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

by hawkeye Sat 25 Apr 2015, 10:31 pm

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.

Smile

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

by Matchpoint Tue 28 Apr 2015, 10:04 am

No, it's not about Djokovic vs Foggy who he fears more but factors affecting his current form in a given day and a given match. Remember what I said about every tournament is a different test? He himself won't say why he goes up and down. We only know that when he's off form he's just fearful even on his favourite surface now.

by Belovedluckyboy Tue 28 Apr 2015, 10:05 am

MP, why must you always think that Rafa fans are finding excuses for his losses? There must be reasons why Rafa played this way or that way. Its not excuses, for Fog was playing well no question about that. Or just like Rafa lost to Novak at MC because Novak was playing better.

People here are so strange, I mentioned about Rafa feeling devastated after getting injured at AO2011 and so failed to get his four in a row at the slams, but some here jump at it straight away and saying that Rafa fans are giving excuses for his losses to Novak that year; and thats despite I posted earlier on that Rafa was fit and healthy and was playing well but kept losing to the same one player that year!

Why are people so sensitive here? Its as if we cant even discuss why Rafa loses his matches and each time he loses it cant be him playing poorly for some reasons; but its ok to say that Novak for example, lost to Rafa at the USO 2013 because Novak wasnt his usual self.

If you think Rafa played so poorly vs Fog just because he 'feared' Fog, then i think you're underestimating Rafa. Rafa was leading in the second set despite him having no power, but what happened to Rafa since coming back from the long break was again happening when he served for the second set. Like what Rafa said in his presser, he failed to up his level earlier in the match and waited too late to do so in the TB.

by Matchpoint Tue 28 Apr 2015, 10:09 am

by temporary21 Tue 28 Apr 2015, 1:27 pm

Nobodies trying to excuse away Rafas loss, more of an assessment of his game right now and its varying factors. Weve got to be able to get to a point where a discussion involving Rafa doesnt degrade into this every time.
That said ill get back to the topic.

I always thought instead of a blanket clock rule, it should just be that the players must play within a timely manner based on the circumstances of the match, at the umpires discretion. At the warm up the umpire can make it clear what he expects is timely (within reason) and make his own judgement based on long points or crowd disruption.

If it gets too slow the umpire can then just say to the player that his time between serves wasnt good enough, and then warn the player on his next service game if it continues... and so forth.

This way, matches aren't dictated by a shot clock or disrupted by seemingly arbitrary rule use, the game is allowed to flow, and sped up if the umpires thinks he sees foul play.

You cant have the opponent requesting time warnings, otherwise whats to stop them asking for it at break point, or when they want a breather, that needs to be done by an arbitrator.

by **JuliusHMarx** Tue 28 Apr 2015, 2:54 pm

Temp, there isn't a blanket clock rule. As it stands, the written rule allows for umpire discretion, as you state. A shot clock would actually require the rule to be re-written.

by temporary21 Tue 28 Apr 2015, 3:17 pm

But theres a 25 second rule/guideline right? I mean removing that copletely and letting umpires decide on their own within reason.

by Jahu Tue 28 Apr 2015, 3:21 pm

Yeah, another element to give to umpires to follow and be bothered?

Rule is fine 25 seconds, and there should be a chime when the rule is broken and point deducted automatically, nothing to talk to the umpire about it, carry on and serve.

by temporary21 Tue 28 Apr 2015, 3:25 pm

but then what of the crowd gets rowdy before the serve? Or someone has to catch the serve. or theres a a huge gust of wind to wait for? etc. That idea isnt close to flexible enough. The umpires are paid professionals, giving them responsibility to make sure a game is kept to a steady and reasonable pace should be well within them.

by Jahu Tue 28 Apr 2015, 4:01 pm

In that case the Umpire has a button to pause, stop, reset the timing or whatever.

by summerblues Tue 28 Apr 2015, 4:04 pm

temporary21 wrote:But theres a 25 second rule/guideline right? I mean removing that copletely and letting umpires decide on their own within reason.

My guess would be that whether one views this suggestion as workable will depend on how one feels about today's game. If you feel that today's game is played to a reasonable pace, you may believe this suggestion woud work. If you feel that today's game is already being played at too slow a pace and ruled are being abused, you may be more likely to think such a guideline would not work.

by summerblues Tue 28 Apr 2015, 4:12 pm

temporary21 wrote:You cant have the opponent requesting time warnings, otherwise whats to stop them asking for it at break point

I would view this as a benefit rather than a problem. If a player knows they will likely be called on their time violation when it hurts most, they are more likely to take the rule seriously.

by Henman Bill Tue 28 Apr 2015, 4:49 pm

It's pretty obvious that the stop clock solution is not as simple as you say, and would eliminate problems while creating others, but that's not to say it's a bad idea. However in practice an idea has to be really clear cut good to break though the status quo, and that may not be the case with the stop clock.

My view is the umpire already has enough to think about with calling lines, and a separate official should take change of certain other aspects such as stop clock. Obviously, this is not going to be feasible and lower budget events like challengers, so I think the stop clock would need to come in only at certain level of event (250 or above or 1000 or above) and maybe only on show courts. In any case challengers and court 10 of major events may not have clocks and electronics installed.

If the umpire controls the stop clock and when to stop it, that puts more pressure on her/him and is liable to lead to player complaints. It could be controlled by someone sat high up in the stadium that's harder for the players to grumble at. After a long point he might wait 5-10 seconds more before starting, after a very long point 15 seconds more. If a person shouts out, he might freeze it, restart it or cancel it.

The official control the stop clock is also going to have to press a button to stop the beep sound going off mid point and he needs to press this button when the player throws the ball into the air to serve. Again, this is not something the umpire should be stressing about in my view. He's got enough to do watching the lines and keeping score.

I am in favour of the shot clock, but it's a tricky one. I'd suggest that the first about 3 or 5infrigements (say 5) be no punishment at all, that way there isn't the sudden warning or argument. A beep goes off and Joe Bloggs get a 1 next to his name, and the point carries on. When it reaches 5 against Joe Bloggs name from then on punishments will apply. Everyone can clearly see he has had plenty of chances to up his rythm. Maybe reset the number of offences to zero at the start of a 5th set.

I also would make public league tables of number of offences and have prize money deductions (could be a charity fund) for the number of offences above a certain level.

by hawkeye Tue 28 Apr 2015, 5:04 pm

JuliusHMarx wrote:Temp, there isn't a blanket clock rule. As it stands, the written rule allows for umpire discretion, as you state. A shot clock would actually require the rule to be re-written.

temporary21 wrote:But theres a 25 second rule/guideline right? I mean removing that copletely and letting umpires decide on their own within reason.

Before the end of 2012 the 25 seconds was a guideline and Umpires were allowed to use discretion before issuing a time violation penalty. The rule changed prior to the 2013 season and Umpires were no longer allowed to use discretion they now have to use a stop watch and any player taking longer than 25 seconds is meant to get a warning on the first violation and have a first serve removed on any subsequent one. This is what the ATP rule book now says about timing.

25 Seconds Between Points.
aa) Start stopwatch when the player is ordered to play or when the ball
goes out of play.
bb) Assess time violation or code violation if the ball is not struck for the
next point within the twenty-fi ve (25) seconds allowed. There is no
time warning prior to the expiration of the twenty-fi ve (25) seconds

The ATP rule book is available from the ATP site as a PDF file. It is worth reading when doing research on the use of the time violation rule Smile

by hawkeye Tue 28 Apr 2015, 5:06 pm

summerblues wrote:
temporary21 wrote:You cant have the opponent requesting time warnings, otherwise whats to stop them asking for it at break point
I would view this as a benefit rather than a problem. If a player knows they will likely be called on their time violation when it hurts most, they are more likely to take the rule seriously.

by temporary21 Tue 28 Apr 2015, 5:25 pm

How much effort (and money) you would want to put in this depends on how important this really is to you, and what player bias you have.

I personally would not want to see someone lose a break point because they have to rush to a timer, or because the steward pressed the button too early or the pint had to be replayed because he accidentally pressed the warning button,

The time between the actual reason im watching isnt that big a deal for me to load that much money on it. An extra bit of time on big points to soak up the atmosphere is part of the match to me, and the extra 5-10 or so seconds you sometimes get has never bothered me the way it bothers everyone else here, I'm in no rush for quality play.

by Jahu Tue 28 Apr 2015, 5:29 pm

tempo, I am more surprised you have not noticed Nadal's stalling for years, not that it bothers me for a 10-15 sec more then the rule, don't care for that, but obviously Nadal's scratching and digging within that time, is annoying.

by temporary21 Tue 28 Apr 2015, 5:39 pm

Well your bias is showing just as much as mine. I have always enjoyed watching Nadal, the counter to the time it takes between points has always been the standard of tennis and the quality of matches hes been in.

Him and Novak have had huge time delays between points, but their matches tell in their standard to those who enjoy them. I can imagine if you didnt think much of him, and liked his opponent, every little thing would start to annoy you. When your engrossed in a match youre fairly neutral in, you dont notice things like that. Its just the opposite side of the coin.

What matters is matches are played to a good, flexible ish rhythm. A shot clock with an attendent would help that, but it wouldnt change my viewing experience much at all, good matches are good matches.

by temporary21 Tue 28 Apr 2015, 5:53 pm

This whole thing really to me comes down to WHY people really want this shot clock rule invoked. If it is for the overall betterment of the game of tennis, to improve its quality and entertainment value, then thats cool. However I suspect that some of this is because some people arent much fans of Nadal, and want it implemented just because it would affect him the most. A relevant reason, but not all that noble, or neutral.

On the flip side, Hawkeyes criticism of the rule I suspect is biased in the completely opposite direction, so I suspect this will run on for a lot longer.

As far as im concerned its minor to me. It wouldnt affect my enjoyment of the game, but if someone came up with a system, that was flexible and didn't fundamentally affect the match like the shot clock on snooker does, then im up for that if they wanna splash out on it.

by bogbrush Tue 28 Apr 2015, 6:02 pm

temporary21 wrote:Nobodies trying to excuse away Rafas loss, more of an assessment of his game right now and its varying factors. Weve got to be able to get to a point where a discussion involving Rafa doesnt degrade into this every time.
That said ill get back to the topic.

I always thought instead of a blanket clock rule, it should just be that the players must play within a timely manner based on the circumstances of the match, at the umpires discretion. At the warm up the umpire can make it clear what he expects is timely (within reason) and make his own judgement based on long points or crowd disruption.

If it gets too slow the umpire can then just say to the player that his time between serves wasnt good enough, and then warn the player on his next service game if it continues... and so forth.

This way, matches aren't dictated by a shot clock or disrupted by seemingly arbitrary rule use, the game is allowed to flow, and sped up if the umpires thinks he sees foul play.

You cant have the opponent requesting time warnings, otherwise whats to stop them asking for it at break point, or when they want a breather, that needs to be done by an arbitrator.

Or he could tell them he'll apply the rules.

Or they could know the rules and take it as read that he'll apply them. You know, like an Umpire is there for.

I don't ever hear him explain what the lines are for, or how the ball must get over the net, neither do I hear discussion of those rules discounted as being a partisan issue. I think it's most odd to hear it suggested that there are permissible or regrettable reasons for wanting the game played within the rules.

by hawkeye Tue 28 Apr 2015, 6:12 pm

temporary21 wrote:How much effort (and money) you would want to put in this depends on how important this really is to you, and what player bias you have.

I personally would not want to see someone lose a break point because they have to rush to a timer, or because the steward pressed the button too early or the pint had to be replayed because he accidentally pressed the warning button,

The time between the actual reason im watching isnt that big a deal for me to load that much money on it. An extra bit of time on big points to soak up the atmosphere is part of the match to me, and the extra 5-10 or so seconds you sometimes get has never bothered me the way it bothers everyone else here, I'm in no rush for quality play.

It's odd! The ATP made a big Hoo Ha about tightening up the rule and informed Umpires to time the exact seconds with a stop watch so that they would always issue penalties when players went over the limit by just a second. But then in general it has been ignored. Umpires are clearly not giving time violations every time a player goes over 25 seconds and players have not made any attempt to speed up. So they have on the one hand acted as if it was vital that players kept within the time limit but then on the other they have made no attempt to enforce it. None of the negative affects of enforcing a rule that would have a huge impact on the game have been felt. Like you most people don't care about the odd second in fact I doubt they notice it. This is proved by the way that no one even notices that all players are regularly going over the limit. But if you do a little research there is proof is that they are. This is perhaps all for the good if you don't like the rule in the first place but in that case why is it there?

My research appears to indicate it's only affect has been on Nadal.

by hawkeye Tue 28 Apr 2015, 6:24 pm

bogbrush wrote:
Or he could tell them he'll apply the rules.

Or they could know the rules and take it as read that he'll apply them. You know, like an Umpire is there for.

I don't ever hear him explain what the lines are for, or how the ball must get over the net, neither do I hear discussion of those rules discounted as being a partisan issue. I think it's most odd to hear it suggested that there are permissible or regrettable reasons for wanting the game played within the rules.

Are you concerned that Umpires are not applying the rules and that players are still routinely going over 25 seconds without penalty? Have you noticed?

by bogbrush Tue 28 Apr 2015, 7:00 pm

hawkeye wrote:
bogbrush wrote:
Or he could tell them he'll apply the rules.

Or they could know the rules and take it as read that he'll apply them. You know, like an Umpire is there for.

I don't ever hear him explain what the lines are for, or how the ball must get over the net, neither do I hear discussion of those rules discounted as being a partisan issue. I think it's most odd to hear it suggested that there are permissible or regrettable reasons for wanting the game played within the rules.

Are you concerned that Umpires are not applying the rules and that players are still routinely going over 25 seconds without penalty? Have you noticed?

I've not carried out extensive research so was not commenting on that. My comment was directed to falzy's convoluted argument to devalue obeying the rules and call into question the integrity of those who want to see the game played in the right spirit.

by **JuliusHMarx** Tue 28 Apr 2015, 7:07 pm

hawkeye wrote:25 Seconds Between Points.
aa) Start stopwatch when the player is ordered to play or when the ball
goes out of play.
bb) Assess time violation or code violation if the ball is not struck for the
next point within the twenty-fi ve (25) seconds allowed. There is no
time warning prior to the expiration of the twenty-fi ve (25) seconds

The ATP rule book is available from the ATP site as a PDF file. It is worth reading when doing research on the use of the time violation rule

It's also worth quoting the whole section, not just the part you feel like, otherwise your argument looks silly :-
b) Time Violation or Code Violation. A Time or Code Violation must be assessed
if the ball is not struck for the next point within the twenty-fi ve (25)
seconds allowed, except if the chair umpire extends the time for special circumstances
defi ned by the ATP. There is no time warning prior to the expiration
of the twenty-fi ve (25) seconds.

by temporary21 Tue 28 Apr 2015, 7:15 pm

Not interested...

Hawkeye, i dont think the rule is unreasonable, but I Do think it needs better enforcement, what in your view would make this rule less unfair?

I think what HE is saying with regards to the bold part, is that there arent that many special circumstances... not that I agree with partial quoting of course.

by It Must Be Love Tue 28 Apr 2015, 8:09 pm

It's a few seconds between points, look I take sport very seriously, but I can't see how one can make so much fuss over a few seconds here and there.
I don't think anyone is actually losing much sleep over this, I have a feeling there are a few people who already hate Nadal and are trying to find more reasons to justify it 'OMG look, Nadal taking 3 more seconds than he's supposed to because he picked his bum, what a cheat !!!'
I don't think those few seconds between points make much of a difference to anyone's lives or experience of tennis.

by Jeremy_Kyle Tue 28 Apr 2015, 8:10 pm

Firstly, great to see hawky back!

I think I might have a good theory to explain the apparently randomness of umpires time violation calls. Imo they have agreed a time limit beyond which they simply cannot avoid to make the call. Obviously it cannot be 25 sec otherwise they world be calling an enourmous amount of code violations every match making the situation unbearable at least for some player. Thus they must have set a limit well above the official rule, maybe 40 sec or more likely 50. This theory can explain well the stats reported above, imo.

by **JuliusHMarx** Tue 28 Apr 2015, 8:38 pm

It Must Be Love wrote:It's a few seconds between points, look I take sport very seriously, but I can't see how one can make so much fuss over a few seconds here and there.
I don't think anyone is actually losing much sleep over this, I have a feeling there are a few people who already hate Nadal and are trying to find more reasons to justify it 'OMG look, Nadal taking 3 more seconds than he's supposed to because he picked his bum, what a cheat !!!'
I don't think those few seconds between points make much of a difference to anyone's lives or experience of tennis.

No, I don't think that many people are that bothered. But the subject was raised.

by Jahu Tue 28 Apr 2015, 9:14 pm

While he was beating Djoko, I did not mind it, now since he ain't beating anyone, it has become a problem warning

But sure, when someone does not like someone, even mundane useless things are presented as bad things and exaggerated, not that Nadal does not deserve a few slaps for his robotic scratching.

by hawkeye Tue 28 Apr 2015, 10:03 pm

JuliusHMarx wrote:
hawkeye wrote:25 Seconds Between Points.
aa) Start stopwatch when the player is ordered to play or when the ball
goes out of play.
bb) Assess time violation or code violation if the ball is not struck for the
next point within the twenty-fi ve (25) seconds allowed. There is no
time warning prior to the expiration of the twenty-fi ve (25) seconds

The ATP rule book is available from the ATP site as a PDF file. It is worth reading when doing research on the use of the time violation rule

It's also worth quoting the whole section, not just the part you feel like, otherwise your argument looks silly :-
b) Time Violation or Code Violation. A Time or Code Violation must be assessed
if the ball is not struck for the next point within the twenty-fi ve (25)
seconds allowed, except if the chair umpire extends the time for special circumstances
defi ned by the ATP. There is no time warning prior to the expiration
of the twenty-fi ve (25) seconds.

So someone has looked at the rulebook Smile

The special circumstances listed in the rule book include

Stoppage and Postponement of a Match
a) The chair umpire may stop a match temporarily because of or conditions
of the grounds or weather.

7) Bleeding
If a player is bleeding, the chair umpire must stop play as soon as possible, and
the physiotherapist should be called to the court for evaluation and treatment.

8) Vomiting
If a player is vomiting, the chair umpire must stop play if vomiting has spilled onto
the court, or if the player requests medical evaluation

9) Physical Incapacity
During a match, if there is an emergency medical condition and the player involved
is unable to make a request for a physiotherapist, the chair umpire shall
immediately call for the physiotherapist and tournament Doctor to assist the player

by **JuliusHMarx** Tue 28 Apr 2015, 10:23 pm

What else do they include? I assume they don't start at 6?

by hawkeye Tue 28 Apr 2015, 10:45 pm

JuliusHMarx wrote:
It Must Be Love wrote:It's a few seconds between points, look I take sport very seriously, but I can't see how one can make so much fuss over a few seconds here and there.
I don't think anyone is actually losing much sleep over this, I have a feeling there are a few people who already hate Nadal and are trying to find more reasons to justify it 'OMG look, Nadal taking 3 more seconds than he's supposed to because he picked his bum, what a cheat !!!'
I don't think those few seconds between points make much of a difference to anyone's lives or experience of tennis.

No, I don't think that many people are that bothered. But the subject was raised.

So if no one is bothered why have the ATP introduced a rule that states that Umpires must use a stop watch to time every point from when the ball goes out of play until the next serve is struck and issue a violation if this takes even one second over 25? If they've gone to all that trouble why has just one player been targeted with violation penalties on crucial points?

JuliusHMarx wrote:What else do they include? I assume they don't start at 6?

Toilet breaks, Medical treatment that isn't urgent, Medical time outs. Other reasons for stopping play at change of ends or ends of sets but not things that the Umpire can extend the 25 seconds for. But why do you ask? You have obviously looked at the rule book yourself.

by **JuliusHMarx** Tue 28 Apr 2015, 11:36 pm

Not the whole thing - like Temp and IMBL, I'm not overly interested. It passes a bit of time if I'm not too busy, that's all.

by **laverfan** Wed 29 Apr 2015, 2:47 am

This, at a slam, where ITF allows 20 seconds, compared to ATP at 25 seconds.

Research into the use of the time violation rule - NEW petition expessing concern about it's inconsistant use - Page 2 A1RWR

Research into the use of the time violation rule - NEW petition expessing concern about it's inconsistant use - Page 2 A1RWR

by bogbrush Wed 29 Apr 2015, 6:17 pm

A perfect demonstration of the flagrant abuse of rules. It's simply a disgrace that this was allowed for so long.

Quite how anyone can pretend this is anything other than a deliberate tactic to sustain attritional play is beyond me.

by It Must Be Love Wed 29 Apr 2015, 6:20 pm

bogbrush wrote: It's simply a disgrace that this was allowed for so long.

My post @8:09pm yesterday Wink

by temporary21 Wed 29 Apr 2015, 6:44 pm

I can simply respond with a meh. McEnroe put it simply before the 2008 wimby final. If that's all the dirt you can get then you're in trouble. Or to that effect

by Jahu Wed 29 Apr 2015, 7:07 pm

bogbrush wrote:A perfect demonstration of the flagrant abuse of rules. It's simply a disgrace that this was allowed for so long.

Quite how anyone can pretend this is anything other than a deliberate tactic to sustain attritional play is beyond me.

How about some TV station pressure on Tournament organizers to slow it down a bit and make it a 5h slugfest for advert airtime?

...says to me an ATP guy sitting with me on a plane, explaining a little of the general slow down of courts for the decade or so, and that 2-3h GS Finals were not generating revenue enough for TV stations.

So Nadal and Djoko, just doing their bit to help the old TV Media survive this digital age crisis Laugh

by bogbrush Wed 29 Apr 2015, 10:50 pm

temporary21 wrote:I can simply respond with a meh. McEnroe put it simply before the 2008 wimby final. If that's all the dirt you can get then you're in trouble. Or to that effect

Yeah, if all we can complain about is players routinely breaking the rules with impunity to gain advantage that's pretty thin isn't it?

Hell, let's wave PEDs through too, they're against the rules but that's just soooooo old.

by temporary21 Wed 29 Apr 2015, 11:14 pm

Don't you think you're overreacting a bit? PEDs? It's extraordinary you have the time to make such a big deal about what is a minor rule. It's certainly nothing in comparison to drug use. Calm down

by temporary21 Wed 29 Apr 2015, 11:19 pm

It was umpires discretion back then which meant in theory they were within the rules if he didn't enforce it. It's not the players job to self enforce. Clearly the atp think this was wrong so new rules are in, and slower players will eventually adapt, the current way is s bit arbitrary so I'd be happy to see a good system do better. No need for this hysterics

by temporary21 Wed 29 Apr 2015, 11:32 pm

When you have a rule that still has some umpire discretion, or is enforced that way, then the umpire has to rule on it. Has Nadal ever been given more then one violation in a match? I genuinely don't know but if he hadn't then As far as he need be concerned, the umpire is happy with his sped up play after the warning, if he's still slow after the first one and the umpire doesn't call a penalty, then that's his fault. Rafas job as far as the rule is still enforced is to play to a speed that the umpire is happy with, if he is not being warned more than once then he is satisfied he has sped up enough. Ergo until it's enforced properly I wouldn't call any player a disgrace for not self timing themselves and ruling their own violations. Phew

by LuvSports! Wed 29 Apr 2015, 11:38 pm

It's rule breaking. SImples.

by bogbrush Wed 29 Apr 2015, 11:41 pm

temporary21 wrote:Don't you think you're overreacting a bit? PEDs? It's extraordinary you have the time to make such a big deal about what is a minor rule. It's certainly nothing in comparison to drug use. Calm down

A minor rule? You mean one that doesn't count?

Rules are there to be observed. End of.

by bogbrush Wed 29 Apr 2015, 11:43 pm

temporary21 wrote:When you have a rule that still has some umpire discretion, or is enforced that way, then the umpire has to rule on it. Has Nadal ever been given more then one violation in a match? I genuinely don't know but if he hadn't then As far as he need be concerned, the umpire is happy with his sped up play after the warning, if he's still slow after the first one and the umpire doesn't call a penalty, then that's his fault. Rafas job as far as the rule is still enforced is to play to a speed that the umpire is happy with, if he is not being warned more than once then he is satisfied he has sped up enough. Ergo until it's enforced properly I wouldn't call any player a disgrace for not self timing themselves and ruling their own violations. Phew

Right, so it's ok to cheat so long as the official doesn't call it?

Weird.

by bogbrush Wed 29 Apr 2015, 11:44 pm

temporary21 wrote:It was umpires discretion back then which meant in theory they were within the rules if he didn't enforce it. It's not the players job to self enforce. Clearly the atp think this was wrong so new rules are in, and slower players will eventually adapt, the current way is s bit arbitrary so I'd be happy to see a good system do better. No need for this hysterics

You sure it's not against forum rules to falsely accuse posters of being hysterical?

by temporary21 Wed 29 Apr 2015, 11:46 pm

Bb in trying to get you to calm down. Nones actively disagreeing with the rule, just that it isn't being enforced well. There's no need to get worked up over this

by bogbrush Wed 29 Apr 2015, 11:59 pm

Is this moderating? Trying to suggest another poster is losing their self-control?

In any case, you say nobody disagrees with the rule but you've tried many times to dismiss it. Make your mind up.

by **Dolphin Ziggler** Thu 30 Apr 2015, 12:54 am

bogbrush wrote:
temporary21 wrote:It was umpires discretion back then which meant in theory they were within the rules if he didn't enforce it. It's not the players job to self enforce. Clearly the atp think this was wrong so new rules are in, and slower players will eventually adapt, the current way is s bit arbitrary so I'd be happy to see a good system do better. No need for this hysterics
You sure it's not against forum rules to falsely accuse posters of being hysterical?

No it isn't, especially when he's clearly right.

by **Dolphin Ziggler** Thu 30 Apr 2015, 12:56 am

bogbrush wrote:Is this moderating? Trying to suggest another poster is losing their self-control?

In any case, you say nobody disagrees with the rule but you've tried many times to dismiss it. Make your mind up.

Can we leave the backseating modding alone? Or, if its gonna happen, not someone riding the storm in a teacup all the way to Kansas.

by Silver Thu 30 Apr 2015, 1:18 am

Reinforcements! Interesting.

Jahu wrote:
bogbrush wrote:A perfect demonstration of the flagrant abuse of rules. It's simply a disgrace that this was allowed for so long.

Quite how anyone can pretend this is anything other than a deliberate tactic to sustain attritional play is beyond me.

How about some TV station pressure on Tournament organizers to slow it down a bit and make it a 5h slugfest for advert airtime?

...says to me an ATP guy sitting with me on a plane, explaining a little of the general slow down of courts for the decade or so, and that 2-3h GS Finals were not generating revenue enough for TV stations.

So Nadal and Djoko, just doing their bit to help the old TV Media survive this digital age crisis

Have to say, this is probably bang on. TV does rule, after all - we've seen so many horrendous scheduling decisions due to TV over the years, and longer matches inevitably mean more cash in the bank for the execs.

Not that longer matches are necessarily a bad thing, but we do need more variety on tour - as we all generally agree on. Nobody wants the entire tour trending towards that awful Murray/Ferrer Miami final two years ago.

by Sponsored content