ATP Board Approves Change In Time Violation Penalty

Discussion in 'General Pro Player Discussion' started by jwjh, Sep 12, 2012.

  1. jwjh

    jwjh Hall of Fame

    Joined:
    Aug 15, 2010
    Messages:
    3,591
    '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/Te...pproves-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.”'
     
    Last edited: Sep 12, 2012
    #1
  2. woodrow1029

    woodrow1029 Hall of Fame

    Joined:
    Jan 24, 2012
    Messages:
    2,653
    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.
     
    #2
  3. woodrow1029

    woodrow1029 Hall of Fame

    Joined:
    Jan 24, 2012
    Messages:
    2,653
    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.
     
    #3
  4. Tennis_Maestro

    Tennis_Maestro Banned

    Joined:
    Mar 23, 2007
    Messages:
    4,101
    Location:
    England London
    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.
     
    #4
  5. woodrow1029

    woodrow1029 Hall of Fame

    Joined:
    Jan 24, 2012
    Messages:
    2,653
    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.
     
    #5
  6. Tennis_Maestro

    Tennis_Maestro Banned

    Joined:
    Mar 23, 2007
    Messages:
    4,101
    Location:
    England London
    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.
     
    #6
  7. SQA333

    SQA333 Professional

    Joined:
    Jun 16, 2012
    Messages:
    1,446
    What about the no-let serve??? This is just rubbish!
     
    #7
  8. Pavlos

    Pavlos Rookie

    Joined:
    Jan 7, 2010
    Messages:
    120
    Location:
    Greece
    Interesting that they decided to try out a "no service lets" system. Brace yourselves for net cord aces...
     
    #8
  9. woodrow1029

    woodrow1029 Hall of Fame

    Joined:
    Jan 24, 2012
    Messages:
    2,653
    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.
     
    #9
  10. rommil

    rommil Legend

    Joined:
    Feb 23, 2004
    Messages:
    7,737
    Location:
    CT
    In another news, Rafael Nadal said he is more unsure when he is coming back to play:)
     
    #10
  11. merlinpinpin

    merlinpinpin Hall of Fame

    Joined:
    Dec 8, 2011
    Messages:
    2,553
    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.
     
    #11
  12. Tennis_Maestro

    Tennis_Maestro Banned

    Joined:
    Mar 23, 2007
    Messages:
    4,101
    Location:
    England London
    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.
     
    Last edited: Sep 12, 2012
    #12
  13. tacou

    tacou Legend

    Joined:
    Jun 30, 2007
    Messages:
    7,036
    where does it say this??
     
    #13
  14. woodrow1029

    woodrow1029 Hall of Fame

    Joined:
    Jan 24, 2012
    Messages:
    2,653
    In the same article.
     
    #14
  15. jwjh

    jwjh Hall of Fame

    Joined:
    Aug 15, 2010
    Messages:
    3,591
    I've edited the OP to include it.
     
    #15
  16. jonnythan

    jonnythan Professional

    Joined:
    Jul 20, 2009
    Messages:
    1,356
    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.
     
    #16
  17. smoledman

    smoledman Legend

    Joined:
    Jul 6, 2012
    Messages:
    5,409
    Location:
    USA
    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.
     
    #17
  18. Tennis_Maestro

    Tennis_Maestro Banned

    Joined:
    Mar 23, 2007
    Messages:
    4,101
    Location:
    England London
    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.
     
    #18
  19. jonnythan

    jonnythan Professional

    Joined:
    Jul 20, 2009
    Messages:
    1,356
    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!
     
    #19
  20. Retaliation

    Retaliation New User

    Joined:
    Jan 26, 2010
    Messages:
    88
    Location:
    Oregon
    LOL. That's exactly what I was thinking when I heard this.
     
    #20
  21. tacou

    tacou Legend

    Joined:
    Jun 30, 2007
    Messages:
    7,036
    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.
     
    #21
  22. serveitup911

    serveitup911 Semi-Pro

    Joined:
    Feb 13, 2006
    Messages:
    649
    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.
     
    #22
  23. LuckyR

    LuckyR Legend

    Joined:
    Jun 2, 2006
    Messages:
    6,404
    Location:
    The Great NW
    This rule change is a solution in search of a problem
     
    #23
  24. North

    North Professional

    Joined:
    Jun 21, 2005
    Messages:
    937
    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?
     
    #24
  25. tudwell

    tudwell Hall of Fame

    Joined:
    Jul 3, 2007
    Messages:
    4,408
    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.
     
    #25
  26. rommil

    rommil Legend

    Joined:
    Feb 23, 2004
    Messages:
    7,737
    Location:
    CT
    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.
     
    #26
  27. norbac

    norbac Legend

    Joined:
    Aug 4, 2008
    Messages:
    8,490
    Won't matter, since they won't enforce it.
     
    #27
  28. Sentinel

    Sentinel Bionic Poster

    Joined:
    Jan 21, 2008
    Messages:
    30,341
    Location:
    Somewhere over the rainbow
    Usually violations fire up the Nadal even more.

    Sure he's laughing out loud reading this: let's see if they dare penalize me !
     
    #28
  29. JMR

    JMR Semi-Pro

    Joined:
    Aug 15, 2012
    Messages:
    417
    No, it's a great idea. I've been in favor of this change for years. Lets are a waste of time.
     
    #29
  30. JMR

    JMR Semi-Pro

    Joined:
    Aug 15, 2012
    Messages:
    417
    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.
     
    #30
  31. JMR

    JMR Semi-Pro

    Joined:
    Aug 15, 2012
    Messages:
    417
    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.
     
    #31
  32. JMR

    JMR Semi-Pro

    Joined:
    Aug 15, 2012
    Messages:
    417
    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.
     
    #32
  33. sureshs

    sureshs Bionic Poster

    Joined:
    Oct 1, 2005
    Messages:
    35,055
    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?
     
    #33
  34. JMR

    JMR Semi-Pro

    Joined:
    Aug 15, 2012
    Messages:
    417
    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.
     
    #34
  35. JamieSafe

    JamieSafe Rookie

    Joined:
    Jan 19, 2011
    Messages:
    128
    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
     
    #35
  36. sureshs

    sureshs Bionic Poster

    Joined:
    Oct 1, 2005
    Messages:
    35,055
    I don't get it. They just diluted the rule for 2013 to make the enforcement stricter?
     
    #36
  37. tacou

    tacou Legend

    Joined:
    Jun 30, 2007
    Messages:
    7,036
    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).
     
    #37
  38. spiderman123

    spiderman123 Professional

    Joined:
    Aug 17, 2006
    Messages:
    840

    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.
     
    #38
  39. underground

    underground Legend

    Joined:
    Apr 24, 2012
    Messages:
    6,923
    After listening to the X-MAN complaining about Rafa, the tennis committee finally decides to do something. :twisted:
     
    #39
  40. spiderman123

    spiderman123 Professional

    Joined:
    Aug 17, 2006
    Messages:
    840
    Dimitrov is going to rule the tour with this kind of control :)

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=d5bSq3dUUog
     
    #40
  41. Mustard

    Mustard Talk Tennis Guru

    Joined:
    Nov 12, 2009
    Messages:
    25,112
    Location:
    Cwmbran, Wales
    The "no lets" rule is ridiculous, and 25 seconds is not enough.
     
    Last edited: Sep 12, 2012
    #41
  42. woodrow1029

    woodrow1029 Hall of Fame

    Joined:
    Jan 24, 2012
    Messages:
    2,653
    Agreed on both issues.
     
    #42
  43. JRstriker12

    JRstriker12 Hall of Fame

    Joined:
    Mar 31, 2006
    Messages:
    3,365
    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?
     
    #43
  44. JMR

    JMR Semi-Pro

    Joined:
    Aug 15, 2012
    Messages:
    417
    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.

    Incorrect statement of the benefit, which is speeding up the game. There won't be any let calls, not just "phantom" ones.
     
    #44
  45. TMF

    TMF Talk Tennis Guru

    Joined:
    Jul 15, 2009
    Messages:
    21,212
    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
     
    #45
  46. Virginia

    Virginia Hall of Fame

    Joined:
    Feb 1, 2007
    Messages:
    1,537
    Location:
    Auckland, New Zealand
    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.
     
    #46
  47. mellowyellow

    mellowyellow Hall of Fame

    Joined:
    Jun 5, 2010
    Messages:
    2,553
    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.
     
    #47
  48. woodrow1029

    woodrow1029 Hall of Fame

    Joined:
    Jan 24, 2012
    Messages:
    2,653
    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.
     
    #48
  49. Mustard

    Mustard Talk Tennis Guru

    Joined:
    Nov 12, 2009
    Messages:
    25,112
    Location:
    Cwmbran, Wales
    Greg Rusedski is responsible for the "towelling after every point" phenomenon.
     
    #49
  50. Narcissist

    Narcissist Semi-Pro

    Joined:
    Jul 25, 2006
    Messages:
    484
    Pointless change unless it is actually used
     
    #50

Share This Page