Is The ITF Service Rule Changing Youth Tennis?

[Dartagnan64]

This isn't politics. The word fair has a single meaning .

Actually Fair has several meanings:
a) marked by impartiality or honesty (my concept that luck isn't always impartial or equitable)
b) conforming to the rules (S&V's definition)
c) consonant with merit or importance, i.e. "fair share"

Then there's a dozen other meanings for fair that are less relevant to the conversation:
1) blonde or light skinned (his complexion was fair)
2) average to middling (Her work was only fair)
3) moderately large or numerous (It took a fair amount of time)
4) Not stormy ( the weather is quite fair today)
5) pleasing to the eye (a couple of fair maidens)

So as I said previously a game can be fair (conforming by the rules) but the outcome can be unfair (not impartial or consonant with merit) by the vagaries of chance/fortune and luck.

 

[ShaunS]

Actually Fair has several meanings:

Fair enough. I should've worded that differently.

a) marked by impartiality or honesty (my concept that luck isn't always impartial or equitable)

My whole argument could be summed up to suggest that you've mistakenly conflated equity and fairness. Luck is not always equitable, but fair is always impartial.

However, I suspect we'll have to agree to disagree here. In this situation, the ruling fits any applicable definition of fair, because both players would've received the same ruling if the ball went off the net. You believe that luck is somehow involved in fairness, and that's a novel argument to me. It's also one that's so outside my understanding of the words that I cannot entertain the alternate interpretation.

 

[Dartagnan64]

Fair enough. I should've worded that differently.


My whole argument could be summed up to suggest that you've mistakenly conflated equity and fairness. Luck is not always equitable, but fair is always impartial.

However, I suspect we'll have to agree to disagree here. In this situation, the ruling fits any applicable definition of fair, because both players would've received the same ruling if the ball went off the net. You believe that luck is somehow involved in fairness, and that's a novel argument to me. It's also one that's so outside my understanding of the words that I cannot entertain the alternate interpretation.

Equity and fairness have often been used as synonyms. It's probably splitting hairs but i think I've heard many people exclaim when luck falls to their opponent that "its not fair, he's getting all the breaks." Common usage is probably where I'm coming from.

But I totally agree the ruling in this case was fair. But arguing that losing a set on a lucky let serve (assuming luck never fell your way earlier) is a less than fairly deserved outcome, is probably getting too deep into semantics at this point.

We'll agree that luck is rarely equitable and can leave out whether that lack of equity is fair or not. It's unfortunate that luck tends to choose a side.

 

[ShaunS]

Equity and fairness have often been used as synonyms.

I would agree, it's a common mistake.

probably getting too deep into semantics at this point.

It's a bad habit of mine

 

[TennisBro]

Most balls that clip the net are a disadvantage to the server not the returner. If the ball hits the net enough to "go short" it's going to pop up and be an easy return. I learned tennis with a service let, and it took me less than a month to get used to playing without it in college. It really wasn't a big deal.


I believe the phrase is 'mountain out of a molehill'.


Hope he feels better. I would encourage you/him to look up some good exercises for ankle strengthening or consult with a physical therapist. That and buying good shoes (some of the slop made today is problematic for people without perfect feet). I've had a lot of "success" with reducing ankle injuries, but in full disclosure it was probably playing less basketball that really solved my problems.

Thanx for the motivation there. My boy seems fine with the new rule more than me. What you suggest on the precautionary measures is a bit extra that i'd have to do and perhaps pay for now. If this is the necessary action to be taken, the sport is about to be even more for the very small and lucky select group of rich with time on their hands than it already has been. So, the new no let standard appears to truly be an issue for some.

As for a disadvantage to the server with no let law, I would like to be more convinced than just told on the forum that this is the fact. Where the ball "goes short" off the net may not be as "easy return" as you claim here. For those with a faster reaction, feet and hands as well as better eye coordination, however, you may have a point there. In a nutshell, the statistics how the no let rule is changing the youth tennis may be interesting, and the effect of the new standard that pushes kids to charge the net may as well be that we'll see more Pete Samprass like players in years to come (given that they're well equipped and genetically sustainable)

 

[TennisBro]

.... the ruling fits any applicable definition of fair, because both players would've received the same ruling if the ball went off the net. You believe that luck is somehow involved in fairness, and that's a novel argument to me. It's also one that's so outside my understanding of the words that I cannot entertain the alternate interpretation.

Tennis is gentlemen's (gentlewomen's ) sport and when a rally ends with a lucky net ball, the fortunate player raises his/her hand to apologize to the other one. Me think we won't see as many hands up in action as we have in this beautiful sport unlike some other cut throat sports with players seeking blood and judges bribes or agenda.

 

[jmc3367]

IMO, all the more reason to just get rid of the let serve and play on. I'd be fine with that in USTA.

Here's a novel cheating idea: in scenarios where let serves are played, I believe the receiver's partner can also return [I'm thinking of a serve that barely goes over]. So the receiving team can have the better returner who currently is not the receiver, return the serve because they claim it was a let. Suppose the receiving team is playing 2 back and the serve is an ace going down the T that somehow the non-receiver manages to return.

I'm not sure this has ever happened.

That's interesting.... I am playing in the NTRP nationals this weekend, Maybe we will try that....lol

 

[MathGeek]

Tennis is gentlemen's (gentlewomen's ) sport and when a rally ends with a lucky net ball, the fortunate player raises his/her hand to apologize to the other one. Me think we won't see as many hands up in action as we have in this beautiful sport unlike some other cut throat sports with players seeking blood and judges bribes or agenda.

It's just as much luck with I hit the lines. I'm never aiming for the lines, I'm aiming for at least a foot inside. Hitting a line is an accident. Maybe I should apologize for all of my shots that end up giving me more advantage than I had intended in winning the point.

 

[S&V-not_dead_yet]

That's interesting.... I am playing in the NTRP nationals this weekend, Maybe we will try that....lol

Hey, good luck! Let us know how it worked out.

 

[jmc3367]

Hey, good luck! Let us know how it worked out.

So we finished 5th. there were 3 teams there that were close and one of them was in our group so once we lost that one we could only play for 5th. We didn't play lets. the rules for this one were completely different from the rules in our qualifying tournament.