Re: Can we keep experimenting with scoring changes please?

I dislike your idea because it punishes good servers.  If a person
serves an ace, then you don't let that person serve again.  I also
believe your idea actually makes worse what you don't like about rally
scoring (i.e. a good side out team can just coast to a win by siding
out near the end), because your method not only lets a good side out
team coast to a win by merely siding out, it even lets that team coast
to the win by siding out in their STRONGEST rotation.
     My personal preference is to use rally scoring for the first two
thirds or three quarters of a game, then return to regular scoring
(i.e. scoring only while serving for those too young to remember).  I
would be even happy to have rally scoring for the entire game EXCEPT
for game point (i.e. the winning point for a team MUST be "earned"
while serving).  This automatically gives the losing team a chance to
catch up by merely trading sideouts, and removes the WORST scenario
that I positively cannot stand--which is allowing a team an "unearned
win" on game point WITHOUT EVER TOUCHING THE BALL, merely because the
other team had a mis-serve.  When a team is making a great comeback
near the end by serving and playing great defense (and the other team
is "choking" under the pressure and cannot sideout to save their
lives), it is so sad to see the "choking" team literally given the win
for free merely because the other team has a mis-serve.

[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Brad Mocannotstandspamrrey) wrote in message news:<[EMAIL 
PROTECTED]>...
> Hello fellow volleyball enthusiasts,
> I love volleyball.  It's in my blood.  I've been playing for 18 years
> and coaching for 9.  I've played collegiate club volleyball for
> arguably the best club team in the country at the time (Cal Berkeley,
> 1991-1995), and for a less organized team at the University of
> Colorado, Boulder (1999-2002).  I've played USAV adult in Northern
> California and Colorado.  I've coached small high school girls
> (Division 4 California), Juniors (17s, 18s), Collegiate Club Women (CU
> 2001-2003), and now Collegiate Club Men (CU 2003-2004).
> 
> I learned to play the game from old school coaches.  I learned to
> compete on the grass in Northern California when it was one of the
> elite levels of competition in volleyball.  I've adapted to the
> changes in the rules over the years.  I don't like some of them
> (overhand passing of serves), am indifferent to others (let serving,
> serving from anywhere behind the endline), and I like a few (liberos
> in particular).  However, the rally scoring format has FUNDAMENTALLY
> changed the game.  I know that this has been discussed on this list
> before.  I'm not here to regale for the "good old days" of regular
> scoring.  What I want to propose is a scoring system that brings back
> the possibility of the one fundamental thing about regular scoring
> which cannot be given up, or it will dilute our great game.  The
> ability of a team to get back into a game when the other team is down
> to its last point.
> 
> The problem with rally scoring is that it is relatively easy to side
> out in volleyball, and relatively hard to score a real point.  Ask any
> good coach and they'll tell you that if they can side at 85% or better
> efficiency, then they can play with anyone.  When it comes down to the
> end of the game that a team is leading 29-24 (for college) or 24-19
> (for USAV, FIVB etc.)  Even if my team is good enough to sideout once,
> I cannot get my team to _score_ 4 real points without a great player
> on the other side of the net siding out one time, and restoring order
> for his/her team.  This used to be the order of the day with regular
> scoring, and it was those teams who could rise up and score at the end
> that won.
> 
> A game that I have been experimenting with, and I think that I like
> VERY much is what I like to call opposite rally scoring.  I'm sure
> other coaches have played this game.  (In fact, the current club
> national champion Arizona coach Steve Carlat, and I have talked about
> exactly that.)
> 
> Here is the format:  There is still a point per rally.  There is still
> no cap.  However, the _meaning_ of a sideout is exactly the opposite
> of what it is now.  When your team is serving and you win a rally, the
> other team rotates and serves.  When your team is receiving and you
> win a rally, the other team continues to serve in the same rotation. 
> If your team is serving, when you lose a rally, you continue to serve
> in the same rotation.  If your team is serving and you win a rally,
> the other team rotates and serves.
> 
> It creates the following scenario:  You struggle, and your opponent
> gets to 24-19 while you're serving.  Your libero makes a great dig and
> you win the rally.  The other team has to rotate and serve.  If you
> can sideout 4 times without the other team scoring a "real" point,
> your team is back in the game!
> 
> I know it creates problems like, "I have a really weak server and the
> other team rolls lots of points in that rotation."  or "I have a
> really weak defensive rotation and the other team scores lots of
> points in that rotation."  But it brings back the fundamentally
> lacking thing of coming back at the end of games by "restoring order"
> with good sideout play, and winning by scoring a "real" point.
> 
> Does anyone care about continuing to tweak with the scoring to make it
> better than it is now?
> 
> Another idea:
> I like how at the end of a rally scoring game, the ball gets very
> intense and high quality if the score is tied.  Maybe all we need to
> do is make that the default?  Let's adopt tennis scoring and see how
> that goes.  Games to 4, win by 2, sets are best of 6 games, matches
> are best of 5 sets.  I bet you could restore some of the old "restore
> order" with good sideout play with this format, although it appears
> more drastic a change than opposite rally scoring, and will probably
> lengthen matches somewhat.
> 
> Let's here what you all think!
> Brad Mocannotstandspamrrey