The tennis shot-clock: reality vs delusions

intrepidish

Hall of Fame
There is another sport with similarly structured play: American rules football. Every play starts with a snap and ends when the ball is ruled dead. One team - the offense - has the ball (much like the server) and the other team defends, and is forced to play to the pace of the offense until the possession is over (like a service game)

The offense is given 40 seconds to at the end of the previous play to start the next play (the play clock), but may elect to take less time. If the ball is not snapped when the play clock reaches zero, the offense is given a "delay of game" penalty

If one can coordinate 22 players on the field to play with a play clock, I'm pretty sure we can do that with 2/4 players in tennis


Of course, one can attempt to analogize tennis to football where silence and calm before beginning action is not even remotely contemplated. However now we have traveled even farther from the traditions of tennis and the mere suggestion is rather comical.
 
An audible buzzer that goes off when the clock reaches zero would be very easy to implement. We know why it's not done though

yes it would take the advantage away from players who are willing to use their status on tour to break the rules whenever it gives them even the tiniest advantage.
 

jm1980

Talk Tennis Guru
Of course, one can attempt to analogize tennis to football where silence and calm before beginning action is not even remotely contemplated. However now we have traveled even farther from the traditions of tennis and the mere suggestion is rather comical.
Not only is silence not remotely contemplated but actively discouraged

Let's bring tennis to the 21st century

Again, there is no reason at all for professional players to take more than 25 seconds to serve the ball other than gamesmanship
 

insideguy

G.O.A.T.
Of course, one can attempt to analogize tennis to football where silence and calm before beginning action is not even remotely contemplated. However now we have traveled even farther from the traditions of tennis and the mere suggestion is rather comical.
The thing is that what is a fact in football is the play clock isn't looked at like a random thing. The issue that tennis faces is they put a rule in and don't really seem to want to enforce it. If enforced players would fall in line. If they decided in football well, I mean the quarterback got a bug in his eye on that play lets give him a break then the rule is not a rule. The reason the rule works in football is they enforce it. If you are going to say well there are a lot of distractions and stuff in tennis therefore leniency should be given then don't even have the rule.
 

Daniel Andrade

Hall of Fame
I agree with what you said about the data, there should be a starting point where everyone should agree the clock should start, however, even taking this into account, yesterday, as a Rafa fan, became bored to see Nadal taking more time than usual before the first serve of a game. I didn't even notice it until I decided to pay attention because of ttw. To me that's unnecessary, why take that extra time?
And I'm sure many other players do it as well, why?
To avoid being tired?
 

jm1980

Talk Tennis Guru
The thing is that what is a fact in football is the play clock isn't looked at like a random thing. The issue that tennis faces is they put a rule in and don't really seem to want to enforce it. If enforced players would fall in line. If they decided in football well, I mean the quarterback got a bug in his eye on that play lets give him a break then the rule is not a rule. The reason the rule works in football is they enforce it. If you are going to say well there are a lot of distractions and stuff in tennis therefore leniency should be given then don't even have the rule.
Exactly, it's a mockery of the supposed rules if the players are just allowed to take as much time as they want

Either enforce it or get rid of it
 

intrepidish

Hall of Fame
The thing is that what is a fact in football is the play clock isn't looked at like a random thing. The issue that tennis faces is they put a rule in and don't really seem to want to enforce it. If enforced players would fall in line. If they decided in football well, I mean the quarterback got a bug in his eye on that play lets give him a break then the rule is not a rule. The reason the rule works in football is they enforce it. If you are going to say well there are a lot of distractions and stuff in tennis therefore leniency should be given then don't even have the rule.

The rule in tennis was always going to have more indeterminacy built into it. That's due to the nature of tennis as a sport. Football was designed to be both rough and rigidly timed and is in many ways the opposite of baseball, a pastoral sport with no time limits which is a much closer analog to tennis of the major US sports.

Enforcing a rule like this in tennis will always involve more discretion because it's being applied to a situation in which without discretion you would get very undesirable outcomes as tennis points are supposed to start in a state of calm with virtually nothing impacting the start of play i.e. more like a golf swing.
 

insideguy

G.O.A.T.
The rule in tennis was always going to have more indeterminacy built into it. That's due to the nature of tennis as a sport. Football was designed to be both rough and rigidly timed and is in many ways the opposite of baseball, a pastoral sport with no time limits which is a much closer analog to tennis of the major US sports.

Enforcing a rule like this in tennis will always involve more discretion because it's being applied to a situation in which without discretion you would get very undesirable outcomes as tennis points are supposed to start in a state of calm with virtually nothing impacting the start of play i.e. more like a golf swing.
But like I said then don't have the rule. If indeed Football is a different game then fine. But then don't put a rule in place that makes no sense for the game. If you are not going to call it. Look the just general idea that someone gets a "warning" for a time violation is ridiculous. If the ump feels that he's way over then you lose a point. I think you would be surprised how fast the players fall into line. It wouldn't be long at all.
 

AnOctorokForDinner

Talk Tennis Guru
Enforcing a rule like this in tennis will always involve more discretion because it's being applied to a situation in which without discretion you would get very undesirable outcomes as tennis points are supposed to start in a state of calm with virtually nothing impacting the start of play i.e. more like a golf swing.

You would still have a fixed allotted time to refocus and prepare for the next point. If it's not enough, it's your fault and your weakness. Looks like you want to argue for what the masses want or think they want, rather than what is right.
 

octobrina10

Talk Tennis Guru
Not only is silence not remotely contemplated but actively discouraged

Let's bring tennis to the 21st century

Again, there is no reason at all for professional players to take more than 25 seconds to serve the ball other than gamesmanship
A player who takes more than 25 seconds before starting his service motion will get punished by the chair umpire. Simple. The chair umpire controls the time, not broadcasters, who ignore the serve clock.
 

Aabye5

G.O.A.T.
The thing is that what is a fact in football is the play clock isn't looked at like a random thing. The issue that tennis faces is they put a rule in and don't really seem to want to enforce it. If enforced players would fall in line. If they decided in football well, I mean the quarterback got a bug in his eye on that play lets give him a break then the rule is not a rule. The reason the rule works in football is they enforce it. If you are going to say well there are a lot of distractions and stuff in tennis therefore leniency should be given then don't even have the rule.

You can't compare team sports to individual sports. If a player gets injured in a team sport, they sit out.

In an individual sport, the match ends if the injury is serious, the match ends.
 

jm1980

Talk Tennis Guru
I wonder why you are unable to understand that the 25-second countdown begins when the umpire calls the score and it doesn't matter how a player spends his time during those 25 seconds before starting his service motion.
This is a blatant lie that during the 1st set TB against Mannarino Rafa started his service motion 20 seconds after the serve clock hit zero.
(I have replied you the same multiple times.)
You are cheating readers. I've timed it the point at 8-8 in the tiebreaker. Nadal takes a whopping 36 seconds after the ball is called out (when the serve clock should have started) to start his serve. Even taking into account the 7 second delay between the ball being called out and the umpire calling the score 8-all, he served 29 seconds after the score is called.

I will concede that Nadal likely did not start his service motion 20 seconds after the serve clock hit zero, but the clock definitely did expire
 
Last edited:

jm1980

Talk Tennis Guru
You can't compare team sports to individual sports. If a player gets injured in a team sport, they sit out.

In an individual sport, the match ends if the injury is serious, the match ends.
How does that change the shot clock equation in any way?
 

insideguy

G.O.A.T.
You can't compare team sports to individual sports. If a player gets injured in a team sport, they sit out.

In an individual sport, the match ends if the injury is serious, the match ends.

Then why are we even having this rule in the first place? It appears to mean very little at all. I mean if we are at the point of my god if he has to serve in 25 seconds he could hurt himself then get rid of the rule
 

jm1980

Talk Tennis Guru
Then why are we even having this rule in the first place? It appears to mean very little at all. I mean if we are at the point of my god if he has to serve in 25 seconds he could hurt himself then get rid of the rule
This is baloney and they know it. No one is going to hurt themselves serving within 25 seconds
 

AnOctorokForDinner

Talk Tennis Guru
The solution is to remove discretion and make the time rule purely automatic. This will require some changes. Here's what I have in mind:

1. Fix the max time that may elapse from the end of the previous point to the start of the next one. Start the count right away. Automatically account for the length of the previous point if you would, e.g. by adding 5 secs for every 10 shots (i.e. if the previous point lasted less than 10 shots, the time is 25 sec, if it lasted 10-19, the time is 30 sec, if it lasted 20-29, the time is 35 sec, etc.).
2. Enforce the limit strictly and automatically, punishing anyone who breaks it. Probably a point penalty after the first warning, and then it's another point penalty etc... don't need game penalties for that, sure.
3. The umpire may stop the shot clock only in case of an obvious disruption, for example a string has popped during the previous point so the player must go change his racquet before starting the next point.
4. Fix the time between service attempts while you're at it. Maybe 12 seconds or something. Stalling before 2nd serve should not be tolerated, either.

I might have missed something, help welcome. The idea(l) is to force players to get rid of time-wasting and have them move and prepare at a steady pace short of actually rushing them.
 

AnOctorokForDinner

Talk Tennis Guru
Traditionally players did not stall on serve, because it was considered ungentlemanly. Perhaps some claycourters did it, but it was mostly frowned upon. When guys like Connors incorporated disruptions (which necessarily cause stalling) as a regular tactic to win, they were called out by some, but ultimately nothing happened and their tactics were allowed to prosper. That was the start of it I suppose. I appreciate Connors and McEnroe for their tennis and fight, but they should have never been allowed to behave like that.
 

insideguy

G.O.A.T.
And one of the things that bugs me about men’s tennis in general is the lack of breaks. This could help that. And it would be equal for both sides. I don’t know I’m very progressive with certain things. Players would adjust very quickly and after two months pace of play would be better, breaks would be more frequent and overall the matches would be more fun. And it would most likely cause players to go for more shots instead of beating the ball back and forth at each other for 20 strokes
 

octobrina10

Talk Tennis Guru
I agree with what you said about the data, there should be a starting point where everyone should agree the clock should start, however, even taking this into account, yesterday, as a Rafa fan, became bored to see Nadal taking more time than usual before the first serve of a game. I didn't even notice it until I decided to pay attention because of ttw. To me that's unnecessary, why take that extra time?
And I'm sure many other players do it as well, why?
To avoid being tired?

I'm wondering, how it's possible that you "became bored to see Nadal taking more time than usual before the first serve of a game" if you did not notice it. :unsure:

You are a victim of Rafa bashers (on TTW) who have no idea what Shapovalov was complaining about. You read false stories about Rafa, generated by bashers who don't watch matches.
 

octobrina10

Talk Tennis Guru
You are cheating readers. I've timed it the point at 8-8 in the tiebreaker. Nadal takes a whopping 36 seconds after the ball is called out (when the serve clock should have started) to start his serve. Even taking into account the 7 second delay between the ball being called out and the umpire calling the score 8-all, he served 29 seconds after the score is called.

I will concede that Nadal likely did not start his service motion 20 seconds after the serve clock hit zero, but the clock definitely did expire

You are again trying to mislead readers. The chair umpire operates the serve clock. The 25-second countdown begins when the chair umpire calls the score & triggers the serve clock and ends when the clock hits zero. The measurements you make have nothing to do with the serve clock.
 

jm1980

Talk Tennis Guru
You are again trying to mislead readers. The chair umpire operates the serve clock. The 25-second countdown begins when the chair umpire calls the score & triggers the serve clock and ends when the clock hits zero. The measurements you make have nothing to do with the serve clock.
Are you suggesting the umpire, for no reason in particular, started the serve clock 11 or more seconds after the ball had been called out, and several seconds after he called the score?
 

octobrina10

Talk Tennis Guru
Are you suggesting the umpire, for no reason in particular, started the serve clock 11 or more seconds after the ball had been called out, and several seconds after he called the score?
It has been explained multiple times (scroll up) when the chair umpire triggers the serve clock. As for the end of the 25-second countdown, TV commentators are constantly staring at the serve clock and the clock hitting zero would not go unnoticed by them.
 

darthrafa

Hall of Fame
being a rafa fans, i would agree that though allowance HAVE to be given subject to the umpire's discretion, rules are rules. everyone should not abuse it. In this case, shapo's complain is valid but dealt with it wrongly. he can voice out at the end of a point or a game but it is silly to raise it when there were still 7 seconds left. In the meantime, it would adversely affect performance for most players in a heated situation. Let alone, sooner or later, he also needs such allowance.
 

jm1980

Talk Tennis Guru
It has been explained multiple times (scroll up) when the chair umpire triggers the serve clock. As for the end of the 25-second countdown, TV commentators are constantly staring at the serve clock and the clock hitting zero would not go unnoticed by them.
You claimed the serve clock is started when the umpire calls the score. Nadal served 29 seconds after the umpire called the score at 8-all
 

octobrina10

Talk Tennis Guru
I keep wondering why Rafa bashers, who have no idea what Shapovalov was complaining about (during his match against Rafa), generated a problem about something (the 25-second time limit between points) that wasn't a problem. :unsure:
 

PilotPete

Hall of Fame
I propose a new rule. No discretion by the umpire, take it out of his/her hands completely. The clock starts as soon as Hawkeye calls it out or winner. For rallies under X, the clock starts after 20 seconds. For rallies greater than X shots, clock is 30 seconds. The actually threshold can vary depending on a vote. I suggest X=10, but 20 could work too.
 

NonP

Legend
All this talk of taking discretion away from the umpire is a pipe dream. That ain't how pro tennis works in the real world, kids.

My infallible eyes didn't detect Bull taking an inordinate amount of time last nite. What was actually iffy was the MTO he took when Shapo was gaining momentum, but as some of you jokers have noted it was also perfectly legal. Should such MTOs be done away with altogether? Debatable, but you can't blame players for taking advantage of any rules already in place.
 

Aabye5

G.O.A.T.
Then why are we even having this rule in the first place? It appears to mean very little at all. I mean if we are at the point of my god if he has to serve in 25 seconds he could hurt himself then get rid of the rule

You are right that this rule is not strictly enforced, and gets ignored by Rafa and other players. But your injury between points example is extreme. My point is that the risk of injury increases if a point goes 20+ shots, and in my opinion the rule was not designed to force the issue, but rather to prevent stalling.

The ATP made the decision to allow refs to decide when to start the clock, for a reason. The intention was never to rush players, but to head off deliberate stalling like Nastase's two minute delay of the '75 ATP Finals [1].

Now, the code says clearly that players should start the next point within 25 seconds, and I don't have a problem with strict enforcement of this rule, but many are confusing the letter of the law with the intent.

Notice that Sharapova, who took even more time than Rafa, received remarkably less grief [2]. I wonder why? :unsure:
 

octobrina10

Talk Tennis Guru
What's impossible? That Nadal served 29 seconds after the score had been called? It's very possible (and usual for Nadal), and you can time it yourself

The point is 8-all in the first set TB
Yes, it's impossible that Rafa started his service motion 4 seconds after the serve clock hit zero and TV commentators did not notice it.

I repeat again: the measurements you make have nothing to do with the serve clock.
 

insideguy

G.O.A.T.
You are right that this rule is not strictly enforced, and gets ignored by Rafa and other players. But your injury between points example is extreme. My point is that the risk of injury increases if a point goes 20+ shots, and in my opinion the rule was not designed to force the issue, but rather to prevent stalling.

The ATP made the decision to allow refs to decide when to start the clock, for a reason. The intention was never to rush players, but to head off deliberate stalling like Nastase's two minute delay of the '75 ATP Finals [1].

Now, the code says clearly that players should start the next point within 25 seconds, and I don't have a problem with strict enforcement of this rule, but many are confusing the letter of the law with the intent.

Notice that Sharapova, who took even more time than Rafa, received remarkably less grief [2]. I wonder why? :unsure:
Heck I hated when she did it to. I’m not anti Rafa. I hate that they have a rule they don’t want to enforce therefore players are not going to follow the rule. I don’t like pace of play.
 

Aabye5

G.O.A.T.
I propose a new rule. No discretion by the umpire, take it out of his/her hands completely. The clock starts as soon as Hawkeye calls it out or winner. For rallies under X, the clock starts after 20 seconds. For rallies greater than X shots, clock is 30 seconds. The actually threshold can vary depending on a vote. I suggest X=10, but 20 could work too.

I don't have a problem with this.

Now, why do you think they left it at the discretion of the umpire in the first place?
 

Aabye5

G.O.A.T.
Heck I hated when she did it to. I’m not anti Rafa. I hate that they have a rule they don’t want to enforce therefore players are not going to follow the rule. I don’t like pace of play.

The rule is literally that play should start within 25 seconds, and that the umpire is responsible for keeping the time.

It's fine if you don't agree with that second clause, but it does not mean it isn't there.
 

NonP

Legend
Heck I hated when she did it to. I’m not anti Rafa. I hate that they have a rule they don’t want to enforce therefore players are not going to follow the rule. I don’t like pace of play.

And I don't mind. Not much of an argument now, is it?

I don't have a problem with this.

Now, why do you think they left it at the discretion of the umpire in the first place?

Plenty of tournament directors would. Most of them don't even have resources for counting length of rally. AFAIK only TV networks do those unofficial stats.
 

Aabye5

G.O.A.T.
What else do they do besides keep scores and say okay you can go to the bathroom. lol. They certainly don't enforce rules :)

Ha, nice try...among other things, they answer questions about the rules.

I guess they could always ask Alexa...but what happens if there's no internet?:unsure:
 

PilotPete

Hall of Fame
But it's the rule that you shouldn't tank. Guess you're only interested in enforcing some rules.

'Best effort' is very nebulous. Almost impossible to determine true tanking hence don't need an ump for that. Nowhere near as defined as time between points.
 
Top