|
|
Post by haze on Jun 20, 2016 9:58:44 GMT -5
Hey Haze - what are the new rules the AVP is switching to in Chicago? Thanks! Let serves are a do over if they go in like tennis. Also, to win, match point has to be an earned point from the winners. I don't know yet if that means a point on serve, or like an actual earned point from the winners instead of an error by the other team. I think they're stupid myself. Why don't they just make serving aces 2 points while their at it. I like the old rules better, but whatever the choices are, let's just keep the game consistent all the way through. Do-overs and unaccounted points or washes are for practice type Gameplay settings IMHO. |
|
|
|
Post by crawdaddy on Jun 20, 2016 11:02:07 GMT -5
Hey Haze - what are the new rules the AVP is switching to in Chicago? Thanks! Let serves are a do over if they go in like tennis. Also, to win, match point has to be an earned point from the winners. I don't know yet if that means a point on serve, or like an actual earned point from the winners instead of an error by the other team. I think they're stupid myself. Why don't they just make serving aces 2 points while their at it. I like the old rules better, but whatever the choices are, let's just keep the game consistent all the way through. Do-overs and unaccounted points or washes are for practice type Gameplay settings IMHO. I disagree haze. Assuming that the second change you refer to is that the game reverts to side-out scoring when it reaches match (or game) point, I love both these rule changes. Just because there were bad rule changes in the past, doesn't mean we shouldn't try to make the game better and both of these changes would do that. The trickle-over let serve point has always been a joke. A team should not be rewarded for what is essentially pure luck. And having matches end on missed serves or even routine side outs also sucks, which is why I like the other change. I've long argued that if rally scoring is here to stay (which it certainly is), reverting to side-out scoring at game point makes sense. You keep the benefits of rally scoring (consistent match lengths) but you guarantee exciting finishes to games, you allow teams a chance to make better comebacks, and you eliminate anticlimactic (i.e., missed serves) finishes. |
|
|
|
Post by haze on Jun 20, 2016 11:39:42 GMT -5
We'll see how it plays out, but at the end of the day it's all about personal preference and opinion. I'm all for changing the rules of the game to help try and make it better.
I don't really like the side out scoring at the end of the game because it's a flat out change in rules of the game during the game, but whatever, we'll see how it plays out.
The let serve rule I really hate for 2 specific reasons; 1) volleyball is such a game of rhythm and momentum, and IMO you are risking a disturbance with that when you incorporate plays that just flat out don't count. They're "do-overs". Mulligans. If you want to make it "out" - awesome. But getting ready to play a point, and then it's a "do-over" because of the result is just stupid IMO. 2) you are creating another judgement call that gives players reasons to bag on the refs. Did it hit the tape? Did it not hit the tape? I understand refs make errors, and players have heated emotions, but there's already too much bagging on refs IMO about simple judgement call, and now your incorporating another one.
We'll see how it plays. Maybe it really benefits the play. I'm just someone who will reserve judgement to see.
|
|
|
|
Post by love2vball on Jun 20, 2016 12:00:01 GMT -5
I disagree haze. Assuming that the second change you refer to is that the game reverts to side-out scoring when it reaches match (or game) point, I love both these rule changes. Just because there were bad rule changes in the past, doesn't mean we shouldn't try to make the game better and both of these changes would do that. I've long argued that if rally scoring is here to stay (which it certainly is), reverting to side-out scoring at game point makes sense. You keep the benefits of rally scoring (consistent match lengths) but you guarantee exciting finishes to games, you allow teams a chance to make better comebacks, and you eliminate anticlimactic (i.e., missed serves) finishes. There actually was a season (maybe two) when the game was transitioning to rally scoring that this type rule was incorporated. It must have been the early 2000s and Im not sure if the men utilized it or not, but the women definitely did. It was more of a hybrid of this latest trial though. There was a score point where the teams reverted to sideout scoring instead of rally to allow the other team the opportunity to catch up. I really cant remember the details completely. It may have even been the third set to 15 that was only affected so it probably was rally rules except for this exception. What I do remember is that there was more excitement added to the ending of several matches because of it. If you didnt have a big serve or block, you could still find a way back into the game by playing defense which was always the attraction to sideout scoring. |
|
|
|
Post by ebes1099 on Jun 20, 2016 12:08:22 GMT -5
I want to know more about that last point being an "earned point". You're essentially giving the team behind in the score a chance to hit every serve as aggressive as they want without much penalty since they can't lost the match. I would assume if they miss it, the other team gets the serve, but then all you have to do is side out again and you can take another crack at hitting an aggressive serve with no penalty. Seems a little strange to me.
|
|
|
|
Post by crawdaddy on Jun 20, 2016 12:19:45 GMT -5
I want to know more about that last point being an "earned point". You're essentially giving the team behind in the score a chance to hit every serve as aggressive as they want without much penalty since they can't lost the match. I would assume if they miss it, the other team gets the serve, but then all you have to do is side out again and you can take another crack at hitting an aggressive serve with no penalty. Seems a little strange to me. Well, that's how the game was played since it was invented in Holyoke, MA in 1895 until the FIVB screwed with the rules just a decade or so ago. Also, it really doesn't change the serving strategy as much as you're implying. If you miss your serve, you're giving the other team an opportunity to win the match. |
|
|
|
Post by ardatak on Jun 20, 2016 13:31:19 GMT -5
As long as the game goes to sideout scoring for both teams, that's probably not a bad thing. But if only the winning team is forced into old-school scoring then it would be unfair.
|
|
|
|
Post by ebes1099 on Jun 20, 2016 13:32:14 GMT -5
I want to know more about that last point being an "earned point". You're essentially giving the team behind in the score a chance to hit every serve as aggressive as they want without much penalty since they can't lost the match. I would assume if they miss it, the other team gets the serve, but then all you have to do is side out again and you can take another crack at hitting an aggressive serve with no penalty. Seems a little strange to me. Well, that's how the game was played since it was invented in Holyoke, MA in 1895 until the FIVB screwed with the rules just a decade or so ago. Also, it really doesn't change the serving strategy as much as you're implying. If you miss your serve, you're giving the other team an opportunity to win the match. You're giving the other team an opportunity to win the match on their own serve...which is considerably harder than doing it on serve receive. It's much easier to side out than hold serve. I understand the game used to be played like that, without rally scoring, but it could be a significant change to the way scoring is currently being done today. Edit: Good point made above, it has to be side out scoring for both teams. Otherwise the team trailing has a huge advantage to be able to catch up. |
|
|
|
Post by haze on Jun 20, 2016 13:51:21 GMT -5
The sideout scoring on match point will be a mentality. Losing teams can serve super aggressive if they feel like they have nothing to lose, or they can get the serve in and try to catch up on defense and not want to give the other team a free sideout. Just different types of mentality. I do think that will incorporate a different dynamic in seeing who more aggressive teams are that play care free, but I still don't like a situation where a team can play so well to set themselves up to win, and then all of a sudden they are forced into a different mentality of trying to finish. It just isn't consistent play IMHO.
I love sideout scoring much better than current scoring, but the rules have changed and it is what it is, and at least it is consistent scoring throughout the flow of the game.
|
|
|
|
Post by crawdaddy on Jun 20, 2016 14:24:05 GMT -5
The sideout scoring on match point will be a mentality. Losing teams can serve super aggressive if they feel like they have nothing to lose, or they can get the serve in and try to catch up on defense and not want to give the other team a free sideout. Just different types of mentality. I do think that will incorporate a different dynamic in seeing who more aggressive teams are that play care free, but I still don't like a situation where a team can play so well to set themselves up to win, and then all of a sudden they are forced into a different mentality of trying to finish. It just isn't consistent play IMHO. I love sideout scoring much better than current scoring, but the rules have changed and it is what it is, and at least it is consistent scoring throughout the flow of the game. Yeah, I get that it seems strange to change the way you score during a match. But assuming the teams (and fans) get used to it, I really do see advantages. And I also don't see much harm in giving it a shot for a tournament or two. I expect you actually won't see much change in strategy (including serving strategy) when the game reaches match point. |
|
|
|
Post by vb2202 on Jun 21, 2016 16:07:25 GMT -5
|
|
|
|
Post by downtheline on Jun 22, 2016 23:00:25 GMT -5
Nice re-caps & write-ups. The C/H v W/R scores were even closer @ 18/19 not 16/18. Time will tell but that was closer than the final . |
|
|
|
Post by guest2 on Jun 22, 2016 23:24:58 GMT -5
Nice re-caps & write-ups. The C/H v W/R scores were even closer @ 18/19 not 16/18. Time will tell but that was closer than the final . Claes/Hughes are definitely legit and those games were a little closer than the scores, but Walsh/Ross weren't going very hard either. Long way for Sara and Kelly to where April/Kerri are. On the other hand, by the end of the year I think they can probably be the second best US team. Its them or Carico/Ross and I think they are better if they can cut out the awful errors. |
|
|
|
Post by JB Southpaw on Jun 23, 2016 6:52:45 GMT -5
Nice re-caps & write-ups. The C/H v W/R scores were even closer @ 18/19 not 16/18. Time will tell but that was closer than the final . Claes/Hughes are definitely legit and those games were a little closer than the scores, but Walsh/Ross weren't going very hard either. Long way for Sara and Kelly to where April/Kerri are. On the other hand, by the end of the year I think they can probably be the second best US team. Its them or Carico/Ross and I think they are better if they can cut out the awful errors. Agreed on Claes/Hughes being the 2nd best USA team. They need to get more reps at a higher level (FIVB) where every play matters, which I think will help them get rid of their errors. I'll tell you, Kerri and April should be training against these girls up to the Olympics. |
|
|
|
Post by guest2 on Jun 23, 2016 10:01:39 GMT -5
Claes/Hughes are definitely legit and those games were a little closer than the scores, but Walsh/Ross weren't going very hard either. Long way for Sara and Kelly to where April/Kerri are. On the other hand, by the end of the year I think they can probably be the second best US team. Its them or Carico/Ross and I think they are better if they can cut out the awful errors. Agreed on Claes/Hughes being the 2nd best USA team. They need to get more reps at a higher level (FIVB) where every play matters, which I think will help them get rid of their errors. I'll tell you, Kerri and April should be training against these girls up to the Olympics. I agree. Very few US teams physical enough to give Kerri/April good practice. Maybe should be men. I think one issue with their errors is they are so bad. You miss a swing by a foot deep, maybe it gets played, maybe you get a touch. Hit one 40 feet out and its a point for the other team 100% of the time. Its also easier to correct though and as Kelly makes more and more progress on strength and movement I think those go away. Also as her jump and approach get standardized. I havent been this excited about a potential team since we started talking about Kerri/April |
|
