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

Shot-clock in tennis

tea
08-23-2009, 08:58 AM
I also heard on ESPN that next year they will have a shot-clock next to the speedometer and Roger is proponent and big supporter of that. This will be great.
Don't know where this quote comes from.:p

But what do you guys think about this idea? Wouldn't it be great? Who will suffer the most? Discuss.:D

Bargearse
08-23-2009, 09:39 AM
Don't know where this quote comes from.:p

But what do you guys think about this idea? Wouldn't it be great? Who will suffer the most? Discuss.:D

Don't mean to sound stupid, but by 'shot clock' what is being timed? The amount of time it takes for a player to serve? If that's what this is about, Nadal will be in trouble. His routine of wedgie, hair adjustment and then pushing ball into his pocket before every serve takes up quite a bit of time.

tea
08-23-2009, 09:58 AM
Don't mean to sound stupid, but by 'shot clock' what is being timed? The amount of time it takes for a player to serve? If that's what this is about, Nadal will be in trouble. His routine of wedgie, hair adjustment and then pushing ball into his pocket before every serve takes up quite a bit of time.
Of course.

Not the amount of time one point can last.:lol:

decrepitude
08-23-2009, 10:00 AM
Del Potro would be in trouble too. Maybe Djokovic, though he seems to have speeded up a lot.

Action Jackson
08-23-2009, 10:26 AM
It was Koning and Adler talking about it, and Nadal will be in trouble, therefore he will make sure it won't go through.

Bargearse
08-23-2009, 10:28 AM
Of course.

Not the amount of time one point can last.:lol:

:rolleyes: Oh ha ha ha.... I thought it could also mean timing the fooling around the receiver sometimes does, you know, walking away from the service line, fiddling with the racquet strings and then holding the hand up making the server wait. Nadal wastes a lot of time out there for sure.

This would be an excellent idea.

angry1
08-23-2009, 11:10 AM
Depending on how it's used,this should be great news.

What format do you expect?

Mo Layhani IIRC, suggested that each bad time costs you a serve,rather than the escalating penalties they're unwilling to enforce currently.I'd like to see that.

xohxmyx
08-23-2009, 01:00 PM
oh nadal is so screwed:lol: del potro might be in trouble a bit to, i almost feel asleep in between each point when they where playing in montreal...it took them both so long to do anything lol

i think it would be a good idea, i dont like when players just fiddle around and take forever it will also stop players from doing it to try and distract their opponent...however of course it will only be effective if they actually follow through with some sort of penalty for taking to long not just warnings:rolleyes:

Leo
08-23-2009, 01:46 PM
You know what, they need to do something. It's going too far. Tennis is a spectator sport and it's important to keep the progress of play at a non-sleep-enducing pace.

I almost miss the days of Jelena Dokic vs. Jennifer Capriati. Now those women had barely finished one point before grabbing a ball from a ball boy and starting the next. Classic stuff, ESPN could never show any replays.

Also, I simply don't understand why umpires are such spineless chickens. How hard is it to disallow 30+ seconds between points and, even worse, on-court coaching? Most of them are so useless up there. Perhaps they can change the ruling to two warnings then point penalty then game penalty then...

stebs
08-23-2009, 01:57 PM
Mo Layhani IIRC, suggested that each bad time costs you a serve,rather than the escalating penalties they're unwilling to enforce currently.I'd like to see that.

Yeah, that's good. The thing is, if you have a point penalty the officials aren't going to risk heavy criticism by making that call. If you lose a serve it is easy to punish people for taking too long.

This rule is difficult to deal with really because there needs to be an element of sensibility about the decisions. It's ridiculous for a player to continually take 30 seconds between points if it is frustrating the opponent but also ridiculous for a umpire to punish a player if he takes a litle extra time after a gruelling 30 stroke rally.

mcnasty
08-23-2009, 02:02 PM
Also, I simply don't understand why umpires are such spineless chickens. How hard is it to disallow 30+ seconds between points and, even worse, on-court coaching? Most of them are so useless up there. Perhaps they can change the ruling to two warnings then point penalty then game penalty then...


They're spineless because they're at the mercy of tournament officials and sponsors who rely on those very players who violate the rules to host a successful event. A sad state, to be sure.

Burrow
08-23-2009, 02:05 PM
You don't know where it comes from yet you were able to quote it in here?

Leo
08-23-2009, 02:05 PM
They're spineless because they're at the mercy of tournament officials and sponsors who rely on those very players who violate the rules to host a successful event. A sad state, to be sure.

Maybe in the case of Nadal/Del Po taking too much time or Roddick/Safin bitching at officials, etc. But still even with some of the less marquee matches they are pathetic. How many times can David Ferrer, who probably has absolutely zero star appeal outside of Spain, get away with very obvious on court coaching? And why?

Then again we do want the rules to be fair and equal. Nadal, Del Potro, Djokovic etc. should not be above the rules.

bluefork
08-23-2009, 02:09 PM
A shot-clock sounds good in theory, although I could see it being more difficult to implement that expected. As stebs mentioned, it's deep in a fifth set and the players have just had a really grueling rally. The server than takes an extra 5 to 10 seconds to get ready to serve. Does that player really get penalized?

And what happens if there are other things delaying play between points, such as noise from the crowd? Does the shot-clock get reset? Does the umpire have the power to pause the shot-clock? It could get messy.

But I do agree that something has to be done about the slow players. It's pretty ridiculous how long guys like Nadal and Del Potro take between points, and if the umpires are unwilling to give them point penalties, there need to be some other way to punish them for breaking the rules.

Leo
08-23-2009, 02:10 PM
This rule is difficult to deal with really because there needs to be an element of sensibility about the decisions. It's ridiculous for a player to continually take 30 seconds between points if it is frustrating the opponent but also ridiculous for a umpire to punish a player if he takes a litle extra time after a gruelling 30 stroke rally.

Definitely, yes. And I see a problem with having a shot clock on the court if the crowd gets riled up over a player taking 35 seconds even after a brutally long and exhausting rally. The rule would have to be malleable.

But then again I play squash and I swear it makes me miss tennis - there are absolutely no breaks between points. I get so winded and there is no chance to recover, until the measly 90 seconds between "sets." And squash points are almost always longer too. It sucks. Tennis players have it good, I'll tell you that.

serveandvolley80
08-23-2009, 02:10 PM
The rules are still there that warnings are supposed to be given to players that take too much time, as i recall it used to be enforced a lot more. Now almost half of all players do it, if they started to enforce it, it would change the dynamic of a lot of games, empires just don't have the desire to ruin a match. Put yourself in their shoes, its a lot of pressure is it not?

So yes they are chickens, but its intimidating to be known as the person that possibly could effect a big grand slam match.

Burrow
08-23-2009, 02:11 PM
You shouldn't even need this, all you need is an umpire to tell the player that they are taking too long and to warn and punish them, it's that simple.

serveandvolley80
08-23-2009, 02:17 PM
A shot-clock sounds good in theory, although I could see it being more difficult to implement that expected. As stebs mentioned, it's deep in a fifth set and the players have just had a really grueling rally. The server than takes an extra 5 to 10 seconds to get ready to serve. Does that player really get penalized?

And what happens if there are other things delaying play between points, such as noise from the crowd? Does the shot-clock get reset? Does the umpire have the power to pause the shot-clock? It could get messy.

But I do agree that something has to be done about the slow players. It's pretty ridiculous how long guys like Nadal and Del Potro take between points, and if the umpires are unwilling to give them point penalties, there need to be some other way to punish them for breaking the rules.

So just because they are tired and physically weak even after a long rally means the rules should be bent? Perhaps Football teams should take a few extra seconds when they call a timeout, or how about basketball? I mean they are tired let them stay on the sidelines for an extra 40 seconds.

In your example lets say it is a fifth set and players are dragging their feet, maybe make a fifth set a few extra seconds on the clock, so instead of 25 seconds lets make it 35, guaranteed they would still try and drag it out as long as possible. Why? because sometimes its not even about being tired, its about frustrating your opponent and taking away his timing and rhythm.

stebs
08-23-2009, 02:19 PM
A shot-clock sounds good in theory, although I could see it being more difficult to implement that expected. As stebs mentioned, it's deep in a fifth set and the players have just had a really grueling rally. The server than takes an extra 5 to 10 seconds to get ready to serve. Does that player really get penalized?

And what happens if there are other things delaying play between points, such as noise from the crowd? Does the shot-clock get reset? Does the umpire have the power to pause the shot-clock? It could get messy.

But I do agree that something has to be done about the slow players. It's pretty ridiculous how long guys like Nadal and Del Potro take between points, and if the umpires are unwilling to give them point penalties, there need to be some other way to punish them for breaking the rules.

Definitely, yes. And I see a problem with having a shot clock on the court if the crowd gets riled up over a player taking 35 seconds even after a brutally long and exhausting rally. The rule would have to be malleable.

I agree. It's tough to have a rule that works here. For the variables and reasons stated an absolute kind of a rule won't work in this situation and for that reason the clock would only make things more complex. Really, it should be up to the umpire to make the decision but I think that should happen more often with the punishment being slightly less (no 1st serve for next point). The thing is, it's really hard for the umpire to watch a point looking for the line calls, call the score and already be focused on the clock at the same time.

serveandvolley80
08-23-2009, 02:21 PM
I agree. It's tough to have a rule that works here. For the variables and reasons stated an absolute kind of a rule won't work in this situation and for that reason the clock would only make things more complex. Really, it should be up to the umpire to make the decision but I think that should happen more often with the punishment being slightly less (no 1st serve for next point). The thing is, it's really hard for the umpire to watch a point looking for the line calls, call the score and already be focused on the clock at the same time.

With all the Line judges around and the chair umpire watching the lines, can they not have somebody out there on the court or by the stands that can be in charge of that?

That would solve the problem of complication lol, and create a whole new set of them.

mcnasty
08-23-2009, 02:22 PM
There must be an unspoken rule among umps that's it better not make waves if one can help it, because if an ump decides to throw the book on a lesser player then there'll be an outcry that the rules don't apply to the top players and so on and so forth...And no umpire wants to be in the front and center of that mess.

stebs
08-23-2009, 02:24 PM
In your example lets say it is a fifth set and players are dragging their feet, maybe make a fifth set a few extra seconds on the clock, so instead of 25 seconds lets make it 35, guaranteed they would still try and drag it out as long as possible. Why? because sometimes its not even about being tired, its about frustrating your opponent and taking away his timing and rhythm.

It doesn't even need to be the fifth set though, a hot day at a hot event like Cincy right now for instance and you play a long point chasing down balls over a course of 30 strokes and you need more than the usual time for recovery even if it is the first set. I know there are fitness issues and the players have the responsibility to be fit enough to play but look at this:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=K0LFMGDB3yQ

Hewitt and Federer are very fit guys and this is toward the beggining of the second set after a quick first set. Post point they take 35-40 seconds. Should one of these guys incur a point penalty? That would be completely ridiculous.

Sapeod
08-23-2009, 02:29 PM
Sounds like a good idea, I guess. But the umpires should enforce the rules more and stop being such wussy babies and tell Nadal, Djokovic and Del Potro to hurry up.

bluefork
08-23-2009, 02:30 PM
So just because they are tired and physically weak even after a long rally means the rules should be bent? Perhaps Football teams should take a few extra seconds when they call a timeout, or how about basketball? I mean they are tired let them stay on the sidelines for an extra 40 seconds.

In your example lets say it is a fifth set and players are dragging their feet, maybe make a fifth set a few extra seconds on the clock, so instead of 25 seconds lets make it 35, guaranteed they would still try and drag it out as long as possible. Why? because sometimes its not even about being tired, its about frustrating your opponent and taking away his timing and rhythm.

I think it's completely reasonable to give the guys a few extra seconds after a really tough point. Everybody gets winded. And I don't think most people care when the players take a few extra seconds after a really great point. It's very different (and easy to tell) when players are delaying the play because they're trying to break an opponent's rhythm. Those are the times that the umpires should be more stringent.

serveandvolley80
08-23-2009, 02:37 PM
It doesn't even need to be the fifth set though, a hot day at a hot event like Cincy right now for instance and you play a long point chasing down balls over a course of 30 strokes and you need more than the usual time for recovery even if it is the first set. I know there are fitness issues and the players have the responsibility to be fit enough to play but look at this:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=K0LFMGDB3yQ

Hewitt and Federer are very fit guys and this is toward the beggining of the second set after a quick first set. Post point they take 35-40 seconds. Should one of these guys incur a point penalty? That would be completely ridiculous.

Well, in those cases you can make something like the length of the rally is dependent on how long you can take. Someone just hits a first serve and then takes 40 seconds on the next point, nope sorry that just wont fly.

What do you think of that?

stebs
08-23-2009, 02:44 PM
Well, in those cases you can make something like the length of the rally is dependent on how long you can take. Someone just hits a first serve and then takes 40 seconds on the next point, nope sorry that just wont fly.

What do you think of that?

Well yes but if you let the length of point a factor then what's the point of the clock if it only counts for short points. The thing is you can't really draw the line because there are too many variables. It has to be up to a human to make the decision based on those variables, not a clock.

MacTheKnife
08-23-2009, 03:59 PM
Yeah, that's good. The thing is, if you have a point penalty the officials aren't going to risk heavy criticism by making that call. If you lose a serve it is easy to punish people for taking too long.

This rule is difficult to deal with really because there needs to be an element of sensibility about the decisions. It's ridiculous for a player to continually take 30 seconds between points if it is frustrating the opponent but also ridiculous for a umpire to punish a player if he takes a litle extra time after a gruelling 30 stroke rally.

It doesn't even need to be the fifth set though, a hot day at a hot event like Cincy right now for instance and you play a long point chasing down balls over a course of 30 strokes and you need more than the usual time for recovery even if it is the first set. I know there are fitness issues and the players have the responsibility to be fit enough to play but look at this:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=K0LFMGDB3yQ

Hewitt and Federer are very fit guys and this is toward the beggining of the second set after a quick first set. Post point they take 35-40 seconds. Should one of these guys incur a point penalty? That would be completely ridiculous.


No need to type anything else.. these two say it all.. Stupid idea. Just get the umps to have the nuts to enforce the rules as they are.
If they fail to do that, then fine them.

TennisMindCamp
08-23-2009, 05:14 PM
It definitely has its pros and cons.

navy75
08-28-2009, 04:41 AM
Anything would be an improvement over the pace of play as it stands right now. Waiting close to a minute between points is absolutely unbearable. If it forces some players to feel rushed in the 5th set, then so be it. I'm all for a shot clock on court :wavey:

MIMIC
08-28-2009, 05:52 AM
Darren Cahill & Brad Gilbert were talking about this during the Cincinnati commentary. Brad thinks that a "shot clock" of some sort will be introduced as soon as next year (:lol:) but Cahill thinks that it will happen one day later on in the future (next 10 or 15 yrs?)