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

Anyway there's not gonna be any agreement on this. Which is fair enough. Haddie and co, let's drop this one until something new comes up. We've a RG to sharpen our teeth on

hawkeye wrote:

summerblues wrote:Agree with LK.

When Rafa gets penalized most, the most natural conclusion is that he is the worst offender.  If the argument is that he is in fact not the worst offender but instead the rule is applied unfairly, the onus is to prove that it is so.

Have you read this thread?...

...So why are they choosing to only apply the rule to one player at crucial parts of a match?

But we do not have any evidence that is happening.  The closest to any "evidence" in that direction would be temp's timing of one match - but that is way too little to conclude that Rafa is not the worst, nor was there any time violation given to him in that match.

We know referees call TV only in a tiny fraction of the cases when players go over time.  We know that is true for every player - Rafa or otherwise.  To show examples of cases where Rafa gets TV after going 28 secs over time and examples of cases where another player does not get TV after 30 secs does not prove referee bias against Rafa.  To show there is bias, you would have to demonstrate that your examples form a representative sample.

temporary21 wrote:Anyway there's not gonna be any agreement on this. Which is fair enough. Haddie and co, let's drop this one until something new comes up. We've a RG to sharpen our teeth on

Well according to Simon Briggs in his biased article

All eyes will now be on Nadal’s matches in Paris next week. In theory, the grand slams operate a stricter policy of 20 seconds between points. But in practice – as in so many instances in this often quixotic sport – the rule is rarely enforced.

He's correct about the rule rarely being enforced but why should all eyes be on Nadal to keep within 20 second in RG and not other players? The whole thing stinks! If Nadal is targeted as he has been on crucial points it could affect the outcome of his matches. Obviously it won't affect other players as all eyes won't be on them.

Just watching Nishikori/Matheu. Nishikori in a little bother at 2-2 in the second set. Serving at 15-30 he took 29 seconds to compose himself before serving. Obviously no time violation and no talk by the commentators of Nishikori  "making a mockery of the rule book" because no one cares if Nishikori breaks the rules.

bogbrush wrote:
Given I'm sure you'd accept that Nadal was excused breaking the rules for years when he was one of the worst examples, what do you think has changed the sports attitude to him?

Nadal and other players continue to break the time violation rule. But your question about what has changed the sports attitude to him is a good one. Something must have lead the ATP and Umpires to ignore other players going over the time limit and give a rare time violation when it doesn't matter and to ignore Nadal going over the time limit except at crucial parts of matches. But I have no idea what has lead to this. Do you? Does anyone?

On t he subject of Nishi/Matheu (my husband who is no tennis fan) asked "what is taking him so long to serve".. plus on one occasion at least he delayed Matheu on his serve. at deuce.
Perhaps those who take the moral high ground should take a closer look at the subject matter of this article during the next two weeks.

summerblues wrote:

hawkeye wrote:

summerblues wrote:Agree with LK.

When Rafa gets penalized most, the most natural conclusion is that he is the worst offender.  If the argument is that he is in fact not the worst offender but instead the rule is applied unfairly, the onus is to prove that it is so.

Have you read this thread?...

...So why are they choosing to only apply the rule to one player at crucial parts of a match?

But we do not have any evidence that is happening.  The closest to any "evidence" in that direction would be temp's timing of one match - but that is way too little to conclude that Rafa is not the worst, nor was there any time violation given to him in that match.

We know referees call TV only in a tiny fraction of the cases when players go over time.  We know that is true for every player - Rafa or otherwise.  To show examples of cases where Rafa gets TV after going 28 secs over time and examples of cases where another player does not get TV after 30 secs does not prove referee bias against Rafa.  To show there is bias, you would have to demonstrate that your examples form a representative sample.

Well that's good we have some common ground

To demonstrate that Nadal is being targeted the evidence is the number of time violations he receives on crucial points compared to the lack of time violations given to other players specifically on crucial points. There are lots of examples of players taking longer on crucial points but as far as I'm aware no player has received a time violation on a crucial point this year. One of the questions I asked in the OP was for evidence of any time violations given to any player and at what point in the match it was on but I don't believe anyone else has seen one either

Who is or who isn't the "worst" is not really relevant. For example if a player usually served quickly in say 10-12 seconds but took 30+ seconds to compose themselves on crucial points some would say they are not the worst but of course they should be penalized when they break the rule in the same way as anyone else. In fact IMO that would be far more disruptive and should be considered as deliberate time wasting more than taking a regular amount of time between points.

Taken from an article I have just read

It is true that tennis has a variety of rules which are only patchily enforced, the “audible obscenity” call standing high on the list. In a sport that treasures its gentlemanly image, umpires are reluctant to cause a scene. In a typical incident in Estoril last month, Nick Kyrgios hit a ball out of the stadium – “ball abuse” – during a final-set tie-break, and should technically have lost the match there and then, as he had already been docked a point. Yet umpire Fergus Murphy chose to turn a blind eye.

The latter surely must have also incurred a tv.  Its the umpires that need to be scrutinised they are as guilty as the players.

The problem there is that the umpires are effectively employed by the players and the ATP and are under pressure, as the article says, not to cause a scene. Players effectively hold the cards over the umpires careers. There is no impartial body to scrutinise the umpires - they are damned if they do and damned if they don't.

Although, is that the Simon Briggs article? If so, can we trust it?

Not much interesting argument or data added in the last couple of pages, seems that we are going in circles and just arguing.

I think there IS a possibility that Djokovic, Muray and others take just as long and if Nadal is taking equally long as them but getting more time violations HE may be onto something. However, we don't have enough data to know for sure.

How about between us we do timings for the French Open, say one match for each of the big 4 in the first week, and anytime they play each other.

I think that is a constructive suggestion. I timed Nishi today, briefly, and he was guilty.
But it really needs the doubters to come on board.

hawkeye wrote:To demonstrate that Nadal is being targeted the evidence is the number of time violations he receives on crucial points compared to the lack of time violations given to other players specifically on crucial points.

This alone is not enough - you would need to demonstrate that the other guys violate the rule as much as he does.  Also, you have not even shown that he receives more violations than others.  We have data showing that in 2013 he was receiving more violations, and we are guessing he is probably receiving more violations still, but we have not quite established that either.

hawkeye wrote:There are lots of examples of players taking longer on crucial points but as far as I'm aware no player has received a time violation on a crucial point this year.

If you could demonstrate the part I bolded, that would be useful for your argument.  So far you have just listed a number of examples where players went over the limit without a TV.  But that is far weaker than the bolded part and not enough for your argument - you could have just as easily listed similar examples for Rafa also.

hawkeye wrote:Who is or who isn't the "worst" is not really relevant. For example if a player usually served quickly in say 10-12 seconds but took 30+ seconds to compose themselves on crucial points some would say they are not the worst

Who is worst is of course relevant.  The worst in this context is measured not by the average time between the points but by the percentage of time they go over 25 secs.  Obviously a player who is always at 24s will be averaging more than a player who is usually 15s and occasionally 35s, but obviously the latter one is "worse".

Haddie-nuff wrote:I think that is a constructive suggestion. I timed Nishi today, briefly, and he was guilty.
But it really needs the doubters to come on board.

When you say guilty, do you mean he was as bad as the worst offenders, or that he was not always within the rules?

It is not a black-or-white "innocent" or "guilty" thing. It is a gray scale with some guys breaking the rule more than others.

Im sorry sb I wont discuss my view on this anymore than I have already. Its futile and frustrating. How often is not the issue.. that it is violated at all. is the issue. The implication of this is that should Nadal retire.. then it ceases to be an issue because nobody does it as often as he used to.. This subject no longer becomes a problem here right??
??????? follow me?

Haddie-nuff wrote:Im sorry sb I wont discuss my view on this anymore than I have already. Its futile and frustrating. How often is not the issue.. that it is violated at all. is the issue. The implication of this is that should Nadal retire.. then it ceases to be an issue because nobody does it as often as he used to.. This subject no longer becomes a problem here right??
??????? follow me?

Why is "how often" not the issue?

Is a man who kills two men less guilty than a man who kills three ???
The penalty is the same whoever they may be.
Poor analogy but the best I can come up with at the moment.

This thread is now in double figures and I have stated my position from the onset.. I really think you need to read the arguments put forward by others on here.... Im done

Haddie-nuff wrote:Is a man who kills two men less guilty than a man who kills three ???

In the context of time violation I would certainly say yes. Or are you suggesting that a player who goes over the limit once in a match is as guilty as the one who does it 50 times?

Especially the way ATP views the rule. They do not view it as black-and-white. They leave umpires discretion and only want to penalize if a player who abuses the rule. It seems pretty reasonable to say that a player who goes over the limit once in the match is not abusing the rule but a player who does it 50 times probably is. And somewhere between those two it goes from not abusing to abusing a little bit to abusing more to abusing a lot.

I would give up sb.

It's only temp really who provided any real 'research' over the course of an entire match rather than just a few points like others who felt that was representative of the whole match. No-one actually is committed to doing in depth research on the matter, so the data presented is a load of cack really.

It needs say the top 100 players to have their matches watched and timed to see how abused the rule really is and who the big offenders are. Some can play within the rule and others can't. As for the application of the rule, can you imagine how much time would be added on to matches of the rule was enforced? We have all seen players get a TV and then restart their whole service action. For me I feel a stiffer punishment needs to be issued. This then can allow for umpires to talk to players who are taking too much time and if that doesn't work, hit them with a penalty like forfeiting their service game.

I thought I'd group some of Nadal's recent time violations in one place. I only started keeping a record after the Nadal Verdasco match in Miami so I'm not sure about how many he received before then. Although I do know about the Fognini Rio semi Finals where he was given two in one game when serving at 6-2, 2-3. He was broken and was also broken mentally by the time violations and went on to lose the match after being in complete control.

hawkeye wrote:

Miami 2015
Nadal against Versdasco. Nadal serving in the first set at 4-5 on brake/set point. He receives a time violation and loses the set

Monte Carlo 2015
Nadal against Isner. 2nd set Nadal serving at 4-4, 30-40. Isner asks the Umpire to give Nadal a time violation and the Umpire obliges. Nadal loses his serve. Isner holds for the set
Nadal against Ferrer. 1st set Nadal serving 3-3, 30-30 time violation. 2nd set Nadal serving at 3-3, 30-30 time violation Nadal lost his serve. 3rd set Nadal serving at 3-2, 30-40 time violation Nadal went on to win his serve.

Barcelona
Nadal against Almagro. Nadal got a first time violation early in the first set. 2nd set Nadal serving for the match 40-40. Almagro asked the Umpire to give Nadal a time violation and the Umpire obliged.

This is from Madrid

hawkeye wrote:Catching up with the Nadal/Dimitrov match.

Nadal serving at 1-1, 30-40 was issued with a time violation 27 seconds after the ball went out of play. He was broken.

Later in the match Nadal was serving 3-3, 15-0 when Dimitrov broke his raquet. He delayed play by 46 seconds. Nadal served a double fault afterwards. (The time violation rule is also meant to be applied if the receiver delays play).

This is from Rome

hawkeye wrote: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

Another from Rome

hawkeye wrote:

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".

That's 8 matches were Nadal has been given a time violation on a crucial point.

I also thought I'd group together some timings taken of players not named Nadal. Obviously no time violations were given

lags72 wrote:

hawkeye wrote:No reports of any time violations?

But I did see this. Murray serving at 4-6, 30-40 against Rosol yesterday. Takes 28 seconds without a warning or penalty.

That's a pretty poor show hawkeye   Murray seems to be getting away with murder.

Haddie-nuff wrote:did anyone bother to time Raonic yesterday against Murray... I bet not.. I don't think he had much less than 27/28 seconds between serves.

Born Slippy wrote:

I also timed 24 points on Berdych's serve. He was over 25 seconds on 6/24 occasions. By far his longest though (34 seconds) was when he was break point down.

summerblues wrote:

Raonic:
over 25 secs: 38% times
over 30 secs: 4%
over 35 secs: none

temporary21 wrote:

Muzzahs stats

Mean time:28.07
standard deveation:3.88 seconds
average time taken when hes over:4.9 seconds
proportion of points over time:73%

Henman Bill wrote:

Murray 31, 27, 26, 34, 37, 41, 33, 22.   Av 31 seconds.

hawkeye wrote: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

hawkeye wrote: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."

hawkeye wrote:

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.

Haddie-nuff wrote:

hawkeye wrote:

Haddie-nuff wrote:Did anyone bother to time Novak today especially on BP

I take it you did? Let me guess. 30? 31? 32? 33? 34? seconds. Were the commentators seething at Novak's disregard for the rules? Did they notice? Or were they (as they did when he was playing Nishikori) understanding of his need to take a bit of extra time to prepare for crucial points.

I think your assessment is about right.. of course there was also the added concern of   a few pot holes in the clay (imaginary or otherwise) that Novak had to fill in with his foot  before he prepared to serve quite understandably  ... surprisingly they disappeared when Roger was at the same end. !!

hawkeye wrote:

Just watching Nishikori/Matheu. Nishikori in a little bother at 2-2 in the second set. Serving at 15-30 he took 29 seconds to compose himself before serving. Obviously no time violation and no talk by the commentators of Nishikori  "making a mockery of the rule book" because no one cares if Nishikori breaks the rules

Haddie-nuff wrote:Im sorry sb I wont discuss my view on this anymore than I have already. Its futile and frustrating. How often is not the issue.. that it is violated at all. is the issue. The implication of this is that should Nadal retire.. then it ceases to be an issue because nobody does it as often as he used to.. This subject no longer becomes a problem here right??
??????? follow me?

I don't follow this argument. The rule is in place to stop players who play consistently slowly. I don't think anyone is bothered by a player who occasionally takes 26 seconds. Therefore, its perfectly right that someone who is a repeat offender gets punished. The other circumstance which umpires need to be looking at is significantly longer being taken on big points. That has a potentially severe effect on the opponent's rhythm.

This isn't and never has been about Nadal. He is just the most obvious example of where the rule should be better enforced and, sadly, displays the worst attitude towards it.

Thing is Slippy, people have been talking as though 26 seconds DOES bother them, people wanted a blanket rule, with a shot clock. Now for some reason its all shifted to being quite lax with the rule,just repeat offenders, or whatever, mostly after my analysis of the Madrid final. Why the sudden change of heart?

I don't recall that being the consensus Temp. The only reason for a stop clock is that it forces the umpires to enforce the rules and gives consistency, rather than the current scenario. However, there are obvious problems with it. What most people have said is that they want a system which is fair and makes the worst offenders speed up. I would gave liked both players to have been penalised in Madrid.

So after 10 pages of research, we are still researching

Thats fair Born, id just like to see, after the effort I put into that analysis, an all around debate about this. A He article this may be, but theres no mention of a specific player in the title, my match analysis was hardly conclusive but it should at least open some minds as to this isnt just a 2 man show.

In short Rafa and Novak have been done to death now, I think it reasonable, given the effort a lot of people have gone to to start reaching wider on this, which we are at least beginning to do.

If it is indeed the rule we care about, given people protests, I think that would be a real interesting way to move this topic forward, weve had the usual suspects, lets have a look how far this goes.

Jahu wrote:So after 10 pages of research, we are still researching

Research never stops Jahu. If it did we wouldnt be writing here.


For those who might want to repeat my analysis, I gave the code, you guys just need put the numbers in.

It's frustrating that in a topic involving research. The only person who's done any research short of a few points here and thre and second hand accounts is me, who more than anyone thinks this is a mountain out of a molehill. Nobody's followed up what I did with so much as a full set of data, and we're surprised there's not enough data!

But you are the Mod and are smarter then us, shame we are not understanding your stats or some choose to ignore them and push their agenda

temporary21 wrote:It's frustrating that in a topic involving research. The only person who's done any research short of a few points here and thre and second hand accounts is me, who more than anyone thinks this is a mountain out of a molehill. Nobody's followed up what I did with so much as a full set of data, and we're surprised there's not enough data!

As I pointed out earlier temp, apart from you, me HE and a small minority there are no other posters interested enough to know IF Nadal is being targeted, IF the tv is being abused by OTHER players, IF the UMPIRE'S are being fair.
Because the mere fact is that the time other players take, in truth, is not issue, its not  bothering them. As it has been said,  it disrupts the flow of play for umpires to use TV's (should it be applied fairly) to every player on every occasion that it SHOULD be used. But come on Nadal deserves it.. he has deserved it.. and now he is getting his comeuppance so who cares.
We are not discussing the title of this article, you know that, and so do I .. we are discussing Nadal
I remain steadfast what I have said... I don't care who it is..apply the rule fairly or don't apply it at all

temporary21 wrote:It's frustrating that in a topic involving research. The only person who's done any research short of a few points here and thre and second hand accounts is me, who more than anyone thinks this is a mountain out of a molehill. Nobody's followed up what I did with so much as a full set of data, and we're surprised there's not enough data!

I feel your pain temp because it is only you that did any kind of research on the subject. If the OP isn't going to conduct any real research themselves, likelihood is that they aren't going to get buy-in from the rest of the forum.

I want to see all rules enforced. Thing is with the TV rule, is the punishment sufficient? Put yourself in the shoes of an umpire and you hand out a TV to a player and the next few points they continue going over the time limit, you would say to yourself how many times do I have to warn this player? I have seen players hit with a TV and reset their service action and go over the time limit. To me I think the punishment needs to be severe on the worst offenders. Take cricket. Slow over rates attract a fine. Certain etiquettes in cricket if abused also attract a fine. Maybe tennis needs to be a bit stricter if they wish to have players follow the rules.

temporary21 wrote:Thing is Slippy, people have been talking as though 26 seconds DOES bother them, people wanted a blanket rule, with a shot clock. Now for some reason its all shifted to being quite lax with the rule,just repeat offenders, or whatever, mostly after my analysis of the Madrid final. Why the sudden change of heart?

Once it became obvious that players were routinely breaking the rule then people started speculating about whether the rule was being used in a non transparent way. A way that would validate Nadal receiving penalties on crucial points and them not being given out at any other time to him or to other players. I'm curious about how this non transparent rule would work. If it is based on the number of times a player goes over 25 seconds for example every 100th time (the number would have to be pretty big as so many violations go unpunished) then how would the ATP keep track. How would players know that they were risking a time violation and speed up. Indeed how do players know if they have gone over 25 seconds at all if they don't get a penalty as it's tricky to tell without using a stop watch. It's a bit fishy that Nadal has supposedly reached his quota at least 8 times since Rio and every one has been on a crucial point. Not sure how 2 could be given out in one game as they were in Rio either. I would expect that that Murray, Raonic, Berdych, Isner, Djokovic, Wawrinka, Nishikori (the players who have been timed over 25 seconds here) but probably most players would be all sitting on a ticking time bomb of time violations that will be applied on crucial points if this was the case too.

The reason why Nadal's name comes up isn't because he goes over 25 seconds it is because he is the only player penalized for doing so. Part of the research into the use of the time violation rule is to find out how often players take longer than 25 seconds without penalty. Just from the research already it's become obvious that pretty much whenever players are timed they are breaking this rule. The other part of the research was to look at instances when time violation penalties are handed out. So far pretty much the only time they are handed out is to Nadal on crucial points in at least 8 of his matches since Rio this year. In tennis matches can turn on such pivotal points. It is hardly outside the range of probability that if Nadal hadn't been handcuffed repeatedly on these points he may have gone on to win some of the matches that he went on to lose. If other players had received time violation penalties when they went over 25 seconds on crucial points (as it has been shown that they did) then it is hardly outside the range of probability that they would have lost matches that they went on to win. Umpires can affect the outcome of matches by not applying penalties fairly. That stinks!

If the time violation rule is only used to punish one player then it can only affect that one player. How can it affect the tour in general if no one else is penalised. It stinks!

No else is punished? No-one at all? No other player has received a time violation this year? Wow, that is very harsh on Rafa - the only player on the tour to get a tv. FACT.

How about we move the topic along and people find out whether they should be by doing some research?

It means diligently watching the whole match, every point - and sometimes they have advert breaks and players get a talking to by the umpire - a gentle warning - which no-one knows about.

There is not enough interest as to whether the time violation rule is abused by other players, and applied unfairly by Umpires a simple fact.. Should it be so, and it was applied across the board, and other's favourites were being affected by its use then undoubtedly there would be more annoyance shown and a desire to see that such a rule should either not exist or used for everyone. But it has to be realised so many of the favoured players have benefitted by its use against Nadal

In short temp.. forget it we are on a hiding to nothing !!!

Not really. You could actually do some research if you care enough about the cause

In whatever case, this isnt the "snark at HE" or "nadal a victim or not thread", this should be about tv resuts acrss all players. Whilst I dont agree with HE, or her version of the stats, to her credit she HAS actually done a lot of work on the thread, more than anyone else.

LK if you believe that then you are more naïve than I am

I could come back with a signed confession from every Umpire that they were not applying the rule fairly and I would be told that I only did it because it was Nadal.
I await to see what happens the day Nadal retires.. this subject will not be raised again. In the meantime it is never going to be resolved because there are too may that do not want it to be. Cynical ?? maybe...... realistic ?? I believe so


Like HE .... something stinks.

If there is Victimisation going on if that is the case, like those who claim Nadal dopes I say the same thing. Provide the proof.

he has provided evidence of such thing, however I dont think theres deliberate targeting going on here. I think the umpires have been advised to give tv's on big points after a warning as a no tolerance policy, I remember Cilic being called on Bp one us open, ive no other data though.

I dont think that work is worth being laughed at though, even if I dont agree with it.

I could not do research if I wanted.. the tv broadcasting here is pathetic, half way watching Andy's match and they switch to Venus bliddy Williams
But on that subject I would suggest that Andy's opponent is pushing his luck on serve time him LK

Again it's assumption that umpires have been told to give warnings on big points. All we have to to by on this thread is how it's been applied to one player. It screams more research which I don't think anyone has the patience to follow the formula laid out by yourself. Yes we have points that have been highlighted, but have other warnings which might not have been 'big' points been missed? That's the issue. Only highlighting points is not a reflection of the whole match and also the amount of points player go over. It's too complex.

With the TVs being more enforced, has it actually encouraged players to quicken up? I don't think it has.

I think Andy is too Haddie though he will point to the camera as the reasoning.

Haddie-nuff wrote:

In short temp.. forget it we are on a hiding to nothing !!!

Hey don't give up. There has been some excellent research so far. We have come from a point were many here had been lead to believe that Nadal was the only player to break the time violation rule. Some of the evidence presented in this thread would make it very difficult to continue to hold this view. In particular the whole match analysis of the Madrid final by temp21 that showed the number of times that a player other than Nadal went over the time without penalty. But she was not alone and I'm very grateful to everyone who got out a stop watch and timed players. I know the work involved and have gathered the evidence in a comment earlier today on this thread. It would be useful to uncover more evidence of players going over 25 seconds for anyone that remains skeptical about the frequency that players break the rule as it shows that the ATP have no interest in enforcing it for players in general. Personally I've seen enough to be convinced    

JuliusHMarx wrote:No else is punished? No-one at all? No other player has received a time violation this year? Wow, that is very harsh on Rafa - the only player on the tour to get a tv. FACT.

In the op this was one of the things that I asked for help researching. If anyone knows of any time violations given to any player please report it. It's important to note where in the match the time violation was given because the effect is much harsher on a crucial point than it is on a none crucial point. The only incidents of players other than Nadal being given a time violation on a crucial point that have been reported here so far are the ones in the video posted by Haddie earlier. They all involve incidents at the beginning of 2013. Have a look if you havn't seen them. One shows an Umpire calling the rule "crazy" and another shows Del Potro spending over a minute protesting and then losing the crucial break point and breaking his racquet. The commentators had complete sympathy for Del Potro and called the rule "ridiculous". No such sympathy for Nadal and his eight time violations on crucial break points this year.

So if anyone has any evidence of a player other than Nadal getting a time violation at any point but in particular on a crucial point I will add it to the evidence. Until then the stats for players other than Nadal being penalized on pivotal points = 0

legendkillarV2 wrote:

With the TVs being more enforced, has it actually encouraged players to quicken up? I don't think it has.

When has it been enforced?

HE I cant help you with the research.. as Ive pointed out its like living in the third world here in Canada, their sports tv broadcasting, unless its ice hockey, baseball or basketball.. is ridiculous they are showing the same bliddy women's match on three different channels.. I cant win.. so whatever figures I come up with are spasmodic and in the scheme of things would not be viewed as hard evidence.
But I support your theory frankly and admire your diligence

hawkeye wrote:We have come from a point were many here had been lead to believe that Nadal was the only player to break the time violation rule.

"Many"? I do not recall anyone ever suggesting it was only Rafa.

My personal view when this thread started was that Rafa was among the worst offenders but I was not necessarily thinking he was the worst one. If anything, the data from this thread seems to suggest he is worse than I had initially expected.

Timed the first two sets of Murray v Arguello. Arguello averaged 20 seconds and Murray averaged 21 seconds.

Murray went over 25 seconds 4 times and over 30 seconds once. Arguello went over 25 seconds 3 times.

Why then was Murray not given a tv on 30 seconds..ie. 10 seconds over time (BO5)
When Rafa gets a tv going 4 seconds over (i.e.29 secs. in BO3)

He should have been penalised... 10 secs is a long time.

Because it wasn't a big point?

Very droll.. . but I think HE"s train is slowing down enough  for others to come on board

hawkeye wrote:

So if anyone has any evidence of a player other than Nadal getting a time violation at any point but in particular on a crucial point I will add it to the evidence. Until then the stats for players other than Nadal being penalized on pivotal points = 0

Can you clarify. Are you talking about the actual loss of a first serve for a second or subsequent TV or including a TV warning for first offence.