Someone Explain This To Me... (Re. Serves) [Archive] - MensTennisForums.com

Someone Explain This To Me... (Re. Serves)

Certinfy
02-18-2012, 02:52 PM
Been thinking this a while and today's match just made me want to ask on here.

Player A hits a 2nd serve
Serve is called out
Player A challenges
Ball is in
Player A gets a 1st serve

Player A hits a 1st serve
Serve is called in
Player B challenges
Ball is out
Player A gets a 2nd serve

Surely if there's any logic behind it in the second scenario Player A should be given a first serve to make up for the time in between the serves?

theKSHE
02-18-2012, 02:55 PM
Can't find the non-sense in here, tbh. Player A is the handicaped one in the first scenario and should get a 1st serve as a reward. Player B is the hancipad player in the second scenario and Player A should bot be the one rewarded.

MuzzahLovah
02-18-2012, 02:55 PM
Nadal and Djokovic have dominated tennis is the past couple years. Time means nothing nowadays.

Nixer
02-18-2012, 02:57 PM
I think it's more like "sorry, you got screwed by line judge, have a 1st serve as a consolation" in 1st situation, not strictly connected to time wasted.

samanosuke
02-18-2012, 02:57 PM
so with your logic someone for missing first serve should get another first serve

don't see anything to think about it here . everything is perfectly logical

Deathless Mortal
02-18-2012, 03:00 PM
Can't find the non-sense in here, tbh. Player A is the handicaped one in the first scenario and should get a 1st serve as a reward. Player B is the hancipad player in the second scenario and Player A should bot be the one rewarded.

This. /thread

samanosuke
02-18-2012, 03:01 PM
in first scenario player A was robbed and he deserved first serve again. in second scenario player B was robbed so why not to rob him even more and give first serve to player A again . is this logical to you ?

samanosuke
02-18-2012, 03:06 PM
like i said if i am a mod i would bring a condition , before verification of account every member would need to pass psycho and iq test . these steps would improve mtf drastically

stanch
02-18-2012, 04:11 PM
like i said if i am a mod i would bring a condition , before verification of account every member would need to pass psycho and iq test . these steps would improve mtf drastically

:haha: :lol: :haha: :lol: :haha:

But again, don't be so hard on Certinfy.

Certinfy
02-18-2012, 08:00 PM
What I was saying is in scenario 2 if player B takes ages to challenge then it's quite unfair on Player A. :shrug:

Either way thanks for some of you clearing it up.

Slice Winner
02-18-2012, 08:11 PM
Fergus Murphy doesn't agree with you guys ;)

Certinfy
02-18-2012, 08:19 PM
Yeah just gave Davydenko a second serve after the first scenario happens. Just proves this is unfair.

Nixer
02-18-2012, 09:52 PM
Fergus Murphy doesn't agree with you guys ;)

Fergus Murphy doesn't agree with the laws of physics :o Dumbest umpire on the tour

samanosuke
02-18-2012, 09:55 PM
Fergus Murphy doesn't count . he is just useful on roddick's matches

Slice Winner
02-18-2012, 10:02 PM
Fergus Murphy doesn't agree with the laws of physics :o Dumbest umpire on the tour

I actually prefer the way he handled it today - if the server hits a 2nd serve, called out, challenged and called good, I think he should get a 2nd serve. It doesn't make sense to replay the whole 'point' since no real disadvantage was caused to the server.

Nixer
02-18-2012, 10:07 PM
I actually prefer the way he handled it today - if the server hits a 2nd serve, called good, challenged and called out, I think he should get a 2nd serve. It doesn't make sense to replay the whole 'point' since no real disadvantage was caused to the server.

Oh, is that what the situation was today? I didn't watch the match, from your post I thought it's the same as 1st situation. This one is different, so then the decision was correct.

Slice Winner
02-18-2012, 10:10 PM
Oh, is that what the situation was today? I didn't watch the match, from your post I thought it's the same as 1st situation. This one is different, and then the decision was correct.

Sorry I wrote it the wrong way round.
Davy's 2nd serve was called out, Davy challenged and hawkeye called it good. Fergus gave Davy another 2nd serve instead of a 1st.

Nixer
02-18-2012, 10:25 PM
Sorry I wrote it the wrong way round.
Davy's 2nd serve was called out, Davy challenged and hawkeye called it good. Fergus gave Davy another 2nd serve instead of a 1st.

Well, usually umpires give 1st serves in that position.. Davy IMO should have complained, and called the supervisor if Murphy wouldn't change the decision.

Slice Winner
02-18-2012, 10:30 PM
Well, usually umpires give 1st serves in that position.. Davy IMO should have complained, and called the supervisor if Murphy wouldn't change the decision.

Davy didn't seem pleased, but didn't argue too long.

156mphserve
02-18-2012, 10:40 PM
I actually prefer the way he handled it today - if the server hits a 2nd serve, called out, challenged and called good, I think he should get a 2nd serve. It doesn't make sense to replay the whole 'point' since no real disadvantage was caused to the server.

davydenko successfully got a 2nd serve in, so why should he have had to get another one in?

A double fault is when you miss 2 serves in a row, he made a 2nd serve, so he shouldn't be given another 2nd serve because if he missed that one it would be a DF for missing only 1 serve in a row.

He made his serve, only reason that it wasn't allowed was a bad line judge call, why should he have to face the risk of having to make it again just because of a bad call? The fact that he had to is a disadvantage to the server isn't it?

a DF is 0/2 serves in, not 1/3

bassoon
02-18-2012, 11:34 PM
davydenko successfully got a 2nd serve in, so why should he have had to get another one in?

A double fault is when you miss 2 serves in a row, he made a 2nd serve, so he shouldn't be given another 2nd serve because if he missed that one it would be a DF for missing only 1 serve in a row.

He made his serve, only reason that it wasn't allowed was a bad line judge call, why should he have to face the risk of having to make it again just because of a bad call? The fact that he had to is a disadvantage to the server isn't it?

a DF is 0/2 serves in, not 1/3

This has never made sense to me until you articulated it this way. Thanks!

n8
02-18-2012, 11:37 PM
This has never made sense to me until you articulated it this way. Thanks!

Ditto.

fast_clay
02-18-2012, 11:41 PM
davydenko successfully got a 2nd serve in, so why should he have had to get another one in?

A double fault is when you miss 2 serves in a row, he made a 2nd serve, so he shouldn't be given another 2nd serve because if he missed that one it would be a DF for missing only 1 serve in a row.

He made his serve, only reason that it wasn't allowed was a bad line judge call, why should he have to face the risk of having to make it again just because of a bad call? The fact that he had to is a disadvantage to the server isn't it?

a DF is 0/2 serves in, not 1/3

what a great post

Slice Winner
02-19-2012, 03:45 AM
davydenko successfully got a 2nd serve in, so why should he have had to get another one in?

A double fault is when you miss 2 serves in a row, he made a 2nd serve, so he shouldn't be given another 2nd serve because if he missed that one it would be a DF for missing only 1 serve in a row.

He made his serve, only reason that it wasn't allowed was a bad line judge call, why should he have to face the risk of having to make it again just because of a bad call? The fact that he had to is a disadvantage to the server isn't it?

a DF is 0/2 serves in, not 1/3

I understand the reasoning behind it, and it makes sense.
I just think giving another first serve is an imperfect solution. (And either Fergus agrees with me, or he forgot the rules :P)

It's unfair having to hit another 2nd serve having already made one. But it's unfair to the returner to have to receive another first serve despite server having definitely missed it.

156mphserve
02-19-2012, 03:51 AM
well there isn't a 1.5th serve, and imo it would be more unfair on the server to get a 2nd serve that it would be on the returner to have to return a 1st.

When a server misses a first serve, makes the 2nd, they play a point and somewhere in the rally there's a missed called, that gets either overuled or challenged and reversed, and the point needs to be replayed, the server gets a first serve then too. Is that unfair on the returner as well?

Slice Winner
02-19-2012, 03:56 AM
well there isn't a 1.5th serve, and imo it would be more unfair on the server to get a 2nd serve that it would be on the returner to have to return a 1st.
I agree.. there isn't a perfectly fair solution, but makes more sense to give the advantage to the server since it's his service game.

When a server misses a first serve, makes the 2nd, they play a point and somewhere in the rally there's a missed called, that gets either overuled or challenged and reversed, and the point needs to be replayed, the server gets a first serve then too. Is that unfair on the returner as well?

Yea, I think so.

Yolita
02-19-2012, 03:57 AM
I understand the reasoning behind it, and it makes sense.
I just think giving another first serve is an imperfect solution. (And either Fergus agrees with me, or he forgot the rules :P)

It's unfair having to hit another 2nd serve having already made one. But it's unfair to the returner to have to receive another first serve despite server having definitely missed it.

Or he was trying to help Federer. We'll never know... :cool: