Shot clock - the point isn't over until the umpire has spoken?

junior74

Bionic Poster
Been watching Citi Open, with the on court shot clock.

On several occasions, the shot clock has started more than 10 seconds after a point is over. So in 2018, the time between points went from 20 to 35 seconds. WTF is going on?

Tennis rules are clear about when a point is over. They say nothing about waiting for the crowd to stop clapping and the umpire to tell the score, do they? Only then the shot clock starts...

Disgust!? :confused:
 

junior74

Bionic Poster
Just realised a similar thread was made earlier today...

OhK.gif
 
Last edited:

Sport

G.O.A.T.
Incredible that some fanatics Fed supporters still complain even when the shot clock is finally used.

Yes, the shot clock starts when the player takes the balls. Which means that players have on average around 29-30 seconds to serve. It gaves them time to use the towel. If there is an exceptionally long rally of 40 shots, the umpire will give more than 30 seconds to serve.

The only reason way Fed fans want a paranoid ultra-strict rule application of 25 seconds to serve is because they think that would favor Federer. It is not about an ethical "aplication of the rules" but about favoring Federer.

If the ATP were to apply a new rule to allow only the first serve, Fed fans would be the first to complain, since it would not favor Federer.
 
Last edited:

Bartelby

Bionic Poster
It's neither a shot clock nor a serve clock. It's a purely advisory service.

It's the 'let's pretend we fixed things' trick beloved of bureaucratic organisations.

Naturally enough, some people are annoyed at being duped.

Incredible that some fanatics Fed supporters still complain even when the shot clock is finally used.

Yes, the shot clock starts when the player takes the balls. Which means that players have on average around 29-30 seconds to serve. It gaves them time to use the towel. If there is an exceptionally long rally of 40 shots, the umpire will give more than 30 seconds to serve.

The only reason way Fed fans want a paranoic ultra-strict rule application of 25 seconds to serve is because they think that would favor Federer. It is not about an ethical "aplication of the rules" but about favor Federer.

If the ATP were to apply a new rule to allow only the first serve, Fed fans would be the first to complain, since it would not favor Federer.
 

octobrina10

Talk Tennis Guru
Been watching Citi Open, with the on court shot clock.

On several occasions, the shot clock has started more than 10 seconds after a point is over. So in 2018, the time between points went from 20 to 35 seconds. WTF is going on?

Tennis rules are clear about when a point is over. They say nothing about waiting for the crowd to stop clapping and the umpire to tell the score, do they? Only then the shot clock starts...

Disgust!? :confused:

Hmm. You haven't read the rules!

The ATP, WTA and US Tennis Association agreed on a protocol that would allow the clocks to be used in pre-US Open events and rules related to it.
The rules are:
https://tt.tennis-warehouse.com/index.php?threads/shot-clock-observation.623442/#post-12577804
https://tt.tennis-warehouse.com/index.php?threads/shot-clock-observation.623442/#post-12577842

BTW, the time between points has been 25 seconds on the ATP tournaments for years.
 

ADuck

Legend
It's neither a shot clock nor a serve clock. It's a purely advisory service.

It's the 'let's pretend we fixed things' trick beloved of bureaucratic organisations.

Naturally enough, some people are annoyed at being duped.
How exactly were people duped? And who do you think is being duped here? I'd say the people sitting on their bums ideally should have no say on how much time an athlete gets to recover. So it sounds rather entitled and selfish to believe spectators are given more say over than the players.
 

Bartelby

Bionic Poster
I'd say spectators are entitled to see players obey the rules so that their entertainment is not spoiled by watching ass picking, ball bouncing, and other forms of time-wasting.

How exactly were people duped? And who do you think is being duped here? I'd say the people sitting on their bums ideally should have no say on how much time an athlete gets to recover. So it sounds rather entitled and selfish to believe spectators are given more say over than the players.
 

octobrina10

Talk Tennis Guru
I'd say spectators are entitled to see players obey the rules so that their entertainment is not spoiled by watching ass picking, ball bouncing, and other forms of time-wasting.

Hmm. Bartelby's post (quoted) proves yet again that he can't take his eyes off the 'ass'. :D
 

ADuck

Legend
I'd say spectators are entitled to see players obey the rules so that their entertainment is not spoiled by watching ass picking, ball bouncing, and other forms of time-wasting.
You avoided the question. How exactly have people been duped now?
 

Bartelby

Bionic Poster
I've already answered this. Some people expected the shot-clock would be a solution to time-wasting and it was advertised as such. Although the jury is still out, it will make only a slight difference at most.

You avoided the question. How exactly have people been duped now?
 

Bartelby

Bionic Poster
Nadal is famous for his ass, as he himself acknowledges, but there is only so much compulsory ass-gazing that a man can take!

If he picks his ass off screen then my eyes will be relieved, but doing it before serving makes the poo ball spectacle unmissable.

Hmm. Bartelby's post (quoted) proves yet again that he can't take his eyes off the 'ass'. :D
 

ADuck

Legend
I've already answered this. Some people expected the shot-clock would be a solution to time-wasting and it was advertised as such. Although the jury is still out, it will make only a slight difference at most.
It'll make sure players are not taking more time than what's needed, that's really all spectators should ask for. Only people I've seen complaining are Federer fans who know the change is not going to get Rafa defaulted from matches, which by the way is and always was an impossibility.
 

Bartelby

Bionic Poster
I hear tennis and media commentators referring to the issue of time wasting and slow play endlessly.

TV pays the bills so they have reason to be concerned. Slow play equals more time between ad breaks.

As usual, Nadalekian paranoia sees everything in terms of the Fed conspiracy. Money talks, BS around here walks.

It'll make sure players are not taking more time than what's needed, that's really all spectators should ask for. Only people I've seen complaining are Federer fans who know the change is not going to get Rafa defaulted from matches, which by the way is and always was an impossibility.
 

ADuck

Legend
I hear tennis and media commentators referring to the issue of time wasting and slow play endlessly.

TV pays the bills so they have reason to be concerned. Slow play equals more time between ad breaks.

As usual, Nadalekian paranoia sees everything in terms of the Fed conspiracy. Money talks, BS around here walks.
And tennis and media commentators are the the most reliable source of facts aren't they? Does tennis have a money problem i'm not aware of? Ads are only played during changeover breaks so that has **** all to do with slow play, and even if it did, ads is TV broadcasters source of income... It's also not a coincidence that the only people complaining here are Federer fans since they are hoping the rule would give Federer an advantage over his rivals, but now that they realize that is not the case they are throwing their usual hissy fit.
 

Bartelby

Bionic Poster
You haven't got any facts, fanboy, just a conspiracy theory about Federistas causing some sort of counter-Nadalista revolution in the halls of power!

And tennis and media commentators are the the most reliable source of facts aren't they? Does tennis have a money problem i'm not aware of? Ads are only played during changeover breaks so that has **** all to do with slow play, and even if it did, ads is TV broadcasters source of income... It's also not a coincidence that the only people complaining here are Federer fans since they are hoping the rule would give Federer an advantage over his rivals, but now that they realize that is not the case they are throwing their usual hissy fit.
 

ADuck

Legend
You haven't got any facts, fanboy, just a conspiracy theory about Federistas causing some sort of counter-Nadalista revolution in the halls of power!
The facts are:
1. The rules have been slightly altered to be more lenient to the server in light of that they are going to be enforced consistently now and with less discretion from the umpire.
2. Federer fans on this forum are throwing their usual hissy fit in light of that their supposed fantasies of Nadal consistently getting time violations and being disrupted are not going to be as vivid as they imagined
Conclusion: No Problem for real tennis fans.
 
Last edited:

Bartelby

Bionic Poster
Those real fans just escaped some real bad hombres, no?

The facts are:
1. The rules have been slightly altered to be more lenient to the server in light of that they are going to be enforced consistently now and with less discretion from the umpire.
2. Federer fans on this forum are throwing their usual hissy fit in light of that their supposed fantasies of Nadal consistently getting time violations and being disrupted are not going to be as vivid as they hoped to be.
Conclusion: No Problem for real tennis fans.
 

ADuck

Legend
Those real fans just escaped some real bad hombres, no?
Aha! See? The thing is only some Federer fans had that idea in their mind that this was going to majorly affect the way the game was played or hoped it would. The fact that you thought there was an "escape" or something to escape from corroborates my point. The only "escape" was the escape from the highly congested fanatical threads made on this forum about how much of an impact this would have on Nadal. Now that it's clear the rules are made from reasonable and objective people and not the extremely small strain of fanatical Federer fans from a random internet forum, they freak out!
 

Bartelby

Bionic Poster
ADuck quacks, but makes no sense.

Aha! See? The thing is only some Federer fans had that idea in their mind that this was going to majorly affect the way the game was played or hoped it would. The fact that you thought there was an "escape" or something to escape from corroborates my point. The only "escape" was the escape from the highly congested fanatical threads made on this forum about how much of an impact this would have on Nadal. Now that it's clear the rules are made from reasonable and objective people and not the extremely small strain of fanatical Federer fans from a random internet forum, they freak out!
 
Aha! See? The thing is only some Federer fans had that idea in their mind that this was going to majorly affect the way the game was played or hoped it would. The fact that you thought there was an "escape" or something to escape from corroborates my point. The only "escape" was the escape from the highly congested fanatical threads made on this forum about how much of an impact this would have on Nadal. Now that it's clear the rules are made from reasonable and objective people and not the extremely small strain of fanatical Federer fans from a random internet forum, they freak out!

Aren't those the same people that the vamosalaplayan massage girls like to blast for conspiring against poor Humbalito?

:(
 
The facts are:
1. The rules have been slightly altered to be more lenient to the server in light of that they are going to be enforced consistently now and with less discretion from the umpire.
2. Federer fans on this forum are throwing their usual hissy fit in light of that their supposed fantasies of Nadal consistently getting time violations and being disrupted are not going to be as vivid as they imagined
Conclusion: No Problem for real tennis fans.

Even when you are using facts, you can't get anything decent out of them.

The discretion of the umpire increases, as now the umpire decides when the shot clock will be started, as opposed to before, when the rules were clear, the time started to run as soon as the ball went out, and the umpire had the discretion to extend that time only in unusual circumstances.

2. Not many Federer fans expected that Nadal will get a lot of time violations.

Mostly it is expected that he will be forced to abandon the tactic of stalling considerably on critical points, which is what is going to happen.

No more 45 seconds on BP for Nadsy!

:cool:
 

BringBackWood

Professional
Lol Atp introduces device ostentibly to reduce time wasting, that will in fact (and they know it) increase it. It's all about apperances. They must think people are mugs. A large part of me hopes tennis viewership plummets.
 

ADuck

Legend
The discretion of the umpire increases, as now the umpire decides when the shot clock will be started, as opposed to before, when the rules were clear, the time started to run as soon as the ball went out, and the umpire had the discretion to extend that time only in unusual circumstances.
Oh, haha, and here comes little tennis hands, comes running out of the woods to take to carry on the conversation as I fully expected:rolleyes:. I disagree, there's less discretion overall because now once the umpire starts the shotclock, if the player exceeds the 25 second mark on the shot clock, the rules WILL be enforced. The idea to allow the umpire to decide when the shot clock will start is a better idea than what is in place now. Clearly, you were another one fantasizing about the former rule being enforced strictly and without discretion to when the players have just played a long point, crowd is cheering, there's an unforeseen interruption to the server. The former rule was never a proper rule and was never properly enforced because of the fact it was never a proper rule. Sorry, you will have to live with the fact that the people who have improved upon the rule and legitimized it disagree with you here :)

2. Not many Federer fans expected that Nadal will get a lot of time violations.

Mostly it is expected that he will be forced to abandon the tactic of stalling considerably on critical points, which is what is going to happen.

No more 45 seconds on BP for Nadsy!

:cool:
You don't speak for your entire fanbase Tennis Hands. Many people are now upset that the rules have been adjusted to be properly enforced under real live match conditions. And if Nadsy can not longer take 45 seconds on BP's what is there for you to complain about now? Arguing for both sides of the coin as per usual.
 

Bartelby

Bionic Poster
It is indeed mostly about appearances. The space of time that the clock will now actually monitor was probably only ever violated consistently when Djokovic was doing his 'thirty plus ball bounce routine'.

Lol Atp introduces device ostentibly to reduce time wasting, that will in fact (and they know it) increase it. It's all about apperances. They must think people are mugs. A large part of me hopes tennis viewership plummets.
 
Oh, haha, and here comes little tennis hands, comes running out of the woods to take to carry on the conversation as I fully expected:rolleyes:. I disagree, there's less discretion overall because now once the umpire starts the shotclock, if the player exceeds the 25 second mark on the shot clock, the rules WILL be enforced. The idea to allow the umpire to decide when the shot clock will start is a better idea than what is in place now. Clearly, you were another one fantasizing about the former rule being enforced strictly and without discretion to when the players have just played a long point, crowd is cheering, there's an unforeseen interruption to the server. The former rule was never a proper rule and was never properly enforced because of the fact it was never a proper rule. Sorry, you will have to live with the fact that the people who have improved upon the rule and legitimized it disagree with you here :)

You don't speak for your entire fanbase Tennis Hands. Many people are now upset that the rules have been adjusted to be properly enforced under real live match conditions. And if Nadsy can not longer take 45 seconds on BP's what is there for you to complain about now? Arguing for both sides of the coin as per usual.

This post has all the characteristics of the Nadal's pre-serve routine.

:cool:
 

Gary Duane

Talk Tennis Guru
Been watching Citi Open, with the on court shot clock.

On several occasions, the shot clock has started more than 10 seconds after a point is over. So in 2018, the time between points went from 20 to 35 seconds. WTF is going on?

Tennis rules are clear about when a point is over. They say nothing about waiting for the crowd to stop clapping and the umpire to tell the score, do they? Only then the shot clock starts...

Disgust!? :confused:
Wake up. This has been going on for years. You just noticed?

Nadal and Djokovic have both taken more than 35 seconds after DFs.

Let's see what happens when Nadal's rituals put him over, and Novak's ball bouncing.

I think it's a big improvement.

A 10 second extension is not the least bit unreasonable after a long point with a huge amount of crowd involvement.
 

Virginia

Hall of Fame
Let's take the two extremes - (a) a short point, like an Ace or a serve returned for a winner and (b) a long point of 20 shots or more.

After a short point, the score can be read and the clock started immediately. If it's a crucial point, such as a break point, this is where the likes of Nadal, del Potro and Djokovic often tend to go over the limit. At least in those cases, that won't be allowed to happen, or shouldn't...

If it's a long point, unless the crowd is so noisy, the umpire can't call the score, there's no reason why the clock can't be started without delay really. The player with better physical conditioning will be advantaged, which is how it should be.
 
It is indeed mostly about appearances. The space of time that the clock will now actually monitor was probably only ever violated consistently when Djokovic was doing his 'thirty plus ball bounce routine'.

At least Djokovic didn't make the ball too unhygienic to touch.
 

BringBackWood

Professional
Wake up. This has been going on for years. You just noticed?

Nadal and Djokovic have both taken more than 35 seconds after DFs.

Let's see what happens when Nadal's rituals put him over, and Novak's ball bouncing.

I think it's a big improvement.

A 10 second extension is not the least bit unreasonable after a long point with a huge amount of crowd involvement.

Thought you fast forwarded between points? 25 seconds is already more than enough time. Clearly if the crowd is still shouting out the player can't serve, but why use rare exaxmples to base a rule round?

I think that clip of Federer completing a game by the time Nadal gets his serve in is relevant here as well.
 

Gary Duane

Talk Tennis Guru
Thought you fast forwarded between points? 25 seconds is already more than enough time.
Not today and yesterday. I wanted to see what's happening.
Clearly if the crowd is still shouting out the player can't serve, but why use rare exaxmples to base a rule round?
There is no sound rule. They are feeling the whole situation out.
I think that clip of Federer completing a game by the time Nadal gets his serve in is relevant here as well.
I do too, which is why I am VERY curious about what Nadal will do with a clock.

We can see how much faster than the clock Fed really is, and a few others.

The pace today did not seem particularly slow. It was fine for me. My mind is open.
 

junior74

Bionic Poster
Not today and yesterday. I wanted to see what's happening.

There is no sound rule. They are feeling the whole situation out.

I do too, which is why I am VERY curious about what Nadal will do with a clock.

We can see how much faster than the clock Fed really is, and a few others.

Nadal doesn't start his bouncing until the crowd is completely silent, while most of the others even toss the ball while they are noisy, because everyone knows they shut up the moment the ball is in the air.

My point was that the point is over when the ball lands in the net, bounces twice, is hit out etc... That's the tennis rules as we know them, and the players should have 25 seconds from that moment. The shot clock rules trump the tennis rules, it seems.

There will be very few violations now that they wait until the players have gotten the balls before they start the clock. The annoying stuff between points is welcomed by this "change".
 

Gary Duane

Talk Tennis Guru
Nadal doesn't start his bouncing until the crowd is completely silent, while most of the others even toss the ball while they are noisy, because everyone knows they shut up the moment the ball is in the air.

My point was that the point is over when the ball lands in the net, bounces twice, is hit out etc... That's the tennis rules as we know them, and the players should have 25 seconds from that moment. The shot clock rules trump the tennis rules, it seems.

There will be very few violations now that they wait until the players have gotten the balls before they start the clock. The annoying stuff between points is welcomed by this "change".
I repeat: I want to see what happens.

My prediction: It will now finally become provable when players abuse the time. The clock makes it transparent. We never saw the time before. That put the ump in the middle. I think things will be more manageable.

Here's what I want to know. Does the clock get reset after a fault?
 

junior74

Bionic Poster
I repeat: I want to see what happens.

My prediction: It will now finally become provable when players abuse the time. The clock makes it transparent. We never saw the time before. That put the ump in the middle. I think things will be more manageable.

Here's what I want to know. Does the clock get reset after a fault?

My prediction: The average time spent will increase, because the players now know they have 10 seconds rest before the clock even starts.

I want to see what happens, too.
 

Gary Duane

Talk Tennis Guru
My prediction: The average time spent will increase, because the players now know they have 10 seconds rest before the clock even starts.

I want to see what happens, too.
Will be interesting to see what varies from ump to ump.

I could only see the clock when they showed it, but not during points. I'd like to see the time more obviously shown.

You know whatever else happens, the real test will be Nadal, Djokovic and a few others.
 

Bartelby

Bionic Poster
25 seconds from the end of the umpire's call, plus the pre-call period, is oodles of time even for Nadal, Djokovic and the like. The time-wasters have won.
 

Sudacafan

Bionic Poster
Been watching Citi Open, with the on court shot clock.

On several occasions, the shot clock has started more than 10 seconds after a point is over. So in 2018, the time between points went from 20 to 35 seconds. WTF is going on?

Tennis rules are clear about when a point is over. They say nothing about waiting for the crowd to stop clapping and the umpire to tell the score, do they? Only then the shot clock starts...

Disgust!? :confused:
The only ones who benefit from the shot clock are the shot clock manufacturers.
 

junior74

Bionic Poster
25 seconds from the end of the umpire's call, plus the pre-call period, is oodles of time even for Nadal, Djokovic and the like. The time-wasters have won.

That's my first impression, too. I thought it would start when the point was over, in a traditional sense.

Now we wait for the umpire. This circus needs more clowns.

Luckily, many of the younger players play faster. A sympathetic trait most of them share.
 
25 seconds from the end of the umpire's call, plus the pre-call period, is oodles of time even for Nadal, Djokovic and the like. The time-wasters have won.

"Yes" and "no".

"Yes" because now everyone will waste more time.

"No", because the notorious time wasters weren't doing it for any other purpose, but to mess with the opponent's rhythm and focus , and now that advantage will be gone.

:cool:
 

Bartelby

Bionic Poster
The new shot clock won't speed up play, as you can see from this image of the new timepiece armchair:

P0000153746S0033T2.jpg

"Yes" and "no".

"Yes" because now everyone will waste more time.

"No", because the notorious time wasters weren't doing it for any other purpose, but to mess with the opponent's rhythm and focus , and now that advantage will be gone.

:cool:
 
D

Deleted member 77403

Guest
Lol Nice way to misrepresent numbers. 4.5 years lol. well I agree with that Roger dominated for last 4.5 years but before that 28 years were of Rafa domination. H2H still stands 23-15. Lets talk when it is comparable.

Numbers get abused big time. Two of the ones thrown around the most when it comes to Fedal.

Nadal hasn't beaten Federer in 4.5 years - Fedal have played five times, all on hard court. One during Nadal's worst year, and the other four were in the same season. Reality, Federer owned Nadal for one year.

Nadal has owned Federer in slams for 10 years - Nadal's slam winning sequence started at RG 08, and ended at AO 2014. That is six years, not ten years. Reality, you cannot give years of dominance to someone if you fail to make it to the match.
 
Top