|
Post by ineedajob on Jan 13, 2022 13:33:12 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. I feel like getting involved. Another positive for not playing your middles for 6 rotations (having a libero): it allows middles to take a break for a few rotations so they can be all over the place, running around like maniacs for the three rotations that they're front-row. I've played with and coached some middles with good passing and defensive skills. Sometimes, they need that break so that they can give maximum effort when they get back to the front row. If you think they "just need to be in better shape," then I will contend that they're not working hard enough in transition and as blockers.
|
|
|
Post by oldnewbie on Jan 13, 2022 15:36:12 GMT -5
I feel like getting involved. Another positive for not playing your middles for 6 rotations (having a libero): it allows middles to take a break for a few rotations so they can be all over the place, running around like maniacs for the three rotations that they're front-row. I've played with and coached some middles with good passing and defensive skills. Sometimes, they need that break so that they can give maximum effort when they get back to the front row. If you think they "just need to be in better shape," then I will contend that they're not working hard enough in transition and as blockers. That brings up an interesting philosophical point. moderndaycoach argued that the libero is a great rule because it keeps your best defender on the court at all times. Is that the ultimate goal in volleyball, to keep all your best players on the court at all times in their optimal positions? If so, then your best rotation should always be on the floor and they should do away completely with rotation. Basketball is structured so that your best players CAN'T play the whole game at a high level. A huge part of basketball strategy is the makeup of your bench and how and when to play them to rest your stars. They don't shorten the game so that Lebron, Durant and Curry are always on the floor. They force you to play your bench and to make coaching choices. To me that makes the game far more interesting to watch. Yes, playing MB is hard and maybe the coach wants to rest them, but it is much more interesting to me if that is a coaching choice based on matchups as to when and how to rest them rather than if it is just the obvious and standard reaction to a rule. Is it more interesting to watch a team's best defender play all the time, or to watch that team's bench have to perform to get the best defender back in the game? A few years back USC was up 9-5 in the 5th to beat Florida and go to the final four. Trouble is that Khalia Lanier rotated to the back row at that point. The rest of the game was a struggle for USC to get Lanier back into the front row before time ran out, but they couldn't do it, and lost 11-15. That was a super compelling storyline to watch play out that would have been completely wiped out if we had the front row equivalent of a libero and Lanier stayed in the front row the whole game. That is the same way I look at the libero. Does it improve back row defense? Of course it does. Does that make the game more compelling to watch? To me, no. That is one less decision for a coach to make, one less player to depend on off the bench, one less matchup that could turn in the favor of one team or the other to alter the outcome of a match, making it less interesting to watch. Can your MB play at a high level 6 rotations for an entire match? Maybe not. Maybe the coach has to figure out when and how to rest their best middle. How does that affect other matchups? To me that is interesting. Can your middle pass and defend there position, can they do it if they are buried, or are they so bad that they must be subbed out? Again, to me that adds a coaching decision and adds interest.
|
|
|
Post by mikegarrison on Jan 13, 2022 15:49:56 GMT -5
In basketball and hockey, playing subs is a matter of strategy. Mainly it's because of stamina. You can go all out and then take a rest on the bench, if you have a deep enough bench. Otherwise you need to conserve your stamina (a big part of how soccer is played).
Baseball and volleyball, on the other hand, have rotations that are key to the game. In baseball that is of course the batting order, and in volleyball it is the position rotation. If you take rotation away you fundamentally change the game, just like you would change baseball if you could just bat anybody you wanted in any order.
In Chinese 9-man they don't rotate.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 13, 2022 15:53:59 GMT -5
In basketball and hockey, playing subs is a matter of strategy. Mainly it's because of stamina. You can go all out and then take a rest on the bench, if you have a deep enough bench. Otherwise you need to conserve your stamina (a big part of how soccer is played). Baseball and volleyball, on the other hand, have rotations that are key to the game. In baseball that is of course the batting order, and in volleyball it is the position rotation. If you take rotation away you fundamentally change the game, just like you would change baseball if you could just bat anybody you wanted in any order. In Chinese 9-man they don't rotate. You could still have subs, without rotations.
Hockey, for example. The RW gets tired, then put in a new RW. But they both specialize in playing RW.
|
|
|
Post by mikegarrison on Jan 13, 2022 15:56:01 GMT -5
In basketball and hockey, playing subs is a matter of strategy. Mainly it's because of stamina. You can go all out and then take a rest on the bench, if you have a deep enough bench. Otherwise you need to conserve your stamina (a big part of how soccer is played). Baseball and volleyball, on the other hand, have rotations that are key to the game. In baseball that is of course the batting order, and in volleyball it is the position rotation. If you take rotation away you fundamentally change the game, just like you would change baseball if you could just bat anybody you wanted in any order. In Chinese 9-man they don't rotate. You could still have subs, without rotations. Hockey, for example. The RW gets tired, then put in a new RW. But they both specialize in playing RW.
But subs are tactical. There is no rule in hockey that says you have to have three lines. It's just that everybody does it. Volleyball and baseball have rotations that are done by rule.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 13, 2022 16:07:43 GMT -5
You could still have subs, without rotations. Hockey, for example. The RW gets tired, then put in a new RW. But they both specialize in playing RW.
But subs are tactical. There is no rule in hockey that says you have to have three lines. It's just that everybody does it. Volleyball and baseball have rotations that are done by rule. What's not tactical about things like "OK, Wilson is getting tired, they're going to have to sub her out for Hord, so we need to get Steph in there because she's the better blocker", etc etc etc ?
|
|
|
Post by bbg95 on Jan 13, 2022 16:08:15 GMT -5
You could still have subs, without rotations. Hockey, for example. The RW gets tired, then put in a new RW. But they both specialize in playing RW.
But subs are tactical. There is no rule in hockey that says you have to have three lines. It's just that everybody does it. Volleyball and baseball have rotations that are done by rule. Hockey typically has four lines of forwards (and three defensive pairings). And the reason they sub is because the sport is so exhausting that players (excluding goalies for obvious reasons) just can't play at a high level for more than about 45 seconds at a time without a break. Hockey is also interesting in that it is one of the rare sports in which substitutions are made in the middle of the action rather than only at stoppages like in most other sports.
|
|
|
Post by moderndaycoach on Jan 13, 2022 16:49:27 GMT -5
I feel like getting involved. Another positive for not playing your middles for 6 rotations (having a libero): it allows middles to take a break for a few rotations so they can be all over the place, running around like maniacs for the three rotations that they're front-row. I've played with and coached some middles with good passing and defensive skills. Sometimes, they need that break so that they can give maximum effort when they get back to the front row. If you think they "just need to be in better shape," then I will contend that they're not working hard enough in transition and as blockers. That brings up an interesting philosophical point. moderndaycoach argued that the libero is a great rule because it keeps your best defender on the court at all times. Is that the ultimate goal in volleyball, to keep all your best players on the court at all times in their optimal positions? If so, then your best rotation should always be on the floor and they should do away completely with rotation. Basketball is structured so that your best players CAN'T play the whole game at a high level. A huge part of basketball strategy is the makeup of your bench and how and when to play them to rest your stars. They don't shorten the game so that Lebron, Durant and Curry are always on the floor. They force you to play your bench and to make coaching choices. To me that makes the game far more interesting to watch. Yes, playing MB is hard and maybe the coach wants to rest them, but it is much more interesting to me if that is a coaching choice based on matchups as to when and how to rest them rather than if it is just the obvious and standard reaction to a rule. Is it more interesting to watch a team's best defender play all the time, or to watch that team's bench have to perform to get the best defender back in the game? A few years back USC was up 9-5 in the 5th to beat Florida and go to the final four. Trouble is that Khalia Lanier rotated to the back row at that point. The rest of the game was a struggle for USC to get Lanier back into the front row before time ran out, but they couldn't do it, and lost 11-15. That was a super compelling storyline to watch play out that would have been completely wiped out if we had the front row equivalent of a libero and Lanier stayed in the front row the whole game. That is the same way I look at the libero. Does it improve back row defense? Of course it does. Does that make the game more compelling to watch? To me, no. That is one less decision for a coach to make, one less player to depend on off the bench, one less matchup that could turn in the favor of one team or the other to alter the outcome of a match, making it less interesting to watch. Can your MB play at a high level 6 rotations for an entire match? Maybe not. Maybe the coach has to figure out when and how to rest their best middle. How does that affect other matchups? To me that is interesting. Can your middle pass and defend there position, can they do it if they are buried, or are they so bad that they must be subbed out? Again, to me that adds a coaching decision and adds interest. Your points are still ridiculous, you are taking a rule that has been in play for 20 years domestically and acting as if it was introduced last week with these crazy hypotheticals of how the game will drastically change the basic fundamentals. Yes, having the libero available does make the game better and the simple fact you can move them from position to position as long as you have one beckon in-between is strategy and extremely successful when applied correctly. Rotations are fundamental to the strategy of volleyball and that is why you will see a good coach who pays attention to the match and real time stats spin his wheel to get more favorable matchups. Hiding certain players in certain rotations in serve receive or defense is part of the game and an ever changing makeup of your team roster and coaching strategy, especially when you get a new crop of kids every single year. You are suggesting changes that would in fact make the game unrecognizable that are completely far fetched and crazy person talk. All I did was ask what changes that are currently in place that you thought made the game unrecognizable. All you have done is respond with old man comments about how the game was played in your day and provide a bunch of random extremes that will never happen to justify your point about why you don't like the libero, which has been around internationally for 30 years with very limited adjustments to the rule. I just think the game has passed you up and you no longer understand how to coach or apply adaptations to your knowledge of the game. I don't necessarily agree that a MB needs to rest even if they play defense as I have had multiple 6 rotation middles who are killer athletes over the years, it would be no different than an outside playing 6 rotations. As a player you need to know when to play smart and when to take your breaks, as a coach you need to read the match and know when to sub players out or when to call a timeout. Having a libero is not as simple as having one less decision to make, that is why I just don't think you really have any idea how to use one, in fact it makes multiple more variables in your rotations available and pending how you want to use them and who you even want them to serve for comes in to play.
|
|
|
Post by dodger on Jan 13, 2022 16:56:19 GMT -5
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. 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. I feel like getting involved. Another positive for not playing your middles for 6 rotations (having a libero): it allows middles to take a break for a few rotations so they can be all over the place, running around like maniacs for the three rotations that they're front-row. I've played with and coached some middles with good passing and defensive skills. Sometimes, they need that break so that they can give maximum effort when they get back to the front row. If you think they "just need to be in better shape," then I will contend that they're not working hard enough in transition and as blockers. I am an X MB and your assumption about rest is crappola
|
|
|
Post by mikegarrison on Jan 13, 2022 17:09:27 GMT -5
There is absolutely no part of the libero rule that says the libero must replace a middle. For that matter, there is no such thing as a middle, a setter, an outside hitter, an opposite, etc. in the rule book at all.
If some coach had two middles who were better backrow players than the two outsides, the libero could simply be used for the outsides instead of the middles, and the middles could play the back row. Nothing would stop that.
Washington for a year ran a 6-2 where the setters were opposite the middles rather than the right-side hitters. The libero came in for the right side hitters and the setters came in for the middles. (They were pretty much forced into this because they had two setters and two middles, but for some reason neither setter had a good connection with both middles. So eventually McLaughlin just paired each setter up with the middle she was good with and ran a 6-2.)
|
|
trojansc
Legend
All-VolleyTalk 1st Team (2022, 2021, 2020, 2019, 2018, 2017), All-VolleyTalk 2nd Team (2016), 2021, 2019 Fantasy League Champion, 2020 Fantasy League Runner Up, 2022 2nd Runner Up
Posts: 28,131
|
Post by trojansc on Jan 13, 2022 17:11:34 GMT -5
This might be an unpopular opinion, but, I'd vote in favor to not allowing the libero to serve.
I also want to change the pursuit rule back to the old rule.
^ both of these are different than NCAA Men's (at my last check).
|
|
|
Post by mikegarrison on Jan 13, 2022 17:15:17 GMT -5
I also want to change the pursuit rule back to the old rule. The current pursuit rule is the same as the old old rule. It was changed to the new old rule that allowed pursuit, and then it was changed to the new new rule that once again didn't allow it.
|
|
|
Post by moderndaycoach on Jan 13, 2022 17:18:22 GMT -5
There is absolutely no part of the libero rule that says the libero must replace a middle. For that matter, there is no such thing as a middle, a setter, an outside hitter, an opposite, etc. in the rule book at all. If some coach had two middles who were better backrow players than the two outsides, the libero could simply be used for the outsides instead of the middles, and the middles could play the back row. Nothing would stop that. Washington for a year ran a 6-2 where the setters were opposite the middles rather than the right-side hitters. The libero came in for the right side hitters and the setters came in for the middles. (They were pretty much forced into this because they had two setters and two middles, but for some reason neither setter had a good connection with both middles. So eventually McLaughlin just paired each setter up with the middle she was good with and ran a 6-2.) This is what I have been trying to say every time oldnewbie keeps trying to tell me that by using a libero you are forcing a MB to be specialized. Anyone who still thinks this is only the case likely has little to no understanding of the libero rule or how to correctly and/or creatively use the position. As I mentioned a year where my best athlete played middle for us but went on to play D1 as an OPP, there was no reason for her to ever leave the court as she had ball control but helped us the most as she was totally able to move pin to pin not only on office but with her block as well so we would libero our weaker outside in those back row rotations. Same with the fact that even though unconventional, the libero absolutely could act as the setter as I explained the situation we were forced to do it mid match with our setter getting hurt and next best hands in the moment happened to be wearing the different colored jersey. I am fuzzy on the complete specifics and what year it was, but I believe perhaps during the Hancock years Russ would libero out the OPP back row and play the libero (Kendal White maybe?) in the back right position for those 3 rotations.
|
|
|
Post by ineedajob on Jan 13, 2022 17:19:16 GMT -5
I feel like getting involved. Another positive for not playing your middles for 6 rotations (having a libero): it allows middles to take a break for a few rotations so they can be all over the place, running around like maniacs for the three rotations that they're front-row. I've played with and coached some middles with good passing and defensive skills. Sometimes, they need that break so that they can give maximum effort when they get back to the front row. If you think they "just need to be in better shape," then I will contend that they're not working hard enough in transition and as blockers. I am an X MB and your assumption about rest is crappola Agree to disagree
|
|
trojansc
Legend
All-VolleyTalk 1st Team (2022, 2021, 2020, 2019, 2018, 2017), All-VolleyTalk 2nd Team (2016), 2021, 2019 Fantasy League Champion, 2020 Fantasy League Runner Up, 2022 2nd Runner Up
Posts: 28,131
|
Post by trojansc on Jan 13, 2022 17:30:51 GMT -5
This is what I have been trying to say every time oldnewbie keeps trying to tell me that by using a libero you are forcing a MB to be specialized. When Boise State (and DR's NT) were playing 6-rotations with a MB, their libero would still come in for the other middle but then when the 6-rotation middle served, the libero would replace an OH/OPP who is already in the backrow. So the OH/OPP would only play 1 or 2 rotations in the backrow depending on how exactly they put it to use. The libero will likely be off the court for one additional serving rotation than normal though, this also depends on how it plays out. For example, when the MB who is playing 6-rotations is serving, the libero will come back on the very next point whether she continues serving (her team wins the point) or her team loses the point. So the effect of playing an extra (partial) serving rotation without libero on court could be negligible because the libero could be on the court while the 6-rotation MB is serving as long as her team wins their first service point, whereas in almost every team we never see the libero on the court when a middle blocker is serving. However, no matter what, the libero will always be on the court still when receiving serve even when using this system. It's a little interesting to see it in use.
|
|