tennisdad65
Hall of Fame
30 second shot clock.
Do you support a "shot clock"?
- Thread starter r2473
- Start date
VPhuc tennis fan
Professional
If I were an umpire, the first thing I say to the players is "I will call time violation every single time you trepass, no matter when, 1st point, 1st set, last point, last set". Didn't McEnroe get DQed at the end of his career one time because he didn't realize about the rule of penalty for abusive language, etc? He got penalized and lost the match, right? The funny thing is afterwards, he didn't complain too much since the umpire only upheld the rule as written.
Gary Duane
Talk Tennis Guru
10. Jo-Wilfried Tsonga: 1
That's a surprise to me, based on his match against Nishikori. But these figures are from 2013. I want to see figures from 2015.
Gary Duane
Talk Tennis Guru
It all depends on how much time there is after the clock is started. If you wait 5 seconds after the score is called, even when there is no noise, why not call the score immediately and give 5 more seconds?
Right now the score is called immediately when there is no noise, and when that happens most players are under 25 seconds. No problem. And that's in line with the ATP. But most players are often over 20 seconds, and it is not called.
If you have a 25 second rule which is started when the score is called, that gives players about 35 seconds after a really big point is played, because the crowd goes wild. It averages about 10 seconds before the ump can call out the score.
Next time you watch a really close match against two favorites, just pay attention to the interval between the end of the last point and the score being called out. I think you will find out that it averages to around 10 seconds, shorter when the crowd is less involved, longer when the crowd goes really wild.
The problem: I have not seen one player on the tour step up and serve while being heckled, or while chants go on. This includes Fed, who has never gotten a violation, right?
So the clock either needs to be stopped when there is excessive interference, or time needs to added. But if it's all visible, I don't see a problem there. It is unusual.
Gary Duane
Talk Tennis Guru
I think JMac thought he would not get the DQ until another violation. He miscalculated. But if anyone deserved a DQ, JMac did.
vive le beau jeu !
Talk Tennis Guru
Bartelby
Bionic Poster
Yes, Nadal and Duane are trapped in a level far below post-conventional.
The continuous play rule is interpreted post-conventionally.
You don't get punished every time, as when you miss a line, but you get punished 'with a slap over the wrist' in the hope that you'll go away and modify your service and then play within the rules.
The rule obviously assumes too much maturity, so the immature may do better with a shot clock that those who are themselves immature suggest.
It would however spoil the game as a spectacle for the viewer in a way that immature players could never do.
The continuous play rule is interpreted post-conventionally.
You don't get punished every time, as when you miss a line, but you get punished 'with a slap over the wrist' in the hope that you'll go away and modify your service and then play within the rules.
The rule obviously assumes too much maturity, so the immature may do better with a shot clock that those who are themselves immature suggest.
It would however spoil the game as a spectacle for the viewer in a way that immature players could never do.
this thread:
Gary Duane
Talk Tennis Guru
I'd be curious to know if anyone else here understands this blather.
Right. A monitor with 30 seconds will spoil the game.
Bartelby
Bionic Poster
Players learn to serve within the rules and internalise it because they want to stay within the spirit of the game.
Nadal does not to elevate himself to that level, but wants to get away with it and only conforms when punished.
And then turns around and is affronted that he is punished.
This is the very definition of immaturity on display: I'll only obey the rule if someone is watching.
This also makes it clear why continuous play is not a rule like a line calling.
The umpires aren't instructed to punish every infraction so they are, so to speak, not always looking aka punishing.
Nadal does not to elevate himself to that level, but wants to get away with it and only conforms when punished.
And then turns around and is affronted that he is punished.
This is the very definition of immaturity on display: I'll only obey the rule if someone is watching.
This also makes it clear why continuous play is not a rule like a line calling.
The umpires aren't instructed to punish every infraction so they are, so to speak, not always looking aka punishing.
tennisdad65
Hall of Fame
What about bad tosses? Should the shot clock reset with a bad toss? or a bad toss losses you the point if you cannot pick it up and serve within 30 seconds? or an additional 10 seconds for a bad toss? 
Bartelby
Bionic Poster
The logic of a shot clock precludes re-setting in principle, but a bad toss is the fault of the server so it shouldn't be taken into account unlike, say, crowd noise which presents a bigger problem.
With respect to that it could be argued that the server just has to learn to live with noise as the time limit is the absolute master of his actions.
With respect to that it could be argued that the server just has to learn to live with noise as the time limit is the absolute master of his actions.
mightyrick
Legend
You have it completely backwards. The rule doesn't assume maturity of the player. It assumes equal and fair application by the chair umpire. Well, that doesn't work. Umpires are human. They aren't robots. The umpires themselves even hated the rule where they had "no discretion". You can go look at videos of umpires talking to players on court saying that they think the rule is bad, but they don't allow for discretion.
When your own chair umpires (who are there to enforce the rules) disagree with the rule definition, there is a problem.
It took the single worst chair-umpired game in the history of tennis to force the ATP/ITF to get hawkeye implemented permanently. (For those who remember Serena Williams/Capriati match?) The subjectivity of line calling was largely taken out of the equation. Tennis is better for it. More correct calls are being made than ever before.
There is nothing wrong at all with taking the subjectivity out of a serve clock. All it will do is improve the speed of play and ensure that the rules are fairly enforced -- just like when hawkeye was implemented.
You are arguing using the exact same as the people who didn't want hawkeye at all. Now, you don't hear from any of those people anymore. Because there are so many blown calls that have been corrected... it is obvious that there is a problem. The "honor system" of calling lines was stupid -- especially with technology there to address the problem.
Tennis needs more of that. It will only make it better.
iceman_dl6
Professional
Absolutely! It should be black or white so that it's equal treatment for everybody.
I don't care if the warning is at triple match point, against, given the number of times he threw the ball up to serve, getting warned ONCE is not getting "hammered," in any way, shape, or form. And, I repeat, when you're a recidivist, you should NOT get the benefit of the doubt(and he already does, to the detriment of the sport).
Bartelby
Bionic Poster
The time violation rule is designed to correct, not punish.
The umpires were reluctant to enforce it because previously it was essentially a question of the honour of the player concerned to learn to play within the rule.
Then along comes a group of players who want to take as much time as they like, so the honour system is out the window.
They decide then to weaken the penalty and back the umpires to penalise more frequently, but there is still no question of every infraction of being penalised.
Nadal does not change and is penalised and then complains. The penalty is trivial so he should take it as the price he pays for doing what he likes.
But no Nadal decides to try to get umpires removed who enforce the rule and succeeds.
A shameful act.
The umpires were reluctant to enforce it because previously it was essentially a question of the honour of the player concerned to learn to play within the rule.
Then along comes a group of players who want to take as much time as they like, so the honour system is out the window.
They decide then to weaken the penalty and back the umpires to penalise more frequently, but there is still no question of every infraction of being penalised.
Nadal does not change and is penalised and then complains. The penalty is trivial so he should take it as the price he pays for doing what he likes.
But no Nadal decides to try to get umpires removed who enforce the rule and succeeds.
A shameful act.
Well, sort of, in his autobiography he also admitted that he knew that umps were reluctant to DQ players in general, and stars in particular, and thus pushed things, but before that AO Open-which, of course, is early in the year-they had changed the order from 4 warnings(I think, warning, point penalty, game penalty, match, don't remember the exact language, but it used to be 4 steps, that much I'm sure about) to only 3, so he thought he had "a foul to give," only he got a rude awakening. Actually, youtube shows what happened(the mouth protection was a baaaaad look, John. Didn't know he was up 2 sets to 1 and a break, even dumber):
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-_2rjocv-Jo
And they're only penalizing Nadal a friggin' serve, ohhhhh, the horror! It's like when I heard Pova and Aza sniff that they weren't gonna change their shrieking no matter what. Something tells me a DQ would change that attitude right quick...
Last edited:
Bartelby
Bionic Poster
Hawkeye is there to call a line.
When a linesman calls incorrectly it's not because he does not bother to call them, as with the time violation, but because he does not believe the ball to be out.
A linesman is an observational instrument with a margin of error.
There is no subjectivity involved with the linesman.
Hawkeye is an observational instrument with a much smaller margin of error.
That is all.
When a linesman calls incorrectly it's not because he does not bother to call them, as with the time violation, but because he does not believe the ball to be out.
A linesman is an observational instrument with a margin of error.
There is no subjectivity involved with the linesman.
Hawkeye is an observational instrument with a much smaller margin of error.
That is all.
mightyrick
Legend
You aren't making any sense. The rule by its nature will punish the player if they violate it. With increased violations, you get increased punishment. Stop playing the semantics. We all are mature enough to understand what a rule does.
There's nothing correct about a rule which is not able to be fairly enforced. It has nothing to do with "honor". Please show in the ATP or ITF rules of tennis where it says this. I could care less about Nadal or anybody else in this argument. Clearly you do, which is why you are so passionate about this stance.
You are not making any rational argument. You say that you want the rules to be followed but you are not willing to adopt a simple system which would be completely fair and accurate to all players. This is evidence that you actually don't care about the rule or its enforcement... only about a certain player who you dislike.
All players should be guaranteed that the rules of the game will be enforced equally. It is a protection for players on both side of the net. That doesn't only go for the time violation rule. That goes for all rules in tennis.
A serve clock solves all of the problems you are talking about. Every single one of them. Yet you are still against it. I wonder why?
Gary Duane
Talk Tennis Guru
That really gets to the point. There is a rule, X number of seconds until a violation. That rule can't be followed because a huge percentage of players would be losing serves left and right if the rule, as it is, were applied.
Which is exactly where we are now.
Don't forget that Hawkeye was not exactly universally embraced at the time that rule changed. In general, people don't like change. They except change only after the change has been made, and it turns out that things then seemed better.
That's the way I see it. First of all, the interval has to be sensible. It's pretty obvious that umps are not starting the timing at the end of the last point. Unfortunately we know nothing else for sure.
I will be interested to see what happens if Nadal is no longer a huge factor. If he is unable to make a huge come back, the focus will no longer be on him.
Bartelby
Bionic Poster
There is a continuous play rule with a specified number of seconds as a part of the definition of the general rule.
No where does it say that every violation must be called, so the rule itself is silent on that point.
From observation we can deduce that there is no requirement on the umpire to call every violation.
It could well be that there is a protocol that allows a player a certain number of transgressions and hence that is why violations come close to the end of a set.
Or perhaps a protocol that suggests a certain level of seriousness over a certain number of times.
We just don't know but bureaucracies being what they are there must be a protocol to protect umpires from allegations of bias.
Hawkeye is an observational system based on a binary logic of in/out. Time violations are judgement calls based on parameters and protocols.
It's a fairer system because machine would have limited situation awareness and hence the number of people who want a shot clock with discretion.
No where does it say that every violation must be called, so the rule itself is silent on that point.
From observation we can deduce that there is no requirement on the umpire to call every violation.
It could well be that there is a protocol that allows a player a certain number of transgressions and hence that is why violations come close to the end of a set.
Or perhaps a protocol that suggests a certain level of seriousness over a certain number of times.
We just don't know but bureaucracies being what they are there must be a protocol to protect umpires from allegations of bias.
Hawkeye is an observational system based on a binary logic of in/out. Time violations are judgement calls based on parameters and protocols.
It's a fairer system because machine would have limited situation awareness and hence the number of people who want a shot clock with discretion.
Rule itself is questionable.
It should not be strict 20 or 25 seconds from the end of previous point (over which player may not have control due to the crowd, balls not ready, opponent not ready or whatever) but 5 or 8 seconds strict from when player has been given the balls till the ball is in play.
Everything else is up to umpire's discretion. If the player delays time in whatever way (argues, does not go to baseline to serve) even for a second, umpire gives a violation warning or penalty. If the player does not serve within 5 sec time when everything is ready, he just loses the serve or point.
So yes, there should be a 5 or 8 seconds clock on court which is started by the umpire when player should be ready to play. Should be plenty of time to bounce the ball 3 times, or even for one missed toss.
It should not be strict 20 or 25 seconds from the end of previous point (over which player may not have control due to the crowd, balls not ready, opponent not ready or whatever) but 5 or 8 seconds strict from when player has been given the balls till the ball is in play.
Everything else is up to umpire's discretion. If the player delays time in whatever way (argues, does not go to baseline to serve) even for a second, umpire gives a violation warning or penalty. If the player does not serve within 5 sec time when everything is ready, he just loses the serve or point.
So yes, there should be a 5 or 8 seconds clock on court which is started by the umpire when player should be ready to play. Should be plenty of time to bounce the ball 3 times, or even for one missed toss.
okdude1992
Hall of Fame
Thank You! Bartleby completely missed it. He is in fact the one stuck on conventional morality, arguing that the rule should be followed as is, simply for the sake of it being a rule.
It truly is hilarious how similar this debate is to the hawkeye one. Only difference being, a shot clock would be a hell of a lot cheaper and easier to institute.
Russeljones
Talk Tennis Guru
With discretion, i.e. if the player has suffered a fall. Heat, dehydration and other symptoms of a lack of fitness should not be considered as meriting the umpire's discretion.
Hawkeye is also wrongly implemented btw. It should not be the player's business to care and complain about the bad line calls when umpire sits there with that stupid look "I am not sure, you can challenge if you want".
It is umpires job to judge the ball correctly. IF the umpire is not sure, he needs to use Hawkeye or whatever available technology himself. IF there is a situation when player needs to question umpire's decision and player is right, umpire should be penalised for not doing his job properly.
Same with the time delays. Continuous play is umpire's business and his problem to implement, be it organising the ball kids, quieting the crowd or giving warnings to slow players. Player's business is to serve when the umpire says "play".
Murrayjuannow
Banned
I vote for YES. This will benefit tennis immensely. Players then have to force themselves to study and learn proper aggressive tennis. To me, grinding players are "lazy" baseline players who do not want to study proper serve and volleys and flat hitting and how to take balls early. Young generations are learning less and less of the art of all court tennis.
Gary Duane
Talk Tennis Guru
Both players would have been pinged from the first point:
As I just wrote in another thread:
Neither were ever under 20 seconds. Rarely under 25 seconds, and just barely. Mostly between 25-30 seconds. Often over 30 seconds. Occasionally over 35.
By the middle of the 1st set both Nadal and Novak would have been losing serves. Not just 1st serves. Losing serves.
The rule was not even applied "with discretion". It was simply ignored. The chair umpire could not call violations. He did not dare. He would have been lynched.
Boom-Boom
Legend
Who cares? A rule is a rule. Like if you hit he ball in the net, you lose the point.
Gary Duane
Talk Tennis Guru
It is wrongly implemented in your opinion. Hawkeye, whether you like it or not, has gotten rid of the very worst line calls that used to be common. Now and then a player will not challenge when a call is wrong (although usually the call is very close), and sometimes a player runs out of challenges and can't challenge a bad call (back to the old days), but things are a lot better.
It can't be the umpire's business when he is asked to apply a rule that is impossible to apply. Again, in the Nadal/Novak match yesterday both players were over 30 seconds - a LOT. So you tell me how the umpire should have handled that, in a tight QF that was more like a normal F. It would have been a joke.
Gary Duane
Talk Tennis Guru
Just found out there was a violation called at 40/40, 4-5 to Nadal, first set. Now I'm really curious what the time was on that point, because I know for a fact that Novak was over 30 seconds on almost every point at 4-2, when he also had to contend with the sun.
I don't know what is worse, Nadal's ritualistic OCD touching or Novak's repetitive ball bouncing.
I don't know what is worse, Nadal's ritualistic OCD touching or Novak's repetitive ball bouncing.
r2473
G.O.A.T.
So you're suggesting that the player has to serve before the shot clock expires no matter if the crowd is interfering or not.
It makes sense, but like I said, as soon as the crowd figures this out, there will be a circus like atmosphere, similar to Davis Cup. Only difference is, they won't quiet down when the player goes to serve. The crowd will be part of the match like never before.
Personally, I don't see it working. I also don't see this as an improvement. It's not a good trade off for a slight increase in speed of play IMO.
newpball
Legend
I am not in favor of a shot clock, but we will have one I think the allowed 'recovery' time should depend on the length of the prior rally.
So after an ace or double fault the player would have to serve almost immediately while after a 24 shot rally he will be allowed more recovery time.
:grin:
So after an ace or double fault the player would have to serve almost immediately while after a 24 shot rally he will be allowed more recovery time.
:grin:
Bartelby
Bionic Poster
A rule is not a rule.
There are many types of rules.
The continuous play rule is not a net or line call rule.
There are many types of rules.
The continuous play rule is not a net or line call rule.
Bartelby
Bionic Poster
The reality is the continuous play rule, as currently interpreted, allows the umpire discretion for just such situations.
The intent of the rule is to speed up play and not penalise every infraction.
The intent of the rule is to speed up play and not penalise every infraction.
Bartelby
Bionic Poster
There are a few in the crowd even now who shout during the closing period of a set to put off the player they don't support while he is serving.
Gary Duane
Talk Tennis Guru
Here's how it goes:
4-2, 1st set of yesterday's match between Nadal and Djokovic:
I start checking after the first point, because you can't time the breaks very well. On even games they take between 40 and 50 second.
The rest:
9 points, average time of 32.6 seconds between service points.
5-4, Rafa serving: 14 points, average 31.8 seconds.
In other words, in the two most intense games, they are actually serving at the same pace.
But Nadal gets a violation at 40/40 in a game that he has to hold to save the set. When the violation is called it is 31 seconds.
Why then? That was an insane game with the crowd going wild. Several times the ump had to ask for quiet, prolonging points.
Those two games were noticeably slower than the others. Each player had one. But only one gets called.
4-2, 1st set of yesterday's match between Nadal and Djokovic:
I start checking after the first point, because you can't time the breaks very well. On even games they take between 40 and 50 second.
The rest:
9 points, average time of 32.6 seconds between service points.
5-4, Rafa serving: 14 points, average 31.8 seconds.
In other words, in the two most intense games, they are actually serving at the same pace.
But Nadal gets a violation at 40/40 in a game that he has to hold to save the set. When the violation is called it is 31 seconds.
Why then? That was an insane game with the crowd going wild. Several times the ump had to ask for quiet, prolonging points.
Those two games were noticeably slower than the others. Each player had one. But only one gets called.
Gary Duane
Talk Tennis Guru
The reality of the continous play rule, as currently interpreted, is that players can go over 30 seconds on almost any point and not get called. Or they can.
It has nothing to do with who is playing faster or slower. It is on the "feel" of the umpire, which can be very wrong.
I can agree with all of you who don't want a shot clock if we just get rid of the rule as it is, because when you actually time the players, the slow players play slow, and the fast players play fast. I can agree with Mustard: just let the players play. Or they can do something that actually speeds thing up. As it is Nadal and Novak just went back to doing what they have always done: slow play.
Nadal touches every part of his body for about 10 seconds, and Novak bounces the ball for about an extra 10 seconds.
Last edited:
Gary Duane
Talk Tennis Guru
Which is exactly what happened in the 1st set yesterday, when Nadal got the violation. Only he was not playing slower.
Bartelby
Bionic Poster
The fact is that it is the ATP that weakened its rule and strengthened its enforcement and the Slam is not an ATP event even if it has the same umpires.
The fact is that the Slams don't care much about the rule because they are four discrete events which have no interest in what happens the week after their event.
That's all your time keeping is finding.
The fact is that the Slams don't care much about the rule because they are four discrete events which have no interest in what happens the week after their event.
That's all your time keeping is finding.
newpball
Legend
Bad idea.
Rules should to be clear and exact.
It is actually easy as hawk-eye can already determine exactly how long a rally took, so all we need is a formula, something like:
base + log(rallytime) * factor = allowed time
where:
base = the minimum time allowed independent of the prior rally.
rallytime = is the total time the prior rally took. Log() ensures longer rallytimes are dampened as recovery time obviously should not be linear.
factor = is the factor add extra allowed time.
:grin:
Last edited:
Bartelby
Bionic Poster
Some rules should be clear and exact. Some should not.
Baking usually involves clear and exact rules, but cooking does not.
Judicial sentencing requires clear and exact parameters, but mandatory sentencing creates injustice.
Time violation is a rule where the punishment must fit the crime, which is why the punishment is so slight.
Baking usually involves clear and exact rules, but cooking does not.
Judicial sentencing requires clear and exact parameters, but mandatory sentencing creates injustice.
Time violation is a rule where the punishment must fit the crime, which is why the punishment is so slight.
Gary Duane
Talk Tennis Guru
No. My time-keeping shows that there is no standard. It's not just matter of when to throw violations. It's about why, and only the umps know what standard they are using.
It's all hidden.
It also shows that the #1 player and the former #1 player are both mostly left alone because it's too late to retrain them, but easier now to go after Nadal when his position in the world is no longer at the top.
Bartelby
Bionic Poster
I agree that it's all hidden but the fact is that infractions and their penalties are trivial so how much transparency is worth the price of a shot clock?
I'd suggest that there is no argument as yet for a shot clock on these grounds.
I'd suggest that there is no argument as yet for a shot clock on these grounds.
Last edited:
Bartelby
Bionic Poster
The amount of time has to be standard so that the player trains his body from early on to remain within the rules.
Some have trained their body to take to long, that's the problem.
Some have trained their body to take to long, that's the problem.
Gary Duane
Talk Tennis Guru
Ask any player hit with a violation at a key point in a match if he feels it is trivial.
I doubt that they would agree with you. This still does not answer the question of why player A, when playing at the pace of player B, gets hit with a violation when player B gets nothing.
To be clear, I don't think this is an conscious decision to gang up on a couple players. I think something different is happening. At the time the rule was put into place Nadal was most likely the slowest, and you can argue that he tends to get violations now because of his past record. He has become the poster boy for wasting time.
Nevertheless the rule is not being applied equally. You can continue to say that these violations are unimportant because they happen so infrequently, but doesn't this also mean that they have a very small impact on slow play for the same reason?
Maybe Novak now bounces the ball fewer times than he did at the slowest he played, but it's still very slow and noticeable. It does not appear that the rule has changed things much.
If the worst offenders are hardly penalized, and everyone else knows that they will not even be looked at because they are faster than the slowest, I don't see what is changed.
We can look at the average pace of all points, and maybe that's all we need because in the end the length of rallies turn out to average the same, year after year, but since no one is timing the average time between points, we don't really know what has changed.
All I know is that matches like the one I saw yesterday, Nadal and Novak, are painfully slow to watch on TV. The points themselves may be great, but waiting through the bouncing and the toweling and the feet wiping off marks and pulling back from every little noise makes the waiting longer than the points themselves.
Maybe I'm the only person who hates that, but I doubt it.
I look at matches from a few decades ago where a guy bounces the ball a couple times, sometimes once or not at all, serves, then immediately takes a ball out of his pocket and serves a 2nd serve - it just seems so much easier to watch.
I realize points are longer, but Fed at age 33 and almost 34 is still almost doing that. And other guys are like that. So it's not conditioning.
Similar threads
