Talk Tennis

Talk Tennis (http://tt.tennis-warehouse.com/index.php)
-   Adult League & Tournament Talk (http://tt.tennis-warehouse.com/forumdisplay.php?f=35)
-   -   Is this USTA rule change for real? (http://tt.tennis-warehouse.com/showthread.php?t=436908)

volleygirl 08-21-2012 08:23 PM

Is this USTA rule change for real?
 
Tonight at my tennis league, I was told that the USTA leagues next year are going to do away with lets on serves. If the serve hits the net and goes in you have to play it like beach volleyball did about a dozen years ago. Has anyone else heard if this is true?

BHiC 08-22-2012 03:20 AM

I hope so, I think that this would be a fantastic idea. They do it in men's D1 college, and I think it would avoid a lot of problems and confusion. That being said, I have not heard anything saying that USTA will change it, and I highly doubt that there will be a change.

Alchemy-Z 08-22-2012 03:40 AM

Wow that would be awesome my flat serve normally only clears by and inch or so ...so I am often hitting lets...which unfortunately gets me out of rhythm sometimes from having to serve back to back lets.

kairosntx 08-22-2012 03:44 AM

That would be a major change and I'm not sure which side I fall on. A let is usually easier to pick up and play than when it happens during a point, so it makes sense.

Not just beach volleyball, but indoors as well they changed the rule years ago.

Bartelby 08-22-2012 03:48 AM

I think a ball that hits the net should be a fault regardless of whether it goes in.

mikeler 08-22-2012 04:42 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Bartelby (Post 6824850)
I think a ball that hits the net should be a fault regardless of whether it goes in.


The nice thing about playing all serves is it eliminates the phantom let call.

ollinger 08-22-2012 05:52 AM

^^ Absolutely. NCAA did it because of too many let calls on big points in matches without officials.

Torres 08-22-2012 05:55 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Bartelby (Post 6824850)
I think a ball that hits the net should be a fault regardless of whether it goes in.

That's just stupid.

jonnythan 08-22-2012 06:00 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Bartelby (Post 6824850)
I think a ball that hits the net should be a fault regardless of whether it goes in.

The idea of playing lets would be to reduce fake let calls. Your idea would increase fake let calls.

Bartelby 08-22-2012 06:11 AM

There may be phantom calls, but a serve requires you to get the ball over the net and into the box.

If its not in the box its a fault and if it doesn't clear the net fully at the start of play it should be a fault.

The server already has a massive advantage without giving him or her the benefit of sheer luck.

There would be a premium on accuracy on the first serve so the serve fest is out and it'll eliminate the boredom of it taking to long to actually start the point.

I don't think you should change rules because people cheat.

Cindysphinx 08-22-2012 06:14 AM

I dunno. I have mixed feelings, particularly with no-ad scoring, especially in doubles.

I mean, say you are at an important point in the match and you need to break. Here comes the serve. It hits the net and dribbles over. The receiver has no chance. It just feels anti-climatic to me.

Yeah, I know the same thing can happen once the rally starts, but it's different. If the receiver chose to stay back, a let court dribble is the risk she runs.

Also, the receiver's partner is allowed to fetch let cords during points but not off the serve. That seems to mitigate the consequence of a let cord during points in my mind.

It would be fun to allow the receiver's partner to play any let cord serves.

mikeler 08-22-2012 07:02 AM

It depends on the net. If it is tight, the net cord will cause the ball to sit up for the receiver. Loose nets will allow dribblers.

ollinger 08-22-2012 07:15 AM

1) changing a rule to reduce cheating sounds like an excellent idea to me.
2) the notion that the server will gain advantage doesn't hold. Most lets barely touch the net, but the effect nonetheless would be to slow the ball down a bit, an advantage for the receiver. On those lets that make substantial contact with the net, some do in fact trickle over and fall but some also deflect up into the air and then land in the service box, giving the receiver a ball he can move in on for what should be a fairly easy putaway.

Joeyg 08-22-2012 07:28 AM

When this first happened in D1, it was referred to (by people in the know) as "The UCLA Rule". Draw your own conclusions.

tennis tom 08-22-2012 07:41 AM

If this is true, it's really stupid, another human sense, hearing, going by the wayside. It goes along with everything the USTA does to "grow the game/their coffers" and despoil the great sport of tennis. This rule has sure improved the "sportsmanship" at the college level as evidenced by all the cursing-collegians at open tournaments.

spot 08-22-2012 07:51 AM

Even though this wouldn't benefit me at all I think it would be a great change. For me I hit mostly kickers so my serves that clip the tape are going to sit up rather than give me an advantage. But I have seen too many arguments about whether a serve barely touched the net so I think the time has come to get rid of the rule.

floridatennisdude 08-22-2012 07:58 AM

I despise the net cord lets on serves. You play every other stroke that hits the net cord, so why not the serve? It's so logical that I'm surprised the USTA would make the change.

Haven't heard about it being a league change, but I am totally in favor of it.

jservoss 08-22-2012 08:04 AM

I haven't heard about this rule for league tennis, but it would certainly be a welcome change.

jonnythan 08-22-2012 08:08 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Cindysphinx (Post 6825120)
I dunno. I have mixed feelings, particularly with no-ad scoring, especially in doubles.

I mean, say you are at an important point in the match and you need to break. Here comes the serve. It hits the net and dribbles over. The receiver has no chance. It just feels anti-climatic to me.

Yeah, I know the same thing can happen once the rally starts, but it's different. If the receiver chose to stay back, a let court dribble is the risk she runs.

Also, the receiver's partner is allowed to fetch let cords during points but not off the serve. That seems to mitigate the consequence of a let cord during points in my mind.

It would be fun to allow the receiver's partner to play any let cord serves.

Nothing wrong with anticlimactic. One of my doubles teams won a match in a 3rd set tiebreak at sectionals when they were serving and the receiver said "ou..... no it was in, take a first serve." Nope, sorry, match over. I won a match the next day at sectionals when a ball from the other court rolled into mine. I ignored it, hit a drop shot winner, and got to hear "can we play that point again?" from the opponent after he ran full tilt to try to get it. Not the best ways to end a match, but a point's a point.

OrangePower 08-22-2012 08:18 AM

I haven't heard of this proposed change, and I'd be surprised if it's going to be coming into effect anytime soon.

But I would be in favor. Yes, it introduces a bit more luck into things, but it would go both ways - server might get a lucky ace that hits the net cord and dribbles over, but would also get more faults on serves that hit the tape and take a large hop out. Anyway, we accept this kind of chance on groundstrokes that hit the tape, so why not treat the serve the same?

This would save arguments over let calls and take subjectivity out of it, which is a good thing in my book. As other have pointed out, this is the rule for college tennis, and they seem to be coping with it just fine.


All times are GMT -8. The time now is 04:33 AM.

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.9
Copyright ©2000 - 2014, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
© 2006 - Tennis Warehouse