PDA

View Full Version : Second serve challenges


ubermeyer
07-06-2012, 03:03 PM
Why is it that when Murray challenged his own second serve, which was called out and turned out to be in, he got to start over with a FIRST serve? Luckily it didn't affect the outcome of the set, which Tsonga still won, or the match, which Murray still won, but that rule just seems really stupid and bizarre.

woodrow1029
07-06-2012, 03:11 PM
It's not stupid. When an official makes an incorrect out call, it's an official hindrance. If it's a winner, the player that hits the ball gets the point. If it hinders/has the chance to hinder the other player, the point is replayed. Anytime there is a let due to a hindrance, the point is replayed. If it's on the second serve, it's still during the point, and the whole point is replayed, from a first serve.

Federererer
07-06-2012, 03:16 PM
It's not stupid. When an official makes an incorrect out call, it's an official hindrance. If it's a winner, the player that hits the ball gets the point. If it hinders/has the chance to hinder the other player, the point is replayed. Anytime there is a let due to a hindrance, the point is replayed. If it's on the second serve, it's still during the point, and the whole point is replayed, from a first serve .

I think the OP's point is why is it replayed from the 1st serve, why not replay the point from the second serve.

woodrow1029
07-06-2012, 03:22 PM
I think the OP's point is why is it replayed from the 1st serve, why not replay the point from the second serve.

Because, like I said, when there is an official hindrance during the point, the entire point is replayed.

Federererer
07-06-2012, 03:53 PM
Because, like I said, when there is an official hindrance during the point, the entire point is replayed.

Then I agree with the OP. That's stupid. For hindrances on serves they should begin again with the serve it happened on.

woodrow1029
07-06-2012, 04:00 PM
Then I agree with the OP. That's stupid. For hindrances on serves they should begin again with the serve it happened on.

So, if a ball comes into the court from another court during a second serve, and they have to stop, you think they should have to hit another second serve?

jmverdugo
07-06-2012, 04:01 PM
Then I agree with the OP. That's stupid. For hindrances on serves they should begin again with the serve it happened on.

No, even at club level if there is a hindrance while your executing your second serve you get two serves, which means to repeat the point. Even if you hit your serve and it goes out you get to repeat the point. The point start with 2 chances to hit a serve in.

InspectorRacquet
07-06-2012, 04:09 PM
The hindrance can easily mess up a player's "mojo", so to speak. The mental attitude and focus between the first and second serve is lost. It only makes sense to replay the entire point because of the mental unrest caused by the incorrect call and thus hindrance.

Playing the point over makes sense - the point doesn't start from the second serve, though. It always starts with the first serve.

Federererer
07-06-2012, 07:10 PM
So, if a ball comes into the court from another court during a second serve, and they have to stop, you think they should have to hit another second serve?

Well I was talking about pro tennis where you don't typically play on adjacent courts, but regardless, yes you should start from the second serve, why should you get another 1st serve, when you already missed it.

Wuppy
07-06-2012, 07:13 PM
I've always thought the rule where you repeat the "entire" point, including a first serve, when the hindrance happens on the second serve, is a weird rule. I understand why that's the rule, but if it were up to me, it wouldn't be the rule.

Raging Buddha
07-06-2012, 07:16 PM
Curious to hear why that is the case as well.

woodrow1029
07-06-2012, 07:19 PM
Curious to hear why that is the case as well.
See posts 2, 7, and 8. 100% makes sense that a hindrance causes a replay of the entire point.

woodrow1029
07-06-2012, 07:20 PM
Now, if the second serve hits the net, then is called out and corrected to good, then you replay from the second serve only.

Wuppy
07-06-2012, 09:20 PM
See posts 2, 7, and 8. 100% makes sense that a hindrance causes a replay of the entire point.
Nah, it doesn't "100% make sense." It maybe 50% makes sense. The other 50% would say that if there's a hindrance on the 2nd serve you should replay from the 2nd serve because otherwise the server gets a big advantage. He already screwed up the first serve, why does he get it over again?

I can see it both ways, but taking it over from the 2nd serve when a hindrance happens on the 2nd serve makes more sense to me. It's certainly not "100%" one way or the other.

mellowyellow
07-07-2012, 05:21 AM
I agree with the OP, you got your 1st serve chance and failed to make it, you should not get a second 1st serve chance from a second serve, especially when the ball has not even been touched by the opposing player yet. What hindrance is their? Technically the ball is not even in play till it hits in on hte other side in the box and that is what is in question so??? You can't as the opponent even touch the ball till after this has happened....

mellowyellow
07-07-2012, 05:23 AM
So, if a ball comes into the court from another court during a second serve, and they have to stop, you think they should have to hit another second serve?

That is not the same thing... You need to think about who the hindrance is on, nothing hinders the server in the instance of a "bad" line call, whereas the ball causes the server to stop his motion.

Federererer
07-07-2012, 07:00 AM
Nah, it doesn't "100% make sense." It maybe 50% makes sense. The other 50% would say that if there's a hindrance on the 2nd serve you should replay from the 2nd serve because otherwise the server gets a big advantage. He already screwed up the first serve, why does he get it over again?

I can see it both ways, but taking it over from the 2nd serve when a hindrance happens on the 2nd serve makes more sense to me. It's certainly not "100%" one way or the other.

Agree with this.

mellowyellow
07-07-2012, 07:21 AM
You also have the case where the 1st serve is out, not called and hit for an outright winner. Subsequently challenged to be an out serve you only get a 2nd, yet in a sense you have the hindrance of waiting for the hawkeye to call it... Anytime you have a disruption in flow from 1st to 2nd you usually get a 1st serve? So it seems the rule contradicts itself in this case.

ubermeyer
07-07-2012, 12:40 PM
It's not stupid. When an official makes an incorrect out call, it's an official hindrance. If it's a winner, the player that hits the ball gets the point. If it hinders/has the chance to hinder the other player, the point is replayed. Anytime there is a let due to a hindrance, the point is replayed. If it's on the second serve, it's still during the point, and the whole point is replayed, from a first serve.

No, it doesn't make sense at all. I get that it's a hindrance but if you already missed your first serve you should not get a chance to do that over because a second first serve can be a huge advantage. Maybe it does mess up rhythm a little bit, but not enough to justify giving that big advantage to the player. They should just have to hit their second serve again, since if the bad call had not been made, the other player would have to hit a second serve return, not a first serve return. I think it is an extremely dumb rule, though I now understand why it exists in the first place.

It's not stupid. When an official makes an incorrect out call, it's an official hindrance. If it's a winner, the player that hits the ball gets the point. If it hinders/has the chance to hinder the other player, the point is replayed. Anytime there is a let due to a hindrance, the point is replayed. If it's on the second serve, it's still during the point, and the whole point is replayed, from a first serve.

They should make an exception in this case, because the bad line call was not the reason the first serve was missed. Let's say, for the sake of argument, this happened on match point in the fifth set tiebreaker of a US Open final when Murray was up 7-6 in the tiebreak. Murray missed the first serve, hit a second serve that was called out but was actually barely in. He then hits a blazing first serve ace and wins the point. Let's also say in that match he only was winning 10% of second serve points and was winning 91% of first serve points and making 99% of his first serves. Had it not been for the bad line call, he had a 90% chance of losing the point. However, with the total do-over, he had about a 10% chance of losing the point. So, it would basically be the official's fault that the other player lost the point and the match. Obviously, usually, a single rule does not affect the outcome of the match. But the other player would have a right to be angry if somehow, it did, because this rule is simply illogical. I read your posts and I understand what you are saying but this is just a terrible rule.