Strange Rule Change Ideas

[Kieran]

What are your odd ideas for a rule change that improves the game?

Let me start:

“When a player smashes or damages a racket, they must play on with the damaged racket or forfeit the match.”

That’ll learn ‘em, right? No warning. No penalty point. Doesn’t matter if all that’s left of the racket is a jagged twig and a piece of string.

Player:
Umpire: “Play!”

 

[Moxie]

What are your odd ideas for a rule change that improves the game?

Let me start:

“When a player smashes or damages a racket, they must play on with the damaged racket or forfeit the match.”

That’ll learn ‘em, right? No warning. No penalty point. Doesn’t matter if all that’s left of the racket is a jagged twig and a piece of string.

Player:
Umpire: “Play!”

Well, no one plays a whole match with the same racquet, but, since they usually smash a racquet at the end of a game, they should have to play the rest of the game (if it's not finished) and the next one with that racquet. But I still say they get a warning, then a point penalty, etc. But I like you're idea! They smash a racquet and they're allowed to go get a new one.

How do we feel about no lets on serve? If it goes in the service box, play it. It seems particularly silly when neither player has even noticed it, only the umpire knows, because he got the electronic signal. I do feel that whatever benefit to server/receiver would even out. And I've never bought the idea that players would start to bounce it off the net...too dangerous. Too much possibility of a fault.

And how about this for an out-of-the-box idea: If there's no rain, and not enough to say so in the forecast, open the roof at an outdoor tournament! I say better to start with the roof open, and if you have to close it, close. Folks can wait.

 

[Moxie]

Speaking of roof and rules. I'm clearing out my DVR before I return it to Spectrum and cut the cord, so I'm watching the 2020 FO Final, Nadal d. Djokovic under the roof. I'm not going to complain about Nadal being hard done by, with the roof, because he won in straights. But, watching the replay, early in the 2nd set, they show blue skies and puffy clouds in Paris. And, IIRC, it wasn't raining even when the match started. It was just closed previously for the women's doubles, when it did rain.

Here's a thought: why can't the roof be treated like an umbrella? Who made it sacrosanct that once the roof is closed, it can't be reopened? Within reason, but seriously?

And speaking of umbrellas, I have "The Umbrellas of Cherbourg" to watch before I turn in my box. Such a lovely film!

 

[Kieran]

Well, no one plays a whole match with the same racquet, but, since they usually smash a racquet at the end of a game, they should have to play the rest of the game (if it's not finished) and the next one with that racquet. But I still say they get a warning, then a point penalty, etc. But I like you're idea! They smash a racquet and they're allowed to go get a new one.

Yes they get out of jail these days by sliding yet another shiny new racket from the sleeve - but I say no! Put manners on them. Instant disqualification for smashing the hallowed tool of the trade. I tell you, nobody will be breaking rackets on court within six months.

How do we feel about no lets on serve? If it goes in the service box, play it. It seems particularly silly when neither player has even noticed it, only the umpire knows, because he got the electronic signal. I do feel that whatever benefit to server/receiver would even out. And I've never bought the idea that players would start to bounce it off the net...too dangerous. Too much possibility of a fault.

Well that’s a rule change that’s been suggested before and I’m not really in favour simply because I don’t think playing a let holds up a match for long, but also I love the drama of a player hitting multiple lets and the crowd leaning in to see what happens.

I think the let serve creates tension.

And how about this for an out-of-the-box idea: If there's no rain, and not enough to say so in the forecast, open the roof at an outdoor tournament! I say better to start with the roof open, and if you have to close it, close. Folks can wait.

Wimbledon 2018. It’s still a sore point. Whatever about starting with the roof closed because it was late, it was stupid to continue the next day in blazing sunshine with the roof closed.

The rule should always default to playing outdoors when possible. No nonsense about, well we started with the roof closed…?

Nonsense!

And speaking of umbrellas, I have "The Umbrellas of Cherbourg" to watch before I turn in my box. Such a lovely film!

It’s better than watching tennis!

 

[tented]

How do we feel about no lets on serve? If it goes in the service box, play it. It seems particularly silly when neither player has even noticed it, only the umpire knows, because he got the electronic signal. I do feel that whatever benefit to server/receiver would even out. And I've never bought the idea that players would start to bounce it off the net...too dangerous. Too much possibility of a fault.

Preach, sister! Martina and Johnny Mac have been talking about this for years. I agree with your reasoning, and will add that replaying these points makes the match too long, too slow. Casual tennis viewers I know are really bothered by this, which doesn’t help attracting new fans.

And how about this for an out-of-the-box idea: If there's no rain, and not enough to say so in the forecast, open the roof at an outdoor tournament! I say better to start with the roof open, and if you have to close it, close. Folks can wait.

Absolutely. There’s beginning to be this unstated rule that if they have a roof, they have to use it. They’re no longer the stadium equivalents of umbrellas, which I thought was the whole idea.

EDIT: I responded to this before reading the reply by @Kieran who also used the umbrella analogy.

 

[Moxie]

Preach, sister! Martina and Johnny Mac have been talking about this for years. I agree with your reasoning, and will add that replaying these points makes the match too long, too slow. Casual tennis viewers I know are really bothered by this, which doesn’t help attracting new fans.

I honestly think they could drop it tomorrow and no one would miss it. I respectfully disagree with @Kieran that it creates tension. I agree with you that it's more of a pointless drag. Plus, you play lets during the point, and sometimes funny bounces off the net make for some interesting points. Should keep players on their toes.

Absolutely. There’s beginning to be this unstated rule that if they have a roof, they have to use it. They’re no longer the stadium equivalents of umbrellas, which I thought was the whole idea.

EDIT: I responded to this before reading the reply by @Kieran who also used the umbrella analogy.

I feel like the tournaments spent so much effort figuring out how to get funding for their expensive roofs, and almost no time at all considering what rules they would apply to using them.

@Margaret was asking if there were consistent rules about using them, the other day. While they don't all have to be consistent, IMO, they could do with some conferring with each other, the Majors, as to what makes some sense. For example, the AO does have a heat rule, and that makes sense in the AO summer. The USOpen does NOT have one, yet they seemed to close the roof on Sunday just for the sake of comfort. I would like to see some rules laid out, and made transparent. I'd also like to know how long it takes to close each roof + acclimatize the environment, i.e., what is the stoppage time?

The umbrella analogy was mine, (which is how I shoe-horned The Umbrellas of Cherbourg into a tennis thread. LOL.) I do like it, though...rain cover, when needed. As I said, I know you can't just open it and close it with every rain break, but there has to be respect for the fact that you're an outdoor tournament, just with options, in extremis. Kieran brought up the sore subject of the Wimbledon 2018 SF. At the time, Wimbledon had this bizarre notion that the environment created at the beginning of the match might be maintained for the rest of it. Then they left it to the players. If one preferred the same environment, they were going to go with that. Well, of course, Novak chose to keep the roof closed on the very sunny Day 2. (Not saying that's why he won, but it advantaged him and he knew it. And it went to 10-8 in the 5th.) Later, even Wimbledon acknowledged that that was a ridiculous way to decide roof open/closed and changed the rule. But, seriously....if they'd ever thought about it harder, they'd have realized it should be a tournament decision, not something left to the players.

Some questions, some requests:

* In a situation of no rain, how bad does a forecast have to be to close the roof, preventatively? And (again) how much of a disruption of play is it to close the roof when rain arrives? (I think Centre Court Wimbledon is 30 minutes.)

* Just because the previous match had the roof closed, what decides that the roof shouldn't be re-opened for the next one?

* In the case of a rainy start, why not open the roof when the weather has cleared, particularly if there is a lot of the match to be played? Is it an absolute that once the roof is closed, it cannot be opened? If so, why?

* If the match carries over to a second day, what is the rule?

* What is the heat rule vis-a-vis the roof...especially if the USOpen decides to change it.

In the case of Wimbledon, they need the roof for lights...is that still true? I think at the French Open it's not. At AO and USO, obviously not. But again, who decides, and when?

 

[Kieran]

I honestly think they could drop it tomorrow and no one would miss it. I respectfully disagree with @Kieran that it creates tension. I agree with you that it's more of a pointless drag. Plus, you play lets during the point, and sometimes funny bounces off the net make for some interesting points. Should keep players on their toes.

There’s about 5 lets per match. It doesn’t hold up things but it’s an interesting rule, maybe as archaic as the scoring system, one of those anachronistic quirks of the beautiful game, I certainly see no reason to change it that benefits us.

McEnroe is in favour of it because he likes innovation - he’s been in favour of almost every change that’s ever been suggested - but if there’s nothing broke then don’t fix it.

Novak chose to keep the roof closed on the very sunny Day 2. (Not saying that's why he won, but it advantaged him and he knew it. And it went to 10-8 in the 5th.)

That’s definitely why he won it. Remember, he was in the doldrums then. He played a great match but he chose to keep the roof closed because he knew how well Rafa was playing.

I was more thinking in this thread of strange rule changes, things that will never happen but should. Like it struck me that Carlos forfeited a game in Paris to get treatment for cramp (a good rule) but Novak got to take an ice bath and have a facial in Cincinnati when he couldn’t handle the heat. There are rules we don’t think of, but they’re certainly not always applied.

This one isn’t a strange one but I’d try control the toilet and wardrobe breaks. The wardrobe one I’d control by banning it. For toilet breaks, I’d only let a player take one after they’d won a set, and not use it to regroup after they lost a set.

If they take one after they lost a set, they have the regulation 90 seconds (I’d scrap the 2 minutes) and if there’s not ready to play when their opponent is, then they forfeit the next game.

 

[Kieran]

Actually, I’d scrap the break between sets. I’d have play be continuous, the way it used to be. The break between sets only serves to disrupt a players momentum. It was a bad idea…

 

[mrzz]

Regarding lets:

Incremental modification:
Calibrate the machines to filter out unobservable lets;

Fundamental modification:

The ball can be played *at the receiver's discretion*.

Regarding raquets: Limited number of raquets per match. Raquets can be strung during match if tournament can provide it to both players.

 

[Kieran]

Regarding lets:

Incremental modification:
Calibrate the machines to filter out unobservable lets;

That’s good.

Fundamental modification:

The ball can be played *at the receiver's discretion*.

There could be a problem with this. Ball hits net - receiver wallops it - if it lands out they’ll say no, I was only hitting it instinctively but obviously I wasn’t exercising my discretion. If it lands in, how is the server to know the receiver meant it as a legit shot?

Regarding raquets: Limited number of raquets per match. Raquets can be strung during match if tournament can provide it to both players.

My point with the rackets is to stop violence on court. It’s a bad example and it can be costly for parents. If a parent forks out a ton of cash for little Joan to join in at the local courts and Joan comes home the next day with a smashed racket because she loves Djokovic, that’s not a good thing. So I’d say, disqualify the player instantly when they abuse and break a racket. Players will stop bashing rackets, believe me, and this will filter down to influencing how kids will treat their precious equipment. They’ll learn the value and importance of the racket when they see top professionals hauled off court for abusing one..

 

[mrzz]

There could be a problem with this. Ball hits net - receiver wallops it - if it lands out they’ll say no, I was only hitting it instinctively but obviously I wasn’t exercising my discretion. If it lands in, how is the server to know the receiver meant it as a legit shot?

If you touched it, you played it. The rule should be clear not to leave room for interpretation. I get that in the cases where there might be doubt whether it was a let or not, this could be a disadvantage for the receiver, but this is more than largely compensated by the cases were the receiver can attack the serve. I liked the idea because it adds difficulty to the server and, more importantly, it goes along with your fine point that the let adds tension to the whole thing.

My point with the rackets is to stop violence on court. It’s a bad example and it can be costly for parents. If a parent forks out a ton of cash for little Joan to join in at the local courts and Joan comes home the next day with a smashed racket because she loves Djokovic, that’s not a good thing. So I’d say, disqualify the player instantly when they abuse and break a racket. Players will stop bashing rackets, believe me, and this will filter down to influencing how kids will treat their precious equipment. They’ll learn the value and importance of the racket when they see top professionals hauled off court for abusing one..

Believe me, I completely agree. This would be the ideal scenario. My proposal was more in the sense of a (maybe more pragmatic) common ground. It would still punish the offending players (if the set is small) and it would be less radical (as it would not mean "game over" once a racket is destroyed, which is by the way exactly your point). But I haven´t let this clear in my previous post.

 

[Moxie]

^ @mrzz: I don't think your solution of limiting the number of racquets is nearly medieval enough, and that surprises me of you. Even before they were threatened with a point penalty, most players only smash about 1 racquet per match, at least since Safin retired. I like Kieran's original idea of making them play (at least for a while) with whatever is left of the racquet then just smashed. Rather like rubbing a dog's nose in it.

 

[Kieran]

^ @mrzz: I don't think your solution of limiting the number of racquets is nearly medieval enough, and that surprises me of you. Even before they were threatened with a point penalty, most players only smash about 1 racquet per match, at least since Safin retired. I like Kieran's original idea of making them play (at least for a while) with whatever is left of the racquet then just smashed. Rather like rubbing a dog's nose in it.

No, not play for a while! That’s the racket they finish with. No more rackets. If the racket is beyond repair, tough shit. They lose!

 

[mrzz]

^ @mrzz: I don't think your solution of limiting the number of racquets is nearly medieval enough, and that surprises me of you. Even before they were threatened with a point penalty, most players only smash about 1 racquet per match, at least since Safin retired. I like Kieran's original idea of making them play (at least for a while) with whatever is left of the racquet then just smashed. Rather like rubbing a dog's nose in it.

It depends on the number of racquets they have at their disposal. If you limit it to three (for example), t would have an impact. But yeah, @Kieran's original idea is better.