Rule change about grunts...

[Mark-Touch]

I was watching a match today and a commentator talked very briefly about a new rule being implemented at this
year's U.S. Open concerning grunts etc.

Have any of you heard about it?

A search hasn't turned up much but I did see this:

"This year introduces notable rule changes. For the first time in Grand Slam history, a new video review system will be in place for double bounces. Prior to this year, double bounces were not reviewable, leaving the decision solely to the chair umpire’s view in real-time. This new rule aims to bring more accuracy and fairness to these decisions.

Each player, in both singles and doubles competitions, will be allotted three challenges per set. If the player’s challenge is successful, they do not lose it. Players can use these challenges to contest various incidents during a match. This includes double bounces, a ball touching a player’s body, a ball touching the net, and hindrance due to noise.

Could this be the start of something big?

 

[RaulRamirez]

I was not aware of that.
I'd like to see something done, but not sure how reviewable/enforceable this will prove to be.

 

[jimmy8]

I was watching a match today and a commentator talked very briefly about a new rule being implemented at this
year's U.S. Open concerning grunts etc.

Have any of you heard about it?

A search hasn't turned up much but I did see this:

"This year introduces notable rule changes. For the first time in Grand Slam history, a new video review system will be in place for double bounces. Prior to this year, double bounces were not reviewable, leaving the decision solely to the chair umpire’s view in real-time. This new rule aims to bring more accuracy and fairness to these decisions.

Each player, in both singles and doubles competitions, will be allotted three challenges per set. If the player’s challenge is successful, they do not lose it. Players can use these challenges to contest various incidents during a match. This includes double bounces, a ball touching a player’s body, a ball touching the net, and hindrance due to noise.

Could this be the start of something big?

We already argued the noise part - it has to be proven to be intentional, and therefore you can make as much noise as you want whenever you want because you can't enter my mind and see what my intent was - or the judge has discretion to determine if intent was there or judge has discretion to determine what makes sense.

 

[tjanev]

The premise behind the grunt is to be an exhale that tightens the core so you get more power. Listen to a boxing or UFC fight. they all do the breathing out when punching so that A. they get more power when striking, and B. they tense up so that a hit back doesn't get them winded if hit in the chest/diaphram. They almost never make an audible sound ( except for the women fighters for some reason ). It goes to show you that an audible grunt is absolutely unnecessary in tennis. BUT... lets say fine, the grunt is acceptable, then a grunt lasting as long as it takes for the ball to travel from the grunter to the recipient is way passed the point it takes to tighten the core muscles. It "may" not be intentional, but it certainly is a lack of breathing control and lazy behaviour to not control onselves actions, thus leading to the hindrance.

 

[jimmy8]

Sabalenka has been grunt moaning long into her opponents' hits at the US Open.

 

[tjanev]

Sabalenka has been grunt moaning long into her opponents' hits at the US Open.

and she should be penalized. only way i can watch her match is muted.

 

[jimmy8]

and she should be penalized. only way i can watch her match is muted.

And she's louder than anyone else - Mayar Sherif, Sorribes Tormo, everyone.

 

[Benf15harp]

Hopefully tiny will be defaulted

 

[LaVie en Rose]

I was watching a match today and a commentator talked very briefly about a new rule being implemented at this
year's U.S. Open concerning grunts etc.

Have any of you heard about it?

A search hasn't turned up much but I did see this:

"This year introduces notable rule changes. For the first time in Grand Slam history, a new video review system will be in place for double bounces. Prior to this year, double bounces were not reviewable, leaving the decision solely to the chair umpire’s view in real-time. This new rule aims to bring more accuracy and fairness to these decisions.

Each player, in both singles and doubles competitions, will be allotted three challenges per set. If the player’s challenge is successful, they do not lose it. Players can use these challenges to contest various incidents during a match. This includes double bounces, a ball touching a player’s body, a ball touching the net, and hindrance due to noise.

Could this be the start of something big?

I knew this , there was also thread, but board is clogged by nostalgia fans meaningless irrelevant to the current tennis threads.

I was wondering who will ask var CH for noise ?
I thought Zapata Miralles grunt was kind of bearable, but stadium is big ... Haven't watched Sabalenka, Alcaraz yet. Did they tone down screeching? Anyone?

I saw Mutet double bounce against Murray was challenged but var failed tough

 

[tex123]

What happened when Thiem let him win?

 

[MichaelNadal]

How in the world are we just now getting video review for double bounces in late 2023

 

[Mark-Touch]

The premise behind the grunt is to be an exhale that tightens the core so you get more power. Listen to a boxing or UFC fight. they all do the breathing out when punching so that A. they get more power when striking, and B. they tense up so that a hit back doesn't get them winded if hit in the chest/diaphram. They almost never make an audible sound ( except for the women fighters for some reason ). It goes to show you that an audible grunt is absolutely unnecessary in tennis. BUT... lets say fine, the grunt is acceptable, then a grunt lasting as long as it takes for the ball to travel from the grunter to the recipient is way passed the point it takes to tighten the core muscles. It "may" not be intentional, but it certainly is a lack of breathing control and lazy behaviour to not control onselves actions, thus leading to the hindrance.

No it's not a lack of breathing control nor lazy behavior.
When the grunt STARTS after the ball has gone over the net and continues when the opponent is hitting the ball, in is intentional.

 

[serbiavic]

Alcaraz was so bad today