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

Youre both getting the wrong end of each others sticks. Haddie is saying that the rule isnt fairly implemented across the board, a reasonable assertion given the state of the rule and the inconsistency, not just nadal is getting picked on.

Julius also isnt saying that hes fine with the rule as it is just because nadal gets the most tv's

Both of you need to come into common middle ground on this, else it will never ever end.

temporary21 wrote:Youre both getting the wrong end of each others sticks. Haddie is saying that the rule isnt fairly implemented across the board

I think it depends on what you mean by "fairly". I think most people on this forum (maybe even vast majority) agree that the current rule implementation leaves much to be desired and allows for great degree of arbitrariness. If one means something like that by the rule being "unfair", then I agree.

But if there is additional suggestion that the rule is "unfair" in the sense that some players are picked on more than others, then I think we have seen little evidence in that regard and, as JHM says, if one wants to suggest so, it is up to them to demonstrate it.

To me the way the rule is currently implemented is a bit like speeding tickets. Most people speed and vast majority of the time they do not get a ticket. Sometimes they do, and it can easily happen that a person gets a ticket while going 15kmh over the limit while in many other cases other people (or the same one) do not get a ticket even if going 30kmh over the limit. But that does not make the speeding ticket system specifically unfair to anyone.

temporary21 wrote:Youre both getting the wrong end of each others sticks. Haddie is saying that the rule isnt fairly implemented across the board, a reasonable assertion given the state of the rule and the inconsistency,  not just nadal is getting picked on.

Julius also isnt saying that hes fine with the rule as it is just because nadal gets the most tv's

Both of you need to come into common middle ground on this, else it will never ever end.

For goodness sake have I not made it VERY CLEAR that the discussion for me  is over.. surely if you read my post
Im not perpetuating the discussion, you and he are. So consider it the last word there is no meat left on the bone!!! I do
what does this tell you...>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>?

Avoid the arrows?

JuliusHMarx wrote: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.

What? How?

The games leaders hang on the 606v2 verdict as you well know.

All this talk of targeting Nadal is ridiculous - he is the worst offender and he gets the most citations - what exactly is the mystery? Nobody has presented anything that that shows he isn't the worst offender, so why shouldn't he get the most citations. If I drive 85mph in a 65 zone, every day for a week and get ticketed more than the guy who speeds 75 in a 65, I can hardly complain that I'm being targeted.

The fact that the rule is applied inconsistently is an argument for MORE citations of Nadal, since he plainly violates the time limit on virtually EVERY serve. And all this ignores the obvious - Nadal can solve all of this by just hurrying up. If he can't play within the rules and win, then he doesn't deserve to win - the same goes for everyone else who is over the limit, but NOBODY is worse than Nadal on this question.

McEnroe being sick to his stomach is nothing new, and his and Courier's argument that there's something wrong with applying the rules on the biggest points is only in question because Nadal takes MORE time on the biggest points, and therefore he will naturally be given more citations on bigger points. But riddle me this: if it's ridiculous to cite him on the one or two big points where he plainly takes more time than his already long intervals, isn't MORE ridiculous for him to be repeatedly over the limit time after time on those points not designated "big" points?

Placing the focus on the umpires is the biggest problem with this issue - the responsibility is with the player to ensure he stays under the limit. If he can't be bothered to do that, when he has the most to lose, why should the umpire be held responsible for that and somehow save him from himself?

Nadal is the issue and Nadal is the solution - just hurry up.

Obvious to you, obvious to me, and to a number of others.

To some people, MMT, this isnt about just Nadal, apparently it isnt to most people

Not quite on the topic of time violation warnings/penalties, but some data here about time per point and between points for those you like to discuss such things:
http://fivethirtyeight.com/features/why-some-tennis-matches-take-forever/

Good article, reccomended, it does show that Nadal is slowest, but that is based on length of the actual point plus time between points, and doesn't separate the two. Although reading through that article, I did realise that the data to prove whether or not Nadal is the slowest probably does exist even if time between points is not being counted. We can estimate based on the average rally length (which is in the IBM type data) for each player, the match length,and the number of games in the match, based on an assumption of time per stroke in a rally being fairly similar.

I don't agree with the above comments that Nadal is the slowest. If anything the timings done my myself and others suggest that Djokovic, Murray, and others play at a similar speed.

I think the following clarifies to a very large extent the situation that has occurred between Bernandes and Nadal.
For my part I believe that one of the biggest mistakes Rafa made was to make his feelings known on the court because much seems to go on behind the scenes

•Fifty parting thoughts from the 2015 French Open - by Jon Wertheim (si.com) WARNING: auto-playing video on the page.


In the wake of the controversy, here’s an email an anonymous official sent me: “I found it interesting that it has gotten so much attention as this situation is relatively common through all levels of tennis. All chair umpires, from college through the futures, challengers and ATP/WTA have a “no list” of players whose matches they don’t want to officiate, generally due to an issue that arose in a recent match. Most of the time umpires will only put a player on the list for a few weeks to give tensions time to defuse—in rare circumstances, perhaps after repeated issues, it might be permanent. This happens all the time, and most of the time the player doesn’t even know about it.

A player making the request, like Nadal did, is much less common, but is usually honored just like if the umpire had made the request. So much of being an effective chair umpire depends on having the confidence and respect of the players, and if a recent incident is in the back of a player’s mind, it can cause there to be a lack of confidence in the official before the match even starts. Our goal as officials is to give players a fair match without unnecessarily becoming part of the match, and you never want something from a past match to affect a future one—from either the player's or official's side. There are many qualified officials at all of these tournaments, so keeping one player away from a specific official, doesn't burden the officiating assignments too much and generally makes for a smoother match for all involved.”


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Videos/Audio:

Nothing special about Nadal making this request. The only question is maybe he could have spoken to the umpire behind the scenes after the match.

Henman Bill wrote:Nothing special about Nadal making this request. The only question is maybe he could have spoken to the umpire behind the scenes after the match.

I agree the biggest mistake was that in his frustration he went public.. so who ever else there is we will never know.

Nadal shouldn't be picking and choosing umpires - I disagree with that entirely. That's not fair to the other players or the umpire.  Also, he should HAVE TO PUBLICLY articulate his problem with an umpire so that it can be determined whether his problem is a reasonable one.  A reasonable problem is that the umpire frequently overrules and is then overturned by hawkeye.  An unreasonable problem he might have, is simply that the umpire applies the rules properly.  Bernardes isn't doing these matches because he's a chump, and as far as I can tell, his only problem is that Bernardes doesn't bow to the pressure to accommodate all his idiosyncracies - that is Nadal's problem, not the umpire's.

But most importantly, this shouldn't be addressed behind closed doors because that compromises the integrity of the officiating - what else is being said behind closed doors that may favor one player (who takes forever between points and gets illegal coaching and take dubious injury time-outs and argues when he is wrong on the application of the rules).  Are there to be a separate set of rules just for him that we don't know about?  I think that's not on.

The bottom line is that there will always be a problem when a player takes himself to be more important than the laws of the game he plays - when that happens, it becomes a competition tilted in his favor, which is particularly tragic when if he just shaped up and played within the rules, he might still be be just as successful.  But when Nadal chooses to make a different set of rules for himself (and anyone who agrees with him) that's not fair to the game or his opponents, nor ultimately the viewers.

The logic of that email is so faulty I don't know where to begin.  If an official doesn't want to do the match, that's his prerogative, just like if the player doesn't want to play because of an official, that is also his prerogative:  of course the player has a lot more to lose, but both have the right to say they don't want to participate. But neither should have the right to impose their decision on someone else - would an umpire saying "find someone else to play that semi-final I'm schedule to umpire - I refuse to work with that player" sound reasonable to anyone?  That is ridiculous.

Ultimately, the player is responsible only for what he does on the court - the more officials placate these unreasonable demands, the more the players expect them to be met.  If a player can no more determine the umpire they play, than the surface, and that expectation is set for anyone, there is no need for all of these back room handshake agreements.  That is precisely how the hint of corruption seeps into the game, even when there is none, and tennis does not need that.  Everyone should agree to play and officiate the matches they are assigned and get on with it.

By the way, Bernardes is an excellent umpire - very fair and with a good understanding and consistent application of the rules.  There is no reason for his reputation to be besmirched by one player who has grown accustomed to being accommodated.

Well does this kind of response surprise anyone No of course not.
NOT when you close your mind to the remotest possibility that it is a fact rather than conjecture or suspicion.. NOBODY apart from the ATP, players an officials know what is the truth and what is not, and what goes on behind closed doors, as it does in all sports.. So frankly  its  your opinion and that's all it is OPINION ..you have nothing to base it on but too ready to discount any thing that contradicts it as ridiculous. The above article has yet to be disproved, when you can do so please publish it for us all to read..

That's an email from an (anonymous) umpire expressing an opinion that BECAUSE this goes on all the time from umpires, it should elicit no concern when a player does the same.  My opinion is that this is illogical, and that he has compared two unlike things - if an umpire doesn't want to do a match, he loses the match.  If a player doesn't want an umpire to do his match HE SHOULD LOSE the match. That is logically consistent. If an umpire said "find me another player" we would say it is ridiculous, and we should say the same about a player saying, "find me another umpire".

I also find it disconcerting that if this kind of illogical and unjust request is accepted behind closed doors, it begs the question, what else is accepted behind closed doors?  More importantly, if Nadal or any other player who wants to exclude certain officials from their matches, is truly justified, they SHOULD make the request publicly. In this I applaud Nadal's openness, just not his specific request, which is, in my opinion, completely unjust.

You can't have your cake and eat it too - you can't publicly make an (unjust) request and then not expect to be publicly called to task on that.  By the same token, you can't admit that private agreements are made to affect the assignment of officials based on anything other than their quality as an official, and then insist on your indignation when the logical question of "what else is decided (in private) that is NOT based on merit but rather on convenience that we don't know about" is asked.  I mean, you can, but it'd be ridiculous to do so.

As a paying fan, I would like to know, and I would like to be in a position to determine for myself whether this constitutes a reason to doubt the integrity of the officiating.  If Bernardes applies the rules properly (as far as I or anyone else watching tennis can tell - and this would include his colleagues and the tournament referees who assign umpires) then what gives Nadal the right to exclude him from his matches?  And if the only reason is because he does his job properly, that's a damning commentary on Nadal, not Bernabes.

You know what I am not interested in reading this post.. it is  again purely your OPINION..Im not stating my opinion, Im stating what was in an email .therefore I am not asking for your opinion. There have been enough OPINIONS on this subject yours is no different to many before you.. Throughout this thread HE was asked repeatedly to give evidence for her "opinion" and  "suspicions" and because she was unable to provide the facts that every cynical  anti-Nadal poster was demanding.. the discussion was trashed.

So I repeat.. give me hard evidence that the email above is false, and untrue, that what is stated does not happen..
How ever illogical you might find it. Until then>>>>>>>>>>>

That's a strawman. Nobody is saying the letter isn't true - I concede that it's true and it is my opinion that the practice of allowing players to exclude umpires from their matches is wrong. I also think that the opinion expressed (that it's strange that people are concerned about it because behind closed doors it happens even more frequently in the other direction - i.e that umpires recuse themselves from certain players' matches) is flawed because the recusing umpire loses the assignment but a player asking for another umpire still plays the match, so it's a false equivalence. Furthermore, the FACT that it happens behind closed doors is worse than Nadal's request, which was a very public request, because behind closed doors there's no way for a viewer to be assured that the reasons for the request are valid, which ultimately goes to the integrity of the officiating. In Brazil Nadal made it clear that he feels Bernabes puts more pressure on him than any other umpire. But Bernabes has not been cited for any faulty judgment or application of the rules. It can be argued (which I believe is the case) that Bernabes applies the rules more stringently to Nadal than others, but there should be no problem with applying the rules nor does that constitute a good reason to exclude the umpire. Finally, what is entirely absent is the any citation of a rule that any player can refuse any umpire. That it happens (and I'm sure it does) is neither proof that it is legal or fair.

is flawed because the recusing umpire loses the assignment but a player asking for another umpire still plays the match, so it's a false equivalence.

Of course not he merely swaps assignments with another umpire: no different to a night shift and day shift worker swapping shifts for personal reasons, they don't lose time. It happens all the time in all jobs
The ATP approve it for the sake of both umpires and players alike.
I wonder how many umpires refused to officiate at McEnroe's matches quite a few I would think

Haddie-nuff wrote:Of course not he merely swaps assignments with another umpire: no different to a night shift and day shift worker swapping shifts for personal reasons, they don't lose time. It happens all the time in all jobs
The ATP approve it for the sake of both umpires and players alike.
I wonder how many umpires refused to officiate at McEnroe's matches quite a few I would think

That may be somewhat true at the start of the tournament, but not towards the end, and as this right of refusal takes hold, and more and more players exercise it, it would become unnecessarily difficult to find umpires that meet everyone's requirements. This practice only works if it is limited, and as such not universally applied, and by definition unfair.

And this is to say nothing of the fact that there is no technical reason for Bernabes or any other qualified umpire to be excluded from Nadal's or any other player's matches. It should be based on some deficiency, and not an ethereal claim of pressure that is not based on any deficiency. Furthermore, this distracts from the real issue, which is that players should not be in a position to exclude umpires from their matches, any more than umpires should be in a position to exclude players - both should be involved based on merit.

Anything else lends itself to the possibility for the umpires to be pressured into applying the rules one way for certain players and another way for other players, lest they find themselves on an exclusion list from players who frequently make their way through the draw. Then an umpire who wants to progress through the draw will have a desire to be approved by the top players, which would come into conflict with their duty to apply the rules properly - which by the way, is the only thing Bernabes can be accused of doing - his job.

I don't want to belabor this any more than you do - I would also like it to go away. And this can be accomplished by stating plainly that this practice of accepting the right to refuse an umpire will stop, and then this all goes away. I think Nadal does himself absolutely no favors by making this request (publicly or privately) WITHOUT citing any deficiency. He is too good of a player to engage in this sort of thing. If the umpire makes mistakes or makes poor judgements or doesn't apply the rules properly NOBODY should have to put up with him, but if he's just doing his job properly and nobody can point to any errors of law or judgement, there is no reason for him to be excluded from any match.

I will not get into the rights and wrongs of Nadal issue again it has been discussed ad nauseam. It is quite clear that there is an element of what one wants to believe and what actually is fact. It is quite clear, to me at least, that the email highlights that this can and has happened before.And that the he cannot see what the fuss is about... and neither frankly can I.
As I say once more Im not really interested in your opinion... to which you are entitled...but I don't agree.
We will never know who, or how often this happens.. you cant prove it and neither can anyone else. . We know about Nadal because he stupidly aired his views on court.
As for the Umpires they are able to swap their duties on the basis of
"I owe you one pal" it happens.
Now I think its time to leave the rest to conjecture and move on nothing has made me believe anything other than what is stated

Quote

: “I found it interesting that it has gotten so much attention as this situation is relatively common through all levels of tennis

This is all so obvious it's untrue!

1. No player should have the right to influence the officials in any way, most certainly including having any control over who umpires what match. There must ne no exception to this under any circumstances.

2. No umpire should decline to officiate any player, it sets a precedent that this Umpire has a problem with a player and is suggesting his neutrality is not secure. If he has a problem with a player he should raise it with his boss and get on with his job, or he should retire.

If it was any other player I can imagine that it would be Barnardos getting the flack. He is the one that made the stupid decision not to allow Nadal to put his shorts on the correct way so that he was able to play. That he allowed Murray to change his wrist band at break point down in the incident I mentioned in a previous comment is an example that could be used to show his bias against Nadal. That he also laughed at the indignity Nadal suffered by making him change shorts on court should have been cause for some sort of disciplinary action. You can't have Umpires mocking players. Barnardos got off lightly.

But hey ho some people will always be trying to insinuate Nadal is in the wrong even when he has acted completely within the rules.

Genuinely can't believe that there are some trying to defend this procedure. Obviously, players shouldn't be able to veto certain umpires. If it came out that one of the top football teams did something similar because a referee was particularly tough on, say, diving then it would be front page news. Its particularly bad that all this was going on entirely behind the scenes until that article at the start of the French. It begs the question what else the top players can request from the ATP.

Again - the onus is being placed on the umpire to adjust for the player. Why? Nadal goes over the limit on virtually every point he serves (frequently for NO discernible reason) then he has the temerity to expect even more time because he put his shorts on backwards. Nobody made him do that - HE did it. But as always, blame the umpire.

In fact he WON the game where his shorts were on backwards, so I see no reason why he HAD to turn the back around during a SHORT changeover - he knows its a short changeover but for some reason decided to change it then, rather than after a long changeover - which would not have interrupted his opponents serve, by the way. But somehow the umpire has to account for that too.

None of these things are the umpire responsibility - Gaston Gaudio intentionally tore his shorts to shreds in a match 10 years ago and received a time violation when he changed it. Kei Nishikori received a time violation in Brisbane a year ago just for taking too long to change his racquet when the string was broken.

They all took their medicine like professionals, but here somehow the onus is on Bernardes.

Come on MMT, the changing of shorts is an unforeseen event so should be allowed. Its just like when a player broke his racket string and so needed more time to go and get a new racket. Players DONT change shorts at the court often right??

Bernardes was obviously wrong when he let Rafa suffered the humiliation to have to change his shorts on court. Funny that people here think theres nothing wrong with that! I thought umpires are supposed to exercise discretion??

I agree with hawkeye, that BERNARDES GOT OFF LIGHTLY FOR HUMILIATING RAFA ON THE TENNIS COURT!!

Maybe Rafa fans should write in to ATP to protest!

BS, the ex-players said its not uncommon that umpires requested not to umpire matches of certain players and vice versa Rafa isnt the one to start a trend, its just that those kind of arrangements were not made known to the public.

Two more to add.

hawkeye wrote:

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's 9 matches were Nadal has been given a tv on a crucial point

French Open quarter finals Nadal v Djokovic. Nadal serving to stay in the first set. 4-5, 40-40 time violation given. This is the one that made John McEnroe feel "sick to his stomach".

Stuttgart quarter finals Nadal v Tomic. Nadal serving for the first 5-4, Ad Tomic (break point) time violation given at 28 seconds. It was given as Nadal was taking his arm back to serve.

11 matches (and counting) were Nadal has recieved a tv on a crucial point.

Haddie-nuff wrote:Quote

: “I found it interesting that it has gotten so much attention as this situation is relatively common through all levels of tennis

You forgot to include the rest of this quote:

"All chair umpires, from college through the futures, challengers and ATP/WTA have a “no list” of players whose matches they don’t want to officiate, generally due to an issue that arose in a recent match."

That's referring to umpire excluding players from their match assignments.  Later the letter addresses Nadal's request:

"A player making the request, like Nadal did, is much less common, but is usually honored just like if the umpire had made the request."

MMT1 wrote:

"A player making the request, like Nadal did, is much less common, but is usually honored just like if the umpire had made the request."

Thankfully it's even more uncommon to see an Umpire rolling about on their chair laughing and mocking the indignity that they have forced on a player during competition. That Barnardos was then allowed to Umpire Nadal's next match after such shocking behavior beggars belief. It shouldn't have been left to Nadal to complain and the ATP should have procedures in place to ensure that Umpires act in unbiased and professional way.

This thread is meant to be about the time violation rule and it's use and not a general "Why I don't like Nadal" thread.

That is, of course, a completely personal opinion of what happened, from what you saw on TV. Others may interpret it differently.

This thread is meant to be about the time violation rule and it's use and not a general "I always defend like Nadal" thread.

I actually thought it was good that Rafa accepted the situation at the time in good spirits. You would have to be fairly churlish not to appreciate the humour of putting your shorts on backwards. Shame that subsequently it seems to have been used as a reason to remove an umpire who was prepared to enforce the time rules from Rafa's matches.

hawkeye wrote:Two more to add.

hawkeye wrote:

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's 9 matches were Nadal has been given a tv on a crucial point

French Open quarter finals Nadal v Djokovic. Nadal serving to stay in the first set. 4-5, 40-40 time violation given. This is the one that made John McEnroe feel "sick to his stomach".

Stuttgart quarter finals Nadal v Tomic. Nadal serving for the first 5-4, Ad Tomic (break point) time violation given at 28 seconds. It was given as Nadal was taking his arm back to serve.

11 matches (and counting) were Nadal has recieved a tv on a crucial point.

I know you won't do this as it doesn't suit your agenda but what would be interesting would be the context. If the Tomic one was genuinely only 28 seconds then that is surprising (not least as Rafa is normally way over 30 secs when facing break point). However, how long had he taken on other points in that game? How did that compare to his previous service games?

Born Slippy wrote:

I know you won't do this as it doesn't suit your agenda but what would be interesting would be the context. If the Tomic one was genuinely only 28 seconds then that is surprising (not least as Rafa is normally way over 30 secs when facing break point). However, how long had he taken on other points in that game? How did that compare to his previous service games?

I did time all the points in the service game were Nadal got the time violation.

He took 27, 29, 24, 29, 29, 21, 29, 29, 28 (time violation break point), 24, 25 seconds between points. I think the shorter points were aces.

I didn't time other games in the match but I doubt they were different based on all the other times I have timed him and other players and he certainly didn't look either quicker or slower. Why did the Umpire choose that particular point to give a tv? It would have no effect on speeding up play at that point in fact it could be argued that any player who has gone an entire set without being penalized could presume they were doing nothing wrong. so why would they do anything different? It is virtually impossible to guess how long 25 seconds is without the use of a stop watch.

I don't agree with that. I think if you play to a rhythm you can know roughly how long you take. Nadal plays to a rhythm of around 25-30 secs per point, if he really wanted to he could change that to around 18-22 secs per point, but he doesn't want to.

Henman Bill wrote:I don't agree with that. I think if you play to a rhythm you can know roughly how long you take. Nadal plays to a rhythm of around 25-30 secs per point, if he really wanted to he could change that to around 18-22 secs per point, but he doesn't want to.

EXACTLY! And that's the beginning and the end of it - if he wants this to go away he can play faster...end of story. Blaming the umpires and the ITF and the ATP is entirely missing the most salient point - it begins and ends with the player. If you're over the limit, you have no business complaining about it.

Watching Nadal play I've become as interested in when the targeted time violation appears as I am watching what happens during points.

Nadal serving at 3-6, 7-6, 4-3 against Dolgopolov. He was given a time violation at 26 second 30-40 break point. During this game he took 25, 28, 28, 28, 26 (tv break point), 32 (Dolgopolov challenged), 27 seconds between points.

The time violation came at the end of the 3rd set so it would have no effect on speeding up play. Why was it given on that particular point in the match? Would Nadal have been broken without being given yet another tv on a crucial point in a match. I'm far from 100% sure he would. If he had not been broken I think this match may very well have had a different winner.

It was given I would imagine because he was over the allotted time limit? Just a stab in the dark with that one.

If everyone else has worked out that Rafa gets TV's then you'd have thought Rafa and his camp would also have worked it out - and made sure he didn't keep going over the limit - why on earth do they (Rafa/Toni) let him go over the limit so much? It can only be for their own benefit if he speeds it up. They really are shooting themselves in the foot.

hawkeye wrote:

Born Slippy wrote:

I know you won't do this as it doesn't suit your agenda but what would be interesting would be the context. If the Tomic one was genuinely only 28 seconds then that is surprising (not least as Rafa is normally way over 30 secs when facing break point). However, how long had he taken on other points in that game? How did that compare to his previous service games?

I did time all the points in the service game were Nadal got the time violation.

He took 27, 29, 24, 29, 29, 21, 29, 29, 28 (time violation break point), 24, 25 seconds between points. I think the shorter points were aces.

I didn't time other games in the match but I doubt they were different based on all the other times I have timed him and other players and he certainly didn't look either quicker or slower. Why did the Umpire choose that particular point to give a tv? It would have no effect on speeding up play at that point in fact it could be argued that any player who has gone an entire set without being penalized could presume they were doing nothing wrong. so why would they do anything different? It is virtually impossible to guess how long 25 seconds is without the use of a stop watch.

To try and put this back on topic before the usual happens (yet again). Didnt anyone notice a warning on the changeover? What other tv's have been given in the tourny. You promised me youd all try to do this properly

-------

https://www.606v2.com/viewtopic.forum?t=60197