Rafa's response on time violations.

Paul Murphy · Mar 8, 2012

Rafael Nadal responded to Roger Federer's comments that the time taken in between points is being violated and that officials do not properly enforce it enough. At the Grand Slams, the ITF allows 20 seconds between points, while the ATP allows 25 seconds.

Federer said on Wednesday that, "I'm not complaining a lot, but I don't know how you can go through a four-hour match with Rafa [Nadal] and he never gets a time violation."

On Thursday at Indian Wells, Nadal responded by saying: "The rules are there, but we cannot expect to play six hours and play rallies of crazy points and rest for 20 seconds for nobody. If the umpire considers that he has to put a warning because the player is not doing the right thing between points, I think the players have to accept. The rule is there but I think it is more the [interpretation] of the umpire, that's my way to understand the rule. Everyone understands different ways and you can understand to some its 15 seconds under normal conditions. But you have to understand how the match goes and that's the role of the umpire. They have given me a lot of warnings in my career and I have accepted almost every one, because sometimes they are right, and the same for Novak [Djokovic] having to do it a few times, too. It's part of the game and we have to follow the rules, but we don't have to [put blinders on]."

Tennis.com

Mustard · Mar 8, 2012

Very diplomatically put by Nadal.

rommil · Mar 8, 2012

Even Nadal's answer goes over the time limit.

TTMR · Mar 8, 2012

Mustard said:
Very diplomatically put by Nadal.

Bring in the guillotine.

NamRanger · Mar 8, 2012

Mustard said:
Very diplomatically put by Nadal.

And yet he clearly and systematically abuses it because he knows he will never get a point penalty of any sort even if he gets warned.

One example is against Roddick at IW in the TB where Nadal had already received ONE time violation, and then proceeded to waste truckloads of time in the tiebreak for virtually no apparent reason. The umpire at the time literally stared Nadal down, but did absolutely nothing because he knew Nadal would go ballistic if he was given a further violation.

And I have seen plenty of examples where Nadal gets extremely upset over a time violation even though it was clearly warranted. That's a load of crap from Nadal.

Mustard · Mar 8, 2012

20 seconds is far too short and everyone knows it. I bet even Federer goes over this limit often.

NamRanger · Mar 8, 2012

Mustard said:
20 seconds is far too short and everyone knows it. I bet even Federer goes over this limit often.

When you're switching sides on the tiebreak you're not supposed to take 50 seconds (which he clearly did).

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GyU5VbWoDdc

This is a clear and systematic abuse of time and everyone in the stadium knew it, despite the fact that Nadal had already received a time violation prior to this, he still got 0 penalties. He knows he can get away with gross abuses of time violations no matter what, so he's going to continue to do it until he gets real penalties attached to his violations.

There's no way you're going to be able to defend this. Nadal clearly and grossly wasted time in the video after he had received a time violation (first time = warning). He received no penalties despite the fact that the umpire was pretty much staring him down the entire time during his whole time wasting (which he clearly didn't need to do, because I see Nadal clearly take far less time in a tiebreak).

drakulie · Mar 8, 2012

I'm surprised Nadal didn't ask for a medical time out before answering the question.

TTMR · Mar 8, 2012

Mustard said:
20 seconds is far too short and everyone knows it. I bet even Federer goes over this limit often.

Everyone should just develop superior genetics and a more aesthetically pleasing attacking game. If they can't, they should be men, suck it up and accept the losses. Or retire.

If anything 20 seconds is too long and rewards pushers too much already.

MichaelNadal · Mar 8, 2012

drakulie said:
I'm surprised Nadal didn't ask for a medical time out before answering the question.

That was brilliant

lol.
Seriously though, he raises a good point, and agrees with the violations he's gotten. But as he said when you play crazy ass rallies like he and Novak do, sometimes you need more than 20 seconds.

Bartelby · Mar 8, 2012

He does have a point - if slow courts cause endless matches then the games will keep going by more slowly.

Mustard · Mar 8, 2012

NamRanger said:
When you're switching sides on the tiebreak you're not supposed to take 50 seconds (which he clearly did).

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GyU5VbWoDdc

This is a clear and systematic abuse of time and everyone in the stadium knew it, despite the fact that Nadal had already received a time violation prior to this, he still got 0 penalties. He knows he can get away with gross abuses of time violations no matter what, so he's going to continue to do it until he gets real penalties attached to his violations.

There's no way you're going to be able to defend this. Nadal clearly and grossly wasted time in the video after he had received a time violation (first time = warning). He received no penalties despite the fact that the umpire was pretty much staring him down the entire time during his whole time wasting (which he clearly didn't need to do, because I see Nadal clearly take far less time in a tiebreak).

He was thirsty

It's up to the umpire to enforce the rules if he thinks a player is taking too much time, which he didn't on that occasion since he didn't give a warning, which is the umpire's choice.

6-2/6-4/6-0 · Mar 8, 2012

Breaking the rules is not playing the game. If your style of play demands that you take 30+ seconds between almost every point, then there is a flaw with your style of play. Enforcing the rules is the only fair thing to do. 20 to 25 seconds is enough time from the point ending to serving the next point, if it's not, the consider how you choose to play the game and modify that to fit within the rules.

Just as a point for consideration, if you look back at Laver/Newcombe or Laver/Rosewall matches (or a lot of old matches), those guys would be covering every square inch of the court - both side to side and front to back - in a point, and they seemed to be able to serve in a lot less than 25 seconds after a point ended...

It's cheating, and making excuses for it is just making excuses. Play by the rules or play baseball where you get 7 minutes to rest after every physical effort...

FlashFlare11 · Mar 8, 2012

TTMR said:
Everyone should just develop superior genetics and a more aesthetically pleasing attacking game. If they can't, they should be men, suck it up and accept the losses. Or retire.

If anything 20 seconds is too long and rewards pushers too much already.

What does this have to do with anything? These are the rules and they weren't made by Federer.

I suppose going over 20-25 seconds (not by much though, I guess 30 seconds is alright) is okay if the players are engaging in long rallies. However, not every one of Nadal's opponents is Djokovic. Much of the time he's playing against more aggressive players who can finish the point pretty quickly or Nadal himself is ending points quickly. In those matches, there should be no excuse in going over the ime limit.

Admittedly, the time both Djokovic and Nadal take between points does deter me a bit from watching their matches, whether it's against each other or most other players.

rommil · Mar 8, 2012

Rafa should just wear his jockstrap on his face to save him time.

Moose Malloy · Mar 8, 2012

some good points here. and if you click on the other links in the article, it shows that Novak & Nadal consistently take longer to serve after every point they lose than after points they win, regardless of how short or long the rally was. the time they take has nothing to do with the game being more physical, etc, its all about their routine.

It also has made for some very slow tennis, especially when Djokovic meets No. 2 Nadal. Nadal’s and Djokovic’s final on Sunday was a classic, but it also was about an hour longer than it needed to be, as each player is among the slowest in men’s tennis when it comes to pace of play between points. There were 369 points played in 353 minutes of tennis, or 1.04 points per minute, in line with their slow pace in their six meetings in 2011.

You’ll hear, in their defense, how grueling the match was. That’s certainly a factor — the sight of the two players struggling to remain standing during interminable postmatch speeches before being brought chairs was a memorable one, and in one fifth-set rally they ran a combined 540 feet, or two city blocks, according to ESPN. So it’s forgivable that their last 16 points, over the final two games, took 16 minutes.

But even in their very first service games, each player exceeded the allotted 20 seconds between points – on every point. Neither took fewer than 24 seconds even once, and Djokovic averaged 28 seconds while Nadal averaged 26. This was before they’d even played two games. Yet the average rally lasted just 5.4 shots according to Eurosport, far less than the 6.9 shots they averaged during their U.S. Open final last fall. On the same court, in similar conditions and in matches with as many scintillating, long rallies, Federer and Nadal managed to fit in 1.24 points per minute in their semifinal on Thursday. Then Djokovic and Murray squeezed in 1.19 points per minute in their semi on Friday. Had Nadal or Djokovic channeled their inner Federer between points, if not during points, they could have finished the match without setting a new record for longest open-era Grand Slam final.

It truly is a golden age for men’s tennis, with four players at the peak, and one at the very top, defeating the other three in matches he had no business winning. The sport just might want to take some steps — Sports Illustrated’s Jon Wertheim suggests a shot clock — to ensure it doesn’t lose fans, and viewers, during the long periods of down time between these great players’ epic points.

http://blogs.wsj.com/dailyfix/2012/01/30/novak-djokovic-master-of-the-slow-escape/

Sentinel · Mar 8, 2012

rommil said:
Even Nadal's answer goes over the time limit.

lol, when you justify a lie, you have a lot of explaining to do.

TopFH · Mar 8, 2012

The most irritating thing is when players towel off after a 3-second ace.

FlashFlare11 · Mar 8, 2012

TopFH said:
The most irritating thing is when players towel off after a 3-second ace.

What's worse is when the player toweling off is the receiver.

monfed · Mar 8, 2012

TopFH said:
The most irritating thing is when players towel off after a 3-second ace.

Force of habit; which isn't dealt with due to lack of enforcement.

rommil · Mar 8, 2012

Sentinel said:
lol, when you justify a lie, you have a lot of explaining to do.

Are you bringing in namelessness into this?

Mustard · Mar 8, 2012

6-2/6-4/6-0 said:
Breaking the rules is not playing the game. If your style of play demands that you take 30+ seconds between almost every point, then there is a flaw with your style of play. Enforcing the rules is the only fair thing to do. 20 to 25 seconds is enough time from the point ending to serving the next point, if it's not, the consider how you choose to play the game and modify that to fit within the rules.

No, it shows that there is something wrong with the rules.

rommil · Mar 8, 2012

Mustard said:
No, it shows that there is something wrong with the rules.

When most of your colleagues are able to abide by the rules, there is something wrong with you.

jamesblakefan#1 · Mar 8, 2012

Mustard said:
No, it shows that there is something wrong with the rules.

So what do you propose then? There has to be some sort of rule in place, lest we have players taking a whole minute between points to make sure they're completely 110% before serving. Now THAT would kill the sport.

Like I said in the other thread, extend the time to 25 or 30 seconds but there's no need for a shot clock. The umps should enforce it strictly. But at their discretion after long rallies it can be extended to up to 40 seconds, but anything after that and the ump can give a warning. You can't get rid of the rule completely, which is what you seem to want.

Mustard · Mar 8, 2012

jamesblakefan#1 said:
So what do you propose then? There has to be some sort of rule in place, lest we have players taking a whole minute between points to make sure they're completely 110% before serving. Now THAT would kill the sport.

Like I said in the other thread, extend the time to 25 or 30 seconds but there's no need for a shot clock. The umps should enforce it strictly. But at their discretion after long rallies it can be extended to up to 40 seconds, but anything after that and the ump can give a warning. You can't get rid of the rule completely, which is what you seem to want.

If it has to be strictly enforced, it should be at least 45 seconds. I'd prefer around the 40-45 mark with some umpire flexibility.

rommil · Mar 8, 2012

Mustard said:
If it has to be strictly enforced, it should be at least 45 seconds. I'd prefer around the 40-45 mark with some umpire flexibility.

The Australian Open final this year would still be in the 4th set today.

Mustard · Mar 8, 2012

rommil said:
The Australian Open final this year would still be in the 4th set today.

I don't think it would have made any difference at all.

TMF · Mar 8, 2012

Mustard said:
If it has to be strictly enforced, it should be at least 45 seconds. I'd prefer around the 40-45 mark with some umpire flexibility.

45 seconds is TOO long for an average point. Unless if it was a 30+ shot rallies then I can understand.

drakulie · Mar 8, 2012

Mustard said:
If it has to be strictly enforced, it should be at least 45 seconds. I'd prefer around the 40-45 mark with some umpire flexibility.

Disagree. They should allow one days rest between points.

Bobby Jr · Mar 8, 2012

Nadal truly said he accepted the warnings he has previously received??? I recall him complaining to the umpire often when he's had them.

FlashFlare11 · Mar 8, 2012

Mustard said:
If it has to be strictly enforced, it should be at least 45 seconds. I'd prefer around the 40-45 mark with some umpire flexibility.

This is too long, in my opinion. That's almost a minute per point, which, in most cases involving Nadal, last longer than a minute. Many times 45 seconds is much shorter than the point's length. It would slow the game down considerably.

TopFH · Mar 8, 2012

drakulie said:
Disagree. They should allow one days rest between points.

And one week rest between sets!

SLD76 · Mar 8, 2012

Bartelby said:
He does have a point - if slow courts cause endless matches then the games will keep going by more slowly.

this.

hate to say it, but if grinding attrition tennis is the order the day, then just make the limit 30 secs and be done with it.

rafa is right that after crazy long rallies , there should be some consideration of the time in favor of the players.

that said, make it a hard 30 secs and be done with it.

45 seconds between pts minimum is beyond ridiculous.

only a serious rafa/djoker homer would even suggest such a ridiculous thing with a halfway straight face.

sbengte · Mar 8, 2012

TopFH said:
And one week rest between sets!

Wrong. One day between points, one week between games, one month between sets with an additional week thrown in for every TB. And another month rest between matches. That way we just need to play the Australian Open in one year, French Open in the next, USO ...and so on. No slams in the Olympic year.

sbengte · Mar 8, 2012

SLD76 said:
this.

hate to say it, but if grinding attrition tennis is the order the day, then just make the limit 30 secs and be done with it.

rafa is right that after crazy long rallies , there should be some consideration of the time in favor of the players.

that said, make it a hard 30 secs and be done with it.

Or just speed up the courts and be done with it.

Bartelby · Mar 8, 2012

a hard 30 seconds sounds a good rule

drakulie · Mar 8, 2012

TopFH said:
And one week rest between sets!

and of course, one month rest between matches.

FlashFlare11 · Mar 8, 2012

Honestly, they can change it to any allotted time limit, but the problem isn't the time limit itself, it's the enforcement. They can keep it at 20-25 seconds, make it 30 seconds, 45 seconds, a minute, whatever. None of it matters if the umpires don't hand out violations everytime the limit is exceeded.

SLD76 · Mar 8, 2012

sbengte said:
Or just speed up the courts and be done with it.

now this I agree with! faster surfaces( which is why the 20 sec rule was implemented to begin with) would solve everything.

but alas, til that time comes...30 secs..I dont care if the rally was 100 shots including a trip to the moon in mid point.

Dont like the time limit? figure out a way to win a point.

come to net maybe?

go for a winner?

Crazy suggestions, I know.

MichaelNadal · Mar 8, 2012

I say 30 seconds should be the hard rule. After a crazy, sick Djokodal point though, it should be flexible in that scenario obviously.

BULLZ1LLA2.0 · Mar 8, 2012

Only answer is the shot clock. Then the spectators see what the umpire is ignoring. And behind the scenes somebody should only turn the shot clock on if the point was less than 25 shots.

drakulie · Mar 8, 2012

BULLZ1LLA2.0 said:
And behind the scenes somebody should only turn the shot clock on if the point was less than 25 shots.

They should let rafa handle this.

SLD76 · Mar 8, 2012

BULLZ1LLA2.0 said:
Only answer is the shot clock. Then the spectators see what the umpire is ignoring. And behind the scenes somebody should only turn the shot clock on if the point was less than 25 shots.

or maybe rafa should moonball less and go for a winner.

SLD76 · Mar 8, 2012

MichaelNadal said:
I say 30 seconds should be the hard rule. After a crazy, sick Djokodal point though, it should be flexible in that scenario obviously.

30 secs is plenty of time to get the breathing under control.

rommil · Mar 8, 2012

MichaelNadal said:
I say 30 seconds should be the hard rule. After a crazy, sick Djokodal point though, it should be flexible in that scenario obviously.

It's stupid for people to keep bring up the "after a strenuous point" argument when it's clear that unnecessary rituals are what is consistenly present in almost all situations.

monfed · Mar 8, 2012

rommil said:
It's stupid for people to keep bring up the "after a strenuous point" argument when it's clear that unnecessary rituals are what is consistenly present in almost all situations.

It's more a copout than anything else.

sbengte · Mar 8, 2012

drakulie said:
They should let rafa handle this.

Doh ! You want Rafa to handle this additional burden of running in to handle the shot clock after every point ? Imagine the additional medical time outs and time violations resulting from this.
Toni is the guy for the job.

SLD76 · Mar 8, 2012

monfed said:
It's more a copout than anything else.

I wonder...is it a more 'strenuous point' when rafa/djoker are down in a game as well?

both routinely slow their rituals down to molassess when facing a bp,or are significantly down in a game.

MichaelNadal · Mar 8, 2012

rommil said:
It's stupid for people to keep bring up the "after a strenuous point" argument when it's clear that unnecessary rituals are what is consistenly present in almost all situations.

There's a big difference between a non-strenuous point, and a strenuous point. Unless it's an unbelievable rally, it needs to be a hard 30 seconds. I don't see the problem with that really. It would be completely STUPID to expect Djokovic and Nadal to start the next point within 30 seconds after some of the rallies they have.

sbengte · Mar 8, 2012

MichaelNadal said:
There's a big difference between a non-strenuous point, and a strenuous point. Unless it's an unbelievable rally, it needs to be a hard 30 seconds. I don't see the problem with that really. It would be completely STUPID to expect Djokovic and Nadal to start the next point within 30 seconds after some of the rallies they have.

Well, you play a 30 shot rally when you are unable to end the point quicker which is totally your problem. And you pay for it if you can't recover within the stipulated time limit. The relatively fitter player who can recover within that time has to have some advantage there. No ifs, no buts.

Rafa's response on time violations.

Hall of Fame

Bionic Poster

Legend

Hall of Fame

G.O.A.T.

Bionic Poster

G.O.A.T.

Talk Tennis Guru

Hall of Fame

Bionic Poster

Bionic Poster

Bionic Poster

Semi-Pro

Hall of Fame

Legend

G.O.A.T.

Bionic Poster

Hall of Fame

Hall of Fame

monfed

Guest

Legend

Bionic Poster

Legend

G.O.A.T.

Bionic Poster

Legend

Bionic Poster

Talk Tennis Guru

Talk Tennis Guru

G.O.A.T.

Hall of Fame

Hall of Fame

G.O.A.T.

G.O.A.T.

G.O.A.T.

Bionic Poster

Talk Tennis Guru

Hall of Fame

G.O.A.T.

Bionic Poster

Banned

Talk Tennis Guru

G.O.A.T.

G.O.A.T.

Legend

monfed

Guest

G.O.A.T.

G.O.A.T.

Bionic Poster

G.O.A.T.

Similar threads