ATP Rule on Medical Time Outs: "During the next changeover or set break"

[mcenroefan]

Here is the language of the rule:

2) Medical Evaluation
During the warm-up or the match, the player may request through the chair
umpire for the physiotherapist to evaluate him during the next change over or
set break.
3) Medical Time-Out
A medical time-out is allowed by the supervisor or chair umpire when the physiotherapist
has evaluated the player and has determined that additional time for
medical treatment is required. The medical time-out takes place during a
change over or set break, unless the physiotherapist determines that the player
has developed an acute medical condition that requires immediate medical
treatment.

6) Penalty
After completion of a medical time-out or medical treatment, any delay in resumption
of play shall be penalized by Code Violations for Delay of Game.
Any player abuse of this medical rule will be subject to penalty in accordance with
the Unsportsmanlike Conduct section of the Code of Conduct.


Nadal requested the evaluation/time-out before the tiebreaker. The issue is thus whether before a tie breaker is the same thing as "during the next changeover or set break."

If it was untimely and should not have been allowed, then Delpo had a justified grievance b/c Nadal should have been forced to immediately start the tie breaker or suffer code violations. In short, the medical treatment itself, which should never have been allowed, may have helped Nadal win a tiebreaker he would not otherwise have won.

If, however, it met the definition of "during the next changeover or set break,"
then all is well.

If it's a violation of the rule, the questions arise as follows:

Did Nadal know it was a violation?
Did the chair umpire know it was a violation and allow it anyway. If so, why?

 

[zagor]

Again, Woodrow is much more fit to answer these type of questions than any of us here so it's best to wait for his say on this one.

 

[bcart1991]

Tiebreak starts at 6-6, so it does not seem to meet either of those criteria.

 

[The Hermit]

Yes, Nadal should not be given the MTO, but later in the match Del Potro also took MTO and it is during a game, so umpire is wrong both times. You should noted this in your post too.

 

[woodrow1029]

But you failed to highlight the most important part Under the heading of "Medical Evaluation," you didn't even bother to include:

Only in the case that a player develops an acute medical condition
that necessitates an immediate stop in play may the player request through the chair umpire for the physiotherapist to evaluate him immediately.
​

The purpose of the medical evaluation is to determine if the player has developed a treatable medical condition and, if so, to determine when medical treatment is warranted. Such evaluation should be performed within a reasonable length of time, balancing player safety on the one hand, and continuous play on the other. At the discretion of the physiotherapist, such evaluation may be performed in conjunction with the tournament Doctor, and may be performed offcourt.

If the physiotherapist determines that the player has a non-treatable medical condition, then the player will be advised that no medical treatment will be allowed.​

Under the heading of "Medical Time-Out" you didn't highlight:
​

"unless the physiotherapist determines that the player has developed an acute medical condition that requires immediate medical treatment."


I did not see the match as I am at work; however, my understanding from what I read here is that it was some issue with the bone in his foot. He did not necessarily roll his foot, but the trainer was worried that it may have been fractured or something at first. It is up to the trainer to decide if it is an acute medical condition that requires immediate treatment. It is the chair umpire's responsibility only to call the trainer to the court if the player needs to see him right now. Once the trainer is on the court, it's his/her decision whether to treat it then or at the changeover.

Therefore, your questions regarding whether did Nadal or the umpire know this was a violation are pointless, because there was no "violation."

 

[woodrow1029]

Also, you need to know that while this rule is pretty much the same between the ATP and ITF Grand Slams with the exception of a couple of words, you quoted the wrong rule book.

This is Wimbledon, therefore the 2011 ITF Grand Slam Rulebook would be in effect and not the ATP World Tour Rulebook.

 

[The Hermit]

Ah, so OP quoted the wrong rule book, well I hope OP post again with the corrected rule book, then let us see what is in there?

 

[DMan]

But you failed to highlight the most important part Under the heading of "Medical Evaluation," you didn't even bother to include:

Only in the case that a player develops an acute medical condition
that necessitates an immediate stop in play may the player request through the chair umpire for the physiotherapist to evaluate him immediately.
​

The purpose of the medical evaluation is to determine if the player has developed a treatable medical condition and, if so, to determine when medical treatment is warranted. Such evaluation should be performed within a reasonable length of time, balancing player safety on the one hand, and continuous play on the other. At the discretion of the physiotherapist, such evaluation may be performed in conjunction with the tournament Doctor, and may be performed offcourt.

If the physiotherapist determines that the player has a non-treatable medical condition, then the player will be advised that no medical treatment will be allowed.​

Under the heading of "Medical Time-Out" you didn't highlight:
​

"unless the physiotherapist determines that the player has developed an acute medical condition that requires immediate medical treatment."


I did not see the match as I am at work; however, my understanding from what I read here is that it was some issue with the bone in his foot. He did not necessarily roll his foot, but the trainer was worried that it may have been fractured or something at first. It is up to the trainer to decide if it is an acute medical condition that requires immediate treatment. It is the chair umpire's responsibility only to call the trainer to the court if the player needs to see him right now. Once the trainer is on the court, it's his/her decision whether to treat it then or at the changeover.

Therefore, your questions regarding whether did Nadal or the umpire know this was a violation are pointless, because there was no "violation."

The violation was the umpire's. Allowing a MTO when there wasn't a changeover.

Plain. And. Simple.

All a player has to do, especially if it's Nadal, is say "I hurt. Give me time out!" And they do.

Of course under the guise of "I need to have Uncle Toni tell me what to do, so give me time out. I do gamesmanship, no? He gonna beat, so I need to stop him, no? Cheating is OK, no? And I gotta make sure everyone knows I injured, so I can make all wins seem even more incredible, no?"

 

[woodrow1029]

b.

Medical Evaluation

During the warm-up or the match, the player may request through the Chair Umpire for the Physiotherapist/Athletic Trainer to evaluate him/her during the next change over or set break. Only in the case that a player develops an acute medical condition that necessitates an immediate stop in play may the player request through the Chair Umpire for the Physiotherapist/Athletic Trainer to evaluate him/her immediately.

The purpose of the medical evaluation is to determine if the player has developed a treatable medical condition and, if so, to determine when medical treatment is warranted. Such evaluation should be performed within a reasonable length of time, balancing player safety on the one hand, and continuous play on the other. At the discretion of the Physiotherapist/Athletic Trainer, such evaluation may be performed in conjunction with the Tournament Doctor, and may be performed offcourt.

If the Physiotherapist/Athletic Trainer determines that the player has a non-treatable medical condition, then the player will be advised that no medical treatment will be allowed.​

c. ​

​

Medical Time-Out

A Medical Time-Out is allowed by the Referee in consultation with
the Grand Slam Supervisor or Chair Umpire when the Physiotherapist/Athletic Trainer has evaluated the player and has determined that additional time for medical treatment is required. The Medical Time-Out takes place during a change over or set break, unless the Physiotherapist/Athletic Trainer determines that the player has developed an acute medical condition that requires immediate medical treatment.
The Medical Time-Out begins when the Physiotherapist/Athletic
Trainer is ready to start treatment. At the discretion of the
Physiotherapist/Athletic Trainer, treatment during a Medical Time-Out may take place off-court, and may proceed in conjunction with the Tournament Doctor.

The Medical Time-Out is limited to three (3) minutes of treatment.
A player is allowed one (1) Medical Time-Out for each distinct
treatable medical condition. All clinical manifestations of heat illness
shall be considered as one (1) treatable medical condition. All
treatable musculoskeletal injuries that manifest as part of a kinetic
chain continuum shall be considered as one (1) treatable medical​

condition.
​

​

​

​

​

 

[woodrow1029]

The violation was the umpire's. Allowing a MTO when there wasn't a changeover.

Plain. And. Simple.

All a player has to do, especially if it's Nadal, is say "I hurt. Give me time out!" And they do.

Of course under the guise of "I need to have Uncle Toni tell me what to do, so give me time out. I do gamesmanship, no? He gonna beat, so I need to stop him, no? Cheating is OK, no? And I gotta make sure everyone knows I injured, so I can make all wins seem even more incredible, no?"

You really can't read can you? What part of that rule says that the medical time out can only happen at a changeover?

PLAIN AND SIMPLE. LOL

 

[woodrow1029]

duplicate polst

 

[aprilfool]

Lost in all of the talk about MTO was the fact that Nadal was given a time warning, threw a little tantrum and basically ignored it and wasted even more time on the following point, at which point Delpo complained.
According to the rule book, he should have lost a point on the next violation, and the penalties progressively increase climaxing with losing the match altogether..
The flagrant disrespect for the rule got Delpo very riled up just before the MTO. A double whammy if you will. The reason for these rules is that violations mess with the other player's concentration and pacing, among other factors.

 

[BreakPoint]

Tiebreak starts at 6-6, so it does not seem to meet either of those criteria.

Exactly! There is no changeover at the start of a tiebreak nor is it the end of a set. So a tiebreak would NOT meet the criteria for calling MTOs according to the rules.

 

[woodrow1029]

Lost in all of the talk about MTO was the fact that Nadal was given a time warning, threw a little tantrum and basically ignored it and wasted even more time on the following point, at which point Delpo complained.
According to the rule book, he should have ,lost a point on the next violation, and the penalties max out on losing the entire match.

The flagrant disrespect for thid rule got Delpo very riled up just before the MTO.

Which rule is that out of curiosity? There is no game penalty or default penalty for time violations.

 

[Pwned]

It's a stupid rule. Drysdale had a point the other day. If a runner rolls his ankle during a marathon he can't stop the race and get a medical timeout. Why should it be any different in tennis? Only at the end of sets should you be able to get treatment for a length of time.

 

[woodrow1029]

Exactly! There is no changeover at the start of a tiebreak nor is it the end of a set. So a tiebreak would NOT meet the criteria for calling MTOs according to the rules.

Do you read the whole thread before your jibber jabber non-relevant comments?

 

[Dutch-Guy]

And the usual suspects jump in.Is this going to be another Rafa vs Del Potro thread? The live comment one already got locked. Just saying.

 

[BreakPoint]

You really can't read can you? What part of that rule says that the medical time out can only happen at a changeover?

PLAIN AND SIMPLE. LOL

Right here regarding Medical Evaluations, which you posted:

b.

Medical Evaluation

During the warm-up or the match, the player may request through the Chair Umpire for the Physiotherapist/Athletic Trainer to evaluate him/her during the next change over or set break. Only in the case that a player develops an acute medical condition that necessitates an immediate stop in play may the player request through the Chair Umpire for the Physiotherapist/Athletic Trainer to evaluate him/her immediately.

The purpose of the medical evaluation is to determine if the player has developed a treatable medical condition and, if so, to determine when medical treatment is warranted. Such evaluation should be performed within a reasonable length of time, balancing player safety on the one hand, and continuous play on the other. At the discretion of the Physiotherapist/Athletic Trainer, such evaluation may be performed in conjunction with the Tournament Doctor, and may be performed offcourt.

If the Physiotherapist/Athletic Trainer determines that the player has a non-treatable medical condition, then the player will be advised that no medical treatment will be allowed.​

c. ​

​

Medical Time-Out

A Medical Time-Out is allowed by the Referee in consultation with
the Grand Slam Supervisor or Chair Umpire when the Physiotherapist/Athletic Trainer has evaluated the player and has determined that additional time for medical treatment is required. The Medical Time-Out takes place during a change over or set break, unless the Physiotherapist/Athletic Trainer determines that the player has developed an acute medical condition that requires immediate medical treatment.
The Medical Time-Out begins when the Physiotherapist/Athletic
Trainer is ready to start treatment. At the discretion of the
Physiotherapist/Athletic Trainer, treatment during a Medical Time-Out may take place off-court, and may proceed in conjunction with the Tournament Doctor.

The Medical Time-Out is limited to three (3) minutes of treatment.
A player is allowed one (1) Medical Time-Out for each distinct
treatable medical condition. All clinical manifestations of heat illness
shall be considered as one (1) treatable medical condition. All
treatable musculoskeletal injuries that manifest as part of a kinetic
chain continuum shall be considered as one (1) treatable medical​

condition.
​

Nadal had a medical evaluation and a MTO prior to the start of the tiebreak which was neither a changover nor a set break. And, NO, it was NOT an "acute medical condition". He ran around fine after that and even won the tiebreak. I would think an "acute medical condition" would have to be something really serious, like a heart attack or something.

 

[BreakPoint]

Do you read the whole thread before your jibber jabber non-relevant comments?

Um...this coming from someone who didn't even see the match nor what actually happened. :???:

 

[woodrow1029]

Right here regarding Medical Evaluations, which you posted:


Nadal had a medical evaluation prior to the start of the tiebreak which was neither a changover nor a set break. And, NO, it was NOT an "acute medical condition". He ran around fine after that and even won the tiebreak. I would think an "acute medical condition" would have to be something really serious, like a heart attack or something.

The chair umpire called the trainer because the chair umpire would not be able to make a medical determination that it is or is not an acute medical condition. Once the trainer is called on court, it is his/her decision. If the trainer had determined that it was not an acute medical condition, he would have told the chair umpire he would treat at the setbreak.

My understanding from reading on here during the situation, again I did not see it on TV, is that it seemed pretty serious talk between the trainer and Nadal leading me to believe it needed to be treated then.

Are you a doctor? Is it possible for you to diagnose an injury on TV from CA that is happening in London?

And what you would think is an acute medical condition, may not be the only conditions that the real world considers acute, especially a certified trainer.

 

[woodrow1029]

Um...this coming from someone who didn't even see the match nor what actually happened. :???:

It doesn't matter if I saw it or not.

 

[Bhagi Katbamna]

It doesn't matter if I saw it or not.

Thanks for your input. I read it as you do that a trainer can determine that a time out can occur immediately. And it appeared that a ATP doctor was there asking Nadal questions about his foot.

 

[BreakPoint]

The chair umpire called the trainer because the chair umpire would not be able to make a medical determination that it is or is not an acute medical condition. Once the trainer is called on court, it is his/her decision. If the trainer had determined that it was not an acute medical condition, he would have told the chair umpire he would treat at the setbreak.

My understanding from reading on here during the situation, again I did not see it on TV, is that it seemed pretty serious talk between the trainer and Nadal leading me to believe it needed to be treated then.

Are you a doctor? Is it possible for you to diagnose an injury on TV from CA that is happening in London?

And what you would think is an acute medical condition, may not be the only conditions that the real world considers acute, especially a certified trainer.

Why was the trainer even allowed to come out to make a medical evaluation if it was not a changeover nor a set break?

Nadal just needed his foot to be re-taped. That's NOT an acute medical condition.

 

[woodrow1029]

Why was the trainer even allowed to come out to make a medical evaluation if it was not a changeover nor a set break?

Nadal just needed his foot to be re-taped. That's NOT an acute medical condition.

What was the exact reason Nadal asked for the trainer? Since you know all of this, what was the exact conversation between Nadal and the chair umpire when Nadal asked for the trainer to come out? Did he say, "I need to see the trainer because I need my foot re-taped?" Were those his exact words?

Come on, back up your nonsense comments?

 

[BreakPoint]

It doesn't matter if I saw it or not.

Really? Then how do you know how serious the injury was? Or how the request for the MTO happened and when? Nadal just went and sat down in his chair before the start of the tiebreak before the umpire said that he could.

 

[woodrow1029]

BP, just because you worship the ground that Federer and Sampras walk on, doesn't mean that just because you don't like Nadal that he is cheating based on your warped interpretation/reading of the rules.

 

[BreakPoint]

What was the exact reason Nadal asked for the trainer? Since you know all of this, what was the exact conversation between Nadal and the chair umpire when Nadal asked for the trainer to come out? Did he say, "I need to see the trainer because I need my foot re-taped?" Were those his exact words?

Come on, back up your nonsense comments?

He said - "Call the trainer."

 

[woodrow1029]

Really? Then how do you know how serious the injury was? Or how the request for the MTO happened and when? Nadal just went and sat down in his chair before the start of the tiebreak before the umpire said that he could.

It doesn't matter whether I saw it because the chair umpire cannot make a medical determination that it is an acute medical condition or not, therefore called the trainer. The trainer treated it because he obviously felt that it required treatment right then as opposed to after the tiebreak. Therefore, it is irrelevant whether I saw it or not.

 

[BreakPoint]

BP, just because you worship the ground that Federer and Sampras walk on, doesn't mean that just because you don't like Nadal that he is cheating based on your warped interpretation/reading of the rules.

Oh, come on! Like this is the first time that Nadal has ever called for a MTO when a set was close? You don't watch many of Nadal's matches, do you?

 

[Fed Kennedy]

Just curious, what is the penalty for taking too long between points?

 

[woodrow1029]

Oh, come on! Like this is the first time that Nadal has ever called for a MTO when a set was close? You don't watch many of Nadal's matches, do you?

Yes I do. You're looking at this from the point of view of a spectator that doesn't like Nadal.

I am looking at it as an international chair umpire with a lot of experience that actually knows the rules and procedures.

 

[BreakPoint]

It doesn't matter whether I saw it because the chair umpire cannot make a medical determination that it is an acute medical condition or not, therefore called the trainer. The trainer treated it because he obviously felt that it required treatment right then as opposed to after the tiebreak. Therefore, it is irrelevant whether I saw it or not.

You mean it's not possible for Nadal to lie or to fake an injury so that the trainer thinks it needs to be treated right away? Just tell him how much it hurts no matter what he does.

 

[BreakPoint]

Yes I do. You're looking at this from the point of view of a spectator that doesn't like Nadal.

I am looking at it as an international chair umpire with a lot of experience that actually knows the rules and procedures.

If Federer called the trainer every time a set was close or he was losing, I'd give him the same crap. It's this crap that makes people NOT like Nadal.

 

[woodrow1029]

You mean it's not possible for Nadal to lie or to fake an injury so that the trainer thinks it needs to be treated right away? Just tell him how much it hurts no matter what he does.

I never said that that is not possible. Of course it's possible. But the trainer isn't going to just say "I think you're lying because it's 6-6 in the set. So you have to play." The consequences could be really bad if the trainer were to say that and Nadal went on to do severe damage during the tiebreak.

 

[cucio]

Yes I do. You're looking at this from the point of view of a spectator that doesn't like Nadal.

I am looking at it as an international chair umpire with a lot of experience that actually knows the rules and procedures.

Pssst, woodrow... It's Breakpoint. You know. Break-30K-point. Disengage on sight.

 

[batz]

BP - Woodrow is not expressing a view on the veracity of Rafa's MTO - he is merely stating what the umpire and trainer should have done - and it seems they acted correctly.

 

[woodrow1029]

Pssst, woodrow... It's Breakpoint. You know. Break-30K-point. Disengage on sight.

Yeah, but I'm bored at work. Trying to see if we can make it 40K in the next hour before I go home.

 

[BreakPoint]

Yes I do. You're looking at this from the point of view of a spectator that doesn't like Nadal.

I am looking at it as an international chair umpire with a lot of experience that actually knows the rules and procedures.

OK, being an experienced chair umpire, what would you consider to be an "acute medical condition"? I mean, Nadal walked just fine to his chair and sat down. That doesn't seem too "acute" to me. It wasn't like he limped to his chair or had to be carried to it. Shouldn't "acute"" mean really serious or even life threatening?

 

[BreakPoint]

BP - Woodrow is not expressing a view on the veracity of Rafa's MTO - he is merely stating what the umpire and trainer should have done - and it seems they acted correctly.

But he makes no sense. If umpires are not qualified to determine if an injury is acute or not, then any player can call for a medical evaluation at any time at his whim. Why even have a rule that it can only be made during changeovers and set breaks?

 

[woodrow1029]

OK, being an experienced chair umpire, what would you consider to be an "acute medical condition"? I mean, Nadal walked just fine to his chair and sat down. That doesn't seem too "acute" to me. It wasn't like he limped to his chair or had to be carried to it. Shouldn't "acute"" mean really serious or even life threatening?

As I am not an experienced medical doctor or trainer, I would never make the determination whether it was acute or not.

 

[Bhagi Katbamna]

OK, being an experienced chair umpire, what would you consider to be an "acute medical condition"? I mean, Nadal walked just fine to his chair and sat down. That doesn't seem too "acute" to me. It wasn't like he limped to his chair or had to be carried to it. Shouldn't "acute"" mean really serious or even life threatening?

"Acute" means that it happened just immediately, it doesn't have anything to do with severity.

 

[woodrow1029]

But he makes no sense. If umpires are not qualified to determine if an injury is acute or not, then any player can call for a medical evaluation at any time at his whim. Why even have a rule that it can only be made during changeovers and set breaks?

Because the trainer can make the determination whether or not the player needs to wait for the next changeover. You can't put the responsibility of making a medical determination in the hands of a chair umpire.

 

[Bud]

"Acute" means that it happened just immediately, it doesn't have anything to do with severity.

BP should look up the definitions of acute and chronic instead of senselessly arguing

 

[BreakPoint]

As I am not an experienced medical doctor or trainer, I would never make the determination whether it was acute or not.

Then the rule that a player can only call for the trainer during changeovers and set breaks is pretty meaningless, isn't it? Because umpires will always allow it at any time since they can't determine if it's acute or not.

 

[doublebreak]

It's clear that the rules are open ended and can be easily abused as I think it often happens.

What changes would you propose to fix this MTO problem?

I think any player who needs an MTO should be able to get it at any time but should not be free. I think a point penalty for every 2 minutes sounds fair, with a maximum of 16 minutes, after that a default would be required.

 

[Pwned]

It's clear that the rules are open ended and can be easily abused as I think it often happens.

What changes would you propose to fix this MTO problem?

I think any player who needs an MTO should be able to get it at any time but should not be free. I think a point penalty for every 2 minutes sounds fair, with a maximum of 16 minutes, after that a default would be required.

Only at the end of sets.

 

[BreakPoint]

Because the trainer can make the determination whether or not the player needs to wait for the next changeover. You can't put the responsibility of making a medical determination in the hands of a chair umpire.

Yes, but a player can still disrupt play in the middle of a game by calling for the trainer to come out to evaluate him, right?

 

[woodrow1029]

Then the rule that a player can only call for the trainer during changeovers and set breaks is pretty meaningless, isn't it? Because umpires will always allow it at any time since they can't determine if it's acute or not.

No, because the player might come up and say something like I need the trainer because I feel stomach sick. The chair umpire may then ask if they can wait until the changeover. The player may then say either yes or no, it's really an emergency.

At that point, the chair umpire would call for the trainer to make the decision.

 

[woodrow1029]

Yes, but a player can still disrupt play in the middle of a game by calling for the trainer to come out to evaluate him, right?

Yep. Like I said and like Batz said. I am not commenting on the legitimacy of the medical timeout. I am just saying that it seems that the procedures were correctly followed by the chair umpire and trainer. If Nadal lied, then it is on him.

 

[flyinghippos101]

Ok, Woodrow has spoken. I thinks it's pretty clear now that our prejudices got in the way of what actually happened. And its written right there that its up to the discretion of the trainer to inspect the player and see if they're in need of medical treatment and Nadal so happen did, who are we now to question the medical expertise of a medical trainer?