The 'no let-rule' trial at Challengers is (Won't continue on after next week) - Page 8 - MensTennisForums.com
Reply
 
LinkBack Thread Tools
post #106 of 120 (permalink) Old 03-26-2013, 09:09 PM
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2012
Posts: 1,513
                     
Re: The 'no let-rule' trial at Challengers is (Won't continue on after next week)

Quote:
Originally Posted by latso View Post
uh no, you're wrong, the "systematic" advantage is one point from 150 per match, it doesn't change anything at all whatsoever
You said one point per match so that's what I was going on. How many points per tournament are faulty let calls?
ogbg is offline  
Sponsored Links
Advertisement
 
post #107 of 120 (permalink) Old 03-26-2013, 10:10 PM
Registered User
 
navy75's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Posts: 1,787
                     
Re: The 'no let-rule' trial at Challengers is (Won't continue on after next week)

People will always rally around new ideas, as people by nature are very conservative and against change (even positive change).

I like having no lets. It will statistically even out in the long run, and I've seen so many missed let calls both ways that it just takes that element out entirely.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Johnny Groove View Post
I'm so fucking sick of not being on tour. I'm so fucking sick of being a nobody. I'm just so fucking sick.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Frank Garrett
This is about the 4th post you've made today.
navy75 is offline  
post #108 of 120 (permalink) Old 03-26-2013, 10:16 PM
Registered User
 
Uncle Latso's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2008
Age: 40
Posts: 13,106
                     
Re: The 'no let-rule' trial at Challengers is (Won't continue on after next week)

Quote:
Originally Posted by ogbg View Post
You said one point per match so that's what I was going on. How many points per tournament are faulty let calls?
a match is 100-200 points, so one for each of the servers makes no difference at all, that's what i meant

While even 1 faulty call per 10 tournaments and you have enough reasons for this rule to hang on nothing but what the players are used to.

Virtually nothing at all.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Abel View Post
Dimitrov will never win anything above 250 level.
Rome R1 Zverev def. Dimitrov -
Quote:
Originally Posted by augus View Post
I never wrote this about active player after lost match but seriously - Dimitrov should retire from tennis.
Uncle Latso is offline  
 
post #109 of 120 (permalink) Old 04-01-2013, 08:11 PM
Registered User
 
Popo21's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Posts: 1,899
                     
So is the "No Let" rule officially dead?

Watched some matches from Leon Challenger and they are playing with lets again. I know they were just trying it out for the first 3 months of the season, but have they officially made the decision to get rid of them for good?

I hope so. Saw one match in Japan where Millman must have had about 10 lets in the match and won every single point off them. Not worth speeding the match up for maybe 5 minutes.

Canada Pospisil - Dancevic - Peliwo

Crazies Dolgopolov - Fognini - Janowicz - Gulbis

Young Guns Thiem - Vesely - Coppejans
Popo21 is offline  
post #110 of 120 (permalink) Old 04-01-2013, 08:40 PM
Registered User
 
janko05's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2010
Posts: 5,301
                     
Re: So is the "No Let" rule officially dead?

They abandoned it apparently.
Here is my opinion on the subject: the let rule should be applied only if a ball touches the net and then falls over to the other side. If ball slightly touches the net and continues like a normal serve the point should be played. Anyway, it should be on the umpire to decide not on the let sensors.
janko05 is offline  
post #111 of 120 (permalink) Old 04-01-2013, 08:43 PM
Registered User
 
Nixer's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2011
Location: Moscow, Russia
Age: 30
Posts: 2,695
                     
Re: So is the "No Let" rule officially dead?

Quote:
Originally Posted by janko05 View Post
They abandoned it apparently.
Here is my opinion on the subject: the let rule should be applied only if a ball touches the net and then falls over to the other side. If ball slightly touches the net and continues like a normal serve the point should be played. Anyway, it should be on the umpire to decide not the let sensors.
That's too arbitrary. I don't think an umpire can decide that quickly with the modern serve speeds.
Nixer is offline  
post #112 of 120 (permalink) Old 04-01-2013, 08:46 PM
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Posts: 77
                     
Re: So is the "No Let" rule officially dead?

True Nixer. It would also open up so many new opportunities for players to bitch around about inconsistent decisions.

Rule should just stay the way it is and I hope this experiment really has been deemed unsuccessful.
blanky987 is offline  
post #113 of 120 (permalink) Old 04-01-2013, 09:03 PM
Registered User
 
janko05's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2010
Posts: 5,301
                     
Re: So is the "No Let" rule officially dead?

Quote:
Originally Posted by Nixer View Post
That's too arbitrary. I don't think an umpire can decide that quickly with the modern serve speeds.
how much of those phantom let calls we've had that annoyed everyone? why do we need let sensors anyway?
janko05 is offline  
post #114 of 120 (permalink) Old 04-01-2013, 09:11 PM
Registered User
 
Mountaindewslave's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Posts: 13,614
                     
Re: So is the "No Let" rule officially dead?

it was a stupid rule change anyway, like unbelievably dumb, fueled by sponsorship greed with the hope more people will watch if play is faster and that more matches can be squeezed into times

the lets are necessary, you can't play lets frequently enough, and an umpire should never get the power to randomly decide if they are worthy

lets were put into the game to prevent unreturnable serves as well ask to avoid horribly unfavorable starting positions in points

it doesn't take THAT much time from the game and needs to stay

tennis without lets would be extremely LAME. just imagine the controversy if someone won a set point on a weird let/net serve
ATP was being dumb but that's nothing new, it would be widely rejected by fans and players alike, possibly only some sponsors and the ATP itself would consider it

you don't take such a crucial part of the game, something tennis players since childhood have grown used to and consider getting rid of it

<3 Roger Federer <3 David Ferrer <3 Juan Martin Del Potro <3 Stan Wawrinka <3

------------------------ <3 Richard Gasquet <3

Rafael Nadal
Mountaindewslave is offline  
post #115 of 120 (permalink) Old 04-01-2013, 09:28 PM
Banned!
 
Join Date: Jan 2013
Posts: 6,795
                     
Re: So is the "No Let" rule officially dead?

Quote:
Originally Posted by Mountaindewslave View Post
it was a stupid rule change anyway, like unbelievably dumb, fueled by sponsorship greed with the hope more people will watch if play is faster and that more matches can be squeezed into times

the lets are necessary, you can't play lets frequently enough, and an umpire should never get the power to randomly decide if they are worthy

lets were put into the game to prevent unreturnable serves as well ask to avoid horribly unfavorable starting positions in points

it doesn't take THAT much time from the game and needs to stay

tennis without lets would be extremely LAME. just imagine the controversy if someone won a set point on a weird let/net serve
ATP was being dumb but that's nothing new, it would be widely rejected by fans and players alike, possibly only some sponsors and the ATP itself would consider it

you don't take such a crucial part of the game, something tennis players since childhood have grown used to and consider getting rid of it
Yup. Agreed in full.
Moonball Pusher is offline  
post #116 of 120 (permalink) Old 04-01-2013, 09:55 PM
Registered User
 
Garson007's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: Stellenbosch
Age: 29
Posts: 3,958
                     
Re: So is the "No Let" rule officially dead?

Why not make all netcords mean that the points have to be replayed?

The current ruling is just not logically consistent.
Garson007 is offline  
post #117 of 120 (permalink) Old 04-02-2013, 09:25 AM
Registered User
 
Nixer's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2011
Location: Moscow, Russia
Age: 30
Posts: 2,695
                     
Re: So is the "No Let" rule officially dead?

Quote:
Originally Posted by Garson007 View Post
Why not make all netcords mean that the points have to be replayed?

The current ruling is just not logically consistent.
I'm tired of typing it over and over, so I'll just quote myself:

Quote:
Originally Posted by Nixer View Post
It has been already said tonnes of times - it's because you can replay the serve from the exact same situation before the let, but you can't do that in a rally.
Let rule "inconsistency" is the dumbest point for rule change. The change would be illogical, not the rule.
Nixer is offline  
post #118 of 120 (permalink) Old 04-02-2013, 09:29 AM
Registered User
 
Nixer's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2011
Location: Moscow, Russia
Age: 30
Posts: 2,695
                     
Re: So is the "No Let" rule officially dead?

Quote:
Originally Posted by janko05 View Post
how much of those phantom let calls we've had that annoyed everyone? why do we need let sensors anyway?
And how many arbitrary umpire calls you think will annoy everyone? It's much easier to argue with the umpire than a machine. That will only increase time waste.
Nixer is offline  
post #119 of 120 (permalink) Old 04-03-2013, 09:41 AM
Registered User
 
Nixer's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2011
Location: Moscow, Russia
Age: 30
Posts: 2,695
                     
Re: So is the "No Let" rule officially dead?

Quote:
Originally Posted by duong View Post
We have arbitrary umpiring decisions for other rules, like the timeviolation rule, which is only applied once in a while to the umpire's discretion and forgotten the whole rest of the time.

And from everything we read in the media, the notion of "umpire's discretion" is praised everywhere comparing to a strict application.

Why the same couldn't be applied to let calls ? Only when the umpire notices the "let" from his chair, is a "let" given

Oh no I forgot : the truth is that the notion of "umpire's discretion" is only used when one simply wants a rule not to be applied
Well why put everything on the umpire when you can bring back the people who were watching the lets specifically?
Nixer is offline  
post #120 of 120 (permalink) Old 04-03-2013, 09:54 AM
Registered User
 
Nixer's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2011
Location: Moscow, Russia
Age: 30
Posts: 2,695
                     
Re: So is the "No Let" rule officially dead?

Quote:
Originally Posted by duong View Post
I had proposed it before, but even those people did sometimes notice lets that nobody else noticed.

Anyway, the umpire could be a minimum cost-solution,

but I actually was more critical of the absence of enforcing of the time violation rule (which is an absolute scandal imo, which nobody talks about, which makes it even more scandalous, or even worse they talk of this topic as if it was really enforced as Tignor made recently rather than saying the truth that this rule has been upgiven).
That's a different topic, and I've seen Nadal, Djokovic and Murray all get time violations during IW and Miami. I think Rafa got like one in each match.
Nixer 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