[64794]

....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:

 

[Fogmeister]

Because disrupts the timing of the server.

 

[azure]

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.

 

[Murray Mint]

I believe it's seen as replaying the point. Meaning: start of the point - first serve.

 

[Dadinjo]

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.

 

[Comebacktoli]

Most players would a agree it should be a first serve, huge distraction.

 

[64794]

Because disrupts the timing of the server.

Well, 'let' also disrupts the timing of the player, but they never give him a first seve for it.

 

[nole_no1]

It disrupts the timing of the server because of an umpire's mistake, that's all I can say

 

[TooBadFed]

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

 

[RuRo]

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.

 

[zebez20]

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.

 

[Shadow Knows]

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.

 

[64794]

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.

 

[ApproachShot]

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.

 

[Joey Tribbiani]

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.

 

[Houstonko]

hahaha Nadal will prefer to hit another 2nd serve.

 

[Myrre]

I believe it's seen as replaying the point. Meaning: start of the point - first serve.

This / Close thread

 

[64794]

Close thread

Close? Why? It's a basic tennis discussion, that i wanted to talk about.

 

[MuzzahLovah]

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

 

[Floki]

....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: