Shot clock in tennis? [Archive] - MensTennisForums.com

Shot clock in tennis?

r2473
08-04-2008, 06:23 PM
There was some discussion (by the commentators during one of the Cincy matches) of a "shot clock" being used in tennis. Essentially, the clock would start at the end of the point and the server would have 25 seconds (or is it 30 seconds) to serve.

If the clock runs out, the server loses his first serve (and presumably if it happens on second serve, the point is lost(?)).

Did anyone else hear this?

I personally like the idea. Seems fair to all the players. Also takes the pressure off the umpire on deciding when to issue warnings for time violations. It will be a "black and white" rule (like the shot clock in basketball for instance).

What are your opinions?

EDIT: Fowler said he had discussed it (the time clock) with Mo - almost everyone's favorite chair ump - and that was HIS (Mo's) idea.

Clay Death
08-04-2008, 06:28 PM
There was some discussion (by the commentators during one of the Cincy matches) of a "shot clock" being used in tennis. Essentially, the clock would start at the end of the point and the server would have 25 seconds (or is it 30 seconds) to serve.

If the clock runs out, the server loses his first serve (and presumably if it happens on second serve, the point is lost(?)).

Did anyone else hear this?

I personally like the idea. Seems fair to all the players. Also takes the pressure off the umpire on deciding when to issue warnings for time violations. It will be a "black and white" rule (like the shot clock in basketball for instance).

What are your opinions?


splendid idea. it will speed up the game a little which makes it more interesting to the masses. 25-30 second shot clock is an idea whose time has come.

scarecrows
08-04-2008, 06:30 PM
no
there are moments like breaking a string, protesting about a point or noise from the public in which it's impossible to start in 25 secs and the watch would make everything more confusing

Deathless Mortal
08-04-2008, 06:32 PM
I'm against it. It's obvious when it takes to long and in those cases the rules should be more strict.

Sunset of Age
08-04-2008, 06:45 PM
no
there are moments like breaking a string, protesting about a point or noise from the public in which it's impossible to start in 25 secs and the watch would make everything more confusing

Yep. Would be impossible to manage.

I'm against it. It's obvious when it takes to long and in those cases the rules should be more strict.

Indeed - the only exisiting problem is that currently the umpires aren't doing their jobs the way they should. Handing out only 'time code violations' which have NO effects on a player's points count, obviously doesn't impress them much, and won't force them to make ammends to their time wasting.

As soon as the umpires would indeed show their guts and give said players a point penalty, I'm sure there would be a lot less time wasting going on on court thereafter. Unfortunately I don't see it happening very soon. :shrug:

MacTheKnife
08-04-2008, 06:48 PM
I do not think this is a good idea at all. I am not an advocate of speeding up the game. Why should there be 25 seconds after a double fault or a missed return, and then 25 seconds after a 20 to 30 ball rally when the players are totally exhausted and need to catch their breaths. There should be some guidelines on time, but making it that definite is just insanity.
If they must have a time limit it should be at the discretion of the umpire as it is now.

Quite frankly I was stunned those commentators even suggested that. Those guys have played competitive tennis and really should know how ridiculous it is. Any other sport with a time clock is a team sport that allows substitutions. Maybe if they want a time clock they should watch a chess match.

groundstroke
08-04-2008, 06:50 PM
No, way too much pressure put on.

Clay Death
08-04-2008, 06:51 PM
no
there are moments like breaking a string, protesting about a point or noise from the public in which it's impossible to start in 25 secs and the watch would make everything more confusing

you do have a point there but in those cases, they shut down the clock and re-start it.

scarecrows
08-04-2008, 06:55 PM
you do have a point there but in those cases, they shut down the clock and re-start it.

that's why i said it would be confusing, when to start and when to stop it
players would also be distracted looking at the watch rather than taking care of their pre-point rituals

finishingmove
08-04-2008, 07:00 PM
they should add a trap door if a player goes over the time limit...

MacTheKnife
08-04-2008, 07:03 PM
I am not an advocate of speeding up the game. I was stunned the commentators even brought this up since some of them have played competitive tennis. Why should there be 25 seconds after a double fault or a missed return and 25 seconds after a 20 to 30 ball rally when the players are exhausted. If they must time points, it should be at the discretion of the umpire as it is now. The umps aren't stupid (well most of them) they know when someone is stalling and players actually need a minutes rest. They should utilize that discretion to enforce the rules. All sports with a shot clock allow for substitutions and none of that applies in tennis.

MacTheKnife
08-04-2008, 07:08 PM
they should add a trap door if a player goes over the time limit...

:haha::haha: makes about as much sense.

Deboogle!.
08-04-2008, 07:09 PM
Quite frankly I was stunned those commentators even suggested that. Those guys have played competitive tennis and really should know how ridiculous it is. Any other sport with a time clock is a team sport that allows substitutions. Maybe if they want a time clock they should watch a chess match.Just to be clear, it was not the commentators who suggested it. Fowler said he had discussed it with Mo - almost everyone's favorite chair ump - and that was HIS idea.

Anyway I'm all for it. I'm sick of hearing Rafa whine when he gets warned for taking twice as long as the rules allow.

Sunset of Age
08-04-2008, 07:19 PM
I am not an advocate of speeding up the game.

I don't think OP started this discussion in this sense of the matter - I understood he meant it as an device to stop players wasting time (most importantly, taking more than 25 sec before serving, which is in fact against the official rules). There's no need for speeding up the game, but let it at least be played within the rules.

BTW, I agree with you that a shot clock wouldn't be of any help.

r2473
08-04-2008, 07:20 PM
Just to be clear, it was not the commentators who suggested it. Fowler said he had discussed it with Mo - almost everyone's favorite chair ump - and that was HIS idea.

Anyway I'm all for it. I'm sick of hearing Rafa whine when he gets warned for taking twice as long as the rules allow.

Thanks. I remember that now.

MacTheKnife
08-04-2008, 07:27 PM
Just to be clear, it was not the commentators who suggested it. Fowler said he had discussed it with Mo - almost everyone's favorite chair ump - and that was HIS idea.

Anyway I'm all for it. I'm sick of hearing Rafa whine when he gets warned for taking twice as long as the rules allow.

I didn't know who brought it up, but they were all discussing it when I came back into the room. Still don't like it for the previously mentioned reasons. Twenty five seconds is simply not enough after some rallies. The one near the end of the match between Murray and Djok the other night was a perfect example. Expecting those guys to be ready to go in 25 seconds after that point is plain nuts. You even saw Djok raise his hand to the ump and he obviously agreed and didn't rush either of them.
Rules are already in place to address this, the umps just need to do it. I'm not a advocate of hurting the quality of many tennis matches because a small few players take advantage of the rules. Can you imagine in that example if a clock had forced those guys to start the next point what the quality of that point might have been.

Mateya
08-04-2008, 07:27 PM
No way.

I can imagine players (or even me), looking at that clock, still being tired after an exhausting 23-stroke rally before, nervous (omg, i have only 9 seconds left, go,go,go!), being in hurry, not thinking and focusing enough on the next point, losing focus on the match,...and consequently lowering 1st serve %, making more DF, and altogether being in constant hurry out there. :crazy: Players are no robots and every point is different to recover from it.
25 seconds seems a lot, but sometimes just goes away in a flash. If you finish the point with a volley at the net it can take 15 secs just to get to the ballboys, not to mention the towels, etc.

Please, don't do this. :angel: Just warn Rafzilla and Djoke when they take an age to serve.

JolánGagó
08-04-2008, 07:28 PM
Let umpires be more strict rather than making a play station game out of the real one, there is no need for more beeps and computers on courts. Silly and counterproductive idea.

MacTheKnife
08-04-2008, 07:29 PM
^^^ Well put. that's what I've been trying to say, you just emphasized it much better. Would hinder the quality of all matches because of a couple of offenders.

RogiRafaFan86
08-04-2008, 07:30 PM
Screw that. They should just equip the ball kids with slingshots, and every time a player goes over the time limit - they get shot in the ass at close range. I suppose Rafa would have about as much reaction as he does now - none. :lol:

Lee
08-04-2008, 07:33 PM
Cahill had a point during the discussion. It's not fair for players will excellent first serve and shit for second serve. :lol:

The existing rule is enough if umpires are more experienced in handling the situation. Yesterday, Mo gave Novak a warning for the time code violation earlier but he gave the players a break after the long rally at 4-4 in the 2nd TB. With the kind of heat, the length of the match and an exhausting over 30-rallies-point, it's reasonable for umpire to let players stole a few more breathe before returning to play.

Deboogle!.
08-04-2008, 07:52 PM
Problem is that a lot of the time they seem to wait until a big point to do it, so the players get mad b/c they think the umps have it out for them or something. Get a stopwatch and when you think a guy is taking too long, warn him. Mo waited til match point in Rafa's match against Lapentti to say something where he had been CONSISTENTLY taking over 40 seconds no matter the length of the point. I love Mo, but no excuse for waiting til MP and so strange that he says this bothers him before a very match where he lets it slide many many times before finally saying something at match point :lol:. And it shouldn't be up to the opponent to complain either. The rule clearly isn't being enforced. I don't think anyone would mind some extra time in really hot conditions and stuff, but for a few certain players, the behavior is consistent regardless of the point before or the weather. Ideally, the umps would just do their job better, but they're obviously not. :shrug:

Nadal_Fanatic
08-04-2008, 08:05 PM
You should play to the flow of the match. Only way it would be good idea is if the shot clock doesn't start until you step to the line and the crowd has died out.

Damn
08-04-2008, 08:12 PM
no
there are moments like breaking a string, protesting about a point or noise from the public in which it's impossible to start in 25 secs and the watch would make everything more confusing

I do not think this is a good idea at all. I am not an advocate of speeding up the game. Why should there be 25 seconds after a double fault or a missed return, and then 25 seconds after a 20 to 30 ball rally when the players are totally exhausted and need to catch their breaths. There should be some guidelines on time, but making it that definite is just insanity.
If they must have a time limit it should be at the discretion of the umpire as it is now.

No, way too much pressure put on.

No way.

I can imagine players (or even me), looking at that clock, still being tired after an exhausting 23-stroke rally before, nervous (omg, i have only 9 seconds left, go,go,go!), being in hurry, not thinking and focusing enough on the next point, losing focus on the match,...and consequently lowering 1st serve %, making more DF, and altogether being in constant hurry out there. :crazy: Players are no robots and every point is different to recover from it.
25 seconds seems a lot, but sometimes just goes away in a flash. If you finish the point with a volley at the net it can take 15 secs just to get to the ballboys, not to mention the towels, etc.

Let umpires be more strict rather than making a play station game out of the real one, there is no need for more beeps and computers on courts. Silly and counterproductive idea.

Exactly, there's no need to say more.

PS: I cannot believe that the responsible of this idea wasn't Cedric the "I am the main character of this film, you bastard players" Maurier.

r2473
08-05-2008, 03:23 PM
.......for a few certain players, the behavior is consistent regardless of the point before or the weather. Ideally, the umps would just do their job better, but they're obviously not. :shrug:

Agreed. There needs to be some consistency in how this is enforced. If players (i.e. Nadal, Djoko) are going to be allowed to take 40+ seconds on each serve, it is hardly fair to give them a warning late in the match for doing exactly what they have been doing all along.

Either enforce the rule or don't. But don't "sort-a-enforce-it-sometimes". Players have a right to know what will and what won't be acceptable. And things can't be acceptable for some (i.e. the big stars of the game) but not acceptable for everyone.

Personally, I think the system would work pretty well as follows:

1) The shot clock is 30 seconds.

2) If time expires before the ball is served, the player forfeits his serve. If it was first serve, the player will be serving second serve. If it was second serve, the point is lost.

3) Players may ask the chair ump for additional time (for the clock to be paused, reset, etc) BEFORE time expires. Possible reasons for an extension may include broken strings / racquets, weather (excessive heat), previous point being very long, etc. The chair may grant the request at his discretion.

This would allow for flexibility based on circumstances. But, if the chair does nothing, the rule is enforced when the clock expires. In the current system, the rule is not enforced unless the chair does something. The "normal case" is for the rule to not be enforced. In the proposed system, the "normal case" would be for the rule to be enforced. It would be overlooked only at the chair's discretion (which seems sensible).

FedFan
08-05-2008, 03:43 PM
If a player constantly exceeds the time limit in a match and get only one warning by the umpire, why should he care? :shrug: But this is exactly what happens normally.

Nothing will change if the umpires won't enforce the rules more strictly. A shot clock would be better than a unsatisfactory pseudo-solution.

Sunset of Age
08-05-2008, 04:09 PM
If a player constantly exceeds the time limit in a match and get only one warning by the umpire, why should he care? :shrug: But this is exactly what happens normally.

Alas, yes... it all comes down to ENFORCEMENT of the rules.

Nothing will change if the umpires won't enforce the rules more strictly. A shot clock would be better than a unsatisfactory pseudo-solution.

I'm afraid that clock would only make matters more confusing in certain situations. Sometimes it's already difficult to see for an umpire whether a player indeed wants to challenge a call or not, and in case there is a shot clock, he must then also continuously watch whether a player wants to clock to be stopped because of a broken string or something the like...

IMHO it should be like this: first obvious time-wasting: warning. Second: second warning. Third: point penalty.
I think these should be left up to the umpire's discretion, but it wouldn't be a bad thing if indeed the umpires would become more strict about it.

~Maya~
08-05-2008, 04:35 PM
no
there are moments like breaking a string, protesting about a point or noise from the public in which it's impossible to start in 25 secs and the watch would make everything more confusing

Agree. There are many times when the umpire needs to use his/hers own discretion. Clock would not work. It will mess up the game more than a delay in serve

FedFan
08-05-2008, 04:35 PM
IMHO it should be like this: first obvious time-wasting: warning. Second: second warning. Third: point penalty.
I think these should be left up to the umpire's discretion, but it wouldn't be a bad thing if indeed the umpires would become more strict about it.

Why two warnings? In general the umpire gives a warning after a couple of time exceedings!

Players should get a penalty point after one warning. Otherwise the time rule is a joke and every player should be allowed to get as much time as he wants.

Has it ever happened that a player got a penalty point due to time wasting? Can't remember.

scoobs
08-05-2008, 04:43 PM
Not a fan. The existing rules are adequate, they just need to be enforced more rigorously - they should make it clear to persistently slow players before the match that they will go the next step and hand out point penalties if necessary and then do so.

And I can honestly say, watching players take 40, 45 seconds...it gets a bit irritating but I don't find myself thinking "tennis is broken, they need to legislate on this". I just think "oh speed up a bit dammit." But then I think the same whenever the umpire allows a 5 minute warmup to take 8 minutes before they even hit serves and then calls 2 minutes when they start to hit serves, calls time at the end of the warmup and then the players hit 14 more serves, return to their chairs, have a drink, write an epic novel, adjust their privates and then come out to play...

Duncan
08-05-2008, 09:55 PM
I am all for speeding up play. I don't really like it when you are waiting for sometimes up for a minute for points to be played.

It's easy to allow for broken strings and crowd noise. String breaks then you restart the clock. Crowd noise you just get on with it. These guys are professionals. How hard can it be for them to serve a ball?

Merton
08-05-2008, 10:36 PM
Bad idea for reasons that have already been stated. Just adding the influence of spectators coming in, moving, making noise and so on. The idea would require discretion on the umpires for when to shut down the clock, but such discretion is required in the existing rules, so no improvement. We just need umpires to enforce the existing rules, not deal with an added layer in the form of a shot clock.

leng jai
08-05-2008, 10:47 PM
The shot clock should only apply to Nadull and Fakervic.

fast_clay
08-05-2008, 10:52 PM
shot clock is a bad idea... cos u ruin the possibility of a talent like pashanski not being able to show his full array of skills...

i dont mind a bit of time wasting... as long as i am being entertained at the same time connors style (even tho he went overboard with the ball bouncing at times too)... there has to be room for showponies and histrionics.. surely...?

cos robots eat **** ...

brent-o
08-06-2008, 12:27 AM
I don't know about for the reason you're wanting, but the thread title got me thinking that it'd be cool if they had a shot clock gimmick in exhibition matches. Players rally until a certain point, then hit as hard as they can to finish the point quickly. I dunno, just a passing thought.

BigJohn
08-06-2008, 01:09 AM
I like that idea but there is no need to put a clock on the court. It could be something like a little clock on the empire chair, or the empire chair starts to vibrate after 30 seconds... The umps are the one who are not enforcing the rule after all.

For umps that are not willing to enforce the rule, there could be a device added to the chair with a little rusty nail that would poke them repeatedly in the ass every 5 seconds until play resumed.

SheepleBuster
08-28-2008, 12:00 AM
I am sure you have heard about this already, but do you guys know when ATP will be implementing this feature on the tour?

finishingmove
08-28-2008, 12:03 AM
there is a thread or two on this subject.

to answer your question, yes i know - never.

SheepleBuster
08-28-2008, 12:07 AM
there is a thread or two on this subject.

to answer your question, yes i know - never.

Oh Sorry. But I thought they said they're going to try it soon. They changed their minds already? How come they test coaching but not this.

LinkMage
08-28-2008, 12:08 AM
If that was implemented, Rafito would get disqualified from every match he plays. The ATP can't have that happen to the biggest star on the tour since the retirement of Sampras. :awww:

Johnny Groove
08-28-2008, 12:11 AM
If that was implemented, Rafito would get disqualified from every match he plays. The ATP can't have that happen to the biggest star on the tour since the retirement of Sampras. :awww:

I know, right? :awww:

With Nadal gone, who will you make 90% of your posts about? :hug:

SheepleBuster
08-28-2008, 12:11 AM
If that was implemented, Rafito would get disqualified from every match he plays. The ATP can't have that happen to the biggest star on the tour since the retirement of Sampras. :awww:

OK. Let's not make this Anti Rafa thread. There are many players who go over the limit. Djokovic, I even saw Karlovic get a warning against Murray three weeks ago. But it'd be fun to have that really.

LinkMage
08-28-2008, 12:14 AM
I know, right? :awww:

With Nadal gone, who will you make 90% of your posts about? :hug:



Fakervic :p

drf716
08-28-2008, 03:23 AM
i could imagine how nerve-wracking the game already is and when you add clocks to things to worry about, that might not be good for some players.

Toko
08-28-2008, 03:35 AM
i could imagine how nerve-wracking the game already is and when you add clocks to things to worry about, that might not be good for some players.

Who are you kidding? fakerevic and nadull are the only people that will be affected by the clock.

drf716
08-28-2008, 04:02 AM
yeah but don't they already have the umpires to warn them that they should be serving already like within 20 seconds?
clocks would only take up space and another place to look and be distracted by.