From: robp@landru.network.com (Rob Peglar)
Subject: Re: Speed scores (Rally Point Scoring)
Reply-To: robp@landru.network.com
Organization: Network Systems Corporation 
Date: Fri, 31 Jul 92 16:29:25 GMT

Much has been said about rally scoring.  Here's my take on it, from three
perspectives;  player, coach, referee.

1)  As a player, I don't like it.
2)  As a coach, I don't mind, but it _does_ change your coaching.  See below.
3)  As a ref, I love it.

Now, for some commentary.

In article 712531389@Xenon.Stanford.EDU, geddis@Xenon.Stanford.EDU (Don Geddis) writes:
>As mentioned, this group has been through this discussion before.  To add to
>it, you should present _reasons_ why rally scoring _should_ change the way
>you play.  Just because you alter your game in that situation means nothing.
>As it turns out, you're making a mistake.
>

The first change in "the way you play" (which I will translate to the way
the game is coached;  this assumes the players play according to the coach's
strategy, which is another whole topic :-))  is when you call the coin.
Actual studies from the USVBA Nationals indicate that the team receiving
(which is the way most captains are taught to call it) only wins the rally
56% of the time.  So, if you have a tough server, you might as well choose
serve.  Also, on the topic of calling the coin, this statistic actually goes
even further down, at lower levels.  In other words, if you play BB, you
should choose to serve _all the time_.  BTW, the USVBA study was taken
at the Kansas City nationals in 1991. 

Another way you change as a player is to actually get _more_ aggressive on
serves.  Another study (done at Kansas City) shows that if a team gets
four natural points, they have a very good chance of winning the set (like
80%).  What's the easiest way to score a natural?  Serve an ace.  If you
fail, they get a point, but you can negate that by siding out right back.
If you wimp serve, you increase the opponents' chances of siding out anyway,
so the optimum strategy is to go for the ace - especially when ahead.
Aggressive serving doesn't work as well in the natural game, because
the play that follows the missed serve does not present the opportunity
to score - you can only side-out.  This was borne out by the K.C. study.
The sample size was very large - all men's Open matches were tabulated.

>The only real effect of rally scoring is to shorten games.  This might have
>an influence on strategy if, for example, you have some player that takes a
>long time to warm up (i.e. plays poorly at the beginning of a game) but then
>totally dominates at the end.  In a long (normal) game, you might have the
>time to let him/her warm up, but in a short game (game to 11, or rally scored)
>you can't afford the time.

It does shorten the game.  As a coach, this changes all sorts of things, most
noticable is the use of time-outs.  If the other team gets a little as
two points ahead, you start thinking about it.  It alters your substitution
patterns.  It really alters the duration of matchups - i.e. the amount of
time (rallies) you have a particular matchup (hitter v. blocker) at the net with 
the ability to deny the opponent a point.  The rally game also has the 
side change at 8, which normal games do not.  This is a very good way to
break up the opponents' rally, of course.  If you're losing in a rally game,
you should take both time-outs sooner than in a normal game, because of
the shorter duration.  Subs are trickier - if you put a back row sub in, the
sub will be in for a lot of points (at least six, if you put the sub in
position 1).  This makes the sub a much more crucial player than in the normal
game.

>
>No one has yet suggested a reason why you want to play any individual rally
>differently, even though many, many players do change their games.

There, I've said it.

>
>bobs@Think.COM ( Robert Schwartz) writes:
>>I too feel that there is no doubt that rally scoring effects the outcome of a
>>match (and usually a tournament for that matter).  I cant believe that anyone
>>would argue differently.
>
>Unfortunately for your claim, people do argue differently.
>
>>If you look at the basic structure of the game of volleyball you will
>>find it is unique in many ways.  The most important of which is the
>>fact that you need to give the ball away (serve) to score a point.
>>Therefore normally, no penalty (point to opposing team) is assesed for
>>failing on an aggressive serve attempt or for beeing aggressive while
>>the ball is in play during your serve.  To change this rule is to
>>change the most fundamental aspect of the game.
>
>No, the penalty for a failed serve is that you didn't give yourself the
>opportunity to score a point.  If there's no penalty, then why not serve the
>ball into the net each time?
>
>As mentioned before, you'll make a choice like whether to serve aggressively
>or not based on the likelihood that you can win the rally that way.  This
>decision is unaffected by sideout vs rally scoring.
>
>>What rally point scoring does is decide which team would be better if
>>the rules were changed.
>
>Except for team endurance (which would become less of a factor under _any_
>game-shortening change, whether win at 11 or a game clock), those skills which
>allow you to win a rally-scored game are exactly the same as those which let
>you win sideout scored games.  You shouldn't play points any differently, so
>the stronger team under normal rules should still win under the new scoring
>system.
>
>>If this system of rule changes for the sake of speed is really good
>>that I think that we can expect to see the following rule changes in
>>some other sports:
>>Baseball: In the seventh game of a series; 2 strikes and youre out.
>>Tennis:   Only one serve attempt during a tie breaker.
>>Football: If the game is tied you only need 5 yards for a first down in OT.
>
>You may be interested to know that the tie breaker in tennis was introduced
>precisely to speed matches up, and came about because of increasing television
>coverage.  Before that, you won sets by being up by two (or more) games.
>(Many tennis tournaments revert to this system in the fifth set.)  I'm sure
>they had these same discussions at the time, and decided that whoever won
>the tie breaker probably would have won the extended set as well.
>
>	-- Don Geddis
>-- 
>Don Geddis		"It's too bad that whole families have to be torn apart
>Geddis@CS.Stanford.Edu	 by something as simple as wild dogs." -- DT on SNL
>Hi, I'm a replicating signature virus!  Join in the fun and copy me into yours!



---
-legal mumbo jumbo follows-
This mail/post only reflects the opinions of the poster (author), 
and in no manner reflects any corporate policy, statement, opinion,
or other expression by Network Systems Corporation.

Newsgroups: rec.sport.volleyball