|
Post by silverchloride on Jan 9, 2022 12:07:50 GMT -5
It's also clear that sometimes a set that is executed by "the setter" is not whistled, but the exact same set (or even one that is cleaner) *is* whistled if is executed by a non-setter. You know it's a problem when before the ball even reaches a middle's hands that they will very likely be called for a double simply because they're a middle. Agreed, it almost always ends badly.
|
|
|
Post by karellen on Jan 9, 2022 12:25:54 GMT -5
no doubles is an awful change in my opinion -- why are we legislating skill out of our game?? Hate it... what is legislating skill anyway? If we really wanted to legislate skill we would be assigning diff. points to attacks. 1 kill for a player touching the ball and def. touching but not digging it. 2 points if the ball is hit or tipped to the floor without any defender touching it. It takes more skill to make an attack with no defender touching it as you've pretty much fooled the entire defense. so "skill" of setting isn't really a thing. As it stands right now every referee calls it/sees it differently. That makes for a bad sport since you've got newbies watching the sport daily and having to be told why one ball spinning is called a foul and one is not. What you are describing is not legislating skill, it is legislating how game is scored, just like when we went from sideout to really scoring. Legislating, and lowering skill, is when an action that was a violation is now acceptable. I do not disagree that there are inconsistencies as to how doubles are called, but the answer is not to just remove the call. The answer is better training and explanation of what is to be called. Training varies from region to region and state to state. I would also argue that the top officials are pretty consistent with the calls. Issues arise at lower levels (again, I agree with this) and with officials who find themselves officiating a level that he/she is not ready for - again, training.
|
|
|
Post by txvbcoach on Jan 9, 2022 12:47:18 GMT -5
what is legislating skill anyway? If we really wanted to legislate skill we would be assigning diff. points to attacks. 1 kill for a player touching the ball and def. touching but not digging it. 2 points if the ball is hit or tipped to the floor without any defender touching it. It takes more skill to make an attack with no defender touching it as you've pretty much fooled the entire defense. so "skill" of setting isn't really a thing. As it stands right now every referee calls it/sees it differently. That makes for a bad sport since you've got newbies watching the sport daily and having to be told why one ball spinning is called a foul and one is not. What you are describing is not legislating skill, it is legislating how game is scored, just like when we went from sideout to really scoring. Legislating, and lowering skill, is when an action that was a violation is now acceptable. I do not disagree that there are inconsistencies as to how doubles are called, but the answer is not to just remove the call. The answer is better training and explanation of what is to be called. Training varies from region to region and state to state. I would also argue that the top officials are pretty consistent with the calls. Issues arise at lower levels (again, I agree with this) and with officials who find themselves officiating a level that he/she is not ready for - again, training. "Legislating, and lowering skill, is when an action that was a violation is now acceptable." but the skill/action that is a violation is unable to be enforced even remotely the same so the bias of applying the rule amongst referees makes the game confusing. it makes setters/coaches confused about what level of double will be allowed with this ref or that ref. no other sport legislates "skill" like this. someone mentioned the football spiral analogy that would be similar and would be laughed out of existence if any governing body were to propose a rule like that today. Plus, why is the men's game different in that referee's call it a lot more loosely then womens? what reason is that other then for the purpose of seeing more action and less legislation by refs who call it differently?
|
|
|
Post by utoolity on Jan 9, 2022 12:47:25 GMT -5
no doubles is an awful change in my opinion -- why are we legislating skill out of our game?? Hate it... what is legislating skill anyway? If we really wanted to legislate skill we would be assigning diff. points to attacks. 1 kill for a player touching the ball and def. touching but not digging it. 2 points if the ball is hit or tipped to the floor without any defender touching it. It takes more skill to make an attack with no defender touching it as you've pretty much fooled the entire defense. so "skill" of setting isn't really a thing. As it stands right now every referee calls it/sees it differently. That makes for a bad sport since you've got newbies watching the sport daily and having to be told why one ball spinning is called a foul and one is not. Referees call basketball games differently. It’s on the athletes to have the skills to adapt or use another skill (bump set or add more control to the 1st contact) and the refs to hold one standard for both sides of the match for its entirety. What we have is the only sport in the world with 3 rebound contacts and no possession. The reference to football quarterbacks and spirals is poor given the advantage of possession.
|
|
|
Post by silverchloride on Jan 9, 2022 12:53:58 GMT -5
what is legislating skill anyway? If we really wanted to legislate skill we would be assigning diff. points to attacks. 1 kill for a player touching the ball and def. touching but not digging it. 2 points if the ball is hit or tipped to the floor without any defender touching it. It takes more skill to make an attack with no defender touching it as you've pretty much fooled the entire defense. so "skill" of setting isn't really a thing. As it stands right now every referee calls it/sees it differently. That makes for a bad sport since you've got newbies watching the sport daily and having to be told why one ball spinning is called a foul and one is not. What you are describing is not legislating skill, it is legislating how game is scored, just like when we went from sideout to really scoring. Legislating, and lowering skill, is when an action that was a violation is now acceptable. I do not disagree that there are inconsistencies as to how doubles are called, but the answer is not to just remove the call. The answer is better training and explanation of what is to be called. Training varies from region to region and state to state. I would also argue that the top officials are pretty consistent with the calls. Issues arise at lower levels (again, I agree with this) and with officials who find themselves officiating a level that he/she is not ready for - again, training. Issues at different levels have manifested in my watching at the SCVA over the years. There was a solid season, maybe 6 years ago?, where the refs would consistently call Net on the girls if their HAIR hit it when they turned around. That just seemed wrong to me, but I did not know better. Of course, I later learned that is Not a foul, but it illustrates your point.
|
|
|
Post by mikegarrison on Jan 9, 2022 14:14:21 GMT -5
what is legislating skill anyway? If we really wanted to legislate skill we would be assigning diff. points to attacks. 1 kill for a player touching the ball and def. touching but not digging it. 2 points if the ball is hit or tipped to the floor without any defender touching it. It takes more skill to make an attack with no defender touching it as you've pretty much fooled the entire defense. so "skill" of setting isn't really a thing. As it stands right now every referee calls it/sees it differently. That makes for a bad sport since you've got newbies watching the sport daily and having to be told why one ball spinning is called a foul and one is not. What you are describing is not legislating skill, it is legislating how game is scored, just like when we went from sideout to really scoring. Legislating, and lowering skill, is when an action that was a violation is now acceptable. I do not disagree that there are inconsistencies as to how doubles are called, but the answer is not to just remove the call. The answer is better training and explanation of what is to be called. Training varies from region to region and state to state. I would also argue that the top officials are pretty consistent with the calls. Issues arise at lower levels (again, I agree with this) and with officials who find themselves officiating a level that he/she is not ready for - again, training. I want to say I don't understand this position, but sadly, I do understand it very well. It's rather like older people who complain "no one knows cursive writing anymore!" Um, yeah. That was a skill. Generations of people had to learn it. I had actual nuns teach it to me, and I got graded down on it all the time. I just could never make those cursive letters look right. And guess how often I need to write or even read cursive letters today? Just because "it is a skill" does not mean it is a valuable skill. But when every volleyball coach was taught since they started playing the game that they had to set "cleanly", and it was enforced by the refs, they learned the skill and learned to pass it along. And so they enforce it now on others. But WHY? If it really does benefit the hitter to get a "clean set", then no problem -- setters who make them will give their hitters better sets, and the skill will reward itself. And if it doesn't matter to the hitter, then why are we enforcing it? To me it seems like it is just style points, like in figure skating or platform diving.
|
|
|
Post by staticb on Jan 9, 2022 14:45:34 GMT -5
To me it seems like it is just style points, like in figure skating or platform diving. It's absolutely reeks of setter elitism to me. (I.e. "I trained my ass off so that I wouldn't be whistled for doubles I want all of you to get called too!") Based on the NCAA tournament, I would disagree that this is consistently called. At the lower levels the criteria for what's generally a minimum wage'ish job is already ridiculous. If it were easy to train and call this wouldn't be a problem. But it is. The rule needs to be simplified or removed altogether.
|
|
|
Post by radioactiveman on Jan 9, 2022 15:18:57 GMT -5
Legislating, and lowering skill, is when an action that was a violation is now acceptable. A rule and skill are two different things.
|
|
|
Post by zero-rotation outside hitter on Jan 9, 2022 15:51:55 GMT -5
I apologize if this was mentioned in the previous ten pages, but I can remember Hugh McCutcheon commenting in an interview that he wasn't a bit fan of calling the double (and cool it if you immediately think of Shaffmaster...this was before she was at MN). His argument made sense to me, which I"m paraphrasing: "When, if someone 'doubles' it, are they really bettering the ball?" I think that's mostly true. Let them play. It takes out the inconsistency from referees calling/not calling them, and if a setter can't set a ball without doubling it, more than likely it's not a ball that will put their hitter in position to put it away. Yes, it won't end the play if it's not called, but they already don't call doubles on first contact. I'm all for the change.
Edit addition: It would be different if they were considering taking away a lift. There's an advantage to keeping your hands on the ball longer to direct it more specifically. There is no advantage to doubling the ball.
|
|
|
Post by bbg95 on Jan 9, 2022 16:08:25 GMT -5
To me it seems like it is just style points, like in figure skating or platform diving. It's absolutely reeks of setter elitism to me. (I.e. "I trained my ass off so that I wouldn't be whistled for doubles I want all of you to get called too!") Based on the NCAA tournament, I would disagree that this is consistently called. At the lower levels the criteria for what's generally a minimum wage'ish job is already ridiculous. If it were easy to train and call this wouldn't be a problem. But it is. The rule needs to be simplified or removed altogether. Exactly. It reminds me of Kirk Herbstreit and Desmond Howard bemoaning guys opting out of meaningless bowl games to protect their draft status. And as far as the argument that it will "lower" skill, I disagree. It will just let setters devote more of their focus to other skills. They're still going to want to set the ball cleanly due to it being better for the offense, but now they can make more daring sets without worrying that they'll be whistled for a double.
|
|
|
Post by justahick on Jan 9, 2022 19:02:12 GMT -5
To me it seems like it is just style points, like in figure skating or platform diving. It's absolutely reeks of setter elitism to me. (I.e. "I trained my ass off so that I wouldn't be whistled for doubles I want all of you to get called too!") Based on the NCAA tournament, I would disagree that this is consistently called. At the lower levels the criteria for what's generally a minimum wage'ish job is already ridiculous. If it were easy to train and call this wouldn't be a problem. But it is. The rule needs to be simplified or removed altogether. Agree...the difference between high level and inexpensive is that inexperienced refs are unable to be consistent during a single match...high level refs will be consistent with themselves but Pati will not call anywhere near the same match as Kathy.
|
|
|
Post by silverchloride on Jan 9, 2022 21:02:02 GMT -5
It's absolutely reeks of setter elitism to me. (I.e. "I trained my ass off so that I wouldn't be whistled for doubles I want all of you to get called too!") Based on the NCAA tournament, I would disagree that this is consistently called. At the lower levels the criteria for what's generally a minimum wage'ish job is already ridiculous. If it were easy to train and call this wouldn't be a problem. But it is. The rule needs to be simplified or removed altogether. Exactly. It reminds me of Kirk Herbstreit and Desmond Howard bemoaning guys opting out of meaningless bowl games to protect their draft status. And as far as the argument that it will "lower" skill, I disagree. It will just let setters devote more of their focus to other skills. They're still going to want to set the ball cleanly due to it being better for the offense, but now they can make more daring sets without worrying that they'll be whistled for a double.This. That might open up more options for the setter, since there will be no penalty for trying, that could result in a more dynamic match. Food for thought.
|
|
|
Post by utoolity on Jan 9, 2022 22:25:11 GMT -5
Exactly. It reminds me of Kirk Herbstreit and Desmond Howard bemoaning guys opting out of meaningless bowl games to protect their draft status. And as far as the argument that it will "lower" skill, I disagree. It will just let setters devote more of their focus to other skills. They're still going to want to set the ball cleanly due to it being better for the offense, but now they can make more daring sets without worrying that they'll be whistled for a double.This. That might open up more options for the setter, since there will be no penalty for trying, that could result in a more dynamic match. Food for thought. It really helps the non setters get others back in system. Taller less skilled players also benefit around the net by being able to make a play on the ball that otherwise could have limited them if they’ve got bad ball skills to compliment mad hops.
|
|
|
Post by justahick on Jan 10, 2022 0:59:02 GMT -5
Nothing on throws? Disappointed. Would love to hear your suggestion. There is already a rule in place, what do you want to see in a RULE CHANGE?
|
|
|
Post by vbin58 on Jan 10, 2022 9:49:13 GMT -5
A majority of the double calls and throw calls occur on plays that are tight to the net. The officials must be concerned with the ball contact, net contact, ball in the plane, did the blocker reach over. These judgements can be eliminated with one simple change. Make any ball a blocker can reach legal to block and make all net contacts illegal. This will move setters off of the net and back hitters off of the net. In doing this, the game will become more spectator friendly. Longer rallies will become the norm due to enhanced defensive opportunities. Throws along the net will be eliminated because the ball won't get to the net. The more "judgement" calls are removed from the game the more spectator friendly the game becomes. Points are won by the athletes, not because the person on the ladder blew the whistle. As a coach, player and official, I would have no problem adjusting to this change. It encourages longer rallies and rewards defensive effort without penalizing the offense. The outcome of the game should always be player determined. This isn't gymnastics, where nonparticipants determine the winner.
|
|