Let Cords Coming To An End At Majors?

I had been completely against playing let cords on serve, but maybe it's time to change that. Honestly, I haven't watched matches -'- say, junior or college -- where that's already done.

On the other possible change, yes: Let's get rid of, or at least greatly limit, ball tosses.
 
The unpredictable nature of a serve hitting the top of the net and falling over, or even just clipping, will make it more difficult to win slam titles.
So Djokovic holding The Slam Record will no longer count, as he won all those slams with the help of LET being called.
Alcaraz can get The Slam Record next year, by winning more slams than anyone in the "no LET" era.
 
Last edited:
Shaolin said:
God I hope so. Service lets are pointless and disrupt the flow of the game so badly.
Click to expand...
There is no need for them whatsoever. If the players can play rally balls that touch the net and go in, then they can play serves that touch the net and go in. Over time, the pattern would be just the same as it is for net cords in rallies: random, and not favoring any particular player. No tennis player in history has demonstrated the ability to summon a let on demand, i.e., targeting the very top of the net with a serve such that the serve lands in after clipping the net. And even if someone could do that, so what? Underhand serves are legal as well.

The fact that the slams don't use electronic let calls on serves indicates that they are not highly invested in this issue.
 
JMR said:
There is no need for them whatsoever. If the players can play rally balls that touch the net and go in, then they can play serves that touch the net and go in. Over time, the pattern would be just the same as it is for net cords in rallies: random, and not favoring any particular player. No tennis player in history has demonstrated the ability to summon a let on demand, i.e., targeting the very top of the net with a serve such that the serve lands in after clipping the net. And even if someone could do that, so what? Underhand serves are legal as well.

The fact that the slams don't use electronic let calls on serves indicates that they are not highly invested in this issue.
Click to expand...
"No tennis player in history has demonstrated the ability to summon a let on demand, i.e., targeting the very top of the net with a serve such that the serve lands in after clipping the net."

saw someone in the comments of the video that said they can :)
 
If it were up to me, I would actually make it an illegal shot to hit any part of the net. You just lose the point immediately (or that serve you just did). This gets rid of the randomness.
 
marc45 said:
"No tennis player in history has demonstrated the ability to summon a let on demand, i.e., targeting the very top of the net with a serve such that the serve lands in after clipping the net."

saw someone in the comments of the video that said they can :)
Click to expand...
Well of course that's conclusive proof! I didn't realize that my contention had been rebutted by a Twitter comment, the holiest of holies. :0
 
GodlessEndeavor said:
If it were up to me, I would actually make it an illegal shot to hit any part of the net. You just lose the point immediately (or that serve you just did). This gets rid of the randomness.
Click to expand...
Such a rule would be counterproductive because it would lead to many arguments about whether a ball happened to brush the net before going in. We're trying to eliminate things to argue about, not create new ones.
 
JMR said:
Such a rule would be counterproductive because it would lead to many arguments about whether a ball happened to brush the net before going in. We're trying to eliminate things to argue about, not create new ones.
Click to expand...

Maybe you are trying to do that, but not everyone is. It's much easier to tell if a ball hit the net than to call balls that are close to the lines.
 
GodlessEndeavor said:
Maybe you are trying to do that, but not everyone is. It's much easier to tell if a ball hit the net than to call balls that are close to the lines.
Click to expand...
1. All the commentators in the video agreed that we should move toward streamlining play and reducing disruptions, such as service lets. They are correct.

2. The arguments in your system wouldn't be over balls that smack into the middle of the net. They would be over balls that may or may not have barely brushed the net. That's the equivalent of "close to the lines." Moreover, if the rule provided that any contact of the ball with the net means that the player who hit the shot loses the point, there would be a huge incentive to argue as many cases as possible.

3. Thus, the regime you propose would require implementing, on a universal basis, exactly the sort of sensing technology at the net that tennis is now moving away from. It would be a step in the wrong direction.
 
How hard is it to make a sensor that tells you if its a let or not that isnt part of the patent - so stupid - ofc if you had on court line and net umpires still… now instead of fixing the issue theyre so cheap they just say - we could just not worry about lets at all
 
So what if a player finds a way to do multiple let cords that just fall near the net on the other side? Are we gonna call that an Ace??
 
They should have removed the machine net cords sooner.

we're also seeing with our own eyes the technology line calling isn't always 100% accurate either.

Happened in a recent Tommy Paul Mannarino match. The ball went long on the baseline but wasn't called out by technology.
Paul asked the chair to review it, and it was clearly out. Chair reversed the non-call and awarded the point to Paul.
There's been other instances too where it looks out and players questioning its accuracy.

Players still need to have the option for replay challenges. Today it's quicker and decisive than years ago when replay slowed the match.
 
Last edited:
GodlessEndeavor said:
If it were up to me, I would actually make it an illegal shot to hit any part of the net. You just lose the point immediately (or that serve you just did). This gets rid of the randomness.
Click to expand...
Netcords add drama and fun. You don’t want to get rid of them, do you? In terms of serve, hitting the net should be s fault, yes.
 
ForehandCross said:
So what if a player finds a way to do multiple let cords that just fall near the net on the other side?
Click to expand...
There is zero chance of that. Why do people keep relying on such a preposterous argument? Anyone who actually aimed for the net regularly would lose far more points than he would win.

And again, if you want to sneak in a dinky serve, you can just serve underhand. Then Tsitsipas will scold you.
 
I don’t like this, and I think the players should be wary of measures that aim to shorten matches. Because then they’ll be expected to play more of them.
 
Playing lets was invented in America because players tried to cheat by calling aces lets. Pro tennis is officiated so they should be called faults, if change is desired.
 
Last edited:
marc45 said:
"No tennis player in history has demonstrated the ability to summon a let on demand, i.e., targeting the very top of the net with a serve such that the serve lands in after clipping the net."

saw someone in the comments of the video that said they can :)
Click to expand...
They should just hit the outside edge of the line instead.
 
JMR said:
There is zero chance of that. Why do people keep relying on such a preposterous argument? Anyone who actually aimed for the net regularly would lose far more points than he would win.
Click to expand...
How do you know that I cannot hit lets on demand? Maybe I am very very talented.
 
The slams had automated net detection, but it was giving too many false positives. It was bad.

Saying pros can handle groundstrokes that nick the net and thus serves that do so don't matter is silly. Pros often struggle with groundstrokes that clip the tape, and those are traveling at much less speed than first serves.

I don't like the let serve counting as a serve because it often produces a service winner when, in fact, the server failed to clear the net and should've had a fault but got lucky.
 
JMR said:
1. All the commentators in the video agreed that we should move toward streamlining play and reducing disruptions, such as service lets. They are correct.
Click to expand...

Service lets are not particularly significant when it comes to streamlining play; it will save a few seconds per set.
Of far greater consequence is allowing players to re-toss, often multiple times. This should be counted as a fault.
The entitled overweight out-of-shape wild-card recipient, Venus, was re-tossing dozens of times, and it was excruciating to sit through.

Venus: "Ooops, I'm sorry..."
Sorry, my foot. Did you even bother to practice your toss in preparation for this match?
:rolleyes:

A pro should be able to serve with a single toss. No excuses—this needs to change.
 
illzoni said:
The slams had automated net detection, but it was giving too many false positives. It was bad.

Saying pros can handle groundstrokes that nick the net and thus serves that do so don't matter is silly. Pros often struggle with groundstrokes that clip the tape, and those are traveling at much less speed than first serves.

I don't like the let serve counting as a serve because it often produces a service winner when, in fact, the server failed to clear the net and should've had a fault but got lucky.
Click to expand...

Data needs to be gathered. Just played a match and we observed that there were only a few service lets.
And none of the serves dribbled over the net for a "winner"; all were perfectly returnable had we been playing them out.
So we should either play out a service let or count it as a fault.
 
Last edited:
The problem w counting lets as faults is that you would still need the ump to call them, which would still cause disagreements.

And no pro can hit them on purpose. If they could, they'd also be hitting net cords during a point on purpose.
 
Bartelby said:
It was a great rule for most of tennis history. It only seems particularly stupid now because of machine-calling.
Click to expand...
No it was stupid. Just like the volleyball let was stupid and they got rid of it. But whatever you are what some call eristic. You just are a contrarian for the sake of it. You literally do the same crap here all the time. A change happens and here ya are to argue it is just fine the way it is. I dont even think you believe 90 percent of the crap you spew out you just do it for entertainment. Anyway it's going to go away. It's a stupid rule.
 
Better_Call_Raul said:
Service lets are not particularly significant when it comes to streamlining play; it will save a few seconds per set.
Of far greater consequence is allowing players to re-toss, often multiple times. This should be counted as a fault.
Click to expand...
I have no objection to eliminating multiple ball tosses (anyone who plays table tennis knows that once the ball is in the air, the point has officially started). However, the difference between these two proposed rule revisions is that the let service rule is already halfway out the door. All it needs is a final shove in the professional game, and its hindrances are history. In contrast, limiting the server to a single ball toss would require a substantial modification of player behavior and would undoubtedly entail a great deal of friction in any attempted implementation.
 
JMR said:
I have no objection to eliminating multiple ball tosses (anyone who plays table tennis knows that once the ball is in the air, the point has officially started).
Click to expand...
Table tennis is played indoors without sun and wind.
 
sureshs said:
Table tennis is played indoors without sun and wind.
Click to expand...
Yes, everyone knows that. The point is that conceptually, it's an easy rule change to explain and to enforce. In terms of practical impact on the players, it could be viewed as too demanding in the tennis environment, which is why I noted that there likely would be friction if such a rule reached the implementation stage.
 
Mustard said:
I'm sick of these low attention span people always wanting to "speed things up". They need to get out of big cities for a time and get closer to nature.
Click to expand...
I can see Central Park from my office and I don’t think we need to change the rule. I also didn’t think we needed roofs, automatic line calling, etc.
 
The trouble is that tennis keeps slowing down probably because the actual play has speeded up.

Mustard said:
I'm sick of these low attention span people always wanting to "speed things up". They need to get out of big cities for a time and get closer to nature.
Click to expand...
 
Last edited:
The serve is a relatively unconstrained act compared to a groundstroke, so a failure to clear the net is a fail.

A let chord is an accident. This is why players acknowledge it. There is no need for consistency.
 
Better_Call_Raul said:
Data needs to be gathered. Just played a match and we observed that there were only a few service lets.
And none of the serves dribbled over the net for a "winner"; all were perfectly returnable had we been playing them out.
So we should either play out a service let or count it as a fault.
Click to expand...
When I mentioned service winners, I wasn't talking about dribblers. Pro serves at 120mph+ will not be returned nearly as often as 80mph forehands. Playing such serves would reward the server for an inferior serve.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

marc45
WTA Heading To New Sponsor
Replies
5
Views
200
Bartelby
Bartelby
P
Push to end best-of-five set matches.
2
Replies
90
Views
10K
Brian11785
Brian11785
marc45
Let Machine Company Went Bankrupt
Replies
35
Views
2K
RSJfan
RSJfan
L
Rankings and Majors
Replies
35
Views
4K
Dave1982
D
soft_manatee
  • Poll Poll
Anyone else feel as though a great weight has been lifted?
Replies
17
Views
855
Robert F
R
Back
Top