|
Post by mikegarrison on Apr 19, 2019 23:48:18 GMT -5
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). Answering for myself? No, I don't think they are more clear cut. But I don't propose getting rid of them, because I think it is fundamental to volleyball that the ball is not caught or thrown. I do not think it is fundamental to volleyball that setters show off their sweet no-spin setting skills. IMO, "doubles" as they are mostly called are misinterpretations of the original intent of the rules. It was merely meant that you could not pass the ball to yourself (two separate plays on the ball), but over time it came to be misinterpreted as "both hands have to touch the ball together". So I'm in favor of making all contacts of the ball the same as first contact, and only calling a double if there are two separate attempts to play the ball.
|
|
|
Post by ned3vball on Apr 21, 2019 7:41:00 GMT -5
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=0412I get how technology is going to take over eventually, but it will be the game's loss that we won't see anymore pitchers like Tom Glavine, for one example.
|
|
|
Post by mikegarrison on Apr 22, 2019 10:41:12 GMT -5
I get how technology is going to take over eventually, but it will be the game's loss that we won't see anymore pitchers like Tom Glavine, for one example. Good pitchers don't need umpires to give them balls that are called strikes.
|
|
|
Post by donut on Apr 22, 2019 10:56:03 GMT -5
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). You aren't really responding to any of my points and all of your posts have been very nuanced and defensive. I don't even know what your main argument is and you keep bringing in like 800 different tangents even though I'm trying to keep us on track by discussing one part of this discussion at a time. If we're going to continue this, can you please succinctly tell me when you think the "double set" rule is good for volleyball and/or necessary? We can start there.
|
|
|
Post by eazy on Apr 23, 2019 13:31:33 GMT -5
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). You aren't really responding to any of my points and all of your posts have been very nuanced and defensive. I don't even know what your main argument is and you keep bringing in like 800 different tangents even though I'm trying to keep us on track by discussing one part of this discussion at a time. If we're going to continue this, can you please succinctly tell me when you think the "double set" rule is good for volleyball and/or necessary? We can start there. I believe that the double set rule is one of the rules that makes volleyball what it is. You cannot catch or throw the volleyball (although sometimes you can), and you should set volleyballs with both hands moving in the same direction at the same time.
|
|
|
Post by mikegarrison on Apr 23, 2019 15:30:54 GMT -5
I believe that the double set rule is one of the rules that makes volleyball what it is. You cannot catch or throw the volleyball (although sometimes you can), and you should set volleyballs with both hands moving in the same direction at the same time. If you really can't see that the first item is a fundamental rule of volleyball and the second item is a style choice, I don't think there is much point continuing the discussion.
|
|
|
Post by Scipio Aemilianus on Apr 23, 2019 16:25:14 GMT -5
I really don’t understand this hatred of the double rule. Setting is a skill. There’s no “style” to setting legally. Double dribble in basketball is the perfect analogy I think. It’s easier to dribble with two hands than it is with one. And more importantly, when an offensive player is in a disadvantaged situation, double dribbling helps them get out of a bad situation.
Volleyball is the same. Everyone knows that a clean set is better for a hitter than a double. In that perspective, a double is less of an advantage. But that’s not the point of the rule I believe.
Being able to sloppily double a set with your hands is a much bigger advantage than bumpsetting. Allowing illegal sets gives an advantage to the offense when the pass puts the team in a bad situation. A bad pass used to mean a bump set to the outside. Now, a setter can put their hands anywhere and chuck a ball to any of their hitters and that negates that disadvantage created from a bad pass/dig.
Setting cleanly isn’t a “style”. It’s a skill. The only people that want to get rid of doubles are people who aren’t good at setting. If you are put in a situation where you can’t make a legal set, bump set it. It’s not that hard. Stop whining about the rules and just be good enough to play by the rules.
|
|
|
Post by donut on Apr 23, 2019 16:34:37 GMT -5
You aren't really responding to any of my points and all of your posts have been very nuanced and defensive. I don't even know what your main argument is and you keep bringing in like 800 different tangents even though I'm trying to keep us on track by discussing one part of this discussion at a time. If we're going to continue this, can you please succinctly tell me when you think the "double set" rule is good for volleyball and/or necessary? We can start there. I believe that the double set rule is one of the rules that makes volleyball what it is. You cannot catch or throw the volleyball (although sometimes you can), and you should set volleyballs with both hands moving in the same direction at the same time.Why does it "make volleyball what it is?" If you remove it, would volleyball really change that drastically? Why is a "double bump" (i.e. a double on the first contact) different? Btw, I don't know why you keep bringing up the bolded... in most called doubles, the hands are moving in the same direction at the same time. It's really more one hand started out in front (uneven platform), or one hand moved faster than the other.
|
|
|
Post by donut on Apr 23, 2019 16:34:49 GMT -5
I really don’t understand this hatred of the double rule. Setting is a skill. There’s no “style” to setting legally. Double dribble in basketball is the perfect analogy I think. It’s easier to dribble with two hands than it is with one. And more importantly, when an offensive player is in a disadvantaged situation, double dribbling helps them get out of a bad situation. Volleyball is the same. Everyone knows that a clean set is better for a hitter than a double. In that perspective, a double is less of an advantage. But that’s not the point of the rule I believe. Being able to sloppily double a set with your hands is a much bigger advantage than bumpsetting. Allowing illegal sets gives an advantage to the offense when the pass puts the team in a bad situation. A bad pass used to mean a bump set to the outside. Now, a setter can put their hands anywhere and chuck a ball to any of their hitters and that negates that disadvantage created from a bad pass/dig. Setting cleanly isn’t a “style”. It’s a skill. The only people that want to get rid of doubles are people who aren’t good at setting. If you are put in a situation where you can’t make a legal set, bump set it. It’s not that hard. Stop whining about the rules and just be good enough to play by the rules. You didn't read any of this thread, did you?
|
|
|
Post by Scipio Aemilianus on Apr 23, 2019 16:57:25 GMT -5
I did. Full of all sorts of opinions and honestly some not so smart arguments.
Who is the most famous or high up volleyball figure who has publicly advocated for getting rid of the double rule?
|
|
|
Post by donut on Apr 23, 2019 17:20:28 GMT -5
I did. Full of all sorts of opinions and honestly some not so smart arguments. Who is the most famous or high up volleyball figure who has publicly advocated for getting rid of the double rule? ^an appeal to authority is literally the definition of a "not so smart argument."
|
|
|
Post by justahick on Apr 23, 2019 19:03:29 GMT -5
I did. Full of all sorts of opinions and honestly some not so smart arguments. Who is the most famous or high up volleyball figure who has publicly advocated for getting rid of the double rule? If you haven't noticed that the FIVB leadership (and more recently USAV leadership) has been pushing their referees to be more lenient in what is considered a double over the past 10+ years, you haven't been paying attention.
|
|
|
Post by justahick on Apr 23, 2019 19:24:04 GMT -5
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 disagree. Like it or not, every referee has a line that defines the difference between a double and not a double. I would suspect that for good refs they are pretty consistent in the amount of time between hand contacts that they allow before they make a call. Lets say for the sake of discussion that we have a dividing line between hand contacts of 0.05 seconds (I have no idea if this is anywhere near a real number). Refs are trained to let the rally continue when possible, be consistent, and call the match fairly (i.e. not giving a competitive advantage). Over set doubles give a competitive advantage because the flight of the ball is less predictable while doubled sets to hitters give a competitive disadvantage due to loss of accuracy. In the case of over set vs set to hitter, consistency (calling everything above 0.05 sec a double) vs competitive advantage (deceptiveness vs accuracy) are in disagreement. This conflict leads to inconsistency both from one referee to another, and from one play to another (they look different, so they are hard to judge the same way). By getting rid of the double rule when the set stays on side, refs can (and will) get tighter (and more consistent) on over sets because they would no longer have to worry about consistency between two different situations.
|
|
|
Post by eazy on Apr 23, 2019 22:10:13 GMT -5
I did. Full of all sorts of opinions and honestly some not so smart arguments. Who is the most famous or high up volleyball figure who has publicly advocated for getting rid of the double rule? If you haven't noticed that the FIVB leadership (and more recently USAV leadership) has been pushing their referees to be more lenient in what is considered a double over the past 10+ years, you haven't been paying attention. There is a big difference between leniency and removing the rule. I’m all for being more lenient. I do not believe that spin is a good indicator of a double. But that doesn’t mean that I think anything goes is good for setting...
|
|
|
Post by eazy on Apr 23, 2019 22:13:08 GMT -5
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 disagree. Like it or not, every referee has a line that defines the difference between a double and not a double. I would suspect that for good refs they are pretty consistent in the amount of time between hand contacts that they allow before they make a call. Lets say for the sake of discussion that we have a dividing line between hand contacts of 0.05 seconds (I have no idea if this is anywhere near a real number). Refs are trained to let the rally continue when possible, be consistent, and call the match fairly (i.e. not giving a competitive advantage). Over set doubles give a competitive advantage because the flight of the ball is less predictable while doubled sets to hitters give a competitive disadvantage due to loss of accuracy. In the case of over set vs set to hitter, consistency (calling everything above 0.05 sec a double) vs competitive advantage (deceptiveness vs accuracy) are in disagreement. This conflict leads to inconsistency both from one referee to another, and from one play to another (they look different, so they are hard to judge the same way). By getting rid of the double rule when the set stays on side, refs can (and will) get tighter (and more consistent) on over sets because they would no longer have to worry about consistency between two different situations. This is where I disagree.. Who says a doubled set to a hitter is less predictable? I believe that a ball that is passed off the net and behind a setter can be taken overhand if it is doubled and set to either pin with the hands moving at different times/speeds/directions. That being said, that set is not unpredictable. It is where it should go. The hitter knows where it will go. It just shouldn’t be legal to mishandle a ball that badly in order to handset a ball that can’t be handset cleanly.
|
|