I think the Let rule might simply be there to encourage higher risk serves and because at a serve you have to hit the front half of the opponents field so you naturally have to play the ball closer to the net than in open play. I do not know jack about tennis though so it is just speculation
when serving if the ball hits the net then goes in the correct service box it is a let. If the ball lands anywhere that isn't the correct service box it is a fault.
I get the rule, just don't agree with it. If you have to hit it in the service box without hitting the net, it should be just that, you do it or you don't, it's in or it's a fault. But rules are rules, so I'm ready to move on 😀
Decathlon Gamer, do you have a place where you keep your gaming decathlon scoring system for each game you play (i.e. Tennis Manager 2023, etc.)? I see that you provide updates on Twitter, but is there a place where you outline the scoring system for each game if people want to participate with you or create their own system similar to yours?
I update on Twitter weekly, then do a deep dive once every two-to-three months. In those I break the scoring down much more deeply. Often, early in a series, I'll bring it up and break it down once. Any games in particular you're curious about?
15:32 From what i understand they didn't get the DQ simply because they hit the girl, they served the ball at a time when nobody was supoosed to play the ball and hit the ball girl then. Then the game continued and they won, then their opponents insisted to the DQ and since it is like that in the rules they got the DQ. They deserved the DQ, even if it was an accident, but their opponents insisting on it, just because they lost is bad as well.
I've since watched the video. It wasn't a serve. They were at the net just after a point had been played. The Japanese player underhand lobbed the ball directly towards the ball girl, standard stuff, but she hadn't been paying attention and looked away and took the ball to the neck. It wasn't particularly hard, but surprised her and she cried. The other team took advantage of the moment and whined to the ref - who had issued a warning, the right call - and got them to change it to a DQ. They sniggered and laughed after it was changed to a disqualification, they straight up looked evil. Horrible sportsmanship. Roland Gerros straight up should have overturned this the moment they saw the video and had the match resume that afternoon.
@@DecathlonGamer Their opponents beeing absolute assholes, doesn't mean the DQ is wrong. It just means they're absolute assholes and used the sittuation to their advantage. The Ballgirl was hit, while giving balls to their opponent (so they can serve in the next set) and couldn't pay attention to the japanese player. She shouldn't have to, since the ball girl on their side was responsible for him. He was annoyed and hit the ball across the court (instead of waiting for his ballgirl or throw it to her) without really aiming and accidentily hit her. She cried for 15min afterwards, mostly out of shock I think. Both DQ or a warning can be argued about in this sittuation. And since overturning a decission like this only happens, if it is outright wrong, it wasn't overturned. While i agree a DQ was too harsh and their opponents where very unsportmanslike. It wasn't wrong.
We must have watched a different thing as the ball was played to a ball girl on the opposite side of the court by a player who wasn't serving so it wasn't on purpose at all
I just looked it up. WOW! Doubles match, total accident, the ref issued a warning. The opponents then whined about it, their back was to the incident and they hadn't even seen what happened, then were laughing when their complaint lead to the disqualification. Absolutely awful display and a shame that Roland Garros didn't immediately step in, rescind the DQ, and resume the match a few hours later.
@@DecathlonGamer exactly they were packing their stuff before a decision had even been made. The player was looking straight at the ball girl when she hits it towards her. Zero malicious intent, no frustration at all. It really should have been overturned instantly. If anything the other team should be penalised for trying to get the others kicked out when they had nothing to do with it all
![Christmas Magic | Stage 161-165 [guide]](/img/n.gif)
Loving this series! Binged all the episodes today and was disappointed there was only 5, looking forward for the next episode.
I think the Let rule might simply be there to encourage higher risk serves and because at a serve you have to hit the front half of the opponents field so you naturally have to play the ball closer to the net than in open play. I do not know jack about tennis though so it is just speculation
when serving if the ball hits the net then goes in the correct service box it is a let. If the ball lands anywhere that isn't the correct service box it is a fault.
I get the rule, just don't agree with it. If you have to hit it in the service box without hitting the net, it should be just that, you do it or you don't, it's in or it's a fault. But rules are rules, so I'm ready to move on 😀
What about raising intensity against better players and saving against lower ones? or matching the game style?
Decathlon Gamer, do you have a place where you keep your gaming decathlon scoring system for each game you play (i.e. Tennis Manager 2023, etc.)? I see that you provide updates on Twitter, but is there a place where you outline the scoring system for each game if people want to participate with you or create their own system similar to yours?
I update on Twitter weekly, then do a deep dive once every two-to-three months. In those I break the scoring down much more deeply. Often, early in a series, I'll bring it up and break it down once.
Any games in particular you're curious about?
@@DecathlonGamer Curious what you are doing for TM 2023. Also, any tips or tricks for someone just starting out on their own gaming decathlon?
15:32 From what i understand they didn't get the DQ simply because they hit the girl, they served the ball at a time when nobody was supoosed to play the ball and hit the ball girl then. Then the game continued and they won, then their opponents insisted to the DQ and since it is like that in the rules they got the DQ.
They deserved the DQ, even if it was an accident, but their opponents insisting on it, just because they lost is bad as well.
I've since watched the video. It wasn't a serve. They were at the net just after a point had been played. The Japanese player underhand lobbed the ball directly towards the ball girl, standard stuff, but she hadn't been paying attention and looked away and took the ball to the neck. It wasn't particularly hard, but surprised her and she cried.
The other team took advantage of the moment and whined to the ref - who had issued a warning, the right call - and got them to change it to a DQ. They sniggered and laughed after it was changed to a disqualification, they straight up looked evil. Horrible sportsmanship.
Roland Gerros straight up should have overturned this the moment they saw the video and had the match resume that afternoon.
@@DecathlonGamer Their opponents beeing absolute assholes, doesn't mean the DQ is wrong. It just means they're absolute assholes and used the sittuation to their advantage.
The Ballgirl was hit, while giving balls to their opponent (so they can serve in the next set) and couldn't pay attention to the japanese player. She shouldn't have to, since the ball girl on their side was responsible for him. He was annoyed and hit the ball across the court (instead of waiting for his ballgirl or throw it to her) without really aiming and accidentily hit her. She cried for 15min afterwards, mostly out of shock I think.
Both DQ or a warning can be argued about in this sittuation. And since overturning a decission like this only happens, if it is outright wrong, it wasn't overturned.
While i agree a DQ was too harsh and their opponents where very unsportmanslike. It wasn't wrong.
Are the other players in youth ranks real players?
The higher ranked ones are definitely real players. As for the lower ranked ones I have no idea.
The ball the hit the ball kid was hit after the point in frustration which was why there was a disqualification.
Thanks for the clarification. I was confused on how an 'accident' would cause a DQ, but a frustration accident such as that gives merit to the DQ.
We must have watched a different thing as the ball was played to a ball girl on the opposite side of the court by a player who wasn't serving so it wasn't on purpose at all
I just looked it up. WOW! Doubles match, total accident, the ref issued a warning. The opponents then whined about it, their back was to the incident and they hadn't even seen what happened, then were laughing when their complaint lead to the disqualification. Absolutely awful display and a shame that Roland Garros didn't immediately step in, rescind the DQ, and resume the match a few hours later.
@@DecathlonGamer exactly they were packing their stuff before a decision had even been made. The player was looking straight at the ball girl when she hits it towards her. Zero malicious intent, no frustration at all. It really should have been overturned instantly. If anything the other team should be penalised for trying to get the others kicked out when they had nothing to do with it all