Why the 20 second rule fails and a way to fix it.

kragster · Jan 30, 2012

A lot of folks blame the umpires for not enforcing the 20 second rule. But there is a reason this rule is very hard to enforce. And the reason is that in this era of baseline rallies, even the non-time wasting players occasionally go past 20 seconds. Unfortunately the 20 second rule is not based on "average of 20 seconds" but based on "no instance should exceed 20 seconds". Therein lies the problem! What that means is that even a player who plays fast (like Blake) will occasionally cross 20 seconds (after a long baseline rally). So lets say Blake is playing Nadal. The umpire has 3 choices:

1) Follow the rule extremely strictly which will penalize Nadal say 50 times but it will also end up penalizing Blake 10 times.
2) Don't penalize anyone
3) Use judgment and subjectivity to forgive Blake (since his average is low), but penalize Nadal a few times

Option 3 WILL NEVER HAPPEN because it is almost impossible to get someone to enforce follow a subjective rule. The umpire would simply not feel comfortable applying such a rule. Nadal could easily complain to the umpire that "Hey you penalized me one game ago but on the last point Blake took more than 20 seconds and he wasn't penalized". A rule is a rule and subjectivity undermines its strength. You can't half follow a rule, it creates too much controversy.

Option 1 WILL NEVER HAPPEN because it would be too disruptive and viewers would get pissed. It would slow down the game more than speed it!

Which leaves the poor umpire with Option 2, which is what happens currently

The only way to get the rule to work is to change it to 30 seconds ( or at least 25). Players who are time wasters (Rafa, Djoker) already exceed 30 seconds ON AVERAGE! Which means that by shifting the time limit to 30 seconds, you create a rule that can be strictly enforced because it still catches the notorious timewasters but avoids penalizing non time-wasters like Blake who I don't think ever exceed 30 seconds. The umpires would feel much more comfortable enforcing a rule that does not affect 90% of the tour and only penalizes instances of extreme time wasting.

PS - For the record Im a rafa djoker fan so I obviously have nothing against these guys. I think a 30 second rule would still allow them to play a very high level of baseline tennis while cutting down on those excessive moments of OCD time wasting.

Tammo · Jan 30, 2012

Even if they change the time to 30 seconds, they will not penalize anyone (maybe they are too scared) and the players who do take more time won't care. Meanwhile Federer won't like it cause they are just trying to make Rafa and Djokovic look better.

woodrow1029 · Jan 30, 2012

I agree with 30 seconds. 25 seconds is the rule at ATP events, and that has proven to not work as well.

monfed · Jan 30, 2012

So what you're saying is if a rule can't be followed then change it. Yea right! :lol:

woodrow1029 · Jan 30, 2012

monfed said:
So what you're saying is if a rule can't be followed then change it. Yea right! :lol:

Sometimes the rules have to evolve with the game. In today's game, 20 seconds just isn't enough. We only really hear about Nadal and Djokovic because they are very high profile players, and they go over more than most people. But, there are very few players out there that play under 20 seconds for almost an entire match.

BrooklynNY · Jan 30, 2012

The rule works fine... when it's enforced... same with all rules actually.... they work well when you actually enforce the damn rule.

20 seconds is enough, it may not be enough to recover to 100%, but that's why there is a changeover in tennis. You have to be able to maintain that consistent strength over 2 games, and earn the right for a rest, the rest may come even quicker if you're not in shape and lose the game quickly, because you're tired after a long point.

I remember Sampras / Corretja match 1996 US Open, where Sampras got sick in the 5th, and they called a delay of game point penalty. If that happened these days, they would have called the ambulance.

woodrow1029 · Jan 30, 2012

I enjoy watching tennis as it is, and the time between points does not bother me as much as it bothers some people. Sometimes I get irritated, but I would get more irritated if umpires just started handing out time violations like candy.

zcarzach · Jan 30, 2012

Two words: Shot clock. 20 seconds to start the point. Failure to start on time = loss of point. Problem solved.

If they would spend less time toweling off unnecessarilly after a short point, people wouldn't complain so much about it when they take a few seconds extra after a particularly long point. But since they can't play with common sense, they get the shot clock.

monfed · Jan 30, 2012

BrooklynNY said:
The rule works fine... when it's enforced... same with all rules actually.... they work well when you actually enforce the damn rule.

20 seconds is enough, it may not be enough to recover to 100%, but that's why there is a changeover in tennis. You have to be able to maintain that consistent strength over 2 games, and earn the right for a rest, the rest may come even quicker if you're not in shape and lose the game quickly, because you're tired after a long point.

I remember Sampras / Corretja match 1996 US Open, where Sampras got sick in the 5th, and they called a delay of game point penalty. If that happened these days, they would have called the ambulance.

This.

/thread

woodrow1029 · Jan 30, 2012

zcarzach said:
Two words: Shot clock. 20 seconds to start the point. Failure to start on time = loss of point. Problem solved.

If they would spend less time toweling off unnecessarilly after a short point, people wouldn't complain so much about it when they take a few seconds extra after a particularly long point. But since they can't play with common sense, they get the shot clock.

It's not just the toweling off. I think that the rule should be enforced more, but I don't think a shot clock would work because there still needs to be some discretion for certain situations.

zcarzach · Jan 30, 2012

Backhand99 said:
It's not just the toweling off. I think that the rule should be enforced more, but I don't think a shot clock would work because there still needs to be some discretion for certain situations.

I agree that it isn't just the towelling off, but that is one common complaint. Ball bouncing, junk adjusting, etc. occurs too, of course, and that slows play way down.

Discretion is the whole source of the problem. When the umpire uses discretion to not enforce the rule at all, this causes the situation we are in now. There should be no discretion to allow the player to break the rule. If you can't play long points without breaking the rules, you have no business being out there.

The other alternative, if discretion is to be given, is to allow a small number of mid-game mini-changeovers per set, that would give the player a chance to slow down the start of the next point without penalty. Perhaps 40 seconds per mini, only to be used on your own serve. If you don't have any left, and you break the 20 second shot clock, you at least get a warning. The next time, you lose the point.

Deleted member 3771 · Jan 30, 2012

They should make it 10 seconds with a shot clock, then Sampras could come back and dominate.

Netzroller · Jan 30, 2012

I agree with the OP, that seems to be a fair solution. People who complain about the players taking too much time seem to forget that the rule was from a time when tennis wasn't nearly as demanding physically. No need to recover that long if you just hit a serve and maybe 1 or 2 shots. Rafa and Nole were hardly able to stand after their match, how would it have ended if they were forced to never take more than 20 seconds after some of those rallies? This would either kill the players or let the level of play drow significantly, both of which would e even worse for the sport.
As you said, a subjective rule is a bad idea since it can be highly unfair i.e. there will be lots of people who feel treated unfairly. Then you also have the problem of each umpire handling it differently so it's very hard for the players to know what to expect.

Pointing at Federer is a rather poor counterexample, because he seems to be the only one still able to be at the very top with a highly agressive style of play, he is a freak of nature and he is a rare exception with taking so few time. Asking every pro player to play and behave like aguably the most talented guy ever is foolish. It's just like asking them to never retire from matches because Federer also manages to never do so.
It was not the players who decided to slow down the courts, the officials wanted it. Then they have to adjust the rules in such a way that it is humanly possible for the players to play under these circumstances.

Another solution (which I don't support) might be having just best of 3 matches. Then the matches usually aren't so long and shorter breaks might be tolarable.

zcarzach said:
Two words: Shot clock. 20 seconds to start the point. Failure to start on time = loss of point. Problem solved.

You know, it's easy to say this when you're not the one playing but sitting at home in front of your tv with a bottle of beer and a pizza

equinox · Jan 30, 2012

Yeah let's Americanise tennis with gridiron style play breaks and bb timeouts...

Want to stop time wasting, simple get rid of the towels.

Only allow the players can use sweet bands or carry there own mini towels during points.

And no throwing the germ saliva infested muck to ballkids.

Drop the towel you lose the point.

woodrow1029 · Jan 30, 2012

Netzroller said:
You know, it's easy to say this when you're not the one playing but sitting at home in front of your tv with a bottle of beer and a pizza

Ouch! But true. LOL..

monfed · Jan 30, 2012

TheNatural said:
They should make it 10 seconds with a shot clock, then Sampras could come back and dominate.

Nadal would destroy's Pete's fluff BH on these slow courts. Dominate my foot!

zcarzach · Jan 30, 2012

Netzroller said:
You know, it's easy to say this when you're not the one playing but sitting at home in front of your tv with a bottle of beer and a pizza

It isn't about me and I do get your point. However, the issue is that there is a rule on the books that isn't being enforced. They should make it possible to enforce the rule or do away with it all together. If the umpires won't do it, take it out of their hands. That's all I'm saying.

r2473 · Jan 30, 2012

equinox said:
Yeah let's Americanise tennis with gridiron style play breaks and bb timeouts...

Shhhhhh.........we don't mind this in football. They have a play clock, so clearly the game move really quickly

veritech · Jan 30, 2012

monfed said:
Nadal would destroy's Pete's fluff BH on these slow courts. Dominate my foot!

pete would slam a serve by the time rafa starts toweling off. 10 seconds is good with me

shaqtus · Jan 30, 2012

who knows if they will ever enforce such rules, but pga has rules in golf re pace of play, this might be old, but sort of goes like...

- One bad time during a round is a warning.

- Two bad times are a one-stroke penalty and a $5,000 fine.

- Three bad times is a two-stroke penalty and a $10,000 fine.

- Four bad times means the player is disqualified.

rommil · Jan 30, 2012

If you extend the alloted time and Novak and Rafa are playing, they would still be in the 4th set in Australia, Monte Carlo would already be in the semis.

Rozroz · Jan 30, 2012

and how about giving 'silent' penalty after 20 or 30 seconds?
Each player will make it's own math and loose money, if he can afford it.

darrinbaker00 · Jan 30, 2012

Backhand99 said:
It's not just the toweling off. I think that the rule should be enforced more, but I don't think a shot clock would work because there still needs to be some discretion for certain situations.

Personally, I think that would be the perfect solution. Right after the chair umpire announces the score, he or she would press a button to start the clock. If your strings aren't making contact with the ball before the buzzer goes off, the umpire calls a fault and starts the clock for the second serve. On long points, the umpire can wait for the applause to die down before announcing the score and starting the clock. It can work.

DjokovicForTheWin · Jan 30, 2012

OP's solution is interesting. Problem is that every match on tour will take longer since even short time takers will realize they have a bit more time and take it.

shazbot · Jan 30, 2012

Toweling off after hitting an ace should be an automatic point loss... Especially if they had just toweled off the point before. So freaking ********. The whole toweling off thing has gotten out of hand.

Rozroz · Jan 30, 2012

darrinbaker00 said:
Personally, I think that would be the perfect solution. Right after the chair umpire announces the score, he or she would press a button to start the clock. If your strings aren't making contact with the ball before the buzzer goes off, the umpire calls a fault and starts the clock for the second serve. On long points, the umpire can wait for the applause to die down before announcing the score and starting the clock. It can work.

a good solution.
once players get used to it it will work.
Lets do it

woodrow1029 · Jan 30, 2012

darrinbaker00 said:
Personally, I think that would be the perfect solution. Right after the chair umpire announces the score, he or she would press a button to start the clock. If your strings aren't making contact with the ball before the buzzer goes off, the umpire calls a fault and starts the clock for the second serve. On long points, the umpire can wait for the applause to die down before announcing the score and starting the clock. It can work.

The problem is that you are still making it subjective by the bolded part of your quote. The time between points issue is never going to be perfectly dealt with. Whatever they choose to do, there are going to be problems with it.

The rule as it stands does not specifically address the umpire's discretion, but a lot of times, it just makes sense not to give a time violation. Should it be enforced more, yes. But, I doubt it will be ever.

The umpire already starts the clock at the end of the point. So by putting a shot clock there, but then still giving the umpire discretion as to when it starts, won't really fix the problem in my opinion. I think it would make it worse actually. Because then it's subjective as to what constitutes crowd noise loud enough to delay starting of the clock. What is loud for a crowd at Wimbledon would be quiet or normal for the U.S. Open.

darrinbaker00 · Jan 30, 2012

Backhand99 said:
The problem is that you are still making it subjective by the bolded part of your quote. The time between points issue is never going to be perfectly dealt with. Whatever they choose to do, there are going to be problems with it.

The rule as it stands does not specifically address the umpire's discretion, but a lot of times, it just makes sense not to give a time violation. Should it be enforced more, yes. But, I doubt it will be ever.

The umpire already starts the clock at the end of the point. So by putting a shot clock there, but then still giving the umpire discretion as to when it starts, won't really fix the problem in my opinion. I think it would make it worse actually. Because then it's subjective as to what constitutes crowd noise loud enough to delay starting of the clock. What is loud for a crowd at Wimbledon would be quiet or normal for the U.S. Open.

Every sport has rules that are subjective; NFL officials really could call holding on every play, NBA officials could call traveling and/or three seconds on most possessions, a foul in one FIFA referee's eyes is not in another's, and no two baseball strike zones are alike. What the clock would do, in my opinion, is take away the randomness of called time violations. The players would know that whenever the clock starts, they have 20 seconds to serve. They would complain about it in the beginning, sure, but being the professionals they are, they would adapt and move forward.

woodrow1029 · Jan 30, 2012

darrinbaker00 said:
Every sport has rules that are subjective; NFL officials really could call holding on every play, NBA officials could call traveling and/or three seconds on most possessions, a foul in one FIFA referee's eyes is not in another's, and no two baseball strike zones are alike. What the clock would do, in my opinion, is take away the randomness of called time violations. The players would know that whenever the clock starts, they have 20 seconds to serve. They would complain about it in the beginning, sure, but being the professionals they are, they would adapt and move forward.

As it stands now, the players don't really complain about it. Occasionally they do. But it's mostly Brad Gilbert and people on discussion forums that complain about it.

tacou · Jan 30, 2012

Chris Fowler made an interesting point that the 20 second rule started in the early 90s, and tennis has gotten significantly more physical in the last 20+ years, so 20 seconds between points isn't enough.

There's many different ways of looking at it, but it boils down to there's no point having a rule that's never enforced. Change the rule, do away with it completely, or enforce it.

cknobman · Jan 30, 2012

Just to highlight the problem here:

The final was an all time record length of match at 5 hours and 53 minutes.

Total points: 369
Average Time between points: 34 seconds

Lets calculate this out:
If rule is 20 seconds between points that means an average of 14 extra seconds per point was taken.

369*14 = 5166 extra seconds taken.
60 seconds in a minute / 5166 = 86.1 minutes.
60 minutes in an hour = 1 hour 26 minutes extra time taken.

So the longest match in history had 1 hour and 26 minutes of nothing but breaking the rules.

Take that and subtract it from total match time and that gives you only 4 hours and 27 minutes of legal regulation play.

STAGGERING

spiderman123 · Jan 30, 2012

Shot clock + bonus.

Start the clock and if the player serves in less than 20 seconds, add the time saved to his clock to a maximum of 10 seconds. That will allow them to take those occasional 25-30 seconds between points.

Let them have three service games with no penalties and a chance to build up the clock and the momentum.

After that first offence warning, second offence point penalty...

volleygirl · Jan 30, 2012

zcarzach said:
Two words: Shot clock. 20 seconds to start the point. Failure to start on time = loss of point. Problem solved.

If they would spend less time toweling off unnecessarilly after a short point, people wouldn't complain so much about it when they take a few seconds extra after a particularly long point. But since they can't play with common sense, they get the shot clock.

The toweling off every point is ridiculous. Roddick needs to towel off after the 1st point of a match even if its 50 degrees out. Its ridiculous and if hes getting spanked, hes snapping his fingers at the ball boys to hurry up and bring me my towel a millisecond after he's lost the point. I wish they'd say "you come pick it up you rude jerk."

namelessone · Jan 30, 2012

equinox said:
Yeah let's Americanise tennis with gridiron style play breaks and bb timeouts...

Want to stop time wasting, simple get rid of the towels.

Only allow the players can use sweet bands or carry there own mini towels during points.

And no throwing the germ saliva infested muck to ballkids.

Drop the towel you lose the point.

This a thousand times.

Toweling off easily takes up 10 seconds and it's ridiculous that players towel off after getting aced.

I get that they're trying to compose themselves mentally with their little towel friend but come on. And if you are that sweaty use your armbands or shirt(you can change that between games if it gets too sweaty) to wipe off.

Toweling is absolutely ridiculous and should be banned.

Crisstti · Jan 30, 2012

This again :roll:

The weekly "time between points" thread.

cc0509 · Jan 30, 2012

Crisstti said:
This again :roll:

The weekly "time between points" thread.

LOL, I have to admit even I am sick of it. :shock:

Sid_Vicious · Jan 30, 2012

Netzroller said:
I agree with the OP, that seems to be a fair solution. People who complain about the players taking too much time seem to forget that the rule was from a time when tennis wasn't nearly as demanding physically. No need to recover that long if you just hit a serve and maybe 1 or 2 shots. Rafa and Nole were hardly able to stand after their match, how would it have ended if they were forced to never take more than 20 seconds after some of those rallies? This would either kill the players or let the level of play drow significantly, both of which would e even worse for the sport.
As you said, a subjective rule is a bad idea since it can be highly unfair i.e. there will be lots of people who feel treated unfairly. Then you also have the problem of each umpire handling it differently so it's very hard for the players to know what to expect.

Pointing at Federer is a rather poor counterexample, because he seems to be the only one still able to be at the very top with a highly agressive style of play, he is a freak of nature and he is a rare exception with taking so few time. Asking every pro player to play and behave like aguably the most talented guy ever is foolish. It's just like asking them to never retire from matches because Federer also manages to never do so.
It was not the players who decided to slow down the courts, the officials wanted it. Then they have to adjust the rules in such a way that it is humanly possible for the players to play under these circumstances.

Another solution (which I don't support) might be having just best of 3 matches. Then the matches usually aren't so long and shorter breaks might be tolarable.

You know, it's easy to say this when you're not the one playing but sitting at home in front of your tv with a bottle of beer and a pizza

It's actually a very poor example. Federer was unable to honor the 20 second rule in the SF against Nadal, and was "cheating" just like Rafa. He was takin 23 seconds in between points while Nadal was taking 30.

gd! · Jan 30, 2012

Much more important, to get the Shriek-Failure fixed first:roll:

Shaolin · Jan 30, 2012

I like the 30 second rule idea. Theyve slowed conditions down so much now it takes two minutes to win a point. If a server takes over 30 seconds an automatic fault should be called and they have to hit a second serve.

NJ1 · Jan 30, 2012

An enforced 30 second rule is a good idea. So is limiting the use of towels. once/twice per game should be the limit. With sweatbands and hats/headbands there is no need towel off between every point.

woodrow1029 · Jan 30, 2012

NJ1 said:
An enforced 30 second rule is a good idea. So is limiting the use of towels. once/twice per game should be the limit. With sweatbands and hats/headbands there is no need towel off between every point.

So do you have a problem with people that towel off four or five times per game but stay within the time limit between points?

r2473 · Jan 30, 2012

cknobman said:
So the longest match in history had 1 hour and 26 minutes of nothing but breaking the rules.

Ya, but Isner and Mahut were both looking pretty tired.

r2473 · Jan 30, 2012

Here's an interesting set of stats. The average time taken per point by each of the top 8 ranked players in AO12:

http://www.606v2.com/t22359-2012-australian-open-time-taken-per-point-played-for-the-top-8-men

Netzroller · Jan 30, 2012

I also find it irritating when players towel off after having done virtually nothing. However, every player has certain habits and they pretty much all don't make sense. I don't see why Sharapova has to do her little dance or why Novak has to bounce the ball twenty times...

We seem to agree that we all care about the time in between the points, not what they do during that time. I'm not sure if removing the towel would really help. The need some recovery time whether they towel off while recovering or not.

I would rather say give them those 25 or 30 seconds and let everyone chose what they want to do during that time.

Sid_Vicious said:
It's actually a very poor example. Federer was unable to honor the 20 second rule in the SF against Nadal, and was "cheating" just like Rafa. He was takin 23 seconds in between points while Nadal was taking 30.

Oh wow, didn't know that. I thought that he (almost) always stays <20s on average, but maybe he also takes more times when playing top opponents.

So basically that shows even more clearly that enforcing a 20second rule makes no sense.

Raz11 · Jan 30, 2012

I think 30 seconds is way too long. 25s is just about right. They should display the average time taken between points. If this average goes above 25 seconds, they will keep getting a fault every time they go over 25s until the average falls below 25s. 10 seconds should be used for second serves. So if they go over that, they will get a double fault. That way, they can go over 25s when they have to recover after a long rally or it is a big point as long as they are under 25s for most of the match.

dominikk1985 · Jan 30, 2012

It's very easy.

make a shot clock like in basketball. from the moment the point is over a shot clock is automatically started.

once the time is over and you have not yet hit the ball there is a buzzer and it is counted a fault.

if it was a first serve you have to hit a second and if it was a second serve it is a double fault. and once the shot clock run out of time automatically the next shot clock starts (so no arguing) and if you take too long you lose another serve.

if the return player is not ready in time he also loses the point.

this system is very simple. also allow to violate the shot clock as many times as you want. no point or game deductions because it is not needed.

I'm sure novak and rafa would adapt pretty quickly if they get their serves discounted for violating the shot clock. it really hurts if you have to start with your second on a break point or even get a double fault because you missed the first and then took too long to play the next point.

also give the umpire the ability to disable the shot clock for special occasions (if someone slips, loud audience...). you could even allow players two times per set to disable the shot clock themselves by raising their arm or so so that they could recover from a tough point or have a "tactical break".

r2473 · Jan 30, 2012

Sid_Vicious said:
It's actually a very poor example. Federer was unable to honor the 20 second rule in the SF against Nadal, and was "cheating" just like Rafa. He was takin 23 seconds in between points while Nadal was taking 30.

It would be funny if they did enforce the 20-second rule STRICTLY at (for example) 2012 French Open and assess Code violations each time it was breached (and also on changeovers, etc).

I'd love to see what the "enforce the time limit striclty" people would say if they were handing code violatons after 40-shot rallies, etc.

The theory is that they would adapt. Maybe. But I expect they would still be handing out code conduct violations and that it would have an impact on wins and losses.

1. Start stopwatch when the player is ordered to play or when the ball goes out of play;
2. Assess Time Violation or Code Violation if the ball is not struck for the next point within the twenty (20) seconds allowed. There is no time warning prior to the expiration of the twenty (20) seconds.
ii) Changeover (Ninety (90) Seconds) and Set Break (One Hundred and Twenty (120) Seconds).
1. Start stopwatch the moment the ball goes out of play;
2. Announce “Time” after sixty (60) / ninety (90) seconds have elapsed;
3. Announce “15 Seconds” if one or both of the players are still at their chair

Just imagine if EVERY holding penalty was called in a football game (for example). I doubt they'd ever get around to playing any football.

woodrow1029 · Jan 30, 2012

dominikk1985 said:
It's very easy.

make a shot clock like in basketball. from the moment the point is over a shot clock is automatically started.

once the time is over and you have not yet hit the ball there is a buzzer and it is counted a fault.

if it was a first serve you have to hit a second and if it was a second serve it is a double fault. and once the shot clock run out of time automatically the next shot clock starts (so no arguing) and if you take too long you lose another serve.

if the return player is not ready in time he also loses the point.

this system is very simple. also allow to violate the shot clock as many times as you want. no point or game deductions because it is not needed.

I'm sure novak and rafa would adapt pretty quickly if they get their serves discounted for violating the shot clock. it really hurts if you have to start with your second on a break point or even get a double fault because you missed the first and then took too long to play the next point.

also give the umpire the ability to disable the shot clock for special occasions (if someone slips, loud audience...). you could even allow players two times per set to disable the shot clock themselves by raising their arm or so so that they could recover from a tough point or have a "tactical break".

Sometimes I don't know if ideas like these are real, or just thought out for fun discussion. People say, why change the rules? So, now you want to change it by only giving a fault, and not a warning or loss of point?

And again, why put a shot clock, if it's still going to be subjective as to when it's used?

ChanceEncounter · Jan 30, 2012

kragster said:
1) Follow the rule extremely strictly which will penalize Nadal say 50 times but it will also end up penalizing Blake 10 times.

Then you go ahead and penalize Nadal 50 times and Blake 10 times. The rules are rules. Sooner or later, Nadal/Djokovic/et al will get the memo and play faster, or they'll lose a lot of matches.

This argument that "the rule isn't working now, so we need to change it" logic doesn't hold water. If a rule isn't being enforced, it either needs to be stricken entirely or start getting enforced.

r2473 · Jan 30, 2012

ChanceEncounter said:
Then you go ahead and penalize Nadal 50 times and Blake 10 times. The rules are rules. Sooner or later, Nadal/Djokovic/et al will get the memo and play faster, or they'll lose a lot of matches.

How far does your "rules are rules and they must all be strictly (black and white no grey) enforced" go?

To all rules all the time?

Why the 20 second rule fails and a way to fix it.

Hall of Fame

Banned

Hall of Fame

monfed

Guest

Hall of Fame

Hall of Fame

Hall of Fame

Semi-Pro

monfed

Guest

Hall of Fame

Semi-Pro

Deleted member 3771

Guest

Semi-Pro

Hall of Fame

Hall of Fame

monfed

Guest

Semi-Pro

G.O.A.T.

Hall of Fame

New User

Legend

G.O.A.T.

Professional

Banned

Semi-Pro

G.O.A.T.

Hall of Fame

Professional

Hall of Fame

G.O.A.T.

Legend

Professional

Rookie

Legend

Legend

Talk Tennis Guru

G.O.A.T.

Rookie

G.O.A.T.

Professional

Hall of Fame

G.O.A.T.

G.O.A.T.

Semi-Pro

Professional

Legend

G.O.A.T.

Hall of Fame

Professional

G.O.A.T.

Similar threads