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

by hawkeye Sat Apr 25, 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 Aut0Gr4ph Thu May 28, 2015 7:57 pm

temporary21 wrote:What about consistency then auto? Are you happy with the rule as long as it disproves HE's theory?

That seems an odd remark T21. Not sure why you need to be on the defensive about HE's wacky theories. If she insists on churning out her predictable conspiracy twaddle, it's going to attract some ridicule.

May be speaking out of turn here, but I do detect some bias in the way you've handled this thread. You've taken BB and co to task for speculating about the Bernardes incident, while HE accuses the tennis authorities of corruption and yet remains completely unchallenged by you. While the Bernardes controversy is open to interpretation, it is unquestionably a legitimate talking point. In contrast, you allowed HE to make much more serious and, let's face it, completely baseless allegations, apparently without batting an eyelid. You seem to be a reasoned poster, so I do find this disparity rather mystifying.

Anyway, regarding the TV rules, it's clear that they're not being strictly enforced and, as soon as you allow some umpire discretion, there will always be risk of consistency issues. However, the current approach is not automatically a recipe for unfairness. I don't see any major problem, as long as, broadly speaking, the most persistent offenders are getting the brunt of the punishments and I see no evidence that this is not currently the case.

Arguably, the status quo is only unfair to the quicker players, as they are the ones that would be largely unaffected if the rules were tightened up. It's the slower players that benefit from the current system, so I'm perplexed as to why Nadal fans are making such a fuss. Does anyone seriously believe that Nadal would be better off with a shot clock? As HE points out, even the occasional TV is adversely affecting his game.

by Guest Thu May 28, 2015 9:43 pm

Make what you will of this

http://www.theguardian.com/sport/2015/may/28/andy-murray-time-violations-french-open-win

by bogbrush Thu May 28, 2015 9:51 pm

I'm sure that's cemented his place in Hawkeyes affections!!!

Seriously though, it's a relief to see this attitude. And the statement that the time rule is really important.

by Guest Thu May 28, 2015 9:56 pm

I am sure she can't wait to read it!

It's a good insight. He acknowledges its difficult to know when your going over the time limit and that also he knows when he is playing slow. He doesn't object to the rule or how its enforced.

by Henman Bill Thu May 28, 2015 10:29 pm

Are there any charity matches coming up soon? I could see a lot of mileage in players and umpires making jokes about this situation and giving time violations.

by Henman Bill Thu May 28, 2015 10:34 pm

I think one of the situations here is that players are getting a TV and then saying "ah, but I was distracted/slowed by x, y, z" to whiich the umpires should be replying "I am giving you a time violation for repetitive violations, at least ten within this match so far, rather than because you did it in one specific case".

It sounds like in the Murray case a specific clarification could be made about whether or not players should wait for replays to end.

by Henman Bill Thu May 28, 2015 10:37 pm

Kind of a vicious circle when they put the replays in so the crowd has something to watch while the players faff about, and then that causes them to take even longer.

But perhaps it would make sense for the person controlling/showing the big screen relays that they should show only 1 replay at most, and always finished within 10 seconds of the previous point ending.

On a related note, it is a real pet hate of mine when you miss the start of a point on TV because they are showing a replay. We only need 1 replay between points and only for the best points or occassional, TV can never control themselves and think we need 2 replays between a point on every other point. We don't.

by bogbrush Fri May 29, 2015 7:07 am

This business about the argument having to do with shorts doesn't seem to hold up;

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=sE3QX5Ht9Vw

From this it looks like he tells him he doesn't want him Umpiring him again in a match where he just gets straightforward TVs.

If true, what's all this guff about it being all to do with "respect"?

by hawkeye Fri May 29, 2015 9:28 am

I recalled a little incident from a few years back that is relevant to this discussion in so many ways. I have a recording of this match and suspected who the Umpire might be. I was correct.

The US Open semi 2011 Nadal/Murray was umpired by Bernardos. Murray was serving at 4-6, 2-6, 6-3, 1-2 and was in bother on his serve. He was as all players do taking ages to compose himself to fight off break points. After the third deuce of the game Nadal had another break point. Murray stopped play and walked slowly to his kit bag, fiddled about in it and fished out a pack containing a new sweat band. Fiddled about with the packaging whilst walking back to the base line. As this was going on the commentator said "Carlos Bernardos is being a little generous with the time between points... Nadal just looking up to the Umpire probably thinking if this was me... " After Murray has replaced his wrist band he walks back towards the Umpire and shows it. Bernardos smiles at him and nods. Then says "Are we ready to play? By the time Murray served 1 minute 7 seconds had passed since the last point. After the point was played the commentator said "Murray took nearly a minute between points but common sense from Bernardos in not giving Murray a warning.

Compare this to the Nadal incident were Bernardos refused Nadal permission to change his shorts at the change of ends. I am interested to know why Murray is treated with understanding for taking his time on a crucial point and Nadal is treated entirely differently for asking to put his shorts on the correct way at a break in play.

by hawkeye Fri May 29, 2015 9:41 am

bogbrush wrote:This business about the argument having to do with shorts doesn't seem to hold up;

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=sE3QX5Ht9Vw

From this it looks like he tells him he doesn't want him Umpiring him again in a match where he just gets straightforward TVs.

If true, what's all this guff about it being all to do with "respect"?

I wonder what would have been the response if Federer had had to change his shorts by in full view of millions being watched by a laughing Umpire who refused permission for him to leave the court? I wonder if the word "respect" might have been mentioned. But then it's nothing to do with being a multi slam winning all time great because I can't believe that the word "respect" wouldn't have been mentioned no matter who was treated like this. Imagine an 11 year old in a PE lesson being told to do this in front of all their class mates whilst the teacher rolled about laughing. I would imagine the teacher would be in a little more trouble than Bernardos.

As to the clip you have posted that has been discussed in detail pages back. Please check back. It's a little tedious to keep repeating stuff Smile

by bogbrush Fri May 29, 2015 10:03 am

Well this is the event he told him he'd sort him out and it wasn't about shorts. Obviously Rafa must have been threatening him multiple times. I guess in your strange take on reality that makes Carlos even more to blame. picard

To be fair to Rafa, I understand his Uncle Toni usually dresses him and he wasn't available at the tournament.

by Guest Fri May 29, 2015 10:04 am

hawkeye wrote:I recalled a little incident from a few years back that is relevant to this discussion in so many ways. I have a recording of this match and suspected who the Umpire might be. I was correct.

The US Open semi 2011 Nadal/Murray was umpired by Bernardos. Murray was serving at 4-6, 2-6, 6-3, 1-2 and was in bother on his serve. He was as all players do taking ages to compose himself to fight off break points. After the third deuce of the game Nadal had another break point. Murray stopped play and walked slowly to his kit bag, fiddled about in it and fished out a pack containing a new sweat band. Fiddled about with the packaging whilst walking back to the base line. As this was going on the commentator said "Carlos Bernardos is being a little generous with the time between points... Nadal just looking up to the Umpire probably thinking if this was me... " After Murray has replaced his wrist band he walks back towards the Umpire and shows it. Bernardos smiles at him and nods. Then says "Are we ready to play? By the time Murray served 1 minute 7 seconds had passed since the last point. After the point was played the commentator said "Murray took nearly a minute between points but common sense from Bernardos in not giving Murray a warning.

Compare this to the Nadal incident were Bernardos refused Nadal permission to change his shorts at the change of ends. I am interested to know why Murray is treated with understanding for taking his time on a crucial point and Nadal is treated entirely differently for asking to put his shorts on the correct way at a break in play.

Maybe it has to with years of trust?? Did Rafa himself get a TV during this match? Did Rafa himself take the pi$$ between points? Again consistency is something lacking in your argument.

As to the highlighted part. Yeah I bet Rafa sat there and thought "Maybe not now, but in years to come you will penalise me for wanting to adjust my shorts. You just don't know it yet"

by bogbrush Fri May 29, 2015 10:06 am

hawkeye wrote:I recalled a little incident from a few years back that is relevant to this discussion in so many ways. I have a recording of this match and suspected who the Umpire might be. I was correct.

The US Open semi 2011 Nadal/Murray was umpired by Bernardos. Murray was serving at 4-6, 2-6, 6-3, 1-2 and was in bother on his serve. He was as all players do taking ages to compose himself to fight off break points. After the third deuce of the game Nadal had another break point. Murray stopped play and walked slowly to his kit bag, fiddled about in it and fished out a pack containing a new sweat band. Fiddled about with the packaging whilst walking back to the base line. As this was going on the commentator said "Carlos Bernardos is being a little generous with the time between points... Nadal just looking up to the Umpire probably thinking if this was me I'd have repacked my bags in a new order... " After Murray has replaced his wrist band he walks back towards the Umpire and shows it. Bernardos smiles at him and nods. Then says "Are we ready to play? By the time Murray served 1 minute 7 seconds had passed since the last point. After the point was played the commentator said "Murray took nearly a minute between points but common sense from Bernardos in not giving Murray a warning.

Compare this to the Nadal incident were Bernardos refused Nadal permission to change his shorts at the change of ends. I am interested to know why Murray is treated with understanding for taking his time on a crucial point and Nadal is treated entirely differently for asking to put his shorts on the correct way at a break in play.

Corrected.

He didn't refuse to let him change his shorts. He just told him to stick to the rules.

by hawkeye Fri May 29, 2015 10:17 am

legendkillarV2 wrote:
hawkeye wrote:I recalled a little incident from a few years back that is relevant to this discussion in so many ways. I have a recording of this match and suspected who the Umpire might be. I was correct.

The US Open semi 2011 Nadal/Murray was umpired by Bernardos. Murray was serving at 4-6, 2-6, 6-3, 1-2 and was in bother on his serve. He was as all players do taking ages to compose himself to fight off break points. After the third deuce of the game Nadal had another break point. Murray stopped play and walked slowly to his kit bag, fiddled about in it and fished out a pack containing a new sweat band. Fiddled about with the packaging whilst walking back to the base line. As this was going on the commentator said "Carlos Bernardos is being a little generous with the time between points... Nadal just looking up to the Umpire probably thinking if this was me... " After Murray has replaced his wrist band he walks back towards the Umpire and shows it. Bernardos smiles at him and nods. Then says "Are we ready to play? By the time Murray served 1 minute 7 seconds had passed since the last point. After the point was played the commentator said "Murray took nearly a minute between points but common sense from Bernardos in not giving Murray a warning.

Compare this to the Nadal incident were Bernardos refused Nadal permission to change his shorts at the change of ends. I am interested to know why Murray is treated with understanding for taking his time on a crucial point and Nadal is treated entirely differently for asking to put his shorts on the correct way at a break in play.

Maybe it has to with years of trust?? Did Rafa himself get a TV during this match? Did Rafa himself take the pi$$ between points? Again consistency is something lacking in your argument.

As to the highlighted part. Yeah I bet Rafa sat there and thought "Maybe not now, but in years to come you will penalise me for wanting to adjust my shorts. You just don't know it yet"

I've obviously got a point if that's all you can come up with Rolling Eyes

by Guest Fri May 29, 2015 10:19 am

hawkeye wrote:
legendkillarV2 wrote:
hawkeye wrote:I recalled a little incident from a few years back that is relevant to this discussion in so many ways. I have a recording of this match and suspected who the Umpire might be. I was correct.

The US Open semi 2011 Nadal/Murray was umpired by Bernardos. Murray was serving at 4-6, 2-6, 6-3, 1-2 and was in bother on his serve. He was as all players do taking ages to compose himself to fight off break points. After the third deuce of the game Nadal had another break point. Murray stopped play and walked slowly to his kit bag, fiddled about in it and fished out a pack containing a new sweat band. Fiddled about with the packaging whilst walking back to the base line. As this was going on the commentator said "Carlos Bernardos is being a little generous with the time between points... Nadal just looking up to the Umpire probably thinking if this was me... " After Murray has replaced his wrist band he walks back towards the Umpire and shows it. Bernardos smiles at him and nods. Then says "Are we ready to play? By the time Murray served 1 minute 7 seconds had passed since the last point. After the point was played the commentator said "Murray took nearly a minute between points but common sense from Bernardos in not giving Murray a warning.

Compare this to the Nadal incident were Bernardos refused Nadal permission to change his shorts at the change of ends. I am interested to know why Murray is treated with understanding for taking his time on a crucial point and Nadal is treated entirely differently for asking to put his shorts on the correct way at a break in play.

Maybe it has to with years of trust?? Did Rafa himself get a TV during this match? Did Rafa himself take the pi$$ between points? Again consistency is something lacking in your argument.

As to the highlighted part. Yeah I bet Rafa sat there and thought "Maybe not now, but in years to come you will penalise me for wanting to adjust my shorts. You just don't know it yet"

I've obviously got a point if that's all you can come up with

Or equally we could pretend Nadal never broke the rule Rolling Eyes

Shall we dig up old Rafa matches when he wasn't penalised?

by Guest Fri May 29, 2015 10:26 am

http://www.mirror.co.uk/sport/tennis/french-open-andy-murray-shames-5781082

by bogbrush Fri May 29, 2015 10:31 am

legendkillarV2 wrote:http://www.mirror.co.uk/sport/tennis/french-open-andy-murray-shames-5781082

Pwned!!!!

by Guest Fri May 29, 2015 10:37 am

What's intersting is Pascal spoke with Andy about his pace and in his judgment wasn't increasing, so penalised him. Andy accepted it.

Let's see if other umpires and players follow suit.

by bogbrush Fri May 29, 2015 10:39 am

I'd actually find it funny in an explosive sort of way if Federer got penalised for general play.

(I do think he shouldn't change his racquet the way he does though)

by Guest Fri May 29, 2015 10:48 am

Well if he did get penalised, it depends on his reaction.

Either way the forum would capitulate Laugh

by Guest Fri May 29, 2015 10:55 am

Though what made me laugh was prior to Murray getting his first TV the first point on his serve Sousa got a net chord and I am sure Murray muttered "Lucky F**ker" Laugh

Petchers apologised on his behalf.

by **laverfan** Fri May 29, 2015 12:22 pm

Is this thread meant to discuss TVs and continuous play, or hurl accusations and counter-accusations at fans of players, and players and umpires to see if they are capable and qualified to implement a rule which tries to level the playing field for slow and fast players, both?

Players abuse, umpires incompetence and humanity in-between has been discussed, but the only concrete suggestion so far, is to put a shot clock in public view and let the public boo or clap, as necessary.

Perhaps slams are too taxing physically for players, we should consider a one-set 20-points match or a super tie-break for slams, and no sitting down, no water, no TVs.

Recall, there were no chairs to sit on a few decades ago, which was the original notion of 'continuous' play.

by bogbrush Fri May 29, 2015 12:30 pm

laverfan wrote:Is this thread meant to discuss TVs and continuous play, or hurl accusations and counter-accusations at fans of players, and players and umpires to see if they are capable and qualified to implement a rule which tries to level the playing field for slow and fast players, both?

Players abuse, umpires incompetence and humanity in-between has been discussed, but the only concrete suggestion so far, is to put a shot clock in public view and let the public boo or clap, as necessary.

Perhaps slams are too taxing physically for players, we should consider a one-set 20-points match or a super tie-break for slams, and no sitting down, no water, no TVs.

Recall, there were no chairs to sit on a few decades ago, which was the original notion of 'continuous' play.

Yeah, I think that's pretty much what tennis forums are for, right? Wink

by Matchpoint Fri May 29, 2015 12:36 pm

Aut0Gr4ph wrote:
temporary21 wrote:What about consistency then auto? Are you happy with the rule as long as it disproves HE's theory?

That seems an odd remark T21. Not sure why you need to be on the defensive about HE's wacky theories. If she insists on churning out her predictable conspiracy twaddle, it's going to attract some ridicule.

May be speaking out of turn here, but I do detect some bias in the way you've handled this thread. You've taken BB and co to task for speculating about the Bernardes incident, while HE accuses the tennis authorities of corruption and yet remains completely unchallenged by you. While the Bernardes controversy is open to interpretation, it is unquestionably a legitimate talking point. In contrast, you allowed HE to make much more serious and, let's face it, completely baseless allegations, apparently without batting an eyelid. You seem to be a reasoned poster, so I do find this disparity rather mystifying.

Anyway, regarding the TV rules, it's clear that they're not being strictly enforced and, as soon as you allow some umpire discretion, there will always be risk of consistency issues. However, the current approach is not automatically a recipe for unfairness. I don't see any major problem, as long as, broadly speaking, the most persistent offenders are getting the brunt of the punishments and I see no evidence that this is not currently the case.

Arguably, the status quo is only unfair to the quicker players, as they are the ones that would be largely unaffected if the rules were tightened up. It's the slower players that benefit from the current system, so I'm perplexed as to why Nadal fans are making such a fuss. Does anyone seriously believe that Nadal would be better off with a shot clock? As HE points out, even the occasional TV is adversely affecting his game.

This is overall a very good post, well-written and to-the-point. clap

Temp, the 2nd paragraph is particularly note-worthy. Over to you. thumbsup

by Jahu Fri May 29, 2015 1:03 pm

oh thanks god, I was searching the whole forum where has this thread of the year gone, and then i see it it got sticky & juicy.

Good, now its not on top of the list of threads Wink

by **laverfan** Fri May 29, 2015 2:10 pm

bogbrush wrote:Yeah, I think that's pretty much what tennis forums are for, right?

You are very funny, BB. Laugh

It would lead to a much more civilized discussion if specific players are/were left out and a general discussion took place. Examples used to illustrate rules are not always the most impressive methods. Statistics can be, but if analyzed without emotion.

Aut0gr4ph has made his stand. Examples just make a more defensive discussion, which is a disaster waiting to happen, no matter who the example is Nadal, Djokovic, Murray, Federer.

Another scenario to consider mathematically is to take the difference between the seeding (or ATP Rank) of two singles opponents and create an equation to generate a per match time-between-points-interval which the umpires can enforce.

If it is Djokovic v Nadal, the TVs are called at 40 seconds, but if it is Federer v Dzumhur it is 15 seconds between points.

by temporary21 Fri May 29, 2015 2:28 pm

Matchpoint wrote:
Aut0Gr4ph wrote:
temporary21 wrote:What about consistency then auto? Are you happy with the rule as long as it disproves HE's theory?

That seems an odd remark T21. Not sure why you need to be on the defensive about HE's wacky theories. If she insists on churning out her predictable conspiracy twaddle, it's going to attract some ridicule.

May be speaking out of turn here, but I do detect some bias in the way you've handled this thread. You've taken BB and co to task for speculating about the Bernardes incident, while HE accuses the tennis authorities of corruption and yet remains completely unchallenged by you. While the Bernardes controversy is open to interpretation, it is unquestionably a legitimate talking point. In contrast, you allowed HE to make much more serious and, let's face it, completely baseless allegations, apparently without batting an eyelid. You seem to be a reasoned poster, so I do find this disparity rather mystifying.

Anyway, regarding the TV rules, it's clear that they're not being strictly enforced and, as soon as you allow some umpire discretion, there will always be risk of consistency issues. However, the current approach is not automatically a recipe for unfairness. I don't see any major problem, as long as, broadly speaking, the most persistent offenders are getting the brunt of the punishments and I see no evidence that this is not currently the case.

Arguably, the status quo is only unfair to the quicker players, as they are the ones that would be largely unaffected if the rules were tightened up. It's the slower players that benefit from the current system, so I'm perplexed as to why Nadal fans are making such a fuss. Does anyone seriously believe that Nadal would be better off with a shot clock? As HE points out, even the occasional TV is adversely affecting his game.
This is overall a very good post, well-written and to-the-point.

Temp, the 2nd paragraph is particularly note-worthy. Over to you.

You might want to note then, MP, that this decision was unanimous amongst all mods. Julius has had just enough of this circular argument as I have and HE was the one who stickied it. So back off with what you reckon,

Had BB and Haddie moved on the convo like we tried to do many many many times, this wouldnt have happened He, though you publicly laugh at her constantly at leats comes with evidence of some sort, make what you will of its bias, and isnt actively rude to people who disagree with her

Now back on topic or we start splitting the topic

by bogbrush Fri May 29, 2015 2:34 pm

Yes, hawkeye comes out with evidence. That's true. Admittedly, she makes it up, but at least it's evidence and also it takes more imagination so credit where it's due.

P.S. Can you split a sticky? Does that make it a tacky or what?

by temporary21 Fri May 29, 2015 2:34 pm

Tell you what, you think Haddies posts are over the mark, THEN REPORT IT, think HE is using libel REPORT IT. Or try and do some actual work to disprove it, or I dont know just ignore it, is it really so hard for you to understand, Haddies had been warned, he is being watched by JHm here trust me its not going unnoticed, despite noone helping out.

Dont cry foul to just one of us when none of you have used the proper channels to help this thread in any way, shape, or form

by bogbrush Fri May 29, 2015 2:39 pm

temporary21 wrote:Tell you what, you think Haddies posts are over the mark, THEN REPORT IT, think HE is using libel REPORT IT. Or try and do some actual work to disprove it, or I dont know just ignore it, is it really so hard for you to understand, Haddies had been warned, he is being watched by JHm here trust me its not going unnoticed, despite noone helping out.

Dont cry foul to just one of us when none of you have used the proper channels to help this thread in any way, shape, or form

Who is that too?

If it's me, it's unnecessary. I don't care if hawkeye posts her fictions to support absurd arguments. It's part of the rich tapestry and fun (what remains) of coming on here.

Neither am I concerned if hawkeye libels; that's not my problem.

If the post wasn't for me then all's good, no worries.

by Aut0Gr4ph Fri May 29, 2015 11:58 pm

http://en.espn.co.uk/tennis/sport/story/275491.html

Here's another relevant article, dating back to last year's AO.

My two observations are:

1. I don't understand Nadal's objection to the timing of the TV (at 4-4 deuce in the 3rd set). I'm probably not the only one who's noticed that Nadal tends to take a bit of extra time on big points, so it stands to reason he's at greater risk of a TV on a big point. It also seems to be the case that TVs are usually only doled out for persistently slow play, with a soft warning given first. Combine that with the probability that play will slow down as the players become more fatigued, then it's hardly surprising if TVs are concentrated towards the business end of a long match.

2. I think his comments at the end of the article are disrespectful to the umpire and unbecoming of a player of his stature. If he doesn't like the TV rule, by all means take it up with the ATP/ITF, but don't imply the umpire isn't doing their job properly. Alas, the latest incident with Bernardes does not seem to be without precedent.

by hawkeye Sat May 30, 2015 8:28 am

Watching a womens match yesterday. Long fought with lots of drama. Maybe both women took longer than 20 seconds more times than not but I doubt the crowd noticed they were enjoying themselves too much

It was between Cornet and Lucic-Baroni. When Lucic-Baroni was serving at 4-6, 6-3, 5-6, 15-30 in the final set. The Umpire chose that moment to give Lucic-Baroni a shove. This well timed shove could have had a lot to do with Lucic-Baroni double faulting on the next point to give Cornet two match points. Cornet won but I think the Umpire deserves a little credit too.

by bogbrush Sat May 30, 2015 8:47 am

More evidence of widespread application of tvs beyond Nadal.

Good report.

by hawkeye Sat May 30, 2015 8:59 am

bogbrush wrote:More evidence of widespread application of tvs beyond Nadal.

Good report.

More evidence of selective applications of time violations and the effect it can have. The rule stinks!

by Johnyjeep Sat May 30, 2015 9:56 am

How much longer can this open questioning of an umpire's integrity and or the ATP go on for?

When there is absolutely no evidence to suggest otherwise?

The rantings of one poster watching the odd game here or there is so inconsequential that it is not proof of systemic corruption by the Tour or umpires.

And I've still yet to see any response addressing the issue Autograph raised in his second paragraph on 28th May 7.57.

by lags72 Sat May 30, 2015 9:59 am

hawkeye wrote:Watching a womens match yesterday. Long fought with lots of drama. Maybe both women took longer than 20 seconds more times than not but I doubt the crowd noticed they were enjoying themselves too much

...................................................

The fact that you say "maybe both women took longer than 20 seconds more times than not" tells us that you don't know for sure whether they did or didn't.

But it's the Umpire's job to monitor TV's and impose penalties in accordance with the rules of the game. Whether or not the crowd 'noticed' the violations (which you casually assume they did not) is totally immaterial - in the same way that if the crowd - or you - happen not to notice a foot-fault, then it has no bearing whatever on the decision to impose a penalty. The application of the rule is not determined by the fact that "the crowd were enjoying themselves too much"

As to your subsequent observation that TV penalties can affect the player .......well, surprise, surprise, that's the idea of penalties - whether in sport or in everyday life. Punishment for rule- or law-breaking is intended to impact on the guilty party.

Based on the presentation of your arguments and "evidence" throughout this thread, I would strongly recommend, with all respect hawkeye, that you never attempt to defend yourself in a court of law without expert professional guidance & support.

by bogbrush Sat May 30, 2015 10:16 am

hawkeye wrote:
bogbrush wrote:More evidence of widespread application of tvs beyond Nadal.

Good report.

More evidence of selective applications of time violations and the effect it can have. The rule stinks!

Sorry, are you upset about the rule ("the rule stinks") or its application ("selective")?

Could you straighten your post out so someone can debate it. It's a bit confused at the moment.

by LuvSports! Sat May 30, 2015 10:28 am

hawkeye wrote:Watching a womens match yesterday. Long fought with lots of drama. Maybe both women took longer than 20 seconds more times than not but I doubt the crowd noticed they were enjoying themselves too much

It was between Cornet and Lucic-Baroni. When Lucic-Baroni was serving at 4-6, 6-3, 5-6, 15-30 in the final set. The Umpire chose that moment to give Lucic-Baroni a shove. This well timed shove could have had a lot to do with Lucic-Baroni double faulting on the next point to give Cornet two match points. Cornet won but I think the Umpire deserves a little credit too.

Cornet got a TV as well when she took too long when serving for the match.
What you don't realise is that on bigger points quite a lot of players take longer, hence the tv!

by Matchpoint Sat May 30, 2015 10:31 am

hawkeye wrote:Watching a womens match yesterday. Long fought with lots of drama. Maybe both women took longer than 20 seconds more times than not but I doubt the crowd noticed they were enjoying themselves too much

It was between Cornet and Lucic-Baroni. When Lucic-Baroni was serving at 4-6, 6-3, 5-6, 15-30 in the final set. The Umpire chose that moment to give Lucic-Baroni a shove. This well timed shove could have had a lot to do with Lucic-Baroni double faulting on the next point to give Cornet two match points. Cornet won but I think the Umpire deserves a little credit too

by Matchpoint Sat May 30, 2015 10:43 am

Johnyjeep wrote:How much longer can this open questioning of an umpire's integrity and or the ATP go on for?

And I've still yet to see any response addressing the issue Autograph raised in his second paragraph on 28th May 7.57.

If Nadal wins the current RG, it ends next Sunday. Wink

by Matchpoint Sat May 30, 2015 10:51 am

lags72 wrote:
hawkeye wrote:Watching a womens match yesterday. Long fought with lots of drama. Maybe both women took longer than 20 seconds more times than not but I doubt the crowd noticed they were enjoying themselves too much

...................................................

As to your subsequent observation that TV penalties can affect the player .......well, surprise, surprise, that's the idea of penalties - whether in sport or in everyday life. Punishment for rule- or law-breaking is intended to impact on the guilty party.

Based on the presentation of your arguments and "evidence" throughout this thread, I would strongly recommend, with all respect hawkeye, that you never attempt to defend yourself in a court of law without expert professional guidance & support.

by **JuliusHMarx** Sat May 30, 2015 11:01 am

Give it a rest MP - please don't apply blanket statements like that especially without anything to back it up.

Lags, you too. Re-read your post ask it yourself whether you are now walking a thin line.

Hawkeye, baseless insinuations on the neutrality of the umpires, or corruption, without evidence (which you have yet to provide), must stop.

by Aut0Gr4ph Sat May 30, 2015 12:59 pm

Not sure if this is permissible within forum rules, but, as well as providing evidence about this alleged corruption, I'd also be fascinated to hear HE's rationale for Nadal being persecuted by the tennis authorities. Namely, who on earth is behind this supposed anti-Nadal campaign and why are umpires and other officials complicit in it?

In a sense, HE is right in that the TV rule is designed to target slow players and, so, if you accept that Nadal is a slow player, then, in a way, he is being targeted. But the idea that this is somehow personal to Nadal and that the authorities have it in for him seems ridiculously far fetched to me.

I would be genuinely interested on what HE would have to say on this, but don't hold up much hope of a candid response (given JHM's previous post, perhaps that's a good thing!).

by Aut0Gr4ph Sat May 30, 2015 1:10 pm

LuvSports! wrote:
hawkeye wrote:Watching a womens match yesterday. Long fought with lots of drama. Maybe both women took longer than 20 seconds more times than not but I doubt the crowd noticed they were enjoying themselves too much

It was between Cornet and Lucic-Baroni. When Lucic-Baroni was serving at 4-6, 6-3, 5-6, 15-30 in the final set. The Umpire chose that moment to give Lucic-Baroni a shove. This well timed shove could have had a lot to do with Lucic-Baroni double faulting on the next point to give Cornet two match points. Cornet won but I think the Umpire deserves a little credit too.

Cornet got a TV as well when she took too long when serving for the match.
What you don't realise is that on bigger points quite a lot of players take longer, hence the tv!

Exactly! I think it's pretty commonplace for some players to take a bit of extra time on big points (can anyone be bothered to do the research to back this up!?). Clearly, if you're already treading a fine line with slow play, then you run the risk of attracting violations on big points. Can HE explain how it would be fair to water down the intended impact of the rule by only enforcing it on lesser points (whatever those are)?

by **laverfan** Mon Jun 01, 2015 6:09 pm

Today, Nadal v Sock at 5-5 in third set, Tennis Channel reports that Nadal was 100% of the time over the 20 second limit, while Sock was 66% over the same limit.

by hawkeye Mon Jun 01, 2015 11:30 pm

laverfan wrote:Today, Nadal v Sock at 5-5 in third set, Tennis Channel reports that Nadal was 100% of the time over the 20 second limit, while Sock was 66% over the same limit.

That's interesting. I wonder how they measured the time. I think this has been discussed before if it is just taken from an average rather than being individually timed then the figure isn't quite as accurate. Did tennis channel give any more information about how they got these figures?

Not surprising. The time violation rule is all but ignored. No one cares about it. This makes looking at when an Umpire decides to give out a penalty interesting. What makes them decide to penalize a player on a particular point. Why do some players receive penalties and some don't? Why do Umpires sometimes give out penalties when it doesn't matter then at other times give one at a pivotal point when it can affect the outcome of a match? In the match you have mentioned why did the Umpire allow the players to go over 20 seconds practically all the time? How would either player even know they were breaking the rule if they weren't penalized? In that particular match I believe there were only two time violations given out both to Nadal. I missed the first one but would be interested to know when it was? The second was given to Nadal when he was serving for the match in the third set 5-4, 30-40 and he lost a first serve and was broken. He went on to lose the set.

Why give a tv to a player in what could have well have been the last game of the match when according to the tennis channel figures he had been going over 20 seconds from the beginning of the match? If the rule was meant to make players play more quickly how would that work? It wouldn't. So what was the reasoning for taking away Nadal's first serve at that particular point in the game?

by hawkeye Mon Jun 01, 2015 11:36 pm

I'd like to update this too

hawkeye wrote: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.

French Open 4th round Nadal v Sock. Nadal serving for the match 6-3, 6-1, 5-4, 30-40 time violation loss of first serve. Lost serve and subsequently the set. (I don't know at what point Nadal received the first tv?)

That makes it 9 matches that I know of since Rio

by hawkeye Mon Jun 01, 2015 11:47 pm

As part of this research If someone can list the tv's that Murray has had this year including where in the match they were given (that's very important)

Also any other tv's particularly ones on pivitol points. I mentioned the shocking one that Lucic-Baroni received in her match against Cornet when serving at 4-6, 6-3, 5-6, 15-30 in the final set. She double faulted to give Cornet two match points and Cornet took the first.

by lags72 Tue Jun 02, 2015 12:43 am

hawkeye wrote:

.........................................................

The time violation rule is all but ignored. No one cares about it.

................................................

No one cares about it ....?

Can this really be true .... chin

I think it's safe to say a good few people DO care about it.

Such as the ATP ; and the ITF ; and the Players Council who were party to the introduction of the rule.

And the commentators ; and many, many spectators, pundits and observers. And the wider media.

And then there are the players who often discuss the rule in interviews.

And let's not forget the forum members who have thus far filled eighteen pages discussing it.

by **laverfan** Tue Jun 02, 2015 4:54 am

hawkeye wrote:
laverfan wrote:Today, Nadal v Sock at 5-5 in third set, Tennis Channel reports that Nadal was 100% of the time over the 20 second limit, while Sock was 66% over the same limit.
That's interesting. I wonder how they measured the time. I think this has been discussed before if it is just taken from an average rather than being individually timed then the figure isn't quite as accurate. Did tennis channel give any more information about how they got these figures?

This comes from the IBM Tracker and is part of the slam feed. There is a similar feed for ATP/WTA. TC does not provide the details of the method(s) used. TC would not report something which they did not get from a reliable source.

You are asking how a house is valued, rather than what is the value of the house. Similar questions apply to stock market and other financial transactions.

Since you and I both saw the same match, you can analyze it in slow-motion with time indexing and judge it yourself as well.

hawkeye wrote:Why do Umpires sometimes give out penalties when it doesn't matter then at other times give one at a pivotal point when it can affect the outcome of a match? In the match you have mentioned why did the Umpire allow the players to go over 20 seconds practically all the time? How would either player even know they were breaking the rule if they weren't penalized?

In matches at this level, every point is pivotal for the player, it may not be for the spectators, who are just looking at Bps and Deuces. To get to a deuce, you have to win points, which are as critical as the BP or deuces.

Look at Djokovic v Gasquet and the first 4 games in first set and then look at the first set scoreline, and you can see the importance of each point.

Aut0gr4ph's statement about targeting a player is very clear on who the targets are rather than who the target is.

A shot clock may have the negative impact of a slower playing being slow-clapped or booed on court. Is that fair? DC is already too nationalistic.

by Sponsored content