- Joined
- 10 Jan 08
- Moves
- 19047
05 Jul 09
get rid of it.
seriously, it's like hitting the bar taking a penalty in football and the ref saying 'au, thats was close, take in again mate'
i think it was the 27th game in the final set, maybe the 25th but federer had 2 lets and then followed up each with an ace, roddick had gotten to 30 in that game think how different that match would've been if instead of a repeat first serve both 'lets' had been called a fault (like it should be) and went to his second serve where roddick had been doing really well.
06 Jul 09
1 edit
Originally posted by trev33Why should it be a fault? If the ball hits the net, passes to the other side and lands inside then it isn't a fault under any circumstances. The 'let' rule actually protects the player who isn't serving.
get rid of it.
seriously, it's like hitting the bar taking a penalty in football and the ref saying 'au, thats was close, take in again mate'
i think it was the 27th game in the final set, maybe the 25th but federer had 2 lets and then followed up each with an ace, roddick had gotten to 30 in that game think how different that match would've been if in (like it should be) and went to his second serve where roddick had been doing really well.
- Joined
- 10 Jan 08
- Moves
- 19047
06 Jul 09
Originally posted by Palynkawhat? i presume you mean because you think if there isn't a 'let' rule the point would continue as normal? that's the only way i could see it helping the person who isn't serving, the rule clearly states that the ball has to go over without touching the net.....why give the server another chance if the ball just happens to full where its supposed to after hitting the net? it's an unfair advantage given to the server imo.
The 'let' rule actually protects the player who isn't serving.
what other sport do you get a second chance like that?
06 Jul 09
Originally posted by trev33If the ball clips the net and lands in at any other stage in the point, play continues and the other player has to try to get the ball back. Why should it be considered out for a serve?
what? i presume you mean because you think if there isn't a 'let' rule the point would continue as normal? that's the only way i could see it helping the person who isn't serving, the rule clearly states that the ball has to go over without touching the net.....why give the server another chance if the ball just happens to full where its supposed to after hit ...[text shortened]... antage given to the server imo.
what other sport do you get a second chance like that?
06 Jul 09
Originally posted by trev33See Schumi's post. It's also funny that you cite the rules of serving to attack...the rules of serving.
what? i presume you mean because you think if there isn't a 'let' rule the point would continue as normal? that's the only way i could see it helping the person who isn't serving, the rule clearly states that the ball has to go over without touching the net.....why give the server another chance if the ball just happens to full where its supposed to after hit ...[text shortened]... antage given to the server imo.
what other sport do you get a second chance like that?
- Joined
- 10 Jan 08
- Moves
- 19047
06 Jul 09
Originally posted by Schumiwe're not talking about open play, that's completely different. but by your reasoning why isn't play continued instead of giving the server another chance? either or i'd be fine with tbh.
If the ball clips the net and lands in at any other stage in the point, play continues and the other player has to try to get the ball back. Why should it be considered out for a serve?
'let' is way to much an advantage to the server, which was proven yesterday. obviously if you clip the net and land instead the lines you've taken away some of the pace from the ball which would give the returner a better chance to return the serve.
saying that i would much prefer to see it put as a fault.
06 Jul 09
Originally posted by trev33I remember Agassi saying that dropping out the 'let' rule would benefit the big servers. Claiming that a ball that clips the net and falls inside benefits the receiver is ludicrous. The change in direction and speed is often enough to put the receiver out of balance. Did you even ever play tennis? What happens when the ball clips the net and falls inside?
we're not talking about open play, that's completely different. but by your reasoning why isn't play continued instead of giving the server another chance? either or i'd be fine with tbh.
'let' is way to much an advantage to the server, which was proven yesterday. obviously if you clip the net and land instead the lines you've taken away some of the pace f ...[text shortened]... chance to return the serve.
saying that i would much prefer to see it put as a fault.
- Joined
- 10 Jan 08
- Moves
- 19047
06 Jul 09
Originally posted by Palynkahaven't played in a couple of years tbh but i seem to remember the ball bouncing very low after clipping the net....really can't remember for sure though.
I remember Agassi saying that dropping out the 'let' rule would benefit the big servers. Claiming that a ball that clips the net and falls inside benefits the receiver is ludicrous. The change in direction and speed is often enough to put the receiver out of balance. Did you even ever play tennis? What happens when the ball clips the net and falls inside?
how would making it a fault (like i want) benefit the 'big' or any server? it wouldn't, the let rule benefits the server. i'll admit that you couldn't just continue play after the ball clips the net and lands in...that would bring even more luck into the game.
06 Jul 09
Originally posted by trev33But then why not also declare a fault when it clips the net and lands in during in-game play?
haven't played in a couple of years tbh but i seem to remember the ball bouncing very low after clipping the net....really can't remember for sure though.
how would making it a fault (like i want) benefit the 'big' or any server? it wouldn't, the let rule benefits the server. i'll admit that you couldn't just continue play after the ball clips the net and lands in...that would bring even more luck into the game.
Making it a fault wouldn't benefit the server, but I think it's a bit inconsistent when you allow it in-game. It seems also harsh to declare it an outright fault when it would be fine if it wasn't a serve. I guess it's true that it's also inconsistent to have a "let rule", so it boils down to a question of degree.
I see it as a retake-it-because-you-had-too-much-luck instead of a retake-it-because-we-want-to-give-you-another-chance, but I guess that view depends on what you think the default should be.
- Joined
- 10 Jan 08
- Moves
- 19047
06 Jul 09
Originally posted by Palynkathey should experiment on a couple of tournaments without the 'let' rule and let the point play as usual as if it was just another regular shot that clipped the net. would be interesting to see the stats on who it benefited more. would make for some interesting tennis though that's for sure.
But then why not also declare a fault when it clips the net and lands in during in-game play?
Making it a fault wouldn't benefit the server, but I think it's a bit inconsistent when you allow it in-game. It seems also harsh to declare it an outright fault when it would be fine if it wasn't a serve. I guess it's true that it's also inconsistent to have a " ...[text shortened]... ou-another-chance, but I guess that view depends on what you think the default should be.
06 Jul 09
Originally posted by trev33Baseball.
what other sport do you get a second chance like that?
With 2 strikes on the batter, he can just keep fouling balls off until he puts one in play.
Football
If the defence commits a penalty during play, and the offense commits a turnover, the turnover is cancelled and returned to the offense.
Hockey
On a breakaway, if the player with the puck is tripped from behind, yet still scores a goal, the goal counts....if he misses, he gets to take the breakaway over again (this time, with no one chasing him)
07 Jul 09
Originally posted by trev33Somehow I don't think Roddick would be terribly happy with the rule change, since he also got lets on his serve. 😵
i think it was the 27th game in the final set, maybe the 25th but federer had 2 lets and then followed up each with an ace, roddick had gotten to 30 in that game think how different that match would've been if instead of a repeat first serve both 'lets' had been called a fault (like it should be) and went to his second serve where roddick had been doing really well.
- Joined
- 10 Jan 08
- Moves
- 19047
07 Jul 09
Originally posted by uzlesshardly the same is it? i've been at a batting cages and know how difficult it is to consistently hit foul balls.....unlike tennis he had to earn that second, or third...or forth chance before his at bat is over.
Baseball.
With 2 strikes on the batter, he can just keep fouling balls off until he puts one in play.
Football
If the defence commits a penalty during play, and the offense commits a turnover, the turnover is cancelled and returned to the offense.
Hockey
On a breakaway, if the player with the puck is tripped from behind, yet still scores a ...[text shortened]... s....if he misses, he gets to take the breakaway over again (this time, with no one chasing him)
the football and hockey things you mention is just simply playing the advantage to the team who deserves it. neither are getting a second chance because of the equivalent of a lucky 'let' call. worst comparances (is that a word? it should be) ever.