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.

[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?

[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.