Volleyball questions

Which would not affect the fact that there would be those who would vehemently protest the “missed” call. :stuck_out_tongue:

However, after some further thought, and some review of the available information, the change appears to be related to the “rally” scoring rules. In the old rules, if you hit a “let” serve, all you lost was the serve. Since winning a point on the serve is not automatic (indeed, it’s relatively difficult to do, since the receiving side gets the first “kill” chance), that’s not that punitive a result. But with the rally rules, a “let” serve would result in both loss of serve AND a point to the other side. This would be much more detrimental. So the result would probably be to see serves be less challenging, to avoid the possibility of hitting the net. By allowing such serves to count, the game remains much the same, despite the new scoring rules.

Indeed, as happens now with other types of calls - would be handled the same way.

This makes sense as an explanation of the change.

This objection could be easily handled by rules along the lines of tennis: after one “let” you get a second serve; a second straight “let” is an error.

But in tennis all let plays (serves or otherwise) redo the current point with no penalty for either side. In theory, you could spend hours doing nothing but let serves for the same point. Though, I believe if a play goes let after the volley has started, the server still starts from second service if he had faulted on the first one. (I.e. Another fault will score a point for the other side.)

I’m puzzled by this - I thought the let rule applied only to serves.

What I propose for volleyball (actually, just for beach volleyball) is a variant of the tennis rule: just one “do over”. The second let serve results in a loss of the point.

Nope. Serves that hit the net and land fair are just the most common.

If the server serves when the opponent hasn’t indicated they’re ready, that’s a let serve as well.

Additionally a stray ball, animal, etc. entering the court of play is also a let situation that will stop the current play.

Also, if a linesman makes a call that is reversed by an umpire, that play is considered let and replayed.

There might be other situations, but they are rare.

Unless I’m really misunderstanding you, you’ve got something wrong here.

**If the ball hits the net during the point and goes into the opponents court, the ball is in play.

I’m talking about tennis here.

So am I. If you could indicate which of my points you find incorrect, it would help.

So as a WAG:

If you notice I say “stray” ball. I’m not referring to a ball in play, I’m referring to a ball out of play, say from a neighboring court. If it crosses into another court’s playing surface while that court’s ball is in play, the play is let and and the server reserves from whichever service (i.e. first or second) they were in when the play started.

Unless you’re referring to the serve, in which case you are wrong. Serves are not playable if they hit the net. If they hit the net and fall fair, they are let. If they hit the net and don’t, they cause a fault.

The problem is that you are using “let” in the sense of “a situation which requires the ball be declared dead” and the rest of the thread is using the term to describe anytime the ball hits the net and falls over to the other side. Thus, your initial statement has caused some confusion as seeming to indicate that any tennis shot that hits the net is replayed, which I do not believe was your actual intent in your wording.

But by it’s very defintion in tennis, “let” means a situation which requires the ball to be declared dead. I was simply answering Xema’s question about “let” only applying to serves and saying that it doesn’t, and the fact that a “let” serve on first service in tennis still leaves you in first service, something that Xema had wrong in this statement:

My wording “along the lines of tennis” was used to indicate that my rules proposal was similar but not identical to what’s done in tennis. Sorry if this was unclear.

This is true, of course, but you’ll note that the only way to win is to score at least one point on your own serve. The importance of getting a side-out is certainly diminished since the change to rally scoring, but you still have to score at least one point off of your own serve to get to 25 and still win by two.

I personally hate rally scoring. It’s designed to create a fairly uniform length of game, and it certainly does that, but it has created a situation where a four or five point lead - even at 15-10, for example - is nearly impossible to overcome. It used to be that the best matches were the ones where a team got down 13-6 or 14-8 yet managed to fight off side out after side out to pull out the nail-biting victory. With rally-scoring, that’s pretty well been legislated out of the game.

Ahh…gotcha. No need to apologize. Probably just as much my fault.