|
Post by moderndaycoach on Jan 12, 2022 13:01:04 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. I never had an opinion on jewelry until I watched a high school kid while coaching get her earing caught in the net and have it rip out straight through the cartilage. While I think some refs freak out about simple things like belly button piercings or bobby pins, I can understand where the safety aspect is.
|
|
|
Post by mikegarrison on Jan 12, 2022 13:27:45 GMT -5
If you've never seen a picture of a ring avulsion, do yourself a favor and don't look it up on the internet.
That being said, I always assumed the ban was mainly because they didn't want stoppage of play as people tried to look for stuff that had broken and fallen to the floor.
|
|
|
Post by oldnewbie on Jan 12, 2022 14:12:57 GMT -5
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. I think you greatly overestimate the "average" fan, when for every national broadcast (tournament and olympics) they start off by explaining that there are 3 contacts per side. You are also completely ignoring the probability studies that show how long matches will take under different scenarios. There is no question that a rally set to 15 will go at least as fast as a sideout set to 15 and probably faster. After that it is merely a question of where you want to set the bar to make a match last as arbitrarily long as you want. 30 points? 25 points? 5th game only to 15? 5th game sideout scoring or rally scoring? I am fine with rally scoring, I'm just pointing out that your primary complaint that sideout scoring takes too long is not valid, and that reducing the variance in match lengths has done very little to promote adoption by more mainstream TV outlets. There are two reasons I like sideout scoring better, and neither are showstoppers: 1) The probability stats show that rally scoring gives an additional edge to the "better" team, and 2) It is much harder to come back from a deficit, which tends to make sets very boring once a team has a comfortable lead. That's why they continue to tinker with scoring and have experimented with more but shorter sets. Rally scoring didn't make the game "unrecognizable", but it did make a noticeable difference in the mentality of the game. A rule that I think has changed the game negatively? No secret that I don't understand the point of the libero rule. If the point was to expand the role of defensive players, how does allowing one player to play in 2 defensive spots achieve that? In order to support one person playing in two spots, we added a separate jersey, a separate tracking sheet and a bunch of special rules to prevent a coach from exploiting a stupid rule to be the setter or another hitter. In the process they created a new class of 3 rotation front row player with no ball control skills whatsoever, which I find to be a complete travesty, especially for young players coming up. I have yet to hear a single positive argument for the libero rule that could not be achieved by a simple sub.
|
|
|
Post by moderndaycoach on Jan 12, 2022 14:55:22 GMT -5
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. I think you greatly overestimate the "average" fan, when for every national broadcast (tournament and olympics) they start off by explaining that there are 3 contacts per side. You are also completely ignoring the probability studies that show how long matches will take under different scenarios. There is no question that a rally set to 15 will go at least as fast as a sideout set to 15 and probably faster. After that it is merely a question of where you want to set the bar to make a match last as arbitrarily long as you want. 30 points? 25 points? 5th game only to 15? 5th game sideout scoring or rally scoring? I am fine with rally scoring, I'm just pointing out that your primary complaint that sideout scoring takes too long is not valid, and that reducing the variance in match lengths has done very little to promote adoption by more mainstream TV outlets. There are two reasons I like sideout scoring better, and neither are showstoppers: 1) The probability stats show that rally scoring gives an additional edge to the "better" team, and 2) It is much harder to come back from a deficit, which tends to make sets very boring once a team has a comfortable lead. That's why they continue to tinker with scoring and have experimented with more but shorter sets. Rally scoring didn't make the game "unrecognizable", but it did make a noticeable difference in the mentality of the game. A rule that I think has changed the game negatively? No secret that I don't understand the point of the libero rule. If the point was to expand the role of defensive players, how does allowing one player to play in 2 defensive spots achieve that? In order to support one person playing in two spots, we added a separate jersey, a separate tracking sheet and a bunch of special rules to prevent a coach from exploiting a stupid rule to be the setter or another hitter. In the process they created a new class of 3 rotation front row player with no ball control skills whatsoever, which I find to be a complete travesty, especially for young players coming up. I have yet to hear a single positive argument for the libero rule that could not be achieved by a simple sub. So if you are so openly admitting that a rally set to 15 will go faster than side out, how can even justify that a match to 21/25/30 would go slower, if anything it is faster than a side out match going to 21/25/30 which anyone who played/coached in both eras knows and we are currently seeing play out by having match point freeze the scoring reverting to side out scoring on the AVP. Plain and simple rally scored matches are faster than side out scoring. Rally scoring may give an advantage to the better team to win quicker, but in all reality the better team will almost always win unless they make an ungodly amount of errors which if that is the case would only drag out a side out scoring game longer. If anything rally scoring ends a boring match much faster than side out scoring would because every time the worse team makes a mistake or loses their service they also lose a point speeding up the set/match. So again not sure how you can justify rally scoring makes a bad match boring and take longer when you literally need the team who hold serve to be doing the scoring. While I asked for your take on current rules that effect the game negatively, I do think this is definitely an old man yells at clouds comment. The libero absolutely increased the ability of a team defensively, and thus for adding in the second libero allowed you to have two different defensive specialists if needed with one for serve receive and one for defense if that's what the make up of your team procures. It is pretty simple, the libero can't play front row, while unconventional there is no reason the libero couldn't act as the setter as long as they take the ball with their arms in the front row or make sure they are behind the 3m line when setting attackers the same way they would if setter winds up taking first contact and your strategy is for libero to take the second. In almost all systems the outsides are still primary passers, so unless that kid was not developed properly or is just a poor passer they still are in serve receive in any modern system and are a pain in the butt to hide, especially if your opp can't pass either. A positive argument for the libero is that you can get better defensively without losing a sub, go to any club tourney where there are less subs than in college and show me how you don't run out of subs when your makeup possibly requires you to sub out both middle blockers and an outside. It just won't happen, there are not enough subs, and sometimes the makeup of your team does not allow you to not wind up using all of them. Say you run a 6-2, neither of your middles can pass, and one of your outsides is a liability in serve receive and back row defense, how is it not an advantage to improve your serve receive and defense without using subs that you are bound to run out of if you do not have a libero available in multiple different situations or systems?
|
|
|
Post by moderndaycoach on Jan 12, 2022 14:57:58 GMT -5
If you've never seen a picture of a ring avulsion, do yourself a favor and don't look it up on the internet. That being said, I always assumed the ban was mainly because they didn't want stoppage of play as people tried to look for stuff that had broken and fallen to the floor. Jimmy Fallon had this happen to him while doing dishes or something right after he took over Tonight Show, I remember him doing a whole big PSA on it and they directed people to I think his twitter at the time if they wanted to see the pictures. I had never heard of this before that and it hands down one of the more disgusting injuries you might ever see. Imagine your finger still functioning on your body but acting as if it is in one of those museum body exhibits where they remove cadavers skin and show off the muscle makeup.
|
|
|
Post by hookshott on Jan 12, 2022 17:02:51 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.
|
|
|
Post by hookshott on Jan 12, 2022 17:12:22 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. The only place that rally scoring went to 30 points instead of 25 was in the USA....the rest of the world went along with the FIVB rule changes, as they most often do. I think it soon became obvious that not only were the sets too long, but the feeling of a match at 24-23 was considerably different than one at 29-28 and this was needed for those players moving from College to National Team.
|
|
|
Post by oldnewbie on Jan 12, 2022 17:31:57 GMT -5
If you've never seen a picture of a ring avulsion, do yourself a favor and don't look it up on the internet. That being said, I always assumed the ban was mainly because they didn't want stoppage of play as people tried to look for stuff that had broken and fallen to the floor. I'm continually amazed at how few major finger injuries there are in volleyball. Only one time I saw a blocker's finger dislocated and hanging backwards with the skin torn half way around and the color just drained from their face. Hitter with a big jump and a huge arm, and the blocker had a very poor hand angle to the ball.
|
|
|
Post by moderndaycoach on Jan 12, 2022 17:32:17 GMT -5
The only place that rally scoring went to 30 points instead of 25 was in the USA....the rest of the world went along with the FIVB rule changes, as they most often do. I think it soon became obvious that not only were the sets too long, but the feeling of a match at 24-23 was considerably different than one at 29-28 and this was needed for those players moving from College to National Team. I remember some men's college coaches telling me in this time period that they were doing simulated scrimmages in practice and pre season tourneys before the rule was in place where they set the scoreboard to 5-5 as to get the kids getting used to seeing the scoreboard going to 30 but still allowing them mentally to be in the same feeling and pace of a game that started at 0-0 ending at 25. Still one of the bad changes that were implemented.
|
|
|
Post by hookshott on Jan 12, 2022 17:38:18 GMT -5
I think the original thought was that games to 25 with rally scoring would be too short.....so let's make our sets go to 30....while the rest of the world plays to 25. As you say, "still one of the bad changes that were implemented.
|
|
|
Post by mikegarrison on Jan 12, 2022 17:59:44 GMT -5
I think the original thought was that games to 25 with rally scoring would be too short.....so let's make our sets go to 30....while the rest of the world plays to 25. As you say, "still one of the bad changes that were implemented. I think it was a pretty simple calculation that they thought 30 rally points would be about the same as 15 sideout points. Later they decided to follow everybody else's lead with 25 points.
|
|
|
Post by oldnewbie on Jan 12, 2022 18:13:32 GMT -5
So if you are so openly admitting that a rally set to 15 will go faster than side out, how can even justify that a match to 21/25/30 would go slower That is nonsensical. 21, 25 and 30 are not the same, and there comes a point (wherever that may be) that a rally game will average more plays than a sideout game to 15. I keep referring to the study, which you won't look at, that found that in situations where the teams are not even (such as rec ball) that a 15 point sideout game was already shorter. In general a rally game to 25 will be shorter, but that value was specifically chosen to be shorter. 30 was already too long. 45 would be waaay too long. They made a choice. If you were really concerned with sideout scoring taking too long, they could have just made games to 11. They didn't, because that was not the issue they were trying to solve. While I asked for your take on current rules that effect the game negatively, I do think this is definitely an old man yells at clouds comment. The libero absolutely increased the ability of a team defensively, and thus for adding in the second libero allowed you to have two different defensive specialists if needed with one for serve receive and one for defense if that's what the make up of your team procures. It is pretty simple, the libero can't play front row, while unconventional there is no reason the libero couldn't act as the setter as long as they take the ball with their arms in the front row or make sure they are behind the 3m line when setting attackers the same way they would if setter winds up taking first contact and your strategy is for libero to take the second. In almost all systems the outsides are still primary passers, so unless that kid was not developed properly or is just a poor passer they still are in serve receive in any modern system and are a pain in the butt to hide, especially if your opp can't pass either. A positive argument for the libero is that you can get better defensively without losing a sub, go to any club tourney where there are less subs than in college and show me how you don't run out of subs when your makeup possibly requires you to sub out both middle blockers and an outside. It just won't happen, there are not enough subs, and sometimes the makeup of your team does not allow you to not wind up using all of them. Say you run a 6-2, neither of your middles can pass, and one of your outsides is a liability in serve receive and back row defense, how is it not an advantage to improve your serve receive and defense without using subs that you are bound to run out of if you do not have a libero available in multiple different situations or systems? The libero rule itself does not increase the ability of a team defensively. Subbing out a dedicated front row player for a dedicated back row player absolutely does increase your backrow defense. That could already be done with subs, without a complicated new rule. If you wanted more defense, you could have added more subs. Your claim that a libero could bump set is just silly, since the rule was made to specifically make it not viable to play your setter in that spot. What the libero rule really did, is make a value judgement that MBs should be specialized, part time players and should be swapped out. Why the decision that MBs should not have to be well rounded VB players? Very odd that the rule makers started and stopped there. If you want specialization, then go ahead and go all in like football. Nobody plays 6-ro. Everyone likes to wax poetically about the 5-11 OH. Well say goodbye to that. They can all go play sand. Every OH and Opp will be 6-4+ because every one of them will be swapped out for a DS. nuneviller hits pretty well for a highly skilled defensive 6-ro OH? So what. Get her out of there and put in a better hitter with a much bigger block. Eggleston passes and defends pretty well for such an extraordinary attacker? So what, it's not as good as Iosia, so get her out and rest her for 3 rotations. There is no argument you can make that going to 100% specialization would not make the front row larger, attack better and block better, while the back row defense and passing would not improve greatly. Since that was your argument for the libero rule, why should we stop there? Personally, I am a fan of the National League where pitchers have to bat and batters have to field. I understand that not everyone is, but it doesn't change my opinion. Personally I like to watch Nuneviller and McClure and will be very sad when they day comes that they are legislated out of indoor volleyball in the same way they have legislated out the skilled 6-ro MB. When I say you won't recognize the game someday, that is what I am talking about.
|
|
|
Post by hookshott on Jan 12, 2022 21:02:51 GMT -5
I think the original thought was that games to 25 with rally scoring would be too short.....so let's make our sets go to 30....while the rest of the world plays to 25. As you say, "still one of the bad changes that were implemented. I think it was a pretty simple calculation that they thought 30 rally points would be about the same as 15 sideout points. Later they decided to follow everybody else's lead with 25 points. But this did not concern the rest of the world?
|
|
|
Post by justahick on Jan 12, 2022 21:30:47 GMT -5
I think it was a pretty simple calculation that they thought 30 rally points would be about the same as 15 sideout points. Later they decided to follow everybody else's lead with 25 points. But this did not concern the rest of the world? It wasn't actually the entire US - USAV (was it USAVB then?), as they always do, followed the FIVB rules (with slight modification usually for "safety") College coaches in particular were concerned that rally scoring would significantly increase the likelihood that the weaker teams would be able to hang around and will sets. They favored the extra 5 points to increase the odds that the better team would win the match. Thus NCAA chose to play to 30.
|
|
|
Post by moderndaycoach on Jan 13, 2022 9:53:56 GMT -5
So if you are so openly admitting that a rally set to 15 will go faster than side out, how can even justify that a match to 21/25/30 would go slower That is nonsensical. 21, 25 and 30 are not the same, and there comes a point (wherever that may be) that a rally game will average more plays than a sideout game to 15. I keep referring to the study, which you won't look at, that found that in situations where the teams are not even (such as rec ball) that a 15 point sideout game was already shorter. In general a rally game to 25 will be shorter, but that value was specifically chosen to be shorter. 30 was already too long. 45 would be waaay too long. They made a choice. If you were really concerned with sideout scoring taking too long, they could have just made games to 11. They didn't, because that was not the issue they were trying to solve. While I asked for your take on current rules that effect the game negatively, I do think this is definitely an old man yells at clouds comment. The libero absolutely increased the ability of a team defensively, and thus for adding in the second libero allowed you to have two different defensive specialists if needed with one for serve receive and one for defense if that's what the make up of your team procures. It is pretty simple, the libero can't play front row, while unconventional there is no reason the libero couldn't act as the setter as long as they take the ball with their arms in the front row or make sure they are behind the 3m line when setting attackers the same way they would if setter winds up taking first contact and your strategy is for libero to take the second. In almost all systems the outsides are still primary passers, so unless that kid was not developed properly or is just a poor passer they still are in serve receive in any modern system and are a pain in the butt to hide, especially if your opp can't pass either. A positive argument for the libero is that you can get better defensively without losing a sub, go to any club tourney where there are less subs than in college and show me how you don't run out of subs when your makeup possibly requires you to sub out both middle blockers and an outside. It just won't happen, there are not enough subs, and sometimes the makeup of your team does not allow you to not wind up using all of them. Say you run a 6-2, neither of your middles can pass, and one of your outsides is a liability in serve receive and back row defense, how is it not an advantage to improve your serve receive and defense without using subs that you are bound to run out of if you do not have a libero available in multiple different situations or systems? The libero rule itself does not increase the ability of a team defensively. Subbing out a dedicated front row player for a dedicated back row player absolutely does increase your backrow defense. That could already be done with subs, without a complicated new rule. If you wanted more defense, you could have added more subs. Your claim that a libero could bump set is just silly, since the rule was made to specifically make it not viable to play your setter in that spot. What the libero rule really did, is make a value judgement that MBs should be specialized, part time players and should be swapped out. Why the decision that MBs should not have to be well rounded VB players? Very odd that the rule makers started and stopped there. If you want specialization, then go ahead and go all in like football. Nobody plays 6-ro. Everyone likes to wax poetically about the 5-11 OH. Well say goodbye to that. They can all go play sand. Every OH and Opp will be 6-4+ because every one of them will be swapped out for a DS. nuneviller hits pretty well for a highly skilled defensive 6-ro OH? So what. Get her out of there and put in a better hitter with a much bigger block. Eggleston passes and defends pretty well for such an extraordinary attacker? So what, it's not as good as Iosia, so get her out and rest her for 3 rotations. There is no argument you can make that going to 100% specialization would not make the front row larger, attack better and block better, while the back row defense and passing would not improve greatly. Since that was your argument for the libero rule, why should we stop there? Personally, I am a fan of the National League where pitchers have to bat and batters have to field. I understand that not everyone is, but it doesn't change my opinion. Personally I like to watch Nuneviller and McClure and will be very sad when they day comes that they are legislated out of indoor volleyball in the same way they have legislated out the skilled 6-ro MB. When I say you won't recognize the game someday, that is what I am talking about. Your link was dead, it just kept failing. I have spent two pages hoping common sense kicks in and you realize that with every beckon a point will be scored, rather than points ONLY being scored when you hold service, will make a game take less time. You are just wrong and I'm sure as other conversations continue you will see that. After reading your response about liberos I get the impression the game has just passed you by and you no longer understand how to apply adaptations that have improved the game. Having the ability to keep your most talented player on your roster defensively for as many rotations as allowable absolutely increases your team defense, not only does that athlete own their space of the floor but it is a constant in rotations with a new variable every other sideout. You don't add more subs to get more defense, just because you have more defenders on your team does not mean they are better than the OH/MB, or OPP (whoever you want to sub out) that are on the floor - but that also doesn't mean those players are better than the 1 or 2 stud defenders you have reported as liberos. By being the constant they will pick up the same tips, cover the same locations, routinely take the same type of balls/serve receive that your team can learn their defense and rotate around what you know they will do. And I said libero setting was unconventional, clearly not something you want to do, but something I personally have had to do when I had a team with injuries and the setter go down, we went with the libero because of ball control and she had the next best set of hands of people not injured mid set. What you are doing by thinking the libero rule implies MB's should be specialized is just letting us know that you don't know how to use the libero. No one has ever said it is used specifically for MB, I have used the libero in all positions pending your team makeup and what kind of scheme you are running. One year we had a girl who played middle for us but when on to be a D1 OPP, freak athlete and had pretty decent ball control making her a serve receive option while also being able to fill lanes and take back row attacks. We would libero our outside in those three rotations and it wound up being very successful for us. This is just such an extreme exaggeration to take a great change that gives you your one or two best defenders the ability to be on the court full time, just like the people that thought eliminating the double contact was magically going to make all setters 6'4 it is the same exaggeration with a 5'11 outside. If a 5'11 outside can still serve receive, play defense, get block touches, and terminate then she is going to be on the floor, all kids that grow to 6'4 aren't all going to magically be athletic and have lateral quickness just because there is a libero. You thinking just because they implemented a rule in 1990 internationally, and 2002 in NCAA, that the entire game is going to be specialized and all those crazy person hypotheticals you gave about outsides play out when they haven't happened in 20-30 years, is pretty far off. Legislated out, what are you even talking about? Comparing to the MLB can't work because if you knew anything about that situation either that is solely coming from the MLBPA to create another position in the entire other half of the league, meaning way more jobs and a whole new arbitration chart for the DH - it creates value for another "skill position" and is about money, not specialization. Some kids just do not have the athleticism to play back row, no matter how hard they try or want to. Not to mention traditionally the taller a kid gets the less athletic, in the sense of skills needed for back row play, they are. I do agree that coaches who just take the biggest kid there is when they all start and put them in middle are dooming them until someone hopefully gets them developing all skillets. I also think that anything under a 13 travel team you should not be using a libero as most clubs and schools have an everyone plays rule regardless. Put the kids in and let them play 6 rotations and make them play every position regularly throughout the year so they can get a feel for what they like.
|
|