From: roberto@oliveb.ATC.Olivetti.Com (Roberto Ricca)
Newsgroups: rec.sport.olympics
Subject: Re: Volleyball complaints (NOT US-Japan)
Date: 28 Jul 92 20:58:05 GMT
Organization: Olivetti ATC; Cupertino CA, USA

In article <1992Jul28.165313.19209@dartvax.dartmouth.edu> riff@coos.dartmouth.edu (Christopher P. Riff) writes:
>While watching the US-Japan volleyball game, I noticed a couple
>of things that bothered me (they are not related to the officiating).
>
>First, a minor complaint.  Usually, the first team to 15 points wins
>the set, except that you must win by two points.  In the Olympics, the 
                                                   ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
It is not only in the Olympics. It is an official rule introduced
some years ago (maybe 1988).

>score is capped at 17, so even if a team is not leading by two points,
>when they reach 17 the set is over.  This is a reasonable rule to
>prevent marathon matches, but I don't think the 17 point cap should
>be in force in the 5th set.

Fortunately, starting from these Olympic games, the 17 point cap is
not anymore in force in the fifth set, at least this is what I read.
See also below.

>Now, my main complaint - "Speed-scoring" in the fifth set.  Instead
>of only scoring points when you are serving, a point is awarded on
>every serve.  This forces teams to abruptly change their approach
>in the fifth set.  For example, you can't afford to take a chance on 
>a jump serve, because if you don't get the serve in, the other team
>gets a point.  If two teams have fought each other even through four
>sets, it seems wrong to suddenly change the rules for the deciding
>fifth set.  The only reason I can think of that "speed-scoring" would
>be introduced is to shorten the time required to play the set.  But,
>how much time is saved?  Surely, the amount of time saved is meager
>compared to the time of the entire match.  This is one rule we could
>do without.

Put it in this way: the match is four games long. If you and your
opponent are unable to win three games, something has to be done
to break the tie. So here we go with the 5th set tiebreaker.

In the tiebreaker (see tennis, soccer, ice hockey) rules are not
the same that in normal competition. I can live with that.

However there are two things that look wrong to me with the volley
tiebreaker: the first one has been suppressed (the 17 point cap);
the second one is the unfair advantage given to the first team
which receives the ball at the begginning of the tiebreaker.
Look at it closely: if we call a break winning the point on your
own service (difficult task in volley), the receiving team needs
just one more break than the serving team. The latter, in order
to win, needs two more breaks than its opponent. 
As we got an average of five-six breaks in a tiebreaker I think
that the receiving team is quite heavily favoured over the other.

My proposal: the *first* point in a tiebreaker must be awarded to
the team that gets it in the usual way (that is on its own service).
From that point on, the tiebreaker rules take over.

It looks much fairer to me.

########################################################################
# Roberto Ricca                 Email:      roberto@oas.olivetti.com   #
# 816 So. Saratoga Ave #M304    Phone: Home (+1408) 983-2293           #
# San Jose, CA  95129  -  USA          Work (+1408) 366-3558           #
#----------------------------------------------------------------------#
#           1992:   GO GIANTS  (magic number:   77)                    #
#                   Anybody but the Dodgers                            #
########################################################################
Newsgroups: rec.sport.olympics