DjokovicForTheWin
Banned
I haven't attacked anyone. You're the one using words like idiot. I simply said you didn't keep your word about being done. I was right.
ATP Rule on Medical Time Outs: "During the next changeover or set break"
- Thread starter mcenroefan
- Start date
I haven't attacked anyone. You're the one using words like idiot. I simply said you didn't keep your word about being done. I was right.
DjokovicForTheWin
Banned
Yeah, it's unfortunate some players are less honest than others. But hey, I suppose every sport has its share of cheaters. Bonds, Clemens, Marion Jones, Lance Armstrong, to name a few.
LeoMOMO
Rookie
If you don't mind me asking are you like Pascal Maria, or someone famous who does the Slams?
W
woodrow1029
Guest
I worked 11 US Opens, 8 Roland Garros, 4 Australian Opens and 3 US Opens. I haven't done a slam since the 2008 French Open though as I now have a "real job" and don't officiate all that much anymore, although I do maintain my ITF certification. I chaired a boys singles final, mixed doubles final and women's doubles final at the US Open.
W
woodrow1029
Guest
I'm sitting here at work thinking, "where is the breakdown in communicaion in this thread?" I think I figured it out.
I keep saying the chair umpire can't make the medical decision as to whether the trainer should treat right then and that the chair umpire can't decide whether it's acute or not. You simply have to read the rule exactly as it is worded. This is the best way I can think of to exactly get the point across that the rule was followed.
I think the 2 most relevant questions in this thread are, "Why did the chair umpire call for the trainer right then?" and "Why did the trainer actually treat him right then?"
As I said, you need to read the rule exactly as it is worded. The most relevant part to the first question (Why did the chair umpire call the trainer to the court at that time?) is:
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.
They player can request that the trainer come out anytime if the player thinks he has an acute condition. The rule does not say that the chair umpire can deny the trainer to come. This is where the part comes in about the chair umpire not making medical determinations. Imagine if the chair umpire were to say to Nadal, nope, you're running fine, play an entire tiebreak, then you can see the trainer. If Nadal did have something seriously wrong, and the tiebreak went long, or even short and Nadal made his foot worse, that would be really bad.
Now for the second part (Why did the trainer treat then?)
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.
I have gone in detail about this that the trainer obviously thought that this was a serious issue that needed to be addressed right then.
I wonder if that is a better way to explain it.
I keep saying the chair umpire can't make the medical decision as to whether the trainer should treat right then and that the chair umpire can't decide whether it's acute or not. You simply have to read the rule exactly as it is worded. This is the best way I can think of to exactly get the point across that the rule was followed.
I think the 2 most relevant questions in this thread are, "Why did the chair umpire call for the trainer right then?" and "Why did the trainer actually treat him right then?"
As I said, you need to read the rule exactly as it is worded. The most relevant part to the first question (Why did the chair umpire call the trainer to the court at that time?) is:
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.
They player can request that the trainer come out anytime if the player thinks he has an acute condition. The rule does not say that the chair umpire can deny the trainer to come. This is where the part comes in about the chair umpire not making medical determinations. Imagine if the chair umpire were to say to Nadal, nope, you're running fine, play an entire tiebreak, then you can see the trainer. If Nadal did have something seriously wrong, and the tiebreak went long, or even short and Nadal made his foot worse, that would be really bad.
Now for the second part (Why did the trainer treat then?)
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.
I have gone in detail about this that the trainer obviously thought that this was a serious issue that needed to be addressed right then.
I wonder if that is a better way to explain it.
Indeed - in this part of the rule-book is exactly where it went wrong:
There was nothing obvious about this; on the contrary, I myself had the distinct impression the trainer did not think very highly of the issue. But this is purely in the realm of interpretation: both your argument that the trainer would have thought it was serious (just because he kept treating it) and my above claim that he did not at all are irrelevant to the issue.
I don't have time to type out again why it was - obviously (even logically) - gamesmanship; sorry for that, but please read my posts above in this thread.
There was nothing obvious about this; on the contrary, I myself had the distinct impression the trainer did not think very highly of the issue. But this is purely in the realm of interpretation: both your argument that the trainer would have thought it was serious (just because he kept treating it) and my above claim that he did not at all are irrelevant to the issue.
I don't have time to type out again why it was - obviously (even logically) - gamesmanship; sorry for that, but please read my posts above in this thread.
W
woodrow1029
Guest
The point is that whether or not gamesmanship was involved, the rule was followed as it is written.
W
woodrow1029
Guest
Also, the trainer called for the doctor to come out and examine it as well. How can you say that the trainer didn't think much of it after that and the dialogue with Rafa. And the trainer said he felt something on the bone as well.
Last edited by a moderator:
I understand that, certainly as an umpire yourself, you've got faith in the trainer. But let us assume for a moment here that my interpretation is the more correct one, and the trainer thought: "Rubbish." Do you really think he would have said to the umpire and the Number 1 that this was not an acute injury but only a type of injury that - according to the rule-book - could be looked after after the tie-break instead of before? No. (And it was already a time-out by then, so to speak.) Plus, a trainer would always be on the side of caution as someone else said. Bottomline is that there was no way that there would not be a medical time-out after Nadal asked for it.
The interpretation of the injury by the trainer is besides the point; bottomline is following the rule-book to the letter he made a mistake and appointed a medical time-out for an injury that was not acute. In this way, it was both within and outside the rule.
To put it simply:
Nadal runs around like crazy in tie-break & rest of match + MRI shows nothing
=> it was not an acute injury
=> gamesmanship by Nadal not to wait until after the tie-break
But please read my previous posts where I think I explained it better still.
Last edited:
Beacon Hill
Hall of Fame
Thanks, but there was actually no need for you to explain the rule again. You have been crystal clear from the beginning. There is no debate as to whether the rules were applied correctly. They were. The only debate may be whether the rule is fair or should be changed, and you also made it clear that you were not entering into that debate.
Beacon Hill
Hall of Fame
A while back someone asked what the penalty is for time violations, and I'm not sure it got answered. Warning, point, point, point, point....
W
woodrow1029
Guest
That was me I think sarcastically asking that to someone who quoted that Nadal should be given time violations till he is defaulted.
LeoMOMO
Rookie
Perhaps I saw a information that both of them spent the average 26 seconds between the point when Rafa got the warning.
Still, people are complaining to only Nadal.
How sad...
Last edited:
MariaRafael
Banned
And what about Del Potro MTO? BTW Murray was impudent ehough to request the same. Tennis is all gamesmanship :shock:
mellowyellow
Legend
I think if you look at the length of time you will see that is not the case. 3 minutes is allowed plus the assessment time, that should never equal 9 mins......
mellowyellow
Legend
Perhaps I saw a information that both of them spent the average 26 seconds between the point when Rafa got the warning.
Still, people are complaining to only Nadal.
How sad...
Yeah, because even when serving you are waiting for Nadal, like Sharapova and the other women do.
W
woodrow1029
Guest
Sure it can. There's no time limit on evaluation/diagnosis.
point penalty & time
Actually, there are point penalties, but not game penalties. So, Nadal should have been assessed a point penalty for not serving immediately after the warning.
But then Nadal violated the time limit over 100 times in the match without even a warning
Re; The Medical Time-Out is limited to three (3) minutes of treatment.
Nadal's time out took 9 minutes, therefore he incurred another time violation.
ESPN said that Nadal violated the time-to-serve rule on average every single time he served during the French Open.
Actually, there are point penalties, but not game penalties. So, Nadal should have been assessed a point penalty for not serving immediately after the warning.
But then Nadal violated the time limit over 100 times in the match without even a warning
Re; The Medical Time-Out is limited to three (3) minutes of treatment.
Nadal's time out took 9 minutes, therefore he incurred another time violation.
ESPN said that Nadal violated the time-to-serve rule on average every single time he served during the French Open.
Remember Lu at Aussie?
At the Australian Open Lu asked for treatment when he was playing leyton Hewitt, the chair refused to stop play until the change over, then the Australian Trainer refused to call the doctor, and Lu was denied a medical treatment.
I believe he limped on for a while and then defaulted screaming at the chair.
So, yes, the trainer can refuse treatment, but to my memory only does so if you're not a celebrity player.
At the Australian Open Lu asked for treatment when he was playing leyton Hewitt, the chair refused to stop play until the change over, then the Australian Trainer refused to call the doctor, and Lu was denied a medical treatment.
I believe he limped on for a while and then defaulted screaming at the chair.
So, yes, the trainer can refuse treatment, but to my memory only does so if you're not a celebrity player.
Clay lover
Legend
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-A6OODcLLUE
Lu wasn't screaming or anything, he was pretty calm. I think it was pretty classy of Lu to tell Hewitt at the end along the lines of "I was not trying to break your Rhythm but they didn't let me get treated". Hewitt seemed to show no sympathy whatsoever though, yelling come ons during the incident and even cheered a little bit after the win, don't necessarily like his behaviour. I guess that's why some people can't stand him.
Lu wasn't screaming or anything, he was pretty calm. I think it was pretty classy of Lu to tell Hewitt at the end along the lines of "I was not trying to break your Rhythm but they didn't let me get treated". Hewitt seemed to show no sympathy whatsoever though, yelling come ons during the incident and even cheered a little bit after the win, don't necessarily like his behaviour. I guess that's why some people can't stand him.
Last edited:
Nadal Has History of abuses
Another reason for the angry reaction to Nadal's medical time-out is his history of abusing the system.
Here are examples from memory that I've watched:
1) Hamburg final.06, I think. Federer is about to serve for the set. It's not a change-over. Nadal suddenly takes a 6 minute time out (beyond code) to have his thigh massaged. {Seriously, a 6 minute thigh massage.} As the European announcers noted, Nadal showed no sign of injury before or after during that match, nor did he have problems in a subsequent tournament. It worked. Fed had been dominating, but came out cold and blew the set.
.
2) Monte Carlo. Again, Fed is serving for the set and Nadal takes a mystery time out. Works again.
.
3) Vs. Murray, can't recall the venue, but Nadal does the same thing when trailing. Amusingly, a month later, perhaps in Cincinatti, Murray asked for a medical timeout before his opponent serves and the chair tells him that isn't allowed. Murray says, "Nadal does it to me." The chair (Mohammed Leahni) just throws up his hands?
This, of course, comes on top of Nadal's incessant time violations on serves, refusal to come out and start matches on time, his admission to being regularly coached from the stands, and gimmicks like holding up his hand at the last minute to stop servers when he's trailing.
I suspect this comes from his family's soccer back-ground where diving and tripping are considered OK if you get away with it.
Another reason for the angry reaction to Nadal's medical time-out is his history of abusing the system.
Here are examples from memory that I've watched:
1) Hamburg final.06, I think. Federer is about to serve for the set. It's not a change-over. Nadal suddenly takes a 6 minute time out (beyond code) to have his thigh massaged. {Seriously, a 6 minute thigh massage.} As the European announcers noted, Nadal showed no sign of injury before or after during that match, nor did he have problems in a subsequent tournament. It worked. Fed had been dominating, but came out cold and blew the set.
.
2) Monte Carlo. Again, Fed is serving for the set and Nadal takes a mystery time out. Works again.
.
3) Vs. Murray, can't recall the venue, but Nadal does the same thing when trailing. Amusingly, a month later, perhaps in Cincinatti, Murray asked for a medical timeout before his opponent serves and the chair tells him that isn't allowed. Murray says, "Nadal does it to me." The chair (Mohammed Leahni) just throws up his hands?
This, of course, comes on top of Nadal's incessant time violations on serves, refusal to come out and start matches on time, his admission to being regularly coached from the stands, and gimmicks like holding up his hand at the last minute to stop servers when he's trailing.
I suspect this comes from his family's soccer back-ground where diving and tripping are considered OK if you get away with it.
W
woodrow1029
Guest
Evaluation is not part of the medical timeout and should be completed in reasonable time. Once the trainer begins treatment is when the 3 minutes start.
Furthermore If a player is late after a medical timeout it would be a code violation for delay of game not a time violation.
Finally if you are implying that he should have gotten a time violation for arguing the first time violation, if he argued it right when he was given the time violation, you cannot have back to back time violations. It would be a code violation which as his first code it would have been another warning.
Still think you know the rules?
mellowyellow
Legend
So, at what point in the 9 mins did the treatment start? I walked away from the tube because of this BS again in one of his matches.
ruerooo
Legend
:shock:
:shock:
:shock:
I think it would be nice if you Googled "pinching", "swelling", "peroneal tendon", "Dr Ignacio Munoz", and/or "MRI" and see what you come up with,
so you have a chance to at least not look completely inhumane in addition to extremely ill-informed.
Also, here's a nice quote for you
"Nadal revealed he would need injections in his injured left foot beforehand in order to numb the pain"
http://aggbot.com/link.php?id=14063455&r=tw&t=am
because I honestly can't believe you're suggesting that a player should be playing hurt with no pain relief.
I just can't believe a spectator can be that much of a barbarian.
:-?
ruerooo
Legend
ruerooo
Legend
So you -- and the other posters like you -- think he should have been denied medical treatment, for an injury for which he continues to have to use injected anaesthetic (don't ask me for articles, there are several, including several on the main site, and Google is your friend) in order to play at all ... based on what you think he did in previous matches??
:shock:
:shock:
You all really don't realize how biased you are, or how stupid you sound, do you?
drakulie
Talk Tennis Guru
Oh please,,,,,, give it a rest. Nadal DOES have a long history of abusing the system in regards to taking time outs at the most crucial of times, and also blatantly breaking the time rule.
as far as injuries go, he and his "team of doctors" are also very bad liars.
namelessone
Legend
Since Nadal is so famed for his timeouts, please give the nr. of MTO's taken by Nadal in this tough year for him(with 7 losses and quite a few tight matches even in venues that he won).
A total MTO nr for 2011 shouldn't be too hard for you since every one of them is such a "famous episode", no?
Also, two thirds of the ATP tour pisses on the time rule so why is Nadal singled out? Juan was taking just as much time in 4th R and a guy almost on one would call slow, Wawrinka, was taking 8 SECS OVER on average in USO 2010, he was going to 28 instead of serving at 20. And I can give you examples until tomorrow of time wasting by other players instead of Nadal.
The fact that a ump like woodrow believes that the time rule should be 30-35 seconds ought to tell you something.
ruerooo
Legend
I notice you decided to blow right by the main point.
But I shouldn't really expect anything better from the likes of you.
drakulie
Talk Tennis Guru
no disrespect to woodrow, but who gives a horses backside what he thinks. fact is, their are current rules right now and Nadal has a long history of consistently violating that rule. FACT.
he also has a history of sudddenly "becoming injured" and then remarkably running around like a jack rabbit on the very next point.
Do you not watch his matches? :roll:
drakulie
Talk Tennis Guru
and what was the main point?? that nadal was inured and received an excessively long medical time out? what else is new?
ruerooo
Legend
The main point is exactly what you quoted from me when you decided to jump in and rant uninformed, you bonehead.
I'm not going to type it out again just because you're lazy and read what you wish was there, instead of what's there.
Reading is fundamental.
drakulie
Talk Tennis Guru
then deal with my response, momo,,,,,,, and stop making excuses.
S
srinrajesh
Guest
Jeez U guys cant read the rule book and understand something ..
What Nadal did was absolutely right. In fact he could have requested it at set point as well when the actual injury occurred. Also remember the fact Nadal was the one most affected by the time out and definitely moved below par and lost the first 3 points of the tie break..
Going by your own logic, Del potro's slow motion "fall" didnt deserve a time out. How come he was allowed one at 40-15 on Nadal's serve? In fact he came back and ran even faster and won the next few points.
S
srinrajesh
Guest
Nope we do watch all his matches.. because he is the greatest champion of all time.. we know he gets injured bcos of the stress he can place his body under..
He did run well below par in the tie break immediately after time out.. Probably you are watching some other match 3 years back and came to your conclusions or your eyesight is probably non existent
If u guys really don't like Nadal, you morons should stop watching his matches too ... except when you want to watch your fave guys lose
drakulie
Talk Tennis Guru
watching highlights doesn't count.
snark, much?
I love the venom of some snarks on this thread.
I used to like this message board, in part, because people seemed to care about tennis, and the snarks and trolls weren't as present. But that seems to be changing.
I love the venom of some snarks on this thread.
I used to like this message board, in part, because people seemed to care about tennis, and the snarks and trolls weren't as present. But that seems to be changing.
W
woodrow1029
Guest
No, you know what. Do not call me a snark or a trol.. You obviously haven't read all of the thread. You also obviously do not know the rules as you basically misquoted 3 in one posting. I'm so tired of some of the people on this site that just say whatever THEY think are the rules/procedures when they have no clue. It's like listening to J. Mac and Martina on TV. Just random rules that seem to change by them whenever the situation suits them.
I don't show venom, and I certainly have never posted anything remotely trollish to show who my favorite players are or anything like that. In fact, I don't even get into debates whether certain things are gamesmanship, lies, non-obvious cheats anything. I just post objectively when it comes to the rules and guidelines.
mellowyellow
Legend
Does anyone know when official treatment started for Nadal in the 9 minute break? Are we to assume the assessment was 6 minutes?
jackson vile
G.O.A.T.
W
woodrow1029
Guest
The diagnosis/evaluation was approximately that long. When he was asking a lot of questions, calling the doctor and trying to figure out what was up, that was the eval. When the trainer said to the umpire that he was going to take the treatment time and got the stuff ready to treat, that is when the treatment time started.
Beacon Hill
Hall of Fame
I thought there may have been a serious question about it too.
Beacon Hill
Hall of Fame
I'm quite partial to hearing what he thinks. It's not like we have an overwhelming supply of articulate posters who have a comprehensive knowledge of the rules of tennis.
W
woodrow1029
Guest
Sorry, there may have been. I have been a bit more sarcastic towards some in this thread than I ever am.
mellowyellow
Legend
Do anti inflammatory pills count as treatment?
Similar threads
- Poll
