|
Post by mln59 on Jan 8, 2022 19:21:59 GMT -5
the more i think about this and read other comments, the more i'm on board with this idea
|
|
|
Post by txvbcoach on Jan 8, 2022 21:13:03 GMT -5
no doubles is an awful change in my opinion -- why are we legislating skill out of our game?? Hate it... what is legislating skill anyway? If we really wanted to legislate skill we would be assigning diff. points to attacks. 1 kill for a player touching the ball and def. touching but not digging it. 2 points if the ball is hit or tipped to the floor without any defender touching it. It takes more skill to make an attack with no defender touching it as you've pretty much fooled the entire defense. so "skill" of setting isn't really a thing. As it stands right now every referee calls it/sees it differently. That makes for a bad sport since you've got newbies watching the sport daily and having to be told why one ball spinning is called a foul and one is not.
|
|
|
Post by oldmanvb on Jan 8, 2022 22:35:01 GMT -5
I have no problem with the proposed rule and probably think it is a good idea. Will the proposed rule change permit setters to change the direction of the set – that is, move the ball across their body rather than front or back? Permitting the setter to in effect move the ball across their body from left hand to right hand to release, in one movement, could drastically impact running the middle. Sorry if I’m doing a bad job of describing the motion I have in mind. No-look side setting the middles is already a part of the game. See Josh Tuaniga from Long Beach, or Nootsara for Thailand. Actually, using what you call a side-set was part of men’s club ball 40 years ago. Most officials (then USVBA) let it go, either because it was executed too fast for them to really see the double contact or because they felt it was part of the game. Occasionally some officials would call it either a double or a lift. It’s an exciting play annd requires more skill, not less. I’m in favor of it becoming a part of the women’s game, which is more like the men’s game with each passing year.
|
|
moody
Banned
Posts: 18,679
|
Post by moody on Jan 8, 2022 22:45:52 GMT -5
That would be awful… it’s not that hard to call a double. If my setter is setting dimes all match and the opposing setter is making double contact consistently, that’s on the other team. Would hate to see the rule be taken away. why would it matter if the other setter kept doubling? Does that make her a better setter?
|
|
|
Post by universal on Jan 8, 2022 22:58:35 GMT -5
EVERYONE
Please stop using ball "SPIN" to support your un-informed argument about double contact on the team 2nd contact.
Referees do NOT assess double contact faults based on the SPIN of the ball.
Instead, referees watch the setters hands for TWO distinct contacts on the ball.
What the ball DOES after setter hand contact is not relevant. Only the actual hand contact itself is relevant; one touch? two touches?
SPIN may APPEAR to be the cause of a WHISTLE to the illiterati, but it is not.
If the referee detects a double contact they will initiate the whistle signal well before the whistle is HEARD; inhale, exhale (blow whistle), SOS 343 m/s
The SPIN is irrelevent to your argument. Stop using it.
|
|
|
Post by vbnerd on Jan 8, 2022 23:17:43 GMT -5
The sport will look exactly the same as it does now. This is the assumption almost every for the no doubles rule change is making and it is almost certain to be wrong. Libero was created to create an opportunity for the shorter athlete - the other positions on the court got taller and sent us on a path toward increased specialization. Rally scoring was largely about making match times more predictable. It disincentives the jump top and dawned the weather of the jump float. Replay was created to review bad calls, and it’s been used as a 3rd timeout, and a way to spoil the winning teams victory celebration. If you could keep the game the same then sure, maybe this would be a good thing. We won’t see it in a spring trial because who changes systems and techniques for spring? But if they do this in a regular season coaches are going to find a way to exploit it. They always do. I’m not sure how yet, but I’m sure that the game would change because of this, and some people who are for it now will hate it.
|
|
|
Post by bbg95 on Jan 8, 2022 23:18:51 GMT -5
EVERYONE Please stop using ball "SPIN" to support your un-informed argument about double contact on the team 2nd contact. Referees do NOT assess double contact faults based on the SPIN of the ball. Instead, referees watch the setters hands for TWO distinct contacts on the ball. What the ball DOES after setter hand contact is not relevant. Only the actual hand contact itself is relevant; one touch? two touches? SPIN may APPEAR to be the cause of a WHISTLE to the illiterati, but it is not. If the referee detects a double contact they will initiate the whistle signal well before the whistle is HEARD; inhale, exhale (blow whistle), SOS 343 m/s The SPIN is irrelevent to your argument. Stop using it. I think it's pretty clear that some referees do use spin to make calls, regardless of what you claim. Now, maybe by the book, they're not supposed to be considering spin, but that doesn't mean that they don't in practice. This is why eliminating the rule altogether (on sets) is the best solution.
|
|
|
Post by n00b on Jan 8, 2022 23:34:57 GMT -5
EVERYONE Please stop using ball "SPIN" to support your un-informed argument about double contact on the team 2nd contact. Referees do NOT assess double contact faults based on the SPIN of the ball. Instead, referees watch the setters hands for TWO distinct contacts on the ball. What the ball DOES after setter hand contact is not relevant. Only the actual hand contact itself is relevant; one touch? two touches? SPIN may APPEAR to be the cause of a WHISTLE to the illiterati, but it is not. If the referee detects a double contact they will initiate the whistle signal well before the whistle is HEARD; inhale, exhale (blow whistle), SOS 343 m/s The SPIN is irrelevent to your argument. Stop using it. Yeah. This simply isn’t true.
|
|
|
Post by psuvbfan10 on Jan 8, 2022 23:43:01 GMT -5
EVERYONE Please stop using ball "SPIN" to support your un-informed argument about double contact on the team 2nd contact. Referees do NOT assess double contact faults based on the SPIN of the ball. Instead, referees watch the setters hands for TWO distinct contacts on the ball. What the ball DOES after setter hand contact is not relevant. Only the actual hand contact itself is relevant; one touch? two touches? SPIN may APPEAR to be the cause of a WHISTLE to the illiterati, but it is not. If the referee detects a double contact they will initiate the whistle signal well before the whistle is HEARD; inhale, exhale (blow whistle), SOS 343 m/s The SPIN is irrelevent to your argument. Stop using it. Yeah. This simply isn’t true. To quote a clinician - when using a red and blue ball and they see purple that's a clear indication of a double. Sarcastically a lot of forearm passes produce purple.
|
|
|
Post by Fight On! on Jan 9, 2022 0:12:05 GMT -5
EVERYONE Please stop using ball "SPIN" to support your un-informed argument about double contact on the team 2nd contact. Referees do NOT assess double contact faults based on the SPIN of the ball. Instead, referees watch the setters hands for TWO distinct contacts on the ball. What the ball DOES after setter hand contact is not relevant. Only the actual hand contact itself is relevant; one touch? two touches? SPIN may APPEAR to be the cause of a WHISTLE to the illiterati, but it is not. If the referee detects a double contact they will initiate the whistle signal well before the whistle is HEARD; inhale, exhale (blow whistle), SOS 343 m/s The SPIN is irrelevent to your argument. Stop using it. It is supposed to be a irrelevant but clearly is not for many referees.
|
|
|
Post by c4ndlelight on Jan 9, 2022 2:01:17 GMT -5
EVERYONE Please stop using ball "SPIN" to support your un-informed argument about double contact on the team 2nd contact. Referees do NOT assess double contact faults based on the SPIN of the ball. Instead, referees watch the setters hands for TWO distinct contacts on the ball. What the ball DOES after setter hand contact is not relevant. Only the actual hand contact itself is relevant; one touch? two touches? SPIN may APPEAR to be the cause of a WHISTLE to the illiterati, but it is not. If the referee detects a double contact they will initiate the whistle signal well before the whistle is HEARD; inhale, exhale (blow whistle), SOS 343 m/s The SPIN is irrelevent to your argument. Stop using it. It is supposed to be a irrelevant but clearly is not for many referees. That plus posture. Sometimes they just don't like the position your body was in when it contacted the ball.
|
|
|
Post by mikegarrison on Jan 9, 2022 3:35:02 GMT -5
EVERYONE Please stop using ball "SPIN" to support your un-informed argument about double contact on the team 2nd contact. Referees do NOT assess double contact faults based on the SPIN of the ball. Instead, referees watch the setters hands for TWO distinct contacts on the ball. What the ball DOES after setter hand contact is not relevant. Only the actual hand contact itself is relevant; one touch? two touches? SPIN may APPEAR to be the cause of a WHISTLE to the illiterati, but it is not. If the referee detects a double contact they will initiate the whistle signal well before the whistle is HEARD; inhale, exhale (blow whistle), SOS 343 m/s The SPIN is irrelevent to your argument. Stop using it. I think it's pretty clear that some referees do use spin to make calls, regardless of what you claim. Now, maybe by the book, they're not supposed to be considering spin, but that doesn't mean that they don't in practice. This is why eliminating the rule altogether (on sets) is the best solution. Yeah, you can say they don't judge by spin, and the rules explicitly say "don't judge by spin", but it's pretty damn clear some refs even at the college level judge by spin. It's also clear that sometimes a set that is executed by "the setter" is not whistled, but the exact same set (or even one that is cleaner) *is* whistled if is executed by a non-setter.
|
|
|
Post by mikegarrison on Jan 9, 2022 3:37:56 GMT -5
It is supposed to be a irrelevant but clearly is not for many referees. That plus posture. Sometimes they just don't like the position your body was in when it contacted the ball. Pretty much anything that "looks wonky" is subject to be called.
|
|
|
Post by ironhammer on Jan 9, 2022 5:28:10 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by radioactiveman on Jan 9, 2022 9:54:08 GMT -5
It's also clear that sometimes a set that is executed by "the setter" is not whistled, but the exact same set (or even one that is cleaner) *is* whistled if is executed by a non-setter. You know it's a problem when before the ball even reaches a middle's hands that they will very likely be called for a double simply because they're a middle.
|
|