According to some sources, first rackets are older than America; then, earliest formal competitions just a bit more mature than Hawaii as a US state. What's up in the air is the democratic evolution of the sport and its body that adjusts formal rules as years go by. If players with their IPIN numbers (juniors inclusive) don't have a say on 2025 ITF rules and regulations, if US college players aren't a part of their league rules, we'll have autocracy and misleading debates.
Is "let/net" the most annoying rule in tennis?
- Thread starter jussumman
- Start date
Is "let/net" the most annoying rule in tennis?
From what I know, junior ITF players are quite frustrated with the rule when service ball ends up in their box so short they can't race to it and that especially when that ball is in a tiebreaker. There are some that even get injured in the process of getting to that ball but few care when they are hurt. Those suffering junior players are mandated to get the doctors note so that they aren't penalized for their next week's tournamnet that they are signed in.
Bartelby
Bionic Poster
It should be the rule at all professional levels. The testimony concerning injuries while trying to play "let serves" rules that option out.
Better_Call_Raul
Legend
There are only three options:
(1) Do nothing and keep the current college rule of playing it out.
(2) Replay the service let. Which is the current ATP rule.
(3) Call any serve that clips the net a fault. The harsh Bart rule.
Tilley at the Australian Open wants to speed up the matches and is recommending adapting the college rule of playing it out.
But if Tiley is concerned about match time, the Bart rule would work just as well, and without the injury risk.
As spectators we would prefer the harsh Bart rule. But highly doubt the ATP players would go along with it.
Bartelby
Bionic Poster
ATP players would vote overwhelmingly to stick with the current rule and reject the college rule. They could live with the fault rule.
If you want to speed up the game, the fault rule is the only option.
A serve that hits the net has never been a valid serve, but you got a do-over. So making that serve valid would overturn tradition.
Eliminating the do-over is a lesser change.
If you want to speed up the game, the fault rule is the only option.
A serve that hits the net has never been a valid serve, but you got a do-over. So making that serve valid would overturn tradition.
Eliminating the do-over is a lesser change.
Better_Call_Raul
Legend
Yes, Tiley is on a mission to shorten match times and the fault rule has a better chance of player approval than playing out the lets. Wonder why your favourite Tiley has not proposed this.
Last edited:
anarosevoli
Professional
Not inconsistent at all. To give a free point before the opponent touched the ball at all seems completely unnecessary. But after this both players contributed to the situation and it's not as unfair as before (at least both had the chance to avoid such a free point against them hitting an ace or return winner).
Bartelby
Bionic Poster
From a political point of view, Tiley's promotion of an American college-let rule might get wider support than my suggestion.
Yes, Tiley is on a mission to shorten match times and the fault rule has a better chance of player approval than playing out the lets. Wonder why your favourite Tiley has not proposed this.
Birrittene96
Rookie
I agree. And also the main point that I don't see discussed is that you just can't recreate the same conditions when the net was touched during a rally to replay a point, it's impossible to retake the shot. If it was possible it would be the "fairest" thing to do to avoid luck being involved in how a point goes.
On the contrary a serve can be retaken without anyone being penalised, 'cause you always recreate the same positions and conditions prior to the let.
So the rule isn't inconsistent at all.
kunos
Rookie
I am surprised to see so much resistance to what it should be the most logical approach: The net is part of the court, ball hits the net and goes in.. you play it out.
It is:
1) Consistent. No "when", no "if".. simple and clean every time
2) Easy to self-judge at any level from professional to club.. it's part of the game, always, you play it out, always.. no discussions about "I've heard the ball hit the net".
3) Easy for the spectators because of 1 and 2
I really don't understand the "luck and unfair" thing.. isn't a ball touching 1mm of a line luck? isn't missing by 1mm bad luck? Luck is part of every ball sport, tennis isn't and shouldn't be any different.
BTW talking about rules, I also like the 1 serve rule at the UTS.. it avoids the danger of serve-bots while introducing a very interesting strategic element to the game.
It is:
1) Consistent. No "when", no "if".. simple and clean every time
2) Easy to self-judge at any level from professional to club.. it's part of the game, always, you play it out, always.. no discussions about "I've heard the ball hit the net".
3) Easy for the spectators because of 1 and 2
I really don't understand the "luck and unfair" thing.. isn't a ball touching 1mm of a line luck? isn't missing by 1mm bad luck? Luck is part of every ball sport, tennis isn't and shouldn't be any different.
BTW talking about rules, I also like the 1 serve rule at the UTS.. it avoids the danger of serve-bots while introducing a very interesting strategic element to the game.
Bartelby
Bionic Poster
It's a serve so the onus is placed on the server to produce a valid serve. A ball hitting the net on serve has never been considered valid in the game's entire history. Why change a fundamental?
kunos
Rookie
it's literally explained in 3 points in my post that you quoted
. Do you disagree with one in particular?Goalkeepers were allowed to grab the ball with their hands on a backpass for the entire history of football.. until they weren't. Sports' rules evolve with the games.. "it has always been like this" is just not a good angle for a discussion.
Birrittene96
Rookie
Ping pong and Padel have the same rule for instance.
It's different than missing the line for 1mm, because if your shot was barely long or wide in that case, it was a mistake.
When you hit the net the ball behaviour is unpredictable, it could go everywhere, sometimes it stops right below the net, sometimes it changes direction completely. You get a shot that you didn't intend to make, it's a mistake that gets rewarded. The serve is the only shot in which it can be always avoided and I like that.
I understand your point about self judging, it's a real issue but I wouldn't change tennis rules for that. We will always have this problem until players rule their half of the court.
I agree with this, I like it. But the game would change a lot if it would be implemented. Would it be for the better?
Bartelby
Bionic Poster
And I literally explained that the.onus must be on the server to make a clean serve and the idea of more random chance being added to the game degrades it.and its history.
it's literally explained in 3 points in my post that you quoted
Goalkeepers were allowed to grab the ball with their hands on a backpass for the entire history of football.. until they weren't. Sports' rules evolve with the games.. "it has always been like this" is just not a good angle for a discussion.
Frenchy-Player
Hall of Fame
Do you remember in the 90s, the net judges 
tomatitotarifa
Rookie
I've seen French junior matches where this is already in effect.
Bartelby
Bionic Poster
The ball hitting the net in play differs from the service situation as tennis decided from the beginning that there must be a rule precluding this and dedicated a human to policing it.
The onus is on the server to produce a clean delivery and all random chance was not allowed to intrude on the opening point. You could change this at any level, but it is a good one to maintain at the professional level.
The onus is on the server to produce a clean delivery and all random chance was not allowed to intrude on the opening point. You could change this at any level, but it is a good one to maintain at the professional level.
Better_Call_Raul
Legend
Everyone agrees that a server already enjoys a dominant advantage with top ATP servers often winning >80% of their service games.
How could you have any objection to simply requiring that a serve-bot clear the net?
Better_Call_Raul
Legend
Do you remember in the 90s, the net judges
Such an odd-looking fellow. When did that go away?
This is nonsense. He is merely enforcing the rule that the serve must not graze the net cord. Not even by 1 mm.
There is no "random chance" involved as a 100 mph serve that grazes the net does not alter the trajectory of the ball.
It does not affect the returner's ability to return the ball. The server gains no advantage by barely grazing the net.
Random chance comes into play only when the serve trickles over the net.
But that is obvious to everyone and not what this fellow is looking for here.
Last edited:
Bartelby
Bionic Poster
If a net cord were called a fault, the server would not get another first serve and the dominant advantage would be lessened.
Everyone agrees that a server already enjoys a dominant advantage with top ATP servers often winning >80% of their service games.
How could you have any objection to simply requiring that a serve-bot clear the net?
Similar threads
