Should The ATP Let Go of the Service Let? - Page 5 - MensTennisForums.com
View Poll Results: Should The ATP Let Go of the Service Let?
Ay yo so they should be lettin' go cuz they service let is a no go. 23 47.92%
Nahh 25 52.08%
Voters: 48. You may not vote on this poll

Reply
 
LinkBack Thread Tools
post #61 of 78 (permalink) Old 11-24-2012, 12:07 AM
Registered User
 
GrimbleGromble's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2012
Posts: 402
                     
Re: Should The ATP Let Go of the Service Let?

If this happens:
There's going to be a lot more of fake "I'm sorry" (lifting the racquet) in case the server wins the point.
Murray will shout F*ck 50 more times than his average during matches.

I hope umpires will apply fed's 25 sec. rule as they promised, with special attention to time whores like nadal and djokovic. AO'12 final would have been 3hrs. shorter at least.
GrimbleGromble is offline  
Sponsored Links
Advertisement
 
post #62 of 78 (permalink) Old 11-25-2012, 09:50 AM
Registered User
 
Uncle Latso's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2008
Age: 40
Posts: 13,105
                     
Re: New net rule in 2013.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Sanya View Post
Cancelling netcord at serve is awful decision. Further they might really destroy 2nd serve and other now seem to be pertinent rules. This decision is a disgrace to tennis.

25 seconds - well, players don`t follow this rule and umpires don`t fine them. I don`t feel like something will change significantly, really.
Why? Seriously?

I would really like to have a stat about the people who are against abolishing the net rule and i would be shocked if more than 10% of them have ever played, or played more than 20 times..

How is the serve let any different than a let during a rally?

"Imagine during match point blabla.." - that's the stupidest argument i have ever heard. Coz the same goes for a ball coming off the forehand and clipping the net f.e.

There is no sensible, logical or even reasonable argument in favor of keeping this dumb rule. There just isn't except the blind "it's tradition" argument, which is the same type of argument that religion has - yes, it's stupid, it's not logical, but it's tradition...

21st century guys...
Uncle Latso is offline  
post #63 of 78 (permalink) Old 11-25-2012, 10:02 AM
Registered User
 
Uncle Latso's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2008
Age: 40
Posts: 13,105
                     
Re: Should The ATP Let Go of the Service Let?

The 25 sec rule - i'm personally against it.

There should be a rule, but not 25 sec and the rule should be clear.

Not 25 sec coz with the pace and intensity the game is going nowadays, it's the best way to have the first heart attack on a tennis court, which is the last thing the sport needs.

Imo it should be at least 35 seconds, or if it needs to be precise and correct, it should be based on the rallies and number of shots per point. For example - 15+ shots gives 30 sec, 20+ shots 35 sec.

That's how this rule would be anykind of legit. But it makes tennis like basket, with several clocks and counters measuring shots, time, etc.

That's why i'm normally against such a rule and i believe the umpires should decide case by case, calling "time" when a player takes too long to serve, based on the feeling of the umpire.

Why the rule should be more precise - coz if there isn't a rule saying from which point these 25 sec start, then it's again a matter of interpretation, which makes the rule null.

So either a clear rule, or just a frame that leaves the decision to the umpires.
Uncle Latso is offline  
 
post #64 of 78 (permalink) Old 11-25-2012, 10:55 AM
Registered User
 
Sanya's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Age: 26
Posts: 2,588
                     
Re: New net rule in 2013.

Quote:
Originally Posted by latso View Post
Why? Seriously?

I would really like to have a stat about the people who are against abolishing the net rule and i would be shocked if more than 10% of them have ever played, or played more than 20 times..

How is the serve let any different than a let during a rally?

"Imagine during match point blabla.." - that's the stupidest argument i have ever heard. Coz the same goes for a ball coming off the forehand and clipping the net f.e.

There is no sensible, logical or even reasonable argument in favor of keeping this dumb rule. There just isn't except the blind "it's tradition" argument, which is the same type of argument that religion has - yes, it's stupid, it's not logical, but it's tradition...

21st century guys...
It`s not about tradition, but logic. Netcord in rally has completely another story - before it opponent at least had a chance to play another way not to give his rival opportunity to make a shot which finished the point this way. It`s still some lucky factor, but come on, you can`t seriously compare it to let where you can get on return dead netcord and have no chance since the start of the point even to get to the ball. The point is completely out of your hands, it`s not even Karlovic` 1st serve.

I agree that tradition shouldn`t be the reason for keeping some rules. But it`s not my argument. On serve player has calm, neutral position. Theoretically it can be even taught to serve every time "let" actually. I don`t think that ever happens, but still - would you like to see a lot of such points?

But for cancelling something and implementing something new it`s innovators turn to give some reason. The reason "oldish tradition" isn`t convincing.

Gasquet is next №1
Sanya is offline  
post #65 of 78 (permalink) Old 11-25-2012, 11:07 AM
Registered User
 
Jverweij's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2012
Age: 35
Posts: 5,381
                     
Re: Should The ATP Let Go of the Service Let?

No. Not because I'm against it, but I really don't see the advantage of not having the service let, so no need to change it imo.
Jverweij is offline  
post #66 of 78 (permalink) Old 11-25-2012, 12:42 PM
Registered User
 
Uncle Latso's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2008
Age: 40
Posts: 13,105
                     
Re: New net rule in 2013.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Sanya View Post
It`s not about tradition, but logic. Netcord in rally has completely another story - before it opponent at least had a chance to play another way not to give his rival opportunity to make a shot which finished the point this way. It`s still some lucky factor, but come on, you can`t seriously compare it to let where you can get on return dead netcord and have no chance since the start of the point even to get to the ball. The point is completely out of your hands, it`s not even Karlovic` 1st serve.

I agree that tradition shouldn`t be the reason for keeping some rules. But it`s not my argument. On serve player has calm, neutral position. Theoretically it can be even taught to serve every time "let" actually. I don`t think that ever happens, but still - would you like to see a lot of such points?

But for cancelling something and implementing something new it`s innovators turn to give some reason. The reason "oldish tradition" isn`t convincing.
It's absolutely the same during rallies or while serving.

The difference is that in 60-70% of the time, when serving, the ball doesn't change its trajectory, hence it's stupid to replay the point.

The rest 30-40% of the situations - half of them you get a dead ball and server wins, the other half the ball bounces high enough to be finishable by the returner.

So what is the use of the let rule when it doesn't change anything to the dynamics of the match or the points' fair distribution?

Here is what it does affect and why it should be changed -

1. Main argument - you can't measure/define/call it properly. There is always possibility for arguments and that's the main reason to get rid of it.
When it is a machine - it's about the fine tuning of it, so there is always "c'mooon, the whole World heard it, but your machine..." or - "what? that was a clean ace, what let are you talking about, !#@$#%$^%#$@"

No let - no useless disputes, the same for all and no human/machine factor.

If it is a human deciding, he'll need a knight armor nowadays if he wants to live another day.

So why does this rule exists when it's only a burden? Only because of tradition and it should be abolished asap.

About the "lets on purpose" - that's related to my expectation for the question - What part of the "keep the let rule" ppl have ever played tennis, or have played over 20 times (answer is <10% ).

It's being mentioned a few times and it has nothing to do with reality. No offense meant really, just FYI.

Luck is part of the game and it goes both ways, and you can't put rules to limit it. That's what the people of the times when tennis was invented didn't know.
Now as a modern society we know this and we can use this knowledge.

Just think about this thread few years ago about Hawk eye. There would be 95% against. It was a novelty much more interfering in the dynamics of tennis, much more ruining those traditional habits. But it was right to be done.

And if we keep the let rule, we should ask all serves that are +/- 3mm in or out of the line to be called let because this is the margin for error of the Hawk eye system.
Which isn't what tennis needs, nor it needs this let rule, again because it's only predisposition for quarrels and it would be the same for both players anyway without it, but without the quarrels part.
Uncle Latso is offline  
post #67 of 78 (permalink) Old 11-25-2012, 01:15 PM
Registered User
 
Transcender's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2012
Posts: 21,624
                     
Re: New net rule in 2013.

Quote:
Originally Posted by latso View Post
Why? Seriously?

I would really like to have a stat about the people who are against abolishing the net rule and i would be shocked if more than 10% of them have ever played, or played more than 20 times..

How is the serve let any different than a let during a rally?

"Imagine during match point blabla.." - that's the stupidest argument i have ever heard. Coz the same goes for a ball coming off the forehand and clipping the net f.e.

There is no sensible, logical or even reasonable argument in favor of keeping this dumb rule. There just isn't except the blind "it's tradition" argument, which is the same type of argument that religion has - yes, it's stupid, it's not logical, but it's tradition...

21st century guys...
Exactly, and rally "lets" count, so why not serve.

TT stats site: tt-statistics.info
Transcender is offline  
post #68 of 78 (permalink) Old 11-25-2012, 02:48 PM
Registered User
 
casabe's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2005
Age: 28
Posts: 320
                     
Re: Should The ATP Let Go of the Service Let?

the only rule the atp should approve is that lefty players starts their service game serving the other way around.
casabe is offline  
post #69 of 78 (permalink) Old 11-25-2012, 02:52 PM
Rankings Master
 
Slasher1985's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2012
Location: Bucharest, Romania
Age: 31
Posts: 14,470
                     
Re: Should The ATP Let Go of the Service Let?

Quote:
Originally Posted by casabe View Post
the only rule the atp should approve is that lefty players starts their service game serving the other way around.
Say what? Why?

Some random guy just watching tennis.
Slasher1985 is offline  
post #70 of 78 (permalink) Old 11-25-2012, 02:57 PM
Registered User
 
Sanya's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Age: 26
Posts: 2,588
                     
Re: New net rule in 2013.

Quote:
Originally Posted by latso View Post
It's absolutely the same during rallies or while serving.

The difference is that in 60-70% of the time, when serving, the ball doesn't change its trajectory, hence it's stupid to replay the point.

The rest 30-40% of the situations - half of them you get a dead ball and server wins, the other half the ball bounces high enough to be finishable by the returner.

So what is the use of the let rule when it doesn't change anything to the dynamics of the match or the points' fair distribution?

Here is what it does affect and why it should be changed -

1. Main argument - you can't measure/define/call it properly. There is always possibility for arguments and that's the main reason to get rid of it.
When it is a machine - it's about the fine tuning of it, so there is always "c'mooon, the whole World heard it, but your machine..." or - "what? that was a clean ace, what let are you talking about, !#@$#%$^%#$@"

No let - no useless disputes, the same for all and no human/machine factor.

If it is a human deciding, he'll need a knight armor nowadays if he wants to live another day.

So why does this rule exists when it's only a burden? Only because of tradition and it should be abolished asap.

About the "lets on purpose" - that's related to my expectation for the question - What part of the "keep the let rule" ppl have ever played tennis, or have played over 20 times (answer is <10% ).

It's being mentioned a few times and it has nothing to do with reality. No offense meant really, just FYI.

Luck is part of the game and it goes both ways, and you can't put rules to limit it. That's what the people of the times when tennis was invented didn't know.
Now as a modern society we know this and we can use this knowledge.

Just think about this thread few years ago about Hawk eye. There would be 95% against. It was a novelty much more interfering in the dynamics of tennis, much more ruining those traditional habits. But it was right to be done.

And if we keep the let rule, we should ask all serves that are +/- 3mm in or out of the line to be called let because this is the margin for error of the Hawk eye system.
Which isn't what tennis needs, nor it needs this let rule, again because it's only predisposition for quarrels and it would be the same for both players anyway without it, but without the quarrels part.
I understood your position, still I think other way. For example, you write "Luck is part of the game and it goes both ways" what is true, but still some arrangements should be taken in trying to limit it.

As for your question - I play tennis very rarely, have no ability to do it often. Still, remain behind myself the permition to write about tennis.

By the way, I was huge supporter of Hawk-eye, always realised the importance of this possible change. Just not this time, these let episodes don`t slow game really to get rid of them by any means, IMO.

But I very appreciated the logical explanation of your point, goodrep easily. If this bill to be taken, would be glad to discuss the effects it created in some time.

Gasquet is next №1
Sanya is offline  
post #71 of 78 (permalink) Old 11-25-2012, 02:59 PM
Registered User
 
casabe's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2005
Age: 28
Posts: 320
                     
Re: Should The ATP Let Go of the Service Let?

Quote:
Originally Posted by Slasher1985 View Post
Say what? Why?
For example, left players have a biggest probability of playing game points or brake points in their best effect service side the way they are playing today. That probability will be equal with right players if they apply this rule.
casabe is offline  
post #72 of 78 (permalink) Old 11-25-2012, 03:06 PM
Rankings Master
 
Slasher1985's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2012
Location: Bucharest, Romania
Age: 31
Posts: 14,470
                     
Re: Should The ATP Let Go of the Service Let?

Quote:
Originally Posted by casabe View Post
For example, left players have a biggest probability of playing game points or brake points in their best effect service side the way they are playing today. That probability will be equal with right players if they apply this rule.
I get you now. It's kind of a good idea, but Nadal fans will surely object.

Some random guy just watching tennis.
Slasher1985 is offline  
post #73 of 78 (permalink) Old 11-25-2012, 03:18 PM
Registered User
 
casabe's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2005
Age: 28
Posts: 320
                     
Re: Should The ATP Let Go of the Service Let?

Quote:
Originally Posted by Slasher1985 View Post
I get you now. It's kind of a good idea, but Nadal fans will surely object.
only the break or game point in an advantage point, for a left player makes a HUGE difference. I cant believe someone hasn't even think about it. I would like to see Fed/Nadal H2H if this existed before.
casabe is offline  
post #74 of 78 (permalink) Old 11-25-2012, 05:23 PM
Registered User
 
Uncle Latso's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2008
Age: 40
Posts: 13,105
                     
Re: Should The ATP Let Go of the Service Let?

Quote:
Originally Posted by casabe View Post
only the break or game point in an advantage point, for a left player makes a HUGE difference. I cant believe someone hasn't even think about it. I would like to see Fed/Nadal H2H if this existed before.
It makes no difference at all.

It's the same for the right handers serving against left handers.

Another thing - the same number of points are served on deuce and ad side. I guess that's the shock part...
Uncle Latso is offline  
post #75 of 78 (permalink) Old 11-25-2012, 05:34 PM
Registered User
 
Uncle Latso's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2008
Age: 40
Posts: 13,105
                     
Re: New net rule in 2013.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Sanya View Post
I understood your position, still I think other way. For example, you write "Luck is part of the game and it goes both ways" what is true, but still some arrangements should be taken in trying to limit it.

As for your question - I play tennis very rarely, have no ability to do it often. Still, remain behind myself the permition to write about tennis.

By the way, I was huge supporter of Hawk-eye, always realised the importance of this possible change. Just not this time, these let episodes don`t slow game really to get rid of them by any means, IMO.

But I very appreciated the logical explanation of your point, goodrep easily. If this bill to be taken, would be glad to discuss the effects it created in some time.
Yes, we'll be up discussing the effects one of those days

I believe the measure will be taken as i can't see what kind of objections would anyone have (i suppose they will ask the players who tried it in challengers, as well as umpires).

And of course anyone is here to discuss tennis, no matter playing or not. I'm just putting it this way because sometimes there are things one might understand better being in the players' shoes, which can hardly be the same as imagining it.

A woman could explain me in all details how painful giving birth is and i might think i understand by comparing it with kidney and tooth pains multiplied by smth, but i couldn't know what exactly it means, just assuming.

Now that i think of it, i suppose though that some clay players (especially CH level) might be against it, as very often these guys have a big clearance from the net at serve, as their first serves are often just slightly stronger kicks, which is predisposition for no lets at all overall, while the flat serving, big hitters would have an advantage in a way.

But it's such a small number in percent that it's not even worth mentioning imo.

Anyways, we'll see what happens. Maybe we're all missing some important argument, so let's wait and see.
Uncle Latso is offline  
Reply

Quick Reply
Message:
Options

Register Now



In order to be able to post messages on the MensTennisForums.com forums, you must first register.
Please enter your desired user name, your email address and other required details in the form below.

User Name:
Password
Please enter a password for your user account. Note that passwords are case-sensitive.

Password:


Confirm Password:
Email Address
Please enter a valid email address for yourself.

Email Address:
OR

Log-in









Human Verification

In order to verify that you are a human and not a spam bot, please enter the answer into the following box below based on the instructions contained in the graphic.



Thread Tools
Show Printable Version Show Printable Version
Email this Page Email this Page



Posting Rules  
You may post new threads
You may post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are On

 
For the best viewing experience please update your browser to Google Chrome