Wooden stakes, silver bullets, and Hemlock

[SleepySmurf]

I just recently read a message from a volleyball spectator who is wondering what we are trying to teach our children in rallypoint scoring.

To try to summarize it, I think that what she was wittness to, didn't fit her concept of a sport with competitive features and challenges.

What made it especially poignant, was that the remarks were from the heart. And, since I'm a critic of the rallypoint system, her message was like serving up wooden stakes, silver bullets, and hemlock for all who have embraced this FIVB philosophy of play.

[VBFOOL]

I was just talking about this this morning at the gym with another guy and he brought up a point I hadn't thought of. In the ralley scoring system you can't get behind if you are playign an even game. Say you mess up or shank a pass or whatever and get down by say 4 points. If the other team is a good side out team they have won the game unless they fall on their faces. I hadn't really thoguht about it in these terms because at the BB-A level and in these rec leagues someone always screws up and you get back in the game.

I am starting to dislike rally even more now.

[VBLIGUY]

Or shorten the court, lower the net, and use a softer or even bigger ball.

But, the scoring system needs to be revisited. Rallypoint scoring accentautes the game in faults and the mistakes of the players. And with the emphasis on the faults, less significance is given to players for their athletic skills. Because, everyone is hoping for another mistake. If your trailing in points, you hope for the other team to serve the ball into the net. If you are leading in points, you hope the other team serves the ball into the net. And, if you are at game point, and the other team has the serve, you hope that they serve the ball into the net. What has been adopted is non-competitive scoring.

What happened to that competitive feeling, that if the other team was winning, you wanted the ball to either score, or score and get the serve for the scoring advantage and closure. And, I'm not writing about the side-out system of play.

There is no reason why either team shouldn't be able to score off the serve and during volley. And, there is no logical explantion for awarding points for every served ball. Especially a serve that does not carry with it the responsible of activating competition.

Time is not a factor, but an excuse used as a cover up for the present method of a game that is unplayed to victory.

But, you got to give Omnispkier credit for his savvy in matters of this team net sport. When he gets into logic, technicality, and detail, he pulsates in his zone.

[mycena]

Hmm... Interesting, I hadn't really thought about the whole rally vs. side out scoring bit. I play both ways right now and I honestly like the whole rally thing, mostly because it leads to what feels like a quicker game pace. I don't have the mentality in rally, that I hope the other team serves into the net I hope that my team can have a good pass. I don't want to win a game on a bad serve. But I can see how it would lead to that mentality too. So, IS anyone here a fan of rally scoring?

[NewEnglandRT]

I like rally!!!! If the ball hits the floor, someone should score!

[Outta Town]

I fought implementing rally scoring into my leagues and tournaments as long as I could. I had to give in when I was the last holdout around. But I did find that it was much easier to get games done in a set amount of time.
We were solely restricted by daylight hours on the beach. Once a shotgun start was implemented on all courts at once, with timed games to 20 minutes, rally scoring to 25, winning by one point, our tournaments ran much smoother and finished on time.

BUT, no one was really earning wins. When you get a point or win a game solely because of an error on the other team's part, without earning the point with service, it does rather take the competetiveness away.

The biggest thing that irks me is the net serve being a point. This is an error, but you get the point if it dribbles over and the other team can't dig it up and return it.

The game has become sloppier now with referees being told to "let them play", rather than calling double hits, bad sets and lifts.

I suppose that next year Brunswick will be the ball of choice if they pay to be the sponsoring ball manufacturer, and we will get one bounce on each side so we can keep rallys going. Or maybe a fourth hit.

I liked the original game best as it kept you alive and in the game, earning points with service first. No slop. Real leather balls that took sidespin and topspin.

There is good and bad points on every new rule change/interpretation. That one about attacking the serve may come up again in the future. Changing the game for television viewers is not right. If that keeps up, it will morph into what "Extreme Dodgball" is now on late night dish TV.

[mycena]

Well, bad reffing is bad reffing. If people want to let them get away with it then they will. If reffing becomes sloppy then yeah I can see the rally mind set getting into the whole hope the other team f's-up. But with tight calling then you have to think I need to perform well.

i see the whole net serve problems though too. What in, everones opion, is the ideal situation. Go back to side out scoring? Or Rally scoring with side-outs and no points on a bad serve?

[NewEnglandRT]

Nothing hits the floor! Ref's can screw up a good side out scoring game just as well as they could a rally game. I don't see it as scoring on another teams error. I see it as giving the other team the opportunity to give you a point by committing an error. They can's screw up if you haven't executed your play to begin with. Some teams excell in 'snatching defeat from the jaws of victory' sometimes it's not about winning, it's also about not loosing! Nothing hits the floor!

As for net serves, it's not often that a serve will hit the tape and floor. It's usually playable. So I say, it's full on. As long as it applies to both teams it's fair. Nothing hits the floor!