Do away with rotations/overlaps?

[Back In The Saddle]

A friend of mine proposed something radical to me the other day, and I am interested in what the wider community's thoughts on it are. I'm sure I'm going to use entirely the wrong language to say this (hey, I'm a rookie!), but...

What if we did away with the whole rotation thing, other than rotating the service? Let the team set up however they want. That would eliminate the whole need to judge overlaps and all that, which really doesn't seem to have much to do with the game.

What do ya'll think?

[MCBear]

What reasoning did your friend give for the proposal?? It can't have come from a volleyball person's point of view.

You are dead wrong in saying that overlaps and rotation don't have an affect on the game. Eliminating having to be in proper alignment would give an advantage to the team that would utilize it. The back-row setter could be camped in the middle of the front zone waiting for the passer to give her the ball so that she can set the dominating hitter without having to attempt to get into proper position to set the ball.

Plus, there are teams who have a hard time remembering who is serving next and allowing them to go anywhere that they want to without being in serving order is creating even more chaos out of an already chaotic situation.

[Andy]

About 30 years ago, there was a professional Co-ed Volleyball league that did not use any rotations. Each player served in turn, but there were no rotations.

What each team had was three male hitters, a male setter, and two female "defensive" players. There were also no front row/back row players and any player could play anywhere on the court. The league was only around for maybe five years...I went to a few matches here in Phoenix.

The league sold the "no-rotation" concept as more spectator friendly in that your hitters were always able to hit and did not have to spend half the game in a back row position or on the bench because of their (lack of) passing skills.

It was fun to watch...but I don't agree that it should be the norm at all levels.

[Back In The Saddle]

Originally Posted by MCBear

What reasoning did your friend give for the proposal?? It can't have come from a volleyball person's point of view.

No, he's new to volleyball as well. However, the idea struck me as so revolutionary that I figured he may well have heard it from a "volleyball person."

Originally Posted by MCBear

You are dead wrong in saying that overlaps and rotation don't have an affect on the game. Eliminating having to be in proper alignment would give an advantage to the team that would utilize it. The back-row setter could be camped in the middle of the front zone waiting for the passer to give her the ball so that she can set the dominating hitter without having to attempt to get into proper position to set the ball.

I would think it would give the same advantage to both teams. Which is to say that it would not become an advantage to either team.

Are rotations and overlaps really that central to the game itself? Or are they mostly historical artifacts? What would really be lost if those concepts were done away with? What might be gained? From Andy's response, it's obviously an idea that's been around for quite a while. And it appeared to work in the league he talks about. Also, they don't seem to worry about it in beach volleyball.

However, I can see that you'd want rotation in recreational volleyball, to ensure everybody got a fair chance to play front and back.

Originally Posted by MCBear

Plus, there are teams who have a hard time remembering who is serving next and allowing them to go anywhere that they want to without being in serving order is creating even more chaos out of an already chaotic situation.

This argument I just don't buy. If alignments, rotations, overlaps were eliminated, there would be far less chaos. All that would remain is remembering serving order. That would be easier for players and officials. At most it would be no more difficult to remember than it is now.

For the record, I'm not recommending the changes. I just wondered what responses such a radical idea would generate. And, in fact, I hope to learn more about the game by talking about it. So please don't think I'm walking in off the street and pooing on your game, or trying to change it to suit my ideas.

[Scrapper1]

Originally Posted by MCBear

The back-row setter could be camped in the middle of the front zone waiting for the passer to give her the ball so that she can set the dominating hitter without having to attempt to get into proper position to set the ball.

I guess my question would be, so what? It's not like it's real hard for them to get into their proper position. They can just stand right next to or slight behind the person in the next position. They take 2 steps and they're in the position they want to be in. Why not just let them start where they want to?

Most of the positional shenanigans are to disguise where a particular player is, right? They could still do that, and the officials wouldn't have to worry about whether it's legal.

[TimTaylor]

Originally Posted by Back In The Saddle

No, he's new to volleyball as well.....

Figures.....sounds like a comment from someone too lazy to put in the effort to do what it takes to become a good volleyball official (not you BITS, the guy that came up with it).

As Jan tried to explain, the concepts of rotation & alignment are a fundamental part of the sport, and eliminating them would, IMHO, seriously detract from the sport.

Just my $0.02, but I think it's a really bad idea........

[FMadera]

One of the things that makes "teams" great is a little thing called "depth." Not often does the most dominating player automatically play for the team that wins the championship, because most good players are non-factors out of the back row (a few great players excepted). It's what happens when your best players are in the back row that truly is the test of a great team.

I'm going to guess that whoever came up with this idea can't recognize illegal alignments, and wanted to come up with an idea on how to cover up this deficiency. It's extremely tough to learn/recognize, and can be frustrating, but I've never heard anyone who can actually recognize alignments advocate getting rid of the alignment rule altogether.

[Back In The Saddle]

Originally Posted by FMadera

One of the things that makes "teams" great is a little thing called "depth." Not often does the most dominating player automatically play for the team that wins the championship, because most good players are non-factors out of the back row (a few great players excepted). It's what happens when your best players are in the back row that truly is the test of a great team.

I'm going to guess that whoever came up with this idea can't recognize illegal alignments, and wanted to come up with an idea on how to cover up this deficiency. It's extremely tough to learn/recognize, and can be frustrating, but I've never heard anyone who can actually recognize alignments advocate getting rid of the alignment rule altogether.

I suppose every new official, who hasn't played at a high level, wonders about the need for alignments. I haven't done my first HS match yet, so I haven't had the privilege of dealing with that frustration yet.

My interest in the question is largely a philosophical one (I'm sure it'll become rooted in bitterness and frustration in the next few weeks ).

So how about not worrying about alignments side-to-side, just front-to-back. The players still would rotate, and maintain rotation order, but can line up anywhere along the row they are on. They pretty much do that now.

Or am I missing something still?

[FMadera]

Originally Posted by Back In The Saddle

So how about not worrying about alignments side-to-side, just front-to-back. The players still would rotate, and maintain rotation order, but can line up anywhere along the row they are on. They pretty much do that now.

Or am I missing something still?

I think you're missing the fact that while they may still line up wherever, everyone else still needs to line up legally relative to those players. You might see a player change where she's lined up in serve receive, but you better believe if she does, it's going to affect someone else's position as well (and that person isn't necessarily going to line up in an advantageous position).

But I can tell you that it isn't going to happen unless NCAA or FIVB change it. And neither is changing it anytime soon, if ever.

[varefump]

I won't even attempt to persuade Jan's and Felix's views on this, for that would be an impossible task.

For liberal-minded thinkers, this is a rule change that I endorse and will go to the grave trying to get enacted.

Being a high school (and former college) volleyball official for 26 years, I have seen the struggles officials go through trying to learn rotations and positionings. It took me a good 5 years to master the concept and there are times when I still miss an IA or two. Now that I am a HS assignor, I see the number of young officials who quit after a year or two because they can't master this rule. If we can make the game easier to officiate, why not? We've taken away the need to judge 'intent', so why not go a little farther and not have to judge toe positions?

Eliminating the alignment rule would do three things that would aid the volleyball official in his/her duties:
1. Not have to worry about IA,
2. Not have to worry about BR attacks,
3. Not have to worry about BR blocks.

By doing away with these fouls, the officials can concentrate on what the game is really about - passing, setting, attacking. And yes, it still takes a good pass no matter where the setter starts from.

Without these violations (all of which get coaches extremely upset when they are called), the game will take on a different behavior for sure. No longer will the All-State middle hitter have to sit out half the game. And to defend that middle hitter, a team could use a four-man block (wouldn't that be something to watch). Setters would also be free to do more on every play (dump, spike, block). I personally believe that the game would become even more exciting to watch than it is now.

More strategy would be required from the coaches (maybe that's why they're against this) in order to defend against and attack the more advanced teams who utilize all their players to their utmost potential.

The argument that kids wouldn't be able to remember who to serve after doesn't hold any water. If middle school girls can bat nine softball players in order without screwing up, then six high schoolers or collegians should be able to handle serving in the proper order.

As long as the purists are in control, this change will never take place. Good thing that the old farts left the other sports or we wouldn't have the DH in baseball, the 3-point shot in basketball, the tie-breaker in tennis, or the FLEX in softball.

There, that's my penny.

[OmniSpiker]

From a player's perspective, it really changes the behaviour of a volleyball game.

When you open the net up to five potential attackers, camping blockers can get foiled. The ebb and flow of the game changes and spectacular offensive manuevres puts the crowd in awe. My best passer(s) would be in the best position.

Some rules will always garner support from either side.

I still prefer side-out. I think allowing double contact on first contact is a total mishap. Deepdishing is a hold. Anymore than six substitutions is too much. The free replacement libero is too free, now they get to serve one...maybe they should create a free replacement attacker; not allowed to block or make any other team passing...

Most of all, they should give 30 secs in between rallys for team to strategize. Instead of being rushed for the next play. Hee,ehehehe...