Re: Can we keep experimenting with scoring changes please?

On 15 Nov 2003 21:30:52 -0800, [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Brad
Mocannotstandspamrrey) wrote:

>The problem with rally scoring is that it is relatively easy to side
>out in volleyball, and relatively hard to score a real point.

That is exactly why that scoring mechanism was brought in - in the
1995 (I think) European Championship final between Holland and Italy
the match was about 3 and a half hours long because of this feature.
>From the point of view of television, and even live spectator
coverage, that is far too long. As enthusiasts for the game, most of
us probably don't mind games of that length if they're exciting but in
that match there were *so* many service faults it was incredible.

>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.

Interesting.

>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.

It's also easy enough to substitute your weak server!

>Does anyone care about continuing to tweak with the scoring to make it
>better than it is now?

I think there needs to be some punishment for missing a service so
that we don't go back to the 'bad old days' of massive proportions of
service errors, but I agree that rally point as currently implemented
is probably not the best solution.


Best Regards
John McCabe

To reply by email replace 'nospam' with 'assen'