Trial elimination of the let-serve

[SharoneWright]

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.”

http://m.atpworldtour.com/News/Tennis/2 ... nalty.aspx

I'm told this is the rule at the collegiate level as well. My instinct, though, is why change such an established rule for little added value.... Thoughts?

[Windmill]

The article doesn't state how it would be beneficial. All it says is improves the flow of the game. How so?

Also, what is the nature of the change? Will they count a let as a normal serve? And is that the added value they are referring to?

Maybe I'm not watching all the matches in their entirety but how many lets do we really see during a match typically that all of a sudden this has now become an issue that needs to be addressed?

[Dr Positivity]

Yeah that 30 extra seconds a match really slows down the feel of the game, lol

[Marmoset]

If they want to shorten the matches, don't let Djokovic bounce the ball 14 times each point or let Nadal go through his whole routine. This idea might take a couple of minutes off a 4-hour match.

All this really does is add an element of pure luck to a match which is not a positive thing as far as I am concerned. I don't want to see break points or match points decided this way.

[Doctor MJ]

Hard to imagine this would ever be important enough that a committee would spend time on it, but, yeah it's a pretty silly rule in my mind. If you're not stopping the match at the other points when it hits the net, why do it on a serve?

It's worth noting that a half century ago they experimented with getting rid of the 2nd serve altogether with the hope of forcing Pancho Gonzales to go for less on his serve. Didn't work, he still won.

[SharoneWright]

I guess they also changed this rule in volleyball a few years back..... but then again, I didn't like that either! lol.

Anyway, I resonate with the comment that I'd hate for an important point to hinge on some fluke/un-returnable serve off the tape. I guess I just don't see the upside.

[Doctor MJ]

Anyway, I resonate with the comment that I'd hate for an important point to hinge on some fluke/un-returnable serve off the tape. I guess I just don't see the upside.

Well, but you can still have that issue on every other stroke of the rally. If we're really that concerned with eliminating the fluke, why not replay every time the ball hits the net?

I understand that the answer is simply because it's easy to do from service position, but in general whenever there's a rule change that:

1) Makes the rule itself more consistent and easier to explain to a new fan,

2) Makes for an exciting situation,

3) Shortens the game,

4) Doesn't impact player strategy at all,

I'm typically going to be for it.

[SharoneWright]

Well, but you can still have that issue on every other stroke of the rally. If we're really that concerned with eliminating the fluke, why not replay every time the ball hits the net?

I understand that the answer is simply because it's easy to do from service position, but in general whenever there's a rule change that:

1) Makes the rule itself more consistent and easier to explain to a new fan,

2) Makes for an exciting situation,

3) Shortens the game,

4) Doesn't impact player strategy at all,

I'm typically going to be for it.

I'm not vehemently opposed, and you guys on here are far greater tennis experts than I,, but just to counter your arguments for the sake of it:

1) Nuance in rules is a big part of the fun - its half the attraction to baseball, for example.

2) A half-court shot is exciting in basketball, but the result lacks credibility and can be disaffecting.

3) Not really

4) So,, not really a pro or con...

Anywhooo,, I like a little nuance. Plus,, keeping the rule will save us having to watch these players "apologize" with a wave of their hand to their opponent an 10 extra times a game when they're really not sorry at all!