Re: Can we keep experimenting with scoring changes please?

"Robert M. Franz (RMF)" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message news:<[EMAIL 
PROTECTED]>...
> Hi Brad,
> 
> Free World wrote:
> > 
> > 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.
> 
> indeed!
> 
> >      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, 
> 
> Oh well, but BOTH teams would have to return to SOS when one gets to
> game point. Otherwise THAT would be very unfair to the leading team
> IMHO.
> 

Yes, of course.  Winning point must be "earned" by either team.

> 
> > 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.  
> 
> If you're shivering too much to serve on ops' game point, then sub
> yourself out! ;-)
> 
> Greetinx
> .bob

OK, how about making the serve like it is in tennis?  An initial
mis-serve is just a first fault, and one gets to try a second serve. 
Only a double-fault is punished by a loss of point.  That way, one can
still really go for the ace on the first serve without fear.