Hissy Fits Tantrums And Miss-Trust Of The Umpire

First topic message reminder :

Umpires are meant to be there to ensure matches are played fairly and all players adhere to the rules. Just as the players are trained to compete umpires are trained to understand the rules of the game and how to apply them. Sometimes an umpires job is straightforward and sometimes their job can be a little more tricky especially were an element of judgement is called for. But the reason why umpires are considered necessary is because they are meant to be impartial and have sufficient authority and wisdom to be relied on to make such judgements in a fair and consistent manner.

However in pro tennis there is often much at stake and players with their powerful celebrity status are often reluctant to accept judgement calls from umpires or even the more straightforward application of the rules. From McEnroe's screams of "You cannot be serious" when an umpire judged a ball to be out to Wawrinka's hissy fit about an opponents legitimate MTO they are all attempts to undermine and influence umpires. Some players now even attempt to tell an umpire how they should be doing their job. For example telling an umpire before a match starts that they want them to pay particular attention to the amount of time their opponent takes between points and that they "want the rules to be enforced"

Are umpires dealing with players trying to influence the out come of matches effectively? Have umpires become less trusted? Has the balance of power shifted to far in the players favour making it difficult for umpires to do their job? How should umpires deal with a player who questions their authority? Are umpires swayed by players that shout the loudest to treat them more favourably?

My heart bleeds for them on top of that they get their expenses and the chance to travel the world.... its a tough life for keeping score.
I notice there are not many vacancies advertised the same old umpires at every tournament so it must be a pretty secure job me thinks  

hawkeye wrote:Umpires are meant to be there to ensure matches are played fairly and all players adhere to the rules. Just as the players are trained to compete umpires are trained to understand the rules of the game and how to apply them. Sometimes an umpires job is straightforward and sometimes their job can be a little more tricky especially were an element of judgement is called for. But the reason why umpires are considered necessary is because they are meant to be impartial and have sufficient authority and wisdom to be relied on to make such judgements in a fair and consistent manner.

However in pro tennis there is often much at stake and players with their powerful celebrity status are often reluctant to accept judgement calls from umpires or even the more straightforward application of the rules. From McEnroe's screams of "You cannot be serious" when an umpire judged a ball to be out to Wawrinka's hissy fit about an opponents legitimate MTO they are all attempts to undermine and influence umpires. Some players now even attempt to tell an umpire how they should be doing their job. For example telling an umpire before a match starts that they want them to pay particular attention to the amount of time their opponent takes between points and that they "want the rules to be enforced"

Are umpires dealing with players trying to influence the out come of matches effectively? Have umpires become less trusted? Has the balance of power shifted to far in the players favour making it difficult for umpires to do their job? How should umpires deal with a player who questions their authority? Are umpires swayed by players that shout the loudest to treat them more favourably?

I think you've mischaracterized Wawrinka's principal complaint, which was that the umpire wouldn't tell him why Nadal was leaving the court. Please note that (umpire) Ramos' first answer to Wawrinka's inquiry was to say that he WASN'T going to tell him - he then changed and he said he didn't know. Wawrinka's irritation had less to do with the fact that Nadal left the court, than the fact that umpire refused to explain the reason for doing so. Now, having said that, Wawrinka did mention in his presser after the final that it appeared Nadal was attending to his feet before getting treatment for his back, so it's a fair question for him to ask the umpire why he was going off the court. Furthermore, if you consider that the player only has himself as an advocate, AND he suspects that something untoward could be going on, and ON TOP OF THAT the umpire first says he "won't" tell him, THEN tells him he "doesn't" know, one can understand that Wawrinka was irritated more than a bit irritated, and well within his rights to be so, in my opinion. Then Ramos starts pontificating to him, saying that he can either accept his explanation or argue, and that Stan needed to accept it - well frankly that's not his business to tell Wawrinka what he should and shouldn't appeal - particularly since he himself, by his duplicitous explanations, has fed Wawrinka's questions and doubts.

It also didn't help that Wayne McEwan, the tournament referee, went on the court and immediately gave him the explanation of why Nadal went off the court, and also claimed that Ramos didn't know the explanation. That Ramos didn't know is implausible - after all, how can an umpire and referee ensure that the rules of on-court/off-court treatment are adhered to, if they don't know the nature of the injury in question? So Wawrinka reasonably asked, if McEwan can give him the reason, then why didn't Ramos?

Furthermore, I don't think there's anything wrong with a player standing up for himself - insisting that umpires enforce the rules as they are written is not unduly influencing the umpire - it is merely defending your right to play under one set of rules applied to all without regard to situation or the player himself. That's just a question of fairness. What is unfair is when a player who has been duly and fairly treated by the umpire complains about the proper application of the rules, because here the influence is undue, since the player risks causing the umpire NOT to apply the rules fairly and consistently, and that's not fair to his opponent, nor all the other competitors in the competition.

Even the tirade that you refer to in isolation is an unfair characterization of McEnroe in that particular situation, I might add.

MMT1. You are talking rubbish! The umpire doesn't have to tell a player what their opponents injuries are. The umpire told Wawrinka that he wasn't going to tell him. He told him the injury discussion was between Rafa and the trainer and that he didn't know what the injury  was. But that didn't mean Wawrinka had any right to know even if the umpire did or that the umpire would have told him.

Seriously you really believe that an umpire must give information about an injury. Have you ever seen that happen? Ha ha! "Your opponent has a bad back. It hurts when he goes for low balls and his serve will be slow. You should hit a lot of slice and will be able to tee off on the serve"

I didn't hear the supervisor give details of the injury and I watched it on replay. But if he did he was in the wrong. Nadal would have cause for complaint.

I would be very surprised if Wawrinka didn't know this. How long has he been a pro player? If He did he was attempting to get information that he had no right to hear.

I've been following this thread and it's been interesting. I don't know the rules on this so haven't commented. I know HE tendency to turn everything around but I would like clarification about informing opponents about why someone is having a MTO. Can anyone find and quote a ruling?

From Stan's press conference
"Normally when the physio is coming on the court, the umpire always say the opponent why he's coming."
 
That is also what Stan said to the umpire during the MTO. It's fair to say Stan has more experience of this than hawkeye, so either a) "the umpire always say the opponent why he's coming." or b) Stan is lying.
I think we can rule out b)
It may be that the umpire is not obliged to tell the opponent, but clearly it is common practice to such an extent that Stan expected it.
Perhaps the consistency of the umpires is the problem.
 
btw "MMT1. You are talking rubbish!" - sounds like a hissy fit to me.

Johnyjeep wrote:I've been following this thread and it's been interesting. I don't know the rules on this so haven't commented. I know HE tendency to turn everything around but I would like clarification about informing opponents about why someone is having a MTO. Can anyone find and quote a ruling?

The ATP and ITF rules differ as noted here - https://www.606v2.com/t51360-mto-s#2495226

ATP has reference to public announcements, while ITF does not mention any in the quoted sections - here is full ITF reference (http://www.itftennis.com/media/136151/136151.pdf - Note: This will open a PDF document on your network connected device).

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:

When the chair umpire decides to call for the physiotherapist, the chair umpire
shall announce:
“The physiotherapist has been called to the court.”
After a three (3) minute time-out is authorized, the chair umpire should make the
public announcement of:
“Mr..________________is now receiving a medical time-out.”
The following announcements are to be made privately to the physiotherapist and
both players/teams:
“Two (2) minutes remaining”
“One (1) minute remaining”
“Thirty (30) seconds remaining”
“Treatment complete”
“Time” (public)
Once the “Treatment complete” notice has been given to the physiotherapist and
both players/teams, then if needed, the player should be given the time necessary
to put on socks and shoes before “Time” is called.
If there is no play after an additional thirty (30) seconds, the delay is penalized in
accordance with the Point Penalty Schedule.

I think the umpire more or less does this - I think he missed some of countdown, but then Wawrinka is talking to the tournament referee.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yJmvdIpr068

Personally, I don't think he should be told anything about Nadal's treatment, but it should be made clear that it is one medical time-out (as more than one can be taken consecutively) and the time until play recommences made clear.

Maybe they do normally give more info for a off-court MTO - that's where I came down to supporting barrystar's thoughts on MTOs. In some instances, a player can be left waiting with no real idea of when they need to be ready to restart play. The incidence with Azarenka in the semi at the AO was a case in point - Azarenka went off for treatment and held all the cards as to when play would restart and Stephens had about a 10 minute wait before having to serve to stay in the match. I think in that instance, the treatment went over 3 mins but the time to get to the locker room and back was added on too.

Also, having reviewed the footage, that was one of the least "hissy-fit" player-umpire disagreements I have ever seen.

Maybe we need a best hissy-fit thread - nothing better than one in a gorgeous French accent:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=z8LqFOMNmiY

I also noticed that Gasquet uses the same phrase as Wawrinka - "all the other umpires tell me". Umpires falling for that must be like parents that fall for their teenager's "but all my friends' parents are letting them go to this party"...

So maybe Stan and Richard were indeed lying in order to try to gain an advantage. If so it comes back to my point that there are plenty of players out there who are willing to cheat/lie - and it follows that they would also not be above calling for an MTO for tactical reasons. Hence the idea of losing a point when calling for an MTO is not a bad idea. Just enough of a deterrent to the bad guys without being too draconian on the genuine MTOs.

I don't know how many matches Stan played where the opponent took an MTO, but I'd imagine the number where the MTO was off-court would be pretty low. For those where the MTO was on-court, then he could see the treatment for himself. The few that were off-court, maybe he was given an idea of why the treatment needed to be off-court, if not specific details of the treatment - that would seem courteous to me. I don't think he's lying - it just made me laugh that Gasquet said exactly the same thing.

The full quote from the press conference

Q.  Why did you go on so long with him?
STANISLAS WAWRINKA:  Because I just wanted to know what was the problem of Rafa.  Because before he ask the physio for me, he was checking his feet.  I didn't know really what was the problem.

Normally when the physio is coming on the court, the umpire always say the opponent why he's coming.  He didn't want to tell me, so I get peed, and I think it's my (indiscernible.)

http://www.ausopen.com/en_AU/news/interviews/2014-01-26/201401261390744287838.html

Wawrinka is just repeating what he said to the umpire. Saying it twice doesn't make it correct. He is still wrong The umpire isn't always telling an opponent WHY a physio is coming. The umpire explained the rules clearly to Wawrinka. Wawrinka had a hissy fit because he thought he knew better than the umpire or because he wanted information he was not entitled to.

I thought it interesting that someone from the press also asked him this

Q.  You had a long conversation with the umpire while he was having his back treated.  Your language is French, the umpire speaks French.  Yet you had it in English.  Did you want us to hear it?
STANISLAS WAWRINKA:  No, I didn't know he was speaking French.  We always speak English together.  But what did you hear?



Q.  We heard it all.
STANISLAS WAWRINKA:  So you don't need my answer.

The implication being that they suspected the hissy fit was for the benefit of the English speaking audience and viewers.

If so that really is weaselly!

YvonneT. I don't know the details of the Azarenka time out but the medical time out period of three minutes only starts after the assessment period and the assessment period isn't a fixed period of time. It depends on how long the trainer takes to figure out what's wrong.

I think it's been demonstrated that there is no ITF rule whatsoever which compels an umpire to tell a player the exact medical reason why his opponent has taken an MTO.

Wawrinka behaved like an ass. He lied because an umpire does not "always say why he is coming", it's over a week since this happened so stop trying to paint Wawrinka as some sort of saint being wronged when clearly he is not. When the TD came back out Wawrinka was told that "it's his back" which was information clearly at the TD's disposal because he'd been witness to what was going on whilst Ramos was not. This was information given to Wawrinka probably in an attempt to pacify the whinge and shut him up when there is no obligation whatsoever to give it to him. The umpire was right, Wawrinka was wrong.

hawkeye wrote:I thought it interesting that someone from the press also asked him this

Q.  You had a long conversation with the umpire while he was having his back treated.  Your language is French, the umpire speaks French.  Yet you had it in English.  Did you want us to hear it?
STANISLAS WAWRINKA:  No, I didn't know he was speaking French.  We always speak English together.  But what did you hear?


Q.  We heard it all.
STANISLAS WAWRINKA:  So you don't need my answer.

The implication being that they suspected the hissy fit was for the benefit of the English speaking audience and viewers.

If so that really is weaselly!

You really do reach some very odd conclusions about the players who beat Rafa. Do they all get put on some sort of 'hate list'?

Cav wrote:I think it's been demonstrated that there is no ITF rule whatsoever which compels an umpire to tell a player the exact medical reason why his opponent has taken an MTO.

Wawrinka behaved like an ass.  He lied because an umpire does not "always say why he is coming", it's over a week since this happened so stop trying to paint Wawrinka as some sort of saint being wronged when clearly he is not.  When the TD came back out Wawrinka was told that "it's his back" which was information clearly at the TD's disposal because he'd been witness to what was going on whilst Ramos was not.  This was information given to Wawrinka probably in an attempt to pacify the whinge and shut him up when there is no obligation whatsoever to give it to him.  The umpire was right, Wawrinka was wrong.

 
You're twisting the argument Cav. Who's painting Stan as a saint? What's more reasonable - that Stan expected to be told what was wrong and was genuinely upset (rightly or wrongly) when not told, or that he came up with a lie in a quick-thinking moment of hoping to gain some knowledge to his advantage.
 
Apparently we've gone from a thread supposedly about all players, one on which talking about Rafa got people's backs up because we're not supposed to single players out, to the real reason for the thread, which was fairly obvious to start with - to have a go at the player who beat Rafa.

Thankfully at least Rafa himself took the defeat graciously.

hawkeye wrote: OK I give up! I may as well have titled this thread "Rafa Once Had A Hissy Fit And Tantrum (possibly in 2011) Because He Miss-Trusted The Umpire" Maybe laverfan could do some research and watch all Rafa's old matches in full and cross reference the data to prove that he has had a hissy fit on more than one occasion proving he is the worst offender and that he had no grounds for his disagreements. Unlike other players who only have hissy fits and tantrums when they have genuine complaints because their opponent is Rafa...

Is everyone happy now?

Poor Hawkeye got bullied here for being die hard Rafa fan  , but wait don't you do the same thing for Murray fans and pull most of Fed fans   

Why do they have to go off to receive treatment is it because they have to pull down their shorts or something? If the treatment was on court then Wawrinka could get off his chair, hover over Nadal receiving the treatment, point and jeer and laugh.

Nore Staat wrote:Why do they have to go off to receive treatment is it because they have to pull down their shorts or something?  If the treatment was on court then Wawrinka could get off his chair, hover over Nadal receiving the treatment, point and jeer and laugh.

Comment of the week    

Typically (and no rules state this), but the evaluation is an on-court one, before the MTO starts, which can be on- or off-court, depending on the medical evaluation.

I think MMT1's post is excellent. And makes a very good point. That the umpire's handling of it is very very poor. From what i've seen Wawrinka's anger stems not from Nadal leaving the court but from the umpire not telling the truth.

To say to Stan..I don't know what the problem means he is either lying or he has let Nadal off court without doing his job. That to be honest this warrants a bit of a 'hissy fit'. Saying that I've seen my kettle have a bigger 'hissy fit' than Stan did. If the umpire had said - he's got a problem with his back. There would have been no issue. There you go - 7 words. Why wouldn't the umpire say that? What is to hide? He has in essence got himself and Stan into a tangle.

Poster's are pointing out that the rules do not state he HAS to tell Stan the injury. Conversley they do not state that he can't. Ambiguity in a contract always favours the party that didn't draw up the contract! Professional players will know far better than us (sorry HE that includes you) what the 'unwritten' rules are regarding letting players know why there is MTO. In cricket for example, umpires are not obliged to give an explanation for their decisions. Yet - more often than not - they will. Why? Because it just arouses suspicion when you don't.

All being told..it's a mountain out of a mole hill. And completely unsuprising given the identity of the defeated player.

Did Ramos actually not know why Rafa had left the court then?

If he'd made a technical blunder and allowed a MTO without knowing the reason, that might explain his rather cryptic response to Stan? It would also explain why the tournament referee told Stan that Ramos didn't know the reason.

hawkeye wrote:
I thought it interesting that someone from the press also asked him this

Q.  You had a long conversation with the umpire while he was having his back treated.  Your language is French, the umpire speaks French.  Yet you had it in English.  Did you want us to hear it?
STANISLAS WAWRINKA:  No, I didn't know he was speaking French.  We always speak English together.  But what did you hear?



Q.  We heard it all.
STANISLAS WAWRINKA:  So you don't need my answer.

The implication being that they suspected the hissy fit was for the benefit of the English speaking audience and viewers.

If so that really is weaselly!

Classic disingenuous debating here - Wawrinka is damned if he does and damned if he doesn't. You can imagine that if he'd tried to conduct the conversation in French he'd be accused of trying to keep his attempt to twist the umpire secret from the majority English listeners.

MMT1 has hit the nail on the head - the umpire should not have said he wouldn't tell and then that he didn't know. It seems to me that if someone seeks the indulgence of an MTO he/she ought to accept that the opponent who is forced to wait is entitled to know in broad terms what the position is. I suspect that good umpires do just that as good management.

HM Murdoch wrote:Did Ramos actually not know why Rafa had left the court then?

If he'd made a technical blunder and allowed a MTO without knowing the reason, that might explain his rather cryptic response to Stan? It would also explain why the tournament referee told Stan that Ramos didn't know the reason.

I'm inclined to go with your second response HMM. It makes the most sense and explains why he was caught on the hop and, like I'm sure everyone has experienced in their life time, lying only makes matters worse!

Umpires are only human and make mistakes. That's as sure as night following day. Or day following night! It was all fair game if you ask me. And only Nadal will know if his actions were pure.

barrystar wrote:

hawkeye wrote:
I thought it interesting that someone from the press also asked him this

Q.  You had a long conversation with the umpire while he was having his back treated.  Your language is French, the umpire speaks French.  Yet you had it in English.  Did you want us to hear it?
STANISLAS WAWRINKA:  No, I didn't know he was speaking French.  We always speak English together.  But what did you hear?



Q.  We heard it all.
STANISLAS WAWRINKA:  So you don't need my answer.

The implication being that they suspected the hissy fit was for the benefit of the English speaking audience and viewers.

If so that really is weaselly!

Classic disingenuous debating here - Wawrinka is damned if he does and damned if he doesn't.  You can imagine that if he'd tried to conduct the conversation in French he'd be accused of trying to keep his attempt to twist the umpire secret from the majority English listeners.

MMT1 has hit the nail on the head - the umpire should not have said he wouldn't tell and then that he didn't know.  It seems to me that if someone seeks the indulgence of an MTO he/she ought to accept that the opponent who is forced to wait is entitled to know in broad terms what the position is.  I suspect that good umpires do just that as good management.

It's one of the more preposterous things HE has come out with IMO..and that's saying something. Being chastised for speaking English in an English speaking country. You couldn't make it up.

It's actually quite smart and quick thinking from Stan if you ask me!!

It's an easy, albeit silly, trap for Ramos to fall into.

It was clear Rafa was struggling physically. Ramos probably already suspected (along with most commentators) that Rafa would need attention. So when a time out is requested, he agrees and then when Stan asks the reason, Ramos suddenly realises he forgot to ask!

But I agree the incident is something out of nothing. Rafa clearly was genuinely in pain. Stan wasn't harmed either in the short or long term.

Silly mistake but worse things happen at sea!

Does Ramos even need to know exactly what Nadal was being treated for? So long as the trainer confirms that there is a treatable medical issue, an MTO is allowed.

The language thing is nonsense though, and I'm not sure why the journalist made an issue of that. It's not like French is Ramos's first language and anyway if an umpire speaks to one player in a language other than English, then he is meant to summarise the conversation in English to the other player. So the players are just used to holding these conversations in English.

Wawrinka didn't have a "hissy fit" but he was wrong that he had a right to know. It wasn't like he held up play to make his point though so there's nothing wrong with him questioning what was going on - if I was in his position, I'd have wanted clarity on what was happening too.

Not sure Yvonne. Is the trainer impartial? Or are they part of Rafa's camp? If part of Rafa's camp - then I would say yes. Ramos should be asking. If no - then maybe not.

But I would suggest he should if nothing out of courtesy. Ramos is in charge of the game. I would imagine he has to give his authority in order for the player to have a MTO? Therefore he should know all information relating to it - regardless of how obvious it is or isn't. So, if there is a query from the opposing player, he is in a position to answer it without getting heated. It's all about transparency. There is no need to not give the information - so give it. Otherwise it could appear like gamesmanship or at worst cheating.

It was poor umpiring - a mistake - nothing more, which didn't ultimately have any impact on the result.

As I said earlier the response - it's his back - would have kept everyone happy!

The trainer is independent.

There is an argument that medical information should not be shared with an opponent who can then potentially use that information to his advantage. I have to say i was very surprised when Stan said he was entitled to that information and even more surprised when he was actually told.

 It's very difficult to debate an issue when so many refuse to acknowledge what the rules are.

The umpire is not given details about a players injury. The trainer makes an assessment and decides if treatment is appropriate. The time taken to make an assessment is not included in the treatment time. If treatment is appropriate the trainer will tell the umpire the time treatment starts (NOT what the treatment is for or what the treatment is). The umpires job is to inform the crowd that an MTO is being taken and details about the timing.

When Nadal took the MTO the correct procedure was followed. It was taken at change of ends. The trainer came on and made an initial assessment and the trainer decided that it would be more appropriate to continue the assessment off court. Then the trainer informed the umpire via phone/radio when he had started the treatment time. The umpire acted correctly and kept everyone including Wawrinka informed of the timing.

I am surprised that an ATP player with as much experience as Wawrinka isn't familiar with the rules. But even if he wasn't ignorance is no excuse because the umpire told him correctly that he didn't know details of the injury and that Wawrinka wasn't entitled to be given this information by the trainer. IMO the idea that Wawrinka thought he would be told is so far fetched as to be laughable.

So why did he have a hissy fit? He definitely gained from it if the superviser gave him information he was not entitled to. And he also gained from it by getting the crowd on his side. Not only was his opponent injured but he was loudly booed when he returned. Was this deliberate? Who knows but at least one journalist at his press conference was a little suspicious.

It's a shame that Wawrinka didn't watch Nadal's first round match against Tomic because Tomic took a MTO in virtually the same circumstances. Tomic saw the trainer at change of ends, was assessed on court, the trainer continued the assessment off court, the trainer gave treatment and the umpire informed the crowd about the timing. Neither the umpire, nor Nadal, nor the spectators were given details about Tomics injury. Nadal just sat trying to maintain concentration until his opponent returned  

This thread is like poking a dead pigeon to see if it's actually dead.

The umpire should've better managed the situation. Simples

legendkillarV2 wrote:This thread is like poking a dead pigeon to see if it's actually dead.

The umpire should've better managed the situation. Simples

The umpire did his job perfectly and with good humor. Wawrinka should read the rule book and watch Nadal during Tomic's MTO as a perfect example of how to behave... and IMO feel ashamed 

Yes, Rafa is a saint and Stan is a lousy weasel and the fact that you are a die-hard Rafa fan and Stan beat him in his 'holy grail' match has nothing to do with your opinion.

Why should he feel ashamed? He asked the question and the umpire fluffed it. Even though there is no rule that says the umpire has to disclose the injury, the umpire could've handled it a bit better.

You only have to go by the crowd's reaction really to see why Stan asked the question. I know I did the moment he called for the MTO. Let's be honest Nadal didn't show the level of discomfort when he went off court compared to when he returned.

Born Slippy wrote:

There is an argument that medical information should not be shared with an opponent who can then potentially use that information to his advantage. I have to say i was very surprised when Stan said he was entitled to that information and even more surprised when he was actually told.

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.

It's is pretty clear the umpire didn't do his job perfectly. Unless you think giving out disinformation to a player is perfect??

Maybe Stan did act inappropriately. But that is a fairly understandable reaction to be dealt with inappropriately. I would say the rules are ambiguous. If this circumstance has arisen before in a game where Stan has been playing and he's told the information then it's reasonable to assume he might think he is entitled to it. It doesn't say anywhere in the rules he isn't. And it doesn't say he is. I would also doubt that all players - regardless of time spent on the tour - know every nook and cranny of the rule book.  

HE why is the umpire authorising something (the MTO - he has to authorise it as per the rules) if he knows nothing about the circumstances leading up to it? The alternative is - he just said OK on a whim, which I'm sure didn't happen. Wawrinka behaved fine. Why on God's green Earth should he feel ashamed?! His actions had no bearing on the result or flow of the match. Other than the quality of his tennis. He sat there and debated the point.

I take the point made by some posters about keeping it confidential on the grounds of giving the other player an advantage. But that seems at odds with the point of having a MTO i.e. just going off court without prior letting the opponent know what the issue is - by not having some treatment courtside - would be very very difficult! Because surely the umpire would only let them off court when there is absolutely no other alternative.

I'm sure I don't need to point out that Tomic's MTO didn't happen in 'virtually the same circumstances'. I could provide a list of all the circumstances that were different if you would like? I'll start with:

1) one was a first round match. The other was a Grand Slam final. So the stakes were just a little higher.

Of course, Rafa's steadfast refusal to ask the umpire to announce what Tomic's MTO was for left the crown uninformed, and led to them booing poor Tomic. Very poor form from Rafa there - contributing to the circumstances that led to his opponent getting booed. Was it an oversight, mischievous or downright weasley of the Spaniard?

Sorry, thought I was hawkeye for a minute. I take it all back.

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?

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?

Do you think they'll get the 2-year ranking system while they're at it?

Well it's done now isn't it. As HE said on another thread we are living in the past. Let's move forward!

Johnyjeep. I can only suggest you read the ATP rule book. It's a pdf file available from here

http://www.atpworldtour.com/Corporate/Rulebook.aspx

The rules are the same for any match  

hawkeye wrote:Johnyjeep. I can only suggest you read the ATP rule book. It's a pdf file available from here

http://www.atpworldtour.com/Corporate/Rulebook.aspx

The rules are the same for any match  

If that is the case why do the 4 Grand Slams bother to publish the OFFICIAL GRAND SLAM RULE BOOK on the ITF website?

SO who actually thought Wawrinka actually had a 'Hissy Fit'?


I think almost no-one, so this is really just a one person rant it seems

It's a one person hissy fit - and I don't mean Wawrinka

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?

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     

Haha love it. Genius HE - you really do have me confused as to whether you do this intentially.

So you are suddenly an advocate of the ATP rules and regulations? What about their ranking rules and regulations? That you said were so 'unfair and cruel'? Can't remember the name of the chap who you said they'd had an adverse effect on! Not to mention the old time inbetween points. The rules clearly state he doesn't have to be given a second 'warning' once the first violation has been given. Doesn't stop seasoned pro's having a gripe about this (or perhaps not even knowing the rules?). But anyway I digress for the purposes of humour!

Additionally and fairly obviously the rules are the same in each match. You didn't say this. You said the the circumstances were virtually identical. The circumstances are what affect a players behaviour. Not the rules. That is why the instance with Wawrinka was nothing like Nadal's and not remotely comparable.

As for MTO's. Again, very ambiguous. There is nothing to say the umpire can or cannot tell the opposing player the extent of the injury. It certainly doesn't state that the umpire cannot tell the opponent player nor does it state the the opposing player cannot ask.

So HE you are banding around the rules without really knowing them. The only slight err on Stan's size is saying he has to tell him. I can't see anywhere where it states that. However it also equally wrong to say that the umpire CANNOT tell him.

However no one, it would appear, broke any rules. Unless someone can refer me to a section I may have missed.

The fact still remains - it was very poorly handled by the Umpire! As in effect - he was wrong by saying - he cannot tell him.

Excellent post Barrystar.

hawkeye wrote:Johnyjeep. I can only suggest you read the ATP rule book. It's a pdf file available from here

http://www.atpworldtour.com/Corporate/Rulebook.aspx

The rules are the same for any match  

The rules for Slams and ATP Tour are different. Turron, and I have quoted these, a couple of times. I have also mentioned them in this thread.

I like the Dead Pigeon analogy. Is it done yet?

laverfan wrote:

hawkeye wrote:Johnyjeep. I can only suggest you read the ATP rule book. It's a pdf file available from here

http://www.atpworldtour.com/Corporate/Rulebook.aspx

The rules are the same for any match  

The rules for Slams and ATP Tour are different. Turron, and I have quoted these, a couple of times.  I have also mentioned them in this thread.

Not dramatically so - the points I make lie equally for both sets of rules, and HE's position is equally disingenuous whichever set of rules you look at.

@Barry… I quite agree. Ramos could have avoided this little faux-pas if he was a bit more diplomatic. Nadal, very courteously allows his opponent to walk to their seat (with an odd exception), and if I were the umpire, instead of Ramos, I would have switched off my microphone and provided a polite answer to Wawrinka.