Tennease
Legend
Poor Tsurubuchi, where else would she go to?get rid of line judges, use hawkeye for every call
Poor Tsurubuchi, where else would she go to?get rid of line judges, use hawkeye for every call
Indeed.Good times!
Simple question. To start, I think I would get rid of the lets on serves. What say you?
I'm saying you cannot win a game as a result of your opponents' unforced error.
So if you're up 40-30 and you're opponent hits an unforced error, it remains 40-30. You aren't allowed to have your opponents poor play earn you the game - you need to earn it yourself.
Lol, f-a-g!The rule that says players have to wear clothes. I really think we'd get a lot more eyes on tennis if it were done in the nude. Imagine Monfils sliding in all his beautiful glory. Or Stan flexing that ample buttocks with every one-handed backhand winner. There could be an issue with mixed doubles, of course, but I think that's something we can work out.
Lol, f-a-g!
Get rid of the tie breaker, it was only invented for TV so length of matches could be more predictable. Tennis used to build and test stamina when there was no limit on how long a set could go.Simple question. To start, I think I would get rid of the lets on serves. What say you?
Tennis is the athletic equivalent of classical music, you wouldn't holler and jump up and down during a recital would you?Fifth - The whole silent between points deal needs to go. Spectators should be able to talk, cheer, walk out when ever they choose. I can't think of any other arena sport that requires complete silence for any period of time. They don't do it in WTT and they do just fine.
We should also shoot them in the foot before they enter the court.Bo5 finals for the Masters and WTFs.
5th-set tiebreaks at all the slams. Who wants another possible Isner/Mahut-like debacle.
Mandatory enforcement of the time-limit rule.
No medical timeouts.
Get rid of the tie breaker, it was only invented for TV so length of matches could be more predictable. Tennis used to build and test stamina when there was no limit on how long a set could go.
While I'm at it get rid of the 25 second-no-clock between points. It was also invented to shorten matches for TV. It's crazy not to allow players time to recover after a very long athletic point. Let the chair or the players decide if they need a little more rest between exhausting points. If they're going to keep it, they need to have a shot-clock.
Bo5 finals for the Masters and WTFs.
5th-set tiebreaks at all the slams. Who wants another possible Isner/Mahut-like debacle.
Mandatory enforcement of the time-limit rule.
No medical timeouts.
I disagree 100%. The tiebreaker exists to make the matches a reasonable length (especially in grand-slam play). And it's not just for the TV audience, it's also for the stadium spectators who pay for a session expecting to see multiple matches. Nobody wants another Isner/Mahut fiasco that lasts for 3 days. I would actually take the opposite approach and insist that a 5th set tiebreaker be instituted at every grandslam. The US Open is the only major that does this, and consequently the only one that has matches end at a reasonable time.
With respect to the shot clock, I agree that they should have one, but they shouldn't get rid of the time rule altogether. That would just encourage players like Nadal and Djokovic to abuse the system and extend matches to "forever". It's fair the way that it is! Allowing them extra time to recover belies the fact that it's an athletic sport and the player who can recover the fastest between points is the fittest player. They should get 25 seconds, and it should be regularly enforced via shot clock.
The only issue with the shot clock is WHEN the umpire starts it. According to the rule, time begins immediately after the previous point ends. Well, when exactly does the previous point "end"? (When a shot is called out/good, or when the umpire calls the score?) And when SHOULD the umpire call the score? (Immediately after the ball is called out/good, after the audience applause has subsided, after a challenge?) What about lets and second serves? After a let, fault, or foot fault does the clock reset at 25 seconds again for a second serve, or is less time given to the server? (only 10 seconds?) What if there is a disturbance in the audience? (Excessive noise, fight in the stands, medical emergency, etc?) Does the umpire pause the shot clock or is the server still penalized? There are a lot of variables that need to be worked out with the shot clock idea. But I still think it solves more problems than it creates.
I disagree 100%. The tiebreaker exists to make the matches a reasonable length (especially in grand-slam play). And it's not just for the TV audience, it's also for the stadium spectators who pay for a session expecting to see multiple matches. Nobody wants another Isner/Mahut fiasco that lasts for 3 days. I would actually take the opposite approach and insist that a 5th set tiebreaker be instituted at every grandslam. The US Open is the only major that does this, and consequently the only one that has matches end at a reasonable time.
With respect to the shot clock, I agree that they should have one, but they shouldn't get rid of the time rule altogether. That would just encourage players like Nadal and Djokovic to abuse the system and extend matches to "forever." It's fair the way that it is! Allowing them extra time to recover belies the fact that it's an athletic sport and the player who can recover the fastest between points is the fittest player. They should get 25 seconds, and it should be regularly enforced via shot clock.
The only issue with the shot clock is WHEN the umpire starts it. According to the rule, time begins immediately after the previous point ends. Well, when exactly does the previous point "end"? (When a shot is called out/good, or when the umpire calls the score?) And when SHOULD the umpire call the score? (Immediately after the ball is called out/good, after the audience applause has subsided, after a challenge?) What about lets and second serves? After a let, fault, or foot fault does the clock reset at 25 seconds again for a second serve, or is less time given to the server? (only 10 seconds?) What if there is a disturbance in the audience? (Excessive noise, fight in the stands, medical emergency, etc?) Does the umpire pause the shot clock or is the server still penalized? There are a lot of variables that need to be worked out with the shot clock idea. But I still think it solves more problems than it creates.
I agree with all of those except the "medical time-outs". Denying a medical time-out is inhumane and makes it very awkward for the audience to watch. This is especially true when there is a visible injury/illness sustained during the match (rolled ankle, vomiting, bleeding wounds, etc). That stuff needs to be treated on court in the interest of public health and the safety of the athletes. I do think that there should only be ONE medical time-out allowed per injury, and the timing of treatment should be more strictly enforced. (ie: 5 minute evaluation, and 5 minute treatment). No more than 10 minutes should pass after a medical timeout. And things like cramping and heat exhaustion should not count as an "injury". That is just lack of conditioning. If they have cramping, they should be allowed to eat a banana, drink some water, and get some massage therapy only during the changeovers. If they can't recover in time, then they either play through the pain, or forfeit the match.
I think at the current state of technology we could add objective rules and not just umpire discretion. For instance changing the time depending on the rally length or perhaps the distance covered. Once a certain threshold of either variable is passed the shot clock automatically adds a few seconds to the time limit (in a way that the players can easily see).I would really like to see two things:
1) Enforce time between points using a shot clock started by the umpire at his discretion. That way if players can have some leeway after an exceptionally long point or we have to wait for the crowd to quiet down.
That has the same problem as Hawkeye. Only some of the courts in the majors track these stats. At this point the technology is still a bit expensiveI think at the current state of technology we could add objective rules and not just umpire discretion. For instance changing the time depending on the rally length or perhaps the distance covered. Once a certain threshold of either variable is passed the shot clock automatically adds a few seconds to the time limit (in a way that the players can easily see).
I do think it is important to ultimately let the game be played to the server's pace however. Returners stalling the server will have to be penalised.
Imagine if computer warriors actually have some power?Christ, some of these suggestions though. Thankfully, we don't have this power.....
True. Center courts will always be ahead of side courts (not to mention Futures and the like) in a technological regard though, so such problems will be inevitable whenever technology is in play.That has the same problem as Hawkeye. Only some of the courts in the majors track these stats. At this point the technology is still a bit expensive
If you're up 5-0 serving and lose the game then you lose the set. I'm sick of these gosh darn chokers.
Maybe I'm the only one, but I DO! Some folks like watching 100 yard dashes, others prefer marathons. The Isner/Mahut match set an historic tennis record that may never ever be broken and I was a witness to it for THREE DAYS, on TV.. It was EPIC! Why do you call it a "fiasco"? It was a test of human endurance. I enjoyed it immensely, wishing I didn't have to go to work and miss the outcome--for THREE DAYS in a row--and then finally, witnessing the historic ending--Mahut loses, missing a drop-shot--how apropos, his mind gave up before his body--hitting the lowest percentage shot in tennis. If spectators want shorter matches, they should excoriate players to serve and volley, the points will be over quicker then with long boring rallies from the baseline.Nobody wants another Isner/Mahut fiasco that lasts for 3 days.
I would get rid of the rule that says women must wear clothes while playing