As promised from yesterday, here are our thoughts on the new rule changes for the upcoming 2008 volleyball season. A word of warning, this is a fairly long article but we feel that it's important that fans understand exactly what's going on with the new rule changes. Also keep in mind that we are not volleyball experts, do not claim to be volleyball experts, but DO claim to enjoy immensely the game of women's college volleyball.
One of the major changes involves changing the scoring from 30 points to 25 points in games one through four. The rationale from the rules committee was as follows:
There seems to be a reduction in the intensity of many contests in the middle of a set that is played to 30 points. The intention of this rule change is to increase fan and player focus and fan excitement. Additionally, the Division I Championship committee recommended this change. Note: the number of points required to win the fifth set remains at fifteen.
And here's the quote from Marcia Alterman, the committee's secretary-rules editor from back on February 7th:
"The 25-point sets will add an intensity and excitement level to our matches that has been missing," I believe that players, coaches and fans will agree that the critical nature of every point will emphasize the need for focus and consistency to every play."
Anyone that watches college volleyball regularly (and television coverage is spotty at best at least in New Mexico) knows that there isn't a ton of parity in women's college volleyball, at least not like there is in some of the other sports. By changing the point scoring system from 30 to 25, one issue we see right away is that you're making the majority of matches even shorter than they already were and that's not even the biggest issue.
Case in point, the Aggies were involved in 19 matches where the final score was 3-0, they won 16 of those matches (their losses were to #1 Nebraska, #5 Texas and #12 Hawai'i). The Aggies were involved in eight matches where the final score was 3-1. The Aggies won all eight.
The average match time in those 19 matches where the outcome was 3-0 was 1 hour and 33 minutes with the shortest match being 1 hour 13 minutes. With a move to 25 points to win a set (which is the new terminology that replaces the previous 'game' terminology), you'll be eliminating at a very minimum, five points and depending on the level of opponent, the game, the flow, etc. on average (and we're making an educated guess here) between 7 to 10 points per set and quite possibly more.
To illustrate our point, take for example the first match against UTEP this past season. UTEP only scored 10 points in the first set and they didn't get to 10 until the Aggies had already gotten into the 20's. The final scores in that match were 30-10, 25-15, 25-19. Under the new rules the final score would have been 25-10, 25-15, 25-19, a total of 27 points that would not have been played and the match would have probably been played in less than 1:20.
We'll take it one step further. One of the most exciting matches of the season, the Aggies' home match against Nevada towards the end of the season, was a five set thriller that saw the Aggies come back from a 12-5 deficit in the fifth set to win the match. That result would have never happened under the new rules. The Aggies would have won the match 25-19, 25-17, 25-21 instead of by the 30-27, 30-18, 29-31, 29-31, 17-15 score that they won by. That's a whopping 130 points that would not have been played. TWO FULL SETS!
In the media release for the new rule changes, the NCAA highlights what they refer to as the "Current Culture of Women’s Collegiate Volleyball." The second bullet point states Collegiate women players demonstrate more athleticism than ever before, and that athleticism should be highlighted.
We might be wrong here but by reducing the number of points required to win a set and therefore a match, you're actually REDUCING the opportunity for these young ladies to highlight the athleticism that the NCAA is wishing to highlight.
Now, if you're still reading (we apologize for the length, we didn't realize this would be such a long article), let's address the new ball handling directive.
The explanation from the rules committee is as follows:
Based on extensive discussion at the 2008 annual meeting, the NCAA Women’s Volleyball Rules Committee has developed a new directive regarding ball handling judgment, primarily on second team contacts. This is not a rule change, but a new approach to ball handling judgments that is intended to increase intensity and focus for the players and coaches, and improve fan understanding and involvement.
They also refer to the aforementioned "Current Culture of Collegiate Volleyball" and go on to say:
The committee recognized that ball handling judgment was, at times, inconsistent both within a match and from contest to contest. Not only were those inconsistencies frustrating for players and coaches, whistles for subtle infractions discernable only by the referees are confusing to fans. With increased television exposure, it is important to attempt to develop ball handling guidelines that are understandable by typical sports fans, not just the volleyball community. The basic tenet is that the excitement of the sport of volleyball can be increased with fewer whistles for minor ball handling infractions and increased leniency on particularly athletic plays that may not result in a perfectly executed set by traditional standards, but provides a continuation of play with no disadvantage to the opponent.
Women's college volleyball is a fast paced sport and we agree that the excitement of the matches can be improved by fewer whistles (as would all sports). However, these are the directives from the NCAA:
* Referees should only call faults that are actually seen.
Does this mean that referees were calling faults that they didn't actually see? (i.e., they were anticipating a fault?)
* Only the contact point should be considered in judging legality.
We'll be honest here and admit that we have no clue what this means.
* Outside influences such as player technique, spin, crowd reaction, or coaches’ expectations should not be regarded.
This clearly, as with the first point of emphasis, should go without saying.
Now the new points of emphasis by the rules committee that they believe will reduce whistles and stoppages of play:
* Only the most obvious violations should be called.
* Referees should be less severe when judging an athletic play by a player in less than ideal position. In other words, be lenient when a player makes their best effort that results in unorthodox technique. However, don’t confuse clumsiness or lack of skill with athleticism. A player who has the opportunity to set the ball from good position will be expected to execute without a double contact.
*Referees should avoid being overly mechanical or technical in their judgments, and work within the current culture of the sport and the spirit of the competition.
In our interview with Coach Jordan last month, he had mixed emotions on this this particular rule change and had this to say:
I think you're going to put too much in the hands of the referee in making that determination. Was it a double because it was an athletic play, should she have made a good set because she was stationary. I think that's a joke, if you're going to let the double go then let it go all the time. I'm not as upset about that rule change as the other one but I think that if they're going to do it, they need to just say we're letting the doubles go period and then you're making the referee less involved in the match which is a good thing.
We have to agree with Coach Jordan here. It's almost worse to make referees make judgement calls on athleticism vs. clumsiness than it is to have referees varying on what they think is a double contact. The best example we can think of is in baseball. Umpires and their strike zones vary from game to game and as long as they're consistent throughout the game and throughout the season when they're calling balls and strikes, nobody has a problem with it. The issue becomes when the umpire starts calling pitches for balls when earlier in the game he was calling those same pitches for strikes. The same general principle applies here. We're not experts but we're pretty sure that fans, coaches and players would not have an issue with officials having different interpretations on double contact as long as they were consistent from game to game throughout the match and throughout the season (if they were to get the same officials for multiple games). Consistency is the key here and now instead of having to worry about officials being consistent in their interpretation of a double contact, coaches and players have to worry about officials now being talent evaluators. Was that an athletic play or a sloppy play?
We didn't even address the issue that coincides with the reduction in points required to win a set. The substitutions were decreased from 15 to 12 as a byproduct of the fewer points. According Coach Jordan, he and other coaches that run the 6-2 system will now be at a distinct disadvantage to those coaches who do not run the 6-2. It's one thing to reduce the number of points required to win a set and match but it's an entirely other thing to put certain coaches and teams at a disadvantage as a direct result of those rule changes.
We're all for rule changes that make a sport better (like proposal to ban horse collar tackles in college football) but rules that reduce the number of plays in a normal game or match situation or those that require the officiating crews to be more subjective than objective in their officiating are a detriment rather than a compliment to their respective sport.
