Do you support a "shot clock"?
- Thread starter r2473
- Start date
Gary Duane
Talk Tennis Guru
That makes no sense. As I said, both players were playing at the same pace. If you define playing slower as cheating - which I do not agree with - then your position makes perfect sense just a couple years ago. I won't argue that point.
But what does this supposed cheating have to do with yesterday, when IF playing too slow is cheating, both players were then cheating by the same amount?
That's a strange thing to say when the exact same happened in this slam as happened in a couple M1000s, and also to Murray (the incident of waiting until the replay monitor to serve).
Do you agree that Murray deserved a warning for that? Because I absolutely do not.
I think your hate of Nadal is what is driving your points here. If I presented the same facts in regard to someone you like I think you would have a very different opinion.
I'm telling you for a fact that I would never want to see Novak get hit with a violation in a key point that could possibly change the result in a set, especially in a slam. He has never been my favorite player to watch, but the thought that unfair officiating could even possibly block a possible 3 or 4 slam year would seem to me a horrible thing.
After thinking about the whole thing a great deal I finally realized that I understand why a few very smart people would rather see the rule dropped altogether.
But I'd rather see the slow play reformed, but in a way that is transparent. To me that means informing players early just what the rules are, warning them early, then sticking to it. I don't see how to do that without the players knowing clearly how fast they are playing and proving it to them.
I'm not supporting a huge clock, with sounds, colors, another garish techno invasion. Just a small monitor next to the service speed monitor, which most people don't even see unless they choose to look at it. Use any system you like. Start it at the end of the last point (not the best). Start it the moment the score is called, and by the way that can add up to 15 seconds when the crowd goes nuts. Simply make it transparent how many seconds is over the limit. By all means give the umpire the freedom to override the clock when there are obvious interferences - which is the same freedom they now have.
But at least we could see who is stalling. With a display (which is what I really mean) it would be absolutely apparent which players are over the most. Then if it really is Nadal, still, throw the book at him. But also do it to anyone else who refuses to play faster.
TheTruth
G.O.A.T.
I don't like the rule at all. It was never enforced back in the day. This sudden need to enforce it does not make sense to me. Period. I agree with Mustard. And if they want to implement it, apply the rules fairly. As it is, it is incredibly flawed.
Gary Duane
Talk Tennis Guru
But I don't disagree with you, and I'll tell you why: slow play irritates me. That doesn't mean it irritates you, and it doesn't prove it is bad for tennis.
However, if the game needs to be sped up, there are better ways to do it than what is going on now.
Bartelby
Bionic Poster
Slow play is annoying.
A shot clock with discretion adds the human element that the shot clock is intended to remove.
I don't mind if the USO gets a shot clock given that it fits better with the particular character of its sporting culture.
A serious trial of a clock might be interesting and my bet is that it either shifts the problem or creates new ones.
No tournament director seems keen to trial it and we did trial blue clay!
A shot clock with discretion adds the human element that the shot clock is intended to remove.
I don't mind if the USO gets a shot clock given that it fits better with the particular character of its sporting culture.
A serious trial of a clock might be interesting and my bet is that it either shifts the problem or creates new ones.
No tournament director seems keen to trial it and we did trial blue clay!
Tennis_Hands
Banned
Too mature for the majority to understand.
At least for the majority in this thread, it seems.
Gary Duane
Talk Tennis Guru
OK. We agree on that. Perhaps you are extremely annoyed by Nadal's rituals, which also drive me crazy, and perhaps almost as much at the incessant ball bouncing of Novak. I want to make it very clear that I there is nothing about the top players that I strongly dislike. The fact that Nadal might get "coaching" doesn't bother me a bit because I don't think it makes a damned bit of difference. The fact that Novak looks at his camp (when once upon a time there WAS no camp) and gestures like cross five year-old does not bother me, because I essentially like the man, off court, and think he is a very good human being. I feel much the same about Murray. He also pouts like a five year-old, very dramatic, but after seeing the documentary about him I found I rather like him.
He is also slow.
Fed, who has the game I most like, off court is a diplomat, but I have to say that I wonder if he has had a really bad day in his life. I like him the least of the "Big Four".
I'm quite happy to watch all of the play, but Fed is the only one I can watch in real time, without my finger on the fast forward button between points.
I don't object to the human element. In fact, after observing what is going on, I have more respect for the umpires, who have a very difficult job.
I think the umpires have been put in an impossible position by a ridiculous rule, and they have actually done a good job. What they are doing is taking a bad rule, in the slams 20 seconds, and trying to fix that bad rule on the fly. They are calling out the score as late as possible, when things get really exciting and tense, in an effort to pad the 20 second rule in a way that works.
The quick players take about 15 second to serve after the score is called out, sometimes even less, so people like Fed may be at the 30 second mark when they serve, but a full 15 seconds goes by until the crowd even begins to settle, and often there are additional shouts or heckles. We all know that Fed is not the problem.
For the umpires the problems are players like Nadal and Novak, and I stress Novak because he is #1 in the world. It would not make sense to publicly humiliate Novak, when he is a bit faster than Nadal but slower than just about everyone else, when he could win the FO and is en route for a 2 or 3 slam year - or possibly a CYGS.
My position at this time - which may chance (rigid and inflexible as I am!) - is that the time limit as it is right now needs to be changed in two directions. Either get rid of it and leave the slow players alone, or refine it so that it works better.
I don't really care so much about a visible time display. I would be content if the ATP and ITF would simply agree on what actually happens when top players are competing at a reasonable pace.
Simply figure out how fast the players REALLY play - don't use some kind of intellectual modal that does not reflect reality - and then make that the norm.
Right now 20 seconds after the crowd quiets down is pretty close to the norm. Or maybe 25 seconds. Start there, then make that the standard.
Then tweak it in the future.
But for God's sake, don't tell the umpires to enforce 20 seconds after the last point, at a slam, when NO ONE is playing at that speed, and no one should.
Last edited:
Gary Duane
Talk Tennis Guru
OK. We agree on that. Perhaps you are extremely annoyed by Nadal's rituals, which also drive me crazy, and perhaps almost as much at the incessant ball bouncing of Novak. I want to make it very clear that I there is nothing about the top players that I strongly dislike. The fact that Nadal might get "coaching" doesn't bother me a bit because I don't think it makes a damned bit of difference. The fact that Novak looks at his camp (when once upon a time there WAS not camp) and gestures like a cross five year-old does not bother me, because I essentially like the man, off court, and think he is a very good human being. I feel much the same about Murray. He also pouts like a five year-old, very dramatic, but after seeing the documentary about him I found I rather like him.
He is also slow.
Fed, who has the game I most like, off court is a diplomat, but I have to say that I wonder if he has had a really bad day in his life. I like him the least of the "Big Four".
I'm quite happy to watch all of them play, but Fed is the only one I can watch in real time, without my finger on the fast forward button between points.
I don't object to the human element. In fact, after observing what is going on, I have more respect for the umpires, who have a very difficult job.
I think the umpires have been put in an impossible position by a ridiculous rule, and they have actually done a good job. What they are doing is taking a bad rule, in the slams 20 seconds, and trying to fix that bad rule on the fly. They are calling out the score as late as possible, when things get really exciting and tense, in an effort to pad the 20 second rule in a way that works.
The quick players take about 15 seconds to serve after the score is called out, sometimes even less, so people like Fed may be at the 30 second mark when they serve, but a full 15 seconds goes by until the crowd even begins to settle, and often there are additional shouts or heckles. We all know that Fed is not the problem.
For the umpires the problems are players like Nadal and Novak, and I stress Novak because he is #1 in the world. It would not make sense to publicly humiliate Novak, when he is a bit faster than Nadal but slower than just about everyone else, when he could win the FO and is en route for a 2 or 3 slam year - or possibly a CYGS.
My position at this time - which may change (rigid and inflexible as I am!) - is that the time limit as it is right now needs to be changed in two directions. Either get rid of it and leave the slow players alone, or refine it so that it works better.
I don't really care so much about a visible time display. I would be content if the ATP and ITF would simply agree on what actually happens when top players are competing at a reasonable pace.
Simply figure out how fast the players REALLY play - don't use some kind of intellectual modal that does not reflect reality - and then make that the norm.
Right now 20 seconds after the crowd quiets down is pretty close to the norm. Or maybe 25 seconds. Start there, then make that the standard.
Then tweak it in the future.
But for God's sake, don't tell the umpires to enforce 20 seconds after the last point, at a slam, when NO ONE is playing at that speed, and no one should.
I don't mind if the USO gets a shot clock given that it fits better with the particular character of its sporting culture.
And I don't disagree. Every time there is a change it needs to be tested and evaluated. Hawkeye had huge problems in the beginning, and even now it has a built in error. The question is whether or not it does better than human sight (lines people) and if it has cut down on serious errors.
My idea of a shot clock is not some kind of noisy, "American" contraption that draws attention to itself. I'm thinking only of some kind of quiet display that allows us to see what is going.
I'm not against the idea of scrapping timing altogether. But it would most likely make tennis slower again, which I think is a bad trend. I just don't want a system that is arbitrary and unevenly enforced. To say that players have 20 seconds, then to finally take away a serve or point when they are well over 30 seconds, and usually over 35 seconds, makes a mockery of the whole thing.
Last edited:
Gary Duane
Talk Tennis Guru
I think we all agree on the concept of "continuous play". The problem is how to make it happen.
Draw the line and enforce it without exception.Ok make it 30 seconds but as soon as they go to 31 seconds a loss of the point.Not a warning or loss of first serve.Watch em go.
His veto wont be effective if its across the board will it?He doesnt hold as much sway anymore and will hold none shortly.Passport seems to also coincide with cracking down on time.They made him and now that he's no longer needed they'll break him.
TheTruth
G.O.A.T.
The reason it doesn't bother me is because I see all of the players playing at their own pace. I don't care, since it's always been a part of the game. The faux outrage is silly to me.
I don't want them running back to the baseline out of breath for the sake of a silly rule. I think it's ruining the game. I've been watching tennis too long to take this seriously.
Bartelby
Bionic Poster
They usually get to the baseline on time, it's what they do afterwards that's the problem.
The toweling usually fits into the time waiting for the balls to arrive and then ...
It's ritualised behaviour that is the main problem: close inspection of up to four balls, tapping of the ball on the racquet, endless tweaking and fidgeting, endless bouncing of the ball on the racquet and if anything goes wrong it's back to that point once again. It's somewhat neurotic behaviour brought on by the anxiety of beginning.
Rarely is a time violation due to a player needing more time due to long rally fatigue.
The toweling usually fits into the time waiting for the balls to arrive and then ...
It's ritualised behaviour that is the main problem: close inspection of up to four balls, tapping of the ball on the racquet, endless tweaking and fidgeting, endless bouncing of the ball on the racquet and if anything goes wrong it's back to that point once again. It's somewhat neurotic behaviour brought on by the anxiety of beginning.
Rarely is a time violation due to a player needing more time due to long rally fatigue.
What should be done, IMO, is the point deduction should be enforced in the next service game. This way it doesnt disrupt the current game, and it is never at a critical point.
So basically, if a player is taking very long to serve a point, the umpire notes that they will be issued a time violation, but does not say anything during the game. At the end of the service game, the umpire tells the player that they will start the next service game at 0-15. I think this will help one of the biggest problems with the time violation rule, which is that when the umpire issues a violation, it always leads to conflict with the player as well as the fans, since it is so disruptive. This leads to umpires avoiding implementing the rule at all.
So basically, if a player is taking very long to serve a point, the umpire notes that they will be issued a time violation, but does not say anything during the game. At the end of the service game, the umpire tells the player that they will start the next service game at 0-15. I think this will help one of the biggest problems with the time violation rule, which is that when the umpire issues a violation, it always leads to conflict with the player as well as the fans, since it is so disruptive. This leads to umpires avoiding implementing the rule at all.
Similar threads
