|  | |
|
|
Posts: 4686
| Over the past few months, I've heard Martina Navratilova, John McEnroe, and a few other players and commentators discuss the idea of eliminating the service let.
Their argument is that it takes up too much time to keep serving just because the ball touches the net. They also point out that at no other time during play is a let called when the ball touches the net, so why do it when serving?
Thoughts? | |
| | |
Posts: 4686
| In order to ensure that we're all talking about the same thing, I want to post some relevant information and definitions from the section of the ATP Rulebook concerning the ITF Rules of Tennis:
VII. The Competition
"Net" is a service hits the top of the net
"Let" if the chair umpire determines that a point should be replayed
*****
ITF Rules of Tennis:
X. Exhibits
11. BALL IN PLAY
Unless a fault or a let is called, the ball is in play from the moment the server hits the
ball, and remains in play until the point is decided.
22. THE LET DURING A SERVICE
The service is a let if:
a. The ball served touches the net, strap or band, and is otherwise good; or, after
touching the net, strap or band, touches the receiver or the receiver's partner or
anything they wear or carry before hitting the ground; or
b. The ball is served when the receiver is not ready.
In the case of a service let, that particular service shall not count, and the server shall
serve again, but a service let does not cancel a previous fault.
Additional approved alternative procedures can be found in Appendix IV.
*****
Appendix IV - ALTERNATIVE PROCEDURES AND SCORING METHODS
THE LET DURING A SERVICE (Rule 22):
This alternative is play without the service let in Rule 22 a.
It means that a serve that touches the net, strap or band, is in play.
(This alternative is commonly known as the "no let rule") | |
| | |
Challenger Qualifier
Posts: 118
| I think its a great idea that will speed up the game and also provide some fun and exciting points. | |
| | |
Posts: 10559
Location: central Pennsylvania |
If they do this, they should also eliminate the 2nd serve. Otherwise you would be penalizing the player receiving without making it more challenging for the player serving. | |
| | |
Posts: 3638
Location: NYC | nehmeth - 11/11/2009 7:26 PM
If they do this, they should also eliminate the 2nd serve. Otherwise you would be penalizing the player receiving without making it more challenging for the player serving.
I wasn't sure what to think about this one, but I think you make a very valid point, nehmeth. A net cord can add an odd bounce, right? And I'm not sure if speeding up play is a valid enough reason. (Unless we're talking about Rafa, I suppose.  ) | |
| | |
Futures Qualifier
Posts: 17
| Nothing is more frustrating in sports than for a player to win due to an officiating error or due to sheer luck. The ATP eliminated officiating errors with the replay. If it were to institute a no let rule, it would would be taking a step backwards in terms of providing many more opportunities for players to win due to sheer luck. Why should a bad serve that hits the net result in an ace if it luckily trickles over over the net. Why would we want matches, grand slams, to be determined by luck rather than talent, skill, preparation, and conditioning. If Navratilova suggested this, she probably gave it about as much thought as she gave her comments about Agassi. And didn't McEnroe insist that we return to using wooden racquets? | |
| | |
Posts: 3638
Location: NYC | Also a good point, Dylan. The server's advantage is meant to be that s/he can either serve the ace, or boss the construction of the point. Not to win on a blooper. The rule, as it stands, gives the server 2 chances to hit a clean ball over the net, which at least gives the receiving player a fair opportunity to keep the ball in play. | |
| | |
Posts: 10559
Location: central Pennsylvania | Dylan - 11/11/2009 8:01 PM
Nothing is more frustrating in sports than for a player to win due to an officiating error or due to sheer luck. The ATP eliminated officiating errors with the replay. If it were to institute a no let rule, it would would be taking a step backwards in terms of providing many more opportunities for players to win due to sheer luck. Why should a bad serve that hits the net result in an ace if it luckily trickles over over the net. Why would we want matches, grand slams, to be determined by luck rather than talent, skill, preparation, and conditioning.
That's exactly what I felt. I don't like the idea for that reason too. Speeding up the points in between could be better done by enforcing the time limits with points awarded to one's opponent for stalling. Rafa would just have to learn to keep his finger out of his backside. | |
| | |
Posts: 4686
| nehmeth - 11/12/2009 10:38 AM
Dylan - 11/11/2009 8:01 PM
Nothing is more frustrating in sports than for a player to win due to an officiating error or due to sheer luck. The ATP eliminated officiating errors with the replay. If it were to institute a no let rule, it would would be taking a step backwards in terms of providing many more opportunities for players to win due to sheer luck. Why should a bad serve that hits the net result in an ace if it luckily trickles over over the net. Why would we want matches, grand slams, to be determined by luck rather than talent, skill, preparation, and conditioning.
That's exactly what I felt. I don't like the idea for that reason too. Speeding up the points in between could be better done by enforcing the time limits with points awarded to one's opponent for stalling. Rafa would just have to learn to keep his finger out of his backside.
Even if it's not because of a funky ace, a Grand Slam COULD be determined by a ball trickling over the net -- therefore luck, not skill or talent, would be the deciding factor.
For example, on championship point of the '08 Wimbledon final, if Rafa had returned the ball and it hit the top of the net, then dribbled over, would you have then wanted a let to be called? Imagine if that match had ended that way!
I agree with the general idea of speeding up the players between points, but there are also times when I think it's perfectly legitimate -- i.e., within the spirit of the match -- for play to slow down for a bit. | |
| | |
Posts: 10559
Location: central Pennsylvania | If there is a place where the element of "chance" can be diminished without playing a whole point over, I am all for it. Serving already puts the receiver at a disadvantage. If they want to stop calling lets, then they should not allow a second serve either.
As it is, I think leaving it the way it is and enforcing rules already in place will do a lot more to keep the game moving ahead rather than changing this rule.
It is interesting that those players who rely more heavily on their serve are the ones advocating the change. They should be asked if they also favor removing the second serve and allowing one serve only. | |
| | |
Location: A yard inside the baseline... | We often get these suggestions from older players. Remember the call to make the service box smaller? And yet...we've had FOUR classic five set finals out of the last 6 GS tournaments. Tennis is as strong as ever and still the best man wins.
Leave it be, say I... | |
| | |
Posts: 3638
Location: NYC | nehmeth - 11/12/2009 10:38 AM
Dylan - 11/11/2009 8:01 PM
Nothing is more frustrating in sports than for a player to win due to an officiating error or due to sheer luck. The ATP eliminated officiating errors with the replay. If it were to institute a no let rule, it would would be taking a step backwards in terms of providing many more opportunities for players to win due to sheer luck. Why should a bad serve that hits the net result in an ace if it luckily trickles over over the net. Why would we want matches, grand slams, to be determined by luck rather than talent, skill, preparation, and conditioning.
That's exactly what I felt. I don't like the idea for that reason too. Speeding up the points in between could be better done by enforcing the time limits with points awarded to one's opponent for stalling. Rafa would just have to learn to keep his finger out of his backside.
Hey! I thought I was preempting rude comments about Nadal's serving tics by mentioning it first. (That was funny, though.  ) | |
| | |
Posts: 4686
| nehmeth - 11/12/2009 11:04 AM
If there is a place where the element of "chance" can be diminished without playing a whole point over, I am all for it. Serving already puts the receiver at a disadvantage. If they want to stop calling lets, then they should not allow a second serve either.
As it is, I think leaving it the way it is and enforcing rules already in place will do a lot more to keep the game moving ahead rather than changing this rule.
It is interesting that those players who rely more heavily on their serve are the ones advocating the change. They should be asked if they also favor removing the second serve and allowing one serve only.
The more I think about it, the more I agree with your idea that if you eliminate the let, then you also have to eliminate the second serve. Great point. | |
| | |
Masters Series Level
Posts: 2357
| Nope, nope, nope. It's not right. Sheer luck could decide a point before it's even decided. Unnecessary. Besides, it doesn't occur that often.
-----
E Pluribus Unum
Out of Many, One | |
| | |
Posts: 10559
Location: central Pennsylvania | moxie629 - 11/12/2009 5:14 PM
nehmeth - 11/12/2009 10:38 AM
Dylan - 11/11/2009 8:01 PM
Nothing is more frustrating in sports than for a player to win due to an officiating error or due to sheer luck. The ATP eliminated officiating errors with the replay. If it were to institute a no let rule, it would would be taking a step backwards in terms of providing many more opportunities for players to win due to sheer luck. Why should a bad serve that hits the net result in an ace if it luckily trickles over over the net. Why would we want matches, grand slams, to be determined by luck rather than talent, skill, preparation, and conditioning.
That's exactly what I felt. I don't like the idea for that reason too. Speeding up the points in between could be better done by enforcing the time limits with points awarded to one's opponent for stalling. Rafa would just have to learn to keep his finger out of his backside.
Hey! I thought I was preempting rude comments about Nadal's serving tics by mentioning it first. (That was funny, though. )
Poor Rafa... a tic like that for millions of people to see. Pete Sampras used to stick his tongue out; made him look like a chimp. He stopped. | |
| | |
Posts: 3638
Location: NYC | nehmeth - 11/13/2009 8:13 AM
moxie629 - 11/12/2009 5:14 PM
nehmeth - 11/12/2009 10:38 AM
Dylan - 11/11/2009 8:01 PM
Nothing is more frustrating in sports than for a player to win due to an officiating error or due to sheer luck. The ATP eliminated officiating errors with the replay. If it were to institute a no let rule, it would would be taking a step backwards in terms of providing many more opportunities for players to win due to sheer luck. Why should a bad serve that hits the net result in an ace if it luckily trickles over over the net. Why would we want matches, grand slams, to be determined by luck rather than talent, skill, preparation, and conditioning.
That's exactly what I felt. I don't like the idea for that reason too. Speeding up the points in between could be better done by enforcing the time limits with points awarded to one's opponent for stalling. Rafa would just have to learn to keep his finger out of his backside.
Hey! I thought I was preempting rude comments about Nadal's serving tics by mentioning it first. (That was funny, though. )
Poor Rafa... a tic like that for millions of people to see. Pete Sampras used to stick his tongue out; made him look like a chimp. He stopped.
Nadal DID stop adjusting his socks in between points. | |
| | |
Hall of Fame
Posts: 4692
Location: On a hot tennis court down South | It hasn't been discussed that the let could actually help the receiver. There are plenty of lets where the ball hits the cord, doesn't just trickle over, but bounces in the middle of the service box. The receiver, who would obviously pounce on lets, would often get the advantage.
You might have servers who would actually try to practice hitting a let, and it would be interesting to see how return styles are affected - Nadal returns from pretty far behind the line.
I'm indifferent to this rule one way or another. They are infrequent enough that I doubt they will decide slams. I can't remember slams being decided by a ground stroke net cord that trickled over, although it does happen.
It would be fine either way, although net cords also do not take up that much time - you wouldn't notice the average match running shorter either. | |
| | |
Posts: 10559
Location: central Pennsylvania | moxie629 - 11/13/2009 11:41 AM
nehmeth - 11/13/2009 8:13 AM
moxie629 - 11/12/2009 5:14 PM
nehmeth - 11/12/2009 10:38 AM
Speeding up the points in between could be better done by enforcing the time limits with points awarded to one's opponent for stalling. Rafa would just have to learn to keep his finger out of his backside.
Hey! I thought I was preempting rude comments about Nadal's serving tics by mentioning it first. (That was funny, though. )
Poor Rafa... a tic like that for millions of people to see. Pete Sampras used to stick his tongue out; made him look like a chimp. He stopped.
Nadal DID stop adjusting his socks in between points. :giggle:
Hopefully he's working his way up.  | |
| | |
Masters Series Level
Posts: 2714
| The serve is known as the one shot in tennis that you have complete control over - cord balls change thatl. More importantly, lets, especially given the speed of professional serves, would often cause very irregular bounces that would only hinder the opponent or force awkward play right from the start.
They want serving to be sped up? Here's an idea, why not eliminate ball bouncing? Since, you know, that kind of thing happens before every serve. Or even better (and this one's serious), start enforcing the time limit that a player can take before serving, rather than allowing sock tugging, hair tucking, ball bouncing, or wedge picking to go over the alloted time.
With those kind of things occuring before every serve, it's bound to always be a bit of a winded process. Lets are hardly at fault (lulz @ the pun) here. | |
| | |
Posts: 4686
| The umpire Mohamed Layhani told Brad Gilbert that he would like to see something akin to a timer on court, which would force everyone to play at the same official rate.
There's definitely some merit to that idea, but I still think that there are times in a match when both players are OK with taking a little extra time between points, such as after a 20+ stroke rally.
There's an organic rhythm to a match. It isn't something which should be strictly monitored by a stopwatch. Yes, some players need to speed things up, such as Rafa, del Potro, and sometimes Djokovic, but that should be handled by the umpires by handing out more warnings and penalties. They don't have to hand off their responsibilities to a clock. If Rafa regularly received point penalties, then he would speed things up. | |
| | |
Hall of Fame
Posts: 4983
Location: on a voyage in space ship Earth | In WTT they play the "net" serves that go in (therefore there are not let serves) . . . in doubles EITHER player on the receiving team can return the ball IF it hits the net.
Back years ago, tennis played some pro matches (Jimmy Val Allens idea) with only one serve (it was an attempt to slow down Poncho who had the world's best serve) . . . back then almost all tournaments on the pro level were grass court affairs . . . it did work out well and did speed up the matches . . . .problem was not only did Poncho have the best serve, he also had the best second serve and won almost all the tournaments played when the had only one serve so they swithced back to the two serves.
I believe it is time for tennis to go the one serve and play the "let" serve . . . especially given today's bigger rackets and players.
 (friends share.jpg)
Attachments
----------------
 friends share.jpg (66KB - 0 downloads)
| |
| | |
Posts: 4686
| gongoozler - 11/15/2009 3:51 PM
Back years ago, tennis played some pro matches (Jimmy Val Allens idea) with only one serve (it was an attempt to slow down Poncho who had the world's best serve) . . . back then almost all tournaments on the pro level were grass court affairs . . . it did work out well and did speed up the matches . . . .problem was not only did Poncho have the best serve, he also had the best second serve and won almost all the tournaments played when the had only one serve so they swithced back to the two serves.
That's interesting to learn. I bet Abdel could chime in on this. | |
| | |
ATP-Level Main Draw
Posts: 1481
| tented,
I assume and please correct me if I am wrong? You mean Pancho Gonzalez? I was only about 12 when I first saw Gonzalez. My Dad took me somewhere in LA and I saw him play. The man could be a total jerk!! But he remains one of my favorites along with Fed, Sampras and Connors. If you are interested? Please go to wikipedia and read up on Pancho if you have not done so? His comments regarding Lew Hoad are quite interesting. Unfortunately, I do not remember the experiment you folks are referencing. Sorry. The last time I really payed attention to Pancho Gonzalez was around 1969/70. Shortly after Laver won his 2nd grand slam. Pancho(42 yrs old) and Laver met at MSG and played for a winner take all purse of 10,000 dollars. Gonzalez was a man you did not want to meet under those circumstances. Laver lost!!
Regarding the "Let" serve? I like the way the game played as is. If I recall the NCAA College Tennis ruling body tried to experiment with what is being suggested herein a few years ago and honestly I don't recall what the final decision was? However, I do not remember them suggesting eliminating the 2nd serve?
The beeper system on the net these days has helped quite alot in my opinion. Not perfect, but what is? lol Now if they could figure out something electronically on the line calls, and better than Hawkeye. I am all for that technology. Yet, how would the system be able to differentiate the ball from a players foot? Then again I am concerned future players WILL end up looking like the intergalatic tennis player as in the LaCoste commercial. Take care and to ALL enjoy the YEC.
Edited by abdel56 11/21/2009 3:50 PM
| |
| | |
Posts: 4686
| abdel56 - 11/21/2009 4:47 PM
tented,
I assume and please correct me if I am wrong? You mean Pancho Gonzalez? I was only about 12 when I first saw Gonzalez. My Dad took me somewhere in LA and I saw him play. The man could be a total jerk!! But he remains one of my favorites along with Fed, Sampras and Connors. If you are interested? Please go to wikipedia and read up on Pancho if you have not done so? His comments regarding Lew Hoad are quite interesting. Unfortunately, I do not remember the experiment you folks are referencing. Sorry. The last time I really payed attention to Pancho Gonzalez was around 1969/70. Shortly after Laver won his 2nd grand slam. Pancho(42 yrs old) and Laver met at MSG and played for a winner take all purse of 10,000 dollars. Gonzalez was a man you did not want to meet under those circumstances. Laver lost!!
Regarding the "Let" serve? I like the way the game played as is. If I recall the NCAA College Tennis ruling body tried to experiment with what is being suggested herein a few years ago and honestly I don't recall what the final decision was? However, I do not remember them suggesting eliminating the 2nd serve?
The beeper system on the net these days has helped quite alot in my opinion. Not perfect, but what is? lol Now if they could figure out something electronically on the line calls, and better than Hawkeye. I am all for that technology. Yet, how would the system be able to differentiate the ball from a players foot? Then again I am concerned future players WILL end up looking like the intergalatic tennis player as in the LaCoste commercial. Take care and to ALL enjoy the YEC.
Great post, Abdel!
Yes, I was referring to Pancho G. I thought of you because I recall you mentioning him several times before, so I wondered if you remembered this experiment. No matter what, though, it's interesting that you got to see these legends in person.
I laughed when I read your description of the "intergalactic tennis player" from those Lacoste commercials! I certainly don't want tennis to turn into that either.
Excellent point about differentiating a player's foot from the ball in terms of electronic line calls. I don't remember anyone else bringing that up before. | |
| | |
Ball Boy
Posts: 2
| The service let should be eliminated. That will eliminate one unnecessary call that has to be made on every serve. If it goes in the box it's in, period. No more professional points restarted because of a let detected only by the electronic device. No more phantom let calls eliminating aces in unofficiated matches. One fewer call to be made.
The argument that it would be unfair to the returner is bogus. As someone else pointed out, service lets don't always dribble over the net, with no chance for the returner the get them. There are plenty of times when a service let would be a sitter for the returner. And something else that nobody mentioned: what about the aces or service winners that were wiped out because of some infinitesimal (or even phantom) touching of the net as the ball crosses it? | |
| |
Jump to page : 1 2
Now viewing page 1 [25 messages per page] | |
|
|
 |
|
|
 |
|
|
|
|
© 2010 TENNIS.com. All Rights Reserved.
Staging |
|
Eliminating the service let
