Posted: Fri Jul 11, 2008 12:23 pm Post subject: Rally-Point Format
We tried around with this and its more fun than the usual service system, especially for intermediates because the "you serve-i serve" thing gets shorter . no more epic side-out matches. no more need to play one game to 15 in loosers bracket. i guess it would make the whole tourney organisation easier. you can see that from the fact that even in badminton they adjusted their system to this now. actually i don't know any other sport still playing our system.
1. Every Rally is awarded a Point.
2. As server winning a Rally you get a Point. If you received, you get a Point and the win the service.
3. A match is played best of 3 to 21 points. Winner has to have 2 Points more than his opponent(s). (At 21:20 Game is Continued until one Player/Team has 2 points more.) At 29:29 the next Rally wins the Match! So 30:29 is the highest possible score.
4. a change of sides only happens afer the server won a rally.
meaning:
In singles service is as always (even->right, odd->left)
In doubles its a bit tricky:
a change of sides only happens afer the server won a rally.
however, still the service is from the right side at even scores.
example:
First service (0-0) is played (by A1) from right (to B1).
Player change position ONLY if a own-service-rally was won.
A wins the Rally.
So at 1-0 A1 (now left) serves B2 (still left).
Team B wins the Rally (and thus the service)
so here comes the difference: no change of side (never) occurs.
now at 1-1 B2 (standing still left) serves to A1 now.
lets say Team A wins the Rally and the score is now 2-1.
since A1 had the service before A2 (still standing right) will serve to B1.
they score and change position.
so now at 3-1 A2 serves from left to B2.
Team B wins the rally and gets the point and win service.
(again no changes in position.)
So score is now 2(B)-3(A) -> service from right -> B1 is to serve
actually easy and all logical. it just needs some games to get used to.
if you get the chance go ahead and try it. feel free to comment!
Joined: 18 May 2004 Posts: 80 Location: Aurora, IL USA
Posted: Fri Jul 11, 2008 9:02 pm Post subject:
Scot Hansen and I have played around with different variations of rally point scoring.
One variation I liked was rally scoring games to 5 points, but with 1 person serving the whole game (like a tennis game).
It really puts the pressure on the server to serve it in every time.....you serve out 2 times in a game, you've given away almost half the points in that game. It REALLY changes the mental aspect of your game when you're trying to win every game....
Joined: 17 Sep 2003 Posts: 333 Location: Oakland, CA, USA
Posted: Fri Jul 11, 2008 9:29 pm Post subject:
Hey guys,
We only play rally in the park. Why?
For rotation purposes, the maximum game length in 15 minutes some games finish in 10 or 11 minutes. This way when we link courts they finish in similar time frame.
We have been doing it for like two seasons now.
We play 21 points, if you tie at 20 it is win by two, with the cap at 25. So you could win 25-24.
As far as in tournaments, this will be resisted bad for a while by players, cause "change is hard" but it does make scheduling easier, long epic battles like the Green Cup final, won't be as possible though.
For singles I think it may have to happen. This way players don't get into a 2 hour match and ruin the rest of their finals day.
Definitely for loser's bracket, it only makes sense.
We played it at the Spring park tourney we had and it made the final a lot different, it was challenging, nothing that playing a few times in high level matches I could figure out, but it was challenging.
Justin you are very accurate that not many if any sports still play sideout scoring anymore. So getting with the times sounds good to me. The other footsport, that I won't mention had two switch 5 years or so ago, because their televised finals match went to long and it never ended at least on tv. Not an immediate concern for us, but we need to think big picture long term at least.
Interesting stuff. I almost agree with you PT that for pick-up games and even round-robins maybe straight scoring can help keep schedules and timings on par. The last two windchills I was always part of the last teams on the court trying to get out of and/or place in the damn pools . But hockey has still managed to maintain unlimited overtime in tha playoffs, which I think is wicked. Also, Federer and Nadal just went 4 hours at the french open.. Not sure how they survived.
I agree it's not an immediate concern because net is never on live tv or anything. But getting through tight 2 day schedules is sometimes an issue.
what was said about scheduling is of course also true. but besides that, you can "loose" points with bad service. so the game-attitude changes a tiny but important bit.
we tried playing games to 11/15/21/25 and.. well we here found best of three to 21 to be a accurate replacement for playing 2 or 3 games to 11 in a tournament. one could think about making it best of 5 for (quarter)/semi/finals.
I -personally- never thought of anything besides the players... yet.
I don't really care what fits into a tv-schedule... if i'm on a tourney, i wanna play as many different guys as possible. And i hate the fact, that the good teams won't do pickup-games before they played their final match. And when they are finished, its too late and/or they are completely exhausted.
so playing more/better pickup-games is only possible, if you can not only say: "i got 4 matches left", but also have a reasonable idea about how long that is in real-time.
But. yes... it obviously would be a great thing for event-organizers as well.
Creating pools should be way easier too. you could have pools of 5 without having one or two going "Epic".
however, my intention in creating this thread was to have ALL net players to give it a try (thats why i wrote the explanation... i guess most of you guys answering here, already played that way)
maybe we could use winter to get used to this game and play tourneys that way next summer.
from what i heard (i asked some of the experienced european players) there should not be too much of "resistance". most players liked the idea of having shorter, more intense games. and it really takes only a few weeks to get used to rally-scoring.
Joined: 21 Aug 2007 Posts: 88 Location: Wheaton, IL, USA
Posted: Mon Jul 14, 2008 2:47 pm Post subject:
Like Cory said in an earlier post, we've played around with a couple of different ideas with rally scoring. Personally, I really liked playing with tennis scoring and serving rules a lot, but I don't think that that system would create shorter matches, as evidenced from Nadal and Federer's battle mentioned by Russ.
We also played with ping-pong scoring and serving rules, where one player serves five in a row (all rally scoring), then the other guy serves five, and back and forth until someone gets 21. The one other rule in ping-pong is that you cannot serve your own game point. So, once one guy gets 20 the other guy becomes the server until the game is over or until the second guy takes the lead by one point. In order to keep the court rotation honest, we played that a combined even score served from the right side and a combined odd score served from the left side.
The absolute best thing about rally scoring is the instant damage you do to yourself by serving out. Simple mistakes count against you so much faster in rally scoring. The bad news, for me anyways, is that no matter how we keep score, Cory always seems to beat me.
As a fan of footbag net, there is nothing more exciting than watching a match that goes three games and has a ton of back-and-forth action. However, as a tournament director, there is nothing worse. Straight rally scoring would definately solve the time issues.
yeah that part of straight scoring really sucks. i prefer going ape-shit on the service
if i'm not mistaken, you are saying that you like to make the service really hard and would dislike the consequence of not only losing service but also a point?
if yes, we also played with tennis like second-service. so that does allow to serve brutally on first try and go safe on second.
Joined: 23 Mar 2004 Posts: 260 Location: Portland, OR, USA
Posted: Sun Apr 05, 2009 6:05 am Post subject:
I think my biggest issue with rally scoring is that you don't have to serve the winning point. That is always an exciting point in any game. I know I am the sentimental type when it comes to certain rules but I am a big fan of long side-out battles especially in a tense tournament environment.
Other than that, rally scoring does seem like a pretty wise choice especially for larger tournaments. It also caters to the short attention spans of spectators and heightens the emotional tension on every point.
I don't play a lot of tourneys... heck, I don't play that much at all, but having been a competitive badminton player in a past life, I thought I might add my two cents.
"Old" badminton rules are very much like current net rules where you need to serve to get the point.
"New" badminton rules are rally scoring.
I agree on everybody's points where (badminton-speak) old rules can cause a game to go too long and tire out the players that need to play other matches. But the point that Steve makes about new rules is a huge one to me - you don't need to be serving in order to score a point. This type of scoring gives you the most anti-climatic match you'll ever play. Whenever I can, I try to play old rules in badminton. Much more satisfying.
You cannot post new topics in this forum You cannot reply to topics in this forum You cannot edit your posts in this forum You cannot delete your posts in this forum You cannot vote in polls in this forum
FAQ
Search
Memberlist
Usergroups
Register
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
. But hockey has still managed to maintain unlimited overtime in tha playoffs, which I think is wicked. Also, Federer and Nadal just went 4 hours at the french open.. Not sure how they survived.
