A Tennis Shot Clock? Yay or nay?

octobrina10

G.O.A.T.
Oh, look Octo-Fanatic is gracing my day with her presence.

@Tennis_Hands

She is, of course, to dense to realize there is a difference between a basher/hater and someone who does not worship Nadal's OCD, which is one of the most annoying things in sports:

I am, of course, a Bad Person because I don't enjoy watching, on every point:
  1. Right face cheek.
  2. Right butt cheek pull.
  3. Touch right shoulder then left shoulder,
  4. Touch nose with left hand.
  5. Touch right ear with left hand.
  6. Stroke nose with left hand again
  7. Touch left ear with left hand.
This does not include "checking testicles" on every return point, cleaning the lines with his feet, examining balls on every point, going to the towel between every point.

Of course anyone who doesn't enjoy watching Nadal go through this EVERY POINT is a hater.

Anyone who suggests that taking up to a minute between points, even short ones, even in a way that is designed to make an opponent frustrated, is being unfair to poor, misunderstood Nadal.

And anyone who points out that young Nadal did not touch his face and waste additional seconds is being even more unfair.


We must all worship every OCD habits of Nadal in order to be acceptable to Octo-Fanatic. :D
The most annoying thing is Fed-fanatics' constant whining about Rafa everywhere & every day on TTW, page after page. :D :D
 

van_Loederen

Professional
  1. Right face cheek.
  2. Right butt cheek pull.
  3. Touch right shoulder then left shoulder,
  4. Touch nose with left hand.
  5. Touch right ear with left hand.
  6. Stroke nose with left hand again
  7. Touch left ear with left hand.
This does not include "checking testicles" on every return point, cleaning the lines with his feet, examining balls on every point, going to the towel between every point.

Of course anyone who doesn't enjoy watching Nadal go through this EVERY POINT is a hater.
and now imagine all this with split-second timing :cool::)
 
D

Deleted member 716271

Guest
I would have written something about this in a private conversation, but I see that you have those blocked, so I'll keep it short.

It's not my aim to take sides, and I don't enjoy arguments. But I do find myself pretty much in agreement. I would say that in Nadal's mind he is just doing what is natural. He would deny gamesmanship. I don't see him as deceitful or dishonest. On the other hand, I'm sure we both know people who are always late, and I mean ALWAYS late. For those people it is normal to plan to be on time, at the earliest, which means the rest of us are inconvenienced. Such people do not see themselves as selfish or rude, but if they were more honest they would admit that their behavior is all about their own convenience and the inconvenience of others. Since they are always late, they don't experience what it feels like to wait.

That's how I see Nadal. His style of play always benefits him and hurts other players. Same with Djokovic and a few others.

If Nadal had to wait 60 seconds after every serve of his opponent, I'm sure he would hate it. But since he is always wasting time, he doesn't experience being on the receiving end of waiting.
Wait a minute, what you said here is basically exactly what I've said and what tennis hands took issue with, lambasting me over various threads for.

I think the late analogy is a correct one.

However, the fact that I didn't say Rafa was intentionally cheating, but in some sort of gray area, wasn't enough for Mr. Hands even if I suggested the clock should be implemented.

I'm not sure why you seem to like his posts and not mine, since my position is exactly yours and his isn't.:D

What's more is he seems to be happy with your posts although there is zero difference in our opinions---perhaps because of the more "vitriol" you are showing Mr. Nadal, rather than my unimpassioned stance.

You can tell this is a man who takes it seriously and is married to his cause---who else would sit and measure with a chonograph??? :D

So what happened here is what tends to happen plenty on these boards--- it is not so much about factual accuracy but the emotion behind it. You two are agreeing even though you disagree because you both have vitriol for Nadal. And you are agreeing more with him than with me, even though our opinions are identical because I do not. (Although if you look at my post history, I have had plenty to say about him, enough to anger his fans, but within a reasonable amount---nothing personal)

Pretty funny dynamics at play here.
 

Sartorius

Hall of Fame
The whole shot clock idea is the result of sour grapes from some Federer fans about Nadal. They wanted to rattle Nadal's mind, like the talk of "kick over his water bottles", but he carries on going through his rituals regardless.
Very disappointing. To argue a nonsensical position such as this usually leads to nowhere, because it's sorely based on bias and arguing will give the position merit. However I guess it can be used to clarify a few things:

- The shot clock is intended to be used in every match, not just Nadal's matches.
- Nadal and Djokovic are usually in the spotlight because they are top players who play more matches than others so they are in the spotlight regardless, and for the very simple reason that they have shown tendencies to extend the time limit. Say, have you heard any complaints about Murray for instance?
- If this is strictly an anti-Nadal plot that has been in the workings since 2006 (*sigh*), and largely intended to "rattle Nadal's mind", then it is one hell of a messed-up conspiracy since it took 12 years to implement the "final kick to Nadal's bottles" - at a time when he is closer to the end of his career.
- On that point, can someone please inform us: how many times since 2006 have Nadal and Djokovic receieved point penalties (not warnings)?
- If this clock idea is implemented tour-wide, ultimately to be removed when Nadal ends his career, then kudos, you nailed it. It was all to get Nadal.
- But of course there is no such thing and obviously, and most importantly, the clock will be there to stay, even after Nadal is gone.

The introducement of the shot-clock is clearly more of an ideological issue, which in my book makes it the most hideous idea presented to the sport. The idea is not necessarily to limit players, it is about speeding up matches in general (correct me if I'm wrong, but I think both ATP and USTA directors are on record stating this point). Time is money, more so today than ever. I think it's quite telling that it is first going to be implemented at USO, where TV rules everything.

In the end players don't need to stare at a timer to stay within rules which should be at umpire's discretion, and since the umpires already have a clock on their chair they shouldn't be needing another one to actually enforce the rule. It is very likely to be a distraction for everyone involved, and can lead to more problems going forward.
 
Last edited:

Gary Duane

G.O.A.T.
In the end players don't need to stare at a timer to stay within rules which should be at umpire's discretion, and since the umpires already have a clock on their chair they shouldn't be needing another one to actually enforce the rule. It is very likely to be a distraction for everyone involved, and can lead to more problems going forward.
I'm sure people said electricity was bound to be a distraction for everyone involved. Or flush toilets. Or maybe the wheel. :D
 
D

Deleted member 716271

Guest
Yes pretty much Nadal is a punk-ass *****.


I believe he's played his role for so long now that he's genuinely conned himself into a position and belief of it not being deliberate gamesmanship... but it is. Nadal and the art of war; it might just get him the Slam record yet.
I wouldnt disagree with that really, although it depends if its a good or bad thing based on how you look at it ;)

Your Connors comparison was incredibly apt
 

Gary Duane

G.O.A.T.
Wait a minute, what you said here is basically exactly what I've said and what tennis hands took issue with, lambasting me over various threads for.

I think the late analogy is a correct one.

However, the fact that I didn't say Rafa was intentionally cheating, but in some sort of gray area, wasn't enough for Mr. Hands even if I suggested the clock should be implemented.
I probably liked one of his posts because he wrote back first. ;)

OK. I'll agree with "gray" in this case. "Grey" for all our friends on the other side of the pond and maybe in Canada.

I actually think Rafa is a pretty good guy, and I also don't think all the OCD stuff is a plot against other players. But I also think it's hugely annoying, so he probably annoys me more than any other player in this regard, though Djokovic is a close second with the ball bouncing, which I find insanely annoying because it's like he has replaced about 10 or Nadal's ticks with the bouncing.
 

Tennis_Hands

Talk Tennis Guru
Yes pretty much Nadal is a punk-ass *****.


I believe he's played his role for so long now that he's genuinely conned himself into a position and belief of it not being deliberate gamesmanship... but it is. Nadal and the art of war; it might just get him the Slam record yet.
The only thing that will be a problem if Nadal gets the Majors record, is that he automatically becomes the face of modern tennis, not that he will displace Federer from the top position.

I am laughing even visualising the very important humble bragging "ambassador of tennis" having to represent the integrity and variety of our beautiful sport.

In a way, I want him to get that record, because to me personally it will change nothing, but to the "businessmen" from the ATP and ITF it will be a scar for eternity, having worked to keep his claim alive in the name of entertainment, forcing the game into a squealing travesty of itself.

It would serve them right.

Other than that, the generation IG can brag as much as they please with their dummy.

:D
 

octobrina10

G.O.A.T.
I probably liked one of his posts because he wrote back first. ;)

OK. I'll agree with "gray" in this case. "Grey" for all our friends on the other side of the pond and maybe in Canada.

I actually think Rafa is a pretty good guy, and I also don't think all the OCD stuff is a plot against other players. But I also think it's hugely annoying, so he probably annoys me more than any other player in this regard, though Djokovic is a close second with the ball bouncing, which I find insanely annoying because it's like he has replaced about 10 or Nadal's ticks with the bouncing.
The hugely annoying Fed-fanatics' whining about Rafa keeps filling the pages of TTW...
 

van_Loederen

Professional
It is very likely to be a distraction for everyone involved, and can lead to more problems going forward.
i have reasons to believe the opposite.
during the qualies last year it went very smoothly. it's a silent clock in the background that just runs down and there's no need for noone to look at it all the time.
(source: http://www.tennis.com/pro-game/2017/08/2017-us-open-tennis-shot-clock-pace-play-speeding-game/68736/ )
one may be afraid that with more important matches also heckling may increase, but if we look at
the details of the rules,
heckling might become even less attractive.
not just that when the clock runs down, nothing will happen unless the umpire specially registers it as a time violation,
but the umpire has even the right to reset the clock. you can imagine how that would make heckling very unattractive.
Sartorius said:
The introducement of the shot-clock is clearly more of an ideological issue, which in my book makes it the most hideous idea presented to the sport. The idea is not necessarily to limit players, it is about speeding up matches in general (correct me if I'm wrong, but I think both ATP and USTA directors are on record stating this point). Time is money, more so today than ever.
well, it's not the only possible way to speed up matches. they chose particularly the way that also tackles violations of the time limit (not calling it 'rule breaks').

i see nothing wrong with enforcing the time limit more strictly, as long as the clock doesn't affect the quality of play.
most notably should the umpire start the clock a little later after long rallies.

Sartorius said:
In the end players don't need to stare at a timer to stay within rules
well, some actually do need a timer, i think.
one reason for time violations is that the players in fact don't know so exactly how much time they have.

Sartorius said:
- If this clock idea is implemented tour-wide, ultimately to be removed when Nadal ends his career, then kudos, you nailed it. It was all to get Nadal.
- But of course there is no such thing and obviously, and most importantly, the clock will be there to stay, even after Nadal is gone.
they will simply invent some excuses for why the shotclock wasn't so great after all and will be abolished again. ;)
 

GatorAuthor

New User
Djok is actually worse than Nadal. Tennis just needs to establish a rule on what the start of the service motion is. Both nadal and djok are bouncing the ball and it currently counts as the beginning of their motion, when they are taking an additional 20secs.

The rule should state you have X amount of seconds to hit a serve.
Is this true? Bouncing the ball is part of the Serve motion? That’s ridiculous. If nothing else, the rule should be based on the racquet hitting the ball.
 

michaelyoni

New User
So then there is no problem with the reciever delaying the serve. Or is it serve within 10 seconds ready or not.

I pity the recent Isner / Andersen match in the 5th then. Some long rallies there. Thry needed a breather.

What about due to weather conditions.

All plays a part.

Sent from my GT-N7105 using Tapatalk
 
So then there is no problem with the reciever delaying the serve. Or is it serve within 10 seconds ready or not.

I pity the recent Isner / Andersen match in the 5th then. Some long rallies there. Thry needed a breather.

What about due to weather conditions.

All plays a part.

Sent from my GT-N7105 using Tapatalk
1) Welcome aboard.

2) What have they done since the current 25 second rule's been in place? Nothing. Can't get worse, right?
 
Won't work because who and what determines when the clock resets and starts again? What about a 34 shot epic rally where one player runs into the crowd? One falls down? How about the crowd's applause?
 

ChaelAZ

Legend
Tennis is a one-on-one match with no time-outs, no player rotations, no half-time, very short/few breaks overall, and longer active play than most sports. The best matches regularly go beyond 2.5 hours of competition, up to 5 hours. All the recoginzed top matches of all-time have been epic battles of will-power, endurance and skill. For average matches though I don't think it will do much. It will change the best battles though, and that's a shame.
 
Tennis is a one-on-one match with no time-outs, no player rotations, no half-time, very short/few breaks overall, and longer active play than most sports. The best matches regularly go beyond 2.5 hours of competition, up to 5 hours. All the recoginzed top matches of all-time have been epic battles of will-power, endurance and skill. For average matches though I don't think it will do much. It will change the best battles though, and that's a shame.
Pity in some ways. Less cheating now, though.
 

ChaelAZ

Legend
Pity in some ways. Less cheating now, though.
The rule for time has been in place and has been guideline left to the Ump for appropriate application. It has been understand and used that way to allow for competitive match play based on court conditions like crowd activity, heat, extended points play, etc.. Even though much of the pro/con discussion is driven by, and used to support player bias, it is driven by television scheduling/timing than anything. It has nothing to do with the spirit of competition and more about business control.

I disagree with that.
 
The rule for time has been in place and has been guideline left to the Ump for appropriate application. It has been understand and used that way to allow for competitive match play based on court conditions like crowd activity, heat, extended points play, etc.. Even though much of the pro/con discussion is driven by, and used to support player bias, it is driven by television scheduling/timing than anything. It has nothing to do with the spirit of competition and more about business control.

I disagree with that.
Nothing to do with the "spirit of competition," absolutely. Prior to a specific time limitation, the accepted rule was never "Play to the pace of the server."

At any rate, spineless chair umpires were the result of a combination of a desire to sell one of tennis' few big-time commodities, and strong-arming from same.

People got fed up with it, and we'll finally get a reasonable measure to put the kibosh on that nonsense. Better late than never.
 

Tennis_Hands

Talk Tennis Guru
Is this true? Bouncing the ball is part of the Serve motion? That’s ridiculous. If nothing else, the rule should be based on the racquet hitting the ball.
The service motion should start when you move the raquet and the end of the same motion is when the raquet hits the ball. One uninterrupted motion.

Everything else should be considered a serve routine.

Both of them shouldn't/don't have anything to do with the time rules.

The people that claim otherwise have not provided any evidence for their claims.

:cool:
 
“Superman!!!!! You are the best at keeping time!!!” ❤❤

“Oh, thanks. Saving the planet’s just kind of a moonlighting thing.”

“You’ve got a regular gig?”

“Work at a watch joint. Name’s Clock Kent.”
 

captainbryce

Hall of Fame
I see no logical reason for why there shouldn't be one at this point in time. Basketball has one, and it works! It would work in tennis too. Only the tennis traditionalists object to it because they fear change. Its the same objections they made whenever any new change was introduced in the sport (time violations; electronic line calling; blue courts; tiebreaker; music on changeovers; etc). Every time a new change is proposed or introduced, the puritans cry foul. Yet the sport inevitably comes to accept the change as a normal evolution of the sport that ultimately improves it as a spectator event. And the shot clock would be no different.
 

Tennis_Hands

Talk Tennis Guru
I see no logical reason for why there shouldn't be one at this point in time. Basketball has one, and it works! It would work in tennis too. Only the tennis traditionalists object to it because they fear change. Its the same objections they made whenever any new change was introduced in the sport (time violations; electronic line calling; blue courts; tiebreaker; music on changeovers; etc). Every time a new change is proposed or introduced, the puritans cry foul. Yet the sport inevitably comes to accept the change as a normal evolution of the sport that ultimately improves it as a spectator event. And the shot clock would be no different.
Actually, the tennis traditionalists have come to realise that the times that the time wasting was not used as deliberate gamesmanship are over, and something needs to be done, so many of them are for the idea in the hope that the plague will be stopped.

:cool:
 

octobrina10

G.O.A.T.
I see no logical reason for why there shouldn't be one at this point in time. Basketball has one, and it works! It would work in tennis too. Only the tennis traditionalists object to it because they fear change. Its the same objections they made whenever any new change was introduced in the sport (time violations; electronic line calling; blue courts; tiebreaker; music on changeovers; etc). Every time a new change is proposed or introduced, the puritans cry foul. Yet the sport inevitably comes to accept the change as a normal evolution of the sport that ultimately improves it as a spectator event. And the shot clock would be no different.
Your post reminded me that Fed has been against Hawk-Eye.
MailOnline: ¤¤ Federer: Hawk-Eye must be scrapped ¤¤
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sport/article-467186/Federer-Hawk-Eye-scrapped.html
 

Shaolin

G.O.A.T.
I see no logical reason for why there shouldn't be one at this point in time. Basketball has one, and it works! It would work in tennis too. Only the tennis traditionalists object to it because they fear change. Its the same objections they made whenever any new change was introduced in the sport (time violations; electronic line calling; blue courts; tiebreaker; music on changeovers; etc). Every time a new change is proposed or introduced, the puritans cry foul. Yet the sport inevitably comes to accept the change as a normal evolution of the sport that ultimately improves it as a spectator event. And the shot clock would be no different.
Logical reason:

Imagine an incredible rally ending with a spectacular shot like a tweener winner on a huge point. The crowd is going wild with fans standing up and cheering.

Does the umpire wait for all the cheering to end before starting the clock? If there's still cheering and announces he/she is starting the clock (I assume they'll at least say something??) what if the player doesn't hear it?

The whole shot clock think is just ridiculous. Completely putting in a whole new element to the game because of one @sshole breaking the rule constantly and a bunch of wimpy umpires and TDs that are too scared to JUST ENFORCE THE RULE.
 
No way that Nadal would actually follow the 25 seconds rule after watching Murray play last night. I like the fact when player receives the ball, the clock starts. I like this rule but it is open to abuse, players can fake the toss and reset the clock more so than ever before. Murray did that a few times last night than usual to buy himself time. Keep the eyes on this one for the top players when compared from the past matches without shot clock. The umpire needs to be more strict with this one. A player can retake the toss as many as times they want within the shot clock time limit. Players may retake a toss up to 2 times in a set if they are over the shot clock limit, that's the about the average of a re-toss in a pre-shot clock era. If they are over the toss limit, an automatic loss of first serve, not the warning. The clock is used for first violation, a warning. Just keep the eyes on this one for such open abuse by top players.
 
No way that Nadal would actually follow the 25 seconds rule after watching Murray play last night. I like the fact when player receives the ball, the clock starts. I like this rule but it is open to abuse, players can fake the toss and reset the clock more so than ever before. Murray did that a few times last night than usual to buy himself time. Keep the eyes on this one for the top players when compared from the past matches without shot clock. The umpire needs to be more strict with this one. A player can retake the toss as many as times they want within the shot clock time limit. Players may retake a toss up to 2 times in a set if they are over the shot clock limit, that's the about the average of a re-toss in a pre-shot clock era. If they are over the toss limit, an automatic loss of first serve, not the warning. The clock is used for first violation, a warning. Just keep the eyes on this one for such open abuse by top players.
He is crafty, though.

Certain players—like, say, Nadal—would never hear of stooping so low. ;)
 

jm1980

G.O.A.T.
The rule for time has been in place and has been guideline left to the Ump for appropriate application. It has been understand and used that way to allow for competitive match play based on court conditions like crowd activity, heat, extended points play, etc.. Even though much of the pro/con discussion is driven by, and used to support player bias, it is driven by television scheduling/timing than anything. It has nothing to do with the spirit of competition and more about business control.

I disagree with that.
When it's your favorite player who is the worst abuser of the rule, it becomes a "guideline."
If it were a player you hated, it would just become more proof of his "cheating" :rolleyes:

The shot clock is still started at the discretion of the umpire to account for factors like crowd noise.
 

jm1980

G.O.A.T.
Logical reason:

Imagine an incredible rally ending with a spectacular shot like a tweener winner on a huge point. The crowd is going wild with fans standing up and cheering.

Does the umpire wait for all the cheering to end before starting the clock? If there's still cheering and announces he/she is starting the clock (I assume they'll at least say something??) what if the player doesn't hear it?

The whole shot clock think is just ridiculous. Completely putting in a whole new element to the game because of one @sshole breaking the rule constantly and a bunch of wimpy umpires and TDs that are too scared to JUST ENFORCE THE RULE.
The clock is visible to the players and started at the umpire's discretion.
 

smash hit

Professional
No way that Nadal would actually follow the 25 seconds rule after watching Murray play last night. I like the fact when player receives the ball, the clock starts. I like this rule but it is open to abuse, players can fake the toss and reset the clock more so than ever before. Murray did that a few times last night than usual to buy himself time. Keep the eyes on this one for the top players when compared from the past matches without shot clock. The umpire needs to be more strict with this one. A player can retake the toss as many as times they want within the shot clock time limit. Players may retake a toss up to 2 times in a set if they are over the shot clock limit, that's the about the average of a re-toss in a pre-shot clock era. If they are over the toss limit, an automatic loss of first serve, not the warning. The clock is used for first violation, a warning. Just keep the eyes on this one for such open abuse by top players.
Murray has faked the toss many times, prior to the introduction of a shot clock. Below is a mail I sent to Barry Cowan, back in April of 2015. It was about a match between Murray and Nadal.

Date: Wed, 01 Apr 2015 13:24:35 +0100


"Murray wasn't saying that he didn't know the rule, he was asking how long he had taken. I suppose by saying, "so I go over once and get a violation", is in a way saying that he doesn't understand the rule, because as you have said, it should be applied to each and every player, every time they exceed the time limit. We know that in reality that is not the way it is used. I think if it was then matches would take longer rather than less. The smoke screen suggestion was, that it was brought into play to speed up matches. I think we all know that, that notion is a crock of ****.

When Murray asked Murphy how long he generally took, Murphy was a little flustered and it seemed as though he just plucked the numbers 22-23 seconds, from thin air. Even the caption on TV said that Murray's average time between points was 25 seconds, a figure I dispute because I had the numbers in front of me and my average at that point was 27 seconds. That 27 figure was only achieved by the occasional 20 seconds being thrown in, generally Murray was anywhere between 25 and 29 seconds and as I said 36 and 30 when at break point. I got the impression that Murray felt he was being unfairly treated, but the truth is he frequently, as do many others, goes over the time and nothing is said. Andy frequently tosses the ball and then lets it fall to the ground and restarts. He did that 12 times in one match. How many seconds does that add?

The question is, when do the umpires start timing. I apply the same rule for every player, i.e. I start timing immediately that the ball is dead. Does the umpire start when he calls the point, which can vary between 2 - 10 seconds, or does he like me time from when the ball is dead? Who knows? Then of course every umpire has their own way of doing it, which just makes the whole thing a farce."
 

ChaelAZ

Legend
When it's your favorite player who is the worst abuser of the rule, it becomes a "guideline."
If it were a player you hated, it would just become more proof of his "cheating" :rolleyes:

The shot clock is still started at the discretion of the umpire to account for factors like crowd noise.
Nope. I HATE Djo but have no problem with him playing within the guidelines as they are. Has nothing to do with players and everything to do with all I mentioned above about the sport and quality of match play.
 
Nope. I HATE Djo but have no problem with him playing within the guidelines as they are. Has nothing to do with players and everything to do with all I mentioned above about the sport and quality of match play.
W/r/t "the sport and quality of match play"...

What if a basketball player decided that he didn't need to dribble the ball anymore? That he'd prefer to run with the ball in his hands, as it put on more of a show for the fans.

What if he reasoned that "matches with dribbling are something not long in the memory of fans"? ;)

Would you cut him slack?
 
Top