There is needs to be a WATCH on court.

mistik

Hall of Fame
There is needs to be watch on court İf ITF and ATP is seriously that eager to enforce this time rule. İf they dont put watch on a court they leave all the judgement to the umpires they can even cost you the match if they wanted.This kind of thing cant be left to selective judgement of umpires.İf they continue to enforce the rule that hardly with out putting an actual watch on court ı see this rule made for bad intentions to favour some players to another.You can even affect the result of the matches like this just like today match Nadal with Klizan.Umpire calling time violations in the most important points in the match. Put that damn watch on court for players and all spectators to see, İf this rule will be that strict.
 

mistik

Hall of Fame
Time proves me right. The goal of this time rule is create distraction and even use that as a weapon in some matches in critical times during the match.
 

merwy

G.O.A.T.
I agree with you that it's very unfair to the players that they can't see how much time they have left to serve. It's hard to judge something like that when you're trying to focus on the match.
 

AnotherTennisProdigy

Professional
The time rule is strange at the moment, because they enforce it but only sometimes. It's tough to enforce though, the time you take after a point tends to vary. For example, if the point finishes while you're at the net it would take longer than usual to walk back to the baseline, towel off, pick your butt, and serve.
 

Bartelby

Bionic Poster
The time rule is about ensuring a brisk tempo, not about ensuring a time limit is met every serve.

Players know through habituation how much time they are taking, not by clock watching.
 

bjsnider

Hall of Fame
Frequently players want to serve but can't because of ball kids, or crowd noise, or people moving around or whatever. Should the clock be turned off in that event? How would that be accomplished? How would it be turned back on? Wouldn't all this be a judgement call by someone, possibly an umpire?
 

mistik

Hall of Fame
Today ı watched so many matches. So many player pass the 20 second rule and no time violation called. I thought this rule is really important. Ohh gosh it is important ı guess when it can be used as a weapon and distraction against some players ı guess. Seriously ı caught a lot of cheaters todays.
I say if this rule important and enforced strictly a watch needed for everyone to see.
 
Obviously this is a joke. ATP/ITF clearly need the drama and controversy or the clock would be implemented years ago... I MEAN REALLY, HOW MUCH DOES HAWKEYE COST PER COURT. NO, THE ORGANIZATIONS HAVE NO WANT TO FIX DRAWS EITHER! IT HAS BECOME QUITE CLEAR ??? THE MOTIVES THEY HAVE.
 
Last edited:

mistik

Hall of Fame
Obviously this is a joke. ATP/ITF clearly need the drama and controversy or the clock would be implemented years ago... I MEAN REALLY, HOW MUCH DOES HAWKEYE COST PER COURT. NO, THE ORGANIZATIONS HAVE NO WANT TO FIX DRAWS EITHER

The funny thing is that no one was taking this time rule all that seriously until Fedlina begin to cry on the public eye like this guy is killing me. All the sports where time is important there is an official shot clock for everyone to see.
 
V

VexlanderPrime

Guest
The need to strictly enforce it with an on court timer or dump the rule altogether.
 
Their is no logical explanation for not having a simple on court timer, its that simple. Pure negligence on the part of ATP/ITF. WHERE IS THE PROTECTION OF THE ALL IMPORTANT "INTEGRITY OF THE SPORT"???
 
Last edited:

rosenstar

Professional
I'm very much in favor of a "shot clock" in tennis. I actually think it would make the game more fun to watch.
 

Bartelby

Bionic Poster
The sport relies on the integrity of the players and always has and except for a few rotten eggs that works.

The real problem at the moment is that the ITF/Slams should move to a 25 second rule and more strictly enforce that, just like the ATP has done.
 

tacou

G.O.A.T.
There is no argument against OP, and it's been brought up repeatedly. We don't need a loud buzzer, and it doesn't need to be controlled by the ump (some people say they already have too much to do?)

But if the time violation issue is going to come up over and over, well duh, USE A CLOCK. It's so simple it's infuriating.

I don't know how the service speed display operates but for all I know they could use that as the counter as well, simple/.
 

esgee48

G.O.A.T.
I think there should be an absolute 30 second clock/timer, which starts at the end of the last point. Gives them 5-10 seconds to get to the baseline, receive balls, start routine for 20 seconds or less, serve. 20 seconds is too low a time period.
 
There is no argument against OP, and it's been brought up repeatedly. We don't need a loud buzzer, and it doesn't need to be controlled by the ump (some people say they already have too much to do?)

But if the time violation issue is going to come up over and over, well duh, USE A CLOCK. It's so simple it's infuriating.

I don't know how the service speed display operates but for all I know they could use that as the counter as well, simple/.

Ya,no buzzer... was that a proposal? The Umpire already has discretion, now it would be observable discretion too. I wouldnt be against an absolute or a definitive start by someone at point end. Lets make it clear, No gray area...
 

Bartelby

Bionic Poster
The umpire keeps exact time of how long it takes to serve and the rule book seems to suggest there is an absolute limit, but in practice the limit is very soft.

All they have to do is to re-instruct umpires as to a stricter interpretation of the rule and then back them when people like Nadal complain.
 

okdude1992

Hall of Fame
Yeah, the "enforcement" of the rule is laughable. Either maintain a consistent stance or abolish the rule. If universal enforcement is the desirable choice, than we need the shot clock.

I agree with OP. It can't be expensive at all either
 

jg153040

G.O.A.T.
The problem is Nadal, not the rule. Let's use common sense here, the rule is meant to be arbitrary. Players aren't supposed to do that all the time. That is understood, it's common sense.

The rule is fine, Rafa is just being a D.CK. I mean, seriously, who does that, it's childish.

Hey, I can probably sue every single person in court. It's legal and within the rules, but come on, let's be real, it's a childish move.

Most people don't have problems with the rule. I mean it, people who abuse this rule consistently are really being D bags.
 

Bender

G.O.A.T.
Ya,no buzzer... was that a proposal? The Umpire already has discretion, now it would be observable discretion too. I wouldnt be against an absolute or a definitive start by someone at point end. Lets make it clear, No gray area...


First of all, there is a buzzer, and that would be Bernandes. Except he was too good and was therefore kindly asked to buzz off from Nadal matches.

Secondly, the watch is in Nadal's hands, both figuratively and (half) literally.
 

mistik

Hall of Fame
Today proves my point once again. Nadal got punished today but why not his opponent. Where is the credibility of this rule with out a watch for everyone to see.İt begin to use as weapon in key moments in the match and it is FİSHY.
 

Backspin1183

Talk Tennis Guru
Umpires like to TV some players when they face break points, don't they? What a weapon this time enforcement thing is!
 
Top