PDA

View Full Version : A Tennis Shot Clock? Yay or nay?


Craig Sheppard
06-16-2006, 04:33 PM
So after suffering through Nadal's pokey play, as well as quite a few towel jockeys that drag on and on...

What do you think of a tennis shot-clock, so to speak? That is, a clock on court that resets at the end of every point and notifies everyone how many seconds left before a warning and/or penalty. It would abosolutely force the players to play expeditiously! If time runs out before the first serve, then point penalty. Or perhaps a first-serve penalty.

Has this been proposed before? Obviously support would be split for it... those who play quickly probably would support it and those who work the towel constantly probably wouldn't.

Perhaps you could be more leniant, resetting the clock if there was a disturbance, or giving a player say 5 or 10 chances to run over in a match.

Stupid idea, or no?

emcee
06-16-2006, 05:02 PM
Stupid idea, why complicate the game needlessly?

Pros who have the capability to end points quickly will do so whenever possible. This "shot clock" would only force the Corias and Hewitts to go for needless winners.

Tennis players would no longer have to be in great shape either. No tennis player could ever be called a "warrior" again.

No offense, but you asked, and this is a very stupid proposal.

c_zimma
06-16-2006, 05:10 PM
I think he means after points. Even then, I think that would be a bad idea. Just won more thing to think about. Let them play. If players take an extreme amount of time in between points, then give a warning. But I just assume let them play. Whats the rush?

North
06-16-2006, 05:13 PM
I think it's a great idea, including the reset if there is an outside (ie: not due to the player) disturbance, and the point penalty. It would keep things moving more consistently no matter who was playing. Good suggestion though, as you mentioned, some people would likely be vociferously opposed.

Craig Sheppard
06-16-2006, 05:22 PM
Stupid idea, why complicate the game needlessly?

Pros who have the capability to end points quickly will do so whenever possible. This "shot clock" would only force the Corias and Hewitts to go for needless winners.

Tennis players would no longer have to be in great shape either. No tennis player could ever be called a "warrior" again.

No offense, but you asked, and this is a very stupid proposal.

yeah, it's only active in between points, not during play. It would force unfit players to keep playing and towel hogs to get a move on.

Zeph
06-16-2006, 06:10 PM
Stupid idea, why complicate the game needlessly?

Couldnt have put it better myself.

Though a rule that stated that if a player took an extended amount of time between points, he would be warned and possible penalized. That could work. If it doesnt already exist, haha.

This "timer" would just complicate tennis and almost change not only how pro tennis is played, but high school, and junior play.

Craig Sheppard
06-16-2006, 06:17 PM
This "timer" would just complicate tennis and almost change not only how pro tennis is played, but high school, and junior play.

Well, the only thing I can say to that is that the pros use Cyclops, net cord detectors, soon to be ShotSpot, line judges, a referee, and a scoreboard, none of which are present in most college or high school matches. So while it's fine you think it's a stupid idea (I was just throwing it out there), there are lots of differences between how the pros play and how amateurs play. Adding a clock probably wouldn't complicate things too much...it would some.

They really should just enforce the time rule better.

Captain America
06-16-2006, 06:32 PM
Perhaps it makes sense to have such a timer that's visible only to the chair umpire? I do think that it's unfair that players can ignore the time limits with impunity since it can disrupt the flow and rythym of their opponent.....

emcee
06-16-2006, 07:47 PM
Oh oops. I should've read more carefully.

I thought there WERE rules though...the umpires should just grow some spines and problem solved. The clock would FORCE the umps to do so though. But don't you think there should be a few exceptions? Like...down break point 5th set at Wimby...don't you think you should be allowed a few extra seconds to take a few extra breaths? Pity though, all we need are spines.

tonysk83
06-16-2006, 07:49 PM
Yes, someone needs to enforce the rules. Just because some pros take longer doesn't mean the rule should be allowed to be broken. IT IS A RULE, you need to follow it. If players think the rule needs to be changed, the players council could bring it up and change it.

JayxTheKoolest
06-16-2006, 08:05 PM
Waste of time and energy.

dancraig
06-16-2006, 08:07 PM
http://www.winchestermass.org/rules.html#R30

Craig Sheppard
06-16-2006, 08:09 PM
Oh oops. I should've read more carefully.

I thought there WERE rules though...the umpires should just grow some spines and problem solved. The clock would FORCE the umps to do so though. But don't you think there should be a few exceptions? Like...down break point 5th set at Wimby...don't you think you should be allowed a few extra seconds to take a few extra breaths? Pity though, all we need are spines.

Yeah, there are rules... 25 seconds allowed in general between points, 20 seconds allowed in the 4 majors.

knasty131
06-16-2006, 08:54 PM
i dont like certain tactics used by certain players to slow the pace down or to not let their opponent get a rhythm...but a shotclock??? thats a little over the top dont ya think???

bluedevil
06-16-2006, 10:37 PM
Its a professional level game - I dont see why any professional wouldnt want to play by rules - just because some rules are not enforced by the book doesnt make them go away - just leaves room for controversy - like a imaginary strikezone in baseball - and this is the easiest rule to address with a clock. I would vote for it.

BreakPoint
06-16-2006, 10:45 PM
There already is a time between points rule. 25 seconds from the time the umpire calls the score to the time you have to start serving for the next point. The umpires just need to enforce it more. I think in Nadal's semi he did get a warning from the umpire. If he had been caught delaying again, it would have been a point penalty against him.

ShooterMcMarco
06-16-2006, 11:30 PM
chair umps have to be more aware, thats all there is to it.

HyperHorse
06-17-2006, 05:04 AM
i think all tournaments should have a 30 second limit....
and this proposed rule change doesnt take into account the time needed after 2 players play a very long, physically strenuous point...
i guess that's what the crowd's applause is for....

Captain America
06-17-2006, 08:50 AM
chair umps have to be more aware, thats all there is to it.

Agreed. I don't think there needs to be anything obnoxious, but perhaps just a warning beep or something when time is almost up -- that would prompt the player to get on with it and make it easier for the ump to enforce (or harder to avoid enforcing as the case may be.....)

dubsplayer
06-17-2006, 08:54 AM
chair umps have to be more aware, thats all there is to it.

Chair umpires already have a stop watch in which to time the players between points. I don't know if they use them all the time as it seems to me they only do when one of the players complains.

Eviscerator
06-17-2006, 09:46 AM
Yes, maybe have it like the clock in the TV series LOST.
I starts the countdown and then starts to beep at lets say 20 seconds. If the server has not struck his serve by 10 seconds, loud alarms and buzzers in the stadium start to sound warning the server his time is about to run out. :mrgreen:

In all seriousness, your idea is a natural extension of the current rule that was implemented due to players abusing the old rules of time between points. Chair umpires currently have the ability to give warnings, and assess penalties. Having a visible clock might be more interesting for the fans, but it would probably be disruptive to the players. While they can adapt, there are plenty of variables such as ball boys running around, disturbances from the crowd, gusts of wind that blow debris, etc.
So rather than another rule or visible clock, the chair umpires should be expected to enforce the current rules if certain players are intentionally violating them.

Nuke
06-17-2006, 10:49 AM
An actual shotclock would not work. Say you had a 30-second countdown clock. The server steps to the line, but the receiver goes to the towel and stalls until the clock is down to 3 seconds. So now the server has to rush to get the serve off in a hurry. Let's say the server bounces the ball one too many times in his pre-serve ritual and the clock hits zero. Are you going to penalize the server, when the receiver is the one who ran down the clock? You can't penalize the receiver because he was ready in time. Sorry, a clock can't work.

Captain America
06-17-2006, 03:58 PM
I don't see a reason it couldn't work in some form. One warning, next violation player loses a point. Would solve the delay problem pretty quickly.

Maco_Andrej
06-17-2006, 04:17 PM
keep it lik the good old fastion ways

newrevolution
06-17-2006, 04:41 PM
To nuke, i believe the rule for the returner is to play at the speed of the server, so they are punishable as well. I myself have seen the returner more so than the server being warned, but maybe others would tell you the opposite. I am all for it! Baseball would be wise to implement some sort of time limit between pitches, basketball & football have it. You dont see table tennis with delays like this. :confused:

equinox
06-18-2006, 03:28 AM
Next you'll want cheerleaders and touchdown kicks and coaching timeouts!