|
Post by n00b on Apr 17, 2019 10:00:25 GMT -5
I really wish people would stop trying to get rid of the double call. Have we no integrity? Are we that feeble,desperate and weak to please the spectators? Do we have to ruin the intricacies of this great sport, just so we get 10 more fans to watch ESPN 1 night a year? How many people fully understand holding in football, or offsides in soccer? Can't we accept that there are aspects of every sport that make them each great, and difficult? Master your dang craft, people will appreciate it...I promise. Stop trying to dumb it down for the masses I disagree with everything in this post. I couldn't care less about pleasing spectators. I think playing the game will become more enjoyable without the double. Setters going for 30-foot reverse-flow, in-tempo sets would be fun for the players in addition to being fun to watch. If holding and offsides were allowed, teams would do those things constantly because it creates an advantage. If doubles were eliminated, very little about setting would change. A non-doubled ball is still going to be located better than a doubled ball. In that way, I think those are bad analogies. Closer would be if it was a penalty for a quarterback to fail to throw the ball with a perfect spiral. Thank goodness it's not. Is the job of an indoor setter "dumbed down" because they aren't called as tightly as beach setters? Offenses would get faster and more complicated. Setters being afraid of getting called dumbs down the game in my opinion. Go watch a 13s match where the ref calls the match too tightly. They simply resort to bump setting everything. That's as dumbed down as it gets.
|
|
|
Post by donut on Apr 17, 2019 10:24:13 GMT -5
I think before you even ask "is this a good rule?" you have to ask "can we even accurately and consistently enforce this rule?" I think with doubles, the answer is clearly "no." It's a very hard call for a ref to make without a camera, and even then, as mikegarrison said, what timeframe do we look at? I think that almost every set is probably a double in that one hand/finger probably touches the ball for a millisecond longer. Even if the rule may be good for the game (which I think it isn't), I think the loss of fairness that comes from enforcing it due to the subjectivity of the call, is much larger than any loss of fairness that may come from setting a double. Side note: my least favorite part of how this rule is currently enforced is that it is almost never called when a player sends the ball over on 3. That, to me, is almost always a double as the player tries to chunk it to an uncovered part of the court.
|
|
|
Post by n00b on Apr 17, 2019 10:38:33 GMT -5
Side note: my least favorite part of how this rule is currently enforced is that it is almost never called when a player sends the ball over on 3. That, to me, is almost always a double as the player tries to chunk it to an uncovered part of the court. And that's when I think it should be called the tightest since the other team has to deal with the 'ugly' contact.
|
|
|
Post by mikegarrison on Apr 17, 2019 10:41:42 GMT -5
Side note: my least favorite part of how this rule is currently enforced is that it is almost never called when a player sends the ball over on 3. That, to me, is almost always a double as the player tries to chunk it to an uncovered part of the court. My least favorite part is when non-setters are called for the slightest hint of a double contact, things that setters would never be called for. It's clear that some refs attempt to punish non-setters for daring to set the ball overhand.
|
|
|
Post by donut on Apr 17, 2019 11:09:28 GMT -5
Side note: my least favorite part of how this rule is currently enforced is that it is almost never called when a player sends the ball over on 3. That, to me, is almost always a double as the player tries to chunk it to an uncovered part of the court. My least favorite part is when non-setters are called for the slightest hint of a double contact, things that setters would never be called for. It's clear that some refs attempt to punish non-setters for daring to set the ball overhand. Refs @ non-setters setting:
|
|
|
Post by ned3vball on Apr 17, 2019 18:44:11 GMT -5
If we stop calling doubles what does that open the door to? Just because it is hard to call doesn't mean they don't happen. like Justice Stewart "I know it when I see it". I can recall many good back and forth points that were ruined when a ref "let them play", he didn't want to effect the match but he did it anyway by not making the call.
What will be the new standard? I guess they will call the occasional carry but I get the feeling it will be like traveling in the NBA, 4 steps, 5 steps, whatever you like. The law of unintended consequences will definitely apply.
|
|
|
Post by mikegarrison on Apr 18, 2019 14:11:33 GMT -5
If we stop calling doubles what does that open the door to? Just because it is hard to call doesn't mean they don't happen. like Justice Stewart "I know it when I see it". I can recall many good back and forth points that were ruined when a ref "let them play", he didn't want to effect the match but he did it anyway by not making the call. What will be the new standard? I guess they will call the occasional carry but I get the feeling it will be like traveling in the NBA, 4 steps, 5 steps, whatever you like. The law of unintended consequences will definitely apply. You already know exactly what it will turn into ... they stopped calling doubles years ago on first contact. Did that destroy the beauty and skill of the game?
|
|
|
Post by donut on Apr 18, 2019 14:18:58 GMT -5
If we stop calling doubles what does that open the door to? Just because it is hard to call doesn't mean they don't happen. like Justice Stewart "I know it when I see it". I can recall many good back and forth points that were ruined when a ref "let them play", he didn't want to effect the match but he did it anyway by not making the call. What will be the new standard? I guess they will call the occasional carry but I get the feeling it will be like traveling in the NBA, 4 steps, 5 steps, whatever you like. The law of unintended consequences will definitely apply. How were those rallies "ruined?" What was the impact of not calling the "double?" A hitter hit a poorly set, spinning ball?
|
|
|
Post by ned3vball on Apr 18, 2019 15:26:24 GMT -5
If we stop calling doubles what does that open the door to? Just because it is hard to call doesn't mean they don't happen. like Justice Stewart "I know it when I see it". I can recall many good back and forth points that were ruined when a ref "let them play", he didn't want to effect the match but he did it anyway by not making the call. What will be the new standard? I guess they will call the occasional carry but I get the feeling it will be like traveling in the NBA, 4 steps, 5 steps, whatever you like. The law of unintended consequences will definitely apply. How were those rallies "ruined?" What was the impact of not calling the "double?" A hitter hit a poorly set, spinning ball? To make an attack and hopefully win the point you should need to execute all 3 phases: pass - set - hit. When the ball is on your side of the net you should be in control of it. On the plays where a double might have been called the setter was not in control of the ball, when that happens the point should be over. My definition of control is to play the ball so it cleanly rebounds off your body. If you can not execute step 2 then step 3 should be moot.
|
|
|
Post by ned3vball on Apr 18, 2019 15:52:12 GMT -5
If we stop calling doubles what does that open the door to? Just because it is hard to call doesn't mean they don't happen. like Justice Stewart "I know it when I see it". I can recall many good back and forth points that were ruined when a ref "let them play", he didn't want to effect the match but he did it anyway by not making the call. What will be the new standard? I guess they will call the occasional carry but I get the feeling it will be like traveling in the NBA, 4 steps, 5 steps, whatever you like. The law of unintended consequences will definitely apply. You already know exactly what it will turn into ... they stopped calling doubles years ago on first contact. Did that destroy the beauty and skill of the game? Passing is passing and setting is setting, They are 2 different elements of the process. I can see being more lenient on the first contact, but the set is something more.
|
|
|
Post by eazy on Apr 18, 2019 15:52:35 GMT -5
If we stop calling doubles what does that open the door to? Just because it is hard to call doesn't mean they don't happen. like Justice Stewart "I know it when I see it". I can recall many good back and forth points that were ruined when a ref "let them play", he didn't want to effect the match but he did it anyway by not making the call. What will be the new standard? I guess they will call the occasional carry but I get the feeling it will be like traveling in the NBA, 4 steps, 5 steps, whatever you like. The law of unintended consequences will definitely apply. How were those rallies "ruined?" What was the impact of not calling the "double?" A hitter hit a poorly set, spinning ball? The way I see it there are the same justifications for removing doubles that come up in every thread.. 1) The team gains no competitive advantage by doubling a set. I do not agree with this, but it's hard to argue without video proof of it happening, and I'm too lazy to find videos. 2) Refs call doubles on non setters too much and not enough on 3rd contacts. To me, this is an officiating error, not a rule issue. I rarely ever see officials like this. 3) Quarterbacks aren't punished for throwing poor spirals so why are we awarding point based on process instead of results? Kickers are not awarded points for throwing a football threw the uprights, it has to be kicked. It's now always results that matter, that is what adds skill to the game. 4) We want to make rally's last longer. This is the same reason given for allowing doubles on the first contact and the net/center line rule that changed and then changed back and then changed again in the juniors game. If you really want to make rallies last as long as possible, give every team a bounce between every contact. At what point is a rally long enough to stop changing rules? Sand volleyball doesn't allow doubles on first contacts or any other contacts, and that game is still thriving!
|
|
|
Post by n00b on Apr 18, 2019 16:36:01 GMT -5
How were those rallies "ruined?" What was the impact of not calling the "double?" A hitter hit a poorly set, spinning ball? To make an attack and hopefully win the point you should need to execute all 3 phases: pass - set - hit. When the ball is on your side of the net you should be in control of it. On the plays where a double might have been called the setter was not in control of the ball, when that happens the point should be over. My definition of control is to play the ball so it cleanly rebounds off your body. If you can not execute step 2 then step 3 should be moot. So do you want the rally to end if a digger shanks a ball backward (but is playable) or an attacker accidentally waffles the ball over the block? They aren't in control of the ball, so the rally should end?
|
|
|
Post by ned3vball on Apr 18, 2019 17:49:44 GMT -5
To make an attack and hopefully win the point you should need to execute all 3 phases: pass - set - hit. When the ball is on your side of the net you should be in control of it. On the plays where a double might have been called the setter was not in control of the ball, when that happens the point should be over. My definition of control is to play the ball so it cleanly rebounds off your body. If you can not execute step 2 then step 3 should be moot. So do you want the rally to end if a digger shanks a ball backward (but is playable) or an attacker accidentally waffles the ball over the block? They aren't in control of the ball, so the rally should end? I used the word control since we were mainly talking about setting. You need to look at the 3 elements individually. Restating the definition of control, how about, play the ball legally. That covers the shank(no sliding up the arm), true, that is control with a small c, but the ref is not going to blow the whistle till I catch it, and if it happens to go to a teammate you can try and increase the level of control with the second touch. Same general idea with the attack , there is no way to double it (with one hand), the waffle might involve a carry, and that should be whistled. There are degrees involved with control, but if the ball cleanly rebounds it is legal, and at least in control to that extent.
|
|
|
Post by mikegarrison on Apr 18, 2019 22:38:26 GMT -5
3) Quarterbacks aren't punished for throwing poor spirals so why are we awarding point based on process instead of results? Kickers are not awarded points for throwing a football threw the uprights, it has to be kicked. It's now always results that matter, that is what adds skill to the game. A throw isn't a kick. Come on, that's the lamest ever defense of the double contact rule. Bottom line is that those in favor of the double contact rule as it is today want setters to be judged on style. They like it that setters are trained for years to set the ball with an exact style, and they think it improves the game when the setters show off that they can do so. Those who don't like the rule don't think style points improve a competitive sport like volleyball.
|
|
|
Post by Hawk Attack on Apr 18, 2019 22:47:38 GMT -5
I, like many other players for whatever stupid reason, would hit the ball against the ground waiting for the ref to blow the whistle to serve. Often, the ref would blow the whistle and I’d bounce one or two more times before serving. Shouldn’t technically the first bounce after the ref blew the whistle count as a service error?
And also if I was performing a jump float, I’d toss with one hand and on my approach I’d give the ball the tiniest little toss of my hand before tossing up again to my service hand. Wouldn’t that first toss and catch be a violation.
Never was called for either... I guess I’m just a rebellious rule breaker ¯\_(ツ)_/¯
|
|