Terrible application of the time rule that hurt Del Po

In the second set facing a break point Del PO serving up 3-1 is given a time warning. I am sure he does violate that rule but the umpires have to use discretion and warn them early on in the match and not wait to the most inopportune time. I understand they are there to enforce the rules but in tennis some points are bigger than others. These players have routines and if they go over they will go over enough for you to warn them early on in a match and or in the game. Eventhough the rule is written in application the umpire has to use so discretion as to when to interject. It cost del Po and unnerved him. He lost three games in a row and was visibly ticked off. Now I think he loses the match and the set anyway, but still it could have impacted that set's result. He was still up against it in the match overall, but the umpire should be smart enough and pick his spots.

Was he breaking the rule earlier in the match and nothing was done about it?
Was a quiet warning given earlier perhaps, but not picked up on camera?
Did he take longer on that particular point?

I didn't watch the match, so am just asking the questions, although I'm fairly sure JMDP is aware of the rules of tennis and that he should be following them, rather than breaking them.

Can only presume he was taking gratuitous time at that point and umpire had to act.
JMDP is a persistent offender...its a good (bad) lesson learnt by him, he'll be differently minded next time.

socal1976. You beat me to it! I was just about to write about this. I didn't see the match but read this about the Del-Potro time violation. Del Potro wasn't happy but full credit to Djokovic for speaking up in defence of Del Potro when he benefited from the disruption caused by it's application.

Del Potro said he lost his focus after the warning for the time violation.

"I lost my calm when I started to discuss with the umpire, and (Djokovic) come back in the second so quick," del Potro said. "He's the No. 1. When he feels the chance to improve his game, he always takes it. Tonight, he played better all the time."

Del Potro criticized the timing of the warning, considering it came just as he was ready to serve. His complaints followed that of Berdych, who said this week it was an unnecessary rule and a clock should be put on court to ensure the rule was consistently applied.

"We play very long rallies during the match and he called the warning just before I served, a break point down," del Potro said. "It's a very important point for the game, for the match. Maybe he doesn't know about that. ... If you call a warning or if you do something different, you can lose focus, and that's what happened with me."

Djokovic agreed it was an unfair call because del Potro had not been privately warned beforehand, which often is the custom.

"As a chair umpire, you need to follow the game," Djokovic said. "If it's a long point, you need to have that little amount of tolerance, I guess, and patience also for the player. It's unfortunate obviously, you know. I understand why he was frustrated."

http://www.tennis.com/pro-game/2013/03/berdych-saves-three-match-points-win-over-federer/46652/#.UTEbqzc-qkw

So Berdych is unhappy too. I have already posted the thoughts of Monfils on this stupid rule.

https://www.606v2.com/t41094-monfils-would-like-the-time-between-points-reduced-to-10-seconds

And It Must Be Love has brought attention to the heroic efforts of Rafa attempting to shield the poor ball boys from being forced to work in sweat shop conditions because of this rule.

https://www.606v2.com/t40976-nadal-to-be-knighted-after-saving-ballboys-from-sweatshop-like-conditions

The next move will involve all players who love the sport downing tools (racquets) in an effort to save the game. Up the workers!

Thing is, the rule specifically states that no extra time will be allowed for recovery. It's not hard to understand.

The problem isn't understanding what this stupid new rule states. The problem is that it is stupid.

Obviously it's not a new rule, as you are well aware - it is simply a lesser punishment for breaking it.

It has been a rule for many years. The problem is that is was being broken too frequently by too many players so the officials had to take action. The fault lies squarely with the players who have been unable to play within the laws of the game.

I think they should put a shot clock on the court so everyone sees how the rule is being applied. I don't mind speeding up the time between points but I think the rule still has to be applied with a bit a of discretion. I mean on a crucial point late in the match maybe is not when you want to establish the precedent that you are taking too much time. Del Po probably did take too much time but I don't think it was his first offense during the course of the match. Maybe it will take a couple of these controversies to make player's conscious of the rule and to follow it. However, I think less umpire involvement in crucial stages of the match is generally a good idea.

I'm ambivolous about it.
On the one hand rules should be stuck to, on the other 25s isn't enough after some ralleys.
I'm in favour of 30s blanket rule and players told 2nd serve every time they go over, no soft warnings just penalties from the get-go.

I'm dead against a clock, just turns what is a graceful, sophisticated game into brain-dead basketball.

Why because everyone can see how the play is timed and the players will know how to adjust themselves accordingly. Basketball is not brain dead but that is not even related to the subject at hand. Transparency and notice before hand are two great things to have when applying a penalty. I don't see this rule being any different.

I'm in favor of a re-introduction of the old rule. 25 seconds as a rough guideline but always with the umpires discretion.




Up the workers! (Sadly you don't hear that too often now days. All the workers are way too scared...)

Using shot clocks is fraught with outlier situations.

Soft warnings is a waste of time, make the time sensible then zero tolerance (outside defined outliers...)

Yes then it becomes a question of when the umpire is starting the clock and do you just trust that they all apply the rule the same way the same time. If you want uniformity bring along a shot clock.

We don't need "zero tolerance". Zero tolerance is no different to a shot clock.

Treat people like naughty school children and that's how they will behave. As a fan I don't want to see punishments and petty rules getting in the way of entertainment. Those that like that sort of thing maybe should look for another form of entertainment and leave tennis alone.

We could give each player 2, 30 second freezes of the shot clock per match. Then they could strategically chose when to use their 30 second timeout. And every other point has to be played in 25 seconds or you have a violation.

Isn't that why we have umpires?
Why not just have a clock, an auto net-cord flag and digital scorer then do away with the umpire too! Why not just completely metric-ise and dehumanise the game.

Wayne McEwen a longtime chair umpire from Australia who is now the referee at the Australian Open, said that a clock was used at a men’s tournament in Sydney in the early 1980s but was quickly abandoned.

“I remember I did three or four matches with it,” McEwen said. “I was only a line umpire then, and it caused so many problems that they got rid of it.”

lydian wrote:I'm ambivolous about it.

Is that a combination of ambivalent and frivolous? Just kidding Lydian, with my semantic analysis.

lydian wrote:On the one hand rules should be stuck to, on the other 25s isn't enough after some ralleys.
I'm in favour of 30s blanket rule and players told 2nd serve every time they go over, no soft warnings just penalties from the get-go.

Watching Davy-Federer replay, Davy was winded after a long rally, but no warning was forthcoming.

socal1976 wrote:We could give each player 2, 30 second freezes of the shot clock per match. Then they could strategically chose when to use their 30 second timeout. And every other point has to be played in 25 seconds or you have a violation.

Please No! I would doze off to sleep every time strategical use of the 30 second time out rule was discussed... Also I thought the intention was to stop players stopping continuous play in order to gain advantage not introduce new ways for players to gain advantage without the use of a tennis racquet.

laverfan wrote:

Watching Davy-Federer replay, Davy was winded after a long rally, but no warning was forthcoming.

If we really wanted tennis to be reduced to a test of who is the fittest then maybe Monfil's 10 second rule should be introduced?

Haha LF...touché
A bit of poetic licence on my part.

My feeling is that players should be able to serve within 30 secs of any ralley.
However, there is a school of thought whereby you go with 25s but add 5secs for every 10 shots over 20 shots...but that's cumbersome to administer.

Just need a blanket time that suits most. All the time offenders like Nadal, Djokovic, Del Potro have average times between serves per match of around 26-28 secs. 30 secs should therefore be met with no issue and be clamped down on. No ifs, buts, maybes, just impose it.

Djokovic agreed it was an unfair call because del Potro had not been privately warned beforehand, which often is the custom.

"As a chair umpire, you need to follow the game," Djokovic said. "If it's a long point, you need to have that little amount of tolerance, I guess, and patience also for the player. It's unfortunate obviously, you know. I understand why he was frustrated."

The ATP modified the rule this year to make it easier for umpires to crack down on slow play. Slow play between points has been a long-running complaint among fans and some players.

http://espn.go.com/tennis/story/_/id/9002433/tomas-berdych-upsets-roger-federer-final-novak-djokovic-dubai

Djokovic seems to agree that it was not the best enforcement of the rule. In enforcing any rule one must have a bit of discretion especially if we want to leave it in the hands of the umpires to do the job consistently. Djokovic confirms that Juan was not ever given a private warning prior to the umpire warning him really in mid service motion. The weird thing was Del Po was right about to toss the ball when he warned him.

The time offenders developed that time-breaking habit knowing they could get away with it. It's not like the didn't know the rule, they just made the decision not to adhere to it, because they knew it could benefit them. Now it's time (pardon the pun) that they did adhere to it.

So what do you make of McEwen's comments socal?

That ESPN story also says "Slow play between points has been a long-running complaint among fans and some players."

Exactly. But we have to recognise that the 25s rule was created back when surfaces were likely 20% quicker. So I say add 20% to the time, which means 30s...then impose it. No ifs or buts. And certainly no clocks.

Lydian

lydian wrote:So what do you make of McEwen's comments socal?

I do not fear modern technology or its influences on the game. I can't wait till we are watching bionic players who hit the ball 300 miles an hour. People forget how much controversy and how many matches were decided by disputted officiating in the past. If we want to speed up the game, I favor less discretion in the hands of people and more technological methods. There is more notice and transparency with the clock two things that everyone should want. I also think they need technology for the offsides rule in football. The idea that in the world of miles long particle accelerators the fact that a guy with a white flag still is charged with an impossible job is really quite silly. The faster you can replace linesman with robots the better we all will be. Why not time the 100 meters with a hand held stop watch or have an old lady down by the finish line counting one mississippi, two mississippi?

What the....................?

socal1976 wrote:

lydian wrote:So what do you make of McEwen's comments socal?

I do not fear modern technology or its influences on the game. I can't wait till we are watching bionic players who hit the ball 300 miles an hour.
The faster you can replace linesman with robots the better we all will be. Why not time the 100 meters with a hand held stop watch or have an old lady down by the finish line counting one mississippi, two mississippi?

What the feck are you on about lal

I believe the umpire already has a stop watch and is also allowed to use discretion for outside influences e.g. crowd noise, floating feathers etc.

It is a brave new world out there lydian, as I said the use of technology in sports has generally been beneficial, why not a shot clock?

I just can't stop laughing at the "I do not fear modern technology" point being linked to a clock that can count 25 seconds.

Clocks have been "modern technology" since medieval times.

lydian wrote:I just can't stop laughing at the "I do not fear modern technology" point being linked to a clock that can count 25 seconds.

Clocks have been "modern technology" since medieval times.

Yes but ours would be digital.

I had a digital watch in the 70s.

Well it is about time we updated the tour at the highest levels then isn't it.

Rolex is a sponsor of ATP, correct? Ot is it just ITF?

Now you are thinking laverfan a ticking rolex that starts playing the federer theme song if you go over and an automatic fault. Lets add some pizazz to the whole thing

socal1976 wrote:Now you are thinking laverfan a ticking rolex that starts playing the federer theme song if you go over and an automatic fault. Lets add some pizazz to the whole thing

Nalbandian said the same thing. No, hang on, he said let's add some pizzas to the whole thing.

LAL

JuliusHMarx wrote:

socal1976 wrote:Now you are thinking laverfan a ticking rolex that starts playing the federer theme song if you go over and an automatic fault. Lets add some pizazz to the whole thing

Nalbandian said the same thing. No, hang on, he said let's add some pizzas to the whole thing.

laugh out loud!, we know Nalbandian has suffered terribly from hunger pangs and low blood sugar his whole career.