Research into the use of the time violation rule - NEW petition expessing concern about it's inconsistant use

First topic message reminder :

I am doing a little research into the application of the time violation rule. Players are meant to take no more than 25 seconds between points. If they take longer they are meant to be given a warning on the first violation and on subsequent ones lose a first serve. It is proving difficult to find information on the number of penalties handed out and if the rule is being enforced correctly. If anyone is interested maybe they could help?

I would like to know of any instances when players have received a warning or loss of first serve and what the score was at the time.

How often players go over 25 seconds without being penalized.

The first question could be perhaps partly answered from memory and partly from noting new incidents

The second question could be answered by watching parts of any match and timing a few points. I've found this easy to do by using the timer that appears when you rewind or slow live TV as it shows the seconds but a watch or clock would work fine. According to the ATP rule book timing should start when the ball goes out of play and stop when the ball is struck for the next point. I have gathered some information but it's impossible to watch all matches so any information would be useful. 



NEW petition expressing concern about the inconsistent use of the time violation rule

Time limits for tennis players? Time for a response - a request to the ATP & ITF

We want to bring to your urgent attention the fact that growing numbers of tennis fans are raising serious concerns about the inconsistent application of the Time Violation Warning rule in ATP and ITF tournaments. This is beginning to spoil our enjoyment of this exceptional sport.

Umpires are currently issuing warnings randomly and arbitrarily, with some players who persistently go over the time limit not being penalised, and others regularly being given a warning.

In addition, it has been noted that the first warning of a match is suddenly given at a crucial point in a game - e.g. at break point - even when the time has been exceeded previously. We are concerned that this practice could significantly alter the outcome of a match.

We, the undersigned, urge you to find a way of regularising the application of the rule and respectfully request a formal response to the specific concerns highlighted in this petition.

Thank you.

http://www.ipetitions.com/petition/time-limits-for-tennis-players-time-for-a

It also shows that both players were treated equally. I don't see any evidence of corruption in this match.

I think Nadal is making the changes to meet the rules. I think I said this some time ago, and that it is having a damaging impact on his game.

It is speculation to imagine how matters might have played out had the rules been enforced for the last 10 years.

If it had been enforced the last 10 years I imagine the result would have been nearly the same. My evidence is having watched tennis the last 10 years. Three seconds a point would never have saved Fed from the drubbings he got.

Tennis wins matches, not the inbetween stuff, to try and take away achievement like this is the greatest of disrespects to both the player and the game.

bogbrush wrote:I think Nadal is making the changes to meet the rules. I think I said this some time ago, and that it is having a damaging impact on his game.

Look I hate to point this out, but he's still breaking the rules.
He was quicker between points in 2013.

OK, Murray took longer than him in this match, but in general he probably takes marginally longer in between points than Murray.

I haven't been on the forum for a couple of days, and I just wanted to come back to something from a while back.

I said that time violations should not be given for racket breaking, and was questioned a bit for that comment....I wasn't referring to the Dimitrov incident specifically. And what I was thinking at the time was a string break, that was what was on my mind. I think if a player's string breaks I wouldn't penalise them for going over 20-30 seconds, that wouldn't be reasonable.

If they have broken a racket that is a bit different. I think I wouldn't be in favour of giving them a warning for breaking the racket itself and then another for time...all hell would break loose, it would need a brave umpire anyway. Of course, that does mean that in theory you could break a racket after a long point before a break point to gain an advantage, but life's never going to be that perfect.

bogbrush wrote:I think Nadal is making the changes to meet the rules. I think I said this some time ago, and that it is having a damaging impact on his game.

It is speculation to imagine how matters might have played out had the rules been enforced for the last 10 years.

Which may well have significantly affected others as well.. during that ten year period Novak was bouncing the ball up to 23 times to my knowledge as I counted them every time he played.. we will never know what difference it would have made, the rule was not enforced and that applied to everyone.

This is the only time Ill do this, heres the code. You need to put it into the statistical package "R"

#vectors for input of times, r for nadal, m for murray#
r<-c(28.9,26.8,27.4,30.4,24.5,25.6,22.9,23.2,32,28.5,27.3,19.7,
28.8,26.7,22.2,24.3,27.9,35.6,33.6,32.2,27.9,31.6,28.8,27.7,27.7,37.6,31.5,
28.7,27.8,26.3,26,26.2,27.2,26.8,24.7)

m<-c(23.2,24.3,24.2,24.4,31.1,33.6,29.2,22.1,29.4,28.7,30.9,28.8,
31.5,33,33.9,23.2,30.9,26.5,26.3,24.4,31.5,32.9,25.8,26.7,
18.8,25.7,22.9,29.4,30,29.1,26.6,31,31,21.1,29.7,33.8,30.1,31)


#mean and variance of rafas#
mean(r)
sqrt(var(r))

#number of times gone over time as proportion
rp<-r[r>25]
length(rp)/length(r)

#average amount of time over#
mean(rp)-25



mean(m)
sqrt(var(m))

mp<-m[m>25]
length(mp)/length(m)
mean(mp)-25

Haddie-nuff wrote:Am I surprised ?  
Nothing more to be said I take it ???

Not really - both players were equally wrong, both received the same punishment i.e. none.
No bias shown toward one player, and as I have consistently said - equal offenders tend to be treated equally. This match supports my view that overall, the punishments have been fairly given.
I'd rather they had both received one warning, but I would not have liked to see them both get about 20 warnings - which is what would have happened if the umpire enforced it strictly.

What could be done, of course, is to take a larger sample of all players' matches.

Henman Bill wrote:I haven't been on the forum for a couple of days, and I just wanted to come back to something from a while back.

I said that time violations should not be given for racket breaking, and was questioned a bit for that comment....I wasn't referring to the Dimitrov incident specifically. And what I was thinking at the time was a string break, that was what was on my mind. I think if a player's string breaks I wouldn't penalise them for going over 20-30 seconds, that wouldn't be reasonable.

If they have broken a racket that is a bit different. I think I wouldn't be in favour of giving them a warning for breaking the racket itself and then another for time...all hell would break loose, it would need a brave umpire anyway. Of course, that does mean that in theory you could break a racket after a long point before a break point to gain an advantage, but life's never going to be that perfect.

Perhaps instead of giving two warnings. Just give one, more serious warning, for both breaking your equipment and holding up play while you sulk about it.

I also decided to time some points today. I didn't realise someone was doing a more comprehensive analysis or I might not have bothered, I suppose it is borderline redundant now, but might as well post now I've done it.

I took 8 points in today's 2nd set, for each player, never the first point of the game.

Murray 31, 27, 26, 34, 37, 41, 33, 22. Av 31 seconds.
Nadal 29, 30, 29, 29, 28, 29, 28, 24. Av 28 seconds.

Murray's 37 seconds was after a double fault, and the 41 seconds might have been the point after, and there was some discussion with the umpire about the scoreboard, and some crowd noise. If we remove those points in agreement with the above methodology then in fact my results are in agreement with those posted above, for both players, to within about one second average, despite small sample size.

Well, if nothing else, it should confirm that the results posted above were accurate.

The one time Murray served 22 seconds was the second point of the game, I think after a change of ends when he served for the match, and the first point was not returned, so with no physical recovery required, it was no surprise that it was shorter.

I imagine julius though that theres a lot of rule breaking here. Were not saying Rafa should be given any less warnings, but its starting to look like more should be given out in general.

JuliusHMarx wrote:

Haddie-nuff wrote:Am I surprised ?  
Nothing more to be said I take it ???

Not really - both players were equally wrong, both received the same punishment i.e. none.
No bias shown toward one player, and as I have consistently said - equal offenders tend to be treated equally. This match supports my view that overall, the punishments have been fairly given.
I'd rather they had both received one warning, but I would not have liked to see them both get about 20 warnings - which is what would have happened if the umpire enforced it strictly.

What could be done, of course, is to take a larger sample of all players' matches.

Well at last JHM we are on the same page.. my point precisely  Im not counting the warnings only that the penalty is metered out fairly

What is clear is that today Murray and Nadal were not cheating each other, or if they were they were doing so equally. However it does still leave open the question about whether they are cheating the viewing public by wasting their time.

The results to me are consistent with what I found when I did similar sampling some years ago which is that Murray, Djokovic and Nadal, and some other players, all consistently break the rule and one isn't vastly worse than the others. However Federer IS quicker so if one of the other three is playing against Federer, or some other faster player, the argument still remains that they are cheating him.

The comes the real kicker though. Does Roger play that quick because he respects the time rule? Or is it because his rhythms naturally very quick, being a super aggressive style.

Id need a whole match with him in it to bet any idea, but im not motivated nearly enough

I think they would only be cheating the public if tennis matches had a time limit. The crowd paid to see tennis for the evening, and thats what they got.

Henman Bill wrote:What is clear is that today Murray and Nadal were not cheating each other, or if they were they were doing so equally. However it does still leave open the question about whether they are cheating the viewing public by wasting their time.

The results to me are consistent with what I found when I did similar sampling some years ago which is that Murray, Djokovic and Nadal, and some other players, all consistently break the rule and one isn't vastly worse than the others. However Federer IS quicker so if one of the other three is playing against Federer, or some other faster player, the argument still remains that they are cheating him.

IMO HB I think that conclusion is a little harsh.. I really don't think it is the intention to cheat Federer not at all, if they consistently break that rule against all players then it cannot be seen as cheating when they play Fed. Do you honestly believe if Federer thought that, particularly in Rafa's case, he would have the respect for him that he does. I think not.

temporary21 wrote:I imagine julius though that theres a lot of rule breaking here. Were not saying Rafa should be given any less warnings, but its starting to look like more should be given out in general.

We should be careful of drawing conclusions from one match - but what I have asked for all along is evidence from the OP that Rafa was being unfairly targeted (to the point of corruption, apparently). Clearly he wasn't targeted in this match.

Whoa. They were both a full blown three seconds over...on average?!

Also this is based on one match, not sure we can say that anyone is definitively the 'worst offender' or not just from this. Perceptions do form for a reason, and the idea that Nadal (plus Novak, Murray & many others) take considerable time between points wasn't just plucked from the air.

But I agree, the rule should be applied to everyone. And it looks like there's a real problem with it, considering this was essentially a routine win for Murray according to the scoreline. Maybe we should convert the 606 tennis board into a hardcore group of stat hunters and find out

temporary21 wrote:The comes the real kicker though. Does Roger play that quick because he respects the time rule? Or is it because his rhythms naturally very quick, being a super aggressive style.

I would be confident in saying that both are factors, but the latter is vastly more relevant. He's just a quick player, and that's that - other players of his generation were often the same. It's just one of those things.

That being said he is a traditionalist when it comes to the laws and history of the sport ('we should go back to Bo5 for MS1000', etc), so I'd imagine he would be more likely to respect the rule than not regardless. Pure conjecture from me there, though.

I'd also say that you're not cheating a naturally quicker player just by being slower than him between points. That seems an odd conclusion to draw.

Not playing to the speed of the server, on the other hand, should result in an immediate warning initially & point deductions from the second offence onward. It's surprising how often I see it in matches, and it is never punished.

Two things we could say.  Either other players should be being warned more often. Or the fact that neither got a warning despite clearly being slower suggests you don't get a tv for being s little slower on average. Either you go way over time, something I've not seen. Or you get a warning for clusters of periods where you're too long. Which might explain more why it happens on bp a lot

I think this has been a very useful exercise and maybe one we should all monitor.. lets see what happens in Rome. I think it is right to say that Roger does have a pretty fast service preparation and interestingly so does Dimi (he has Rogers service action of to a tee even the ball bouncing is he same)...

When I played club tennis in the UK, it was fairly common to face servers who serve 10 seconds or less between points, and I found it slightly annoying, especially when I was still not quite in position, and have to quickly take a step when they go to throw the ball.

On another point, if we take the Federer-Nadal case, the argument is that Nadal runs further per point as a defensive player supposedly being forced to the corners, which in theory means that he is more tired per point and so needs more recovery time. But, as counter points, is that still true if HE is serving? Isn't he equally as likely to be on the front foot, and therefore Federer should run as far? The server is rarely running much in their first 2-3 shots whereas the returner may be pushed out wide and have to scramble out to the middle.

Plus, if Nadal is such a physical beast and using his superior physical fitness to his advantage, is there an argument that he should be playing the points as quickly as possible, if he has better physical conditioning he should be more able to cope? So, there is not really much of an argument that Rafa is cheating Federer with his slow serving. You can really see it both ways.

I make that point about Rafa cheating Federer, and it is technically true, but it is debatable how good a point it is, for the above reasons. Yes, he may be cheating him, but what does he really gain? I am not so sure.

He gives federer more time to recover between points too an invaluable asset for a 34 year old. If they both rushed I'd bet a lot in who tired quicker. Remember roger does a lot of running on return games

I think we all know that the way the rule is currently being applied players only get time violation on a tiny portion of their transgressions.  Falzy's data shows that between them, Andy and Rafa went over time limit at least 56 times, yet no time violation warning was given.  I suspect this is not so uncommon.

Prior to 2013, violation warnings were just about never given.  Now they are given a little bit more frequently - but still quite rarely.

I certainly think that in this match both players should have received multiple warnings (and indeed all players on tour should in general receive far more warnings than they currently do).  But I also agree with JHM that - at least - there is no indication of referee bias in today's match.  It is not like one of them was being given warnings and the other one was not.

Ten years ago? Notice that Rafa was alot quicker ten years ago. If they had enforced the rule then, I bet Rafa would remain his more aggressive self, the one who beat Fed at Miami in 2004, the one who beat Roddick at the DC final in 2004 and the one who pushed Hewitt to at least two TB sets at AO2004 and to five sets at AO2005!

Its regrettable that Toni had asked Rafa to slow down, and Rafa had pushed it to the extreme. A more aggressive Rafa is certainly a joy to watch, and I do enjoy his matches back then even when he lost to his seniors, and his 2008-2010 and his 2013 seasons where he played some more aggressive tennis.

Andy certainly seemed on a go-slow yesterday! I wonder how that compares with his normal speed or whether he sought to match Rafa's pace?

He had TV in Barcelona.

Another perspective is not to count TVs but count the number of times the player across the net complains to umpire about a specific player or has to wait to serve.

There is a very famous Federer interview with Sue Barker and clips of a match interview, with Becker and McEnroe, IIRC. It has been posted on v2 a few times. I can dig it up again. It is during one of Wimbledon's rain delays.

temporary21 wrote:The comes the real kicker though. Does Roger play that quick because he respects the time rule? Or is it because his rhythms naturally very quick, being a super aggressive style.

It also has to do with the surfaces one played more naturally on. Clay vs HC and Grass. If one player is fast, while the other is relatively slower, deliberate slowing is unsportspersonlike, no matter who is on the other side. Cheating is perhaps too strong a term to label it, and makes fans of players passive/aggressive as the case may be.

US Sports are also driven by broadcast TV (the other kind). I recall Dick Enberg on CBS trying to chase Del Potro to cut his victory speech down, for a commercial break, which is rather crude and crass. NBA has a shot clock, to avoid endless dribbling for one.

I used to watch 5-day Cricket test matches and when the match was heading for a draw, the two captains agreed to one, around tea. This meant I had no cricket from tea till sundown after being tied to a radio for almost 5+ days. T20 is now the other extreme.

OT, but I consider Packer (Kerry) an excellent businessman. His legacy of ODIs is why I consider him a visionary and an astute businessperson.

laverfan wrote:If one player is fast, while the other is relatively slower, deliberate slowing is unsportspersonlike, no matter who is on the other side. Cheating is perhaps too strong a term to label it, and makes fans of players passive/aggressive as the case may be.

No! The receiver has to play at the pace of the server.

Funny you chose to put it that way though. What about if one player is slow, while the other player is relatively fast? Don't you thing deliberately playing really quickly is "unportspersonlike" and only just inside cheating?

Wow! Great stuff temporary21

Henman Bill wrote:What is clear is that today Murray and Nadal were not cheating each other, or if they were they were doing so equally. However it does still leave open the question about whether they are cheating the viewing public by wasting their time.

Those questions should have been asked before the ATP made their rule. The rule already exists and both were breaking it. Not surprising because it is a rule that is broken regularly.

In this match neither player received a time violation despite going over the time frequently. This is nothing unusual. On the few occasions they are given they are on non crucial points and are a joke of a punishment. The only exception is Nadal who has lost sets and even matches on the back of frequent time violations handed out on crucial points. If the Umpire had removed a couple of Nadal's first serves on brake points during this match it would not be considered unusual. But if the Umpire had removed a couple of Murray's first serves on brake points it would be very unusual. IMO the reaction to this would differ too because there does appear to be a general(ish) consensus that the rule is intended for one player.

hawkeye wrote:The only exception is Nadal who has lost sets and even matches on the back of frequent time violations handed out on crucial points.

Am I allowed to laugh at that without running the risk of offending anyone?

Permission granted.

Let me join in

Watching the Isner/Nadal match. Isner serving at 4-4, 30-40 (break point) took 32 seconds with no time violation. Quite an achievement to take so long when all he had to do was shuffle a few feet to the side. Nadal serving for the match at 5-4, 15-30 (not a break point but about as near as Isner got to one) was given a time violation at 29 seconds. The commentator joked it's funny but whenever Nadal is given a time violation it's on a crucial point when he's serving for the match or serving to stay in it but he always saves it. Well the first part does appear to be true but the second part isn't. It's tricky to win crucial points when targeted with time violations. This time Nadal did though.

I didn't time other points as I'm sure they both went over 25 seconds regularly as most players do. The rule appears to be reserved for one player at particular points in a match. Odd!

Time violations are like one of those unwritten rules that shouldn't need explaining like picking up your litter or not going to a urinal next to someone else if you don't have to. It's hard to define but obvious to spot when it's being abused but people are appealing to the difficulty in defining it to excuse certain players violation of it.

It's like someone who used to post here said, if you hit the ball just a few mm out you lose the point. If you abuse the rule to get your energy back more than you should be allowed because you know no other way than running then you're surely making more of a difference than a few mm at the expense of your opponent who plays proper tennis and stays within the rules (not necessarily the written one but the one that should be obvious to most when it is violated).

Don't think it's the running and short of breath, more the thinking part. I see Isner also taking a bit of time on important point, and not after a long rally, likewise for Rafa, for examples. Many players take more time when serving for an important point. Ferrer is running like a rabbit, yet he doesn't take more than 25 secs to serve, and many times after long rallies too.

Yeah, its not physical. Its mental and sometimes gamesmanship. I play quickly and I've played players who slow down dramatically for big points. Its a great tactic to break up an opponent's rhythm.

break_in_the_fifth wrote:Time violations are like one of those unwritten rules that shouldn't need explaining like picking up your litter or not going to a urinal next to someone else if you don't have to. It's hard to define but obvious to spot when it's being abused but people are appealing to the difficulty in defining it to excuse certain players violation of it.

It's like someone who used to post here said, if you hit the ball just a few mm out you lose the point. If you abuse the rule to get your energy back more than you should be allowed because you know no other way than running then you're surely making more of a difference than a few mm at the expense of your opponent who plays proper tennis and stays within the rules (not necessarily the written one but the one that should be obvious to most when it is violated).

I'm not sure what you mean? Please explain. What was the difference between Isner taking 32 seconds and Nadal taking 29? The ATP can't have a rule if it's not clearly defined. If a ball is a few mm out it doesn't matter who hits it a few mm out or how often they still miss. Same for a player that rarely hits outside the court they don't get to keep the point when they miss just because they seldom do. The rule is quite clear.

Just catching a bit of Djokovic/Nishikori. Djokovic in a little bother whilst serving for the first set. Timed his last few points. 34, 30, 32, 27, 25 seconds between points with no time violation? After Djokovic saved two break points and the game the commentator said admiringly "Djokovic took a little extra time to prepare for each of those vital points and Boris (his coach) approves." But that's against the rules isn't it? Or is it only against the rules for one player? Odd.

Lol rafa given a TV on bp. HE will leap all over this.

LuvSports! wrote:Lol rafa given a TV on bp. HE will leap all over this.

And so she should

Oy vey.

I couldn't watch the Nadal/Wawrinka match but have just timed some relevant bits of the recording.

Nadal serving at 6-7, 1-1, 30-40 (break point) was given a time violation at 31 seconds. This was a pivotal part of the match as Wawrinka had all the momentum having won the first set on a tie break and Nadal would have been wobbling. He was given a huge shove with the targeted time violation. During that game he took 33, 25, 22, 26, 22, 26, 31 (break point/time violation), 23, 30 (break point/broken) seconds between points. A commentator said "It would be interesting to see how often Nadal gets a time violation on break point. Huh! But never in a tie break".

I timed Wawrinka on his next service game at 7-6, 2-1 and he took 20, 30, 19, 21, 26, 25, 23 seconds between points. He didn't face any break points and he wasn't given any time violations.

I also timed Warinka serving at 7-6, 4-1. He took 21, 24, 25, 24, 32 (break point), 27, 30 (break point), 27, 30 (break point), 23, 29 (break point), 31, 23, 26, 28, 26 seconds between points. He wasn't given any time violations.

There comes a point when involved in research were you have enough information to be able to predict what will happen. No one notices exactly how long a player takes between points without using a stop watch. Players go over 25 seconds so regularly without penalty that the rule should be considered practically redundant. It's only used to target Nadal on crucial points with time violations. Nadal suffering from targeted time violations has happened at the same time as his remarkable drop in mental strength and confidence when playing crucial points. The time violations in themselves can be damaging. Losing a first serve on a crucial point is no joke. But the cumulative effects are potentially even more damaging. That's before the effect of knowing you are being targeted and the feelings of anger/injustice/sadness/helplessness etc are factored in. It would have a major effect on most people.

I think there is enough evidence for Nadal and his team to question the ATP about the use of this rule. There is definitely enough evidence for an interested journalist to do some further investigation. Potentially it could be a big scoop. I certainly would be interested to know why the ATP have brought in a rule that appears to have been designed with the sole intention of disrupting one of their biggest players.

I've to agree that the TV on BP is targeted at Rafa, and I think they do it on purpose to punish him to make him speed up, as he's the slowest among all players. However, I think that's the main purpose and nothing else. As long as Rafa speeds up I don't think he'll get TV on BPs. It just happens that Rafa is already low in confidence, so the positive thing to do is to speed up and not feeling down and upset about it.

Rafa can play without much time delay, just like when he first came back to play in 2013 when they first enforced the rule. It's just that along the way, Rafa relaxed a bit and fell back to bad habits. His 2014 when he had his back injury didn't help things, as he needed more time before he serve when he's not feeling confident.

hawkeye wrote:I couldn't watch the Nadal/Wawrinka match but have just timed some relevant bits of the recording.

Nadal serving at 6-7, 1-1, 30-40 (break point) was given a time violation at 31 seconds. This was a pivotal part of the match as Wawrinka had all the momentum having won the first set on a tie break and Nadal would have been wobbling. He was given a huge shove with the targeted time violation. During that game he took 33, 25, 22, 26, 22, 26, 31 (break point/time violation), 23, 30 (break point/broken) seconds between points. A commentator said "It would be interesting to see how often Nadal gets a time violation on break point. Huh! But never in a tie break".

I timed Wawrinka on his next service game at 7-6, 2-1 and he took 20, 30, 19, 21, 26, 25, 23 seconds between points. He didn't face any break points and he wasn't given any time violations.

I also timed Warinka serving at 7-6, 4-1. He took 21, 24, 25, 24, 32 (break point), 27, 30 (break point), 27, 30 (break point), 23, 29 (break point), 31, 23, 26, 28, 26 seconds between points. He wasn't given any time violations.

There comes a point when involved in research were you have enough information to be able to predict what will happen. No one notices exactly how long a player takes between points without using a stop watch. Players go over 25 seconds so regularly without penalty that the rule should be considered practically redundant. It's only used to target Nadal on crucial points with time violations. Nadal suffering from targeted time violations has happened at the same time as his remarkable drop in mental strength and confidence when playing crucial points. The time violations in themselves can be damaging. Losing a first serve on a crucial point is no joke. But the cumulative effects are potentially even more damaging. That's before the effect of knowing you are being targeted and the feelings of anger/injustice/sadness/helplessness etc are factored in. It would have a major effect on most people.

I think there is enough evidence for Nadal and his team to question the ATP about the use of this rule. There is definitely enough evidence for an interested journalist to do some further investigation. Potentially it could be a big scoop. I certainly would be interested to know why the ATP have brought in a rule that appears to have been designed with the sole intention of disrupting one of their biggest players.

But he won that point when he got the time violation at break point down....
You should become a scientist will this overwhelming evidence.... "only nadal" - nonsense.

https://youtu.be/RMxRDTfzgpU

I'm sorry but what does him winning that point go to do with anything?

Because HE said this: "He was given a huge shove with the targeted time violation."
That "huge shove" resulted in Rafa saving the break point.

The fact that he went on to lose the game because of that is just pure conjecture.

This is a thread however researching when and who gets time violations and whether its consistent
Whether a player wins the next point is irrelevant as to whether theyre "targeted or not", HE's shove comment also has no bearing at all on what HE calls "overwhelming evidence". whether thats true or not, I dont actually give a monkeys anymore, constant negative talk about tennis tires you in the end, I suspect its tired you too.

That said if HE wants to keep doing these, theres nothing to stop her, lets not keep snarking ad laughing everytime because its only going to make things worse OK?

I won't laugh - I just think the 'Rafa is being targeted' stuff is a load of nonsense. Absolute and total rubbish. HE's 'evidence' does not convince me one bit.