PDA

View Full Version : Service lets trial.


Paul Murphy
09-13-2012, 01:55 AM
This has been partly covered in another thread dealing with time violations but I think it's worth a thread of its own:

The ATP board of directors is going to take a closer look at men's professional tennis with no service lets.
The board has approved the elimination of lets on the Challenger Tour for the first three months of next year.
ATP Executive Chairman Brad Drewett says the board believes ``a trial at the ATP Challenger level will be a good way to test this initiative in a competitive environment and get feedback from players and the public before deciding if it could be adapted more broadly.''

Opinions?

BHud
09-13-2012, 06:25 AM
I don't see the point on the ATP? They initiated the no let rule at the D1 college level several years back because of all the cheating going on (they make their own calls), but I don't see this as a problem when officials are present to monitor lets.

It seems there are much bigger issues to address?

Russeljones
09-13-2012, 06:27 AM
It's crap. We have the technology why not use it? (Volleyball really suffered as a result of a similar rule change imho).

Govnor
09-13-2012, 06:51 AM
So the point gets played if the ball lands in the box? could be interesting, but it's a huge change to how the game has been played in the past. Is this to speed the matches up?

Devilito
09-13-2012, 07:27 AM
We don't play a let on any other shot. Once the player hits the serve the point starts. I'm in favor of it

pvaudio
09-13-2012, 07:43 AM
We don't play a let on any other shot. Once the player hits the serve the point starts. I'm in favor of it
This is true, but not really relevant in my opinion. In college, it makes a great amount of sense. In WTT it makes a great amount of sense too (not the pro version). In these situations, you're calling the shots yourself so you can eliminate a huge chance of cheating. In pro tennis where you are not calling the shots yourself, there really isn't a reason to not start the point off "right". I mean, just imagine winning Wimbledon off a net cord serve that just drops over the other side of the net. That, or replay the first serve and hit the ace that you meant to.

ark_28
09-13-2012, 08:04 AM
Don't think it's going to have a big impact BUT this move to me is a negative one and would have made more sense when the courts played faster and they were trying to slow things down.

Fair enough a serve let doesn't happen too often but when it does it will slow up the pace of the serve.. Add into the mix the facts the courts are already getting slower and slower and in that respect I see this as a negative move.

stringertom
09-13-2012, 10:17 AM
I hope the experiment fails...it brings too much luck into the competitive equation, both good and bad. At Wimby, you could more easily see the dribbler ace; at the other GS's more of the set-up return winner.

If it ain't broke, don't fix it! It will not speed up matches nearly as much as an enforced time violation policy. Now, they're gonna regress and impose a fault on the server after the first warning. I guess Nadal's 2nd serve better improve.

As witnessed by Monday's final, five hours (without stalling) is the norm until the surfaces are changed to reward risk-taking styles. That would be how to reenergize the fanbase!

Mustard
09-13-2012, 10:24 AM
Why does the ATP think tennis needs fixing? This is a golden age of tennis that we are living through.

Bowtiesarecool
09-13-2012, 10:27 AM
I doubt highly that forcing the reciever to return a shot that hit the cord and drops anywhere between the service line and 1" from the net would be fair. If a let is instead ruled a fault, It could work seeing as it would force the server to be more dilligent in keeping up his 1st serve percentage which would certainly speed up the game. However, there are plenty of problems with that theory. ATP and ITF rarely agree on oddball rules like that. What if the wind is blowing 15+ mph like it did at the USO? Would the any league really like to see a championship played with even MORE double faults? That's not entertaining in the least.

JMR
09-13-2012, 11:01 AM
This has been partly covered in another thread dealing with time violations but I think it's worth a thread of its own:

The ATP board of directors is going to take a closer look at men's professional tennis with no service lets.
The board has approved the elimination of lets on the Challenger Tour for the first three months of next year.
ATP Executive Chairman Brad Drewett says the board believes ``a trial at the ATP Challenger level will be a good way to test this initiative in a competitive environment and get feedback from players and the public before deciding if it could be adapted more broadly.''

Opinions?

My opinions were stated in the other thread, but I'll repeat that I'm strongly in favor of this change.

JMR
09-13-2012, 11:05 AM
I mean, just imagine winning Wimbledon off a net cord serve that just drops over the other side of the net.

Why is that worse than winning Wimbledon off a net cord volley that just drops over the other side of the net? Or winning Wimbledon on a passing shot that hits the net cord and jumps over the volleyer's outstretched racket?

I do not understand the morbid dread of serves that might hit the net and land in. Tennis is full of unpredictable, "lucky" shots.

JMR
09-13-2012, 11:10 AM
I doubt highly that forcing the reciever to return a shot that hit the cord and drops anywhere between the service line and 1" from the net would be fair.

This is a misunderstanding of the concept of fairness. A fair rule is one that is applied evenhandedly to all players. You may not like the idea of having to play serves that hit the net cord, but there would be nothing unfair about requiring all players to do so. Everyone serves in tennis, and everyone receives serve. Fairness is not an issue.

And of course the sport already forces players to play all sorts of other shots that hit the net cord and plop over. Heck, players are forced to play shots that hit the net post and carom wildly back into the court!

Netspirit
09-13-2012, 11:28 AM
I would want a different rule - ANY net touch loses the point, after a serve or during a rally.

No more crap with "apologizing".

amarone
09-13-2012, 11:59 AM
I approve of this change. It will end having to wait while the player collects four or five balls and selects the one with an imaginary amount of extra fuzz and gets ready to serve again.

Govnor
09-13-2012, 12:16 PM
I would want a different rule - ANY net touch loses the point, after a serve or during a rally.

No more crap with "apologizing".

what about the "drama" of the ball hanging there...!!!!

spot
09-13-2012, 12:27 PM
I mean, just imagine winning Wimbledon off a net cord groundstroke that just drops over the other side of the net.

How is that any different than on a serve?

spot
09-13-2012, 12:28 PM
I would want a different rule - ANY net touch loses the point, after a serve or during a rally.

No more crap with "apologizing".

That has to be the worst idea I have ever heard. So in doubles the team having the ball hit to them can claim the point at any time by claiming they heard it barely touch the net!?

Crisstti
09-13-2012, 12:49 PM
Why is that worse than winning Wimbledon off a net cord volley that just drops over the other side of the net? Or winning Wimbledon on a passing shot that hits the net cord and jumps over the volleyer's outstretched racket?

I do not understand the morbid dread of serves that might hit the net and land in. Tennis is full of unpredictable, "lucky" shots.

So why add more of them?.

Devilito
09-13-2012, 01:29 PM
So why add more of them?.

Because luck is always a part of sport. A boxer could close his eyes, swing wildly and score a lucky hit KO. Its what makes sports exciting. You could argue then "why not eliminate all of them" and any time the ball touches the net you replay the point. The let cord is an unnecessary rule and eliminating it just goes a bit further towards optimizing the game. Id also be in favor for no-ad scoring.

Bowtiesarecool
09-13-2012, 01:54 PM
This is a misunderstanding of the concept of fairness. A fair rule is one that is applied evenhandedly to all players. You may not like the idea of having to play serves that hit the net cord, but there would be nothing unfair about requiring all players to do so. Everyone serves in tennis, and everyone receives serve. Fairness is not an issue.

And of course the sport already forces players to play all sorts of other shots that hit the net cord and plop over. Heck, players are forced to play shots that hit the net post and carom wildly back into the court!


Go to your club, play a set with someone who serves over 120mph and try this rule out. One could argue it's not much different than having to chase down an underhanded serve. Though I doubt even Usain Bolt could come anywhere close to getting a net-cord serve in time, then have the physical ability to come to a compete stop before running into the net. There's another reason why forcing pros to play a trickle would be bad... Running 40 feet as fast as one can, then slamming on the brakes like that would certainly cause more injuries.

P.S. Thing is, that would never happen anyway. Anyone waiting for a serve would immediately gve upthe point as soon as they saw it hit the cord and trickle over. How is THAT good for tennis?

JMR
09-13-2012, 02:36 PM
There's another reason why forcing pros to play a trickle would be bad... Running 40 feet as fast as one can, then slamming on the brakes like that would certainly cause more injuries.

I think you're just being silly here. As if pros don't already have to run hard and stop short, or change direction, all the time -- for net cords during rallies, drop shots, mishits, bad bounces, wrong-footing attempts, etc. Should tennis ban drop shots because they promote injuries?

P.S. Thing is, that would never happen anyway. Anyone waiting for a serve would immediately gve upthe point as soon as they saw it hit the cord and trickle over. How is THAT good for tennis?

"Trickle" paranoia is totally unjustified. Anyone who has watched a lot of pro tennis knows that service lets fall into three broad categories, in order of their frequency:

1. Balls that barely brush the net and keep going on their original path.
2. Balls that hit the net hard, bounce high in the air, and land somewhere in the middle of the service box, making them easy prey.
. . .
3. Balls that hit the top of the net and just fall over, making them impossible to return. Rare!

"Trickles" are far more common during rallies than on serves.

Aeropax
09-13-2012, 02:39 PM
Let cord aces? No thanks.

ninman
09-13-2012, 03:27 PM
Pointless in my opinion. As has been pointed out, if the 20 second time rule was enforced, the Australian Open final would have been 90 minutes shorter.

Mustard
09-13-2012, 03:40 PM
Pointless in my opinion. As has been pointed out, if the 20 second time rule was enforced, the Australian Open final would have been 90 minutes shorter.

And it would have been a worse match.

ninman
09-13-2012, 10:47 PM
And it would have been a worse match.

How do you know that?

Netspirit
09-13-2012, 10:55 PM
That has to be the worst idea I have ever heard. So in doubles the team having the ball hit to them can claim the point at any time by claiming they heard it barely touch the net!?

No, the umpire calls it, they have a device. If there is no umpire, it is all about fairness - just like calling "not ups".

Crisstti
09-14-2012, 04:05 AM
Because luck is always a part of sport. A boxer could close his eyes, swing wildly and score a lucky hit KO. Its what makes sports exciting. You could argue then "why not eliminate all of them" and any time the ball touches the net you replay the point. The let cord is an unnecessary rule and eliminating it just goes a bit further towards optimizing the game. Id also be in favor for no-ad scoring.

It's part of what makes it exiting, and there's enough of it already. It would probably be very unusual anyway. But I don't see it adding anything to the game.

Mustard
09-14-2012, 09:55 AM
How do you know that?

Because they would have been going at a pace that they are not comfortable with.

ninman
09-14-2012, 11:26 AM
Because they would have been going at a pace that they are not comfortable with.

They are professional tennis players, they know the rules. If they are not comfortable going at a pace that is within the rules of the sport that they play for a living, then they shouldn't be playing, period.

Mustard
09-14-2012, 11:35 AM
They are professional tennis players, they know the rules. If they are not comfortable going at a pace that is within the rules of the sport that they play for a living, then they shouldn't be playing, period.

The umpire enforces the rules, and umpires are allowed to use their own discretion.

tudwell
09-14-2012, 11:52 AM
One could argue it's not much different than having to chase down an underhanded serve

Which is totally legal. I'm not in favor of the no lets rule, but that's not a good argument against it. I wish we saw more underhanded serves. Spices things up a bit!