Against the no-let rule

[Aabye5]

The NextGen ATP Finals features a no-let rule, where the point starts even if the ball just dribbles over the net.

People often compare this to a ball that hits the net during a regular rally, but it's fundamentally different. I had a coach that would say the serve is the only point that is completely within a player's control. Therefore, the server is at an advantage. In the pros, off of clay, this is arguably even more true.

In a rally, either player can benefit from the ball hitting the net, and you should generally be moving towards ball well before it hits the net. There's far more time to react and adjust. On the return, you have to start from a fixed point.

In short, why give the server yet another advantage by playing lets?

 

[Remioli]

Some people just really despise lets. I don't know why, but a lot of people rant about getting rid of them. I don't get it, because lets add maybe 90 seconds to a match. If anything a let should be a fault. You hit the net. Your fault. You should never get a free ace for hitting the net.

 

[Bartelby]

I completely agree that servers have the advantage so lets should not be played, BUT ALL LETS SHOULD BE CALLED AS FAULTS.

 

[junior74]

For the most part, especially on ATP level, the ball jumps high into the air and is easy to put away for the returner. Why give this advantage to him?

Let is good. Keep it as it is.

 

[Bartelby]

Let was good when a judge called it, but the automated calling is just annoying due to its sensitivity.

It also belongs to a time when tennis was played more quickly whereas now it's part of the big slowdown.

 

[Shaolin]

I love it. Play the lets out.

 

[Shaolin]

The NextGen ATP Finals features a no-let rule, where the point starts even if the ball just dribbles over the net.

People often compare this to a ball that hits the net during a regular rally, but it's fundamentally different. I had a coach that would say the serve is the only point that is completely within a player's control. Therefore, the server is at an advantage. In the pros, off of clay, this is arguably even more true.

In a rally, either player can benefit from the ball hitting the net, and you should generally be moving towards ball well before it hits the net. There's far more time to react and adjust. On the return, you have to start from a fixed point.

In short, why give the server yet another advantage by playing lets?

Serves that hit and dribble over happen very infrequently. It also even out by when the serve hits the net and pops up, giving the returner an advantage.

 

[Lleytonstation]

I love it. Play the lets out.

No one is making lets happen on purpose. Period. When lets do happen in the pros, it actually hurts the server. Hence, get the ball in the first time.

 

[Bartelby]

Serves that hit the net and dribble over are quite frequent at the club level and one rule for all would be useful.

 

[Shaolin]

Serves that hit the net and dribble over are quite frequent at the club level and one rule for all would be useful.

Disagree. I play matches 2-3x a week and it almost never happens. Maybe once every 4 sets.

 

[Bartelby]

You might have better or better-maintained nets.

Disagree. I play matches 2-3x a week and it almost never happens. Maybe once every 4 sets.

 

[InsuranceMan]

No lets makes sense in college or juniors to prevent cheating, but in the big leagues where they have the technologies and capacity to detect lets they should not be played.

 

[JMR]

In short, why give the server yet another advantage by playing lets?

It's surprising how often people return to the same mistaken framing of a rule-related issue.

The ultimate goal here is not to promote the Platonic ideal of perfectly calibrated competitive fairness for the players. The objective is to speed up play for the spectators and (especially) TV viewers. From that perspective -- the one that is actually driving the rule change experiment -- let serves are a useless waste of time. A micro-advantage that may or may not be conferred on the server, by calling lets or not calling them, is irrelevant.

And speeding up play involves more than just counting seconds or minutes. Many sports and entertainment fans today are impatient, with short attention spans. They can get put off by even brief delays if the dead time appears to have no function. Tennis doesn't want to forfeit such viewers. Abolishing lets is a simple form of "tidying up" that can help burnish the veneer of continuous action that is a key selling point today.

 

[jm1980]

The NextGen ATP Finals features a no-let rule, where the point starts even if the ball just dribbles over the net.

People often compare this to a ball that hits the net during a regular rally, but it's fundamentally different. I had a coach that would say the serve is the only point that is completely within a player's control. Therefore, the server is at an advantage. In the pros, off of clay, this is arguably even more true.

In a rally, either player can benefit from the ball hitting the net, and you should generally be moving towards ball well before it hits the net. There's far more time to react and adjust. On the return, you have to start from a fixed point.

In short, why give the server yet another advantage by playing lets?

In practice, way more serves are blunted by the netcord, giving the returner an advantage. Relatively few dribble over the net in pro tennis

All things considered, no lets benefit the returner more than the server

 

[jm1980]

Disagree. I play matches 2-3x a week and it almost never happens. Maybe once every 4 sets.

They are more frequent when the incoming serve is hit at a snail's pace and/or the netcord is not properly tensioned

 

[welcome2petrkordaland]

No lets makes sense in college or juniors to prevent cheating, but in the big leagues where they have the technologies and capacity to detect lets they should not be played.

Like Bartelby said, tech. is way too sensitive at pro level. Pros outright laugh at some of the ridiculous auto. lets called and they’re not able to be challenged..

 

[welcome2petrkordaland]

It's surprising how often people return to the same mistaken framing of a rule-related issue.

The ultimate goal here is not to promote the Platonic ideal of perfectly calibrated competitive fairness for the players. The objective is to speed up play for the spectators and (especially) TV viewers. From that perspective -- the one that actually driving the rule change experiment -- let serves are a useless waste of time. A micro-advantage that may or may not be conferred on the server, by calling lets or not calling them, is irrelevant.

And speeding up play involves more than just counting seconds or minutes. Many sports and entertainment fans today are impatient, with short attention spans. They can get put off by even brief delays if the dead time appears to have no function. Tennis doesn't want to forfeit such viewers. Abolishing lets is a simple form of "tidying up" that can help burnish the veneer of continuous action that is a key selling point today.

It definitely makes sense not to forfeit any more tennis viewers given the rise of pickelball.

 

[Shaolin]

They are more frequent when the incoming serve is hit at a snail's pace and/or the netcord is not properly tensioned

I agree.

You do see them a little more on grass too since the net posts are fixed into dirt not concrete.

Still the benefits of playing out the lets far exceed the occasional rare dribble over ace.

 

[RSJfan]

I’m against the four games is a set rule. It’s a half measure. It should be one game per set. Let’s keep this thing moving along.

 

[Better_Call_Raul]

In short, why give the server yet another advantage by playing lets?

Playing out the service lets will give no significant advantage to either server or returner. If anything, perhaps a slight advantage to the returner.
What does the match data from the NextGen ATP Finals show?

 

[RSJfan]

Playing out the service lets will give no significant advantage to either server or returner. If anything, perhaps a slight advantage to the returner.
What does the match data from the NextGen ATP Finals show?

Classic Dr. Raul:

Makes a sweeping definitive statement. Then asks someone else to dig up data to support it.

 

[Bill Lobsalot]

The answer is...don't hit the net cord.

 

[Aabye5]

It's surprising how often people return to the same mistaken framing of a rule-related issue.

The ultimate goal here is not to promote the Platonic ideal of perfectly calibrated competitive fairness for the players. The objective is to speed up play for the spectators and (especially) TV viewers. From that perspective -- the one that is actually driving the rule change experiment -- let serves are a useless waste of time. A micro-advantage that may or may not be conferred on the server, by calling lets or not calling them, is irrelevant.

And speeding up play involves more than just counting seconds or minutes. Many sports and entertainment fans today are impatient, with short attention spans. They can get put off by even brief delays if the dead time appears to have no function. Tennis doesn't want to forfeit such viewers. Abolishing lets is a simple form of "tidying up" that can help burnish the veneer of continuous action that is a key selling point today.

Why don't just make the net smaller, curve it, make the ball bigger and limit the matches to 90 minutes?

Imagine that will draw a lot more fans, especially if we put all the NextGen on the court at the same time.

What people who say 'speed up the game' seem to miss is that people who like pickleball often don't care about tennis.

 

[Better_Call_Raul]

Makes a sweeping definitive statement.

This statement is based on thousands of matches played. The service let more often results in a slower easier ball for the returner.
No reason to believe that this does not apply to all levels of play.

Frequency of service lets at the ATP: Average of six service lets per match. Lets occur almost always on the first serve. Lets rarely occur on the second serve.

Gentle readers would be wise to note that lets rarely occur on second serve because pros aim high over the net on second serves.

https://www.tennisabstract.com/blog/2016/10/21/the-pointlessness-of-playing-the-lets/

The Match Charting Project has tracked lets in most of the 2,500-plus matches it has logged. Thus, we have some real-life data on the frequency of service lets.
The average men’s match had six first-serve lets and fewer than one (0.875) second-serve let.
Women’s matches are similar: Of the typical 139 points, there were 4.5 first-serve lets and 0.8 second-serve lets.

 

[JMR]

Why don't just make the net smaller, curve it, make the ball bigger and limit the matches to 90 minutes?

Reductio ad absurdum arguments in this context are generally just weak attempts to pretend that all changes to the game are equivalent.

Abolishing the let would provide modest efficiency benefits at virtually no cost. The introduction of the tiebreak was a far more dramatic, disruptive change. Many people argued back in the 1970s that the essence of tennis required the opportunity to have 14-12 set scores. We've seen where that debate ended.

No-ad scoring has been debated for years, and attempted occasionally. World Team Tennis employed it back in the league's heyday. It was neither an undeniable triumph nor a terrible disaster. It was simply ... different. But again, getting rid of lets would be a pipsqueak change compared to that.

The U.S. Open changed early-round men's matches to best-of-three for several years in the mid-'70s. It wouldn't be a big surprise to see this idea revived in the future.

As for making the ball bigger, exactly that occurred in table tennis about a quarter of a century ago. After using a 38 mm ball for practically the entire history of the sport, the switch to a 40 mm ball was mandated. We all adjusted. Games were also reduced from 21 points to 11, typically making matches shorter, even with more games.

 

[socallefty]

Maybe there are others who will watch more tennis if the rules are changed to make matches shorter. In my case, I don’t like Fast 4 sets, no ad scoring, match TBs instead of a third set etc. as it just seems like I’m not watching the sport of tennis, but some bastardized new sport. I watch much less ATP doubles than I used to once they went to no-ad and match TBs - it seems like a high % of matches between two good teams goes to a match TB and the outcome seems somewhat random to me. I haven’t watched the NextGen finals even though I like to watch young stars on their way up because of the Fast 4 abomination.

For me as a fan, I don’t need abolition of lets, I don’t need service clocks etc. After a long rally, I would like the players to take their time, then hit a good serve and play another good point rather than hurrying them to play which might result in a lower caliber point.

All the sports popular in the US like the NFL, college football, NBA, MLB baseball have tons of breaks between action in the form of timeouts, long pauses between plays, pitchers warming up etc., each game lasts 2-3 hours and yet they get tons of fans who enjoy the sport both live and on TV. All these sports have adopted a lot of stats and fantasy leagues which also attract a new generation of fans. Tennis is better off following their example.

 

[Aabye5]

Maybe there are others who will watch more tennis if the rules are changed to make matches shorter. In my case, I don’t like Fast 4 sets, no ad scoring, match TBs instead of a third set etc. as it just seems like I’m not watching the sport of tennis, but some bastardized new sport. I watch much less ATP doubles than I used to once they went to no-ad and match TBs - it seems like a high % of matches between two good teams goes to a match TB and the outcome seems somewhat random to me. I haven’t watched the NextGen finals even though I like to watch young stars on their way up because of the Fast 4 abomination.

For me as a fan, I don’t need abolition of lets, I don’t need service clocks etc. After a long rally, I would like the players to take their time, then hit a good serve and play another good point rather than hurrying them to play which might result in a lower caliber point.

All the sports popular in the US like the NFL, college football, NBA, MLB baseball have tons of breaks between action in the form of timeouts, long pauses between plays, pitchers warming up etc., each game lasts 2-3 hours and yet they get tons of fans who enjoy the sport both live and on TV. All these sports have adopted a lot of stats and fantasy leagues which also attract a new generation of fans. Tennis is better off following their example.

Exactly.

Does getting rid of the let, encourage more fans to watch or just annoy fans who already watch? Appealing to people who may not watch, regardless of the changes is a big risk if you alienate your existing fanbase.

 

[Aabye5]

Reductio ad absurdum arguments in this context are generally just weak attempts to pretend that all changes to the game are equivalent.

Abolishing the let would provide modest efficiency benefits at virtually no cost. The introduction of the tiebreak was a far more dramatic, disruptive change. Many people argued back in the 1970s that the essence of tennis required the opportunity to have 14-12 set scores. We've seen where that debate ended.

No-ad scoring has been debated for years, and attempted occasionally. World Team Tennis employed it back in the league's heyday. It was neither an undeniable triumph nor a terrible disaster. It was simply ... different. But again, getting rid of lets would be a pipsqueak change compared to that.

The U.S. Open changed early-round men's matches to best-of-three for several years in the mid-'70s. It wouldn't be a big surprise to see this idea revived in the future.

As for making the ball bigger, exactly that occurred in table tennis about a quarter of a century ago. After using a 38 mm ball for practically the entire history of the sport, the switch to a 40 mm ball was mandated. We all adjusted. Games were also reduced from 21 points to 11, typically making matches shorter, even with more games.

And everybody is watching table tennis now?

 

[vokazu]

For the most part, especially on ATP level, the ball jumps high into the air and is easy to put away for the returner. Why give this advantage to him?

Let is good. Keep it as it is.

They have the choice to hit a low bouncing serve, why do they have to serve with high bounce?

On the other hand players don't have the choice to ask the ball to hit the net cord when serving.

 

[junior74]

They have the choice to hit a low bouncing serve, why do they have to serve with high bounce?

On the other hand players don't have the choice to ask the ball to hit the net cord when serving.

I meant when the ball hits the net cord and goes up into the air

In high level tennis, the ball really seldom falls dead into the box. Most of the time it goes 4 metres up into the air and lands somewhere on the retriever's side of the net.

 

[thrust]

I love it. Play the lets out.

I AGREE!

 

[vokazu]

I meant when the ball hits the net cord and goes up into the air

In high level tennis, the ball really seldom falls dead into the box. Most of the time it goes 4 metres up into the air and lands somewhere on the retriever's side of the net.

They need to learn how to hit a low bouncing slice serve.

 

[junior74]

They need to learn how to hit a low bouncing slice serve.

I'm sure it would force changes. Who knows, it might be good?
But I'm a traditionalist. The old, almost bizarre rules and scoring systems is a huge part of the game. No ad, no tennis.

 

[RSJfan]

This statement is based on …

This is kind of first person drivel you should be posting and not your usual scheme to try to dupe some hapless TTW member into doing your homework for you.

 

[LOBALOT]

I do not like the "No Let" rule in college tennis. All this stuff about big servers don't get dribbles over the net is bogus bs. I see plenty hop up and dribble over.

I do like the idea a few a you have that say call it a missed serve vs. calling lets and I guess you can convince me of that except next people will complain about a serve that glances the net cord and goes in.

I guess I am old school but I see no issue is the old school standard ruling on lets. There aren't that many and it doesn't add any time to a tennis match.

Too many people try to insert their funky logic into a sport that has been around forever.

 

[jxs653]

ALL LETS SHOULD BE CALLED AS FAULTS.

I agree with this. Having two chances per serve is already a luxury.

 

[mtommer]

And speeding up play involves more than just counting seconds or minutes. Many sports and entertainment fans today are impatient, with short attention spans. They can get put off by even brief delays if the dead time appears to have no function. Tennis doesn't want to forfeit such viewers. Abolishing lets is a simple form of "tidying up" that can help burnish the veneer of continuous action that is a key selling point today.

Are you also for getting rid of 2nd serves? Many racquet sports only have one serve.

 

[Shaolin]

I do not like the "No Let" rule in college tennis. All this stuff about big servers don't get dribbles over the net is bogus bs. I see plenty hop up and dribble over.

I do like the idea a few a you have that say call it a missed serve vs. calling lets and I guess you can convince me of that except next people will complain about a serve that glances the net cord and goes in.

I guess I am old school but I see no issue is the old school standard ruling on lets. There aren't that many and it doesn't add any time to a tennis match.

Too many people try to insert their funky logic into a sport that has been around forever.

There are lots of them and they add a ton of time to matches. You are the one inserting funky logic. History has shown that just because something is ''tradition'' doesnt make it right.

Im sure lots of people like you whined about the invention of the TB and now everyone loves them and looks forward to them.

 

[jxs653]

History has shown that just because something is ''tradition'' doesnt make it right.

This is very true.

 

[Bartelby]

The second serve adds variety and interest, but playing a let allows for too much chance. Lets should be faulted.

Are you also for getting rid of 2nd serves? Many racquet sports only have one serve.

 

[Shaolin]

The second serve adds variety and interest, but playing a let allows for too much chance. Lets should be faulted.

That's never going to happen. Playing lets on the other hand adds an element of excitement to a match and also speeds up play a huge amount. Win/win.

 

[Bartelby]

If that's the only option I'd rather stay as we are.

That's never going to happen. Playing lets on the other hand adds an element of excitement to a match and also speeds up play a huge amount. Win/win.

 

[tudwell]

Not sure about calling lets as faults. Players already dispute let calls, and the machines that call them obviously have to have some kind of error rate, so the players are sometimes right. I don't think they'll take it well when a serve that they saw (and the camera may even show) several inches above the net gets called as a let and therefore a fault (especially if it was an ace on an important point). Playing lets is simpler because it takes out one more point of judgment and disagreement. The only thing that would then determine whether the serve is valid or a fault is the lines of the service box.

I'm not, like, a crusader for playing lets by any means, but if it's a change we can make that will help stave off true abominations like no-ad scoring, then I'm all for it.

 

[TennisBro]

In short, why give the server yet another advantage by playing lets?

My take is that 1) it is to make the player on receiving end more agressive with a split step forward 2) it is to save time for the organizers

 

[LOBALOT]

There are lots of them and they add a ton of time to matches. You are the one inserting funky logic. History has shown that just because something is ''tradition'' doesnt make it right.

Im sure lots of people like you whined about the invention of the TB and now everyone loves them and looks forward to them.

They don't add that much time. There are way more important things to address with tennis then lets.

Again, I love when young kids pop here and say stuff like "everybody loves". Who heck are you to speak for everybody?

What gives you this authority to speak for everybody and how did come to this conclusion?

 

[STRONGSTYLE]

It's surprising how often people return to the same mistaken framing of a rule-related issue.

The ultimate goal here is not to promote the Platonic ideal of perfectly calibrated competitive fairness for the players. The objective is to speed up play for the spectators and (especially) TV viewers. From that perspective -- the one that is actually driving the rule change experiment -- let serves are a useless waste of time. A micro-advantage that may or may not be conferred on the server, by calling lets or not calling them, is irrelevant.

And speeding up play involves more than just counting seconds or minutes. Many sports and entertainment fans today are impatient, with short attention spans. They can get put off by even brief delays if the dead time appears to have no function. Tennis doesn't want to forfeit such viewers. Abolishing lets is a simple form of "tidying up" that can help burnish the veneer of continuous action that is a key selling point today.

How much time is actually saved with the no lets? At most, a couple of minutes a match—not a must result for drastically changing the rules of the sport. Instead of talking about changing rules to speed up the game, how about first actually enforcing the rules tennis does have? It's bizarre the obsession people have with lets, as if it's going to have any effect on the pace of the game when players are purposely time-wasting at every opportunity.

 

[LOBALOT]

How much time is actually saved with the no lets? At most, a couple of minutes a match—not a must result for drastically changing the rules of the sport. Instead of talking about changing rules to speed up the game, how about first actually enforcing the rules tennis does have? It's bizarre the obsession people have with lets, as if it's going to have any effect on the pace of the game when players are purposely time-wasting at every opportunity.

I agree. That is my point entirely. There are guys out here with an agenda and think they know what they are talking about.

There are so many more bigger fish to fry with tennis like consistent application of doping rules and the like.

 

[Spencer Gore]

It ain't broke. No need to fix it.

 

[JMR]

There are guys out here with an agenda ...

There are so many more bigger fish to fry with tennis like consistent application of doping rules and the like.

LOL. Talk about projection.

 

[JMR]

How much time is actually saved with the no lets?

You disregarded the second paragraph of my post, which observed that it's not just about efficiency -- it's also about the appearance of efficiency, which can make game play more attractive.

At most, a couple of minutes a match—not a must result for drastically changing the rules of the sport.

"Drastically"? That's absurd. It's a minor change. It's already the case in tennis that most shots that hit the net and go in must be played. We would simply be extending that rule from regular rallies to the serve.

As I also pointed out in this thread, the introduction of the tiebreak was a far more radical change, and it (a) was implemented over the objections of diehard traditionalists, and (b) improved the sport.