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

[BreakPoint]

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

Here you go:

Definition of ACUTE

a (1) : characterized by sharpness or severity <acute pain> (2) : having a sudden onset, sharp rise, and short course <acute disease> (3) : being, providing, or requiring short-term medical care (as for serious illness or traumatic injury) <acute hospitals> <an acute patient>


http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/acute

 

[Bud]

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.

Which is a pretty silly notion considering that Nadal is a notoriously slow starter. Any break after that first set would be detrimental to him. He was playing great and making headway into most of Delpo's service games. To interrupt his own momentum for an 8-minute break would be ludicrous.

Here you go:

Definition of ACUTE

a (1) : characterized by sharpness or severity <acute pain> (2) : having a sudden onset, sharp rise, and short course <acute disease> (3) : being, providing, or requiring short-term medical care (as for serious illness or traumatic injury) <acute hospitals> <an acute patient>


http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/acute

Well then, that answers your question. The issue happened suddenly, according to the most recent press release.

 

[BreakPoint]

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

Not true.

Definition of ACUTE

1
a (1) : characterized by sharpness or severity <acute pain> (2) : having a sudden onset, sharp rise, and short course <acute disease> (3) : being, providing, or requiring short-term medical care (as for serious illness or traumatic injury) <acute hospitals> <an acute patient>

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/acute

 

[fms]

I normally don't mingle in these Federer-Nadal sort of discussions, and I'm not a trainer, but if this qualifies as an "acute medical condition", then everything qualifies as one, and they can basically scrap the rule (that says during changeovers and between sets) because it then becomes useless - think about it.
Compare for instance to Del Potro's legitimate time-out, where he could barely stand up and walk at first. There were no signs at all Nadal couldn't run with this so-called foot injury. There was nothing acute about it at all.
Also, I had the distinct impression the trainer didn't know what to make of it (in the sense that he didn't quite see what the injury might be); perhaps he didn't dare say it wasn't a big problem. By then, anyway, they were already sitting a while in the chairs; by the time Nadal explained it, it already was a time-out, in other words.
In any case, it's obvious the trainer and the umpire have been had.

 

[Bud]

I normally don't mingle in these Federer-Nadal sort of discussions, and I'm not a trainer, but if this qualifies as an "acute medical condition", then everything qualifies as one, and they can basically scrap the rule (that says during changeovers and between sets) because it then becomes useless - think about it.
Compare for instance to Del Potro's legitimate time-out, where he could barely stand up and walk at first. There were no signs at all Nadal couldn't run with this so-called foot injury. There was nothing acute about it at all.
Also, I had the distinct impression the trainer didn't know what to make of it (in the sense that he didn't quite see what the injury might be); perhaps he didn't dare say it wasn't a big problem. By then, anyway, they were already sitting a while in the chairs; by the time Nadal explained it, it already was a time-out, in other words.
In any case, it's obvious the trainer and the umpire have been had.

A possible fractured foot isn't an acute medical condition? There was a doctor out there along with the trainer. Did you even watch the match?

Delpo also returned bouncing up and down and played flawlessly through the remainder of the match.

But what's to prevent the player from asking the trainer to come out immediately by making up an injury? There's nothing in the rules to prevent that, right?

Lol! Give it up BP

 

[BreakPoint]

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.

But what's to prevent the player from asking the trainer to come out immediately by making up an injury? There's nothing in the rules to prevent that, right?

 

[woodrow1029]

But what's to prevent the player from asking the trainer to come out immediately by making up an injury? There's nothing in the rules to prevent that, right?

Ok, you are obviously trying to get me into a debate as to whether Nadal made it up, and you are too stubborn to realize that I am not going to do that, first of all because I didn't see it happen. Secondly because I am only commenting on the application of the rule.

 

[BreakPoint]

Well then, that answers your question. The issue happened suddenly, according to the most recent press release.

Of course it has to happen suddenly. If the player was already severely or traumatically injured before the match, they wouldn't have even played the match.

 

[Bud]

Of course it has to happen suddenly. If the player was already severely or traumatically injured before the match, they wouldn't have even played the match.

OK, then next subject since we agree it was an acute medical condition. He was evaluated by a trainer and a doctor... then treated.

 

[Bhagi Katbamna]

Not true.

Definition of ACUTE

1
a (1) : characterized by sharpness or severity <acute pain> (2) : having a sudden onset, sharp rise, and short course <acute disease> (3) : being, providing, or requiring short-term medical care (as for serious illness or traumatic injury) <acute hospitals> <an acute patient>

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/acute

The actual medical definition has to do with onset and not severity.

 

[zagor]

Ok, you are obviously trying to get me into a debate as to whether Nadal made it up, and you are too stubborn to realize that I am not going to do that, first of all because I didn't see it happen. Secondly because I am only commenting on the application of the rule.

You can't win, BP will outlast you with his posting fitness

 

[BreakPoint]

Ok, you are obviously trying to get me into a debate as to whether Nadal made it up, and you are too stubborn to realize that I am not going to do that, first of all because I didn't see it happen. Secondly because I am only commenting on the application of the rule.

Yes, you've explained the rule. What I'm saying is that the rule is meaningless and unenforceable because you said umpires cannot determine if they should allow an immediate medical evaluation or not so they will always allow it regardless if it's a changeover or set break or not.

 

[BreakPoint]

OK, then next subject since we agree it was an acute medical condition. He was evaluated by a trainer and a doctor... then treated.

No, that's what Nadal claimed it was. Heck, I can make up acute medical conditions all day long. Just tell the doctor it hurts like hell no matter what I do.

 

[Bud]

No, that's what Nadal claimed it was. Heck, I can make up acute medical conditions all day long. Just tell the doctor it hurts like hell no matter what I do.

Sure, he'd kill his own excellent playing and momentum in that first set just to throw Delpo off his game. He also planned on going 0-3 down in the TB just to make his comeback more dramatic :lol:

 

[BreakPoint]

Sure, he'd kill his own excellent playing and momentum in that first set just to throw Delpo off his game. He also planned on going 0-3 down in the TB just to make his comeback more dramatic :lol:

He had to make it look good to make it seem more convincing.

 

[fms]

Ok, you are obviously trying to get me into a debate as to whether Nadal made it up, and you are too stubborn to realize that I am not going to do that, first of all because I didn't see it happen. Secondly because I am only commenting on the application of the rule.

But let us disregard here for a moment that Nadal used a slight misstep of his here to call for an unwarranted time-out and disrupt the rhythm etc., and let's concentrate on the application of the rule and the rule itself.

I don't agree with you entirely: either they applied the rule incorrectly, or there is something wrong with the rule - or both. There was nothing acute about it: they played points after the misstep, and there was no sign Nadal couldn't run.
That said, even considering that, I agree the umpire has no choice - following the book - to have the trainer call it. At this point the trainer in accordance with the umpire made the mistake to call it an official medical time-out. By the way, that alone already took some time; Nadal took off his shoe, etc., tried to explain things (even explaining at what point of the match it happened, which was quite useless info). I'm no trainer so how do I know they made the mistake of appointing it as a legitimate time-out? Because Nadal ran around like a rabbit on duracell right after the time-out. (Also, if I remember correctly, the point at which they pronounced it was a time-out was closer to the tie-break than to the previous game in time. So it's not like Nadal got better thanks to the time-out.)
There is something wrong with the rule too, though, because 1) letting the trainer call the shots (understandably so though!) already implies some form of time-out and 2) again, if this is acute, then everything is acute - because there might always be a possible fracture.

 

[DMan]

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.

But with just a wee bit of acting on the part of players (and Nadal would have several Academy awards by now!), ANY player can ALWAYS say, "No, I can't wait."

I mean, what player would stop play to see "I'm hurt, I need the trainer" only to turn around and say, "no I can wait."

 

[marc45]

He had to make it look good to make it seem more convincing.

you just gave your whole game away, with a smile

 

[DMan]

But let us disregard here for a moment that Nadal used a slight misstep of his here to call for an unwarranted time-out and disrupt the rhythm etc., and let's concentrate on the application of the rule and the rule itself.

I don't agree with you entirely: either they applied the rule incorrectly, or there is something wrong with the rule - or both. There was nothing acute about it: they played points after the misstep, and there was no sign Nadal couldn't run.
That said, even considering that, I agree the umpire has no choice - following the book - to have the trainer call it. At this point the trainer in accordance with the umpire made the mistake to call it an official medical time-out. By the way, that alone already took some time; Nadal took off his shoe, etc., tried to explain things (even explaining at what point of the match it happened, which was quite useless info). I'm no trainer so how do I know they made the mistake of appointing it as a legitimate time-out? Because Nadal ran around like a rabbit on duracell right after the time-out. (Also, if I remember correctly, the point at which they pronounced it was a time-out was closer to the tie-break than to the previous game in time. So it's not like Nadal got better thanks to the time-out.)
There is something wrong with the rule too, though, because 1) letting the trainer call the shots (understandably so though!) already implies some form of time-out and 2) again, if this is acute, then everything is acute - because there might always be a possible fracture.

Exactly.

And these rules are made for the phonies like Nadal. Who wake up in the morning, sneeze, and already know they need to call an MTO at some point that strategically benefits them.

So I'll say again: there is a reason why Federer is so beloved and RESPECTED by so many (to a degree that far far outpaces Nadal it's ridiculous). Federer doesn't pull this crap!

 

[TennisandMusic]

Exactly.

And these rules are made for the phonies like Nadal. Who wake up in the morning, sneeze, and already know they need to call an MTO at some point that strategically benefits them.

So I'll say again: there is a reason why Federer is so beloved and RESPECTED by so many (to a degree that far far outpaces Nadal it's ridiculous). Federer doesn't pull this crap!

Nadal won the Edberg sportsmanship award last year. The award is voted on by his tennis peers. Try again.

 

[Bhagi Katbamna]

Nadal won the Edberg sportsmanship award last year. The award is voted on by his tennis peers. Try again.

Well, once Nadal learned how to fake sincerity, he had it made. :lol:

 

[marc45]

But let us disregard here for a moment that Nadal used a slight misstep of his here to call for an unwarranted time-out and disrupt the rhythm etc., and let's concentrate on the application of the rule and the rule itself.

I don't agree with you entirely: either they applied the rule incorrectly, or there is something wrong with the rule - or both. There was nothing acute about it: they played points after the misstep, and there was no sign Nadal couldn't run.
That said, even considering that, I agree the umpire has no choice - following the book - to have the trainer call it. At this point the trainer in accordance with the umpire made the mistake to call it an official medical time-out. By the way, that alone already took some time; Nadal took off his shoe, etc., tried to explain things (even explaining at what point of the match it happened, which was quite useless info). I'm no trainer so how do I know they made the mistake of appointing it as a legitimate time-out? Because Nadal ran around like a rabbit on duracell right after the time-out. (Also, if I remember correctly, the point at which they pronounced it was a time-out was closer to the tie-break than to the previous game in time. So it's not like Nadal got better thanks to the time-out.)
There is something wrong with the rule too, though, because 1) letting the trainer call the shots (understandably so though!) already implies some form of time-out and 2) again, if this is acute, then everything is acute - because there might always be a possible fracture.

nadal didn't run around like a jackrabbit after the mto...he immediately lost the first point while attempting to hit a running forehand to his left pulling up while trying to do so instead of pushing off on that foot, which is exactly what he and the announcers said he was having trouble with the rest of the day...he then lost the next two points and looked to be shaken up mentally, even a little scared...it took a double fault from del potro to hand him the set...all well-planned out rafa

 

[fms]

he immediately lost the first point while attempting to hit a running forehand to his left pulling up while trying to do so instead of pushing off on that foot [...] it took a double fault from del potro to hand him the set

You left out all the points in-between.

 

[TennisandMusic]

Well, once Nadal learned how to fake sincerity, he had it made. :lol:

Right on. Everything about Nadal is fake. His personality, his health, his relationship, even his last name is "Parrera" and no one calls him out on it! He has a game that is apparently very taxing on his body. His career is going to be a short one, yet he is never actually hurt. He is not very smart, but he (along with his team) is the most devious player to play the game, carefully crafting MTO's and press conferences for maximum distraction and effect. He faked that ladies phone call to his hotel room when he was sleeping, and had it broadcast live on the radio just to fool people into thinking he's nice. He would actually lose to every player on the tour if not for his fist pumps, which reduce his opponents to mush (including the greatest player, nay person, to ever walk the Earth).

Rafael Nadal. The best terrible player ever. The smartest stupid player ever. The most humble SOB to ever play the game.

The Federer fans have it all figured out. It is genius.

 

[BreakPoint]

Nadal won the Edberg sportsmanship award last year. The award is voted on by his tennis peers. Try again.

Well, it's nice to know the other players have a sense of humor and sarcasm. :shock:

 

[DMan]

Well, it's nice to know the other players have a sense of humor and sarcasm. :shock:

He he

Guess who is NOT winning it this year! :twisted:

 

[mcenroefan]

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."

You are being a bit aggressive towards me when I was merely posting the rules and some logical follow-up questions depending upon how the rules are interpreted.

You'll note that I posted the following:

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

I agree that the last two questions are unnecessary if one determines as a predicate that the time out was proper. If it is deemed improper, then the questions logically follow just as I stated.

I didn't quote the entire text of the rule b/c it simply would have been too long a post but I am glad you have posted other portions. I will take a look at them since I just gotten back to my computer.

In any case, I am glad that this has produced some discussion. I asked for someone else to cite the rule during the match and no one did so. I finbally found some of the text myself and posted it so that alot of the senseless back and forth could stop. It either was in conformity with the rules or it was not and I'm happy everyone is discuissing it now within the context of the rule language. I do believe the rules should be strictly enforced as to all players.

 

[woodrow1029]

You are being a bit aggressive towards me when I was merely posting the rules and some logical follow-up questions depending upon how the rules are interpreted.

You'll note that I posted the following:

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

I agree that the last two questions are unnecessary if one determines as a predicate that the time out was proper. If it is deemed improper, then the questions logically follow just as I stated.

I didn't quote the entire text of the rule b/c it simply would have been too long a post but I am glad you have posted other portions. I will take a look at them since I just gotten back to my computer.

I waS not being aggressive at all. I simply pointed out that you left off a very important part of the rule, quoted the wrong rulebook and posed 2 irrelevant questions. Other than that it was an allstar post.

 

[woodrow1029]

OH MY GOD! I can't believe I wasted so much time on this thread. I just came home and watched the replay.

I didn't realize that the doctor was called to the court by the trainer too.

BP, you just COMPLETELY lost any minute amount of credibility that you had in my eyes whatsoever. When the trainer calls for the doctor because, "There is something on the bone here." and many other parts of the discussion, this could have definitely been serious. He called for the trainer during the previous game so that it wouldn't be a delay getting the trainer to the court. He waited until the end of the game. Others may have stopped play right on that set point when it was obvious that he did something to his foot.

Also all credibility lost with the OP for leaving out so many details about what happened, not quoting the correct rulebook and leaving out crucial elements of the rule in question.

This is such a joke.

 

[mcenroefan]

I waS not being aggressive at all. I simply pointed out that you left off a very important part of the rule, quoted the wrong rulebook and posed 2 irrelevant questions. Other than that it was an allstar post.

Wow, that's a level-headed response.

Sorry about the difference between the ITF and the ATP rulebooks.

I've explained why I didn't quote the entire rule.

The two questions remain relevant if it's determined that the time-out was improper. I never said that the time-out was improper and in fact stated that you never ask the two questions if it is proper. I'm sorry if that escapes you.

You know, every post is not a conspiracy.

 

[woodrow1029]

Oh and let me guess what's next. The Medical Timeout went on for too long and that was against the rules too?

 

[woodrow1029]

Wow, that's a level-headed response.

Sorry about the difference between the ITF and the ATP rulebooks.

I've explained why I didn't quote the entire rule.

The two questions remain relevant if it's determined that the time-out was improper. I never said that the time-out was improper and in fact stated that you never ask the two questions if it is proper. I'm sorry if that escapes you.

You know, every post is not a conspiracy.

But if you had quoted the rest of the rule, you would have seen that the medical timeout was proper.

 

[Bud]

OH MY GOD! I can't believe I wasted so much time on this thread. I just came home and watched the replay.

I didn't realize that the doctor was called to the court by the trainer too.

BP, you just COMPLETELY lost any minute amount of credibility that you had in my eyes whatsoever. When the trainer calls for the doctor because, "There is something on the bone here." and many other parts of the discussion, this could have definitely been serious. He called for the trainer during the previous game so that it wouldn't be a delay getting the trainer to the court. He waited until the end of the game. Others may have stopped play right on that set point when it was obvious that he did something to his foot.

Also all credibility lost with the OP for leaving out so many details about what happened, not quoting the correct rulebook and leaving out crucial elements of the rule in question.

This is such a joke.

You got it

 

[woodrow1029]

You got it

Yeah, but if Federer or Djokovic had done this, you and BP would have reverse roles.

 

[Bud]

Yeah, but if Federer or Djokovic had done this, you and BP would have reverse roles.

I could care less if Federer, Djokovic or any other player takes a necessary MTO, so don't talk like a jackass.

I've always seen you as a pretty fair poster, so don't start talking out of your butt accusing me of pulling this same BS.

oh come on, I thought I could joke around with you.

I didn't find it amusing :wink:

 

[woodrow1029]

I could care less if Federer, Djokovic or any other player takes a necessary MTO, so don't talk like a jackass.

I've always seen you as a pretty fair poster, so don't start accusing me of pulling this same BS.

oh come on, I thought I could joke around with you. but apparently not, so my bad.

 

[The-Champ]

woodrow, you are very fair. You should be the main moderator in TT.

 

[BreakPoint]

OH MY GOD! I can't believe I wasted so much time on this thread. I just came home and watched the replay.

I didn't realize that the doctor was called to the court by the trainer too.

BP, you just COMPLETELY lost any minute amount of credibility that you had in my eyes whatsoever. When the trainer calls for the doctor because, "There is something on the bone here." and many other parts of the discussion, this could have definitely been serious. He called for the trainer during the previous game so that it wouldn't be a delay getting the trainer to the court. He waited until the end of the game. Others may have stopped play right on that set point when it was obvious that he did something to his foot.

Also all credibility lost with the OP for leaving out so many details about what happened, not quoting the correct rulebook and leaving out crucial elements of the rule in question.

This is such a joke.

You just said that you were not qualified to make those medical determinations, so how do you know there really was something wrong with his foot or if it wasn't already there before? Oh, and wasn't it Nadal who said something about his bone?

BTW, I didn't see any doctor. All I saw was the trainer working on his foot. But then again, seeing the mangled foot of a professional tennis player is not exactly a pretty sight so I wasn't focusing intensively.

 

[BreakPoint]

Yeah, but if Federer or Djokovic had done this, you and BP would have reverse roles.

You know full well that Federer NEVER does this.

 

[woodrow1029]

You just said that you were not qualified to make those medical determinations, so how do you know there really was something wrong with his foot or if it wasn't already there before? Oh, and wasn't it Nadal who said something about his bone?

BTW, I didn't see any doctor. All I saw was the trainer working on his foot. But then again, seeing the mangled foot of a professional tennis player is not exactly a pretty sight so I wasn't focusing intensively.

I'm not making a medical determination which is why I said "Could have been something serious." If the trainer had to call the doctor, then the chair umpire was correct not to deny the trainer on court, and it looks like the trainer was correct in treating when he did.

 

[mcenroefan]

But if you had quoted the rest of the rule, you would have seen that the medical timeout was proper.

Actually, no I wouldn't b/c I didn't realize that this might be deemed an "acute" injury.

Look, a person can't lose credibility if there is no attempt to draw a conclusion.

I was focusing on the timing issue b/c that issue was being bandied about in the match thread along with the majority of attackers claiming that the injury itself was "faked" and "phony." I started this thread as an attempt to draw out the issue and tie it to the rule language and posed "What If's" as a logic tree from the language itself. There was no conspiracy to leave out language that tends to exonerate. Rather, I simply quoted the sections that dealt with timing b/c I too often have seen people attack OP's for excessive length in initial posts with replies like "i don't have time to read all of this drivel" I thanked you for following up with the additional language that makes it clear that timing can be directly tied to type of injury....acute vs chronic.

The intent of the thread was to provoke just the type of discussion that has ensued....discussion of the rule itself rather than..."he's faking it" and so forth.

In any case, you'll note if you look back at my posts that I expressed the opinion that the injury looked legitimate to me.. You'll also note that I asked for someone to quote the rule. If you had been there at the time, you could have done so and saved me the effort.

 

[woodrow1029]

You know full well that Federer NEVER does this.

Federer never does what? Calls for a trainer to come on court? No I didn't know he never does that.

 

[BreakPoint]

I'm not making a medical determination which is why I said "Could have been something serious." If the trainer had to call the doctor, then the chair umpire was correct not to deny the trainer on court, and it looks like the trainer was correct in treating when he did.

But that doesn't mean the chair umpire should have allowed the medical evaluation right before the tiebreak in the first place. To allow it when it's NOT a changeover or a set break, it should be so severe that there's no way the player can possibly continue to play another point without IMMEDIATE medical attention. The fact that Nadal played 3 more points after the "injury" proves that he could have at least finished the tiebreak before being allowed to be treated.

 

[Bud]

You know full well that Federer NEVER does this.

Federer called the trainer to have his toenails clipped one time :lol:

 

[BreakPoint]

Federer never does what? Calls for a trainer to come on court? No I didn't know he never does that.

Federer never calls the trainer when a set is close to disrupt his opponent's rhythm nor does he ever call the trainer, period. I can probably count the number of times Federer has called the trainer during a match on one hand, whereas, I would need a supercomputer to keep track of all the times Nadal has called the trainer during his career. :shock:

 

[aprilfool]

Oh and let me guess what's next. The Medical Timeout went on for too long and that was against the rules too?

So this is not true?


"ITF Rules of Tennis:

The following ITF Rules of Tennis and Cases and Decisions are the official rules of the International Tennis Federation (ITF)

'29. CONTINUOUS PLAY

c. No extra time shall be given to allow a player to recover condition. However, a player suffering from a treatable medical condition may be allowed one medical time-out of three minutes for the treatment of that medical condition.'

I am probably missing some other technicality but there does appear to be a three minute limit.NAdal's took nine. Or does it hinge on the word "treatable"? Just curious.

 

[woodrow1029]

So this is not true?


"ITF Rules of Tennis:

The following ITF Rules of Tennis and Cases and Decisions are the official rules of the International Tennis Federation (ITF)

'29. CONTINUOUS PLAY

c. No extra time shall be given to allow a player to recover condition. However, a player suffering from a treatable medical condition may be allowed one medical time-out of three minutes for the treatment of that medical condition.'

I am probably missing some other technicality but there does appear to be a three minute limit.NAdal's took nine. Or does it hinge on the word "treatable"? Just curious.

Yes. The medical evaluation, which is the diagnosis, has no set time limit, only that it is to be completed in reasonable time.

Once the trainer diagnoses the problem, and determines if treatment is warranted, once he is ready to treat, that is when the 3 minute medical timeout starts.

 

[ViscaB]

BTW, I didn't see any doctor. All I saw was the trainer working on his foot. But then again, seeing the mangled foot of a professional tennis player is not exactly a pretty sight so I wasn't focusing intensively.

The doctor was next to the trainer. There were two of them. Blinded by hatred. Or perhaps you didn't even see the match.

 

[ViscaB]

But that doesn't mean the chair umpire should have allowed the medical evaluation right before the tiebreak in the first place. To allow it when it's NOT a changeover or a set break, it should be so severe that there's no way the player can possibly continue to play another point without IMMEDIATE medical attention. The fact that Nadal played 3 more points after the "injury" proves that he could have at least finished the tiebreak before being allowed to be treated.

If you actually watched the match you might have learned that Nadal had to give away the last two points since he could not move well. All this while he was in prime form on the verge of winning the set on del Potro's serve. Not only that he completely lost the momentum losing the first 3 points in the tiebreak.

Nadal has learned a lesson today. To get direct medical treatment, go to the ground and stay there. It worked for his opponent.

 

[BreakPoint]

The doctor was next to the trainer. There were two of them. Blinded by hatred. Or perhaps you didn't even see the match.

But who was the one actually treating Nadal? I think it was the trainer.

I started watching the Federer-Youhzny match when Nadal sat down because knowing Nadal and his MTOs (which we all have so much experience with), I knew it would probably be a while before play resumed. :???: