Injury Time Out Debate

tacoben · Jan 20, 2009

For those who watched the A/O last night, match featuring McHale vs. Moore, where McHale had severe cramping, an interesting and lively debate arose between commentators Brad Gilbert and Pat Shriver about injury time outs; where Gilbert expressed his opposition to it. In agreement to the abuse of injury time out were commentators Cahill, Drysdale, Fernandez and Carrillo.

Though McHale lost to Moore, it did throw Moore off her game more than expected. Cramping also factored in the Hewitt vs. Gonzales match, however the outcome seem to benefit Gonzales who also took an injury time out. What are you thoughts on this issue?

FiveO · Jan 20, 2009

For me, unless you are bleeding or have another observable injury which can be verified and/or quickly bandaged, i.e. blisters, IMO "loss of conditioning" which all to often seems a "fleeting thing", or all other injuries, the player should play through or retire. It's simple and leaves no room for the abuses we've seen all to often.

5

saram · Jan 20, 2009

I agree with Killer and Brad--cramping is a loss of both conditioning and preparation for your match. Watching the match in the OP, you could see the American only taking baby sips when she was cramping. If that is what she calls hydration--then she deserved to cramp and lose the match.

Twisted ankle, joint, bandaging required for gash or fall--then ok, take a time-out and get medical attention/treatment.

But if you fail to train, prepare, hydrate and nourish yourself when playing in heat around 105 F....then you don't deserve help in any way.

tacoben · Jan 20, 2009

I forgot the name of the Japanese player this ruling is titled after. I googled and search but could not come up with the title. Anyone remember/know?

FiveO · Jan 20, 2009

Shuzo Matsuoka (JAPAN) 1R v. Petr Korda '95 US Open 6-7(4) 7-6(4) 7-6(8) 5-6 RET

That was the other end of the spectrum. In the end the poor guy wasn't going to die, but it was painful to watch and listen to as the chair counted off a point violation, game violation and the match before someone came to his aid. What I didn't understand then was how they diagnosed him from 20' away or knew he wasn't suffering some life threatening malady and wasn't merely cramping? One dumb set of rules only to be replace by another dumb set of rules to address this possibility.

5

saram · Jan 20, 2009

tacoben said:
I forgot the name of the Japanese player this ruling is titled after. I googled and search but could not come up with the title. Anyone remember/know?

That ruling and name came forth when he completely cramped throughout his entire body and due to the rule of not helping with cramps--no one could help him.

Someone in that condition is done with the match and needs help ASAP. But in my mind, someone with some leg cramps that cannot continue without help from a trainer should concede the match.

When someone's health (and possibly life) are in question--help them out. But giving them a time out return to play for lack of conditioning is another story in itself.

vbranis · Jan 20, 2009

saram said:
I agree with Killer and Brad--cramping is a loss of both conditioning and preparation for your match. Watching the match in the OP, you could see the American only taking baby sips when she was cramping. If that is what she calls hydration--then she deserved to cramp and lose the match.

Twisted ankle, joint, bandaging required for gash or fall--then ok, take a time-out and get medical attention/treatment.

But if you fail to train, prepare, hydrate and nourish yourself when playing in heat around 105 F....then you don't deserve help in any way.

+1, it's also unfair to the other player.

saram · Jan 20, 2009

vbranis said:
+1, it's also unfair to the other player.

Very true--you could see the Aussie girl torn up about it....

NamRanger · Jan 20, 2009

Also, there are players who routinely abuse the injury time out in order to throw off the rhythm of their opponents. They of course will not be named in order to keep this thread on track.

TheMusicLover · Jan 20, 2009

FiveO said:
For me, unless you are bleeding or have another observable injury which can be verified and/or quickly bandaged, i.e. blisters, IMO "loss of conditioning" which all to often seems a "fleeting thing", or all other injuries, the player should play through or retire. It's simple and leaves no room for the abuses we've seen all to often.

5

Fully agree. Play On, or Retire - no commedia dell'arte, please!

Blade0324 · Jan 20, 2009

If you do away with the injury timeout rule then players will just request a bathroom break when they are cramping or say it's a pulled muscle or something else to replace it. I actually think the rule is a good one and allows players 1 short instance of treatment from a trainer to try and allow them to go on. After that they cannot have the same issue treated again and if they cannot overcome then they either suffer through it or retire.

The_Question · Jan 20, 2009

I watched the matches last night, and laughed as Gilbert and Shriver fighting over the injury time out.

Frankly, if you're hurt and can't compete under regulation rules of the old, you're not fit to compete. There is no reason to make your opponent to wait for you...

coloskier · Jan 20, 2009

Let them take all the injury time outs they want, but for each one, they lose a game and the other player starts serve.

FiveO · Jan 20, 2009

Blade0324 said:
If you do away with the injury timeout rule then players will just request a bathroom break when they are cramping or say it's a pulled muscle or something else to replace it. I actually think the rule is a good one and allows players 1 short instance of treatment from a trainer to try and allow them to go on. After that they cannot have the same issue treated again and if they cannot overcome then they either suffer through it or retire.

As per the ATP you can't do the excessive toilet break thing, at least not without penalty:

O. Toilet Break
1) A player may be permitted to leave the court for a toilet break. A player is entitled to one (1) toilet break during a best of three set match and two (2) toilet breaks during a best of five set match. Toilet breaks should be taken on a set break and can be used for no other purpose.
a) For doubles, each team is entitled to a total of two (2) toilet breaks in all matches.
If partners leave the court together, it counts as one (1) of the team’s authorized breaks.
2) Any time a player leaves the court for a toilet break, it is considered one of the authorized breaks regardless of whether or not the opponent has left the court.
3) Any toilet break taken after the warm-up has started is considered one of the authorized breaks. Additional breaks will be authorized, but will be penalized in accordance with the Point Penalty Schedule if the player is not ready within the allowed time.

http://www.frankymoser.de/ATP_Rulebook.pdf

The pulled muscle thing would be addressed by the observable/verifiable requirement. I.E. blood, blister, and/or a clearly rolled ankle. Everything else that "hurts" can be addressed on and within the changeover. A "pulled muscle" isn't going to "un-pull" itself with treatment.

5

woody88 · Jan 20, 2009

too many players take advantage of this. A lot of them don't need a rub down, when they are feeling perfectly fine. Last night's Hewitt/Gonzo match was a perfect example. Sure, Gonzo looks like that he is struggling a bit, but he was not laying out there like a Shuzo. And when he called for the medical timeout, we all knew this would have an effect on the match. Because now you are dictating the flow of the match. Perhaps the rules should be modify a bit, that if you are the server, you can call a med timeout. But 3 mins, that is it. No more, no less.

Now if you are the returner, and you want to call a timeout. I think the server should be rewarded with at least 2 points right off the bat. Meaning once you are out of your med timeout of 3 mins, again, no more and no less. The server already have a 30-0 lead. The rules needs modification very soon. Both men and women are taking advantage of this. And the best argument that they have? "well, it's within the rules" bunch of BS.

I think giving a game away to the other player is too much of a punishment. But either take the rule away, or modify it a bit, so we won't have all these cheaters on the tour.

fps · Jan 20, 2009

woody88 said:
too many players take advantage of this. A lot of them don't need a rub down, when they are feeling perfectly fine. Last night's Hewitt/Gonzo match was a perfect example. Sure, Gonzo looks like that he is struggling a bit, but he was not laying out there like a Shuzo. And when he called for the medical timeout, we all knew this would have an effect on the match. Because now you are dictating the flow of the match. Perhaps the rules should be modify a bit, that if you are the server, you can call a med timeout. But 3 mins, that is it. No more, no less.

Now if you are the returner, and you want to call a timeout. I think the server should be rewarded with at least 2 points right off the bat. Meaning once you are out of your med timeout of 3 mins, again, no more and no less. The server already have a 30-0 lead. The rules needs modification very soon. Both men and women are taking advantage of this. And the best argument that they have? "well, it's within the rules" bunch of BS.

I think giving a game away to the other player is too much of a punishment. But either take the rule away, or modify it a bit, so we won't have all these cheaters on the tour.

to me, working your opponent over until he crumbles is part of a gameplan, not bad luck for the oppo. the server should always be allowed to serve at his own pace. another pet peeve is when the receiver stalls for time after a long point- it shouldn't be his decision when he receives!

FiveO · Jan 20, 2009

woody88 said:
too many players take advantage of this. A lot of them don't need a rub down, when they are feeling perfectly fine. Last night's Hewitt/Gonzo match was a perfect example. Sure, Gonzo looks like that he is struggling a bit, but he was not laying out there like a Shuzo. And when he called for the medical timeout, we all knew this would have an effect on the match. Because now you are dictating the flow of the match. Perhaps the rules should be modify a bit, that if you are the server, you can call a med timeout. But 3 mins, that is it. No more, no less.

Now if you are the returner, and you want to call a timeout. I think the server should be rewarded with at least 2 points right off the bat. Meaning once you are out of your med timeout of 3 mins, again, no more and no less. The server already have a 30-0 lead. The rules needs modification very soon. Both men and women are taking advantage of this. And the best argument that they have? "well, it's within the rules" bunch of BS.

I think giving a game away to the other player is too much of a punishment. But either take the rule away, or modify it a bit, so we won't have all these cheaters on the tour.

I understand the sentiment but layering bad rules with more rules is usually a bad idea. Getting rid of the "Matsuoka Rule", replacing it with a "if the chair can't see it, you're either too hurt to go on or not rule" simplifies matters.

Not for nothing, but without an IV drip, you better be at or very, very near match point if you start cramping. Tennis players seem to be the only athletes in the world who can make miraculous recoveries from cramping and play for another 45 minutes, time and time again, without receiving IV fluids. Like I said before, if you pull a muscle it doesn't un-pull itself with treatment.

And why should that treatment interrupt play anyway? All the trainer is going to do is balm it, wrap it and maybe give an pain killer/anti-inflamatory which can be accomplished within a changeover.

I would suspect that most players here have experienced each of these things while playing tennis or some other sport. Those who have understand the realities and see the acts of these players, as just that. IMO its a joke that they should have done something about almost immediately after the enacted the change.

5

S H O W S T O P P E R ! · Jan 20, 2009

There shouldn't be one unless the player is visibly hurt or cannot move.

NamRanger · Jan 20, 2009

FiveO said:
I understand the sentiment but layering bad rules with more rules is usually a bad idea. Getting rid of the "Matsuoka Rule", replacing it with a "if the chair can't see it, you're either too hurt to go on or not rule" simplifies matters.

Not for nothing, but without an IV drip, you better be at or very, very near match point if you start cramping. Tennis players seem to be the only athletes in the world who can make miraculous recoveries from cramping and play for another 45 minutes, time and time again, without receiving IV fluids. Like I said before, if you pull a muscle it doesn't un-pull itself with treatment.

And why should that treatment interrupt play anyway? All the trainer is going to do is balm it, wrap it and maybe give an pain killer/anti-inflamatory which can be accomplished within a changeover.

I would suspect that most players here have experienced each of these things while playing tennis or some other sport. Those who have understand the realities and see the acts of these players, as just that. IMO its a joke that they should have done something about almost immediately after the enacted the change.

5

Yes, I'm pretty sure REAL severe body cramps are near unrecoverable without the usage of IV fluids. I don't even think I've seen NFL players cramp as often as tennis players, and they are on much tougher conditions and use their muscles far more often.

TheMusicLover · Jan 20, 2009

S H O W S T O P P E R ! said:
There shouldn't be one unless the player is visibly hurt or cannot move.

This is a bit too simple. How do you define 'visibly hurt'?
A blister or an arm falling off (okay, not serious here) are 'visible' for all to see, but things can be a lot more complicated than that.

If, for instance, you witness a player complaining about his back, do you instantly know whether the fellow is just suffering from a sore muscle (which can be painful enough btw), or that he has just made a wrong movement, igniting a disc hernia, which might lead to paralysis if not taken care off appropriately?

I don't know about you, but I'd rather not be the one to make that decision, as it can lead to very serious mistakes...

woody88 · Jan 20, 2009

I really think that they should get rid of the rule altogether, as too many players are taking advantage. Since I don't see it happening (unfortunately) I am just trying to think of modifying it possibly. But, if they can just get rid of it altogether, I am totally for that.

Injury Time Out Debate

Semi-Pro

Hall of Fame

Legend

Semi-Pro

Hall of Fame

Legend

Professional

Legend

G.O.A.T.

G.O.A.T.

Hall of Fame

Hall of Fame

Legend

Hall of Fame

Rookie

Legend

Hall of Fame

Hall of Fame

G.O.A.T.

G.O.A.T.

Rookie

Similar threads