Shocker - ATP approves time violation penalty change & a trial of no-let rule [Archive] - MensTennisForums.com

Shocker - ATP approves time violation penalty change & a trial of no-let rule

Looner
09-12-2012, 03:41 PM
Finally! Something is being done although it would be interesting to see if Dull gets affected.


ATP BOARD APPROVES CHANGE IN TIME VIOLATION PENALTY
“No let” serve set for three-month trial on ATP Challenger Tour in 2013

NEW YORK — At its recent meetings in New York, the ATP Board of Directors approved a rule change and a trial for the 2013 season, both proposed by the new ATP Competition Committee.

From 2013, on both the ATP World Tour and ATP Challenger Tour, a time violation between points (25 seconds) will be penalised in the first instance with a warning. For the second and all subsequent violations, the penalty will be a fault for the server and a point penalty for the receiver. Currently, the rule is a warning and then point penalty for both the server and receiver.

“There’s been a lot of discussion about the amount of time taken between points,” said ATP Executive Chairman and President Brad Drewett. “We believe this modification will give officials a useful tool and allow for more consistent enforcement of the current time violation rule.”

The ATP Board also approved a trial elimination of the service let on the ATP Challenger Tour only, for the first three months of 2013.

“Although this change will not materially reduce the length of a match, we believe it should have a positive impact on the flow of the match,” said Drewett. “We’re certainly not ready yet to eliminate the service let, but believe a trial at the ATP Challenger level will be a good way to test this initiative in a competitive environment and get feedback from players and the public before deciding if it could be adapted more broadly.”

The new ATP Competition Committee serves in an advisory capacity, with any recommended changes or innovations requiring approval by the ATP Board of Directors.

The six-person committee consists of two representatives designated by the ATP Tournament Council, two representatives designated by the ATP Player Council, and one at-large member and a committee chairman, both selected by the ATP Executive Chairman and President.

Sri
09-12-2012, 03:43 PM
ATP BOARD APPROVES CHANGE IN TIME VIOLATION PENALTY

“No let” serve set for three-month trial on ATP Challenger Tour in 2013

NEW YORK — At its recent meetings in New York, the ATP Board of Directors approved a rule change and a trial for the 2013 season, both proposed by the new ATP Competition Committee.

From 2013, on both the ATP World Tour and ATP Challenger Tour, a time violation between points (25 seconds) will be penalised in the first instance with a warning. For the second and all subsequent violations, the penalty will be a fault for the server and a point penalty for the receiver. Currently, the rule is a warning and then point penalty for both the server and receiver.

“There’s been a lot of discussion about the amount of time taken between points,” said ATP Executive Chairman and President Brad Drewett. “We believe this modification will give officials a useful tool and allow for more consistent enforcement of the current time violation rule.”

The ATP Board also approved a trial elimination of the service let on the ATP Challenger Tour only, for the first three months of 2013.

“Although this change will not materially reduce the length of a match, we believe it should have a positive impact on the flow of the match,” said Drewett. “We’re certainly not ready yet to eliminate the service let, but believe a trial at the ATP Challenger level will be a good way to test this initiative in a competitive environment and get feedback from players and the public before deciding if it could be adapted more broadly.”

The new ATP Competition Committee serves in an advisory capacity, with any recommended changes or innovations requiring approval by the ATP Board of Directors.

The six-person committee consists of two representatives designated by the ATP Tournament Council, two representatives designated by the ATP Player Council, and one at-large member and a committee chairman, both selected by the ATP Executive Chairman and President.


TLDR;

ATP's reasoning = We don't have the balls to enforce the existing rules, we will dilute so we can enforce the less effective rules when appropriate.

Brick Top
09-12-2012, 03:43 PM
No more slams for Rafito.

Slasher1985
09-12-2012, 03:44 PM
Elimination of the let...:eek:

Looner
09-12-2012, 03:45 PM
No more slams for Rafito.

If the rule is followed...

Sri
09-12-2012, 03:45 PM
"Finally! Something is being done although it would be interesting to see if Dull gets affected. "

Really? Read thru it again.

What is now a point penalty will become a fault. Thus leading to dilution of the penalty for a time violation.

Roamed
09-12-2012, 03:46 PM
Is it just me or does it seem like they're relaxing the time volation penalty? The only change is to make it a fault for the server rather than a point penalty...?

Looner
09-12-2012, 03:47 PM
"Finally! Something is being done although it would be interesting to see if Dull gets affected. "

Really? Read thru it again.

What is now a point penalty will become a fault. Thus leading to dilution of the penalty for a time violation.

Well, on the face of it, yes. But it's much easier to call a fault on serve than award a point penalty. How many times have you seen that happen?!?

However, I just remembered. The GSs are ITF events, so surely this does not apply to them. The rule there is 20 seconds anyway.

henke007
09-12-2012, 03:47 PM
:zzz:

Sophocles
09-12-2012, 03:49 PM
Really? Read thru it again.

What is now a point penalty will become a fault. Thus leading to dilution of the penalty for a time violation.

No, from the way it's written, what is now a point penalty will become a point penalty AND a fault.

The problem is, the point penalty has never been enforced, so why should this make any difference?

Sri
09-12-2012, 03:52 PM
No, from the way it's written, what is now a point penalty will become a point penalty AND a fault.
Where does it say that?

Sophocles
09-12-2012, 03:53 PM
Where does it say that?

In bold in the OP, although to be honest it's horribly written and hard to understand.

abraxas21
09-12-2012, 03:53 PM
If the rule is followed...

it won't affect slams in any case.

the article says it only applies to the ATP and challenger circuit

duong
09-12-2012, 03:54 PM
No, from the way it's written, what is now a point penalty will become a point penalty AND a fault.

I read like Sri : it will be only a fault.

For the second and all subsequent violations, the penalty will be a fault for the server and a point penalty for the receiver.

it's for the receiver that it would stay a point penalty.

Which means that if it's before the first serve, the player will have a second serve, whereas so far he lost the point.

Frankly speaking, it changes nuts. And it comes AFTER the warning ... which is very seldom applied itself.

Then well :rolleyes:

The let experimentation is far more important.

tripwires
09-12-2012, 03:56 PM
Wait, why are they doing away with service lets?

Puschkin
09-12-2012, 03:56 PM
Maybe I'm stupid and miss something. But why does the reciever get a point penalty? He is not in control of a slow server.:confused:

Sophocles
09-12-2012, 03:57 PM
I read like Sri : it will be only a fault.



it's for the receiver that it would stay a point penalty.

Which means that if it's before the first serve, the player will have a second serve, whereas so far he lost the point.

Frankly speaking, it changes nuts. And it comes AFTER the warning ... which is very seldom applied itself.

Then well :rolleyes:

The let experimentation is far more important.

Oh right, you mean if the receiver is responsible for the delay? Can't say I've ever seen anybody even being warned for that.

Sri
09-12-2012, 03:57 PM
In bold in the OP, although to be honest it's horribly written and hard to understand.
Read through it again:

"From 2013, on both the ATP World Tour and ATP Challenger Tour, a time violation between points (25 seconds) will be penalised in the first instance with a warning. For the second and all subsequent violations, the penalty will be a fault for the server and a point penalty for the receiver. Currently, the rule is a warning and then point penalty for both the server and receiver."

For the server, what is now a warning and point penalty becomes a warning and a fault.

For the receiver, it remains the same.

tundrathunder
09-12-2012, 03:58 PM
Removing the let is the dumbest proposal EVER.

duong
09-12-2012, 03:58 PM
Maybe I'm stupid and miss something. But why does the reciever get a point penalty? He is not in control of a slow server.:confused:

it seldom happens but sometimes receivers are slow too.

Nadal included especially often makes the server wait for him whereas he should be available for the server ... but not time enough to go over the limit time usually.

And like Sophocles I've never seen any warning for that so far.

But it's in the rules :lol:

Sophocles
09-12-2012, 03:58 PM
Maybe I'm stupid and miss something. But why does the reciever get a point penalty? He is not in control of a slow server.:confused:

That's what I was wondering.

abraxas21
09-12-2012, 03:59 PM
Maybe I'm stupid and miss something. But why does the reciever get a point penalty? He is not in control of a slow server.:confused:

the receiver gets a point penalty if he slows down the server. i.e. isn't ready to receive on time.

BroTree123
09-12-2012, 03:59 PM
Sweet, hitting aces via netcords :yeah:

Sophocles
09-12-2012, 04:00 PM
not often but sometimes receivers are slow too.

Nadal included especially often makes the server wait for him whereas he should be available for the server ... but not time enough to go over the limit time usually.

Have you ever seen a receiver warned for delaying though? Usually there's some legitimate or pretended excuse - changing racquets, towelling off, or whatever.

abraxas21
09-12-2012, 04:00 PM
I read like Sri : it will be only a fault.

on second thought, i read like sri too.

first warning should be replaced by a fault. and the second should be a point (as it is now). perhaps that's what the author truly meant?

Puschkin
09-12-2012, 04:02 PM
the receiver gets a point penalty if he slows down the server. i.e. isn't ready to receive on time.
Aha, thanks for clarifying. So Player X is not penalised when Novak bounces 20+ times? ;)

abraxas21
09-12-2012, 04:03 PM
Aha, thanks for clarifying. So Player X is not penalised when Novak bounces 20+ times? ;)

that wouldn't be his fault so no need to penalize him :)

duong
09-12-2012, 04:04 PM
on second thought, i read like sri too.

in that case we all read the same.

It gives a second chance (that is second serve) for the server who has already received a warning and is still too slow.

Maybe as Looner suggests, it will give umpires more courage in that case.

But even the warning is seldom given at the moment.

Then well ... I think we should concentrate our comments on the no-let experimentation which is a huge change for the game :eek:

Certinfy
09-12-2012, 04:05 PM
Won't do shit.

Sophocles
09-12-2012, 04:06 PM
So basically they're hoping umpires will feel more comfortable enforcing the rules if they're awarding a fault after a warning.

What they actually NEED to do is to tell the umpires they are EXPECTED to enforce the rules - obviously with some discretion, e.g., not if there's just been a 35-shot rally or it's set point or whatever - and COMMUNICATE this to the players so they ALSO know what to expect.

Looner
09-12-2012, 04:08 PM
I think the fact this email went out signals intent to fight the snail pace of some players. I think it's more about intent rather than rule change.

henke007
09-12-2012, 04:09 PM
They need a clock that rings after 25 Sec connected to a computer that subtracts points and games from Dull, Delpo, Nole and others instantly..

Johnny Groove
09-12-2012, 04:09 PM
So basically much ado about nothing?

And I expect this no let rule to go the same route as the RR experiment. Into the trash. No lets in college and it really fucks up the game.

motorhead
09-12-2012, 04:11 PM
Removing the let is the dumbest proposal EVER.

this.

Looner
09-12-2012, 04:13 PM
So basically much ado about nothing?

And I expect this no let rule to go the same route as the RR experiment. Into the trash. No lets in college and it really fucks up the game.

On your first point - completely disagree.
On your second one - completely agree.

duong
09-12-2012, 04:20 PM
I think the fact this email went out signals intent to fight the snail pace of some players. I think it's more about intent rather than rule change.

I rather think there's a new ATP Competition Committee (where JustlikeHeaven was so glad that Richard Krajicek took part :lol: and which was rather expected to speak about the schedule and so on), and like every new Committee, it makes new proposals :shrug:

So basically they're hoping umpires will feel more comfortable enforcing the rules if they're awarding a fault after a warning.

maybe, as Looner and few others think, but I rather think that it's just that the new Committee had to make proposals and for whatever reason that came to their mind.

Anyway, the fact that it's only after the warning makes it even a less important change.

mcnasty
09-12-2012, 04:23 PM
If elimination of the service let is ever adopted, there should come a day when players no longer apologize for let cord winners.

Looner
09-12-2012, 04:24 PM
I remember reading that Drewett, the new CEO of the ATP, also has spoken about the time delay problem or something of that sort. We'll see come the new season but I shall remain optimistic until the first where Dull takes 45 seconds to rest.

tripwires
09-12-2012, 04:29 PM
So why are they doing away with service lets? This is a genuine question. What's wrong with service lets? :confused:

BroTree123
09-12-2012, 04:30 PM
So why are they doing away with service lets? This is a genuine question. What's wrong with service lets? :confused:

They waste time apparently :o

mcnasty
09-12-2012, 04:32 PM
So why are they doing away with service lets? This is a genuine question. What's wrong with service lets? :confused:

A concession that sometimes luck has as much to do with winning as skill and talent.

Har-Tru
09-12-2012, 04:33 PM
Removing the let is the dumbest proposal EVER.

Most probably.

The ATP is a disgrace.

Smoke944
09-12-2012, 04:33 PM
Removing the let is the dumbest proposal EVER.

****ing stupid. Morons.

duong
09-12-2012, 04:33 PM
They waste time apparently :o

I also think that idea wouldn't have come without this machine which makes the umpires call "let" very often when no player has ever heard or seen anything (neither on TV by the way), the ball doesn't even look to be slowed down, and which often annoys players.

But in minor tournaments there's no machine and everybody is happy about the rule, I guess :shrug:

MaxPower
09-12-2012, 04:38 PM
http://3.bp.blogspot.com/-98ehDHF8xjU/T39wqFicV-I/AAAAAAAAB38/tMWKi-KE0Qk/s1600/shocked.gif

But now that I've read about it I'm a bit more "meh". But always something!

tripwires
09-12-2012, 04:43 PM
They waste time apparently :o

So do players like Nadal and Djokovic and pushers like Simon, but the ATP isn't doing away with them. :confused:

It'd be SUPER absurd if, say, a serve clips the net and literally drops into the opponent's side of the court and that counts as an ace. :rolleyes:

I also think that idea wouldn't have come without this machine which makes the umpires call "let" very often when no player has ever heard or seen anything (neither on TV by the way), the ball doesn't even look to be slowed down, and which often annoys players.

But in minor tournaments there's no machine and everybody is happy about the rule, I guess :shrug:

I understand the point about the machine, but doing away with it entirely doesn't really make sense. This no-let thing is pretty stupid. Everyone plays let serves even in completely gimpy amateur-level tennis.

NID
09-12-2012, 04:44 PM
They should also penalize serves over 130 and return winners. SV point should count as double point for the server if he earns it. Net should be lowered in order to shorten the points.

BroTree123
09-12-2012, 04:46 PM
So do players like Nadal and Djokovic and pushers like Simon, but the ATP isn't doing away with them. :confused:

It'd be SUPER absurd if, say, a serve clips the net and literally drops into the opponent's side of the court and that counts as an ace. :rolleyes:


Ummm.... they are :confused: Read the first bit about time violations. They're gunna be assfucked next year.

That's what I thought :lol: Ace letcords FTW!!!! :rocker2:

rocketassist
09-12-2012, 04:47 PM
Players will be aiming for the top of the net in the off season training.

BroTree123
09-12-2012, 04:48 PM
They'll also practice returning at least 5 feet inside the baseline. Should be fun.

Sophocles
09-12-2012, 04:58 PM
Players will be aiming for the top of the net in the off season training.

I'm open-minded about the no-let thing, as long as this doesn't happen. Although at least it might encourage receivers to venture over the baseline.

duong
09-12-2012, 04:58 PM
I understand the point about the machine, but doing away with it entirely doesn't really make sense. This no-let thing is pretty stupid. Everyone plays let serves even in completely gimpy amateur-level tennis.

yes you're right : the problems with the machine are no good reason, but I think they played a role in unpopularizing the let call.

Anyway, yes, if they confirm that new rule after the experimentation, we will surely have matchpoints won this way, the same way Becker won a WTF matchpoint in a tiebreak against Lendl after a long rally :o

abraxas21
09-12-2012, 05:00 PM
all in all, this news only reinforces the idea that the guys in charge of the ATP are a bunch of clowns

rakuten7
09-12-2012, 05:06 PM
The new rule can be found on the ATP site

iii) Time Violations.
Violating a provision of this Section, as server or receiver, shall be penalized
by a “Time Violation – Warning” and each subsequent violation shall be
penalized as follows:
* Server. When serving the time violation shall result in a “fault”.
* Receiver. When it is determined that the receiver is the cause of the time
violation, then the receiver shall be penalized by the assessment of one
(1) point penalty. The receiver must also play to the reasonable pace of
the server. A Time Violation may be issued in this case prior to the
expiration of twenty-five (25) seconds if the receiver’s actions are
delaying the reasonable pace of the server. Assess a code violation if the
receiver is consistently or obviously delaying the server, thus employing
“Unsportsmanlike Conduct”.

Note: A second time violation occurs when a player who has received a
prior warning as either the server or receiver is issued another time
violation as either server or receiver. Example is Player A had received a
warning for not serving within the 25 second limit; later, as receiver,
Player A is deemed to not be playing to the reasonable pace of the
server. This would be considered a second violation and a point penalty
would be issued.

IsDonsIsGood
09-12-2012, 05:10 PM
No-let is awesome. Hope they stick with it.


Phantom let calls that had no impact on the serve (often denying aces) gone!
Let first service, fault, let second service... enough said. Saves time.
Extra drama. Let serves that act like drop shots and let serves that sit up for the returner.

Smoke944
09-12-2012, 05:15 PM
I'm open-minded about the no-let thing, as long as this doesn't happen. Although at least it might encourage receivers to venture over the baseline.

Problem with it is that it just creates more lucky points. Imagine hitting a 130 MPH serve that hits the top of the tape in just the right way and softly drops into the service box. Easy winner for the returner every time.

Terrible decision.

motorhead
09-12-2012, 05:19 PM
No-let is awesome.

:facepalm:

Johnny Groove
09-12-2012, 05:19 PM
Problem with it is that it just creates more lucky points. Imagine hitting a 130 MPH serve that hits the top of the tape in just the right way and softly drops into the service box. Easy winner for the returner every time.

Terrible decision.

Yes. I've seen this with my own 2 eyes, live and in person at college tennis matches. Perhaps you have too? Once on break point, numerous other times at 15-30 or 30-15 or Deuce. It is a joke, and it will happen.

Sophocles
09-12-2012, 05:20 PM
Problem with it is that it just creates more lucky points. Imagine hitting a 130 MPH serve that hits the top of the tape in just the right way and softly drops into the service box. Easy winner for the returner every time.

Terrible decision.

But it's part of the skill-set of a professional tennis player to avoid touching the net with the ball, so it's hardly all about luck.

Smoke944
09-12-2012, 05:26 PM
But it's part of the skill-set of a professional tennis player to avoid touching the net with the ball, so it's hardly all about luck.

:confused:
My example was only one outcome. The serve could hit the tape and barely fall over the net for a winner to save BP. In this case it has nothing to do with the returner's skill-set. Obviously the same thing happens during rallies, but the more the role of luck can be reduced, the better. And especially so when you are changing something that is right in the first place.

Lets are played in American college tennis and it's silly if you've ever seen it.

quarter
09-12-2012, 05:38 PM
:confused:
My example was only one outcome. The serve could hit the tape and barely fall over the net for a winner to save BP. In this case it has nothing to do with the returner's skill-set. Obviously the same thing happens during rallies, but the more the role of luck can be reduced, the better. And especially so when you are changing something that is right in the first place.

Lets are played in American college tennis and it's silly if you've ever seen it.

similar no-let rule was implemented in volleyball and you're seriously overreacting here. lets are even worse during rallies when players are on the move, while they stand still for a serve and can react better.

NameNumber
09-12-2012, 05:40 PM
So they're supposedly going to enforce the time rule more, but they made the penalty less? I guess that's alright as long as it is enforced this time. The no let rule is a horrible idea, though.

Smoke944
09-12-2012, 05:41 PM
similar no-let rule was implemented in volleyball and you're seriously overreacting here. lets are even worse during rallies when players are on the move, while they stand still for a serve and can react better.

I'm not overreacting because it's a stupid rule. It creates more points that are all luck, nothing positive about that.

Sanya
09-12-2012, 05:52 PM
No words for new possible rule about counting serve after touching net, so canceling "let". It`s change for change only, no logic at all. Even Nadal`s offer about 2 years Ranking had more sense to me.

Whiznot
09-12-2012, 05:52 PM
Fingers Fortesque just turned over in his grave.

Time violations will never be enforced because the umpires are pussies.

MalwareDie
09-12-2012, 05:55 PM
What the hell are thse guys thinking? The elimination of lets should never be considered and it would only promote a more luck based game. The time violation change will probably end up not doing anything. Most of the umpires are spineless and will not enforce the rule anyway, especially when it involes a top player.

Mountaindewslave
09-12-2012, 06:00 PM
Removing the let is the dumbest proposal EVER.

it is extremely dumb, I feel bad for players on the Challenger tour during that testing period. without the let the game would be much more error filled, just imagine all the lame balls that barely make it over :o

makes no sense, the let preserves the quality of serve that a player must send to his opponent, without it the opponent has a much more unpredictable ball to deal with

duong
09-12-2012, 06:04 PM
similar no-let rule was implemented in volleyball

yes but it's a bit different, esp. there are 3 players near to the net, and generally speaking I have a very bad opinion of the International Federation of Volley-Ball and its rules.

HKz
09-12-2012, 06:10 PM
As many commentators pointed out, tennis should have a shotclock on the side for the time between points which could make a beep similar to that higher pitched beep they sometimes utilize for serves that are out. This way players can't complain about lack of knowledge for the time, because clearly they'll see the timer ticking down. Only way it'll get enforced IMO and cause umpires to be more inclined to penalise.

duong
09-12-2012, 06:11 PM
I also think that idea wouldn't have come without this machine which makes the umpires call "let" very often when no player has ever heard or seen anything (neither on TV by the way), the ball doesn't even look to be slowed down, and which often annoys players.

But in minor tournaments there's no machine and everybody is happy about the rule, I guess :shrug:

I think it was better when there was somebody with his hand over the net. I wonder if the "let" would be so much criticized in that case, as I think there would be less ones than now.

Slasher1985
09-12-2012, 06:12 PM
The no let rule has to be the stupidest thing ever. Now we're gonna have let-aces, because the player can't possibly reach the ball if it falls in the service box twice.

HKz
09-12-2012, 06:14 PM
it is extremely dumb, I feel bad for players on the Challenger tour during that testing period. without the let the game would be much more error filled, just imagine all the lame balls that barely make it over :o

makes no sense, the let preserves the quality of serve that a player must send to his opponent, without it the opponent has a much more unpredictable ball to deal with

Oh gosh you're so dramatic and foolish.. Just like thinking Serena could compete with ATP pros, lol..

Have you ever watched an entire match? Go count how many times a let gets called in a match.. So many right? :rolleyes: While I personally don't see the point of having a no-let rule, considering that the let rule makes the game more classy anyways, your reasoning is certainly a really stupid one for trying to advocate against the no-let rule.

The no let rule has to be the stupidest thing ever. Now we're gonna have let-aces, because the player can't possibly reach the ball if it falls in the service box twice.

Count how many times such a scenario like that happens in a match.. either way, it is no different than someone blasting a forehand winner that barely trickles over the net.

Come on, could people actually give GOOD reasons for not having a no-let rule? I don't want the no-let rule, but all the reasons I'm reading in the thread are piss poor as fuck.

manadrainer
09-12-2012, 06:18 PM
They need a clock that rings after 25 Sec connected to a computer that subtracts points and games from Dull, Delpo, Nole and others instantly..

This.

Won't happen though.

BroTree123
09-12-2012, 06:19 PM
If you say that, then why bother with the rule in the first place. Because to begin with, who gives a fuck :lol:

Slasher1985
09-12-2012, 06:20 PM
Come on, could people actually give GOOD reasons for not having a no-let rule? I don't want the no-let rule, but all the reasons I'm reading in the thread are piss poor as fuck.

Besides being rude without GOOD reason, the definition of GOOD reason for this rule as for anything is relative. Any reason can be good for some people and bad for other people. You're probably asking for a logical reason, a word which you may not find easily.

The logical reasons for not having this rule are the low-probability let-aces, unreachable by a single player. The logical reasons for having this rule are the low-probability let-calls for balls that barely skim the net. Pick yer choice.

misty1
09-12-2012, 06:24 PM
interesting to see how this affects djokovic, nadal and del potro, all 3 of who can take a very long time between points

of course i would wonder if this will even be applied to guys like them because its not like the rule is enforced now as it was

Apophis
09-12-2012, 06:26 PM
Why don't they get rid of the second service? That's the silliest rule in tennis by a distance. It would speed up the game so much.

It's not like the service is a disadvantage right now, like in volleyball, where there is no second service.

misty1
09-12-2012, 06:57 PM
Why don't they get rid of the second service? That's the silliest rule in tennis by a distance. It would speed up the game so much.

It's not like the service is a disadvantage right now, like in volleyball, where there is no second service.

how would that even work? you miss the first serve and what happens, the opponent automatically gets the point?

BroTree123
09-12-2012, 06:59 PM
Why don't they get rid of the second service? That's the silliest rule in tennis by a distance. It would speed up the game so much.

It's not like the service is a disadvantage right now, like in volleyball, where there is no second service.

Yeah, how about let's not play tennis at all.

tripwires
09-12-2012, 07:01 PM
Ummm.... they are :confused: Read the first bit about time violations. They're gunna be assfucked next year.

That's what I thought :lol: Ace letcords FTW!!!! :rocker2:

No, I meant the ATP isn't banning them from the tour for playing long rallies that waste too much time. :D in other words I was trolling. :o

Apophis
09-12-2012, 07:04 PM
Yeah, how about let's not play tennis at all.

Why? There would be even more tennis (rallies), and less waiting. The service would become less dominant. In fact, they could speed up the court to compensate if a slower game is not desired. It is strange at least that in the nineties they used heavier balls to slow down the game while keeping the second service. If they had just abolished the second serve, the service would have become less dominant naturally.

BroTree123
09-12-2012, 07:05 PM
No, I meant the ATP isn't banning them from the tour for playing long rallies that waste too much time. :D in other words I was trolling. :o

Yeah...not very good (or obvious) was it :o

Why? There would be even more tennis (rallies), and less waiting. The service would become less dominant. In fact, they could speed up the court to compensate if a slower game is not desired. It is strange at least that in the nineties they used heavier balls to slow down the game while keeping the second service. If they had just abolished the second serve, the service would have become less dominant naturally.

Yeah true. It would mean that it would stop serve-bots from going for it all the time.

Apophis
09-12-2012, 07:06 PM
Yeah, how about let's not play tennis at all.

Volleyball seems to exist, as do table tennis and badminton. They may be less popular globally, but I hardly think that is because they don't give players a second serve.

Mechlan
09-12-2012, 07:07 PM
On its surface, the new time violation rule is less strict than before, which is not a good thing. However, I can honestly never remember one of the top players ever being penalized a point for taking too long. So if this actually gives umpires the balls to call it and make an impact, I'm all for it.

tripwires
09-12-2012, 07:13 PM
Yeah...not very good (or obvious) was it :o



Yeah true. It would mean that it would stop serve-bots from going for it all the time.

That's why I'm Such a good MTF poster. :angel:

On another note, the serve dominant nature of tennis is what makes it unique and different from other racquet sports. I'd rather they sped up some of the courts and reward attacking players to reduce the length of some of the matches rather than do away with the no-let rule or abolish the second serve (???).

Also, HKz, a good reason to keep the no-let rule: why the hell mess with something that isn't broke? I've never really heard consistent complaints about this before, so this proposal really surprised me.

Serverer
09-12-2012, 07:14 PM
They should get rid of medical time outs as well, or at least limit it to 1 for every match, and only allowed between sets

Thunderfish8
09-12-2012, 07:17 PM
Somewhere in the United States right now, Andy Roddick is laughing hysterically.

I'm curious to see (if the rule is enforced) whether or not Rafa and Nole can adapt. If they are too stubborn, this could derail their careers.
Given the fact that the ATP has been sucking the big 4's dicks for several years now, I don't expect this to really have any effect on the bravery of the umpires to call something like this.

And as for the let trial... :facepalm:

It's so fucking simple. Let's should still be called, but not by some random machine that might pick up wind and buzz off.
Perhaps the chair umpires could pay a little fucking attention to the net from now on.

If an umpire cannot hear the ball clip the net or see the projection of the ball change, it means one of two things:

1. Even if the ball did touch the net, it did so in such an insignificant way that nobody could even notice, including the receiver.
2. The chair is old and is losing sight, hearing or both and should seriously consider retiring.

I expect this to play out similarly to the blue clay in Madrid. It's gonna be shot down before the trial ends.

Snowwy
09-12-2012, 07:26 PM
Somewhere in the United States right now, Andy Roddick is laughing hysterically.

I'm curious to see (if the rule is enforced) whether or not Rafa and Nole can adapt. If they are too stubborn, this could derail their careers.
Given the fact that the ATP has been sucking the big 4's dicks for several years now, I don't expect this to really have any effect on the bravery of the umpires to call something like this.

And as for the let trial... :facepalm:

It's so fucking simple. Let's should still be called, but not by some random machine that might pick up wind and buzz off.
Perhaps the chair umpires could pay a little fucking attention to the net from now on.

If an umpire cannot hear the ball clip the net or see the projection of the ball change, it means one of two things:

1. Even if the ball did touch the net, it did so in such an insignificant way that nobody could even notice, including the receiver.
2. The chair is old and is losing sight, hearing or both and should seriously consider retiring.

I expect this to play out similarly to the blue clay in Madrid. It's gonna be shot down before the trial ends.

I disagree, the ball can touch the net without making a noise yet change velocity.

Sanya
09-12-2012, 07:30 PM
I`m surprised they didn`t offer to use decisive point as it`s going on in doubles. Actually it could be smart freshness.

duong
09-12-2012, 07:36 PM
I disagree, the ball can touch the net without making a noise yet change velocity.

yes, yes, but I think precisely that's the kind of events which don't look important enough to break the rhythm of the match in the eyes of the quite many ones who have thought of that new rule.

I don't know if it's possible to trust the chair umpire enough for that but I liked the guy dedicated to the let calls more than the machine.

Thunderfish8
09-12-2012, 07:39 PM
I disagree, the ball can touch the net without making a noise yet change velocity.

Well that's why I said if the ump couldn't hear or see a change in projection
If the velocity changed, you'd think the ump would notice.

But you have a good point. It's tough to catch everything...
However, I kind of feel like these players who are some of the most coordinated people in the world should be able to react to the slightest change in velocity. Anything more than that should be a let.

r3d_d3v1l_
09-12-2012, 07:40 PM
Have you ever seen a receiver warned for delaying though? Usually there's some legitimate or pretended excuse - changing racquets, towelling off, or whatever.

Laughing my ass off just imagining Federer rushing to his bag to change the racket. Brilliant stuff.

Tag
09-12-2012, 07:41 PM
people here need to watch the likes of sampras, agassi, courier etc serve in the 90s.

they get the ball, then serve less than 10 seconds later. only exception being match/championship point/someone shouts from the crowd

it's not difficult

redshift36188
09-12-2012, 08:24 PM
I rather put up with "nobody noticed" machine let calls and a combination of fault and several lets, than to see big points being affected by the netcord. I agree with the sensor though. It prevents discussions about the skill and bias of the caller.

Also, how do you think the players will react to this change? I was thinking it might make them more afraid to go for their serves, as they will now also lose due to dead balls being given to the opponent.

Looner
09-12-2012, 08:29 PM
Has no one actually read what the email says. The no-let rule is on trial in the challenger circuit. It probably won't get approved.

As for the 25 seconds rule, it's not hard. Not at all. Watch some old matches and you'll know. And if it's hard - come to the net and shorten the point if your conditioning is not good enough.

Chris Kuerten
09-12-2012, 10:20 PM
Classic ATP to change rules they were never enforcing in the first place.

dj_mercury
09-12-2012, 10:32 PM
Won't change anything. Nadal and Djokovic barely get a warning even when they are costantly over the 25 seconds, it will never happen they get two warnings in the same match.
Not sure what to think of the let one, will be interesting to see what changes in the challengers with this change.

motorhead
09-12-2012, 10:34 PM
Has no one actually read what the email says. The no-let rule is on trial in the challenger circuit. It probably won't get approved.

As for the 25 seconds rule, it's not hard. Not at all. Watch some old matches and you'll know. And if it's hard - come to the net and shorten the point if your conditioning is not good enough.

it's an insult even at challenger level.

Freak3yman84
09-12-2012, 10:39 PM
Oh my god... Getting rid of the let?! That has to be the dumbest idea the ATP has ever come up with...

Matt01
09-12-2012, 11:24 PM
people here need to watch the likes of sampras, agassi, courier etc serve in the 90s.

they get the ball, then serve less than 10 seconds later. only exception being match/championship point/someone shouts from the crowd

it's not difficult


Wait...you are comparing the ATP tennis of the 90s with the tennis today?

I tell you it's not that easy.

EliSter
09-12-2012, 11:26 PM
Wait...you are comparing the ATP tennis of the 90s with the tennis today?

I tell you it's not that easy.

Agreed, when u have milion serve bots and serve volley players its natural u do not get tired fast and u have time to serve faster. While now that courts are slower so are other parts of the game are slower too. Anyways awesome rule. :D

Slasher1985
09-12-2012, 11:29 PM
Wait...you are comparing the ATP tennis of the 90s with the tennis today?

I tell you it's not that easy.

He was not comparing tennis. He was comparing the pre-point preparation each player makes. Nowadays, players tend to wipe their faces 2-3 times methodically slow, examine 5 balls (from 2 different directions), pick 3, examine again, throw away another, stick one ball in the pocket, slowly and carefully, scratch their ass a few times, arrange their shirt, count 20 ground hits by the ball and finally serve.

Matt01
09-12-2012, 11:44 PM
He was not comparing tennis. He was comparing the pre-point preparation each player makes. Nowadays, players tend to wipe their faces 2-3 times methodically slow, examine 5 balls (from 2 different directions), pick 3, examine again, throw away another, stick one ball in the pocket, slowly and carefully, scratch their ass a few times, arrange their shirt, count 20 ground hits by the ball and finally serve.


I partially agree.
Some of those things aren't necessary. But my point is that today, when tennis is more and more physical and in the days of (mostly) similar surfaces, players need more time to recover between points than they did 20 years ago.

duong
09-13-2012, 12:08 AM
I partially agree.
Some of those things aren't necessary. But my point is that today, when tennis is more and more physical and in the days of (mostly) similar surfaces, players need more time to recover between points than they did 20 years ago.

that is not the reason why Nadal and Djokovic are so long, using that as a pretext is a falsification : Nadal and Djokovic were already very long in the first set of their Aus open final, they were not longer later.

And Nadal clearly says that it's a procedure to concentrate, nothing else.

As for other players taking a lot of time between the points, especially with the towel, I remember reading a player saying that some coaches now advised their players to do that as a concentration procedure. Sure the Nadal model was important for that.

I mean I think they're right : it's good to concentrate but just don't say it's because modern tennis is more tiring, it's not the true reason.

Ivanatis
09-13-2012, 12:13 AM
excellent:yeah:

Henry Chinaski
09-13-2012, 12:13 AM
Matt try watching some clay court grind fests from the 80s on youtube.

Rallies went on forever. Then the server grabs balls and serves within 20 seconds.

nadal and Djokovic take more than 30 seconds in the first game of the match.

brithater
09-13-2012, 02:11 AM
Get rid off bathroom breaks as well. The players can piss in a jar underneath a towel. Bathroom breaks slow the game down too much. Same goes for the women. Equal prize money and all.

The whole serve thing is outdated. If they really want to make this game fan friendly they should get serious. Instead of serving the players should just underhand toss the ball into the service boxes to start the point.

Gets some new form of tennis balls as well. Maybe nerf ball or something.

Also on changovers lets have something interesting for the fans. Maybe have a couple of clowns on standby to throw buckets of confetti on the fans.

If we are going to have progressive tennis lets get serious about it...sheesh.

Topspindoctor
09-13-2012, 02:14 AM
Finally! Something is being done although it would be interesting to see if Dull gets affected.

:zzz: Nadal can spend less time between points and play faster than anyone. Apparently you didn't watch him play before 2005. He takes more time between points because it lets him get into a better rhythm.

Tag
09-13-2012, 02:23 AM
Wait...you are comparing the ATP tennis of the 90s with the tennis today?

I tell you it's not that easy.

I partially agree.
Some of those things aren't necessary. But my point is that today, when tennis is more and more physical and in the days of (mostly) similar surfaces, players need more time to recover between points than they did 20 years ago.

Agreed, when u have milion serve bots and serve volley players its natural u do not get tired fast and u have time to serve faster. While now that courts are slower so are other parts of the game are slower too. Anyways awesome rule. :D

obviously the game itself is more physical, but the act of receiving the balls from the ball boys/girls has remained the same

get the balls, choose one, and serve. no need for the excessive toweling off or excessive ball bouncing


Matt try watching some clay court grind fests from the 80s on youtube.

Rallies went on forever. Then the server grabs balls and serves within 20 seconds.

nadal and Djokovic take more than 30 seconds in the first game of the match.


exactly this. whether the point is 3 shots or 30 shots, doesn't matter. unless you're physically injured, strained or hurt i.e MTO, then there's no reason to take ages to serve

bavaria100
09-13-2012, 03:07 AM
Removing the let is the dumbest proposal EVER.

Agreed. Just imagine you get an unreachable netcord serve on match point against you.

Thirty All
09-13-2012, 03:16 AM
Getting rid of the net cord? What are they thinking?

Freak3yman84
09-13-2012, 03:29 AM
Looks like Uncle Toni forgot to do his monthly ass-kissing to everyone on the ATP Board :o

Slice Winner
09-13-2012, 03:50 AM
Agreed. Just imagine you get an unreachable netcord serve on match point against you.

It happens on rally balls, so why not on serves too?

Thunder Hoad
09-13-2012, 05:15 AM
:zzz: Nadal can spend less time between points and play faster than anyone. Apparently you didn't watch him play before 2005. He takes more time between points because it lets him get into a better rhythm.

That's pretty much what Looner is suggesting: that it woyld affect his play not that he was physically incapable of taking half a minute between points. Oy vey.


ATP should address enforcement before mucking around with the rules, though nobody wants umpires to decide the match.

Action Jackson
09-13-2012, 09:43 AM
They should fix the challenger prizemoney before the let thing.

As for the timewasting a whole lot of nothing will happen.

duong
09-13-2012, 10:15 AM
They should fix the challenger prizemoney before the let thing.

problem is it's far beyond the power of this new committee :lol:

hence the little ambitious suggestions

Action Jackson
09-13-2012, 10:20 AM
problem is it's far beyond the power of this new committee :lol:

hence the little ambitious suggestions

No, it's not beyond them that is a more pressing issue which the ATP are responsible for so attack that problem.

Sombrerero loco
09-13-2012, 10:24 AM
great news, specially the service let is out, i hope it was for the atp too, and forever, not only 3 months, will be better for the show

Nr 1 Fan
09-13-2012, 10:28 AM
No let service is the big news, I am not sure what changes about the time violation.

Sunset of Age
09-13-2012, 10:31 AM
Don't know what to think about abandoning the let, perhaps it will indeed improve the game - wait and see how it panns out in practice.

As for the time wasting-issue, the rule in itself never was the problem - it has always been the lack of enforcement of the rule that caused the real trouble.
If anything I hope something will be done about the fact that Expendable Character X, ranked #876, has a lot more chance to get penalized for time wasting than any of the Top Dogs.
I have yet to see it happening. It all sounds like an awful lot of window dressing to me.

nole_no1
09-13-2012, 10:31 AM
They should fix the challenger prizemoney before the let thing.

This. They'd better focus on important things like this not on stupid ones like the let rule. No-let rule? Are you kidding me? It can happen when you're bp/mp down and it can be the reason you lose a match. No chance in hell this will be approved by the players

duong
09-13-2012, 10:42 AM
No, it's not beyond them that is a more pressing issue which the ATP are responsible for so attack that problem.

institutions don't work this way : it's bullshit thinking that because one part of the organization works on one topic, it means that the whole organization's priority is focused on that.

I hear the same kinds of judgments about my government at the moment : "oh they work on that, how stupid it's not a priority !"

but no way you can't have different parts of the organization working on different topics on the meantime.

I mean maybe the ATP does nothing about the chalenger prize money but no way it has any connection with what we're talking about in this thread.

Action Jackson
09-13-2012, 10:58 AM
This. They'd better focus on important things like this not on stupid ones like the let rule. No-let rule? Are you kidding me? It can happen when you're bp/mp down and it can be the reason you lose a match. No chance in hell this will be approved by the players

You know that won't happen. I know Kavcic has been called for time violations in 3 or 4 matches and they probably were, but you know the top ones won't get done so that's a joke.

The bigger problems of the game need to be addressed and the no let rule won't make the game any better. Soon they will try and get champions tie break in singles.

Sophocles
09-13-2012, 11:20 AM
The connexion between time-wasting & service lets is obvious. Tennis naturally has a lot of dead time and the more that dead time is minimised, the better it is to watch, and being good to watch is important in a spectator sport. (This is why in cricket, for example, fielding captains are fined for slow over rates.) Because I am interested in tennis rather than in young men's arses, I should prefer to watch tennis players playing tennis rather than fiddling with their fucking underwear, and I would direct anybody who is more interested in male arses to the cornucopia of sites on the world-wide web catering to their tastes. So I am strongly in favour of enforcing the time rules. The let rule is less straightforward, but I am open to the possibility that the improvement in the flow and speed of the game would make up for a slight increase in randomness. It's not often a serve just plops over the net unreachably. I doubt it happens any more often than the machine going off for no reason and denying somebody an ace, for example (which could also happen on match point). In fact, all sorts of "lucky" things can happen on any point, & while I can see the rationale behind a hindrance rule, when something extrinsic to the game interferes with it, this is really the main argument against the let rule: why is a service clipping the net a special case compared to all the other random things that can happen when no let is played? The net is not extrinsic to the game.

erez
09-13-2012, 12:25 PM
i love the no let rule. anything to speed up the game is welcomed in my eyes. no more machine going off when its apparent that the wind made it work. plus, its fair for both players.

i would not change the rule for time viloation, but enforce the existing rule.

nadal and djokovic should have lost numerous matches because of their time wasting. appauling to watch their game live. i only dvdr their matches.

i dont blame them, but the coward officials that dont enforce the rules.

Looner
09-13-2012, 12:29 PM
The connexion between time-wasting & service lets is obvious. Tennis naturally has a lot of dead time and the more that dead time is minimised, the better it is to watch, and being good to watch is important in a spectator sport. (This is why in cricket, for example, fielding captains are fined for slow over rates.)

Indeed. They explicitly said the no-let rule will be tested in an effort to improve the flow of the match. If the time wasting rule is actually enforced a bit more (which is at all as opposed to currently), it would make for a much better viewing experience.

Because I am interested in tennis rather than in young men's arses, I should prefer to watch tennis players playing tennis rather than fiddling with their fucking underwear, and I would direct anybody who is more interested in male arses to the cornucopia of sites on the world-wide web catering to their tastes. So I am strongly in favour of enforcing the time rules. The let rule is less straightforward, but I am open to the possibility that the improvement in the flow and speed of the game would make up for a slight increase in randomness. It's not often a serve just plops over the net unreachably. I doubt it happens any more often than the machine going off for no reason and denying somebody an ace, for example (which could also happen on match point). In fact, all sorts of "lucky" things can happen on any point, & while I can see the rationale behind a hindrance rule, when something extrinsic to the game interferes with it, this is really the main argument against the let rule: why is a service clipping the net a special case compared to all the other random things that can happen when no let is played? The net is not extrinsic to the game.

:worship:

Time Violation
09-13-2012, 12:35 PM
nadal and djokovic should have lost numerous matches because of their time wasting. appauling to watch their game live. i only dvdr their matches.

Far from it. Federer is the only one really fast in top 10, everybody else waste time more or less. In Miami finals this year, Murray was like 5 or 6 seconds slower than Nole on average, Del Potro is also very slow and so on.

n8
09-13-2012, 12:43 PM
For the second and all subsequent violations, the penalty will be a fault for the server and a point penalty for the receiver. Currently, the rule is a warning and then point penalty for both the server and receiver.

This is how I understand it, on the 2nd and further offences:

If the server offends, he gets given a fault (as opposed to a point penalty as previously),
If the returner offends, he gets given a point penalty (as previously).


The punishment is now less for the server, BUT, with less penalty, umpires will be MORE likely to enforce it.

GOAT = Fed
09-13-2012, 12:44 PM
Anyone complaining about time violations should really be putting the blame on ATP for:

a). Not enforcing the rules

b). Making the courts so damned slow now that the players are constantly playing long rallied and theb it's really hard for then to not take breathers.

Pratik
09-13-2012, 12:50 PM
Hopefully, they enforce the relaxed rules.
That would be better then having the (current) stricter rules, with no enforcing at all.

They should not allow all lets to play out. For example, if the ball hits the net and drops into the service box, there is no way the receiver would be able to return it. The let should be played out only if (say) the ball does not bounce twice in the service box.

erez
09-13-2012, 12:51 PM
Far from it. Federer is the only one really fast in top 10, everybody else waste time more or less. In Miami finals this year, Murray was like 5 or 6 seconds slower than Nole on average, Del Potro is also very slow and so on.

5-6 seconds is still a margin, though i agree that murray and especially delpo exceeding the time limit.

i mentioned nadal and djokovic because they take the most time. i think the rule should be enforced on everyone. only when players will lose games and sets they will stop breaking the rules. its about time that the ref's will grow a pair and punnish the players for breaking the rules.

pray-for-palestine-and-israel
09-13-2012, 01:20 PM
YES MOTHERF***ER

about fudging time

if this happened in 2006 nadull is a 1 slam wonder

10000% certain

better late than never

now get rid of those screaming bitches in the wta

paseo
09-13-2012, 01:51 PM
No to the no-let-rule.

Lopez
09-13-2012, 02:21 PM
I don't necessarily think that the no-let rule is bad. The pros hit the ball so hard that it's rare that the serve totally dies and becomes unreachable. If the returner gets an easy ball, that's the server's fault. No other shot in tennis has the let rule, so it's also logically consistent. It also eliminates false lets by the machine.

On the time violation thing, if it actually gets enforced then good. It's not like umpires will grow balls suddenly, however a smaller punishment to the player will make it easier for the umpires with less testicular fortitude to hand out penalties

tennizen
09-13-2012, 02:32 PM
No-let rule doesn't change things that much. Probably an unnecessary change but it will have little impact.

Sophocles
09-13-2012, 02:39 PM
I don't necessarily think that the no-let rule is bad. The pros hit the ball so hard that it's rare that the serve totally dies and becomes unreachable. If the returner gets an easy ball, that's the server's fault. No other shot in tennis has the let rule, so it's also logically consistent. It also eliminates false lets by the machine.

Quoted for truth. And the advantage would be a better flow to the game. Less dead time.

fivebargate
09-13-2012, 04:16 PM
Yay for the no-let rule....about freakinn time! :) What a dumb and outmoded concept. Such gentlemanly relics exist nowhere else in the game....so let it be gone. All those aces that are ruled out because of the ghost touch on the net....etc...done! :)

And the fault implementation for servers is a good one....I guess it will make it easier to enforce that rule.

Johnny Groove
09-13-2012, 04:19 PM
Yes, it takes so long between let serves and serving the next ball :rolleyes:

Have we as a society become so damn impatient we cannot wait 5 seconds?

Looner
09-13-2012, 04:19 PM
Yes, it takes so long between let serves and serving the next ball :rolleyes:

Have we as a society become so damn impatient we cannot wait 5 seconds?

This is about entertainment. We don't all view tennis as a job like you do.

Johnny Groove
09-13-2012, 04:20 PM
And people talking about only 1 serve? :facepalm:

Go watch another sport and stop trying to change this one. It is fine as is. Implement a 25 second rule, get the umpires to grow some balls, increase prize money in futures and challengers, and that's it.

Action Jackson
09-13-2012, 04:24 PM
This is about entertainment. We don't all view tennis as a job like you do.

Go watch the circus, WWE, bands, movies or strippers if you want entertainment. None of these proposed changes are really benefiting the game.

Time violations well the rules are there already just enforce them no matter who is timewasting. The let thing will only last 3 months and be scrapped as it will be unpopular.

There are other pressing issues which need to be addressed and not cosmetic changes.

Sophocles
09-13-2012, 04:29 PM
Obviously the 1-serve idea is preposterous & would massively affect the balance of power between server & returner, which modern equipment & surfaces have already tilted in the returner's direction. In professional tennis a break of serve is meant to be the exception rather than the rule.

r2473
09-13-2012, 04:36 PM
Wait, why are they doing away with service lets?

With the MASSIVE influx of college players into the ATP tour, the ATP just wanted to make them feel more at home.

star
09-13-2012, 05:28 PM
The thing that always interests me about the power honchos at the ATP is that they don't seem to like tennis. Their whole idea is -- let's get it over quickly, and if tennis must be played lets be sure it's the top guys playing -- preferably playing one another.

I heard this ridiculous discussion between Mary Carillo and Martina Navratilova about having the men play best of three sets in slams because it would increase the quality of the tennis. The men would know they had to play full out from the beginning of the match. And Mary exclaimed that she didn't like to do anything for more than 2 hours including watching a tennis match.

duong
09-13-2012, 05:33 PM
The thing that always interests me about the power honchos at the ATP is that they don't seem to like tennis. Their whole idea is -- let's get it over quickly, and if tennis must be played lets be sure it's the top guys playing -- preferably playing one another.

in all sports federations have these concerns :shrug:

This is about making the sports live.

Actually tennis has been saved from changes due to that much more than other sports.

In fencing, volley-ball, rugby ... there have been major changes for that.

And in beach volley-ball girls play in small shorties to attract TVs (that is also a mark of the influence of TV on sports : the women's clothings' rules) ... it's also the way they earn money.

Sophocles
09-13-2012, 05:34 PM
The thing that always interests me about the power honchos at the ATP is that they don't seem to like tennis. Their whole idea is -- let's get it over quickly, and if tennis must be played lets be sure it's the top guys playing -- preferably playing one another.

I heard this ridiculous discussion between Mary Carillo and Martina Navratilova about having the men play best of three sets in slams because it would increase the quality of the tennis. The men would know they had to play full out from the beginning of the match. And Mary exclaimed that she didn't like to do anything for more than 2 hours including watching a tennis match.


On my part, I have no objection whatever to long matches. I just prefer them to feature tennis rather than hair-dressing, underwear arranging, ball-bouncing, towelling down, and all that other tedious crap.

Looner
09-13-2012, 05:40 PM
Go watch the circus, WWE, bands, movies or strippers if you want entertainment. None of these proposed changes are really benefiting the game.
:rolleyes:

Time violations well the rules are there already just enforce them no matter who is timewasting. The let thing will only last 3 months and be scrapped as it will be unpopular.

There are other pressing issues which need to be addressed and not cosmetic changes.
And it obviously won't happen the way you'd want it to. Lenient rules and smaller penalties should theoretically encourage umpires to use the stick more often. As for the let thing, we don't really know. Whining about modern society just because of a rule change in tennis is ridiculous.

r2473
09-13-2012, 05:58 PM
On my part, I have no objection whatever to long matches. I just prefer them to feature tennis rather than hair-dressing, underwear arranging, ball-bouncing, towelling down, and all that other tedious crap.

Are you sure you were watching a tennis match.

Sounds like what you might see on the gay-porn channel.

Not that I'd know........Not that there's anything wrong with that.

Orka_n
09-13-2012, 10:40 PM
I see no reason to abolish the let rule. Let's be realistic now, a let call does not really disturb the flow of the game like timewasting does. However, it is very hard for a returner to get a serve back in play that skids off the net. It would provide an additional and unnecessary element of luck that I don't want introduced to the game.

And it's not like tennis is the only sport that has let serves, right? Table tennis works the same way.

Lopez
09-14-2012, 12:01 AM
Yes, it takes so long between let serves and serving the next ball :rolleyes:

Have we as a society become so damn impatient we cannot wait 5 seconds?

I see no reason to abolish the let rule. Let's be realistic now, a let call does not really disturb the flow of the game like timewasting does. However, it is very hard for a returner to get a serve back in play that skids off the net. It would provide an additional and unnecessary element of luck that I don't want introduced to the game.

And it's not like tennis is the only sport that has let serves, right? Table tennis works the same way.

I just think that the let rule is being enforced to the extreme at the moment. The original purpose of the rule was likely to eliminate aces due to let cords (which are quite rare in todays professional game, certainly they happen more in amateurs where people don't serve as hard). Now it's gone to the point where even if a hair of the ball grazes the net it's a let, even if it did virtually nothing to alter the flight of the ball. This, I feel, is enforcing the rule without really thinking about the original purpose... I just think that it happens more often that a player serves an ace or a service winner and the machine goes off without any (apparent) reason than the ball dying after the let cord.

Also, isn't it also lucky that when you serve a poor serve that hits the let cord and becomes an easy putaway for the returner, you get to serve again instead of having the returner whack the ball past you? You can stretch the luck aspect both ways in my opinion.

Don't have a big opinion on this, I just think that eliminating it wouldn't really be a big deal. The let cord rule exists only for the serve, not for any other shot. Eliminating is it logically consistent, as said before.

On other sports, volleyball eliminated the let-rule and I think it's exciting. Not sure about badminton (whether the rule still exists or not).

ballbasher101
09-14-2012, 02:17 AM
Time violation is a problem that needs sorting. The let rule should just be left alone.

Action Jackson
09-14-2012, 07:55 AM
:rolleyes:

Not my fault you don't get it.

And it obviously won't happen the way you'd want it to. Lenient rules and smaller penalties should theoretically encourage umpires to use the stick more often. As for the let thing, we don't really know. Whining about modern society just because of a rule change in tennis is ridiculous.

No, it doesn't. It's called spin doctoring thinking they are actually presenting something different when nothing changes at all in essence. Don't try and talk to me about modern society.

Facts are the ATP have more pressing issues which I have already stated than this nonsense and you have a go at Groove when he actually plays at a higher level for all his posturing does like the sport, you are a player fan there is a difference.

Sophocles
09-14-2012, 10:17 AM
Are you sure you were watching a tennis match.

Sounds like what you might see on the gay-porn channel.

Not that I'd know........Not that there's anything wrong with that.

I think you've kind of made my point. ;)

Riaan
09-14-2012, 03:39 PM
I was surprised that nobody made an issue of Djokovic's last-minute medical time-out, which was nothing but a blatant, faked attempt to disrupt Murray's concentration. If the ATP considers addressing the time limit issue, why don't they address this regularly-abused rule as well? I suggested some solutions here (http://www.riaanbooysen.com/misc/47-tennis) - automatic penalty points?

duarte_a
09-14-2012, 06:27 PM
This is what must be avoided.

29EV2I5wt3U&feature=context-gfa

Roger wins one game in the time nadal takes between serves.

duong
09-25-2012, 04:37 PM
In his last interview for l'Equipe, Daily Mail and alii, Nadal says he's 100% for the "no-let" rule. He had never understood the difference between the situation on serve and during the rally.

But he says something interesting : that in the USA the net is stiffer than elsewhere. He thinks the net tension should be the same everywhere.

One question I wondered about that rule change by the way : is it more favourable to the receivers or to the servers ? I think overall it's rather favourable to the receivers because you can often see the net slow down the ball and that it's easier for the receiver, with the "let" the server can serve again and make a quicker serve.

Nadal says he hadn't heard about the new rule for time violations (the journalists said that the rule was to make sanctions harsher for that whereas it's the opposite :rolleyes: )

stebs
09-25-2012, 07:46 PM
Facts are the ATP have more pressing issues which I have already stated than this nonsense

:confused: Other issues being important needn't stop this being discussed. I hardly see how a prospective rule change is 'nonsense' either. Whether you like the idea or not, there is no cause here to be so dismissive of the whole debate. If you find the topic unappealing or irrelevant, that's your call, but it is rubbish to see it as of no consequence at all to the game of tennis.

One question I wondered about that rule change by the way : is it more favourable to the receivers or to the servers ? I think overall it's rather favourable to the receivers because you can often see the net slow down the ball and that it's easier for the receiver, with the "let" the server can serve again and make a quicker serve.
I think this is definitely right, that it's more favourable to the receiver. The kind of let which results in the ball 'sitting up' is far more common than a dead let. What about the deviation let though (in which the flight of the ball is only slightly changed), how frequently does that occur compared to a more full contact and what are its' consequences? I kind of feel as though the slight deviation is also rarer but it could be close. In terms of effect, these should favour the server as long as the ball doesn't lose too much pace (and it wasn't a very slow serve in the first place). I think the second serve lets (or poor servers' first serves) will be the interesting ones, they can bounce nearer the net, perhaps more often close enough to be below the net by the time the receiver can reach the ball. In that situation, it is advantage server again. It could make for some interesting points.

J99
09-25-2012, 11:18 PM
As far as I know this is nothing new, this rule has been in their rule book for ages now, it just hasn't been properly enforced, at least not on Nadal and Djokovic.