PDA

View Full Version : ATP Board Approves Change In Time Violation Penalty


jwjh
09-12-2012, 07:20 AM
'From 2013, on both the ATP World Tour and ATP Challenger Tour, a time violation between points (25 seconds) will be penalised in the first instance with a warning. For the second and all subsequent violations, the penalty will be a fault for the server and a point penalty for the receiver. Currently, the rule is a warning and then point penalty for both the server and receiver.'

http://www.atpworldtour.com/News/Tennis/2012/09/Feature/ATP-Board-Approves-Change-In-Time-Violation-Penalty.aspx

Edit:
'The ATP Board also approved a trial elimination of the service let on the ATP Challenger Tour only, for the first three months of 2013.

“Although this change will not materially reduce the length of a match, we believe it should have a positive impact on the flow of the match,” said Drewett. “We’re certainly not ready yet to eliminate the service let, but believe a trial at the ATP Challenger level will be a good way to test this initiative in a competitive environment and get feedback from players and the public before deciding if it could be adapted more broadly.”'

woodrow1029
09-12-2012, 08:04 AM
It's a good change, but unless the ITF approves it as well, it's stupid, because as it stands now this new rule will not apply for the Grand Slams or Davis Cup or ITF Futures events.

woodrow1029
09-12-2012, 08:08 AM
Which of course means that in addition to the 5 second difference of time allowed between points, there will be a change in enforcement and consistency of enforcement.

This is bad for the players because the big 3 (WTA, ATP and ITF) refuse to make rules consistent with each other, and bad for the spectators because they will be confused even more as to why things are different from week to week around a Grand Slam.

Tennis_Maestro
09-12-2012, 08:10 AM
I think this is terrible, absolutely terrible and all the people who disagree with me, hear me out.

If Djokovic, Murray and Nadal are involved in long, physically enduring rallies... there is no way possible they can then collect the balls from the ball kids and serve for the next point within 25 seconds. Its jus absurd and it would mean cause a decline in the "quality" of tennis on show. I as a spectator and I'm sure many as spectators want to see the best tennis on show. I don't want it to be able the battle of the fittest and who has the best recovery time.

A Sky Sports commentator (In England) Mark Petchy came up with a genius idea, one the ATP probably need to take consideration of. There should be a shot clock. So if a rally goes past 15 shots then the time between serving for the next point can then be 25 seconds plus, however if it is below 15 shots, then the 25 seconds rule sits in place.

woodrow1029
09-12-2012, 08:20 AM
TM, I don't agree with the shot clock. There are still things that can happen between points to make the players take longer than 25 seconds (i.e. broken strings, heavy wind gusts, crowd outbursts, etc.). When you put up a shot clock, you basically take any discretion away from the chair umpire, which could further reduce the quality of the match.

I think the rule change will still allow discretion from the umpire, and will hopefully allow for more consistent enforcement.

I think that a pattern needs to be established in a match, so you will not see a time violation after the "first time" a player goes over 25 seconds, which is the same as now. So, if Nadal and Djokovic are playing and they both are going over by a little bit and nobody is complaining, the umpire doesn't need to get involved at a critical time. If you put up a shot clock, you take away that discretion, which I think is a bad idea.

Tennis_Maestro
09-12-2012, 08:22 AM
TM, I don't agree with the shot clock. There are still things that can happen between points to make the players take longer than 25 seconds (i.e. broken strings, heavy wind gusts, crowd outbursts, etc.). When you put up a shot clock, you basically take any discretion away from the chair umpire, which could further reduce the quality of the match.

I think the rule change will still allow discretion from the umpire, and will hopefully allow for more consistent enforcement.

I think that a pattern needs to be established in a match, so you will not see a time violation after the "first time" a player goes over 25 seconds, which is the same as now. So, if Nadal and Djokovic are playing and they both are going over by a little bit and nobody is complaining, the umpire doesn't need to get involved at a critical time. If you put up a shot clock, you take away that discretion, which I think is a bad idea.

You can put in a shot clock and then also allow the umpire to over-rule that shot clock with his own discretion. So if a player, as you said, has a broken or their are heavy gusts of winds, crowd outbursts .. he can use common sense and make allowances.

So have a shot-clock and still give the umpire the availability to use his own discretion on things.

SQA333
09-12-2012, 08:24 AM
What about the no-let serve??? This is just rubbish!

Pavlos
09-12-2012, 08:25 AM
Interesting that they decided to try out a "no service lets" system. Brace yourselves for net cord aces...

woodrow1029
09-12-2012, 08:26 AM
You can put in a shot clock and then also allow the umpire to over-rule that shot clock with his own discretion. So if a player, as you said, has a broken or their are heavy gusts of winds, crowd outbursts .. he can use common sense and make allowances.

So have a shot-clock and still give the umpire the availability to use his own discretion on things.

Well, then that brings the question, if you are going to allow the chair umpire to overrule the shot clock, what's the point of having the shot clock? It's just going to cause more problems if a player can see the time has expired, and now he has to go with the judgement of the chair umpire that the gust of wind was heavy enough to warrant an extension of the time? I think you put up a shot clock, and it has to be like NFL football or basketball, black and white. Time expires, time violation. I don't like it.

rommil
09-12-2012, 08:26 AM
In another news, Rafael Nadal said he is more unsure when he is coming back to play:)

merlinpinpin
09-12-2012, 08:26 AM
Well, they can change the penalty as much as they like, the rule is never enforced anyway. :roll:

However, the fault rule for the server *could* possibly lead to (some) enforcement, so it's kind of a good thing, but I sure won't hold my breath. We'll see.

Tennis_Maestro
09-12-2012, 08:29 AM
Well, then that brings the question, if you are going to allow the chair umpire to overrule the shot clock, what's the point of having the shot clock? It's just going to cause more problems if a player can see the time has expired, and now he has to go with the judgement of the chair umpire that the gust of wind was heavy enough to warrant an extension of the time? I think you put up a shot clock, and it has to be like NFL football or basketball, black and white. Time expires, time violation. I don't like it.

I don't feel it has to be as black or white as that. If a rally exceeds 15 shots, then there can be a shot-clock that appears on the scoreboard, if the rally doesn't, then the player's can jus go by the default setting in their mind of their being only 25 seconds.

tacou
09-12-2012, 08:30 AM
Interesting that they decided to try out a "no service lets" system. Brace yourselves for net cord aces...

where does it say this??

woodrow1029
09-12-2012, 08:31 AM
where does it say this??

In the same article.

jwjh
09-12-2012, 08:33 AM
where does it say this??

I've edited the OP to include it.

jonnythan
09-12-2012, 08:33 AM
I think this is terrible, absolutely terrible and all the people who disagree with me, hear me out.

If Djokovic, Murray and Nadal are involved in long, physically enduring rallies... there is no way possible they can then collect the balls from the ball kids and serve for the next point within 25 seconds. Its jus absurd and it would mean cause a decline in the "quality" of tennis on show. I as a spectator and I'm sure many as spectators want to see the best tennis on show. I don't want it to be able the battle of the fittest and who has the best recovery time.

A Sky Sports commentator (In England) Mark Petchy came up with a genius idea, one the ATP probably need to take consideration of. There should be a shot clock. So if a rally goes past 15 shots then the time between serving for the next point can then be 25 seconds plus, however if it is below 15 shots, then the 25 seconds rule sits in place.

A shot clock takes away the possibility of judgment calls.

An umpire interested in fairness can grant a little extra time after long matches according to his judgment. I think they really sort of do that now already.

smoledman
09-12-2012, 08:35 AM
Boohoo! If Murray, Nadal and Djokovic don't like the point penalties, they should figure out how to win points faster! If this rule had been applied since 2005, Nadal would have 2 FO titles max.

Tennis_Maestro
09-12-2012, 08:36 AM
A shot clock takes away the possibility of judgment calls.

An umpire interested in fairness can grant a little extra time after long matches according to his judgment. I think they really sort of do that now already.

I don't agree with this notion that the shot-clock would take away from judgement calls, toomany are thinking basketball or whichever sport. If the umpire is told the decision firmly lays in their hands to over-ride the shot-clock, then that's that. There wouldn't even have to be a shot-clock that appeared unless the rally exceeded 15 shots. Would you like to see rallies of plus 30 and then player's trying to serve within 25 seconds immediately after that? There would be double faults all over the place. The sport is about skill, technique and fitness. Not fitness, fitness and fitness. Ferrer and Nadal would be winning everything ... and you can forget about Djokovic ever beating Nadal @ the French Open.

jonnythan
09-12-2012, 08:39 AM
No, if there was a shot clock the audience would scream bloody murder if the umpire ignored it on a given point. People on TW would analyze the number of times the ump let each player violate the clock.

It would introduce a discrete, countable element to it that would ruin everything.

Imagine the threads now:

Fed Only Won Because The Ump Let Him Violate the Clock More Times Than Djokovic!

Retaliation
09-12-2012, 08:55 AM
In another news, Rafael Nadal said he is more unsure when he is coming back to play:)

LOL. That's exactly what I was thinking when I heard this.

tacou
09-12-2012, 09:34 AM
I've edited the OP to include it.

That's awful. Posters have suggested it before and I never though it would be even considered on the pro tour.

The "ghost let calls" sure are annoying but even a first round 250 tournament match ending on a "let" ace is reason enough to not pass this rule.

serveitup911
09-12-2012, 09:42 AM
The no let rule is a good change. I've been wondering why all tennis isn't played without service lets. I got used to this rule playing college tennis, and one of the leagues I play in now also observes the no let rule. It doesn't change much, except there is never confusion about whether or not the serve is in play. There are no phantom let calls, and the flow of the match is better. After getting used to this change, I'm annoyed when someone wants to re-serve on a net cord.

LuckyR
09-12-2012, 09:57 AM
This rule change is a solution in search of a problem

North
09-12-2012, 09:58 AM
I think that a pattern needs to be established in a match, so you will not see a time violation after the "first time" a player goes over 25 seconds, which is the same as now. So, if Nadal and Djokovic are playing and they both are going over by a little bit and nobody is complaining, the umpire doesn't need to get involved at a critical time.

Just out of curiosity.... In your experience, do players feel free to complain, and do they actually complain, if an opponent keeps going over time?

tudwell
09-12-2012, 10:02 AM
Was it Malisse who said, "We get 20 seconds, Nadal gets 45"? There needs to be more consistency in how the violations are given. This new rule only adds to the inconsistency.

rommil
09-12-2012, 10:18 AM
Just out of curiosity.... In your experience, do players feel free to complain, and do they actually complain, if an opponent keeps going over time?

Pros know they are free to complain, but they shouldn't be put in a situation where they would need to deliberate if they should or
not, they have the match to face.

norbac
09-12-2012, 10:21 AM
Won't matter, since they won't enforce it.

Sentinel
09-12-2012, 10:38 AM
In another news, Rafael Nadal said he is more unsure when he is coming back to play:)

Usually violations fire up the Nadal even more.

Sure he's laughing out loud reading this: let's see if they dare penalize me !

JMR
09-12-2012, 10:49 AM
What about the no-let serve??? This is just rubbish!

No, it's a great idea. I've been in favor of this change for years. Lets are a waste of time.

JMR
09-12-2012, 10:52 AM
Interesting that they decided to try out a "no service lets" system. Brace yourselves for net cord aces...

Most lets do not interfere with the return; in fact, much of the time they're barely detectable by the players. Sometimes players argue about whether a let actually occurred. A "big" let is far more likely to be a serve that hits the tape and flies high in the air before landing in the middle of the service box, thus inviting the receiver to blast it, than a serve that just trickles over the net unreturnably.

JMR
09-12-2012, 10:56 AM
The "ghost let calls" sure are annoying but even a first round 250 tournament match ending on a "let" ace is reason enough to not pass this rule.

Why? Don't rally shots hit the net and plop over on break point occasionally? Aren't outcomes of games, sets, and matches already subject to being determined by a freakish net ball during a rally? Why is it OK for any shot in tennis to hit the net and go in except the serve? Illogical.

JMR
09-12-2012, 11:03 AM
If Djokovic, Murray and Nadal are involved in long, physically enduring rallies... there is no way possible they can then collect the balls from the ball kids and serve for the next point within 25 seconds. Its jus absurd and it would mean cause a decline in the "quality" of tennis on show. I as a spectator and I'm sure many as spectators want to see the best tennis on show. I don't want it to be able the battle of the fittest and who has the best recovery time.


First, many spectators would prefer to see a greater variety of points rather than an endless stream of long, grinding, please-take-the-offense-no-after-you-my-good-man points. "Quality" doesn't mean every rally must last as long as humanly possible.

Second, you have cause and effect reversed. The time limit between serves is intended to help implement the desired pace of the game. Players should conform their playing style to that pace. It's folly to wait and see how long the slowest players take and then base the game's pace on that.

sureshs
09-12-2012, 11:16 AM
Call me dumb, but how is this stricter? Currently, the server will lose the point, while the proposed change is to make it a fault, which means he could still have a second serve?

JMR
09-12-2012, 11:30 AM
Call me dumb, but how is this stricter? Currently, the server will lose the point, while the proposed change is to make it a fault, which means he could still have a second serve?

The rule is not stricter. Enforcement may become stricter, i.e., more consistent. A problem with the current rule is that some players and fans believe the penalties (if they were ever imposed!) are disproportionate to the violations. Implementing a time fault system is simpler and less intimidating. Players are accustomed to being charged with a fault for serving improperly.

JamieSafe
09-12-2012, 11:31 AM
Call me dumb, but how is this stricter? Currently, the server will lose the point, while the proposed change is to make it a fault, which means he could still have a second serve?It isn't stricter at all, it's ********. ATP doesn't have the balls to actually enforce things because they know those few players will start crying

And the long rallies argument is BS as well. There's no good reason to wait that long at all

sureshs
09-12-2012, 11:32 AM
I don't get it. They just diluted the rule for 2013 to make the enforcement stricter?

tacou
09-12-2012, 11:36 AM
Why? Don't rally shots hit the net and plop over on break point occasionally? Aren't outcomes of games, sets, and matches already subject to being determined by a freakish net ball during a rally? Why is it OK for any shot in tennis to hit the net and go in except the serve? Illogical.

yes they are, and opponents who win a point on net cords apologize, crowds groan, and commentators will say "now that's bad luck."

I don't think the rule will change tennis at all really. The one negative (cheap aces) far outweighs the one positive (no more phantom let calls).

spiderman123
09-12-2012, 11:46 AM
The rule is not stricter. Enforcement may become stricter, i.e., more consistent. A problem with the current rule is that some players and fans believe the penalties (if they were ever imposed!) are disproportionate to the violations. Implementing a time fault system is simpler and less intimidating. Players are accustomed to being charged with a fault for serving improperly.


Not to mention logical.

In a perfect world, if point penalties were enforced, players who are not ready would have hit a fault (like a quick snap to stop the clock) to get extra seconds to gather themselves (if they absolutely needed to do so), now we will use that logic.

Smart change.

underground
09-12-2012, 11:47 AM
After listening to the X-MAN complaining about Rafa, the tennis committee finally decides to do something. :twisted:

spiderman123
09-12-2012, 11:50 AM
'The ATP Board also approved a trial elimination of the service let on the ATP Challenger Tour only, for the first three months of 2013.


Dimitrov is going to rule the tour with this kind of control :)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=d5bSq3dUUog

Mustard
09-12-2012, 12:00 PM
The "no lets" rule is ridiculous, and 25 seconds is not enough.

woodrow1029
09-12-2012, 12:10 PM
The "no lets" rule is ridiculous, and 25 seconds is not enough.

Agreed on both issues.

JRstriker12
09-12-2012, 12:21 PM
The time violation rule is meaningless unless they are consistent is applying it to all players regardless of ranking (Rafa, Djoker).

I'm on the fence on the let rule. Don't think it will be than much of a change, may speed things up a bit, but don't think it will have much effect overall. Heck, you play net cords on ground strokes, why not on serves?

JMR
09-12-2012, 12:30 PM
yes they are, and opponents who win a point on net cords apologize, crowds groan, and commentators will say "now that's bad luck."

So what? "Luck" in that sense permeates tennis. Are you aghast when a ball lands on the baseline too? It was just "luck" that it didn't go out! It's pointless to defend a tiny island -- the service let rule -- where "luck" is anathema, while it saturates the rest of the game.

I don't think the rule will change tennis at all really. The one negative (cheap aces) far outweighs the one positive (no more phantom let calls).

Incorrect statement of the benefit, which is speeding up the game. There won't be any let calls, not just "phantom" ones.

TMF
09-12-2012, 12:35 PM
The "no lets" rule is ridiculous, and 25 seconds is not enough.

But if a player serve an ace or an unreturned serve, have over 25 seconds is ridiculous. And player like Nadal take too much time between 1st and 2nd serve. When Nadal use up time between point plus time between 1st and 2nd serve, it could well reach up to 1.5 minutes. LOL

Virginia
09-12-2012, 12:42 PM
They also need to do something about the time taken between first and second serves. The second serve is supposed to be taken "without delay". Rafa's antics in that regard are beyond ridiculous.

Banning the towel would help. Have you noticed how Murray calls for the towel after every single point, even if he serves an Ace? He just makes a nominal swipe at his forehead, so it's clear he doesn't really need it.

mellowyellow
09-12-2012, 01:04 PM
I think they should 1. Add 2 more challenges, the Umps are not doing their job. 2. Add an "extension" system like in pool (maybe 4 per set), of maybe 10-15 seconds. 3. Enforce the rules as they were, then see if their is a need for the new ones. Do not do what the idiot Ump for the men did and call a violation after a long point with windy conditions with no "soft" warning to speak of.

woodrow1029
09-12-2012, 01:25 PM
Do not do what the idiot Ump for the men did and call a violation after a long point with windy conditions with no "soft" warning to speak of.

The problem is with the people who watched it on TV, and were not able to see every changeover, that don't realize that a soft warning was actually given before the time violation.

Mustard
09-12-2012, 01:29 PM
Greg Rusedski is responsible for the "towelling after every point" phenomenon.

Narcissist
09-12-2012, 01:33 PM
Pointless change unless it is actually used

mellowyellow
09-12-2012, 01:51 PM
The problem is with the people who watched it on TV, and were not able to see every changeover, that don't realize that a soft warning was actually given before the time violation.

Was that to both players? Murray was taking more than enough time himself, and like Nadal takes too much time when down 0-30 or any braekpoint. Didn't realize that their was a warning, as you say, but that is really only part of the idiocy of that Umpire and calling that. Another problem with that situation was the root of that rules problem. Djoko said I was already at the line, his reply is it was already too long, so why wait? Give it when it applies, don't let it go till even later. Discretion is good, but not when it is inconsistent. The clock is a must in this situation for the umpire, the players and the fans. If conditions are rough exert a rule that allows for extra time kind of like the "heat" code in WTA allows for conditions.

mellowyellow
09-12-2012, 01:52 PM
Greg Rusedski is responsible for the "towelling after every point" phenomenon.

This should be a no no after a service winner or ace or return winner!!! I will add that every ball should not be thrown to the 1st serve side in a tie break.

Doublebounce
09-12-2012, 02:56 PM
They also need to do something about the time taken between first and second serves. The second serve is supposed to be taken "without delay". Rafa's antics in that regard are beyond ridiculous.

Banning the towel would help. Have you noticed how Murray calls for the towel after every single point, even if he serves an Ace? He just makes a nominal swipe at his forehead, so it's clear he doesn't really need it.

I agree about the time between first and second serves, but banning the towel is ridiculous. I am someone who sweats like crazy during a match, and almost need to wipe my face and hands after every point or else sweat would drip in my eyes and my hand would slip.

ninman
09-12-2012, 03:13 PM
The whole "no let" thing is just stupid. How many lets are there per match on average, 4 or 5? Out of 200-300 points. Totally pointless.

With regard to 25 seconds "not being enough", Andy Roddick and Roger Federer have absolutely no problem sticking to it, or indeed the 20 seconds given at Grand Slams.

tudwell
09-12-2012, 03:16 PM
The "no lets" rule is ridiculous, and 25 seconds is not enough.

How long do you think players should have between points?

rommil
09-12-2012, 03:19 PM
Call me dumb

What makes you think you deserve that compliment?:)

ninman
09-12-2012, 03:19 PM
How long do you think players should have between points?

As much time as Nadal needs.

sureshs
09-12-2012, 03:29 PM
Going to the towel is perhaps the biggest time waster.

Imagine in a soccer game if the play was stopped every 30 seconds so that someone could use a towel.

Bobby Jr
09-12-2012, 05:09 PM
I think this is terrible, absolutely terrible and all the people who disagree with me, hear me out.

If Djokovic, Murray and Nadal are involved in long, physically enduring rallies... there is no way possible they can then collect the balls from the ball kids and serve for the next point within 25 seconds...
Most sports have an element of "be ready or it's your own issue" and I think tennis tried to make the 25 second rule such a thing.

I have no sympathy for players who pay long rallies. If that is how the match is going then it's the same for both players... if they're more puffed when they start the next point, so be it. We've seen people lose points or matches since tennis began because of disparity in fitness between the players. Why should a player who can blast winners be disadvantaged in his game because someone who prefers to grind needs longer to recover between points?

People who argue they should allow for it after long rallies perhaps aren't considering how unfair it is to some players. In the Federer/Nadal match at the Australian Open Nadal was delaying points on Federer's serve because he needed time to prepare. That has an unsporting (borderline cheating) impact on the server's rhythm. If Federer was ready, how come Nadal couldn't be?

ATP/ITF do need to address this and they haven't gone nearly far enough unless the changes dictate that the umpire must warn people if they go over and not leave it to each umpire's discretion. The time wasting issue has become beyond silly at tournaments like the Aussie Open.

cork_screw
09-12-2012, 05:10 PM
I really think they should make it 15 seconds. Because seriously 25 seconds between points seems like a very long time. They don't even give that to you in basketball to construct a play to score a point. And tennis there seems to be no rush other than what you're thinking and towling off. They are way too easy on that. While they're at it they should give the chair umps more power and penalize players who yell and berate them like Roddick. You shouldn't treat the official like your whipping boy.

tudwell
09-12-2012, 05:33 PM
I remember coming into the room during the Nadal-Rosol match right after a point had been played and heard one of the commentators mention something about Rosol serving before Nadal was ready. Did that happen or was my mind playing tricks on me?

SoBad
09-12-2012, 05:40 PM
Finally, the justice system is catching up - Great Nadal will no longer be vicitmised by the system.

ninman
09-12-2012, 05:47 PM
Finally, the justice system is catching up - Great Nadal will no longer be vicitmised by the system.

I'm sorry, I couldn't stop laughing at that.

SoBad
09-12-2012, 05:50 PM
I'm sorry, I couldn't stop laughing at that.

Spelling mistakes are hilarious - sometimes I fall on the floor laughing when I see a typo on an internet forum.

Virginia
09-12-2012, 07:12 PM
I remember coming into the room during the Nadal-Rosol match right after a point had been played and heard one of the commentators mention something about Rosol serving before Nadal was ready. Did that happen or was my mind playing tricks on me?
Yes, it did happen - can't quite remember where though. Have the match recorded, so will take a look sometime.

Shaolin
09-12-2012, 07:28 PM
Most lets do not interfere with the return; in fact, much of the time they're barely detectable by the players. Sometimes players argue about whether a let actually occurred. A "big" let is far more likely to be a serve that hits the tape and flies high in the air before landing in the middle of the service box, thus inviting the receiver to blast it, than a serve that just trickles over the net unreturnably.

I agree...I really hope the ATP/ITF adopts the no let rule... Sure there will be some lame net cord aces but there will also be some exciting pop ups off the net that will lead to the returner coming in and hitting a winner or having to move in and deal with an awkward shot. Also the phantom let thing will finally be over with.

Russeljones
09-12-2012, 08:35 PM
I think this is terrible, absolutely terrible and all the people who disagree with me, hear me out.

If Djokovic, Murray and Nadal are involved in long, physically enduring rallies... there is no way possible they can then collect the balls from the ball kids and serve for the next point within 25 seconds. Its jus absurd and it would mean cause a decline in the "quality" of tennis on show. I as a spectator and I'm sure many as spectators want to see the best tennis on show. I don't want it to be able the battle of the fittest and who has the best recovery time.

A Sky Sports commentator (In England) Mark Petchy came up with a genius idea, one the ATP probably need to take consideration of. There should be a shot clock. So if a rally goes past 15 shots then the time between serving for the next point can then be 25 seconds plus, however if it is below 15 shots, then the 25 seconds rule sits in place.

How apt. The quality is very suspect as it is.

ninman
09-12-2012, 08:47 PM
Spelling mistakes are hilarious - sometimes I fall on the floor laughing when I see a typo on an internet forum.

http://www.thefeelgooddepot.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/08/Friday-August-3rd-Feel-Good-Depot-Idiot-of-the-Day.jpg

vernonbc
09-13-2012, 02:17 AM
The only good thing about this new enforcement edict is if, IF they enforce it equitably, it will show how many other players take excessive time between points. When Delpo is called for fault after fault after fault, or Isner is, or Berdych or Verdasco or any of the other slow players, it'll be interesting to see if some of the media or the vocal anti-Rafa faction thinks it's a fair rule.

Feather
09-13-2012, 02:26 AM
Most sports have an element of "be ready or it's your own issue" and I think tennis tried to make the 25 second rule such a thing.

I have no sympathy for players who pay long rallies. If that is how the match is going then it's the same for both players... if they're more puffed when they start the next point, so be it. We've seen people lose points or matches since tennis began because of disparity in fitness between the players. Why should a player who can blast winners be disadvantaged in his game because someone who prefers to grind needs longer to recover between points?

People who argue they should allow for it after long rallies perhaps aren't considering how unfair it is to some players. In the Federer/Nadal match at the Australian Open Nadal was delaying points on Federer's serve because he needed time to prepare. That has an unsporting (borderline cheating) impact on the server's rhythm. If Federer was ready, how come Nadal couldn't be?

ATP/ITF do need to address this and they haven't gone nearly far enough unless the changes dictate that the umpire must warn people if they go over and not leave it to each umpire's discretion. The time wasting issue has become beyond silly at tournaments like the Aussie Open.

Bobby

Which match are you referring to? AO 2009 Final or AO 2012 Semi Final?

Magnus
09-13-2012, 02:36 AM
I think this is terrible, absolutely terrible and all the people who disagree with me, hear me out.

If Djokovic, Murray and Nadal are involved in long, physically enduring rallies... there is no way possible they can then collect the balls from the ball kids and serve for the next point within 25 seconds. Its jus absurd and it would mean cause a decline in the "quality" of tennis on show. I as a spectator and I'm sure many as spectators want to see the best tennis on show. I don't want it to be able the battle of the fittest and who has the best recovery time.

A Sky Sports commentator (In England) Mark Petchy came up with a genius idea, one the ATP probably need to take consideration of. There should be a shot clock. So if a rally goes past 15 shots then the time between serving for the next point can then be 25 seconds plus, however if it is below 15 shots, then the 25 seconds rule sits in place.

Funny you've mentioned Djokovic, Nadal and Murray but didn't mention Federer, who has had his fair share of long, brutal rallies over the years. If at the age of 31 he can collect himself and take less than 25 seconds, surely the yoounger, more fit players can do that as well. Tennis has become absurbd in the amount of time players take between points. Nadal and Djokovic are leading the time wasting and drive everyone else to do the same, its become painfully frustrating to watch.

Stop time wasting, stop ball bouncing, stop the stupid towles between serves, stop the insane grunting of Azarenka and Sharapove, tennis has become madness!

fuzzyball
09-13-2012, 02:40 AM
I think this is terrible, absolutely terrible and all the people who disagree with me, hear me out.

If Djokovic, Murray and Nadal are involved in long, physically enduring rallies... there is no way possible they can then collect the balls from the ball kids and serve for the next point within 25 seconds. Its jus absurd and it would mean cause a decline in the "quality" of tennis on show.

No it just means thats grinders will have more difficulties to impose their grinding tennis style over more offensive shotmakers, and that does not equal to a decline in quality of tennis because grinding tennis isn't be the only way to exhibit great tennis, I'd even say that the new rule should promote greater tennis quality because it will favor players who have a fluid shotmaking style (let's say players like Federer, Rios) instead of players who forces their strokes (let's say players like Nadal or early Roddick).

Magnus
09-13-2012, 02:40 AM
TM, I don't agree with the shot clock. There are still things that can happen between points to make the players take longer than 25 seconds (i.e. broken strings, heavy wind gusts, crowd outbursts, etc.). When you put up a shot clock, you basically take any discretion away from the chair umpire, which could further reduce the quality of the match.

I think the rule change will still allow discretion from the umpire, and will hopefully allow for more consistent enforcement.

I think that a pattern needs to be established in a match, so you will not see a time violation after the "first time" a player goes over 25 seconds, which is the same as now. So, if Nadal and Djokovic are playing and they both are going over by a little bit and nobody is complaining, the umpire doesn't need to get involved at a critical time. If you put up a shot clock, you take away that discretion, which I think is a bad idea.

Broken strings or crowd outbursts are things that can happen and shall be taken into consideration. The time rule doesn't mean we become robots, we stay human but try to follow the rules better than before, and that's the best thing for the sport, and if Nadal/Nole truly love the sport they will understand it. However, in all the years I'm watching tennis (and that's many years), I have come to the conclusion these guys just waste time on purpose.

fuzzyball
09-13-2012, 03:04 AM
The lack of rythm in the matches is also why tennis is less popular on TV than some other sports, and slowly loses its place as a major sport, peoples in the stadium or in front of their TV want to see action, and when most of the time of a tennis match is spent at waiting for the players to be ready to start a point, it turns peoples of that sport, tennis is slowly dying of it, and it's time to do something to fix it before it's too late.

Bobby Jr
09-13-2012, 03:08 AM
Bobby

Which match are you referring to? AO 2009 Final or AO 2012 Semi Final?
This year. Federer was left waiting when he was ready to serve on a number of occasions while Nadal was still towelling off.

The server should be allowed to serve when they're ready once 25 seconds is up.

woodrow1029
12-26-2012, 07:09 AM
ITF has not adopted this rule change.

So that means that there will be very, very strict enforcement at Brisbane/Auckland/Sydney, but then at the Australian Open, it will be back to the old procedures.

ATP apparently has taken almost all judgment out of the chair umpire's hands with this rule change.

The 25 seconds will still start when the ball goes out of play from the previous point. When the clock hits 26 seconds, if the ball isn't in play, time violation.

The exceptions:

1. When there is a Hawkeye challenge, the 25 seconds will begin once the image of out/in is displayed.

2. The chair umpire will be able to use discretion when there is a player complaining about line call/ruling/etc.

In doubles, there may be more time violations for the receiving team than the serving team. The reason, there will apparently be no discretion for extra time when the receiving team is deciding which side to receive on for the deuce point. Therefore, it the receiving team is delaying the serving team while making their decision, then the receivers are subject to time violations.

veroniquem
12-26-2012, 07:28 AM
What a mess that ITF and ATP cannot harmonize their decisions. It's simply annoying to have different rules for different tournaments.

RogerRacket111
12-26-2012, 09:24 AM
They need to have a clock like in Basketball. If not it will not be enforced properly. Clock will add to drama IMO

TMF
12-26-2012, 09:32 AM
They need to have a clock like in Basketball. If not it will not be enforced properly. Clock will add to drama IMO

i certainly hope they will add a digital clock on both end of the court.

woodrow1029
12-26-2012, 09:36 AM
They need to have a clock like in Basketball. If not it will not be enforced properly. Clock will add to drama IMO

i certainly hope they will add a digital clock on both end of the court.

I have never been a fan of the "shot clock" idea; however, I do agree that if the umpires are going to have the discretion taken away from them, that a shot clock is appropriate. 25 seconds moves pretty quick, and that may be the only way for the players to know that they are getting close.

But, I think people are going to be surprised when watching Brisbane, Chennai and Doha on Monday that players are getting time violations right off the bat.

I also think it will be very fan-unfriendly, and the same people complaining that Nadal and Djokovic haven't been receiving time violations will be complaining when someone like Murray starts getting them next week, since he isn't exactly the quickest player in the world, either.

Mustard
12-26-2012, 09:54 AM
20-25 seconds is just too fast. If the ATP start dishing out too many warnings, they will be shooting themselves in the foot.

Crisstti
12-26-2012, 11:54 AM
ITF has not adopted this rule change.

So that means that there will be very, very strict enforcement at Brisbane/Auckland/Sydney, but then at the Australian Open, it will be back to the old procedures.

ATP apparently has taken almost all judgment out of the chair umpire's hands with this rule change.

The 25 seconds will still start when the ball goes out of play from the previous point. When the clock hits 26 seconds, if the ball isn't in play, time violation.

The exceptions:

1. When there is a Hawkeye challenge, the 25 seconds will begin once the image of out/in is displayed.

2. The chair umpire will be able to use discretion when there is a player complaining about line call/ruling/etc.

In doubles, there may be more time violations for the receiving team than the serving team. The reason, there will apparently be no discretion for extra time when the receiving team is deciding which side to receive on for the deuce point. Therefore, it the receiving team is delaying the serving team while making their decision, then the receivers are subject to time violations.

Ridiculous really. As someone said on this thread, it's a solution in search of a problem.

cc0509
12-26-2012, 12:12 PM
Ridiculous really. As someone said on this thread, it's a solution in search of a problem.

Nope, they have to start somewhere, there has been too much pressure put on them by the viewing public who don't want to watch 7 hour matches.

It is true that there should be agreement between the ITF and ATP/WTA but at least they are starting to address the problem.

Crisstti
12-26-2012, 01:56 PM
Nope, they have to start somewhere, there has been too much pressure put on them by the viewing public who don't want to watch 7 hour matches.

It is true that there should be agreement between the ITF and ATP/WTA but at least they are starting to address the problem.

To much pressure from whom?, from haters on this board?.

Anyway, we'll see how it works out.

Clarky21
12-26-2012, 02:05 PM
I haven't heard anything about pressure from the viewing public as a whole. The only complaining I ever see about the time certain players(Nadal and we all know why)take is here. I also saw a lot of whining about it on that cesspool MTF when I used to read there, which I am positive are some of the same people who post here.

cc0509
12-26-2012, 02:21 PM
To much pressure from whom?, from haters on this board?.

Anyway, we'll see how it works out.

From the spectators in tournaments and viewers on tv. I know actual people from my tennis club who have written emails to the ATP/ITF on the subject and how the rule needs to be enforced. You think people want to watch 7 hour matches? Nadal's stall tactics never bothered me much, so I don't care much either way, but many people do. Of course I know you don't because then you would be disagreeing with the actions of your idol. :rolleyes:

cc0509
12-26-2012, 02:38 PM
To much pressure from whom?, from haters on this board?.

Anyway, we'll see how it works out.

Also , the tv execs/sponsors pay for a certain block of time for a tennis match or sporting event, if it goes over their programming is messed up. Money talks.

nikdom
12-26-2012, 02:59 PM
20-25 seconds is just too fast. If the ATP start dishing out too many warnings, they will be shooting themselves in the foot.

I have some sincere questions for you Mustard and Nadal time wasting apologists in general.

If 20-25 seconds is not enough time to recover from a rally, then what in your mind should be a good amount of time between rallies? 45 secs? 1 min, 1.5 mins?

If say we pick one of those higher numbers then should every point have the same gap? Would it matter to you if a serve and volley player who is losing points quickly (assuming points go by quickly on his serve whether he wins them or not) and is down 2 break points and decides to now use all of those 45/60/90 secs in an attempt to break the rhythm of his opponent even as the server is not really tired?

Now, if you think that the above situation is an abuse of the rules and that the umpire should decide when and if a player can use all of those seconds, then at what point should an umpire interrupt the server in the above situation and tell him to get on with it?

Or you don't think that is an abuse at all? Because that's the key issue here. Abusing whatever the rule is. It's not about 20 secs or 25 secs or 30 secs.


See, the majority of the people concerned about time wasting are not saying that players like Nadal/Djokovic aren't running around expending effort. It's justified when an umpire uses his discretion to allow an extended break after say an exhausting rally. But when there hasn't been an extended rally or if the player is *deliberately wasting time toweling off*, then shouldn't the umpire be able to count upon a definite rule like 25 secs to clamp down on it?

Cup8489
12-26-2012, 03:24 PM
I haven't heard anything about pressure from the viewing public as a whole. The only complaining I ever see about the time certain players(Nadal and we all know why)take is here. I also saw a lot of whining about it on that cesspool MTF when I used to read there, which I am positive are some of the same people who post here.

http://www.tenniscountry.com/blog/2012/03/how_much_time_is_too_much_time.html

http://espn.go.com/tennis/story/_/id/7528836/tennis-length-aussie-open-final-add-up

Ignorance is bliss, and there you go.

TimothyO
12-26-2012, 04:27 PM
I remember coming into the room during the Nadal-Rosol match right after a point had been played and heard one of the commentators mention something about Rosol serving before Nadal was ready. Did that happen or was my mind playing tricks on me?

I saw that incident.

Rosol aced Nadal and then Nadal claimed that he wasn't ready even though he was bent over in the ready position.

Ump had Rosol replay the point.

The commentators then pointed out that Rosol was taking only 19 seconds on average during his serves while Nadal was taking 26 seconds. Rosol was following the rule while Nadal was cheating.

Later in the fifth set the commentators noted that when Rosol was serving Nadal was trying to slow him down to kill his momentum.

I wonder if Nadal's career would have been so stellar had he been forced to follow the rules.

Bartelby
12-26-2012, 04:46 PM
It gets very boring if play is slow so the new rule is great.

Crisstti
12-26-2012, 04:53 PM
I saw that incident.

Rosol aced Nadal and then Nadal claimed that he wasn't ready even though he was bent over in the ready position.

Ump had Rosol replay the point.

The commentators then pointed out that Rosol was taking only 19 seconds on average during his serves while Nadal was taking 26 seconds. Rosol was following the rule while Nadal was cheating.

Later in the fifth set the commentators noted that when Rosol was serving Nadal was trying to slow him down to kill his momentum.

I wonder if Nadal's career would have been so stellar had he been forced to follow the rules.

Lol, so he was cheating because he was taking the enormous amount of 1 second more. Just hilarious.

Yeah, Fed would have won all those slams if the umpires had just gifted them to him... you wish.

Oh, and Nadal wasn't ready so Rosol shouldn't have served. He rightfully had to repeat the point.

Bartelby
12-26-2012, 05:01 PM
A 26 average means that he must have violated the rule by quite a bit on numerous occasions, but really he and a few others are very slow and it gets boring.

Djokovic used to be the worst because you'd think play was about to begin and then he'd bounce the ball dozens of times. Its very boring to wait, fault, then wait again.

Crisstti
12-26-2012, 05:11 PM
From the spectators in tournaments and viewers on tv. I know actual people from my tennis club who have written emails to the ATP/ITF on the subject and how the rule needs to be enforced. You think people want to watch 7 hour matches? Nadal's stall tactics never bothered me much, so I don't care much either way, but many people do. Of course I know you don't because then you would be disagreeing with the actions of your idol. :rolleyes:

And you know that how?. Oh yeah, you don't. The spectators/viewers actually bothered by this are ****s who would like Fed gifted matches because of point penalties... pretty pathetic really.

Also , the tv execs/sponsors pay for a certain block of time for a tennis match or sporting event, if it goes over their programming is messed up. Money talks.

Now, this is the more likely reason. Money.

http://www.tenniscountry.com/blog/2012/03/how_much_time_is_too_much_time.html

http://espn.go.com/tennis/story/_/id/7528836/tennis-length-aussie-open-final-add-up

Ignorance is bliss, and there you go.

I doubt that kind of articles constitute the pressure that was mentioned. They're both actually very mild.

Say Chi Sin Lo
12-26-2012, 05:17 PM
I have some sincere questions for you Mustard and Nadal time wasting apologists in general.

If 20-25 seconds is not enough time to recover from a rally, then what in your mind should be a good amount of time between rallies? 45 secs? 1 min, 1.5 mins?



I think those people should play and watch another sport if they want all to see all that idle time... baseball: Where the lengthy pause between pitches is customary.

Bartelby
12-26-2012, 05:21 PM
Everyone will love this rule when they see it except for those recalcitrants who will refuse to acknowledge its existence.

And the contrast between ATP events and ITF ones will be glaring. so maybe the latter will begin to move.

Bartelby
12-26-2012, 05:23 PM
Baseball makes cricket look fast-paced.



I think those people should play and watch another sport if they want all to see all that idle time... baseball: Where the lengthy pause between pitches is customary.

cc0509
12-26-2012, 05:30 PM
Crisstti;7080605]And you know that how?. Oh yeah, you don't. The spectators/viewers actually bothered by this are ****s who would like Fed gifted matches because of point penalties... pretty pathetic really.

Crisstti, I don't mean to offend but I don't know if the elevator does not go to the top floor with you or whatever, but do you honestly think that the ATP would consider any changes re the time violation if they had not received complaints from the people who matter, namely the spectators who buy tickets, the tv viewers and the tv execs/sponsors? Think about it. You think the ATP is doing this for the ****s on some meaningless tennis forums? Just get over it. Nadal will have to get used to it, that is if he ever comes back from his little excursion, it is not big deal, he is a tennis pro, no?



Now, this is the more likely reason. Money.

Well tennis is a business and a big business so yes of course money matters.

Mustard
12-26-2012, 05:43 PM
If the umpire thinks that the player is deliberately slowing things down, he should have a quiet word. But the fact of the matter is that Nadal goes at that pace of 25-35 seconds. That is his normal pace. Not everyone does it at 10-20 seconds like Mr. Federer.

Bartelby
12-26-2012, 05:45 PM
Who does what is irrelevant. They'll follow the rule or simply turn up to Slams and Davis Cup if they are that stubborn.

Crisstti
12-26-2012, 05:52 PM
Crisstti, I don't mean to offend but I don't know if the elevator does not go to the top floor with you or whatever, but do you honestly think that the ATP would consider any changes re the time violation if they had not received complaints from the people who matter, namely the spectators who buy tickets, the tv viewers and the tv execs/sponsors? Think about it. You think the ATP is doing this for the ****s on some meaningless tennis forums? Just get over it. Nadal will have to get used to it, that is if he ever comes back from his little excursion, it is not big deal, he is a tennis pro, no?

Well tennis is a business and a big business so yes of course money matters.

Well, good to know.

Other than TV executives and sponsors, no, I don't think they'd care. It would have to be overwhelming.

nikdom
12-26-2012, 05:55 PM
If the umpire thinks that the player is deliberately slowing things down, he should have a quiet word. But the fact of the matter is that Nadal goes at that pace of 25-35 seconds. That is his normal pace. Not everyone does it at 10-20 seconds like Mr. Federer.

LOL


Didn't know you are a comic. Anywho, Mr.Nadal can do whatever he pleases as long as he does not exceed the time limit. Not asking him to go at 5 secs, but he cannot exceed 25.

BTW, you did not answer my question.

Bartelby
12-26-2012, 05:55 PM
The Slams and the ITF have the same money and tv pressures and they show no sign of moving as yet.

Crisstti
12-26-2012, 05:58 PM
The Slams and the ITF have the same money and tv pressures and they show no sign of moving as yet.

Maybe they have more sense. Maybe they're going to see how it works out on the ATP.

(They also would have the same amount of this alleged "public pressure").

Say Chi Sin Lo
12-26-2012, 06:02 PM
LOL


Didn't know you are a comic. Anywho, Mr.Nadal can do whatever he pleases as long as he does not exceed the time limit. Not asking him to go at 5 secs, but he cannot exceed 25.

BTW, you did not answer my question.

Seriously, that's fine and dandy if there weren't any rules about it. He can sit down for a minute before he serves and no one can say ***** about it. But here's the tricky thing, there is such a rule, and no one is above the rules.

cc0509
12-26-2012, 06:06 PM
The Slams and the ITF have the same money and tv pressures and they show no sign of moving as yet.

They will.............

Relinquis
12-26-2012, 06:08 PM
Shot clock? why not forget the racquets and net, use two hoops at either side instead, one massive ball and play with our hands like in Basketball! We don't need an electronic solution, just an agreed upon rule that the umpire can enforce.

On a serious note though, i think umpires should enforce the 25 second rule more strictly. It gets boring and spoils the rhythm when players take excessive time, a full rest, massage and bath between every serve/return. Also, stamina and managing one's effort/focus during the point and match is part of being a good athlete. This isn't darts, snooker or baseball.

You should have an upper limit on how long a player can take to catch their breath and set up for a serve/return. 20, 25 or 30 seconds, just choose one and stick with it.

Do players have a say in setting the rules?

Bartelby
12-26-2012, 06:08 PM
Yes, but their 20 second rule, never policed, looks decidedly anachronistic.

I think the new ATP rule is excellent although I woudn't mind it being 30 seconds.




Maybe they have more sense. Maybe they're going to see how it works out on the ATP.

(They also would have the same amount of this alleged "public pressure").

cc0509
12-26-2012, 06:10 PM
Well, good to know.

Other than TV executives and sponsors, no, I don't think they'd care. It would have to be overwhelming.

No, I really did not mean to be offensive but I was just trying to get across the point that obviously the ATP has been receiving pressure from somewhere in order for them to consider changing the rule. They are not doing it because they have nothing better to do right?

Cup8489
12-26-2012, 06:32 PM
And you know that how?. Oh yeah, you don't. The spectators/viewers actually bothered by this are ****s who would like Fed gifted matches because of point penalties... pretty pathetic really.



Now, this is the more likely reason. Money.



I doubt that kind of articles constitute the pressure that was mentioned. They're both actually very mild.

Clarky21 mentioned a lack of any examples beyond this board of time issues. I disproved that.

Virginia
12-27-2012, 01:09 AM
Oh, and Nadal wasn't ready so Rosol shouldn't have served. He rightfully had to repeat the point.
I just watched it again today and Nadal was bent over in the ready position. Perhaps he hadn't yet wiped his nose twice and his ears three times, I don't know.

I was impressed however by the fact that Rosol didn't show any annoyance about having to replay the point. A lot of players would have made a fuss about it.

Rosol is respectful of the umpire and that's commendable. He was also so much "in the zone" that he literally was in another world at the time.

joeri888
12-27-2012, 02:41 AM
So the idea is a Lower penalty in order to make it more easy to penalize consistently or what?

Bartelby
12-27-2012, 03:11 AM
Exact compliance with minimal fuss from the players is the idea behind the change.

bullfan
12-27-2012, 06:52 PM
Can you imagine if the fans start counting down during a shotclock? And I can totally see it happening.

Bartelby
12-27-2012, 07:05 PM
I think it will be a silent shotclock, as with silent bans.

Mustard
12-27-2012, 10:36 PM
Rosol is respectful of the umpire and that's commendable. He was also so much "in the zone" that he literally was in another world at the time.

How can anyone be literally in another world? Does Rosol have some sort of space travel that the rest of us don't know about ;)