Mens Tennis Forums banner

?

1 - 20 of 45 Posts

·
Read Only
Joined
·
11,640 Posts
Discussion Starter #1 (Edited)
....would he have a 1st serve afterwards? He already missed his 1st serve, why give him two serves then?

Just happend in Nishikori match, now I am just curios. Commentators also were discussing it, and claiming it should be changed.

Does this rule stand any logic behind it? Do you think it should be changed?

Thank you guys :) :wavey:
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
4,567 Posts
Well, I stopped watching this match after the first set. But in general this would happen when a player has served a good second serve, close to the line. So I think the rule is this way because it would be unfair to expect them to serve another good second serve. Even if it benefits the server sometimes, I think they prefer that over punishing them.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
340 Posts
Because the point is repeated from begining.

Imagine if umpire wrongly calls out and other player has an easy smash. Should then they repeat it from that smash? No, it is always reseted to begining.
 

·
~* Princess Karolina *~
Joined
·
177 Posts
Most players would a agree it should be a first serve, huge distraction.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
19,325 Posts
It disrupts the timing of the server because of an umpire's mistake, that's all I can say
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,172 Posts
Heres the same problem:

First serve miss.

Second serve - IN. Players are in a rally, and a mis-call or a challenge happens, causing the point to be replayed.

Players replay the point, but they get another FIRST serve. Horrible
 

·
Administrator
Joined
·
6,247 Posts
Players will have a rhythm of hitting a first serve then a second serve immediately after it. Having to start from scratch but only having a second serve would be disruptive.

However when it is a let on second serve the players don't get back their first serve, but in that case you can say it was the player's own fault for hitting the net. If a serve is called out then corrected then it is the offificals' fault, and it wouldn't be fair to disadvantage the player further.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,825 Posts
Well, 'let' also disrupts the timing of the player, but they never give him a first seve for it.
That's the 'fault' of the player because he hit the net. It's different if it's an error from someone else like a bad line call.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
235 Posts
By the logic of this rule, a player who has his first serve mistakenly called in, then overruled by a challenge or the umpire checking the mark, should get to hit another first serve because a delay that wasn't of his making had disrupted his rhythm between first and second serve.

As with all things tennis, there is no coherent guiding principle, just arbitrary whim and fancy.
 

·
Read Only
Joined
·
11,640 Posts
Discussion Starter #13
By the logic of this rule, a player who has his first serve mistakenly called in, then overruled by a challenge or the umpire checking the mark, should get to hit another first serve because a delay that wasn't of his making had disrupted his rhythm between first and second serve.
Agreed.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,542 Posts
By the logic of this rule, a player who has his first serve mistakenly called in, then overruled by a challenge or the umpire checking the mark, should get to hit another first serve because a delay that wasn't of his making had disrupted his rhythm between first and second serve.

As with all things tennis, there is no coherent guiding principle, just arbitrary whim and fancy.
Indeed. While I understand the point about the implications on the server's rhythm, it seems the application rules in their present configuration leads to inconsistencies. I'd be for a change so that in all such cases, instead of the point being reset completely, it is just reset to the previous serve.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
11,737 Posts
It's a good rule.

By the logic of this rule, a player who has his first serve mistakenly called in, then overruled by a challenge or the umpire checking the mark, should get to hit another first serve because a delay that wasn't of his making had disrupted his rhythm between first and second serve.

As with all things tennis, there is no coherent guiding principle, just arbitrary whim and fancy.
Yeah that's pretty strange considering the first rule.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
21,337 Posts
By the logic of this rule, a player who has his first serve mistakenly called in, then overruled by a challenge or the umpire checking the mark, should get to hit another first serve because a delay that wasn't of his making had disrupted his rhythm between first and second serve.

As with all things tennis, there is no coherent guiding principle, just arbitrary whim and fancy.
yep
 

·
Banned
Joined
·
15,396 Posts
....would he have a 1st serve afterwards? He already missed his 1st serve, why give him two serves then?

Just happend in Nishikori match, now I am just curios. Commentators also were discussing it, and claiming it should be changed.

Does this rule stand any logic behind it? Do you think it should be changed?

Thank you guys :) :wavey:
Have you ever played tennis? No? That explains it.
The rule is good and makes sense. Anyone who ever played tennis understand why.

:wavey:
 
1 - 20 of 45 Posts
Top