Let call? Dont you think it is stupid? You hit the net no matter if it lands in the service box or goes out it should be a fault. I think players like Venus Williams with a crappy second serve would hate not having another crack at a first but have to serve the second.
Dec 27th, 2002, 02:49 AM
So, whats the purpose of it?
Gonzo Hates Me!
Dec 27th, 2002, 04:48 AM
I think because if they actually played the point, it would be an advantage to who is not on serve because it would be so easy to return. But maybe that is no different than hitting a net cord during a point--it is still played and often works to the advantage of who's not on serve, but tennis is so strict, and a net cord during serve just doesn't count as a real serve I guess... because it's just not a clean ball. So anyway, I dunno, tennis has so many rules
Dec 27th, 2002, 05:13 AM
I hear you Mrs_Guga...I but my point is not to let the serve stand, but to call it a fault and if it was a first serve, let the players next serve be a second serve. Likewise if it was a second serve then it would be a double fault...
Dec 27th, 2002, 05:14 AM
leave it as it is lol
Dec 27th, 2002, 01:06 PM
Players have let cords during points and they dont call it out so why would they call a let serve a fault?
Dec 27th, 2002, 01:32 PM
Because if the serve nips the net and land just outside the service box it is a fault...I just think a let serve should be a fault...:eek:
Dec 27th, 2002, 01:56 PM
So if it clips the net and is still in you want to call it a fault.....!!! I don't get it.....I say either play it or LET it be a let, but not a fault.
Dec 27th, 2002, 02:14 PM
It was long discussed time ago by the ITF.
In the beginning the reason was having a "clean" serve. (a la volleyball)
These days, actually, a let=fault would diminish the dramatic importance of serve on grass (mens') but it would also penalize the game on clay and, in general, in womens' tennis.