|
Post by wonderwarthog79 on Apr 18, 2019 23:42:01 GMT -5
Why worry so much about doubles? They're so rarely called, I expect players to start questioning the calls because they don't know what a double is. I don't grok why everybody wants to cheapen the sport further. I'll mention this incident once again. During a men's match marked by numerous sloppy plays, Don Shaw said to me, "This used to be such a pretty sport." No, those of us in favor of keeping the rule don't want setters judged on "style." Frankly, they might as well change the rule since it's bastardized to this extent.
|
|
|
Post by mikegarrison on Apr 19, 2019 3:25:43 GMT -5
During a men's match marked by numerous sloppy plays, Don Shaw said to me, "This used to be such a pretty sport." No, those of us in favor of keeping the rule don't want setters judged on "style." These two sentences are 100 percent opposite in meaning. Make up your mind, please.
|
|
|
Post by ned3vball on Apr 19, 2019 6:57:33 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)_/¯ 13.1.3.4 Only one toss or release of the ball, which is considered to be part of the service action, is allowed. Preliminary actions such as bouncing the ball on the floor or lightly tossing the ball from one hand to the other are permitted, but must occur within the eight seconds allowed between service authorization and service contact. If you like I will still be happy to consider you a rebellious rule breaker.
|
|
|
Post by Hawk Attack on Apr 19, 2019 7:33:06 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)_/¯ 13.1.3.4 Only one toss or release of the ball, which is considered to be part of the service action, is allowed. Preliminary actions such as bouncing the ball on the floor or lightly tossing the ball from one hand to the other are permitted, but must occur within the eight seconds allowed between service authorization and service contact. If you like I will still be happy to consider you a rebellious rule breaker. Yes please... I am after all a 2018 All-VT Villain Team HM.
|
|
|
Post by eazy on Apr 19, 2019 13:24:53 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. Do you also think basketball should get rid of the double-dribble rule? It's not about style, it's about avoiding a potential competitive advantage. The likelihood that dribbling a ball with two hands at the same time is going to be used unfairly in basketball is equally as likely that setting the ball with two different hand motions will be used unfairly in volleyball. Is the rule that you have to dribble with one hand just about style? If you're comparing ability to follow the rules to style point, you should also get rid of the lift call that too is about "style" by your definition. And it's not like a clean set on a tough ball is worth bonus points for style. It's either a legal move or it is not.
|
|
|
Post by donut on Apr 19, 2019 14:00:32 GMT -5
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. Do you also think basketball should get rid of the double-dribble rule? It's not about style, it's about avoiding a potential competitive advantage. The likelihood that dribbling a ball with two hands at the same time is going to be used unfairly in basketball is equally as likely that setting the ball with two different hand motions will be used unfairly in volleyball. Is the rule that you have to dribble with one hand just about style? If you're comparing ability to follow the rules to style point, you should also get rid of the lift call that too is about "style" by your definition. And it's not like a clean set on a tough ball is worth bonus points for style. It's either a legal move or it is not. 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. I'm just going to focus on this part of your last two posts because I feel like your entire position hinges on the unfairness that results from a double. You can find videos if you want, but can you explain, from a mechanical stand point, why a setter setting a double ball to a hitter is unfair? The opposing stance here is that a double-set ball normally has more spin, which is much harder for a hitter to hit cleanly.
|
|
|
Post by mikegarrison on Apr 19, 2019 14:11:26 GMT -5
Do you also think basketball should get rid of the double-dribble rule? It's not about style, it's about avoiding a potential competitive advantage. The likelihood that dribbling a ball with two hands at the same time is going to be used unfairly in basketball is equally as likely that setting the ball with two different hand motions will be used unfairly in volleyball. Is the rule that you have to dribble with one hand just about style? If you're comparing ability to follow the rules to style point, you should also get rid of the lift call that too is about "style" by your definition. And it's not like a clean set on a tough ball is worth bonus points for style. It's either a legal move or it is not. 1) I don't care about basketball. 2) You answered this yourself -- you say a double dribble provides a competitive advantage to faking out the opposing player. Can you explain how a double-contact set would do the same? 3) It's still "style points" whether you are talking about bonuses for beautiful sets or penalties for ugly sets. We currently have the latter, where refs call a penalty for an ugly-looking set. Ironically, it's not really clear that an ugly set is actually more of a double-contact than a beautiful no-spin set, but it's called that way. There is even some guidance to refs that if the rest of the play is "athletic" then some forgiveness should be given for ugliness. As for lifts/carries/throws, etc. I will speculate on what, to me, is the essence of volleyball. It is a game where players try to keep the ball from touching the floor in their court, and force the ball to touch the floor in the opponent's court. They are not allowed to catch or throw the ball, only to hit it. No player is allowed to hit the ball two times in a row, and the team is only allowed to hit it at most three times in a row. Obviously the "double" call arises from an interpretation of the "no player can touch the ball two times in a row" precept. I think this should be interpreted as making two separate attempts to play the ball (the same way it is currently interpreted on first contact).
|
|
|
Post by eazy on Apr 19, 2019 14:59:19 GMT -5
Do you also think basketball should get rid of the double-dribble rule? It's not about style, it's about avoiding a potential competitive advantage. The likelihood that dribbling a ball with two hands at the same time is going to be used unfairly in basketball is equally as likely that setting the ball with two different hand motions will be used unfairly in volleyball. Is the rule that you have to dribble with one hand just about style? If you're comparing ability to follow the rules to style point, you should also get rid of the lift call that too is about "style" by your definition. And it's not like a clean set on a tough ball is worth bonus points for style. It's either a legal move or it is not. 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. I'm just going to focus on this part of your last two posts because I feel like your entire position hinges on the unfairness that results from a double. You can find videos if you want, but can you explain, from a mechanical stand point, why a setter setting a double ball to a hitter is unfair? The opposing stance here is that a double-set ball normally has more spin, which is much harder for a hitter to hit cleanly. You specifically mention a setter setting a double to a hitter. Are you going to differentiate between a double that is set to a hitter and a double that goes over the net? Because it's much easier to explain that a setter may be facing the opponents right back corner, throw their left hand significantly harder than their right, and spin a ball into the opponents left back corner. But if you're only going to call doubles that go over the net, does intent matter? What if they accidentally double a ball that they are trying to set to a hitter and it turns into a setter dump? What about a double that turns into a joust above the net? Regardless, a setter facing the net that can now side set to either pin without worrying about a double contact seems like an advantage to most setters to me. They can more easily see the court and if they want to dump, or they can set any hitter by mishandling a ball in the direction they want. Unfair is also tough to describe. Technically catching a basketball, then dribbling again is only "unfair" because it is unexpected because it is against the rules. Sure players could learn how to adjust and defend that, just like they could adjust and learn how to defend against doubles, but it makes defense harder than the rules intend currently.
|
|
|
Post by donut on Apr 19, 2019 15:35:22 GMT -5
I'm just going to focus on this part of your last two posts because I feel like your entire position hinges on the unfairness that results from a double. You can find videos if you want, but can you explain, from a mechanical stand point, why a setter setting a double ball to a hitter is unfair? The opposing stance here is that a double-set ball normally has more spin, which is much harder for a hitter to hit cleanly. You specifically mention a setter setting a double to a hitter. Are you going to differentiate between a double that is set to a hitter and a double that goes over the net? Because it's much easier to explain that a setter may be facing the opponents right back corner, throw their left hand significantly harder than their right, and spin a ball into the opponents left back corner. But if you're only going to call doubles that go over the net, does intent matter? What if they accidentally double a ball that they are trying to set to a hitter and it turns into a setter dump? What about a double that turns into a joust above the net? Regardless, a setter facing the net that can now side set to either pin without worrying about a double contact seems like an advantage to most setters to me. They can more easily see the court and if they want to dump, or they can set any hitter by mishandling a ball in the direction they want. Unfair is also tough to describe. Technically catching a basketball, then dribbling again is only "unfair" because it is unexpected because it is against the rules. Sure players could learn how to adjust and defend that, just like they could adjust and learn how to defend against doubles, but it makes defense harder than the rules intend currently. 1. I'm happy to differentiate between a "double" to your own hitter, and a double over the net, but I feel like you're avoiding my question and conflating the argument a bit. I'd like to focus on the 99% of "violations" that get called, which is when a setter is setting their own hitter, first. 2. Your "setter facing the net" argument is a bit irrelevant - this happens frequently by skilled setters. Maybe not across the court, but I think that has to do more with the fact that that's an insanely hard set to make. If a setter were to try and make that, chances are, it would have an ugly amount of spin and location would be very off. Also, do you think all back row attacks are doubles? Because the setter is most definitely facing one direction and setting another (often directly to their left or right side). Even if we accept that all of your fringe scenarios may happen, I think you are missing something: it is still in the best interest of the setter to set as cleanly as possible. And any advantage one setter gets, the other one gets as well. If a setter starts facing forward every point, sure they see the court better - they also lose visibility to all of their attackers. 3. I don't think we have to describe fairness, but just be able to measure/discuss it. Again, 99% of these very very subjective calls happen when a setter is setting her own hitter. I don't think there is a substantial loss of fairness in allowing this to happen - I think the bigger loss of fairness comes from the fact no human eye can consistently and accurately enforce this rule.
|
|
|
Post by eazy on Apr 19, 2019 16:07:34 GMT -5
You specifically mention a setter setting a double to a hitter. Are you going to differentiate between a double that is set to a hitter and a double that goes over the net? Because it's much easier to explain that a setter may be facing the opponents right back corner, throw their left hand significantly harder than their right, and spin a ball into the opponents left back corner. But if you're only going to call doubles that go over the net, does intent matter? What if they accidentally double a ball that they are trying to set to a hitter and it turns into a setter dump? What about a double that turns into a joust above the net? Regardless, a setter facing the net that can now side set to either pin without worrying about a double contact seems like an advantage to most setters to me. They can more easily see the court and if they want to dump, or they can set any hitter by mishandling a ball in the direction they want. Unfair is also tough to describe. Technically catching a basketball, then dribbling again is only "unfair" because it is unexpected because it is against the rules. Sure players could learn how to adjust and defend that, just like they could adjust and learn how to defend against doubles, but it makes defense harder than the rules intend currently. 1. I'm happy to differentiate between a "double" to your own hitter, and a double over the net, but I feel like you're avoiding my question and conflating the argument a bit. I'd like to focus on the 99% of "violations" that get called, which is when a setter is setting their own hitter, first. 2. Your "setter facing the net" argument is a bit irrelevant - this happens frequently by skilled setters. Maybe not across the court, but I think that has to do more with the fact that that's an insanely hard set to make. If a setter were to try and make that, chances are, it would have an ugly amount of spin and location would be very off. Also, do you think all back row attacks are doubles? Because the setter is most definitely facing one direction and setting another (often directly to their left or right side). Even if we accept that all of your fringe scenarios may happen, I think you are missing something: it is still in the best interest of the setter to set as cleanly as possible. And any advantage one setter gets, the other one gets as well. If a setter starts facing forward every point, sure they see the court better - they also lose visibility to all of their attackers. 3. I don't think we have to describe fairness, but just be able to measure/discuss it. Again, 99% of these very very subjective calls happen when a setter is setting her own hitter. I don't think there is a substantial loss of fairness in allowing this to happen - I think the bigger loss of fairness comes from the fact no human eye can consistently and accurately enforce this rule. 1) If you are happy to differentiate, then double over the net would still have the same inconsistencies in whether or not it is called. Also, if this is a legit rule, what about balls that turn into jousts? Can they be doubled or not? 2) That's kind of another point though. Skilled setters can currently do it. Now you're requiring less skill to make that happen. It is sneakier if they double it so that they hands are not facing the direction the ball goes. Advantage is not about offense vs offense. That's why double dribbles are illegal. It is offense having an advantage over the defense. The setter now has an advantage over the blockers. That's the issue. 3) 99% of sets are not subjective calls. How many doubles are called on sets vs the number of sets that are not called doubles? I'd guess less than 00.1%. Again, that is a referee issue, not a rule issue. I do not see refs calling these unfairly. If you are unhappy, then find better officials. Do you think top D1 officials are super inconsistent with their calls? Anymore so than their in/out calls? Would you also like to automate the strike zone in baseball, since no one can 100% see the exact strike zone? The referee is part of the game.
|
|
|
Post by mikegarrison on Apr 19, 2019 17:26:04 GMT -5
ps. I have totally reached the point, as a longtime baseball fan (25 years of MLB season tickets) that I desperately would prefer an automated, consistent strike zone rather than having umps call it. It's SO frustrating when the batter does exactly what he's supposed to do and takes a pitch outside the zone, but then gets called out by the ump. Or (less often), when a pitcher makes a quality strike in the zone and the ump just stands there and calls it a ball.
|
|
|
Post by n00b on Apr 19, 2019 17:36:19 GMT -5
ps. I have totally reached the point, as a longtime baseball fan (25 years of MLB season tickets) that I desperately would prefer an automated, consistent strike zone rather than having umps call it. It's SO frustrating when the batter does exactly what he's supposed to do and takes a pitch outside the zone, but then gets called out by the ump. Or (less often), when a pitcher makes a quality strike in the zone and the ump just stands there and calls it a ball. And it’s amazing how dramatically the strike zone differs from when the count is 3-0 to when its 0-2.
|
|
|
Post by mikegarrison on Apr 19, 2019 18:04:47 GMT -5
ps. I have totally reached the point, as a longtime baseball fan (25 years of MLB season tickets) that I desperately would prefer an automated, consistent strike zone rather than having umps call it. It's SO frustrating when the batter does exactly what he's supposed to do and takes a pitch outside the zone, but then gets called out by the ump. Or (less often), when a pitcher makes a quality strike in the zone and the ump just stands there and calls it a ball. And it’s amazing how dramatically the strike zone differs from when the count is 3-0 to when its 0-2. Right. And how the zone gets tighter and tighter if the pitcher is having control problems, but it gets bigger and bigger if the pitcher is placing them just at the edge of the zone. A pitcher who can routinely hit the outside edge in the first inning gets calls just off the edge in the second inning and if that keeps up tends to get calls well off the edge by the fifth inning -- as long as he just keeps slowly working the zone to be wider and wider. On Monday I watched a game where a pitch that was a strike from a right-handed pitcher was a ball from a left-handed pitcher. The ump was clearly calling a different zone depending on what hand the pitcher was throwing from. Craziness. The following plots show the balls and strikes called versus the teams and the zones and right-handed v. left-handed batters. Unfortunately it's not broken down by right-handed v. left-handed pitchers, because there was definitely some funkiness going on with that. www.brooksbaseball.net/pfxVB/zoneTrack.php?month=4&day=15&year=2019&game=gid_2019_04_15_clemlb_seamlb_1%2F&prevDate=0415Compare with a game I went to a few days earlier ... in this game the ump did a much better job. www.brooksbaseball.net/pfxVB/zoneTrack.php?month=4&day=12&year=2019&game=gid_2019_04_12_houmlb_seamlb_1%2F&prevGame=gid_2019_04_15_clemlb_seamlb_1%2F&prevDate=0412
|
|
|
Post by donut on Apr 19, 2019 18:07:46 GMT -5
1. I'm happy to differentiate between a "double" to your own hitter, and a double over the net, but I feel like you're avoiding my question and conflating the argument a bit. I'd like to focus on the 99% of "violations" that get called, which is when a setter is setting their own hitter, first. 2. Your "setter facing the net" argument is a bit irrelevant - this happens frequently by skilled setters. Maybe not across the court, but I think that has to do more with the fact that that's an insanely hard set to make. If a setter were to try and make that, chances are, it would have an ugly amount of spin and location would be very off. Also, do you think all back row attacks are doubles? Because the setter is most definitely facing one direction and setting another (often directly to their left or right side). Even if we accept that all of your fringe scenarios may happen, I think you are missing something: it is still in the best interest of the setter to set as cleanly as possible. And any advantage one setter gets, the other one gets as well. If a setter starts facing forward every point, sure they see the court better - they also lose visibility to all of their attackers. 3. I don't think we have to describe fairness, but just be able to measure/discuss it. Again, 99% of these very very subjective calls happen when a setter is setting her own hitter. I don't think there is a substantial loss of fairness in allowing this to happen - I think the bigger loss of fairness comes from the fact no human eye can consistently and accurately enforce this rule. 1) If you are happy to differentiate, then double over the net would still have the same inconsistencies in whether or not it is called. Also, if this is a legit rule, what about balls that turn into jousts? Can they be doubled or not? 2) That's kind of another point though. Skilled setters can currently do it. Now you're requiring less skill to make that happen. It is sneakier if they double it so that they hands are not facing the direction the ball goes. Advantage is not about offense vs offense. That's why double dribbles are illegal. It is offense having an advantage over the defense. The setter now has an advantage over the blockers. That's the issue. 3) 99% of sets are not subjective calls. How many doubles are called on sets vs the number of sets that are not called doubles? I'd guess less than 00.1%. Again, that is a referee issue, not a rule issue. I do not see refs calling these unfairly. If you are unhappy, then find better officials. Do you think top D1 officials are super inconsistent with their calls? Anymore so than their in/out calls? Would you also like to automate the strike zone in baseball, since no one can 100% see the exact strike zone? The referee is part of the game. 1. This is different because it places the unfairness on the other team. So yes, I think doubles over the net should be called, but I still have issues with subjectivity. And FTR, I think most two-handed jousts are "doubles." They just aren't called. 2. I really don't think that setters would start facing the net and blindly tossing balls to the left and right... and if they did, I think they would lose. Plus, a good setter doesn't need to face the net to be deceptive... I don't really see how masking where you are setting the ball changes if you're facing the net. AND you still didn't answer my question about back row sets, which kind of defeats your entire argument (i.e. hands not facing the direction the ball goes) Also I'm lol'ing a bit that you've twisted this to say "the issue is: doubles give the setter an advantage over blockers because without doubles calls they'd face the net and fool blockers!" It's a bit absurd. (Also I really don't understand your analogies to other sports - basketball is not founded on the same mechanics or game principles as volleyball. There's no relevancy.) 3. Never said 99% were subjective. Also never said 99% of sets were called doubles. I said 99% of doubles calls were when a setter (or another player) was setting her own hitter - not setting/sending it across the net, so I find your fixation on these fringe cases to be a secondary conversation. And yes, I think there is noticeable inconsistencies across levels, mostly because I think almost every set, if you slow it down to the millisecond level, is technically a double. I think a finger on one hand will almost always be touching a ball for a millisecond longer. So then, the role of a ref becomes "what threshold/margin of "doubling" am I applying here? When do I think that finger has stayed on the ball too long? And that's not a technical/objective rule to me - that's a judgment call. Because of this difficulty, I think most refs go off of spin anyways, which can lead to very bad calls. And you kind of made my point for me, with your contradictory statements. "Again, that is a referee issue, not a rule issue." and "The referee is part of the game." The referee can't be separated from the rules - every rule needs an enforcer, or else there's no legitimacy. If the enforcer cannot make a clear and fair call, on a rule that doesn't improve fairness (sorry, still not buying your outlandish hypotheticals), then I don't think that rule (or the current version of that rule) should be in effect.
|
|
|
Post by eazy on Apr 19, 2019 21:02:31 GMT -5
1) If you are happy to differentiate, then double over the net would still have the same inconsistencies in whether or not it is called. Also, if this is a legit rule, what about balls that turn into jousts? Can they be doubled or not? 2) That's kind of another point though. Skilled setters can currently do it. Now you're requiring less skill to make that happen. It is sneakier if they double it so that they hands are not facing the direction the ball goes. Advantage is not about offense vs offense. That's why double dribbles are illegal. It is offense having an advantage over the defense. The setter now has an advantage over the blockers. That's the issue. 3) 99% of sets are not subjective calls. How many doubles are called on sets vs the number of sets that are not called doubles? I'd guess less than 00.1%. Again, that is a referee issue, not a rule issue. I do not see refs calling these unfairly. If you are unhappy, then find better officials. Do you think top D1 officials are super inconsistent with their calls? Anymore so than their in/out calls? Would you also like to automate the strike zone in baseball, since no one can 100% see the exact strike zone? The referee is part of the game. 1. This is different because it places the unfairness on the other team. So yes, I think doubles over the net should be called, but I still have issues with subjectivity. And FTR, I think most two-handed jousts are "doubles." They just aren't called. 2. I really don't think that setters would start facing the net and blindly tossing balls to the left and right... and if they did, I think they would lose. Plus, a good setter doesn't need to face the net to be deceptive... I don't really see how masking where you are setting the ball changes if you're facing the net. AND you still didn't answer my question about back row sets, which kind of defeats your entire argument (i.e. hands not facing the direction the ball goes) Also I'm lol'ing a bit that you've twisted this to say "the issue is: doubles give the setter an advantage over blockers because without doubles calls they'd face the net and fool blockers!" It's a bit absurd. (Also I really don't understand your analogies to other sports - basketball is not founded on the same mechanics or game principles as volleyball. There's no relevancy.) 3. Never said 99% were subjective. Also never said 99% of sets were called doubles. I said 99% of doubles calls were when a setter (or another player) was setting her own hitter - not setting/sending it across the net, so I find your fixation on these fringe cases to be a secondary conversation. And yes, I think there is noticeable inconsistencies across levels, mostly because I think almost every set, if you slow it down to the millisecond level, is technically a double. I think a finger on one hand will almost always be touching a ball for a millisecond longer. So then, the role of a ref becomes "what threshold/margin of "doubling" am I applying here? When do I think that finger has stayed on the ball too long? And that's not a technical/objective rule to me - that's a judgment call. Because of this difficulty, I think most refs go off of spin anyways, which can lead to very bad calls. And you kind of made my point for me, with your contradictory statements. "Again, that is a referee issue, not a rule issue." and "The referee is part of the game." The referee can't be separated from the rules - every rule needs an enforcer, or else there's no legitimacy. If the enforcer cannot make a clear and fair call, on a rule that doesn't improve fairness (sorry, still not buying your outlandish hypotheticals), then I don't think that rule (or the current version of that rule) should be in effect. The same complaints that you have about doubles that are currently called or not while setting to a hitter will still apply when they're setting the ball over the net. If your argument is that every set is a double by a millisecond, then no one should be allowed to set a ball period as you understand the rule. So you either have to adapt your interpretation of the rule, get rid of the rule for every scenario, or never set a volleyball again. I don't think that every setter will start facing the net to set. But I think that it is possible that it ends up happening just as frequently as a game being decided by a double call. I seriously cannot even comprehend the percentage of sets that are "wrongly called doubles" compared to the total number of sets that are currently called doubles or set cleanly. It has to be close to 1 in 100,000 at least. That is the rule that you're so fixated one. And if you think that the rule is meant to be interpreted as a millisecond difference, that's where we are no longer able to even have this discussion because that's crazy. To be fair, I should clarify that to me, a double is a double when the hands move in two different directions (aka two different motions). You really think that backrow sets the hands do not face the direction the ball goes? I don't know that I can argue with that because I 100% disagree with that premise. I don't think those statements are contradictory. The referee is a part of the game. They are not going to be 100% perfect. If your concern is that they need to be able to be 100% perfect then your argument should first be with replacing officials with computers, and then you can change the rules. If your concern is that you'd be okay with 99% consistent but you feel that you're only seeing 85-90% consistent, then complain about the quality of the officials, not the rule. If you want to get rid of all judgement calls, then you'd better not watch any sport that includes fouls, because those are ALL judgement calls. FWIW, lifts are also judgement calls. Do you think that borderline lifts are any more clear than borderline doubles? Because I've seen some attackers throw some balls in crazy ways that are not called lifts (catch or throw, as the rule book says, yet deep tips are mostly throwing motions).
|
|