|
Post by moderndaycoach on Jan 11, 2022 17:21:23 GMT -5
This comment by Haley should be all the reason you need to understand why it is imperative that strategy and rules advance to make our game better, could you even imagine if a coach still installed this type of system or strategy today? Not all changes make the game better. Many rules over the years have backfired. Some were changed, some weren't. A lot of tinkering having to do with chasing TV dollars rather than making the sport better. People playing or coaching "now" tend to think the rules "now" are the best, whenever "now" happens to be. In 30 years, when you don't recognize your game, you will probably think the same thing. Not a lot of sports have tinkered as much as volleyball over the years. I have been around the game for over 30 years and played/coached through multiple different iterations of the rules and game in general. I am not sure what tinkering has been done to chase TV dollars other than eliminating side out scoring, because absolutely no one liked playing 3-4 hour matches, let alone officiating or watching them. Changes like rally scoring, doubling first contact, libero, double libero, pursuit, and number of subs were some of the great ones and made the game much better. Others like changing the end score to 30, and allowing any follow through contact with the middle net (excluding the tape) were bad changes. I would be interested in what you think has been tinkered for TV dollars considering volleyball makes very little money ad wise (domestically), and what has changed to the point you don't recognize "your" game anymore.
|
|
|
Post by oldnewbie on Jan 11, 2022 17:52:41 GMT -5
I'm talking about faking a jump set and turning and slamming the ball with two hands. Clearly not a legal set, not clear why it is legal at all, but there must be guidance to allow it. Absolutely I am old and crusty and am not a fan of the constant tinkering with the rules. "Back in my day" taking a serve overhead would be (correctly) viewed as an attempted set and most every time would be a violation. You probably don't think there should be such a thing as a bad set, so for you there would be no change. I was told that the original intent of allowing the first contact to be taken overhead with no penalty was to aid the defense to extend rallies, and was not meant to make it easier for huge front row players with limited backrow skills to more easily pass and make to make it even easier to side out and makes the average rally even shorter (especially for men). I'm also not a fan of eliminating calls like double contacts because the refs suck. We don't do that in other sports, why do we accept it in volleyball? In any case, that's what all the kids are talking about down at my old folks home. Yea, I see absolutely nothing wrong with the fake jump set leading to a two handed dump, if the setter is front row it is your responsibility to make sure you have a player who could be considered another attacker covered. As long as they don't move the ball through two body axis planes, at which point it would be a lift/throw, then it is a legal play. I played when you couldn't hand pass the first contact without it being clean, and I played when you could be falling backwards and slap at the ball to keep it alive as long as you didn't lift it and I am in favor of the current set of rules. It makes for a better game - as the game evolved with more aggressive serves (hi velo tops/jump floaters) the game has sped up and part of adapting to the advancement of the serving skillsets is also the skillsets you can use in general, including first contact. Just like I commented in here before, if they decide to eliminate doubles it does not mean all of a sudden everyone will magically find hands, just like huge front row players all of a sudden weren't just able to take first contacts with hands because they were worse with arm passing or had poor back rows. Skillsets still have to be developed, and as the game changes the rules and skillsets needed to play at a high level must adapt as well. Rules change not only because the game advances, but because people are desperate for officials and in some states it is an open book test so that sh*tty soccer/football/basketball ref can come inside and make some extra money during high school or club season by doing volleyball because they watched it on tv or played it once in middle school gym class and be sh*tty at that as well - if we can't control the quality of officials across the board then why not eliminate a subjective rule that nit picky power trip officials want to have an opinion on? Could you even imagine if we still had side out scoring, volleyball would be tanking in popularity as we would have 4-5 hour matches that absolutely no one would want to watch or play when kids learning can't even serve over the net. I never played a 4 hour match in my life, let alone 5. That is hyperbole for effect. In fact, while the variance in matches became more predictable (which was the intent), the matches actually got longer on average with rally scoring. That is why they reduced from 30 to 25. Rally scoring to 25 ends up taking roughly as long as a side-out game to play. Your mythical 4-5 hour matches were not a real thing. Side-out scoring also seems (from the study) to give the better team an even greater advantage. I'm also confused by your claim that rally scoring makes watching kids who can't serve easier to watch. Ironically, that is the exact scenario where rally scoring games take longer than side-out scoring games. Nobody but parents want to watch those kids play either way, but side-out scoring would get it over with faster in general due to longer service runs by the kids who can get it over the net. I'm using this reference.
|
|
|
Post by moderndaycoach on Jan 11, 2022 18:20:51 GMT -5
Yea, I see absolutely nothing wrong with the fake jump set leading to a two handed dump, if the setter is front row it is your responsibility to make sure you have a player who could be considered another attacker covered. As long as they don't move the ball through two body axis planes, at which point it would be a lift/throw, then it is a legal play. I played when you couldn't hand pass the first contact without it being clean, and I played when you could be falling backwards and slap at the ball to keep it alive as long as you didn't lift it and I am in favor of the current set of rules. It makes for a better game - as the game evolved with more aggressive serves (hi velo tops/jump floaters) the game has sped up and part of adapting to the advancement of the serving skillsets is also the skillsets you can use in general, including first contact. Just like I commented in here before, if they decide to eliminate doubles it does not mean all of a sudden everyone will magically find hands, just like huge front row players all of a sudden weren't just able to take first contacts with hands because they were worse with arm passing or had poor back rows. Skillsets still have to be developed, and as the game changes the rules and skillsets needed to play at a high level must adapt as well. Rules change not only because the game advances, but because people are desperate for officials and in some states it is an open book test so that sh*tty soccer/football/basketball ref can come inside and make some extra money during high school or club season by doing volleyball because they watched it on tv or played it once in middle school gym class and be sh*tty at that as well - if we can't control the quality of officials across the board then why not eliminate a subjective rule that nit picky power trip officials want to have an opinion on? Could you even imagine if we still had side out scoring, volleyball would be tanking in popularity as we would have 4-5 hour matches that absolutely no one would want to watch or play when kids learning can't even serve over the net. I never played a 4 hour match in my life, let alone 5. That is hyperbole for effect. In fact, while the variance in matches became more predictable (which was the intent), the matches actually got longer on average with rally scoring. That is why they reduced from 30 to 25. Rally scoring to 25 ends up taking roughly as long as a side-out game to play. Your mythical 4-5 hour matches were not a real thing. Side-out scoring also seems (from the study) to give the better team an even greater advantage. I'm also confused by your claim that rally scoring makes watching kids who can't serve easier to watch. Ironically, that is the exact scenario where rally scoring games take longer than side-out scoring games. Nobody but parents want to watch those kids play either way, but side-out scoring would get it over with faster in general due to longer service runs by the kids who can get it over the net. I'm using this reference. No chance, in the late 90's early 2000's you had girls high school varsity matches easily going 3-4 hours, granted yes 5 is prob a stretch and very rarely happened, but if you played a full set matches would easily pass the 3 hour mark nearing 4 and more if it was a great match. If you want something to last around 4 hours go play a round of golf. Rally scoring greatly increased the speed of the matches and going to 30 was only for a couple years before everyone realized how terrible it was. I am not sure how you correlate that kids that can't serve during side out scoring made the games go faster, you do remember that you had to have service to gain a point, right? Even if you had 1 or 2 kids that could serve it did not mean they were running the table, and by time it got back to their rotation who knows how long it had been. No one in their right mind wants to watch 8 consecutive missed serves then all of a sudden have an awesome rally that results in a side out only for that team to immediately miss their serve and you have just spent a solid 20 minutes with maybe 3-5 total points if you were lucky. I am not talking at the highest level of play but from about 10 years old through 18, the game is better for these changes. I am still interested in changes to the game that you thought were bad, or that make the game unrecognizable to you.
|
|
|
Post by justahick on Jan 11, 2022 19:02:24 GMT -5
Pretty much anything that "looks wonky" is subject to be called. The thing is, if a referee did not call a "spinning" ball, the coaches would be IRATE (having officiated many Club and high school matches, I can assure you this is the case) so at the moment, it pretty well actually has to be called, even if it is not clearly a "double hit". No it doesn't - good referees do not call on spin, they don't care how much the coaches complain - that's what cards are for. The problem might be there aren't enough good referees available to ref HS matches - but that is a different issue alltogether.
|
|
|
Post by oldnewbie on Jan 11, 2022 19:20:37 GMT -5
I never played a 4 hour match in my life, let alone 5. That is hyperbole for effect. In fact, while the variance in matches became more predictable (which was the intent), the matches actually got longer on average with rally scoring. That is why they reduced from 30 to 25. Rally scoring to 25 ends up taking roughly as long as a side-out game to play. Your mythical 4-5 hour matches were not a real thing. Side-out scoring also seems (from the study) to give the better team an even greater advantage. I'm also confused by your claim that rally scoring makes watching kids who can't serve easier to watch. Ironically, that is the exact scenario where rally scoring games take longer than side-out scoring games. Nobody but parents want to watch those kids play either way, but side-out scoring would get it over with faster in general due to longer service runs by the kids who can get it over the net. I'm using this reference. No chance, in the late 90's early 2000's you had girls high school varsity matches easily going 3-4 hours, granted yes 5 is prob a stretch and very rarely happened, but if you played a full set matches would easily pass the 3 hour mark nearing 4 and more if it was a great match. If you want something to last around 4 hours go play a round of golf. Rally scoring greatly increased the speed of the matches and going to 30 was only for a couple years before everyone realized how terrible it was. I am not sure how you correlate that kids that can't serve during side out scoring made the games go faster, you do remember that you had to have service to gain a point, right? Even if you had 1 or 2 kids that could serve it did not mean they were running the table, and by time it got back to their rotation who knows how long it had been. No one in their right mind wants to watch 8 consecutive missed serves then all of a sudden have an awesome rally that results in a side out only for that team to immediately miss their serve and you have just spent a solid 20 minutes with maybe 3-5 total points if you were lucky. I am not talking at the highest level of play but from about 10 years old through 18, the game is better for these changes. I am still interested in changes to the game that you thought were bad, or that make the game unrecognizable to you. Matches in the 80's didn't go that long, so I have no idea what you were doing between points to make it take that long in the late 90's. A quick google search just came up that the longest match in NCAA history was 3 hours and 38 minutes, so not only were 4 hour matches not typical, they never actually happened. The same two teams that missed 8 serves suddenly have a great rally? Again, you are making that up. What actually happens is that the one or 2 girls on each side that can get the ball over the net go on big scoring runs. With rally scoring to 15 that can actually shorten the games under that exact scenario. That doesn't mean you aren't still bored. Rule changes that didn't stick? When is the last time you saw a serve blocked? How many times can we change the rules for the center line and net touches?
|
|
|
Post by mikegarrison on Jan 11, 2022 20:08:40 GMT -5
So… should blocking the ball with both arms/hands also become verboten? Blocking is not attacking. They are very different things in the rule book and officials are used to separating the two. Most notably, an attack counts as the first team contact while a block doesn't. Well ... it does now. Didn't used to. I'm sure people screamed bloody murder when they changed the rule so that blocking didn't count as one of your three touches. I think that happened in the late 1970s.
|
|
|
Post by mikegarrison on Jan 11, 2022 20:19:03 GMT -5
No chance, in the late 90's early 2000's you had girls high school varsity matches easily going 3-4 hours, granted yes 5 is prob a stretch and very rarely happened, but if you played a full set matches would easily pass the 3 hour mark nearing 4 and more if it was a great match. If you want something to last around 4 hours go play a round of golf. When I was in high school they played best 2 of 3, and the third set was rally scoring. I certainly don't remember any match going 3-4 hours.
|
|
|
Post by mikegarrison on Jan 11, 2022 20:21:19 GMT -5
When is the last time you saw a serve blocked? I used to love to block (or at least try to block) serves in college. (Note, I was playing in coed "D League" intermural, the lowest level they had to offer.)
|
|
|
Post by hebrooks87 on Jan 11, 2022 21:14:10 GMT -5
When is the last time you saw a serve blocked? I used to love to block (or at least try to block) serves in college. (Note, I was playing in coed "D League" intermural, the lowest level they had to offer.) Blocking the serve is still allowed in sitting volleyball. Worked a sitting tournament where a high school standing team came to play sitting for the fun of it. They were really excited about blocking the serve until the other team blocked their first serve straight down.
|
|
|
Post by justahick on Jan 11, 2022 23:15:29 GMT -5
No chance, in the late 90's early 2000's you had girls high school varsity matches easily going 3-4 hours, granted yes 5 is prob a stretch and very rarely happened, but if you played a full set matches would easily pass the 3 hour mark nearing 4 and more if it was a great match. If you want something to last around 4 hours go play a round of golf. When I was in high school they played best 2 of 3, and the third set was rally scoring. I certainly don't remember any match going 3-4 hours. Depended on the state - some states played 3/5.
|
|
|
Post by moderndaycoach on Jan 12, 2022 9:49:03 GMT -5
No chance, in the late 90's early 2000's you had girls high school varsity matches easily going 3-4 hours, granted yes 5 is prob a stretch and very rarely happened, but if you played a full set matches would easily pass the 3 hour mark nearing 4 and more if it was a great match. If you want something to last around 4 hours go play a round of golf. Rally scoring greatly increased the speed of the matches and going to 30 was only for a couple years before everyone realized how terrible it was. I am not sure how you correlate that kids that can't serve during side out scoring made the games go faster, you do remember that you had to have service to gain a point, right? Even if you had 1 or 2 kids that could serve it did not mean they were running the table, and by time it got back to their rotation who knows how long it had been. No one in their right mind wants to watch 8 consecutive missed serves then all of a sudden have an awesome rally that results in a side out only for that team to immediately miss their serve and you have just spent a solid 20 minutes with maybe 3-5 total points if you were lucky. I am not talking at the highest level of play but from about 10 years old through 18, the game is better for these changes. I am still interested in changes to the game that you thought were bad, or that make the game unrecognizable to you. Matches in the 80's didn't go that long, so I have no idea what you were doing between points to make it take that long in the late 90's. A quick google search just came up that the longest match in NCAA history was 3 hours and 38 minutes, so not only were 4 hour matches not typical, they never actually happened. The same two teams that missed 8 serves suddenly have a great rally? Again, you are making that up. What actually happens is that the one or 2 girls on each side that can get the ball over the net go on big scoring runs. With rally scoring to 15 that can actually shorten the games under that exact scenario. That doesn't mean you aren't still bored. Rule changes that didn't stick? When is the last time you saw a serve blocked? How many times can we change the rules for the center line and net touches? 100% you regularly had girls high school matches in the 90's going over 3 hours with some reaching 4, side out scoring going away is one of the greatest changes we had made to our game. I am not talking NCAA where you have the best players from areas recruited to all play together, I am talking to evenly matched mediocre or bad teams taking over 3 hours to play a varsity match where one can be over in an hour and a half now. And my argument is that rally scoring is better and greatly improved watching the younger games, no one wants to watch 12 year olds take 2 hours to play a club match. And I wasn't arguing you that all rule changes were great, obviously blocking the serve was another that failed and I also agree that tinkering with the center line was just plain dangerous. If you would have read my other posts you would see that I mentioned net touches and how I hated the follow through rule if you didn't touch the tape. I am still interested in what you consider a change that is still in play today that you think is worse for the game making it unrecognizable.
|
|
|
Post by moderndaycoach on Jan 12, 2022 9:51:56 GMT -5
No chance, in the late 90's early 2000's you had girls high school varsity matches easily going 3-4 hours, granted yes 5 is prob a stretch and very rarely happened, but if you played a full set matches would easily pass the 3 hour mark nearing 4 and more if it was a great match. If you want something to last around 4 hours go play a round of golf. When I was in high school they played best 2 of 3, and the third set was rally scoring. I certainly don't remember any match going 3-4 hours. Rally scoring didn't really exist in a lot of high schools until the early to mid 2000's, so playing a third set of side out volleyball could have easily added another 45 minutes to your match - and if you lived in a region that played 3/5 there was a real change you exceeded 4 hours. Among plenty of other reasons, a big one in my opinion why Karch's Cuervo tour failed was because he tried to take it old school back to side out scoring. Tourneys that still play that way now are a one off novelty and IMO it is for the better when every play matters.
|
|
|
Post by oldnewbie on Jan 12, 2022 11:36:41 GMT -5
Matches in the 80's didn't go that long, so I have no idea what you were doing between points to make it take that long in the late 90's. A quick google search just came up that the longest match in NCAA history was 3 hours and 38 minutes, so not only were 4 hour matches not typical, they never actually happened. The same two teams that missed 8 serves suddenly have a great rally? Again, you are making that up. What actually happens is that the one or 2 girls on each side that can get the ball over the net go on big scoring runs. With rally scoring to 15 that can actually shorten the games under that exact scenario. That doesn't mean you aren't still bored. Rule changes that didn't stick? When is the last time you saw a serve blocked? How many times can we change the rules for the center line and net touches? 100% you regularly had girls high school matches in the 90's going over 3 hours with some reaching 4, side out scoring going away is one of the greatest changes we had made to our game. I am not talking NCAA where you have the best players from areas recruited to all play together, I am talking to evenly matched mediocre or bad teams taking over 3 hours to play a varsity match where one can be over in an hour and a half now. And my argument is that rally scoring is better and greatly improved watching the younger games, no one wants to watch 12 year olds take 2 hours to play a club match. And I wasn't arguing you that all rule changes were great, obviously blocking the serve was another that failed and I also agree that tinkering with the center line was just plain dangerous. If you would have read my other posts you would see that I mentioned net touches and how I hated the follow through rule if you didn't touch the tape. I am still interested in what you consider a change that is still in play today that you think is worse for the game making it unrecognizable. Again, no idea where you were, but that was not typical, was not due to the scoring method and most likely your memory is going. Matches just didn't take that long, unless you are including an hour-plus warmup, 20 minute break between games 2 and 3 and a 5 minute break between other games. They have cut out a lot of the time between sets now, which has nothing to do with the scoring system but which can shave 20-30 minutes off of a 5 set match. Plus, as others have stated, a lot of places only played best of 3 in any case. Throwing out things like 12 year olds playing a 2 hour club match is just silly. As stated, matches of that caliber usually take less time with sideout scoring, not more. You are just making things up to try to make a point. There are two primary reasons why rally scoring is preferred: 1) casual fans can understand it better, and 2) There is less variability in the time slot so it can more easily fit within a set TV block. A large part of that variability is that matches could end more quickly with sideout scoring, or the exact opposite of your complaint. You are going on about how much longer it was, and that just wasn't the case.
|
|
|
Post by isaacspaceman on Jan 12, 2022 12:56:47 GMT -5
Listen, the one thing I want to commend the Rules Committee on is the hard line it has drawn against jewelry below the chin. How many times have we seen an attacker go up, and right when she reaches full extension, her jersey rides up a couple of inches and BAM, belly-button piercing ruining the game. It’s really distracting for the blockers who are above the net looking at the attack angle and the ball for there to be a tiny piece of jewelry just sitting there, 24 inches or so outside their field of vision. It’s dangerous, too. An opposing player might cross the center line under the net, take a step or two, stoop over, and poke her eye out on that thing. What we really need in this sport is a whistle every time a ref thinks he or she has caught a glimpse of forbidden bling. That’s why I support the “below the chin” language instead of just “necklaces or loose jewelry,” which some people think is the intent of the rule. Because policing women’s fashion choices, even when non-intrusive and even non-visible during a match, is just a part of the game.
|
|
|
Post by moderndaycoach on Jan 12, 2022 12:57:52 GMT -5
100% you regularly had girls high school matches in the 90's going over 3 hours with some reaching 4, side out scoring going away is one of the greatest changes we had made to our game. I am not talking NCAA where you have the best players from areas recruited to all play together, I am talking to evenly matched mediocre or bad teams taking over 3 hours to play a varsity match where one can be over in an hour and a half now. And my argument is that rally scoring is better and greatly improved watching the younger games, no one wants to watch 12 year olds take 2 hours to play a club match. And I wasn't arguing you that all rule changes were great, obviously blocking the serve was another that failed and I also agree that tinkering with the center line was just plain dangerous. If you would have read my other posts you would see that I mentioned net touches and how I hated the follow through rule if you didn't touch the tape. I am still interested in what you consider a change that is still in play today that you think is worse for the game making it unrecognizable. Again, no idea where you were, but that was not typical, was not due to the scoring method and most likely your memory is going. Matches just didn't take that long, unless you are including an hour-plus warmup, 20 minute break between games 2 and 3 and a 5 minute break between other games. They have cut out a lot of the time between sets now, which has nothing to do with the scoring system but which can shave 20-30 minutes off of a 5 set match. Plus, as others have stated, a lot of places only played best of 3 in any case. Throwing out things like 12 year olds playing a 2 hour club match is just silly. As stated, matches of that caliber usually take less time with sideout scoring, not more. You are just making things up to try to make a point. There are two primary reasons why rally scoring is preferred: 1) casual fans can understand it better, and 2) There is less variability in the time slot so it can more easily fit within a set TV block. A large part of that variability is that matches could end more quickly with sideout scoring, or the exact opposite of your complaint. You are going on about how much longer it was, and that just wasn't the case. Aside from the fact we just straight up fundamentally disagree that volleyball matches as a whole take way less time now with rally scoring than side out scoring, regardless of age, I am not sure I am the one who's memory is going as I know I had complained for years that rally scoring should be the standard from the very first time I watched it. When speaking across all levels of volleyball, especially at younger levels, rally scoring will always speed up because there is literally a point recorded every single whistle instead of watching missed serves traded back and forth before that one or two kids possibly gets a couple points before you watch more missed serves or their service ended because a kid accidently passed it back over the net and a bunch of those little kids watched the ball drop or rocketed it into the bleachers. To your next point about casual fans understanding it better - pretty simple to understand that you could only score when you held service, and I agree about the less variability just on the other side of the argument. A set could absolutely take less time because there are points being scored every single whistle, where as side out scoring is unpredictable because unless the side who holds service is getting plus runs there are zero points being scored and a set could now take 45 minutes alone - you have a consistent set time that typically runs the same across all levels where you did not have that with side out scoring. Plain and simple rally scoring makes a volleyball match keep a consistent pace of play, and the only reason a match goes longer is because either both teams are just laughably bad, or the match is very evenly competitive and you go into extra points where you still have to win by two and are likely trading blows. Just look at the AVP implementing the freeze, you have matches that should have been over in 5 minutes that are being extended 15-20 minutes and allowing for major comebacks if the team holding serve can not get a defensive stop and terminate. You still haven't given changes that are still in play that you feel make the game unrecognizable, unless what I am understanding is you are very much not a fan of rally scoring and therefore when that switch was implemented you think it made volleyball unrecognizable to you.
|
|