Is "let/net" the most annoying rule in tennis?

jussumman

jussumman

Hall of Fame
We see this all the time where the ball just barely skims the top of the net and lands in, but is called back and disrupts the server's momentum or can decide the point/match. Technically the rule is for any outside interference, but I'm just referring to the net interference. (if we have the .1% chance of a streaker coming on the field or some other foreign object, that's totally understandable to call it let).

When during play when a ball hits the top of the net, the ball drops inside the other side of the court, THE POINT IS SCORED. So why is it acceptable score during play but not during the serve? It's seems inconsistent.

Either John Mac or some other commentator, or many of them have said that getting rid of this net call would speed up the game 10-15 minutes and they are all for it. So what gives?
 
Fed and Hewitt played exhibition tournament with special rules.

No advantage points. A person who wins at 40 gets the game. Game was also only to 4 points, not 6. Then, they let/net was allowed too.

It was very interesting and maybe in the future this is how the game will be. It's fast paces, very interesting, a lot of action.

Also, it prevents injuries too, since matches are over soon. Also you get to see a lot more other matches, since you have free time.
 
tennisaddict said:
I wouldn't want a let cord that deflects the trajectory of the serve to penalize the receiver.

I would rather agree to a point loss if it hits the net during rallies
Click to expand...

Yeah, I would rather the direct opposite of this. The let calls are made when the ball lands within the serve box, and are playable by the receiver. He is not "penalized", but fails to retrieve the ball.

Same goes during rallies, plus it would consistent. Right now the rules are contradicting one another.
 
Losing a point to a net cord is never 'fair' and in an ideal world it would never happen. When it happens on a serve it is fairly easy to just take it again (only 10-20 seconds have been wasted) but if it happens during a point then up to 2 minutes and a lot of energy on the part of the players would all have been for nothing.
 
jg153040 said:
Fed and Hewitt played exhibition tournament with special rules.

No advantage points. A person who wins at 40 gets the game. Game was also only to 4 points, not 6. Then, they let/net was allowed too.

It was very interesting and maybe in the future this is how the game will be. It's fast paces, very interesting, a lot of action.

Also, it prevents injuries too, since matches are over soon. Also you get to see a lot more other matches, since you have free time.
Click to expand...

Well the first two changes are a bit extreme and while speeding up the game, also negatively effect that excitement of the game. The only change that I like (can you guess which one lol) is allowing the let/net. That's a minor change anyway. But I do like how they are experimenting in some of these tournaments!
 
jussumman said:
We see this all the time where the ball just barely skims the top of the net and lands in, but is called back and disrupts the server's momentum or can decide the point/match. Technically the rule is for any outside interference, but I'm just referring to the net interference. (if we have the .1% chance of a streaker coming on the field or some other foreign object, that's totally understandable to call it let).

When during play when a ball hits the top of the net, the ball drops inside the other side of the court, THE POINT IS SCORED. So why is it acceptable score during play but not during the serve? It's seems inconsistent.

Either John Mac or some other commentator, or many of them have said that getting rid of this net call would speed up the game 10-15 minutes and they are all for it. So what gives?
Click to expand...

I'm all for getting rid of it, if it happens during play it either dribbles over the court for a winner for the striker, or sits up and allows the receiver the chance for a putaway. That's too bad for one player or the other, and I don't see why the serve should be any different.
 
I agree, it would be good to get rid of the let for serves. The net is part of the game, along with any lucky bounces off the net cord. Also, the pros play with these machines nowadays which signal if the serve touch the net. Those seem inaccurate and rob players of legit aces. But even in recreational play I'd get rid of the rule.
 
Having had this rule in juniors, I say absolutely not. The big difference with serves as oppose to rallies is for serves the returner is way back and not in motion. It's also far easier for a player to purposely aim to hit the tape for serves than in rally to gain a cheap point. We need less luck being a factor not more.
 
BGod said:
Having had this rule in juniors, I say absolutely not. The big difference with serves as oppose to rallies is for serves the returner is way back and not in motion. It's also far easier for a player to purposely aim to hit the tape for serves than in rally to gain a cheap point. We need less luck being a factor not more.
Click to expand...

Chances are if you aim at the net it will land on your side anyway and will lose the point.
 
Again, what is the sign of failure that tennis needs to make any changes? The large tournaments (GS + M1000's) are having year on year attendance records.

The only issue the ATP has is that the top guys are getting old.
 
Get rid of lets and get rid of the first serve (in the pro game only, obviously). It would speed up matches more than shot clock would---and it would improve the quality of points rather than punishing the players that rally.

Obviously, other interference lets should be kept, but they're really rare.
 
The most annoying rule in tennis is:

"Time violation, warning to .......".

It was going on back in the 1980s too, like in the 1988 US Open final when Wilander got a time violation when leading 6-4, 4-1 against Lendl. The whole thing threw Wilander off his rhythm and and he lost his mental focus and the second set.

I have no problem with the let rule.
 
Last edited:
BGod said:
Having had this rule in juniors, I say absolutely not. The big difference with serves as oppose to rallies is for serves the returner is way back and not in motion. It's also far easier for a player to purposely aim to hit the tape for serves than in rally to gain a cheap point. We need less luck being a factor not more.
Click to expand...

I agree, although I'm not sure how many players could consistently aim for the net on serve; but then again nobody really trains that so I can't rule out the possibility. I've played tournaments where lets are in - and as the returner, you're just at an even bigger disadvantage. This is the one shot where you have literally no control over what is coming your way, and positioning against a strong server has already restricted you. You now have to deal a new variable where you not only taking strong serves, but you also have to play retriever when it dribbles over... if you're lucky, a couple will pop up and you can take time off your opponent - but in my experience, the odds of that weren't in your favor. Even if you're quick, you were often barely retrieving it back to the server, and they shut out the point immediately (they could easily use the recovery time to see that you were forced to pop up a ball, and moved in). Just my experience.

In a normal rally, you are already moving and had influence over what you're going to be facing... to me, that's a critical difference.
 
the only reason they changed this in juniors/college tennis is because there were too many little ***** who would cheat by calling a let when they got aced.

Balls dribbling over the net is one of the unavoidable flaws of the game of tennis. It is always bad when it happens and a point is won/lost on pure luck. If it's allowed on serve we immediately increase the number of points won/lost by pure luck which is less enjoyable to watch and less enjoyable to play unless you are some kind of freak obsessed with getting something which is supposed to be fun over with quickly.
No decent sport has different rules for the pros- that is just stupid and puts people off playing. and there would be forever annoying arguments over which rule to play (you know this is true) if you did have different rules. No-one needs that sort of bull-****.
The commercial strength of tennis is based upon people enjoying watching it and enjoying playing it themselves.
Therefore, this is not a good change except in the juniors/college where they are not playing for fun, and not many people are watching.


As for shorter sets, it is not so good if people haven't played before and need time to figure out the other's game. Changing it would give a disadvantage to up-and-comers, so is also, in my opinion, a bad idea.
 
penguin said:
No decent sport has different rules for the pros- that is just stupid and puts people off playing. and there would be forever annoying arguments over which rule to play (you know this is true) if you did have different rules. No-one needs that sort of bull-****.
The commercial strength of tennis is based upon people enjoying watching it and enjoying playing it themselves.
Therefore, this is not a good change except in the juniors/college where they are not playing for fun, and not many people are watching.
Click to expand...

Squash uses different balls at the pro level. And the game is still very different to the amateur game.
I've never played football with the offside rule---it's just too hard to enforce.
I believe boxing, MMA and other fighting sports have different rules for pros.
I believe baseball still uses wooden bats?
Amateur cricket rarely play matches longer than a day.

These, and other, sports have tweak their rules or equipment slightly to make the pro games closer to the amateur game. Serving in pro tennis works nothing like in amateur tennis. It takes years of practice to get a first serve percentage up around 70%, let alone topspin on their second serve. In fact, tennis is the only balls sport with two serve attempts, so I bet they changed the rules for amateurs.

We can't change the equipment without ruining other bits of the game we want to keep (well we did try to slow down the surfaces). So that leaves changing the rules.
 
firepanda said:
Squash uses different balls at the pro level. And the game is still very different to the amateur game.
I've never played football with the offside rule---it's just too hard to enforce.
I believe boxing, MMA and other fighting sports have different rules for pros.
I believe baseball still uses wooden bats?
Amateur cricket rarely play matches longer than a day.

These, and other, sports have tweak their rules or equipment slightly to make the pro games closer to the amateur game. Serving in pro tennis works nothing like in amateur tennis. It takes years of practice to get a first serve percentage up around 70%, let alone topspin on their second serve. In fact, tennis is the only balls sport with two serve attempts, so I bet they changed the rules for amateurs.

We can't change the equipment without ruining other bits of the game we want to keep (well we did try to slow down the surfaces). So that leaves changing the rules.
Click to expand...

-Squash is a minor sport
-At a match between local teams you would expect this to be enforced by the ref
-what are these different rules? stick to boxing.
-nothing to stop amateurs from using the wooden bats too
-they would if they could, and they do sometimes

none of this takes away from the point, that intentionally creating more random net cord points robs the sense of achievement/ feeling of fairness for rec players that keeps you playing, and increases the amount of chance into deciding matches at the pro level, which is watched for an exhibition of skill.
It doesn't take long to just do the serve again. It is much more fun to keep it, unless you are playing with a bunch of unsporting cheaters. but then you wouldn't do that for fun anyway would you?

Tennis is not a slow game- each player gets more "hits" per game than they would in most other sports. Speeding it up further just comes at the expense of the experience-quality. I don't want to win unearned points or undeservedly lose points because of some stupid net cord if there is a choice about it. I don't want to see ATP pros winning matchpoints because their serve caught the net cord. Where's the fun in that? Much more boring to watch than taking the serve again, for maybe a good point with a long entertaining rally.
 
It's very easy to fix this with one simple rule that does not reward bad shots:

NET IS OUT

The moment you touch the net with anything - body, racket, or the ball, it is over.
 
tennisaddict said:
I wouldn't want a let cord that deflects the trajectory of the serve to penalize the receiver.

I would rather agree to a point loss if it hits the net during rallies
Click to expand...
I agree. The let cord rule is there to allow for the "fairest" of play possible, especially between different tournaments. The net at Wimbledon is generally much looser than the net at the US Open. A let cord at Wimbledon could very well end up being a drop shot winner (falling just over the net). Nobody wants to see points won that way.
 
Netspirit said:
It's very easy to fix this with one simple rule that does not reward bad shots:

NET IS OUT

The moment you touch the net with anything - body, racket, or the ball, it is over.
Click to expand...

Have fun at your next USTA tournament when your opponent says your ball ticked the net every time you hit a winner.
 
tennisaddict said:
I wouldn't want a let cord that deflects the trajectory of the serve to penalize the receiver.

I would rather agree to a point loss if it hits the net during rallies
Click to expand...

I agree but lets should not be called if they arent audible to the usual human ear or is deflected in anyway.

The machines calling lets and the Umpires are useless
 
racquetreligion said:
I agree but lets should not be called if they arent audible to the usual human ear or is deflected in anyway.

The machines calling lets and the Umpires are useless
Click to expand...
I think there is a difference between the amateur and professional games. In pro games it would be as well to abolish the rule because most let serves are only picked up by the net device and the path of the ball is barely changed. Tennis that was speeded up would be more watchable.

At amateur level we are not worried whether it is watchable or not and fairness is more of an issue; the nets are looser and you are more likely to get a dead net cord that barely trickles over. Therefore it makes sense to retain the let serve rule at amateur level.


However, without an umpire or a net device, the calling of aces as lets is open to abuse. So on balance the let service rule should be abolished at all levels.
 
The two situations are not comparable as there is an onus on the server to make a "clean service". When the ball is in play it can go where it wants.

tennisaddict said:
I wouldn't want a let cord that deflects the trajectory of the serve to penalize the receiver.

I would rather agree to a point loss if it hits the net during rallies
Click to expand...
 
Apparently, that rule was introduced to prevent cheating. Service lets should be called as faults. The onus is on the server to produce a clean serve.

I'm sure the crowd likes to watch lucky points, but in professional tennis they should no go for cheap thrills.

Better_Call_Raul said:
Service lets are played out in college tennis. Nobody has complained. It works wonderfully.
Click to expand...
 
Bartelby said:
What would be your objection?
Click to expand...

It is difficult to get a service in. Allowing two serves and re-playing the service lets is fundamental to the game.
Your solution violates that principle. Highly doubtful that ATP players would ever go along with it.
Your proposal goes even further than what Australian Open is currently considering. Playing out service lets.

Have you raised your idea with your favourite Australian Open organizer Tilley?

That said, I have no particular problem with ATP and camera technology calling lets a fault.

In terms of college/rec tennis, playing out service let does not benefit the server. To the contrary.
The returner is usually able to return it. Very rarely does the server get an easy point with serve trickling over the net.
Typically the ball slows down and results in an easy return for the returner.

If, as you claim, cheating on service lets prompted college tennis to change the rule, the new rule is working well.
Your proposed solution is not viable in college as it would still allow cheating by claiming good serves to have clipped the tape and declaring it a fault.

7news.com.au

Radical plan to change fabric of tennis gains momentum

‘It is just absolutely bloody ridiculous to be honest.’
7news.com.au 7news.com.au
 
Last edited:
Better_Call_Raul said:
It is difficult to get a service in. Allowing two serves and re-playing the service lets is fundamental to the game.
Your solution violates that principle. Highly doubtful that ATP players would ever go along with it.
Your proposal goes even further than what Australian Open is currently considering. Playing out service lets.

Have you raised your idea with your favourite Australian Open organizer Tiley?

That said, I have no particular problem with ATP and camera technology calling lets a fault.

In terms of college/rec tennis, playing out service let does not benefit the server. To the contrary.
The returner is usually able to return it. Very rarely does the server get an easy point with serve trickling over the net.
Typically the ball slows down and results in an easy return for the returner.

If, as you claim, cheating on service lets prompted college tennis to change the rule, the new rule is working well.
Your proposed solution is not viable in college as it would still allow cheating by calling legal serves faults.

7news.com.au

Radical plan to change fabric of tennis gains momentum

‘It is just absolutely bloody ridiculous to be honest.’
7news.com.au 7news.com.au
Click to expand...
:-D:giggle::laughing:
 
I agree that second serves are vital, but can't see the let rule as nearly as important. If it goes in and is played, sure, the server may have lost his advantage in the point, but he's still gotten it into play successfully.
 
The history of tennis suggests that hitting a let has never been considered "getting it into play successfully". A let is a remnant of a time when serving was difficult. It's a do-over. Now it's not necessary, a let should be a fault.

bigbadboaz said:
I agree that second serves are vital, but can't see the let rule as nearly as important. If it goes in and is played, sure, the server may have lost his advantage in the point, but he's still gotten it into play successfully.
Click to expand...
 
It used to be difficult to get a service in. It is not difficult at the professional level and is no longer fundamental to the game. Your collegial rule allows more chance into the game and de-skills it.

Better_Call_Raul said:
It is difficult to get a service in. Allowing two serves and re-playing the service lets is fundamental to the game.
Your solution violates that principle. Highly doubtful that ATP players would ever go along with it.
Your proposal goes even further than what Australian Open is currently considering. Playing out service lets.

Have you raised your idea with your favourite Australian Open organizer Tilley?

That said, I have no particular problem with ATP and camera technology calling lets a fault.

In terms of college/rec tennis, playing out service let does not benefit the server. To the contrary.
The returner is usually able to return it. Very rarely does the server get an easy point with serve trickling over the net.
Typically the ball slows down and results in an easy return for the returner.

If, as you claim, cheating on service lets prompted college tennis to change the rule, the new rule is working well.
Your proposed solution is not viable in college as it would still allow cheating by claiming good serves to have clipped the tape and declaring it a fault.

7news.com.au

Radical plan to change fabric of tennis gains momentum

‘It is just absolutely bloody ridiculous to be honest.’
7news.com.au 7news.com.au
Click to expand...
 
Bartelby said:
It used to be difficult to get a service in. It is not difficult at the professional level and is no longer fundamental to the game. Your collegial rule allows more chance into the game and de-skills it.
Click to expand...

The origin of the two serve rule is unclear but it had absolutely nothing to do with difficulty of getting the serve in.
The serve was primarily used to start the point and it was very easy to get the service in.

CPT2405311719-850x523.gif
 
As someone who loves many sports but believes none have as interesting rules as tennis, yes, the let thing is the most annoying. I'd say time between points too but maybe they really need it, its brutal enough on the body as it is
 
The let is an idiotic rule, it should just be played out like in college.

Being able to catch the toss is ridiculous too. It should be a fault if you cant control your toss.

Hopefully Ill live long enough to see one of both of these rules changed.
 
Playing the let in means that first serves will still be big and luck will decide the point if the ball hits the net.

Playing a let as a fault may temper the first serve somewhat and still allow room for a second serve played on merit.

This may mean fewer aces, but it might also mean that courts can be quickened without the game being dominated by the serve.
 
Last edited:
You claim to know nothing but show a tiny clip that you suggest proves you know everything. Too funny!

Better_Call_Raul said:
The origin of the two serve rule is unclear but it had absolutely nothing to do with difficulty of getting the serve in.
The serve was primarily used to start the point and it was very easy to get the service in.
Click to expand...
 
Bartelby said:
You claim to know nothing but show a tiny clip that you suggest proves you know everything. Too funny!
Click to expand...

Have studied the history of tennis extensively and History says the origins of the two serve rule are unclear.
What is definitely known for certain is that the serve was primarily used to start a point. Not as a weapon.
Hence it was NOT difficult to get the serve in as you so wrongly claim. That is laughable.

Let's get back to your wonderfully clever idea that service net cords should be faults.
When you go out and play do you follow this rule. Hopefully you do as you would then at least be consistent.
Do let everybody know how receptive your hitting partners are to these rules.
:rolleyes:
 
Last edited:
People at club level still can't serve a ball in and they have better technique than your great grandad.

Better_Call_Raul said:
Have studied the history of tennis extensively and History says the origins of the two serve rule are unclear.
What is definitely known for certain is that the serve was primarily used to start a point. Not as a weapon.
Hence it was NOT difficult to get the serve in as you so wrongly claim. That is laughable.

Let's get back to your wonderfully clever idea that net cords should be faults.
When you go out and play do you follow this rule. Hopefully you do as you would then at least be consistent.
Do let everybody know receptive your hitting partners are to these rules.
:rolleyes:
Click to expand...
 
Better_Call_Raul said:
Service lets are played out in college tennis. Nobody has complained. It works wonderfully.
Click to expand...
To marvel at the rule in a competition is one thing, to take a close look at the state of the mind of players is another. We lack knowledge of how many college or junior ITF players, where it is also played, suffer from the big office directive as much as we ignore those fine competitors' views prior to establishing those regulations. The honorable ITF yearly edits its formal will that's published on its website and that's to be followed by tournaments' organizers and participating players. Perhaps, USTA has a more democratic way to bring forward some adjustments to the game but if it does, I'd like to know. In essence, wills are impossed on players who have little say on what the Roehampton powers issue every year. Whether this few years net rule injures and/or compromises players or not remains in unavailable surveys and dificient stats.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

Aabye5
Against the no-let rule
2
Replies
53
Views
3K
marclind1234
M
snowwhite
What is the difference between Let and Net??!!
Replies
5
Views
16K
Ralph
Ralph
C
Gilbert claims Murray's net game is top 3 in world
Replies
24
Views
2K
Mick
Mick
Dartagnan64
Rule Question: Ball through net
Replies
16
Views
3K
ChaelAZ
ChaelAZ
N
What's the definitive rule on net-touching?
Replies
9
Views
47K
Tennisman912
T
Back
Top