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

First topic message reminder :

I am doing a little research into the application of the time violation rule. Players are meant to take no more than 25 seconds between points. If they take longer they are meant to be given a warning on the first violation and on subsequent ones lose a first serve. It is proving difficult to find information on the number of penalties handed out and if the rule is being enforced correctly. If anyone is interested maybe they could help?

I would like to know of any instances when players have received a warning or loss of first serve and what the score was at the time.

How often players go over 25 seconds without being penalized.

The first question could be perhaps partly answered from memory and partly from noting new incidents

The second question could be answered by watching parts of any match and timing a few points. I've found this easy to do by using the timer that appears when you rewind or slow live TV as it shows the seconds but a watch or clock would work fine. According to the ATP rule book timing should start when the ball goes out of play and stop when the ball is struck for the next point. I have gathered some information but it's impossible to watch all matches so any information would be useful. 



NEW petition expressing concern about the inconsistent use of the time violation rule

Time limits for tennis players? Time for a response - a request to the ATP & ITF

We want to bring to your urgent attention the fact that growing numbers of tennis fans are raising serious concerns about the inconsistent application of the Time Violation Warning rule in ATP and ITF tournaments. This is beginning to spoil our enjoyment of this exceptional sport.

Umpires are currently issuing warnings randomly and arbitrarily, with some players who persistently go over the time limit not being penalised, and others regularly being given a warning.

In addition, it has been noted that the first warning of a match is suddenly given at a crucial point in a game - e.g. at break point - even when the time has been exceeded previously. We are concerned that this practice could significantly alter the outcome of a match.

We, the undersigned, urge you to find a way of regularising the application of the rule and respectfully request a formal response to the specific concerns highlighted in this petition.

Thank you.

http://www.ipetitions.com/petition/time-limits-for-tennis-players-time-for-a

laverfan wrote:

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.

Rubbish!

No, it's not rubbish, it's very astute and demonstrates LF's understanding of the game.

Have to say I agree with HE on this one! There is a reason why Nadal takes an eternity when he is BP down as opposed to 40-0.up. Its because its a far more important point for which he wants to be fully focussed.

There is also a reason why Nadal has a reputation for fighting on every point. Do you think that if Rafa, or any player, is 0-15 he doesn't recognise the importance of getting to 15-15 and not 0-30? Or at 0-30 down, he figures 0-40 is no different to 15-30? How often to analysts mention the importance of the first point of the game - a lot!

That rather depends on your view of "crucial". Obviously getting to 15-15 rather than 0-30 is preferable but clearly not as crucial as getting to deuce rather than losing a game.

Perhaps there's a difference between 'pivotal' and 'crucial'.
Borg always used to think that the 3rd point of the game was the most important.

Born Slippy wrote:Have to say I agree with HE on this one! There is a reason why Nadal takes an eternity when he is BP down as opposed to 40-0.up. Its because its a far more important point for which he wants to be fully focussed.

It is a point-of-no-return and a desperate attempt to cover up prior deficiencies , but the hole has already been dug.  Federer lost the second set to Monfils from being 40-0, Monfils lost his serve from 40-0 up in the first game of the third set.

It also a constant confidence-booster for the opponent to get to 40-40 in each game, yet not win any games.

If player X takes long-enough time on what they consider 'pivotal'/'crucial', then it is perfectly fine to get TVs on such points, and there is no need to complain that the TVs were given at 'pivotal'/'crucial' junctures in a match, because a player chose them to be such and also chose to ignore the previous loss of points.

It has been claimed in Nadal's biography that Nadal plays every point as a match point (I will find the exact page numbers for reference when I get a chance).

“It’s not the question of tennis, [It’s] the question of being relaxed enough to play well on court,” Nadal told reporters. “Today my game in general improved since a month and a half [ago]. But at the same time, [I’m] still playing with too many nerves for a lot of moments, in important moments.

“I have been able to control my emotions during 90 per cent, 95 per cent of my matches of my career… But I’m going to fix it,” he said. “I don’t know if [it’ll be] in one week, in six months, or in one year, but I’m going to do it.

“I need the help of my team, but especially I need the help of myself. That’s what I am trying to do. Nobody’s going to change the situation for you.”

http://www.tennis-x.com/xblog/2015-03-29/18895.php

If you are anticipating a traffic accident, can you really take an extra 5 seconds? A BP is like that, taking an extra five seconds shows a prior history of a stressed player. It has been clearly admitted as well.

Nadal, specifically, was getting TVs earlier in his career as well and there have been many complaints about his slow play.

http://bleacherreport.com/articles/1195433-rafael-nadal-novak-djokovic-and-andy-murray-is-time-violations-here-to-stay

http://www.tennisnow.com/Blogs/NET-POSTS/June-2015/Courier-on-Rafa%E2%80%99s-Time-Violations-Umpires-Have-to.aspx

Jim Courier strongly supporting HE's view.

“They have to stop doing this,” said Courier. “They have to stop hitting him with warnings on big points, because he’s consistently over 20 seconds virtually every point he serves. Either he needs to speed up or they need to get him earlier in the match on meaningless points, but to do it on break points is maddening to me.”

They are trying to get him earlier, but if he is within a certain tolerance and is given a TV earlier, then there will be complaints of targeting and corruption.

If Courier is so agitated sitting in front of a studio monitor, then think of the player across the net, who is waiting.

Why is there no desire to speed up? Courier also outlines the option of speeding up, which is being ignored.

@HE... This article corroborates my 100% Nadal v 67% Sock violations as TC showed it and was discussed.

@CC... Can you please explain how rubbish should be interpreted in this thread?

JuliusHMarx wrote:There is also a reason why Nadal has a reputation for fighting on every point. Do you think that if Rafa, or any player, is 0-15 he doesn't recognise the importance of getting to 15-15 and not 0-30? Or at 0-30 down, he figures 0-40 is no different to 15-30? How often to analysts mention the importance of the first point of the game - a lot!

I was always taught the first point of a game is massive. You drop 0-15 and you're on edge for the next three points.

Born Slippy wrote:http://www.tennisnow.com/Blogs/NET-POSTS/June-2015/Courier-on-Rafa%E2%80%99s-Time-Violations-Umpires-Have-to.aspx

Jim Courier strongly supporting HE's view.

Confused.

If Nadal takes more time on "key" points then he'll get TV'd then more often.

Is this hard to understand?

Have to agree with HE that the tennis scoring system does make some points more important than others. The extreme example would be 40-0 vs 30-40. In the case of 40-0, the server is very likely to win the game regardless of the outcome of the next point.

Similarly, if a server could choose when they served a double-fault, they would, of course, choose 40-0.

Having said that, losing serve from 40-0 could be a real momentum changer, so, arguably, that first point could end up being significant as the start of something bigger.

Courier says “If you just start hitting him one after another, he would eventually start playing faster. If you hit him every single point, he would eventually say ‘Okay, this umpire’s serious.’”

Is that what's best? Give him a tv on every point until he stops going over. Would that make Rafa and his fans happy? Or would the umpire simply end up losing his job?

bogbrush wrote:

Born Slippy wrote:http://www.tennisnow.com/Blogs/NET-POSTS/June-2015/Courier-on-Rafa%E2%80%99s-Time-Violations-Umpires-Have-to.aspx

Jim Courier strongly supporting HE's view.

Confused.

If Nadal takes more time on "key" points then he'll get TV'd then more often.

Is this hard to understand?

Hey, you don't have to convince me! Jim (and HE) seem to be struggling with that concept though!

Aut0Gr4ph wrote:Having said that, losing serve from 40-0 could be a real momentum changer, so, arguably, that first point could end up being significant as the start of something bigger.

Exactly - make a mistake at 40-0, blow the point, and that could be the one you look back on as the key point. You can only evaluate the importance of the point afterwards, not before you play it. That's why the top players treat every point as important - it's in their mind-set.
Get a tv a 40-0, you get rattled, lose the point, get a bit more rattled, make a mistake, it's 40-30 then who knows? A tv at 40-0 could be the turning point.

Born Slippy wrote:http://www.tennisnow.com/Blogs/NET-POSTS/June-2015/Courier-on-Rafa%E2%80%99s-Time-Violations-Umpires-Have-to.aspx

Jim Courier strongly supporting HE's view.

Not just Jim Courier. There is a poll attached to this article and so far these are the results

Yes Umpires are too strict with Nadal. 46.29% 131 votes

No he's the worst offender. 27.56% 78 votes

20 seconds? What is the ITF thinking 26.15% 74 votes

That's an overwhelming 72.44% who are against the way this rule is being applied in some way  I have a feeling the "No he is the worst offender" option to increase now that this article has been linked on 606v2

JuliusHMarx wrote: A tv at 40-0 could be the turning point.

I'm hoping the Umpires decide to get really harsh and start targeting Rafa when he's 40-0 up.

hawkeye wrote:

Born Slippy wrote:http://www.tennisnow.com/Blogs/NET-POSTS/June-2015/Courier-on-Rafa%E2%80%99s-Time-Violations-Umpires-Have-to.aspx

Jim Courier strongly supporting HE's view.

Not just Jim Courier. There is a poll attached to this article and so far these are the results

Yes Umpires are too strict with Nadal. 46.29% 131 votes

No he's the worst offender. 27.56% 78 votes

20 seconds? What is the ITF thinking 26.15% 74 votes

That's an overwhelming 72.44% who are against the way this rule is being applied in some way  I have a feeling the "No he is the worst offender" option to increase now that this article has been linked on 606v2

it's far more likely that Rafa fans will vote in that poll as they spring to his defence. Non-fans or neutrals are less likely to vote.

laverfan wrote:
@CC... Can you please explain how [i]rubbish should be interpreted in this thread?

Eh? I haven't said a word here in ages?

JuliusHMarx wrote:Courier says “If you just start hitting him one after another, he would eventually start playing faster. If you hit him every single point, he would eventually say ‘Okay, this umpire’s serious.’”

Is that what's best? Give him a tv on every point until he stops going over. Would that make Rafa and his fans happy? Or would the umpire simply end up losing his job?

That's a fine enough idea. However that would need a shot clock

All I would really like to see is a numbered warning system that's easy to consisyently apply. Don't mind which way they go with harshness but that would be the fairest and easiest way to do it

No it wouldn't - just the umpire with his stop watch as it is currently.

Not for the umpire but the players. With a numbered warning system you could replace the match time tuner with a countdown. So they know when to speed up

I just don't think there is a way for the players to concentrate on both a clock and on the preparation for their serve - it would greatly affect those who regularly go over the time esp. since they have had years of doing things a certain way.
Contrary to what some posters might think, I am not in favour of a rule change that would have the most adverse effect on the players who take the longest to serve.

Fair enough. It does t have to beep like a snooker shot clock. Just let the players have a glance at their time left

hawkeye wrote:

Born Slippy wrote:http://www.tennisnow.com/Blogs/NET-POSTS/June-2015/Courier-on-Rafa%E2%80%99s-Time-Violations-Umpires-Have-to.aspx

Jim Courier strongly supporting HE's view.

Not just Jim Courier. There is a poll attached to this article and so far these are the results

Yes Umpires are too strict with Nadal. 46.29% 131 votes

No he's the worst offender. 27.56% 78 votes

20 seconds? What is the ITF thinking 26.15% 74 votes

That's an overwhelming 72.44% who are against the way this rule is being applied in some way  I have a feeling the "No he is the worst offender" option to increase now that this article has been linked on 606v2

So 46.29% of respondents are complete idiots? And what do we do with this news?

CaledonianCraig wrote:

laverfan wrote:
@CC... Can you please explain how rubbish should be interpreted in this thread?

Eh? I haven't said a word here in ages?

This is why I consider your neutral opinion important.

My statement that every point is important got a HE response as rubbish.

Well I'll let you know where I stand if that helps.

I don't see time violations as any massive big deal but if umpires all adhere to them giving out penalties to the best of their abilities whenever they spot them then I don't have a problem with them at all. Consistency is key really and is all anyone should want. If you get that then fine.

bogbrush wrote:

hawkeye wrote:

Born Slippy wrote:http://www.tennisnow.com/Blogs/NET-POSTS/June-2015/Courier-on-Rafa%E2%80%99s-Time-Violations-Umpires-Have-to.aspx

Jim Courier strongly supporting HE's view.

Not just Jim Courier. There is a poll attached to this article and so far these are the results

Yes Umpires are too strict with Nadal. 46.29% 131 votes

No he's the worst offender. 27.56% 78 votes

20 seconds? What is the ITF thinking 26.15% 74 votes

That's an overwhelming 72.44% who are against the way this rule is being applied in some way  I have a feeling the "No he is the worst offender" option to increase now that this article has been linked on 606v2

So 46.29% of respondents are complete idiots? And what do we do with this news?

we already know that based roughly on the percentage of the population who voted UKIP or Tory (to be fair, we can exclude the 1% from that since they at least have a valid reason for voting Tory )

Anyone time Tsonga yesterday? Any tv's?  

Just checked the poll on this subject and now 45.88% (229 votes) say "Yes, umpires are too strict with Nadal" and 29.22% (142 votes) say "20 seconds? What is the ITF thinking".

HE - everyone accepts that players go over the 20 sec mark - some more than others and that umpires do not penalise every time. They clearly still use discretion and only give warnings when someone takes excessively long. What we need to know is (a) Rafa's average time up to getting a TV and (b) how long he takes on those specific points. We can then compare your findings to other players to see if they are treated the same.

Would anyone like to join me in timing Rafa vs Djokovic to see who is slower today?

My idea is we take a set each and time either every point or a large sample of at least 10 points each player per set.

Any takers?

I might miss set 1 or 2 due to a meeting but I can take set 3, 4 or 5.

Depends a bit on timings as I only have ITV4 available to me. Will record set 1 if they are showing it.

Thanks, break back in the women's match just now, so the Murray-Ferrer match won't interrupt set 1 anyway.

The problem with Courier's solution is that if Nadal lost his first 3 service games because he was given time violations from the first point, and then went on to lose the match, it would elicit an uproar of dissent from players, entourages and pundits, and would quickly be abandoned.  The John McEnroe's of the world (who was a notorious abuser of the time violations) would decry the draconian application of the rule, and everyone would complain that the outcome of the match was determined by the umpire...even though the fault would lie squarely with Nadal.

The problem is that the rule is intended for a silent majority, who will vote with their remote control, and watch something else more compelling than Nadal's medley idiosyncrasies.  You'll never hear from them because they'll just turn it off, and quietly everyone who loves the game will lose out, because fewer matches will be shown to wide audiences, or worse, we'll get some sports exec yahoo come along and convince us that the majors should be best of 3 for men.  I would hate to see the history of the game flushed down the toilet because a loud, determined and misguided few insisted that the game just can't be played without all this nonsense in between points.

The only viable solution is one of two extremes - continuous play, or a shot clock - until we get to the point where one of those is put in play, there is a risk that something very stupid will be proposed as a solution that will ruin the game.  If you don't think it can happen, just ask yourself how they came up with the time violation rule in the first place?  It was because they lacked the foresight and steel to enforce the continuous play rule, and now we have this circus.

It didn't - and doesn't - have to come to this.

Timed until midway through game 7 in the Novak-Rafa match.

Novak:

Av: 27.6 seconds
Points timed: 17
Points under 20 seconds: 1
Points under 25 seconds: 2
Points over 30 seconds: 4
Shortest gap: 18 seconds
Longest gap: 34 seconds

Nadal:

Av: 28.2 seconds
Points timed: 10
Points under 25 seconds: 0
Points over 30 seconds: 3
Shortest gap: 25 seconds
Longest gap: 33 seconds

Sets 2 and 3 sample

Djokovic 30, 23, 22, 32, 26, 20, 23, 23, 31. Average 25.5.

Nadal 28, 28, 27, 28, 29, 22, 30, 27, 23, 28. Average 26.6.

The points I've bolded were break points, the point I underlined was a match point. I didn't delibeartely target the BPs, it was just a coincidence, and in any case Nadal faced a lot of BPs in this match.

Basically with this and the above, there was very little between them.

Am I right in thinking Nadal got 1 TV and Djokovic did not?

Nadal got 1 tv at deuce, not at BP, having taken an age at BP. I guess the umpire thought he'd let it go at BP but then on the very next point, when Rafa was way over again, felt he had to penalize him.

In the RG quarter final this was the highly contested game where Nadal got a time violation. (report from the Telegraph)

Djokovic* 5-5 Nadal (*denotes next server)

Brilliant tennis now, and Rafa moves up to 30-15 after another epic exchange from the back of the court. It's 30-30 though after Nadal nets a backhand - he has won just 22% of points on the second serve. And that is absolutely brilliant from Djokovic, who sneaks to the net and knifes away the volley to earn himself a set point at 30-40. Rafa saves it though with some brave hitting on the forehand side, and moves up to advantage after an unchracteristic Nole error. It's back to deuce as Nadal nets a forehand, and my word that is sublime from Djokovic to hustle his way to another set point after another gruelling rally. But anything you can do...Nadal responds with a sensational drop shot winner to cling on in the set. And Nadal has a time violation warning! At such a critical point, it's all happening here - McEnroe says it makes him 'sick to my stomach'. Djokovic keeps his focus to win the next point and earn his third set point, but he can't take it! Another great rally, and this time Djokovic puts it into the net having chased down a drop shot. The next point goes Nadal's way to get him to advantage and after 12 minutes he takes the game, with an unreturnable first serve. NADAL SAVES THREE SET POINTS AND HOLDS SERVE.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/sport/tennis/rafaelnadal/11648166/Rafa-Nadal-v-Novak-Djokovic-French-Open-live.html

Like McEnroe it makes me a little 'sick to my stomach'. The way the time violation rule is being used means it is having no effect on speeding up play generally. How could it? But continually targeting one player will of course eventually have a dramatic effect on that one player

They don't target one player. That has been established and everyone else can see it to be true.

JuliusHMarx wrote:They don't target one player. That has been established and everyone else can see it to be true.

Then why did Novak not get one???? here we go the same old merry go round. when commentators start commenting on this subject something HAS to wrong   so its not everyone else is it...but lets keep sweeping it under the carpet and as HE says censored:

Explain how it is censored - what has been censored?

Rafa was overall taking slightly longer, took a massively long time on one BP (which the umpire let him have) saved the BP, then took another long time on the next point, at which point the umpire felt compelled to give a tv. Did Djoko ever do that on consecutive points?

But to say things are censored is inaccurate - who is censoring things? Please provide evidence.

but lets keep sweeping it under the carpet and as HE says censored:

JHM do read what Im saying, look at HE's post IM NOT SAYING YOU HAVE CENSORED. anything   ..pleeeeeze!!!!!!!

Ive made comment and Im shutting up that's what it means !!!
In simple terms I don't agree with you. OK

First up I wouldn't say Rafa is being picked on by umpires but I do see why Hawkeye and Hn question why Novak got no tv today. I was awaiting the start of Andy's match I think it was and there was one point I recall Novak bouncing the ball about ten times then had a brief pause and then started bouncing it again another ten times or so - definitely worthy of a tv but nothing. That is why I said what I did the other day - the umpires have to act as one and consistently dolling out tv's whenever the time allowed is exceeded - until they do you will always have fans feeling their player is being picked on if they and others can see others overstepping the mark and not being warned.

The point I have been trying to make for the entire 19 pages of this thread But when at least three commentators have made their feelings known on the subject and still the problem rumbles...
When it is quite evident .. you know that one player keeps receiving tvs, and others, as again Nishikori did yet yesterday against Tsonga, Novak today... really????? the argument to the contrary does not hold water for me.. but hey I know when Ive run into a brick wall. Give it up.. When Rafa retires and it still keeps happening...as it will. Maybe.. I can live in hope.

We know that one players gets more, but that does not necessarily mean that he is unfairly targeted. It's not sufficient to say "He's gets more, therefore he is targeted". It needs evidence that other players transgress to the same extent but do not get the same punishment.

I have yet to see anyone provide that evidence, thus I see no reason to accept the argument being put forward. The people making that argument do not seem to want to try to provide good evidence. Obviously they don't have to - it may be too much work to be worth the trouble - but without compelling evidence how can the argument be accepted?

CaledonianCraig wrote:First up I wouldn't say Rafa is being picked on by umpires but I do see why Hawkeye and Hn question why Novak got no tv today. I was awaiting the start of Andy's match I think it was and there was one point I recall Novak bouncing the ball about ten times then had a brief pause and then started bouncing it again another ten times or so - definitely worthy of a tv but nothing. That is why I said what I did the other day - the umpires have to act as one and consistently dolling out tv's whenever the time allowed is exceeded - until they do you will always have fans feeling their player is being picked on if they and others can see others overstepping the mark and not being warned.

That comes because theres no objective measurement, have a certain number of times you can go over and stick to it

With no objetive measurement, in theory any non consistency could be evidence of targeting, by the same token you cant then define at all what constitutes a level of inconsistency that suggests targeting.

In short Haddie par right there there is evidence of inconsistency but part wrong in that theres noone convinced that theres enough for targeting. In any way this wont get anywhere as a result

JuliusHMarx wrote:We know that one players gets more, but that does not necessarily mean that he is unfairly targeted. It's not sufficient to say "He's gets more, therefore he is targeted". It needs evidence that other players transgress to the same extent but do not get the same punishment.

I have yet to see anyone provide that evidence, thus I see no reason to accept the argument being put forward. The people making that argument do not seem to want to try to provide good evidence. Obviously they don't have to - it may be too much work to be worth the trouble - but without compelling evidence how can the argument be accepted?

Yes JHM so you keep saying and I will reply with Ive yet to see anybody provide me with good evidence that they are not.
HOWEVER it matters not..606 are not going to resolve this discussion to everyone's satisfaction. Ive made my point repeatedly .. and in short I do not trust the Umpire's discretion.. it should not be reliant on individual Umpires.. there is no such animal..... TV rule.. apply fairly to all players or not at all....>>>>>>>>>>>>

Clearly inconsistency, yes. But if there were consistency, and Rafa were to get the most TV's (as is likely), then the argument "The rule was brought in to target one player" could actually still be made on the same premise.

Edit - Haddie, the burden of proof lies with those making the argument (the prosecution, as it were). Otherwise I could say Murray is being targeted and not bother with any proof, just say 'Prove me wrong.'

2nd edit - if anyone is sincerely aggrieved, then obviously 606 is not a good place to complain (I agree with Haddie in that sense). The press, the ATP, the ITF etc would be the ones to contact if one were really serious about the issue.