VBLI Forums - View Single Post - Proposition: Why the "Double Hit" Must Die

jmsangia · **opposed -** 11-03-2007, 03:27 PM

When I heard that this rule might be on the horizon for 2008, I was stunned. I have coached Division 1 ball the last two years, and there are already a great number of refs that let some ugly hands go. While it is known that a set can not be called on spin, if it spins 5+ times before it reaches the outside hitter, that is a pretty good indication that the set is a double.

As a coach, I have high standards for how skills should be executed, and do not like when my players do not get whistled for what it a clear ball handling error. For some reason, this is the direction that the game is going in. I think getting rid of this call would make the game sloppier. I have been to several college D1 games this year, and it seems like R1's are already employing this philosophy. I have seen some easy calls, even for someone who isn't an official, go unwhistled. I feel like there is a backyard feel to things starting to evolve.

Pardon the comparison, but I feel that allowing double hits on second balls would be the equivalent of allowing travelling in basketball so that there could be more athletic drives and dunks. Recently, the AVCA sent a letter out to all refs and coaches with their rationale behind the change -- to "allow more athletic plays." Apparently coaches and refs are voting on this change.

Personally, I do not feel that there is a need for such a change, except to make official's job's easier (but that is why they get paid), and cannot understand why volleyball seems to be the only sport that every 2-3 years or so, makes a fundamental change in the way certain skills are allowed to be executed. Furthermore, paired with the fact that rules differ so greatly (HS, College, USA, FIVB), it is such constant change and inconsistency that may detract the casual viewer from truly understanding the game.

I do plan on keeping an open mind on this, as it is apparent that this is the direction that is going to be taken. I never was a fan of open hand receive, yet that change has seemed to catch on with the majority. In the end, the purists will never be happy with rules like these, but we are probably a minority.

	(#8)
jmsangia Spectator Status: Offline Posts: 4 Join Date: Oct 2007	opposed - 11-03-2007, 03:27 PM When I heard that this rule might be on the horizon for 2008, I was stunned. I have coached Division 1 ball the last two years, and there are already a great number of refs that let some ugly hands go. While it is known that a set can not be called on spin, if it spins 5+ times before it reaches the outside hitter, that is a pretty good indication that the set is a double. As a coach, I have high standards for how skills should be executed, and do not like when my players do not get whistled for what it a clear ball handling error. For some reason, this is the direction that the game is going in. I think getting rid of this call would make the game sloppier. I have been to several college D1 games this year, and it seems like R1's are already employing this philosophy. I have seen some easy calls, even for someone who isn't an official, go unwhistled. I feel like there is a backyard feel to things starting to evolve. Pardon the comparison, but I feel that allowing double hits on second balls would be the equivalent of allowing travelling in basketball so that there could be more athletic drives and dunks. Recently, the AVCA sent a letter out to all refs and coaches with their rationale behind the change -- to "allow more athletic plays." Apparently coaches and refs are voting on this change. Personally, I do not feel that there is a need for such a change, except to make official's job's easier (but that is why they get paid), and cannot understand why volleyball seems to be the only sport that every 2-3 years or so, makes a fundamental change in the way certain skills are allowed to be executed. Furthermore, paired with the fact that rules differ so greatly (HS, College, USA, FIVB), it is such constant change and inconsistency that may detract the casual viewer from truly understanding the game. I do plan on keeping an open mind on this, as it is apparent that this is the direction that is going to be taken. I never was a fan of open hand receive, yet that change has seemed to catch on with the majority. In the end, the purists will never be happy with rules like these, but we are probably a minority.