|
Post by eazy on Apr 23, 2019 22:14:13 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? ^an appeal to authority is literally the definition of a "not so smart argument." While it may technically be a logical fallacy, I think it says something that you can’t answer the question..
|
|
|
Post by eazy on Apr 23, 2019 22:19:06 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.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. If you remove it, the game would drastically change. Setters would handset everything and not care how it comes out. The game would look drastically different. For the record, I don’t agree with the rule change to allow doubles on a first contact. It was done to “increase the length of rallies” from what I was told, but I don’t personally care for long rallies. When is a rally long enough? One time over the net, five times, or ten times? Side note, this is why I HATE long rallies listed as “top plays.” 1 in 100 is exceptional defense. The other 99 is just terrible tipping and no real offense. Okay fair enough, those are also doubles. Moving together at the same speed at the same time.
|
|
|
Post by eazy on Apr 23, 2019 22:21:40 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. That’s fine, we don’t have to continue a discussion, but here is my one rebuttal to your claim. If a ball is rolled off a platform, starting at the shoulders and coming off the hands, is that a lift? Because that ball is neither caught nor thrown. So according to the wording of the rule, that should be legal. That ball is called dead in hitter coverage off the block 99.9% of the time. That is “style” according to you.
|
|
|
Post by Fight On! on Apr 24, 2019 1:51:32 GMT -5
There is no rule specific to setting related to doubles. The double contact rule was not initially intended to be used to gauge the legality or quality of sets, as I understand it.
|
|
|
Post by justahick on Apr 24, 2019 5:39:29 GMT -5
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. That’s fine, we don’t have to continue a discussion, but here is my one rebuttal to your claim. If a ball is rolled off a platform, starting at the shoulders and coming off the hands, is that a lift? Because that ball is neither caught nor thrown. So according to the wording of the rule, that should be legal. That ball is called dead in hitter coverage off the block 99.9% of the time. That is “style” according to you. No - that is a double, not a lift.
|
|
|
Post by vbin58 on Apr 24, 2019 7:49:20 GMT -5
It can't be a double. It is the first contact.
|
|
|
Post by donut on Apr 24, 2019 8:00:27 GMT -5
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. If you remove it, the game would drastically change. Setters would handset everything and not care how it comes out. The game would look drastically different. But this has been answered countless times in this thread. I heavily disagree with this. It is still in the best interest of setters to set cleanly. A good setter would never "not care how it comes out." Seeing a few more overhand sets instead of bump sets because a setter isn't afraid of getting called for a double does not drastically change the game.
|
|
|
Post by donut on Apr 24, 2019 8:13:07 GMT -5
^an appeal to authority is literally the definition of a "not so smart argument." While it may technically be a logical fallacy, I think it says something that you can’t answer the question.. It says I know what a logical fallacy is. The underlying assumption to his question is flawed, why would I answer it?
|
|
|
Post by Fight On! on Apr 24, 2019 8:57:30 GMT -5
That’s fine, we don’t have to continue a discussion, but here is my one rebuttal to your claim. If a ball is rolled off a platform, starting at the shoulders and coming off the hands, is that a lift? Because that ball is neither caught nor thrown. So according to the wording of the rule, that should be legal. That ball is called dead in hitter coverage off the block 99.9% of the time. That is “style” according to you. No - that is a double, not a lift. Not according to the rules. If the player didn’t make two distinct motions with his/her body to contact the the ball separately, it isn’t a double.
|
|
|
Post by justahick on Apr 24, 2019 13:06:15 GMT -5
No - that is a double, not a lift. Not according to the rules. If the player didn’t make two distinct motions with his/her body to contact the the ball separately, it isn’t a double. You are incorrect. A ball contacting multiple points on the body successively (either rolling or bouncing) is a double, not a lift. From the DCR (NCAA rules are similar): 9.3.4: DOUBLE CONTACT: A player hits the ball twice in succession or the ball contacts various parts of his/her body in succession. This is the reason a first contact that rolls off the hands, or up the arms should never be called.
|
|
|
Post by Winbabywin on Apr 24, 2019 13:32:15 GMT -5
Not according to the rules. If the player didn’t make two distinct motions with his/her body to contact the the ball separately, it isn’t a double. You are incorrect. A ball contacting multiple points on the body successively (either rolling or bouncing) is a double, not a lift. From the DCR (NCAA rules are similar): 9.3.4: DOUBLE CONTACT: A player hits the ball twice in succession or the ball contacts various parts of his/her body in succession. This is the reason a first contact that rolls off the hands, or up the arms should never be called. Hate to be an echo chamber up in here, but if you think this is a double, you are INCORRECT. A ball rolling from shoulders off the end of the platform, is not 2 separate contacts, it is 1 long contact...which, by definition, is a lift. There are still a ton of coaches & players that think you can do whatever you want with a 1st ball; a lift is NEVER NEVER ever legal.
|
|
|
Post by justahick on Apr 24, 2019 13:46:28 GMT -5
You are incorrect. A ball contacting multiple points on the body successively (either rolling or bouncing) is a double, not a lift. From the DCR (NCAA rules are similar): 9.3.4: DOUBLE CONTACT: A player hits the ball twice in succession or the ball contacts various parts of his/her body in succession. This is the reason a first contact that rolls off the hands, or up the arms should never be called. Hate to be an echo chamber up in here, but if you think this is a double, you are INCORRECT. A ball rolling from shoulders off the end of the platform, is not 2 separate contacts, it is 1 long contact...which, by definition, is a lift. There are still a ton of coaches & players that think you can do whatever you want with a 1st ball; a lift is NEVER NEVER ever legal. I can guarantee you you are mistaken. Check with any National level official (or any competent lower official) and they will all tell you I am right.
|
|
|
Post by justahick on Apr 24, 2019 13:51:24 GMT -5
You are incorrect. A ball contacting multiple points on the body successively (either rolling or bouncing) is a double, not a lift. From the DCR (NCAA rules are similar): 9.3.4: DOUBLE CONTACT: A player hits the ball twice in succession or the ball contacts various parts of his/her body in succession. This is the reason a first contact that rolls off the hands, or up the arms should never be called. This is not correct. For the NCAA version of the rules: 14.2.3.1 During blocking or during the team’s first hit, successive contacts with various parts of the player’s body are permitted in a single attempt to play the ball. Prolonged contact is a fault in these actions.
Rolling up your arms is prolonged contact and is a fault even on the first contact. Prolonged contact refers to to a specific point of contact, not to the entire body part. In other words, if the ball stays at the same part of the arm too long then it is a catch. If the ball rolls on the arm, there is no prolonged contact with any one point and therefor cannot be a catch.
|
|
|
Post by Winbabywin on Apr 24, 2019 13:56:33 GMT -5
I am an official, I just checked with myself...I'm right
|
|
|
Post by justahick on Apr 24, 2019 13:59:44 GMT -5
I am an official, I just checked with myself...I'm right Suggest you check with your Board Chair and sign up for a re-rating.
|
|