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 Born Slippy Mon 25 May 2015, 7:08 pm

Timed a set of Edmund v Robert.

Robert averaged 11 seconds with a longest of 18 seconds. Edmund averaged 17 seconds and went over 25 seconds once (27 seconds) out of 26 points.

by temporary21 Mon 25 May 2015, 7:56 pm

Mhm Robert is lightning quick between points. Even his serve is fast

by bogbrush Mon 25 May 2015, 8:06 pm

What decent explanation can there be for this?

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/sport/tennis/rafaelnadal/11622372/French-Open-2015-Rafael-Nadal-makes-a-mockery-of-the-rule-book.html

I find it disgusting. To me it only underlines the sham enforcement of the rules now - toothless 1st warnings followed by......... nothing. Unless you want to find yourself sidelined of course. Or unless it's an ordinary player (like Granollers in the article).

by temporary21 Mon 25 May 2015, 8:23 pm

Kyle too was very fast. Though he might have been rushing slightly through nerves

by LuvSports! Mon 25 May 2015, 8:40 pm

This got brought up recently on the other thread BB.

by bogbrush Mon 25 May 2015, 9:38 pm

Ah! I did check assuming so. I couldn't see any level of discussion given this is pretty seismic - essentially, it suggests the Umpires are puppets.

Thanks anyway.

Happy for mods to merge (if that facility exists).

by LuvSports! Mon 25 May 2015, 9:46 pm

HE rubbished it.....

by **JuliusHMarx** Mon 25 May 2015, 10:03 pm

Look, I merged it (bb's thread into this one)! Didn't know I could!

by LuvSports! Mon 25 May 2015, 10:05 pm

Smooootth!

by Haddie-nuff Mon 25 May 2015, 10:09 pm

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.

I think this to be even more disgusting

by bogbrush Mon 25 May 2015, 10:22 pm

Has the Umpire been restricted from adjudicating a players matches as a result?

The Kyriagos incident was incompetent. The Nadal / Bernardes one is corrupt.

No question that it's a massively bigger deal if individual players are picking & choosing who "Umpires" their matches.

by **JuliusHMarx** Mon 25 May 2015, 10:27 pm

If the ATP did indeed have a vendetta against Rafa, surely they would have ignored his request re: Bernardes and still had him umpire Rafa's matches?

The problem with the umpires, whether it be with Rafa, Kyrgios, or whoever, is that they can effectively lose their livelihoods if they apply the rules strictly. The players hold the cards and, naturally, are happy to do so.

by Haddie-nuff Mon 25 May 2015, 10:28 pm

The Kyriagos incident was incompetent.

Oh so that's what you choose to call it ... really?? how are you so sure that was not corrupt either. When umpires have it in their power to change the course of a match I call highly suspect.

by **JuliusHMarx** Mon 25 May 2015, 10:33 pm

But surely the same applies to Rafa - the umpires could, strictly speaking, take a first serve from him every time he goes over the limit - he could lose 20 - 30 first serves in a BO5 match. But they don't do that - are they corrupt there?
Or the same with Djoko, or Murray (say, 10 - 20 first serves per match) - is that also corruption?

by Haddie-nuff Mon 25 May 2015, 10:39 pm

Then lets go on the same old merry-go-round. Nadal's request not to be adjudicated by said umpire. COULD HAVE BEEN REFUSED..it wasn't.. so that makes it corrupt. The incident with Kyrgios, certainly could be viewed that way .. in a final set tie break !!!!! and the umpire turns a blind eye..
No comparison.

by **JuliusHMarx** Mon 25 May 2015, 10:44 pm

To clarify, I'm not making any allegations of corruption in any of the scenarios being discussed.

by summerblues Mon 25 May 2015, 10:46 pm

Kyrgios clearly should have been defaulted. I did not see the match so have no idea how the umpire justified their decision, but it seems very clear that the wrong player won that match.

by temporary21 Mon 25 May 2015, 10:48 pm

This ones solved with ease. The atp tell Rafa he can't pick and choose his umpires. Then they clarify their rule to say exactly what constitutes a TVs, easy.

by hawkeye Mon 25 May 2015, 10:52 pm

bogbrush wrote:Has the Umpire been restricted from adjudicating a players matches as a result?

The Kyriagos incident was incompetent. The Nadal / Bernardes one is corrupt.

No question that it's a massively bigger deal if individual players are picking & choosing who "Umpires" their matches.

Hey calm down Bogbrush this has all been discussed. Briggs was using more than a little creative license in this article so check back on this thread Smile

... However you did say this

bogbrush wrote: (like Granollers in the article).

I checked the laughable Telegraph article and saw that Briggs had indeed mentioned something about Granollers getting a time violation in Madrid. (From the article - But then they don’t take the next step. Whereas when Marcel Granollers cramped up in a match in Madrid the other day and couldn’t get into position, bang: point gone.)

I was excited because this could have well been a very rare sighting indeed of a time violation given to someone other than Nadal. Using trusty google I entered "Marcel Granollers time violation" but was disappointed to discover an article about a match he had played against Nadal in 2012 where Nadal got a time violation. Pfft!

I kept searching and eventually found some discussion on MTF about a time violation Granollers received in Madrid. But sadly it was when Monfils was serving. He received a time violation for not playing at the pace of the server. This is a very different thing to what is being discussed here as it can be given out at much less than 25 seconds. The receiver can be given a time violation if he isn't ready to receive when the server is ready to serve even if it's a lot less than 25 seconds between points. The penalty is a lot harsher too as it's a point penalty. Should have guessed as Briggs said "bang: point gone". Not surprising that Briggs gets it wrong considering the rest of the rubiish in the article Laugh

Oh well it's still Nadal = 8, Rest of the ATP = 0... sigh

by hawkeye Mon 25 May 2015, 10:54 pm

JuliusHMarx wrote:But surely the same applies to Rafa - the umpires could, strictly speaking, take a first serve from him every time he goes over the limit - he could lose 20 - 30 first serves in a BO5 match. But they don't do that - are they corrupt there?
Or the same with Djoko, or Murray (say, 10 - 20 first serves per match) - is that also corruption?

Why name names? If the ATP penalized all players when they went over 25 seconds they would be fair Smile

by Haddie-nuff Mon 25 May 2015, 10:55 pm

Im not suggesting you are.. but consider if you will, the abuse of power by umpires, i.e. "turning a blind eye" or penalising ANY player on crucial points, is somewhat alarming. They can change the course of a match and in doing so change the course of a tournament. This is an extreme view, but if you think on it closely its a possibility.
The option not to be adjudicated by a certain umpire, if it has been allowed in Nadal's case, is open to all players if they feel they are being treated unfairly... so how can it be corrupt when the option is there for all. No its only considered corrupt because again it applies to Nadal. I live in a democracy and that means equal opportunity. In the case of Kyrgos
it was solely in the hands of the umpire

by hawkeye Mon 25 May 2015, 11:03 pm

temporary21 wrote:This ones solved with ease. The atp tell Rafa he can't pick and choose his umpires. Then they clarify their rule to say exactly what constitutes a TVs, easy.

No one including Briggs knows why Bernardos hasn't Umpired Nadal since Rio. He might not have been available, the ATP may have decided that because of the past incident another Umpire was more suitable or the ATP may have decided that he was biased. Whatever it didn't change anything as far as Nadal being given time violations on crucial points as he has had eight matches affected by them since then.

by **JuliusHMarx** Mon 25 May 2015, 11:11 pm

hawkeye wrote:Oh well it's still Nadal = 8, Rest of the ATP = 0... sigh

Except that it isn't is it? Because you've not bothered doing the proper research to justify that statement. Classic conspiracy theory stuff. There's no way to argue with someone who says the world is flat.

by **JuliusHMarx** Mon 25 May 2015, 11:16 pm

Haddie-nuff wrote:Im not suggesting you are.. but consider if you will, the abuse of power by umpires, i.e. "turning a blind eye" or penalising ANY player on crucial points, is somewhat alarming. They can change the course of a match and in doing so change the course of a tournament. This is an extreme view, but if you think on it closely its a possibility.
The option not to be adjudicated by a certain umpire, if it has been allowed in Nadal's case, is open to all players if they feel they are being treated unfairly... so how can it be corrupt when the option is there for all. No its only considered corrupt because again it applies to Nadal. I live in a democracy and that means equal opportunity. In the case of Kyrgos
it was solely in the hands of the umpire

But if it has been allowed in Nadal's case, then surely that disproves any theory that they are 'out to get him'. Because if they were, then they would have made sure Bernardes did umpire Rafa's matches. So not only would it not be corrupt (as it's open to all) but it would show that there is no corruption against Nadal.

by Haddie-nuff Mon 25 May 2015, 11:24 pm

No but there is the suggestion that in Nadal's case he requested a change of umpire, which is his entitlement. What we are about again, is there abuse of the tv rule, yes there is, but not by Nadal alone.. hey ho, have you heard this before.. The bigger question remains, is there abuse of the Umpire's powers to apply these rules fairly.. I also think there is.

by hawkeye Mon 25 May 2015, 11:28 pm

JuliusHMarx wrote:
hawkeye wrote:Oh well it's still Nadal = 8, Rest of the ATP = 0... sigh

Except that it isn't is it? Because you've not bothered doing the proper research to justify that statement. Classic conspiracy theory stuff. There's no way to argue with someone who says the world is flat.

I will happily rectify the statistics if anyone can find any evidence. But so far there is none Smile

by summerblues Mon 25 May 2015, 11:33 pm

Haddie-nuff wrote:is there abuse of the Umpire's powers to apply these rules fairly.. I also think there is.

This is a strong accusation. I would not say it is entirely impossible, but at this point we have zilch in terms of indication that it is so. HE's data collection is clearly very one sided. If we had an anti-HE, he or she would have just as easily collected examples where players other than Nadal are given TV after 30 secs but where Rafa is not given a TV even after 35 secs.

What is missing from her "analysis" is some sort of substantiation that the examples she presented are not a biased sample.

by bogbrush Mon 25 May 2015, 11:44 pm

Haddie-nuff wrote:No but there is the suggestion that in Nadal's case he requested a change of umpire, which is his entitlement. What we are about again, is there abuse of the tv rule, yes there is, but not by Nadal alone.. hey ho, have you heard this before.. The bigger question remains, is there abuse of the Umpire's powers to apply these rules fairly.. I also think there is.

Oh right, so players can veto the Umpire? And you don't see the exposure for corruption there?

Fact is that Nadal is a gross offender and receives only token 1st warnings..... and when we see an Umpire who stepped over the mark banned from his matches the reason is clear.

by bogbrush Mon 25 May 2015, 11:45 pm

hawkeye wrote:
temporary21 wrote:This ones solved with ease. The atp tell Rafa he can't pick and choose his umpires. Then they clarify their rule to say exactly what constitutes a TVs, easy.

No one including Briggs knows why Bernardos hasn't Umpired Nadal since Rio. He might not have been available, the ATP may have decided that because of the past incident another Umpire was more suitable or the ATP may have decided that he was biased. Whatever it didn't change anything as far as Nadal being given time violations on crucial points as he has had eight matches affected by them since then.

No point deduction, therefore no meaningful punishment.

by Haddie-nuff Mon 25 May 2015, 11:58 pm

bogbrush wrote:
Haddie-nuff wrote:No but there is the suggestion that in Nadal's case he requested a change of umpire, which is his entitlement. What we are about again, is there abuse of the tv rule, yes there is, but not by Nadal alone.. hey ho, have you heard this before.. The bigger question remains, is there abuse of the Umpire's powers to apply these rules fairly.. I also think there is.
Oh right, so players can veto the Umpire? And you don't see the exposure for corruption there?

Fact is that Nadal is a gross offender and receives only token 1st warnings..... and when we see an Umpire who stepped over the mark banned from his matches the reason is clear.

so players can veto the Umpire? Not Nadal specifically then ? The same option is open to ALL players yes?
So you see an Umpire turning a blind eye to ONE player and you just chalk it up as incompetence right? All fair in love and war.. unless it had been Nadal who had committed that violation again Roger...???
.. duplicity BB as is the norm

by **JuliusHMarx** Tue 26 May 2015, 12:30 am

hawkeye wrote:
JuliusHMarx wrote:
hawkeye wrote:Oh well it's still Nadal = 8, Rest of the ATP = 0... sigh

Except that it isn't is it? Because you've not bothered doing the proper research to justify that statement. Classic conspiracy theory stuff. There's no way to argue with someone who says the world is flat.

I will happily rectify the statistics if anyone can find any evidence. But so far there is none

Have you checked every player, every match? If you have please post your evidence - until then your fanciful conspiracy lacks any evidence. The basic premise of any intelligent debate is that if you propose a theory you're supposed to provide all the evidence to back it up. Do you actually have any intention of doing that? Or is the world simply flat, end of?

by Born Slippy Tue 26 May 2015, 12:38 am

I thought we'd also established Murray got a TV in Miami versus Anderson? Fairly sure he got another one around then as well. How does that equate to nil?

I don't see HE needs to time every player. Maybe if she just did Nadal, Murray and Djokovic during the FO that might give us a representative sample?

by Born Slippy Tue 26 May 2015, 12:43 am

Murray also got one against Novak in the Miami final.

by Haddie-nuff Tue 26 May 2015, 12:48 am

BS I think you could add Nishikori to that list. Wink

by Born Slippy Tue 26 May 2015, 12:49 am

When did Kei get a TV?

by Born Slippy Tue 26 May 2015, 12:52 am

Oh sorry, I see what you mean. Well, I wouldn't want HE to have to time too many players!

by Haddie-nuff Tue 26 May 2015, 12:53 am

I don't see HE needs to time every player. Maybe if she just did Nadal, Murray and Djokovic during the FO that might give us a representative sample?
.

Never said tv.

by summerblues Tue 26 May 2015, 1:28 am

Born Slippy wrote:Murray also got one against Novak in the Miami final.

And a very quick google search also indicates he got one in his AO match against Berdych. And I suspect a few more in other matches that we do not remember because we do not bother to remember them.

by hawkeye Tue 26 May 2015, 2:14 am

summerblues wrote:
Born Slippy wrote:Murray also got one against Novak in the Miami final.
And a very quick google search also indicates he got one in his AO match against Berdych. And I suspect a few more in other matches that we do not remember because we do not bother to remember them.

I have just googled that AO match.

Apparently this was being shown on the big screen when Murray got a tv. The crowd and no doubt Berdych must have been a little distracted...

Sears stole the show with what appeared to be a rather loud shout of “f*****g have it you Czech flash f**k” directed towards the other end of the court, where sat Berdych’s team, including Murray’s former assistant coach, Dani Vallverdu.

Murray got a time violation while waiting for the crowd to quieten after Sears came up on the big screen again, voicing her support for her man. It was a weird, tense occasion.

http://www.theguardian.com/sport/2015/jan/29/andy-murray-tomas-berdych-australian-open

That looks to be a little more serious than taking an extra second or two to prepare to serve. Wouldn't it count as hindrance or distraction or even threatening behavior. Was it a time violation Murray received for this or some other code violation.

AS for the other time violations that Murray received. I will of course add them to the list. Does anyone know at what point in the match he received them?

by summerblues Tue 26 May 2015, 2:33 am

hawkeye wrote:Murray got a time violation while waiting for the crowd to quieten after Sears came up on the big screen again, voicing her support for her man. It was a weird, tense occasion.

http://www.theguardian.com/sport/2015/jan/29/andy-murray-tomas-berdych-australian-open

That looks to be a little more serious than taking an extra second or two to prepare to serve. Wouldn't it count as hindrance or distraction or even threatening behavior. Was it a time violation Murray received for this or some other code violation.

The article said time violation. Why does it look to be more serious than other time violations? I would say it looks less serious than most. I am actually surprised he received any violation for that, what did he do wrong? It appears he was just waiting for crowd to quiet down.

by temporary21 Tue 26 May 2015, 3:28 am

In the end if none of us are willing to do any work, then disagreeing is all we can do, having a go at one another isnt on though.

by bogbrush Tue 26 May 2015, 6:50 am

Haddie-nuff wrote:
bogbrush wrote:
Haddie-nuff wrote:No but there is the suggestion that in Nadal's case he requested a change of umpire, which is his entitlement. What we are about again, is there abuse of the tv rule, yes there is, but not by Nadal alone.. hey ho, have you heard this before.. The bigger question remains, is there abuse of the Umpire's powers to apply these rules fairly.. I also think there is.
Oh right, so players can veto the Umpire? And you don't see the exposure for corruption there?

Fact is that Nadal is a gross offender and receives only token 1st warnings..... and when we see an Umpire who stepped over the mark banned from his matches the reason is clear.

so players can veto the Umpire? Not Nadal specifically then ? The same option is open to ALL players yes?
So you see an Umpire turning a blind eye to ONE player and you just chalk it up as incompetence right? All fair in love and war.. unless it had been Nadal who had committed that violation again Roger...???
.. duplicity BB as is the norm

I find this type of dissembling quite depressing.

If anything, this thread is an exercise in trying to take a guy who's been breaking a rule all his career and creating false equivalences in the hope of misleading. If you have any examples of Federer - or Murray, Djokovic, or any of their peers - exerting such undue influence over officials then let's hear about them. Focussing on one Umpire apparently bottling a big call and trying to draw comparison to systematic manipulation of the sport is transparently lame.

I think it's a massive thing for the sport if - and for Haddies sake I'll be specific - Rafa Nadal gets to have Umpires barred from his matches because he applied the rules. I can't thing of another example in sport where I've heard of it, and there's no other contemporary examples in tennis.

It reinforces the sense that there's something not right about the way Nadal plays the sport; something hugely at variance to the public image of the humble warrior. Humble guys don't have officials excluded from their jobs. Humble guys accept and respect the position of others.

by **JuliusHMarx** Tue 26 May 2015, 8:19 am

temporary21 wrote:In the end if none of us are willing to do any work, then disagreeing is all we can do, having a go at one another isnt on though.

Surely, though, anyone not bothering to do the research, but then drawing conclusions despite a lack of research should be informed that their arguments are lazy and that their conclusions lack credibility. That's not having a go at anyone, that's simply pointing out how weak their arguments are, and why, which is perfectly acceptable.

by Born Slippy Tue 26 May 2015, 8:56 am

summerblues wrote:
hawkeye wrote:Murray got a time violation while waiting for the crowd to quieten after Sears came up on the big screen again, voicing her support for her man. It was a weird, tense occasion.

http://www.theguardian.com/sport/2015/jan/29/andy-murray-tomas-berdych-australian-open

That looks to be a little more serious than taking an extra second or two to prepare to serve. Wouldn't it count as hindrance or distraction or even threatening behavior. Was it a time violation Murray received for this or some other code violation.
The article said time violation. Why does it look to be more serious than other time violations? I would say it looks less serious than most. I am actually surprised he received any violation for that, what did he do wrong? It appears he was just waiting for crowd to quiet down.

HE knows all this. Its classic mis-direction and also gives her a chance to have a dig at Murray. Self-evidently, that was a poor occasion for a TV to be given with the umpire failing to take into account the surrounding circumstances.

by Haddie-nuff Tue 26 May 2015, 9:10 am

I think it's a massive thing for the sport if - and for Haddies sake I'll be specific - Rafa Nadal gets to have Umpires barred from his matches because he applied the rules. I can't thing of another example in sport where I've heard of it, and there's no other contemporary examples in tennis.

Please don't trouble yourself to be more specific.. you are as always more than transparent..I know precisely where you are coming from and I expect there are others who do too. Your response is of no surprise to me.
.
Lets get a few facts right.. "barred" I haven't heard that word mentioned by anyone but you. UMPIRES, we are talking of one umpire here. Nadal is doing nothing illegal, immoral or against the rules..(whether you can think of previous cases is not the issue) he is exercising his right, as any player is entitled to do, to request that an official not adjudicate at his matches if he is of the belief that the said official will not adjudicate fairly or without bias.
As... if you were on trial in a court of law and you believed there was member of the jury that could prejudice your , you are entitled to have that said member removed.

Nadal, as has been established has been guilty of TV's without a doubt, but we are also attempting to establish that umpires are not being fair when some players are being penalised and not others.. however, you are seemingly blinkered to that problem. Have you bothered to time other players? No because in truth you don't give a damn, merely yet another opportunity for you to stick the knife in. EH Mac ??

by Calder106 Tue 26 May 2015, 9:12 am

I will repost what I posted at the bottom of page 1 of this thread (April 28th 10:46). It was conveniently ignored as it didn't fit in with the agenda.

In reply to Hawkeye's earlier post. The Murray violation in Miami was against Anderson in the second game of the set 2 (Murray had won Set 1). Murray lost the game and the second set. I don't think however it was the violation that caused the lost set.

More relevant though if we are talking about it only being Nadal who is being singled out at important stages in matches Murray v Berdych AO semi this year. Murray 2 - 1 in sets up. 2-3 down in the fourth and two break points down. Saves the first and then is given a time violation warning before the second. He actually saved the point, won the game and ultimately the match. If that is not a violation given at a crucial time I don't know what is.

Please note I am not complaining about this. The rule is clearly there. The players need to stick to it or take the consequences even if it is at an important stage.

The Kim Sears swearing incident, which actually no one heard, was in the first set. The TV was at crucial stage of set 4 which is exactly the sort of thing I think HE is looking for. Yes she was shown on the screen, yes the crowd made a noise, yes Murray took too long to serve, and yes the umpire within the rules gave him a TV warning. So please HE don't try and write it off as not fitting with your criteria.

by Born Slippy Tue 26 May 2015, 9:44 am

I don't usually agree with BB but I do on this occasion. If (and I accept its only an "if") Rafa has requested that an umpire be banned from umpiring his matches because he enforces the rules then that is deeply concerning. I accept that most of the blame has to be placed at the door of the ATP. However, the request itself shows a wish to avoid the impact of the rules rather than comply with them. The obvious effect is that other umpires will be less willing to enforce against Rafa.

by Haddie-nuff Tue 26 May 2015, 10:00 am

Born Slippy wrote:I don't usually agree with BB but I do on this occasion. If (and I accept its only an "if") Rafa has requested that an umpire be banned from umpiring his matches because he enforces the rules then that is deeply concerning. I accept that most of the blame has to be placed at the door of the ATP. However, the request itself shows a wish to avoid the impact of the rules rather than comply with them. The obvious effect is that other umpires will be less willing to enforce against Rafa.

I do not know where the words "banned" and "barred" are coming from.. as I understand it Nadal has REQUESTED.

If Rafa had received all his TV's from this one umpire, and then asked for that umpire to be removed, then I could see there would be great concern, as I would. However if Nadal has received more TV's than any other player in the history of the game he has received them from all the umpires.. so why is he asking for only ONE not to adjudicate his matches.

Lets establish again, one thing, if the game is to learn anything from Nadal's mistake then let it be this. Tv's are against the rules, and the rules apply to all players.. therefore my argument is that it is now more important that the umpires be scrutinised more carefully; they can influence greatly the outcome of any match. If Nadal has put that matter in the spotlight then he has done that much at least.. If Nadal is put before the firing squad tomorrow, and the problem persists, then other players have learned nothing.

by Haddie-nuff Tue 26 May 2015, 10:47 am

I can't thing of another example in sport where I've heard of it, and there's no other contemporary examples in tennis.

ATP umpires might recall the case of Jeremy Shales, the British official who had a huge falling-out with Jimmy Connors at the Lipton Championships in 1986, then found that his contract was not renewed the following year.

by Matchpoint Tue 26 May 2015, 11:10 am

Haddie-nuff wrote:
Born Slippy wrote:I don't usually agree with BB but I do on this occasion. If (and I accept its only an "if") Rafa has requested that an umpire be banned from umpiring his matches because he enforces the rules then that is deeply concerning. I accept that most of the blame has to be placed at the door of the ATP. However, the request itself shows a wish to avoid the impact of the rules rather than comply with them. The obvious effect is that other umpires will be less willing to enforce against Rafa.

I do not know where the words "banned" and "barred" are coming from.. as I understand it Nadal has REQUESTED.

Old news already. But according to http://www.tennisworldusa.org/Rafael-Nadal-furious-with-Carlos-Bernardes-Ill-make-sure-that-you-dont-arbitrate-me-anymore-articolo22594.html, Nadal said to Bernardes: "I will make sure that you don't arbitrate me anymore.” Be honest, does that sound like a REQUEST? Alas, poor Carlos can't go anywhere near a Nadal match now and so-called humble bull turned out to be quite a bully. Laugh

by Sponsored content