Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 17, 2014 13:56:35 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by tomclen on Sept 17, 2014 14:01:46 GMT -5
If the women's college game reduces sets to 21 points, I may stop spending money to attend games.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 17, 2014 14:08:24 GMT -5
Best 3 out of 5 with games to 21 is asinine. There are too many matches clocking in at around one hour as it is.
Volleyball. The only sport where the people in charge love it so much they want to provide less of it.
|
|
|
Post by volleyjeep on Sept 17, 2014 14:16:17 GMT -5
Horrible ideas... just horrible. Those people seem to have lost touch with the reality of what has made volleyball so great. If there was any change to the rules it should be to bring back side-out scoring.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 17, 2014 14:21:42 GMT -5
They aren't ALL bad ideas. The jump serve and the backrow attack have become problematic. The centerline and net rules are also in need of something.
The real problem, however, is that they don't seem to have any clue that it is their constant rule changes that are creating the NEW problems. The fixes just make things worse.
|
|
|
Post by mikegarrison on Sept 17, 2014 14:32:15 GMT -5
I'm still annoyed that they changed "game" to "set".
I like the "can't touch the net at all" and "can't cross the line at all" rules. I know people complain that these calls disrupt the flow of the game, but I think they add to the level of skill required to play at the net. I think the NCAA, with their tighter net rule, has it right in this case.
I didn't like going from 30 to 25 points when the NCAA made that change, but I have to admit that 25 points seems OK now.
Instead of having some sort of penalty for lots of service errors, maybe we could reward strong serving, like maybe making a rule that you can only score a point when your team has the serve. That would be an interesting experiment.
What does it mean that any player could substitute for any other player? Why not just not rotate, then? That would be the same thing.
I think back row attacks are OK. I don't see why they should make a rule that restricts them more than they are already restricted. Is this rule proposal really aimed at men's VB?
In fact, several of these seem to be aimed at trying to help out the defense, which makes me wonder how many are aimed at the men more than the women.
|
|
|
Post by bc1900 on Sept 17, 2014 14:32:30 GMT -5
Too bad they're not considering changing the stupidest rule of all, the out of rotation violation.
I do like the no open hand tip change; too many catch/throw attacks go uncalled.
Penalty for missed serve? Isn't there already a penalty for that, namely that you lose the point?
|
|
|
Post by mikegarrison on Sept 17, 2014 14:37:38 GMT -5
Too bad they're not considering changing the stupidest rule of all, the out of rotation violation. I do like the no open hand tip change; too many catch/throw attacks go uncalled. Penalty for missed serve? Isn't there already a penalty for that, namely that you lose the point? What really needs to be cracked down on is setters throwing the ball to the floor and everybody accepting it because it was the setter. Seems like at least half the setter dumps would be instantly whistled if it were a hitter making the same attack.
|
|
|
Post by nothingbutcorn on Sept 17, 2014 14:54:55 GMT -5
I would really like to see a limit on setter dumps. Some setters think the are hitters as much as the send the ball over.
|
|
|
Post by mikegarrison on Sept 17, 2014 14:57:02 GMT -5
I would really like to see a limit on setter dumps. Some setters think the are hitters as much as the send the ball over. That's fine with me, as long as they are subject to the same ball-handling rules as the hitters. What I don't like is that they get away with stuff hitters would not be allowed to do.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 17, 2014 15:01:35 GMT -5
I love how first they want to reduce points in order to reduce match time, but then attempt to introduce 30 new rules that would increase the number of volleys/increase the length of time for each point played. (Trying to reduce service errors which would lead to more time per point; trying to give the block and defense less to worry about, giving them a better chance to get to the ball to keep it in play; narrow the court in order to give the defense a better chance to keep the ball in play; leave libero on court in order to have best passer/defender in play to keep ball in play, etc.)
|
|
|
Post by mikegarrison on Sept 17, 2014 15:04:50 GMT -5
I love how first they want to reduce points in order to reduce match time, but then attempt to introduce 30 new rules that would increase the number of volleys. (Trying to reduce service errors which would lead to more time per point; trying to give the block and defense less to worry about, giving them a better chance to get to the ball to keep it in play; narrow the court in order to give the defense a better chance to keep the ball in play; leave libero on court in order to have best passer/defender in play to keep ball in play, etc.) Hey, I know. They could shrink the size of the court and get rid of four of the players from each side, so you had two-on-two in a smaller court. And then you could shorten the sets to 21 points. Maybe you could also cut things down from 3-of-5 to 2-of-3. What would that be like?
|
|
|
Post by oshkoshdadmjs on Sept 17, 2014 15:24:52 GMT -5
A lot of these won't affect the women's game too much, but will drastically alter the men's game to look more like the women's. FIVB and USAV want to grow the men's game but it's pretty hard when every single point is an ace, kill, or block. They hate the jump serve, how good men pass overhead, and how effective the backrow attack is which means that its 4 hitters on 3 blockers out of every single serve receive. I'm not a huge fan of any of these rules being implemented and I really dislike the no touching the net and no touching the middle line. There really isn't any tactical advantage gained by being able to touch the middle of net or the center line, it just continues rallies, which I thought was a good thing.
Also, if the likelihoods Hugh gave are true, then I see some real problems with making servers land behind the line in combination with still allowing overhead serve receive. I feel like they're kind of a packaged deal.
|
|
|
Post by mikegarrison on Sept 17, 2014 15:34:55 GMT -5
I really dislike the no touching the net and no touching the middle line. There really isn't any tactical advantage gained by being able to touch the middle of net or the center line, it just continues rallies, which I thought was a good thing. Yes there is. Having to avoid touching the net or crossing the line limits what the hitter can do, and removing those limitations provides a tactical advantage.
|
|
|
Post by Not Me on Sept 17, 2014 15:37:13 GMT -5
not sure why USAV decided to promote an article that is over a year old. Is the FIVB about to vote on these rules?
|
|