmug on Sept 16, 2013 12:37:35 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. It certainly might be. What errors do you see?
|
|
moody
Banned
Posts: 18,679
|
Post by moody on Sept 16, 2013 12:39:28 GMT -5
Haven't you noticed that the refs call doubles on non-setters much more stringently than they do setters? I wouldn't go as far as bumpkill does and say other players should be given more leniency than setters, but they should at least be given the same leniency. How about collegiate players just setting the ball without mangling it ?! It's unbelievable that players of this age and experience level (regardless of position) struggle with this basic skill. Easy solution, any double contact is legal unless it is played over the net.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 16, 2013 13:58:03 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. It certainly might be. What errors do you see? In sideout scoring, serving team has to score two or more service points to win, as does the receiving team. In rally score, only the serving team needs to score two more service points; the receiving team only needs to score one more.
|
|
|
Post by VBCOACH on Sept 16, 2013 14:54:23 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. It's a distinction without a difference, and thus, irrelavant. However, the fact that, in rally-scoring, the serving team must score at least one more real point than the receiving team, was put in by the FIVB, and therefore is evil.
|
|
|
Post by meanmug on Sept 16, 2013 17:56:26 GMT -5
It certainly might be. What errors do you see? In sideout scoring, serving team has to score two or more service points to win, as does the receiving team. In rally score, only the serving team needs to score two more service points; the receiving team only needs to score one more. If you want to complete that logic, you need to include the fact that in both scoring systems, the receiving team needs to sideout one more time than the serving team in order to win. So what this means is that in rally score, in order to win by 2, you need to win two more rallies than your opponent. However, in sideout scoring, if you are the receiving team, you actually need to win 3 more rallies than your opponent. This imbalance means that in game environments where siding out is really hard, rally scoring is (slightly) more fair. In game environments where siding out is really easy, sideout scoring is (slightly) more fair. NCAA women's college volleyball happens to be right at the point where they would both be about equally fair. If my math is right that is.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 16, 2013 19:40:11 GMT -5
In sideout scoring, serving team has to score two or more service points to win, as does the receiving team. In rally score, only the serving team needs to score two more service points; the receiving team only needs to score one more. If you want to complete that logic, you need to include the fact that in both scoring systems, the receiving team needs to sideout one more time than the serving team in order to win. So what this means is that in rally score, in order to win by 2, you need to win two more rallies than your opponent. However, in sideout scoring, if you are the receiving team, you actually need to win 3 more rallies than your opponent. This imbalance means that in game environments where siding out is really hard, rally scoring is (slightly) more fair. In game environments where siding out is really easy, sideout scoring is (slightly) more fair. NCAA women's college volleyball happens to be right at the point where they would both be about equally fair. If my math is right that is. This makes no sense. Maybe I'm just dense, but I don't follow your logic. At higher levels, which includes NCAA D1, it's easier to sideout than it is to score on one's serve and that makes rally score (where one team can win by one service point and the other needs two) more unfair than sideout scoring.
|
|
|
Post by meanmug on Sept 16, 2013 22:28:00 GMT -5
Bofa, check my math. Am I way off here?
|
|