|
Post by WI FIB on Sept 17, 2014 15:40:21 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. They also limit what the blockers can do as well.
|
|
|
Post by goodtobeagator on Sept 17, 2014 15:41:11 GMT -5
Aside from the center line proposal, which I think just makes sense for safety, I don't like a single recommendation.
May as well make it 8 on 8 if you want more rallies.
Really bad proposals.
|
|
|
Post by jayj79 on Sept 17, 2014 15:42:05 GMT -5
They aren't ALL bad ideas. The jump serve and the backrow attack have become problematic. Just like the forward pass has become problematic in football.
|
|
|
Post by oshkoshdadmjs on Sept 17, 2014 15:42:55 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. The limits are so minimal. You still cant touch the tape, which is (hopefully) below where the hitter is swinging. If anything it allows blockers to go after the ball more aggressively and not worry about their chest grazing the net on the way down or their feet touching the center line. But that's always after the clean block has been attempted. The rule allows for plays that, in reality, don't really give any large advantage to either team which used to completely stop play and award a point.
|
|
|
Post by jayj79 on Sept 17, 2014 15:46:18 GMT -5
Too bad they're not considering changing the stupidest rule of all, the out of rotation violation. I agree. I'm fine with having a rotation, and having front row and back row positions with the limitations on the back row. But I don't see the point in requiring each player to be standing in a certain spot at the serve. unless you're referring to something else. I get confused at some of the terminology.
|
|
|
Post by oshkoshdadmjs on Sept 17, 2014 15:50:32 GMT -5
I've also always been a proponent of the "let the boys play" mentality. In this case girls too.
These nit picky limitations are what turns people off to the game because they can't just sit down and understand what's happening right away. There is already so much technical knowledge needed to understand what exactly is going on compared to other sports.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 17, 2014 15:50:55 GMT -5
They aren't ALL bad ideas. The jump serve and the backrow attack have become problematic. Just like the forward pass has become problematic in football. Not sure how serious you are, but football is actually a good example of what can go wrong -- and the evolution of the passing game in particular. Tinkering isn't always the best course of action.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 17, 2014 15:53:37 GMT -5
I've also always been a proponent of the "let the boys play" mentality. In this case girls too. These nit picky limitations are what turns people off to the game because they can't just sit down and understand what's happening right away. There is already so much technical knowledge needed to understand what exactly is going on compared to other sports. Not sure I agree with this. Football and baseball have it all over volleyball. The problem is that the FIVB seems to have, as its guiding principle, "Something is wrong with our sport."
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 17, 2014 15:58:01 GMT -5
^That "something is wrong with our sport" guiding principle has completely ruined elite gymnastics. It's sad that it's ruining my other favorite sport, too.
|
|
|
Post by SportyBucky on Sept 17, 2014 16:07:00 GMT -5
I truly hope they clear up the net violation rules between the three VB orgs. (FIVB, USAV, NCAA). Come on now!
|
|
|
Post by redbeard2008 on Sept 17, 2014 16:09:26 GMT -5
If they want to help the defense and prolong rallies, why not just raise the net?
Cutting points to 21 would lead to 45-minute (or shorter) matches in many instances. Will hurt attendance - would you drive in from the suburbs (90 minutes drive-time) for just 45 minutes of volleyball?
|
|
|
Post by MTC on Sept 17, 2014 16:35:39 GMT -5
I certainly hope not, the refs would have to be calling more penalties and turning fans off.
|
|
|
Post by bc1900 on Sept 17, 2014 17:11:50 GMT -5
If they want to help the defense and prolong rallies, why not just raise the net? Cutting points to 21 would lead to 45-minute (or shorter) matches in many instances. Will hurt attendance - would you drive in from the suburbs (90 minutes drive-time) for just 45 minutes of volleyball? Exactly. If the "problem" with the men's game is that kills come too easily, just raise the net to 9 ft. The front row hitters should still be able to hit down, but not as easily, and that would seriously slow down back row attacks and jump serves.
|
|
|
Post by rogero1 on Sept 17, 2014 19:50:04 GMT -5
Just raise the net to 11'. You want rallies? It will look like one of these 14's matches with down balls over the net by the libero as a primary weapon.
|
|
|
Post by royhobbs on Sept 17, 2014 21:20:27 GMT -5
I got it... take away the libero, limit substitutions, and force the middles to pass... Passing will struggle, which will result in fewer first ball kills and longer rallies...
|
|