From: bobs@Think.COM ( Robert Schwartz)
Newsgroups: rec.sport.olympics,rec.sport.volleyball
Subject: Re: Speed scores (Rally Point Scoring)
Date: 30 Jul 1992 17:00:48 GMT
Organization: Thinking Machines Corporation, Cambridge MA, USA
Distribution: usa
NNTP-Posting-Host: grendle.think.com

In article <1992Jul30.135144.24285@awdprime.austin.ibm.com>, kaena@haleiwa.austin.ibm.com (The Crazy Hawaiian) writes:
 
|> I disagree, rally scoring has GREAT effects on how you play and the final
|> outcome of the game. I've been playing ball for about 11 years now and
|> depending on the match, I either enjoy rally point matches or despise them.
|> 
|> For instance, if my team is playing a league with best 2 out of 3 sets win,
|> with the final game being rally points if it is tied 1-1, I tend to watch
|> the way my team plays. If it takes us a LONG time between the scoring of
|> points in the first two sets, I totally "cringe" when the rally point game
|> comes around. However, if we are siding-out with regularity and putting the
|> ball consistently down, I know we have a great chance of winning.
|> 
|> If we get to the rally point game and it looks like we had a hard time scoring
|> between points, I try to change something. Switch hitters, get the team more
|> pumped up when we block something, basically ask one of them to step up to
|> the challenge. It is definately a more intense game.

I can no longer resist the urge to jump in on this one.  

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.

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.  

The most absurd part of the rally point scoring system is that it is usually
implemented during the most critical game of a match or tourney.  If in a match a
3rd (or 5th) game is required, it means that the two teams in question are evenly
matched.  The reason for the deciding game is to determine which team is better. 
What rally point scoring does is decide which team would be better if the rules 
were changed.  How can anyone (besides lazy tournament directors and TV execs.)
argue that this really determines which team is better?

I have been involved im many tournament finals that have gone three games, some of
which have been decided by rally points.  The rally point system usually leaves the 
winning team with something less than the feeling that they have "truely" won.  I
would liken this feeling to that of having "beaten the system".  On the other hand,
the losing teams feels that they been cheated.  The only persons that are satisfied
are the officials and tournament director because they get to go home earlier than
if the game was played to its proper conclusion.  Having been on both sides of the
situation, I cringe when I hear that the entire tournament is going to be decided
with rally points.

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.

Sounds absurd doesnt it?

Motto: Only you can stop rally point scoring!


------------------------
Bob Schwartz            |
Thinking Machines Corp. |
Cambridge MA            |
------------------------ 
Newsgroups: rec.sport.olympics