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

C

ChanceEncounter

Professional
r2473 said:
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?
Click to expand...
I'm a spirit of the law kind of person. But the spirit of the 20 second rule was so people don't take excessive amounts of time in between points. When Nadal and Djokovic are AVERAGING over 30 seconds between points, that's problem. Enforce it a few times so they know they have to go faster. If they don't get the memo, start enforcing it every time they go over. When they pace of play is finally acceptable, then it's fine to let individual small, unintentional slips go by.

This logic that "the game is too physical to enforce it" is also poor logic. Perhaps the game is only so physical because they know they can take 30+ seconds after the point is over to catch their breath.
 
r2473

r2473

G.O.A.T.
^^ I agree with that.

The chair umps need to be get on the same page (and empowered) so the enforcement is consistent. It needn't be the letter of the law. Just consistent.
 
wangs78

wangs78

Legend
I agree with the approach of increasing it to 25 seconds, but instead of leaving it to the umpire to enforce it there should be a clock that starts counting down when a point is over so that once you run out of time, you automatically lose your first serve or if you've already faulted, you lose the point. They do this in other sports such as football and basketball where players have to keep an eye on the clock so why not in tennis?

Perhaps a decibel meter that automatically docks a point if a player screams/grunts too loud can also be considered :)
 
Bobby Jr

Bobby Jr

G.O.A.T.
Why not give the umpire a 30 second ear-piece signal which, after 3 times infringing, they are required to call a time violation immediately (even if the player is about to serve) - with no exceptions based on how high-profile a player is.

This would allow for the situations late in matches where it's obvious both players are exhausted, but also make it the same for every player on the tour - no obvious turning a blind eye as happens with Nadal in practically every match while lower profile players like Ryan Harrison get pinged.

As it stands the situation used to really only be an issue when a player was on serve. In theory, the server dictates the pace of play (within reason). BUT, as of late Nadal has been making his opponents wait when he's on return too which they should stamp right out immediately, either by letting the server serve as soon as they're ready regardless of the opponent - or penalising players who delay from the get-go. In the semis Nadal constantly left Federer standing waiting to serve while he was still towelling off. I'm certain Federer was annoyed about it as it unfairly mucks with his rhythm - so he's affected both on serve and return. He doesn't mention it later on but you can see a number of times he gives the umpire a comment when walking past. He shouldn't need to.
 
Last edited:
R

Raz11

Professional
Djokovic spent around 30s between points and that already feels too long. 20s is reasonable but 25s would be the best.

The problem with shot clocks is that when starting the clock is subjective. Also in situations such as recovery time after long rallies, restless crowd or distractions makes it even harder to enforce the shot clock.

That is why I suggested the use of averages instead before. It allows players to go over 25s in situations like breakpoints, distractions or just need extra time to recover.
 
wangs78

wangs78

Legend
Raz11 said:
Djokovic spent around 30s between points and that already feels too long. 20s is reasonable but 25s would be the best.

The problem with shot clocks is that when starting the clock is subjective. Also in situations such as recovery time after long rallies, restless crowd or distractions makes it even harder to enforce the shot clock.

That is why I suggested the use of averages instead before. It allows players to go over 25s in situations like breakpoints, distractions or just need extra time to recover.
Click to expand...

Well, I think a shot clock would still be best because it's the most objective. If it were me, I'd be most annoyed by a time waster not because he was making me wait, but because he's breaking the rules and getting away with it. If it is made very clear that he has 25 seconds then at least I have the peace of mind knowing that when the clock hits zero he loses the point. That would be enough, in my view.
 
B

BevelDevil

Hall of Fame
In the 90s players would adjust their strings between points to regain focus. Now that everyone's using poly, they can't do that, so instead players are mediating on the towel, except it takes way longer to towel off.

I wouldn't be surprised if coaches are telling their players to towel off to mentally reset.
 
equinox

equinox

Hall of Fame
Backhand99 said:
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?
Click to expand...

Just like drugs, players can get an approval for a Hyperhidrosis medical exemption.

I'm very much against having a shot clock or needing the players to focus on countdowns. Just not tennis.
 
B

bluetrain4

G.O.A.T.
I don't understand why everyone is so upset about this. If it was very erratically enforced, then I could see some people being upset, but it's basically never enforced, so what's the big deal?

Though, I do think it would be fascinating to have the rule strictly enforced and see how it effects player performance, game plan, etc.
 
Last edited:
S

Spin Doctor

Professional
Chicken, egg?

Some of you seem to be saying that a longer break is required because the rallies are so long. Ever stop to think that perhaps the rallies are so long because certain players are abusing the rule and taking more than the allowed time? If players adhered to the rule, rallies would be shorter.

Look at the two biggest abusers of the rule. Djoker and Nadal.

Abuse of the 20 second rule is a direct advantage to grinders like Djoker and Nadal who run their asses off on every point. When other players abuse the rule it is a distinct disadvantage to someone like Fed who clearly has high VO2 max and does not grind. How often have you seen Fed gasping for air after a rally? Hardly ever. He needs less recovery time because he isn't as winded between points. So when Djoker and Nadal abuse this rule in matches against him, IMO his opponents gain advantage. I'm amazed he hasn't made more of a stink about this considering how it could adversely affect the outcome of his matches.

Aside from that, as a viewer, 30 seconds is too long. Get on with it already!
 
C

ChanceEncounter

Professional
bluetrain4 said:
I don't understand why everyone is so upset about this. If it was very erratically enforced, then I could see some people being upset, but it's basically never enforced, so what's the big deal?

Though, I do think it would be fascinating to have the rule strictly enforced and see how it effects player performance, game plan, etc.
Click to expand...
The big deal is that taking a long time in between points is unfairly advantageous to the players who play grinding games, where they can run back and forth and retrieve everything and then spend way too long recovering.

Players who don't like to grind are at a disadvantage by the people who abuse the rule. They're ready to go, but their opponent is taking extra time.
 
C

chandler bing

Rookie
Spin Doctor said:
Chicken, egg?

Some of you seem to be saying that a longer break is required because the rallies are so long. Ever stop to think that perhaps the rallies are so long because certain players are abusing the rule and taking more than the allowed time? If players adhered to the rule, rallies would be shorter.

Look at the two biggest abusers of the rule. Djoker and Nadal.

Abuse of the 20 second rule is a direct advantage to grinders like Djoker and Nadal who run their asses off on every point. When other players abuse the rule it is a distinct disadvantage to someone like Fed who clearly has high VO2 max and does not grind. How often have you seen Fed gasping for air after a rally? Hardly ever. He needs less recovery time because he isn't as winded between points. So when Djoker and Nadal abuse this rule in matches against him, IMO his opponents gain advantage. I'm amazed he hasn't made more of a stink about this considering how it could adversely affect the outcome of his matches.

Aside from that, as a viewer, 30 seconds is too long. Get on with it already!
Click to expand...

I agree with you. Perhaps players would attempt to shorten the points if they knew the time rule would be strictly enforced.

I'm sick to death of watching players towelling off, getting a drink, primping their hair and jewelry between points. It's gotten way out of hand. I've seen people towelling off between first and second serves, which is just ridiculous.
 
8

813wilson

Rookie
I'm curious:

1) why, in slams, is the time between points "officially" shortened to 20 seconds? These events are now the only time(save Davis Cup) where the men play best of five....

2) in many of these threads I read "the instant/second the point is over; start the clock." Well, isn't that a subjective thing? What if a player challenges? What if the ball is hit into the stands? What if a player rolls an ankle? What if? What if?

The solution is simple - the ruling bodies of tennis need to make the umpires enforce the rule more.

The umpire should have a clock that starts when he/she determines that the point is "sufficiently" over. Enforce the rule from there. IF they don't? The umpire will be graded negatively for the match and ultimately run the chance of being down graded and removed from the best matches....

I do like that idea I read about clock + bonus. The poster offered that you could "bank" additional time by receiving credit for the time you are under the time limit - as a rolling average.
 
fednad

fednad

Hall of Fame
Backhand99 said:
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.
Click to expand...

Agreed. This rule comes from an era when game was played with wooden rackets, points were short and you had number of serve and volleyers on the tour. This rule should evolve. And the 20 seconds cannot be upped to 25 or 30 seconds blindly. This has to be subjective driven by the length of the previously played point. An ace does not deserve to have more than 20 seconds following it but a 30 shots rally stretching over 30 seconds where both players run over 60 meters deserve more than 20 seconds.
 
drakulie

drakulie

Talk Tennis Guru
totally unfair to not allow todays players to serve from the baseline. where they want. They should change the rule so that they can serve from the service line.
 
woodrow1029

woodrow1029

Hall of Fame
813wilson said:
I'm curious:

1) why, in slams, is the time between points "officially" shortened to 20 seconds? These events are now the only time(save Davis Cup) where the men play best of five....

2) in many of these threads I read "the instant/second the point is over; start the clock." Well, isn't that a subjective thing? What if a player challenges? What if the ball is hit into the stands? What if a player rolls an ankle? What if? What if?

The solution is simple - the ruling bodies of tennis need to make the umpires enforce the rule more.

The umpire should have a clock that starts when he/she determines that the point is "sufficiently" over. Enforce the rule from there. IF they don't? The umpire will be graded negatively for the match and ultimately run the chance of being down graded and removed from the best matches....

I do like that idea I read about clock + bonus. The poster offered that you could "bank" additional time by receiving credit for the time you are under the time limit - as a rolling average.
Click to expand...

It's 20 seconds in all Grand Slams, Davis Cup, Fed Cup, Olympics, ITF Circuit events, and WTA Tour matches. It's ONLY 25 seconds at ATP World Tour and ATP Challenger Tour events.

And I hate to be negative, but the bolded part is a ridiculous idea and would never work, as are most of the ideas that have been posted about average times, bonus times, being able to go longer 3 times per set.
 
r2473

r2473

G.O.A.T.
Sentinel said:
That's time per point, not between points. Right ?

btw,
Woodrow has posted a couple times that 25 seconds is not enough between points.
Click to expand...

Yes, average time per point played (rally + time between points).

And though Nadal and Djokovic played some very long rallies, when we look at the matches as a whole and take the average, the MAJOR component is going to be the time taken between points.

I found it to be a very interesting statistic / comparison.
 
A

aprilfool

Guest
So if you can't be a beast by sticking to the established rules, simply change the rules.

Perhaps raise the net and have less hard court events as well, no?
 
N

NJ1

Professional
Backhand99 said:
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?
Click to expand...

Good question. I wouldn't say a problem with it per se, but I do think it is unnecessary to touch the towel for .25 of a second after every point like Murray. However, if it's part of his routine it's part of his routine like Djoko's ball bouncing or Nadal's pulling on his shorts. If it works for them and doesn't slow the point past the limit it would be unfair to make them change these habits, on reflection.
 
E

El Diablo

Guest
Why this thread fails...

...because it isn't an issue whether it's 20, 30, 40 or 90 seconds when there's no will in the tour to enforce it. This asylum is run by the inmates. Eventually the issue may be forced by TV networks and sponsors who want predictability and don't want broadcasts to run too long. This happened in baseball a few years back when games were often running over 3 hours. The networks complained, and Major League Baseball made some changes to speed things up, mostly successfully. One hopes this recent 6 hour men's final will lead to some change. I'd like to see exactly what they have in football -- a clock at each end of the court that starts as soon as a point ends and counts down, perhaps 35 seconds, with loss of the point if the server doesn't serve before the clock expires, unless there's a challenge going on. This business of toweling down and checking each ball for lint before serving is utter nonsense. The networks lose money when matches run very long (they pay a certain amount for broadcast rights and have to abort other revenue-producing broadcasts when a match runs long, as well as fill commercial time with commercials that may have only been paid for one showing, voiding commercials paid for for the pre-empted programming). The situation will need to change at some point.
 
D

dominikk1985

Legend
Backhand99 said:
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?
Click to expand...

I adressed this. it starts once the point ends (lands out or bounces the second time).

In basketball this works very well. no need for stupid warnings and discussions.

believe me the time violating would stop immediately if this was introduced. no pro would trade a couple more seconds for starting with the second serve. the second serve is a huge disadvantage in modern tennis. and when it's second serve time a fault would be the same like losing a point.
 
8

813wilson

Rookie
Backhand99 said:
It's 20 seconds in all Grand Slams, Davis Cup, Fed Cup, Olympics, ITF Circuit events, and WTA Tour matches. It's ONLY 25 seconds at ATP World Tour and ATP Challenger Tour events.

And I hate to be negative, but the bolded part is a ridiculous idea and would never work, as are most of the ideas that have been posted about average times, bonus times, being able to go longer 3 times per set.
Click to expand...

Okay - so like I said previously - the only time the men play 5 sets the time is shorter than the regular tour. That is all I am saying. Play more with shorter rest - since 1990, anyway.....

Are any of the ideas plausible? If not, aside from the chair enforcing, which I've suggested with repercussions to the chair for not, what is your solution?
 
woodrow1029

woodrow1029

Hall of Fame
813wilson said:
Okay - so like I said previously - the only time the men play 5 sets the time is shorter than the regular tour. That is all I am saying. Play more with shorter rest - since 1990, anyway.....

Are any of the ideas plausible? If not, aside from the chair enforcing, which I've suggested with repercussions to the chair for not, what is your solution?
Click to expand...

Considering that the only people that really complain about it are on these discussion forums and Brad Gilbert, either leave it exactly the way it is, or just increase the time in between points allowed a bit and enforce it more. No need for buzzers, shot clocks, timeouts, averages, and bizarre stuff like that.
 
D

dafinch

Banned
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.
Click to expand...


I agree. Both Noel and Nadal got warnings in last year's US Open, and, amazing, they sped it up. It pisses off hearing that shrieking machine, Chokeapova, claim that she "won't stop" her shrieking. Lay a few, warning, point penalty, match penalties on her ass and I'd bet she'd stop...
 
woodrow1029

woodrow1029

Hall of Fame
dafinch said:
It pisses off hearing that shrieking machine, Chokeapova, claim that she "won't stop" her shrieking. Lay a few, warning, point penalty, match penalties on her ass and I'd bet she'd stop...
Click to expand...

But it would just be treated as a hindrance (let the first time and loss of point each time afterwards), so you wouldn't see anything more than loss of the current point for it.
 
C

ChanceEncounter

Professional
fednad said:
Agreed. This rule comes from an era when game was played with wooden rackets, points were short and you had number of serve and volleyers on the tour. This rule should evolve. And the 20 seconds cannot be upped to 25 or 30 seconds blindly. This has to be subjective driven by the length of the previously played point. An ace does not deserve to have more than 20 seconds following it but a 30 shots rally stretching over 30 seconds where both players run over 60 meters deserve more than 20 seconds.
Click to expand...
Again, this logic depends upon the fact that time between points is supposed to be longer. The reason the rule is 20 seconds isn't because the game is supposed to let you catch your breath. Tennis is supposed to be a contest of endurance and fitness as well as skill. You're not SUPPOSED to be be able to be perfectly fine by your next point no matter how much running you do.

The reason the rule exists is so that people can't waste time and then serve whenever the hell the want. This way, you can't, as the server, mess around for half an hour and then while your returner starts to nod off, bloop an underhand serve and win a free point.

Trying to say, "the game is more intense, therefore we need longer time" is a gross misinterpretation of the reason for the rule. Players should learn to manage their energy within the confines of the 20 seconds of stoppage time allowed.
 
K

kevvycore

Rookie
Is it really that the game has changed or that these players now have their rituals that they go through every point that wastes all the time, ie toweling off, getting 4 balls, picking his butt, bouncing ball million times, fixing hair, water bottles.
 
B

Biscuitmcgriddleson

Professional
I'd say you should get warned after 10 blatant abuses and then after 5 subsequent abuses the next level(warning, then point, then game, then set, then match). I feel that a blatant abuse would be serving an ace and then going on to exceed the twenty second limit. If it's after a long grueling rally(20+ shots), I'm not as inclined to count those unless it reaches an absurd amount of time(40+ seconds).
 
woodrow1029

woodrow1029

Hall of Fame
ChanceEncounter said:
Again, this logic depends upon the fact that time between points is supposed to be longer. The reason the rule is 20 seconds isn't because the game is supposed to let you catch your breath. Tennis is supposed to be a contest of endurance and fitness as well as skill. You're not SUPPOSED to be be able to be perfectly fine by your next point no matter how much running you do.

The reason the rule exists is so that people can't waste time and then serve whenever the hell the want. This way, you can't, as the server, mess around for half an hour and then while your returner starts to nod off, bloop an underhand serve and win a free point.

Trying to say, "the game is more intense, therefore we need longer time" is a gross misinterpretation of the reason for the rule. Players should learn to manage their energy within the confines of the 20 seconds of stoppage time allowed.
Click to expand...
But it's also entertainment for spectators. Do you really think normal people want to sit there and watch a 40 shot rally in extreme heat and then just go back and get a ball and serve? No. Normal people want to see the best quality tennis they can see.

The game has gotten more intense and more powerful. The rule should evolve. Find one match where one player plays under the time limit every single time. You won't.

Start enforcing it all the time and watch what happens. Like I said before the only people that seem to care are some random posters on discussion forums and brad Gilbert.

I guarantee you that if Nadal went out and got three or four time violations, with the exception of a few, almost everyone who is complaining about the way it is now will then complain that "the umpire shouldn't get involved.". Or "he shouldn't have gotten a time violation there."

Either change the time limit, or just handle the way it is now. Start taking points, and people aren't gonna pay the money to watch it.
 
woodrow1029

woodrow1029

Hall of Fame
Biscuitmcgriddleson said:
I'd say you should get warned after 10 blatant abuses and then after 5 subsequent abuses the next level(warning, then point, then game, then set, then match). I feel that a blatant abuse would be serving an ace and then going on to exceed the twenty second limit. If it's after a long grueling rally(20+ shots), I'm not as inclined to count those unless it reaches an absurd amount of time(40+ seconds).
Click to expand...
Nobody is ever going to go for a game, set, or default penalty for time violations. EVER.
 
B

Biscuitmcgriddleson

Professional
Backhand99 said:
It is not. That's not the escalation for code violations or time violations.
Click to expand...

Say what? Page 16 ATP Rule Book

http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=..._um3Cg&usg=AFQjCNHrqL388TuE9EoF26fV_nb5kQIfXw

2) Point Penalty Schedule
a) The Point Penalty Schedule to be used for Code Violations is as follows:
FIRST OFFENSE Warning
SECOND OFFENSE Point Penalty
THIRD AND EACH SUBSEQUENT OFFENSE Game Penalty

However, after the third Code Violation, the supervisor shall determine whether each subsequent offense shall constitute a default.
 
woodrow1029

woodrow1029

Hall of Fame
Biscuitmcgriddleson said:
Say what? Page 16 ATP Rule Book

http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=..._um3Cg&usg=AFQjCNHrqL388TuE9EoF26fV_nb5kQIfXw

2) Point Penalty Schedule
a) The Point Penalty Schedule to be used for Code Violations is as follows:
FIRST OFFENSE Warning
SECOND OFFENSE Point Penalty
THIRD AND EACH SUBSEQUENT OFFENSE Game Penalty

However, after the third Code Violation, the supervisor shall determine whether each subsequent offense shall constitute a default.
Click to expand...
Right. So show me where set penalty is.

Additionally for time violations, the first is a warning and each subsequent one is a point penalty.

I've noticed that a lot of people just like to post things without even knowing what they are writing about.
 
C

ChanceEncounter

Professional
Backhand99 said:
But it's also entertainment for spectators. Do you really think normal people want to sit there and watch a 40 shot rally in extreme heat and then just go back and get a ball and serve? No. Normal people want to see the best quality tennis they can see.
Click to expand...

Believe it or not, I don't think a lot of people want to see people bounce a ball 40 times.

Secondly, it's not either/or. Players have to learn to manage their energy levels within the allotted rules. You don't just change the rules so people who decide to play a style of game of running down every point. You adapt your game to the rules of tennis.

It's not like we're in an age of, "oh, string technology lets us hit harder, so the courts should be widened so fewer balls go out of bounds." No. Keep the rules. Adapt your game.

Backhand99 said:
The game has gotten more intense and more powerful. The rule should evolve. Find one match where one player plays under the time limit every single time. You won't.

Start enforcing it all the time and watch what happens. Like I said before the only people that seem to care are some random posters on discussion forums and brad Gilbert.

I guarantee you that if Nadal went out and got three or four time violations, with the exception of a few, almost everyone who is complaining about the way it is now will then complain that "the umpire shouldn't get involved.". Or "he shouldn't have gotten a time violation there."

Either change the time limit, or just handle the way it is now. Start taking points, and people aren't gonna pay the money to watch it.
Click to expand...
If one player arbitrarily loses because of time violations that occur everywhere and are rarely called, then yes, people will complain.

If the rule is regularly enforced, and one player loses because of it, then people will say that player needs to change. Point blank.

I don't believe you should flag it every time someone goes over 20 seconds. However, when you average 30+ seconds between points (e.g. Djokovic and Nadal), then we have a problem. Players should better manage their energy levels within the point themselves. Letting players take 30 or 40 seconds between points unfairly biases the game towards the players who run down everything. Players who are big shotmakers less frequently go over the limit because they don't need that much time to catch their breath. It would be no different than letting big shotmakers use the doubles alley in single matches. They're gaming the system.
 
woodrow1029

woodrow1029

Hall of Fame
ChanceEncounter said:
Believe it or not, I don't think a lot of people want to see people bounce a ball 40 times.

Secondly, it's not either/or. Players have to learn to manage their energy levels within the allotted rules. You don't just change the rules so people who decide to play a style of game of running down every point. You adapt your game to the rules of tennis.

It's not like we're in an age of, "oh, string technology lets us hit harder, so the courts should be widened so fewer balls go out of bounds." No. Keep the rules. Adapt your game.


If one player arbitrarily loses because of time violations that occur everywhere and are rarely called, then yes, people will complain.

If the rule is regularly enforced, and one player loses because of it, then people will say that player needs to change. Point blank.

I don't believe you should flag it every time someone goes over 20 seconds. However, when you average 30+ seconds between points (e.g. Djokovic and Nadal), then we have a problem. Players should better manage their energy levels within the point themselves. Letting players take 30 or 40 seconds between points unfairly biases the game towards the players who run down everything. Players who are big shotmakers less frequently go over the limit because they don't need that much time to catch their breath. It would be no different than letting big shotmakers use the doubles alley in single matches. They're gaming the system.
Click to expand...
Two players go further over the 20/25 seconds more than most. MOST players go over the 20/25 seconds several times per match. It just happens that two players that people complain about are two very high profile players.

My guess is that 8 out of 10 players average more than 20 seconds in between points. Can't just start penalizing 2 players that go further over than the rest.
 
woodrow1029

woodrow1029

Hall of Fame
Murray, del Potro, fish, Nadal, djokovic. Players like this all take too much time. If all of these players start getting handed time violations, it would affect the popularity of the sport. When it is so many players, maybe the rule is the problem.
 
Polvorin

Polvorin

Professional
kragster said:
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!
Click to expand...

Rafa and Djoker already benefit so much from slow court speeds and modern string technology! Now you want to change the time rule for them too? How many advantages do they need?

I say the rule is fine and it should be enforced.
 
C

ChanceEncounter

Professional
Backhand99 said:
Two players go further over the 20/25 seconds more than most. MOST players go over the 20/25 seconds several times per match. It just happens that two players that people complain about are two very high profile players.

My guess is that 8 out of 10 players average more than 20 seconds in between points. Can't just start penalizing 2 players that go further over than the rest.
Click to expand...
Then start penalizing those 8 out of 10 players. I think you'd be surprised how fast people start serving once they realize there's actual consequences to being too slow.
 
Bartelby

Bartelby

Bionic Poster
A silent shot clock of 25 seconds set and re-set at the umpire's discretion and a point penalty called at 25 if ball still in a player's hand sounds plausible.

The players will speed up play to ensure they don't cop a penalty. Hopefully, no one will even know it's in operation, after a while.
 
M

Miso

Rookie
I think that they should model the rules after the NBA's shot clock and/or the NFL's play clock.

On that clock in the background, have a timed run from the end of the point. Once it is declared 15-0, 30-40 etc etc. The ticker will begin a 20 second run down. Have it in red and once the clock runs to 0 and the server has yet to serve, they lose a serve and is now forced to take a 2nd serve. Violate it again and it's a loss of point. A small buzzer on the chairman's chair could aid in indicating a violation. Just like the let machine noise.

The same can be done for Challenges. In the NFL they use challenges as well. However, once play has begun the coach cannot call for a challenge. In the case of tennis, instead of play beginning, have a 3 second run down. From the time that the ball has landed and been declared a point a 3 second timer should be ran from that little clock in the back. Once three seconds have passed and there is no challenge, the player can not challenge the call. Period. If they persist, it is a time violation for the returner. If the player on serve persists, the 20 second clock is still running, they don't serve within that time, they lose their 1st serve. Following what I have wrote before.

That is the best way to solve the issue. There is no gray area, there is no loop holes, there is no chairman making a guess call etc. It's all a definite time set by the clocks. So, it's a pretty iron clad solution.
 
N

NE1for10is?

Semi-Pro
The simple solution to both time wasting and shrieking is a combination shot clock/decibel meter that goes off like a foghorn behind the player and scares the bejesus out of him/her if they waste time or shriek too loud.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

U
Rafa and the 20 seconds rule
Replies
21
Views
2K
MagicMT
MagicMT
V
Fixing the time rule
Replies
22
Views
931
Bartelby
Bartelby
Gary Duane
Who was the umpire in the Nadal/Djokovic match?
Replies
14
Views
1K
LETitBE
L
P
Rafa's response on time violations.
2
Replies
94
Views
7K
aprilfool
A
T
Stalling tactics.
2
Replies
99
Views
2K
tex123
T
Top