Hissy Fits Tantrums And Miss-Trust Of The Umpire

YvonneT wrote:Further to LF's post, I looked at the ATP rule book and there is nothing in the rules that requires that the umpire give the other player any information about the treatment. The only thing I can find in the rule book about communication of a MTO is the following:

barrystar wrote:

hawkeye wrote:

barrystar wrote:

If a player wants private medical treatment that is his right and he can withdraw from the competition.  

If a player wants the match temporarily suspended so he can receive treatment to the disadvantage or potential disadvantage of his opponent it is legitimate to expect that his opponent is informed in general terms of what it is that is said to justify the indulgence granted to him and the inconvenience to the opponent.  Nothing else would be fair.

A player can have medical treatment from an ATP trainer and they don't have to share the results with the umpire the crowd or their opponent - so in that sense it is private. They can also have the match suspended whilst they receive treatment. No one has to justify any of these things because they are the ATP rules     

You could try having a hissy fit if you don't like the rules but I'm sorry to inform you that it is very unlikely that the ATP will change the rules because of that. Maybe you, Wawrinka and several other 606v2 posters could join together and form a union or protest group and picket the ATP to change the rules if you are really unhappy with them?

If you want to debate with me, address the points I make rather than setting up and attacking different arguments (that would be to adopt the tactics of an internet troll, which of course you are not....).

I did not say that results of treatment should be shared, I said that it is legitimate for the opponent to be told in general terms what it is that is said to justify the MTO - i.e. foot, back, wrist, and perhaps whether a sprain or something like that.  That's not the same thing as imparting detailed results of treatment.

As others have said there is no obligation to inform the waiting player of the circumstances nor is there any obligation to keep the basic reason for the MTO secret.  However, there is an obligation to decide what distinct treatable medical condition the MTO relates to because there are very strict rules as to how many MTO's a player is entitled to which depend upon what the first MTO is for.  Therefore, the chair umpire has a duty to the non-injured party to keep close tabs on the purpose of each MTO so that the injured party is allowed what he is entitled to and no more.  In that way the detailed reasons for the MTO are not private to the player, but they are information which the umpire uses to regulate the match between the players which must be imparted in detail in the event of the umpire having to make a decision about a subsequent MTO.  

In those circumstances it is obvious that courtesy to the other player, general fairness, courtesy to the crowd, managing the match to ensure that MTO's are taken properly, and even fairness to the 'injured' player to avoid him being booed all point in one direction.  Good Judgement by the umpires involves acting within the rules to impart basic information about the reason for any MTO - not a medical diagnosis or a running commentary of the treatment, but basic general information.  At the very least this communicates that the Umpire is keeping tabs with his/her duty.  

Wawrinka has obviously come to expect such good and courteous exercise of an Umpire's judgment and was a bit taken aback when in the biggest match of his life and doing better than he ever has done against Nadal he faces an MTO at a tactically adventitious time and is told in terms 'I am not going to tell you why' and then, 'I don't know why' - how can he know whether the Umpire is doing his duty to keep tabs on the reasons for MTO's?

Rules usually don't prescribe minutely every step to be taken, they set out the basic conduct required and the reasons for them and leave much of their application to Judgment.  In this case it is absolutely clear that the umpire must be able to know the reason for the MTO and should be willing to impart it's basic essence, not least because whether to allow a subsequent MTO may become very important and players want to know that umpires are doing their duty and keeping tabs on their opponent's entitlement.

Are you going to address these points?

YvonneT wrote:Ramos seemed to handle it fine to me. Wawrinka was allowed to ask, but was wrong that it was his right to be told (though I agree that a broad general explanation could be provided of why Nadal had left the court without disclosing anything confidential or tactically advantageous to Wawrinka).

I still don't see that he had a "hissy fit" though. On a hissy fit scale of 1 to 10 where 10 is McEnroe's worst outbursts, I'm struggling to award Stan even a 0.5 for his efforts.

barrystar wrote:

hawkeye wrote:

barrystar wrote:

If a player wants private medical treatment that is his right and he can withdraw from the competition.  

If a player wants the match temporarily suspended so he can receive treatment to the disadvantage or potential disadvantage of his opponent it is legitimate to expect that his opponent is informed in general terms of what it is that is said to justify the indulgence granted to him and the inconvenience to the opponent.  Nothing else would be fair.

A player can have medical treatment from an ATP trainer and they don't have to share the results with the umpire the crowd or their opponent - so in that sense it is private. They can also have the match suspended whilst they receive treatment. No one has to justify any of these things because they are the ATP rules     

You could try having a hissy fit if you don't like the rules but I'm sorry to inform you that it is very unlikely that the ATP will change the rules because of that. Maybe you, Wawrinka and several other 606v2 posters could join together and form a union or protest group and picket the ATP to change the rules if you are really unhappy with them?

If you want to debate with me, address the points I make rather than setting up and attacking different arguments (that would be to adopt the tactics of an internet troll, which of course you are not....).

I did not say that results of treatment should be shared, I said that it is legitimate for the opponent to be told in general terms what it is that is said to justify the MTO - i.e. foot, back, wrist, and perhaps whether a sprain or something like that.  That's not the same thing as imparting detailed results of treatment.

but giving that information potentially gives that player a tactical advantage. All the player really needs to know is that the injury is being assessed and that they will know when/if the MTO starts. There is, in fact, no reason why the umpire would know what the injury was at the time of assessment as neither the player nor trainer needs to tell him. It is entirely in the trainer's discretion whether the assessment takes place off court.

As others have said there is no obligation to inform the waiting player of the circumstances nor is there any obligation to keep the basic reason for the MTO secret.  However, there is an obligation to decide what distinct treatable medical condition the MTO relates to because there are very strict rules as to how many MTO's a player is entitled to which depend upon what the first MTO is for.  Therefore, the chair umpire has a duty to the non-injured party to keep close tabs on the purpose of each MTO so that the injured party is allowed what he is entitled to and no more.  In that way the detailed reasons for the MTO are not private to the player, but they are information which the umpire uses to regulate the match between the players which must be imparted in detail in the event of the umpire having to make a decision about a subsequent MTO.  

the rules are not entirely clear but it seems that the decision whether it is the same injury would be for the trainer. He would then advise both the referee and umpire whether that was the case. It is also for the trainer to decide if the injury is one for which treatment should be given. In any event, as Rafa had not previously taken an MTO such considerations were, at the point of time of the debate with Stan, irrelevant.

In those circumstances it is obvious that courtesy to the other player, general fairness, courtesy to the crowd, managing the match to ensure that MTO's are taken properly, and even fairness to the 'injured' player to avoid him being booed all point in one direction.  Good Judgement by the umpires involves acting within the rules to impart basic information about the reason for any MTO - not a medical diagnosis or a running commentary of the treatment, but basic general information.  At the very least this communicates that the Umpire is keeping tabs with his/her duty.  

This is a significant jump from the previous paragraph. I have never ever heard any umpire explain to the crowd the reason for an assessment or even for an actual MTO. Indeed, I have never actually heard an umpire explain to the other player the reasons - whilst it may be that is done discretely by some umpires, as stated above I see no actual reason why the player needs to know.

Wawrinka has obviously come to expect such good and courteous exercise of an Umpire's judgment and was a bit taken aback when in the biggest match of his life and doing better than he ever has done against Nadal he faces an MTO at a tactically adventitious time and is told in terms 'I am not going to tell you why' and then, 'I don't know why' - how can he know whether the Umpire is doing his duty to keep tabs on the reasons for MTO's?

as stated above it is for the trainer to identify whether there is a treatable injury - during the assessment. Until that has taken place then the umpire has no duty to keep tabs on anything.

Rules usually don't prescribe minutely every step to be taken, they set out the basic conduct required and the reasons for them and leave much of their application to Judgment.  In this case it is absolutely clear that the umpire must be able to know the reason for the MTO and should be willing to impart it's basic essence, not least because whether to allow a subsequent MTO may become very important and players want to know that umpires are doing their duty and keeping tabs on their opponent's entitlement.

to be brutally honest what players want to know isn't overly important. I would definitely want to know what injury an opponent had to decide how best to exploit it. The important factors here are that (i) the umpire has no discretion to prevent an assessment at a change of ends (which this was); (ii) Ramos appears to have been correct both that there was no right for Stan to know and that there was no reason why, at the stage of assessment he would himself know the problem and (iii) decisions about injuries primarily rest with the trainer - the umpire (after assessment) will act on that advice. It seems to me that all Stan could legitimately expect was that after the assessment he was told whether or not the trainer was satisfied it was a genuine treatable injury.

Are you going to address these points?

JuliusHMarx wrote:Crickey, some Rafa fans are sore losers. Still having a completely unjustified hissy fit over Stan's behaviour, over a week later.

Haddie-nuff wrote:

JuliusHMarx wrote:Crickey, some Rafa fans are sore losers. Still having a completely unjustified hissy fit over Stan's behaviour, over a week later.

Well here is one who isn´t JM I am of the belief that Stan had a right to know why Rafa went of court.
He is in the biggest match of his life... a slam final and your oponent walks off court without explanation.
Sorry I dont give a monkey´s what the rules are I think he has a right to be quietly given the facts.. not for the whole damned world, media, audience and anyone else. The matter should have been settled on court. Instead of which Stan's hissy fit affected his game because he assumed it was gamesmanship on Rafa's part. The umpire was "giving " no advantage to Stan by telling him because it became apparent to everyone watching that match that Rafa  wa s "out of it". I,m sorry a Rafa fan I may be but this whole debate is a joke.

Born Slippy wrote:

barrystar wrote:

hawkeye wrote:

barrystar wrote:

If a player wants private medical treatment that is his right and he can withdraw from the competition.  

If a player wants the match temporarily suspended so he can receive treatment to the disadvantage or potential disadvantage of his opponent it is legitimate to expect that his opponent is informed in general terms of what it is that is said to justify the indulgence granted to him and the inconvenience to the opponent.  Nothing else would be fair.

A player can have medical treatment from an ATP trainer and they don't have to share the results with the umpire the crowd or their opponent - so in that sense it is private. They can also have the match suspended whilst they receive treatment. No one has to justify any of these things because they are the ATP rules     

You could try having a hissy fit if you don't like the rules but I'm sorry to inform you that it is very unlikely that the ATP will change the rules because of that. Maybe you, Wawrinka and several other 606v2 posters could join together and form a union or protest group and picket the ATP to change the rules if you are really unhappy with them?

If you want to debate with me, address the points I make rather than setting up and attacking different arguments (that would be to adopt the tactics of an internet troll, which of course you are not....).

I did not say that results of treatment should be shared, I said that it is legitimate for the opponent to be told in general terms what it is that is said to justify the MTO - i.e. foot, back, wrist, and perhaps whether a sprain or something like that.  That's not the same thing as imparting detailed results of treatment.

but giving that information potentially gives that player a tactical advantage. All the player really needs to know is that the injury is being assessed and that they will know when/if the MTO starts. There is, in fact, no reason why the umpire would know what the injury was at the time of assessment as neither the player nor trainer needs to tell him. It is entirely in the trainer's discretion whether the assessment takes place off court.

As others have said there is no obligation to inform the waiting player of the circumstances nor is there any obligation to keep the basic reason for the MTO secret.  However, there is an obligation to decide what distinct treatable medical condition the MTO relates to because there are very strict rules as to how many MTO's a player is entitled to which depend upon what the first MTO is for.  Therefore, the chair umpire has a duty to the non-injured party to keep close tabs on the purpose of each MTO so that the injured party is allowed what he is entitled to and no more.  In that way the detailed reasons for the MTO are not private to the player, but they are information which the umpire uses to regulate the match between the players which must be imparted in detail in the event of the umpire having to make a decision about a subsequent MTO.  

the rules are not entirely clear but it seems that the decision whether it is the same injury would be for the trainer. He would then advise both the referee and umpire whether that was the case. It is also for the trainer to decide if the injury is one for which treatment should be given. In any event, as Rafa had not previously taken an MTO such considerations were, at the point of time of the debate with Stan, irrelevant.

In those circumstances it is obvious that courtesy to the other player, general fairness, courtesy to the crowd, managing the match to ensure that MTO's are taken properly, and even fairness to the 'injured' player to avoid him being booed all point in one direction.  Good Judgement by the umpires involves acting within the rules to impart basic information about the reason for any MTO - not a medical diagnosis or a running commentary of the treatment, but basic general information.  At the very least this communicates that the Umpire is keeping tabs with his/her duty.  

This is a significant jump from the previous paragraph. I have never ever heard any umpire explain to the crowd the reason for an assessment or even for an actual MTO. Indeed, I have never actually heard an umpire explain to the other player the reasons - whilst it may be that is done discretely by some umpires, as stated above I see no actual reason why the player needs to know.

Wawrinka has obviously come to expect such good and courteous exercise of an Umpire's judgment and was a bit taken aback when in the biggest match of his life and doing better than he ever has done against Nadal he faces an MTO at a tactically adventitious time and is told in terms 'I am not going to tell you why' and then, 'I don't know why' - how can he know whether the Umpire is doing his duty to keep tabs on the reasons for MTO's?

as stated above it is for the trainer to identify whether there is a treatable injury - during the assessment. Until that has taken place then the umpire has no duty to keep tabs on anything.

Rules usually don't prescribe minutely every step to be taken, they set out the basic conduct required and the reasons for them and leave much of their application to Judgment.  In this case it is absolutely clear that the umpire must be able to know the reason for the MTO and should be willing to impart it's basic essence, not least because whether to allow a subsequent MTO may become very important and players want to know that umpires are doing their duty and keeping tabs on their opponent's entitlement.

to be brutally honest what players want to know isn't overly important. I would definitely want to know what injury an opponent had to decide how best to exploit it. The important factors here are that (i) the umpire has no discretion to prevent an assessment at a change of ends (which this was); (ii) Ramos appears to have been correct both that there was no right for Stan to know and that there was no reason why, at the stage of assessment he would himself know the problem and (iii) decisions about injuries primarily rest with the trainer - the umpire (after assessment) will act on that advice. It seems to me that all Stan could legitimately expect was that after the assessment he was told whether or not the trainer was satisfied it was a genuine treatable injury.

Are you going to address these points?

My comments on Barry's post above in italics.

A total of two (2) consecutive Medical Time-Outs may be allowed by
the Referee in consultation with the Grand Slam Supervisor or Chair
Umpire for the special circumstance in which the
Physiotherapist/Athletic Trainer determines that the player has
developed at least two (2) distinct acute and treatable medical
conditions

hawkeye wrote:

barrystar wrote:

hawkeye wrote:

barrystar wrote:

If a player wants private medical treatment that is his right and he can withdraw from the competition.  

If a player wants the match temporarily suspended so he can receive treatment to the disadvantage or potential disadvantage of his opponent it is legitimate to expect that his opponent is informed in general terms of what it is that is said to justify the indulgence granted to him and the inconvenience to the opponent.  Nothing else would be fair.

A player can have medical treatment from an ATP trainer and they don't have to share the results with the umpire the crowd or their opponent - so in that sense it is private. They can also have the match suspended whilst they receive treatment. No one has to justify any of these things because they are the ATP rules     

You could try having a hissy fit if you don't like the rules but I'm sorry to inform you that it is very unlikely that the ATP will change the rules because of that. Maybe you, Wawrinka and several other 606v2 posters could join together and form a union or protest group and picket the ATP to change the rules if you are really unhappy with them?

If you want to debate with me, address the points I make rather than setting up and attacking different arguments (that would be to adopt the tactics of an internet troll, which of course you are not....).

I did not say that results of treatment should be shared, I said that it is legitimate for the opponent to be told in general terms what it is that is said to justify the MTO - i.e. foot, back, wrist, and perhaps whether a sprain or something like that.  That's not the same thing as imparting detailed results of treatment.

As others have said there is no obligation to inform the waiting player of the circumstances nor is there any obligation to keep the basic reason for the MTO secret.  However, there is an obligation to decide what distinct treatable medical condition the MTO relates to because there are very strict rules as to how many MTO's a player is entitled to which depend upon what the first MTO is for.  Therefore, the chair umpire has a duty to the non-injured party to keep close tabs on the purpose of each MTO so that the injured party is allowed what he is entitled to and no more.  In that way the detailed reasons for the MTO are not private to the player, but they are information which the umpire uses to regulate the match between the players which must be imparted in detail in the event of the umpire having to make a decision about a subsequent MTO.  

In those circumstances it is obvious that courtesy to the other player, general fairness, courtesy to the crowd, managing the match to ensure that MTO's are taken properly, and even fairness to the 'injured' player to avoid him being booed all point in one direction.  Good Judgement by the umpires involves acting within the rules to impart basic information about the reason for any MTO - not a medical diagnosis or a running commentary of the treatment, but basic general information.  At the very least this communicates that the Umpire is keeping tabs with his/her duty.  

Wawrinka has obviously come to expect such good and courteous exercise of an Umpire's judgment and was a bit taken aback when in the biggest match of his life and doing better than he ever has done against Nadal he faces an MTO at a tactically adventitious time and is told in terms 'I am not going to tell you why' and then, 'I don't know why' - how can he know whether the Umpire is doing his duty to keep tabs on the reasons for MTO's?

Rules usually don't prescribe minutely every step to be taken, they set out the basic conduct required and the reasons for them and leave much of their application to Judgment.  In this case it is absolutely clear that the umpire must be able to know the reason for the MTO and should be willing to impart it's basic essence, not least because whether to allow a subsequent MTO may become very important and players want to know that umpires are doing their duty and keeping tabs on their opponent's entitlement.

Are you going to address these points?

barrystar. I think you agree that the MTO was legitimate and it was taken at a legitimate time. Obviously MTO's are not always taken at a time that is suitable for an opponent. Wawrinka may not have been happy with the timing but that is the rules. He may have been suspicious about the reasons but the trainer assessed Nadal and validated that a MTO was required. You have no evidence that the umpire wasn't "keeping tabs" on the situation and that if Nadal had required a future MTO it would have been dealt with according to the rules. You also agree that Wawrinka was wrong to think he had a right to know the reasons for the MTO.

But you think out of "courtesy" to the crowd and "general fairness" because Wawrinka had a hissy fit and demanded to know information (that we both agree Wawrinka had no right to) the umpire should have given him some "basic" information about Nadal's injury? By not giving Wawrinka the information you are saying that the umpire was partially responsible for the crowd booing Nadal?

Is that correct? Just want to be clear before I address these points.

barrystar wrote:

Nadal was booed because he has a well-deserved reputation as a cheat which means that he does not get the benefit of too many doubts so, when he did something which was consistent with his general cheating conduct and reputation he was booed until it became obvious that the MTO was genuine.  The Umpire could have taken the heat out of the Wawrinka situation by sensibly telling him "it's his back" and maybe the crowd would have sensed it was genuine earlier - maybe not - but be in no doubt that Nadal was booed because of who he is and the reputation he has painstakingly built for himself.

hawkeye wrote:

YvonneT wrote:Ramos seemed to handle it fine to me. Wawrinka was allowed to ask, but was wrong that it was his right to be told (though I agree that a broad general explanation could be provided of why Nadal had left the court without disclosing anything confidential or tactically advantageous to Wawrinka).

I still don't see that he had a "hissy fit" though. On a hissy fit scale of 1 to 10 where 10 is McEnroe's worst outbursts, I'm struggling to award Stan even a 0.5 for his efforts.

I do agree that Ramos in the circumstances handled the situation well. Ha ha! and I do agree that Wawrinka could ask for information about Nadal's injury if he wanted. But you make it sound like he just said "What's wrong with Rafa?" and "Don't I have a right to be told" He did a little more than that. He acted as if he had suffered a great miss-justice. This is his "hissy fit". It takes a while to get going.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=m4QU6uMFMjA

I also think that Rafa has good PR  

falzy21 wrote: weve talked about this to death now anyway, youve gotta move it on.

HM Murdoch wrote:

falzy21 wrote: weve talked about this to death now anyway, youve gotta move it on.

OK.

If BA Baracus is so afraid of flying, how did he become part of a crack commando unit? Surely he would have failed basic training?

For that matter, how did he even get to Vietnam?

falzy21 wrote:Well in that case, id put JHM's hissy fit right up to 11

falzy21 wrote:I reckon it should be locked