A good argument for a shot clock

ninman

Hall of Fame
Ok, so during the Nadal Del Potro match according to the BBC both players averaged 26 seconds between points. The match had 271 points, so that works out at nearly 2 hours of time just waiting for the players to serve.

Had both players been playing within the rules and taking 20 seconds per point the match would have been almost 30 minutes shorter.

I think shot clock would speed the game up dramatically.
 

ninman

Hall of Fame
Mark Petchy is for shot clock, and I am too. It takes the decision out of the umpires hands, you have 20 seconds, after that a buzzer sounds. First one is a warning, second one is a penalty point. Then there's no argument. I mean you saw the lip that Nadal was giving the umpire for giving him a warning.

When you're talking about a match that's about 3 - 4 hours long, and 2 hours of that is us watching players collecting balls and preparing to serve then obviously something is wrong.
 
D

Deleted member 77403

Guest
I'm all for it. But there could some grey areas. Suppose someone slips, over stretches, it might a few more seconds to get back up and ready to serve.

I do agree that those that take more than 20 seconds would have to straighten up their act.
 

namelessone

Legend
It's quite simple.

-Have a 30 sec max time to serve rule.

-get a shot clock activated remotely by the ump(so he decides when the shot clock starts, helps avoid unusual points like when the crowd is too loud or when players slip and such).

- ?

-Profit.
 

Satch

Hall of Fame
It's quite simple.

-Have a 30 sec max time to serve rule.

-get a shot clock activated remotely by the ump(so he decides when the shot clock starts, helps avoid unusual points like when the crowd is too loud or when players slip and such).

- ?

-Profit.

it's hard for umpire to tell when the crowd is too loud or not. What if the crowd is really loud and a player need to serve because the time is running? Umpire cant say that the rules does not apply at that moment..

a lot of controversial situations colud appear.
 

ninman

Hall of Fame
it's hard for umpire to tell when the crowd is too loud or not. What if the crowd is really loud and a player need to serve because the time is running? Umpire cant say that the rules does not apply at that moment..

a lot of controversial situations colud appear.

I think players should just play despite crowd noise. It can't be used as an excuse during a point, why use it as an excuse to delay serving? And 30 seconds is way too long. People are saying that because some players are slow we should increase the time allowed. Well if you give them 30 they'll start taking 40 then where does it end?

It should be 20 seconds and that's it. Shot clock activates as soon as the ball is out of play, i.e. the end of a point, then you have 20 seconds to get a ball into play again. It would speed the game up significantly.
 
D

Deleted member 743561

Guest
ce005151ca02074f56b2772928189818.jpg
 
N

Nashvegas

Guest
Shot clock's great in theory but you have all the reasons above where discretion is needed, and how does that work when the clock is ticking down? If the umpire can reset the clock - and there will be times they will have to - how is that different from the ump using discretion today?

I'd be ok with a clock but not sure it's needed if they would just enforce the rule right from the start of the match. If Nadal (just because he's obvious) takes 30 seconds on the third point of the match, give him a warning. Penalize him in game 3 when he does it again. He will speed up. Problem solved. Instead the umps want to avoid giving that warning as long as possible, end up giving it at a more critical point in the match when players tire and start taking even longer, and the players get mad.

I guess they don't really want to go after one of the game's legends, which I understand, and that's the real problem.
 
D

Deleted member 743561

Guest
Shot clock's great in theory but you have all the reasons above where discretion is needed, and how does that work when the clock is ticking down? If the umpire can reset the clock - and there will be times they will have to - how is that different from the ump using discretion today?

I'd be ok with a clock but not sure it's needed if they would just enforce the rule right from the start of the match. If Nadal (just because he's obvious) takes 30 seconds on the third point of the match, give him a warning. Penalize him in game 3 when he does it again. He will speed up. Problem solved. Instead the umps want to avoid giving that warning as long as possible, end up giving it at a more critical point in the match when players tire and start taking even longer, and the players get mad.

I guess they don't really want to go after one of the game's legends, which I understand, and that's the real problem.
Discretion didn't work. The enforcement was so lackadaisical that there essentially was no rule. For all intents and purposes, it was "do what you please." Now that this generation of players is on its last legs, I guess they're rolling it out.

Better late than never.
 

Backspin1183

Talk Tennis Guru
It's still a bad decision. You have problem with a few players, even if it's Nadal, you gotta talk to them about it or give them penalty of points or serves. I'm probably even quicker than Federer between points as I don't feel the need to bounce the ball at all (unless it's old balls) before serving when I play with friends or hit with some tennis enthusiasts in Switzerland. Yet I'd hate it if someone was timing me all the time in a serious match.
 
N

Nashvegas

Guest
Discretion didn't work. The enforcement was so lackadaisical that there essentially was no rule. For all intents and purposes, it was "do what you please." Now that this generation of players is on its last legs, I guess they're rolling it out.

Better late than never.
I agree, but they just didn't have their hearts in it. The tour needs to judge umps on enforcement and mean it.
 
Top