Shot clock rules

OrangePower

Legend
This topic deserves it's own thread...

We need a countdown shot clock like in basketball. It needs to be visible to everyone (players, umpire, spectators), and enforced objectively.

The intent should be to limit excessive time taken between points, for the benefit of spectators. We really don't need to be watching players toweling off for 30 secs after serving an ace, for example.

The is not to penalize any individual player, or to degrade play (by forcing players to recover immediately after a long point). Therefore, players should have the ability to call a limited number of timeouts, which they could then use at their discretion.

I would propose rules something along these lines:

1. Shot clock is activated when umpire calls time (e.g. after a changeover), or following a point once the ball is dead.
2. Shot clock counts down from 25 secs.
3. Server must make contact with the ball before time expires. Ball-bouncing does not stop the clock, neither does catching an errant toss.
4. Server may call a timeout at any time before the clock hits zero.
5. Receiver plays to server's pace, subject to calling a timeout.
6. Notwithstanding point 5 above, the server shall not serve before 10 seconds are left on the clock if the receiver is not yet ready. Once 10 seconds or less show on the clock, the server may serve at any time regardless.
7. Server and receiver each get one 15 second timeout per game, plus an additional timeout each if the game reaches deuce. Timeouts may be called for any reason.
8. Penalties remain as they are today - loss of first serve, followed by loss of point.
9. Umpire has ability to suspend/restart the shot clock in the event that there is an external disturbance.

The exact parameters can be tweaked as needed, but I think in principle this would work.
 

BGod

G.O.A.T.
I am for 30 seconds after point is over.

Clock stops when ball leaves player's hand for toss. Catching the ball at the last second obviously means violation. First serve, then point.

Each service game the player has one pass where he motions to umpire by waving hand and gets unlimited time for one serve. The clock would be turned off and hopefully the player doesn't try to get wise and burn two minutes, umpire has discretion past a minute.

I don't agree with the OPs timeouts for the receiver or waiting to 20 seconds. Those are unfounded suggestions. Why can't a player serve within 15 seconds? Deuces shouldn't come with extras either. Chances are players would use passes at 40-30 or Ad anyway. Not 15-0.
 

jga111

Hall of Fame
I don't think we should have a shot clock. For one simple reason - we already have it! It's called "the umpire". Having another form of shot clock in place is undermining to the umpire. If a player takes too long then they should be warned/penalised - which does happen, but I guess not as often as you'd like. Players have enough to worry about in the game before also thinking about an explicit shot clock. But like I said, if they take too long then then umpire needs to do his bit. Maybe what does need to happen is to put pressure on the ATP/WTA so that umpires are not necessarily so lenient at times - and they need to be consistent.

But let us talk your case - say there is a shot clock. How would it work exactly? What happens when someone in the crowd shouts during a player's toss which leads to him stopping and starting again when the crowd has settled? Does the clock reset itself? Who does the resetting? Could this get perpetually confusing?
 

Zoolander

Hall of Fame
Sounds very complicated. Why dont we just have a loud beeping timer that starts once the previous point finishes. It gets faster as 30 seconds approaches and if you dont serve in time then BOOM!

Sure it might play havoc with the servers concentration but there are positives and negatives to everything.
 

moonballs

Hall of Fame
Why extend the time to 30 sec? I am ok when it is granted on occasions but as a rule it is not a good idea. I am against anything that either wastes my time or promotes grinding. Extending the time meets both criteria.
 

vive le beau jeu !

Talk Tennis Guru
there was a not-too-old thread about it:
http://tt.tennis-warehouse.com/index.php?threads/do-you-support-a-shot-clock.534309/#post-9351696
;)
by shot clock, do you mean a sort of device, not requiring any human interaction, that automatically shoots the players who go over the limit, right ?

AnaArtillery.gif

(they thought about the changeovers, didn't they ? oh crap...)
 

Bartelby

Bionic Poster
I just noticed that the players were warned about the 20 second rule at the net before the match.

I was waiting for someone to reply to the umpire's usual 'Any questions?' with:

- 20 seconds unless you're Rafa (Kyrgios)

- you can not be serious, no? (Rafa)
 

Shaolin

G.O.A.T.
Shot clock is a stupid idea. Umpires just need to enforce the rule.

Anyway now that Nadal can't make it more than a few rounds his time wasting isn't that big of a deal.
 

woodrow1029

Hall of Fame
This topic deserves it's own thread...

We need a countdown shot clock like in basketball. It needs to be visible to everyone (players, umpire, spectators), and enforced objectively.

The intent should be to limit excessive time taken between points, for the benefit of spectators. We really don't need to be watching players toweling off for 30 secs after serving an ace, for example.

The is not to penalize any individual player, or to degrade play (by forcing players to recover immediately after a long point). Therefore, players should have the ability to call a limited number of timeouts, which they could then use at their discretion.

I would propose rules something along these lines:

1. Shot clock is activated when umpire calls time (e.g. after a changeover), or following a point once the ball is dead.
2. Shot clock counts down from 25 secs.
3. Server must make contact with the ball before time expires. Ball-bouncing does not stop the clock, neither does catching an errant toss.
4. Server may call a timeout at any time before the clock hits zero.
5. Receiver plays to server's pace, subject to calling a timeout.
6. Notwithstanding point 5 above, the server shall not serve before 10 seconds are left on the clock if the receiver is not yet ready. Once 10 seconds or less show on the clock, the server may serve at any time regardless.
7. Server and receiver each get one 15 second timeout per game, plus an additional timeout each if the game reaches deuce. Timeouts may be called for any reason.
8. Penalties remain as they are today - loss of first serve, followed by loss of point.
9. Umpire has ability to suspend/restart the shot clock in the event that there is an external disturbance.

The exact parameters can be tweaked as needed, but I think in principle this would work.

Your #8 isn't correct. That's not what the penalties are.

First one is a warning.

For the server, each subsequent time violation is loss of first serve.
For the receiver, each subsequent time violation is loss of point.
 

mightyrick

Legend
IMHO, a serve clock is needed.

Umpires either do not enforce the rule, do not enforce it consistently, or they enforce the rule differently between umpires. There is no standardized enforcement.

If you don't have a serve clock, then you need to start fining umpires. If an umpire does not make a shot clock violation call, then you fine them $500USD for each missed call. If they want to be paid for doing their job, then they need to actually do their job or face performance penalties. The lack of enforcement of this rule is almost equivalent to line judges hooking players on key match points.

If you do have a serve clock, the following things should be done:

1) The serve clock should be standard to start it when the umpire calls the score.
2) If a hindrance (flash photography, fans not in their sets, returner not ready, etc) is encountered while the serve clock is running, then it should be reset/restarted when the hindrance is removed.
3) The shot clock should only be visible to the server, so it should be behind the receiving player.

Simple and easy.
 

The_Racketeer

Professional
I would prefer a "shot clock" on the umpire chair that only he can see. He uses it to accurately assess each player's abuse of time and then issue warnings and penalties as needed.

For instance, if the umpire notices that a player regularly takes 45 seconds between points, he can warn the player that he's taking on average 45 secs and to speed it up. If the player speeds up but is still too slow the umpire can further earn him. If the player makes no attmpt to speed up a penalty can be issued.

Yes, it's a bit subjective to the will of the umpire, but I like it better than players staring at a clock and getting their groove thrown off. Tennis is too much of a mental game for that.
 

gino

Legend
The shot clock notion would make tennis more watchable for people who don't understand the intricies of our sport. Most of the mental warefare and tactical preparation is done between points. I do believe it would be a great move for the NCAA, NAIA, ITF, WTA, and ATP to agree on uniform rules for a shotclock. Change is a good thing when it makes our sport more watchable and less stagnant. I would welcome a shot clock of 25-30secs
 

mightyrick

Legend
The shot clock notion would make tennis more watchable for people who don't understand the intricies of our sport. Most of the mental warefare and tactical preparation is done between points. I do believe it would be a great move for the NCAA, NAIA, ITF, WTA, and ATP to agree on uniform rules for a shotclock. Change is a good thing when it makes our sport more watchable and less stagnant. I would welcome a shot clock of 25-30secs

Absolutely. The flat-earthers who don't want a shot clock are resisting it for the same reasons that people tried to avoid Hawkeye. Of course, now that we have Hawkeye, those people love it and wouldn't change it. Unless they are just stubborn people who will never admit wrongness if their life depended on it.

For goodness sake, if baseball can put a shot-clock up visible by pitchers, catchers, and batters to see... how can tennis not?

It's a good thing that humans only live about 80 years or so. If humans lived forever, I swear we'd still be making fire by rubbing sticks together.
 

Praetorian

Professional
They should have it automated. Once the shot clock expires, a recording should state "time violation", and the scoreboard automatically reflects it. When the player complains, the umpire should just state "I have not control over that, but YOU have control how long YOU take"
 

BGod

G.O.A.T.
Pospisil was warned by Maria that it was 30 seconds, not 20.

To be honest, 20 is really pushing it. I never thought about how long I take for my serves but 20 seconds is not much time from the end of a long rally, to getting to the line and positioning yourself. It should absolutely be 30. If you think this would make the game too long you're lying to yourself. If a player fully utilized the 30 seconds and the set when to tiebreak it would still be in the 50-60 min mark, which is the norm now.
 

mistik

Hall of Fame
Yesssssssssssssssssssssss.İf time is really important thats the only way. Otherwise this time rule can easily used as a weapon.
 

ibbi

G.O.A.T.
I don't really think there's much need for it, especially given that they're making so much effort to slow the game down so that rallies get longer, and longer, and longer, and then they want to start bringing in rules to speed the players up? It's ridiculous.

But if it's going to be, I'd say it should be set at 20 seconds, and maybe 5 seconds get added on to it for every 10 strokes played in a rally? So if you play a 20 stroke rally you get 30 seconds, if you play a 60 stroke rally you get 50 seconds (I'm think I'm doing my math right:confused:), if you play anything up to 9 strokes it stays at 20.
 

West Coast Ace

G.O.A.T.
I suppose you can't see what could possibly go wrong with that...
Exactly. People were loudly oohing and aahing yesterday when Stan and Gasquet were exchanging more than 4 BHs - they'd completely go nuts if the clock got close to 0 - then the chair would have to get on the mic and shut them up. All the goodness of keeping the players on the clock would be lost.
 

Gary Duane

G.O.A.T.
Exactly. People were loudly oohing and aahing yesterday when Stan and Gasquet were exchanging more than 4 BHs - they'd completely go nuts if the clock got close to 0 - then the chair would have to get on the mic and shut them up. All the goodness of keeping the players on the clock would be lost.
I was talking specifically about a timer than only the chair umpire can see. That will start the usual arguments about unfair umping.
 

West Coast Ace

G.O.A.T.
I was talking specifically about a timer than only the chair umpire can see. That will start the usual arguments about unfair umping.
Not if there is a sync'd clock in the office and the chairs are being monitored. Any chair unfairly targeting - or being soft - on a specific player would be dealt with quickly.

Tennis isn't other sports. Fine as is.
 

gino

Legend
There won't be any shot clock. The time between points rule needs to be lengthened.

You really think so, Mustard? After all the violations we've seen been given out this year? Seems like the ATP is creating a trend of enforcing it more and more often each season.. Will be interesting to see the development
 

Mustard

Bionic Poster
You really think so, Mustard? After all the violations we've seen been given out this year? Seems like the ATP is creating a trend of enforcing it more and more often each season.. Will be interesting to see the development

All it's doing is proving how ridiculous the rule is. Pospisil had 2 time violations against Murray, for example, merely for catching his breath. The tennis is what should matter. Therefore, the time rule needs to be lengthened to about 45 seconds, so that it becomes an irrelevance.

It's obvious to anyone that 20 seconds in best of 5 sets matches is beyond a joke.
 

gino

Legend
All it's doing is proving how ridiculous the rule is. Pospisil had 2 time violations against Murray, for example, merely for catching his breath. The tennis is what should matter. Therefore, the time rule needs to be lengthened to about 45 seconds, so that it becomes an irrelevance.

It's obvious to anyone that 20 seconds in best of 5 sets matches is beyond a joke.

@Mustard , agreed my friend, it just seems that even if it is expanded to let's say 45 secs, it should still be enforced by a clock with a countdown. It will keep players honest, and actually build on the notion that mental toughness is important. Players will be forced to collect their thoughts and envision the next serve/return. It's not all about the spectators IMO, the players could benefit from a more technical approach too
 

The_Racketeer

Professional
The reason I'm against a highly visible clock like we see in basketball is that it will be distracting to the players. In basketball it's on during play and adds to the high energy of the moment, forcing a team to be offensive. What's being proposed here is a clock between points that will be focused on instead of focusing on the serve, the game, etc. It will be distracting, and the crowd will murmur. Most of the time it isn't an issue. But when it is, I'd prefer to see the umpire issue warnings as necessary so that the game moves along without needless point penalties. Too many of those start happening and we're going to have debates over whether or not so-and-so earned his win or if it was because of penalties.
 

illzoni

Semi-Pro
The reason I'm against a highly visible clock ... It will be distracting, and the crowd will murmur.

This is a valid concern. The noise at other sports using clocks often intensifies with the lower numbers. Once in a while a savvy crowd will count down early, trying to fool the visiting team into rushing unnecessarily.

Provisions need to be made for extra time after grueling rallies. They're good for tennis. A strict shot clock might diminish them as players fear time penalties and thus strive for shorter rallies.

"Time out" is a poor term to use. I suggest "extension" as used in billiards.

I believe the impetus behind this movement is to relieve the subjective enforcement by the official. As such, I would favor other methods of enforcing officials' standards before implementation.
 

Camilio Pascual

Hall of Fame
This topic deserves it's own thread...

We need a countdown shot clock like in basketball. It needs to be visible to everyone (players, umpire, spectators), and enforced objectively.

The intent should be to limit excessive time taken between points, for the benefit of spectators. We really don't need to be watching players toweling off for 30 secs after serving an ace, for example.

The is not to penalize any individual player, or to degrade play (by forcing players to recover immediately after a long point). Therefore, players should have the ability to call a limited number of timeouts, which they could then use at their discretion.

I would propose rules something along these lines:

1. Shot clock is activated when umpire calls time (e.g. after a changeover), or following a point once the ball is dead.
2. Shot clock counts down from 25 secs.
3. Server must make contact with the ball before time expires. Ball-bouncing does not stop the clock, neither does catching an errant toss.
4. Server may call a timeout at any time before the clock hits zero.
5. Receiver plays to server's pace, subject to calling a timeout.
6. Notwithstanding point 5 above, the server shall not serve before 10 seconds are left on the clock if the receiver is not yet ready. Once 10 seconds or less show on the clock, the server may serve at any time regardless.
7. Server and receiver each get one 15 second timeout per game, plus an additional timeout each if the game reaches deuce. Timeouts may be called for any reason.
8. Penalties remain as they are today - loss of first serve, followed by loss of point.
9. Umpire has ability to suspend/restart the shot clock in the event that there is an external disturbance.

The exact parameters can be tweaked as needed, but I think in principle this would work.
 

diggler

Hall of Fame
If it was a serous issue, then a shot clock would be good. However, in the real world outside this forum, it is not an issue. Are tv ratings or ticket sales lower because of excessive time between points? No.
 
Top