Lob and Smash
Fansided

IPTL: Verdict on New Rules and Innovations

By Geoff Nichols

facebooktwitterreddit

IPTL: Lob and Smash Verdict on all the New Rules and Innovations

With the first three days of IPTL action under our belts, there is a chance to take stock and cast a discerning eye over the host of innovations in this year’s competition. Players, umpires, commentators and even fans have been all adjusting to the new rules, with some working better than others:

Happiness Power Point

Each team has one happiness power point per set. Played by the receiver, the next point counts double. In the pre-tournament build-up, the example given for the use of a happiness power point was that a returner could go from 15-0 down to 15-30 up in one point.

It was perhaps wishful thinking from the organisers that teams would use the power point in any situation apart from at 40-30 down, when a power point made it essentially a break point because of the no ad scoring.

It is one of the rules that should definitely stay in exhibition matches, as part of the beauty of the tennis scoring system is that every point is worth the same. Whilst we did see some different uses of it, for example in the shoot-outs, it was mostly used at 40-30 and became predictable all too quickly.

Every ball toss is live

When you ask tennis fans about this rule their response is often centred on the fact that professional tennis players should have their ball toss figured out and that they shouldn’t get a second chance at it. If their ball toss is awry then that is what their second serve is for.

 On no lets: “I would hate for a Grand Slam title to be decided on a serve that clips the tape and trickles over” 

It is definitely a rule that could be implemented into both sides of the game and it added an extra dimension to the IPTL. Maria Sharapova and Andy Murray, both of the Manila Mavericks, have infamously shaky ball tosses and they were both struggling with their serves.

Murray at one point went to hit a second serve, didn’t like the toss and went to catch it. Suddenly realising that in the IPTL this would qualify as a double fault, he smartly readjusted, playing an underarm sliced serve that landed in. Had he not stepped over the service line and foot faulted it would have been one of greatest moments of quick-thinking, but in reality highlighted the improvement needed in his ball toss.

No lets

There are some strong opinions around on whether lets should be removed as part of the sport. In the IPTL all service lets are played, which took some adjusting to for the players as it is more of a regular occurrence than you would first think.

More from Tennis News

A leading argument to get rid of lets is that it slows the game down, but evidence from the IPTl shows that points played when the serve has clipped the net end quite predictably in one of two ways.

The ball will either skim the net and skid through, drawing an error from the returner. Or the ball will make stronger contact with the tap, sit up and be dispatched. I personally don’t see the problems with lets currently. I would hate for a Grand Slam title to be decided on a serve that clips the tape and trickles over, giving the opponent no chance of retrieving the ball.

Shot Clock

Although this is already controlled by the umpires all year round, the IPTL implemented a visible (and audible) shot clock on the players, limiting them to 20 seconds between points. It certainly made for quicker play and with the shot clock visible to the players, it was very rare indeed for anyone to be punished for slow play.

It is certainly a rule on the tour that should continue to be enforced strictly. Players who take additional time to recover between points are essentially bending the rules and whilst umpires tend to relax on the time taken between points after an epic rally, part of a tennis player’s skill set is his fitness and recovery time.

5 Minute Shoot-out instead of Tie Break at 5-5

Moving the end of set decider, whether it would be a shoot-out or the conventional tie break is a relatively minor change that will bring about shorter sets if implement on tour if that is ever needed. The 5 minute shoot-out would be a much more significant change and one that I would not enjoy seeing implemented.

Currently the tie-break serves as a fitting way to end an evenly contested set. They tend to be tense affairs and the reward the player who is going to be braver and take some risks. The 5 minute shoot-out, unfortunately, has seemed to encourage negative tennis.

Once players get a lead, they waste time and play a lot more tactically. Not tactically on the court, which would be great, but tactically in that they were tie their laces before they serve to waste a precious few seconds. Put this shoot-out into a competitive environment and you’ll only see more players trying to find an exploit. Keep tie-breaks, please.

More from Lob and Smash

Home/Tennis News