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.