Do you support a "shot clock"?

[Gary Duane]

A shot clock on a tennis court would be obscene, not to mention extremely impractical. It is never going to happen anyway.

Then the monitor we have right now that shows serve speed is obscene. Also the monitor that shows the time of the match.

What is obscene is the way umps are using the concept of a clock, on their computers, but starting it any time they want, interpreting it any way they want. They have the potential to sway a match, and there is no proof because they do it all in secret.

That's what is obscene.

 

[Bartelby]

'Nadal got hammered' with a one serve penalty?

So it is the exact same situation as the Sock/Nadal match, but Nadal got hammered. JWT through the 4th set was left 100% alone.

That's why we need a clock, to prove what is obvious, that different players are not held to the same standard. Umps give a free pass to some players, hammer others.

Obviously in this tournament it's good to be French, not so good not to be French.

 

[Bartelby]

I count myself as a nobody in this case, but the reality is that the poll is completely unscientific and no one is seriously pushing for a shot clock at the level that initiates change.

'Putz' is as much an ethnolect as 'shot clock' is ethnocentric.

What seems to have gone over YOUR head is that if you meant "no one," you were monstrously wrong, and if you meant "nobodies," you look like an arrogant, clueless putz-your call.

 

[Bartelby]

Quite right. As I said, no one wants it.

A shot clock on a tennis court would be obscene, not to mention extremely impractical. It is never going to happen anyway.

 

[Bartelby]

I always thought a Nadal fanboy was hiding behind 'fairness' and there it is, again.

It's pretty obvious that the same ump who throws violations at one player (Nadal) throws none at another. Well, he can do that because he doesn't answer to anyone. He can start the timer whenever he wants then ignore it when it goes over, any time he wants, throw a violation, whenever he wants.

Power corrupts. I don't care if it is someone sitting in a chair, at a tennis match, or some petty bureaucrat in a government office, or a teacher with tenure. If someone in the position of a judge, umpire, and so on can potentially do whatever he wants, with no one to stop him, that's a bad thing.

In the past I've thought that Nadal was definitely the slowest player, but that is obviously no longer the case. Watch carefully to see if JWT gets a pass next match when he is over the limit.

 

[Gary Duane]

I always thought a Nadal fanboy was hiding behind 'fairness' and there it is, again.

For the record, I was rooting for JWT today because I like his style of tennis. I didn't like the slow play. I never do.

And obviously you have missed all the times I have complained about Nadal's slow play. I was all for having him get violations when they started this. I am sick of the tics, the toweling off, tracing lines, all the other stall tactics.

Does that really sound like a fanboy talking?

I'm saying that ALL the players who regularly are over the limit should be hit with violations, or none of them.

And as it is, right now, Nadal is no longer clearly the slowest. He has company.

You are confusing the idea of a "fan" and the idea of "fairness".

 

[Gary Duane]

Quite right. As I said, no one wants it.

Please explain again the difference between "no one" and "nobody".

Or are you going to say that all the people who have been in favor of some kind of shot clock are "no ones" as well as "nobodies"?

 

[Gary Duane]

Right now:

44 Yes
23 No
21 Yes, but with descretion
2 Other

I don't know what the two "other" people want, but that's almost 75% of the people polled who want some kind of clock.

I'm waiting to see if Bartelby spins that as 75% of "nobodies" or simply what "no one" wants.

Waiting...

 

[Bartelby]

The rule is continuous play and it is implemented in a way that does not cause excessive disruption.

Leniency is shown but a boundary drawn usually when play is tight and it slows even more than usual.

Murray was warned and Nadal got a one serve penalty, so the idea that anyone was hammered is ridiculous.

The ITF needs to change its rule to 25 and a slightly more strict touch applied, as has happened at the ATP level.

They could even levy fines and point deductions. They won't but let's see them get to ATP standards first.

A shot clock is not a solution. It is a new set of problems.

 

[Bartelby]

25 per cent don't want it which means you are in a losing position because:

- the poll is biased towards americans as it's an american website
- unscientific polls are biased towards those who want what the question asks
- yes but with discretion is an incoherent and unworkable position

Right now:

44 Yes
23 No
21 Yes, but with descretion
2 Other

I don't know what the two "other" people want, but that's almost 75% of the people polled who want some kind of clock.

I'm waiting to see if Bartelby spins that as 75% of "nobodies" or simply what "no one" wants.

Waiting...

 

[Gary Duane]

The rule is continuous play and it is implemented in a way that does not cause excessive disruption.

That rule went out a few decades ago. It is not followed.

Leniency is shown but a boundary drawn usually when play is tight and it slows even more than usual.

As I said, the same boundaries were not drawn for two different players. You are OK with that. I'm not.

Murray was warned and Nadal got a one serve penalty, so the idea that anyone was hammered is ridiculous.

Losing a first serve, break point, in a game that is crucial is being hammered. I would feel the same way if it happened to Novak, to Murray, or to any other player who is close to winning a match.

So we will have to disagree about what "being hammered" means.

The ITF needs to change its rule to 25 and a slightly more strict touch applied, as has happened at the ATP level.

And you don't even want to know when the timer is started? It's OK with you that it can be started at the end of the last point, at the moment the score is called out, or at any time an individual umpire decides to do it?

They could even levy fines and point deductions. They won't but let's see them get to ATP standards first.

They can't do that when the players don't know when the timing starts, or how often.

A shot clock is not a solution. It is a new set of problems.

A shot clock does nothing more than make visible what umpires are already doing, with no one to see how, when and why. It gives transparency to something done behind the scenes.

 

[Gary Duane]

25 per cent don't want it which means you are in a losing position because:

- the poll is biased towards americans as it's an american website

You have no idea how many people on this site are American, and how many are not. Nor do I.

- unscientific polls are biased towards those who want what the question asks

Then start a poll and see if the results are biased towards what you ask.

- yes but with discretion is an incoherent and unworkable position

So is continuous play, when quite obviously the play is anything but continuous.

 

[zep]

Then the monitor we have right now that shows serve speed is obscene. Also the monitor that shows the time of the match.

The only difference is that the speed guns or the monitor that shows the length of the match have no influence on how the game is played.

What is obscene is the way umps are using the concept of a clock, on their computers, but starting it any time they want, interpreting it any way they want. They have the potential to sway a match, and there is no proof because they do it all in secret.

That's what is obscene.

I am not a fan of the present way of dealing things. Taking 20 or 30 seconds between points or taking a few extra seconds before an important point is a non issue as far as I am concerned. Players have different speeds and I am okay with it. As long as they are not wasting minutes deliberately between points I am fine with it.

 

[mika1979]

I just cant see any way of going forward with the rule as it is. It frustrates the players for getting hit with it and frustrates the fan if someone takes forever but is not hit with it. Shot clock means no arguments. Also fines dont really work as the top players will just pay the ticket and move on. I would also rather scrap the rule altogether, and see a little bit more of a Soderling type move if the guy is making him wait too long, than go as is.

 

[Bartelby]

Losing a first serve is nothing and if Nadal can't cope with that then he can either obey the rule or ignore its implementation and play on as normal.

The site is American and the population is biased toward Americans and in any event the unscientific poll only really shows that opinions are divided.

 

[Bartelby]

A report from the end of 2013 by the WSJ which indicates the ATP approach is working:

At the start of this season, the ATP pushed its chair umpires to crack down on servers’ slow play, by calling more time violations. To make this more palatable to players, and easier to call, the tour tweaked its rulebook. Now servers are docked just a first serve, not a point, for their second and subsequent violation of the rule allowing only 25 seconds between points.

The first violation is essentially just a warning — no penalty. “It doesn’t mean anything,”Carlos Ramos, a veteran chair umpire, told students at an officiating school in Paris last month. And yet, before this season, the rule was rarely enforced, even when most players were flouting it. “Our top chair umpires, they were hesitating” to call time violations, Ramos said. “Even our top chair umpires, we had to coach them a lot. We had to talk to them a lot.”

At the start of the year, officials called time violations with unprecedented regularity. Some players complained, but others didn’t, and nearly all sped up their pace of play, according to the ATP’s own measurements and stats such as average time per point, including time playing the point, this year compared to last year.

This year through the Shanghai tournament last month, umpires had called 659 time violations against servers, 49 of them costing the server a first serve; and 47 violations against returners, costing three points, according to the ATP. For all of last year, umpires called just 59 time violations, and assessed zero point penalties.

 

[Bartelby]

And there is a little list - the whole point of time violations is to change habits, it is not a rule like that involving line calls:

Here is a list of time violations in 2013 by the 30 highest ranked players on the ATP Tour.

1. Rafael Nadal: 30
2. Novak Djokovic: 10
3. David Ferrer: 2
4. Andy Murray: 6
5. Juan Martin del Potro: 11
6. Roger Federer: 0
7. Tomas Berdych: 9
8. Stanislas Wawrinka: 0
9. Richard Gasquet: 8
10. Jo-Wilfried Tsonga: 1
11. Milos Raonic: 2
12. Tommy Haas: 2
13. Nicolas Almagro: 1
14. John Isner: 14
15. Mikhail Youzhny: 0
16. Fabio Fognini: 11
17. Kei Nishikori: 5
18. Tommy Robredo: 5
19. Gilles Simon: 2
20. Kevin Anderson: 6
21. Jerzy Janowicz: 1
22. Philipp Kohlschreiber: 0
23. Grigor Dimitrov: 3
24. Ernests Gulbis: 9
25. Andreas Seppi: 3
26. Benoit Paire: 0
27. Jurgen Melzer: 2
28. Feliciano Lopez: 6
29. Dmitry Tursunov: 2
30. Fernando Verdasco: 2

I can't see any surprises here.

 

[smash hit]

A report from the end of 2013 by the WSJ which indicates the ATP approach is working:

At the start of this season, the ATP pushed its chair umpires to crack down on servers’ slow play, by calling more time violations. To make this more palatable to players, and easier to call, the tour tweaked its rulebook. Now servers are docked just a first serve, not a point, for their second and subsequent violation of the rule allowing only 25 seconds between points.

The first violation is essentially just a warning — no penalty. “It doesn’t mean anything,”Carlos Ramos, a veteran chair umpire, told students at an officiating school in Paris last month. And yet, before this season, the rule was rarely enforced, even when most players were flouting it. “Our top chair umpires, they were hesitating” to call time violations, Ramos said. “Even our top chair umpires, we had to coach them a lot. We had to talk to them a lot.”

At the start of the year, officials called time violations with unprecedented regularity. Some players complained, but others didn’t, and nearly all sped up their pace of play, according to the ATP’s own measurements and stats such as average time per point, including time playing the point, this year compared to last year.

This year through the Shanghai tournament last month, umpires had called 659 time violations against servers, 49 of them costing the server a first serve; and 47 violations against returners, costing three points, according to the ATP. For all of last year, umpires called just 59 time violations, and assessed zero point penalties.

All of the above is totally meaningless if the umpire is arbitrarily choosing when to start timing.

As a fan of Rafa, who also enjoys watching other players I have no problem in saying that Rafa needs to speed up and I do think he is trying. What I do have a problem with, is a rule that is not used fairly.

When an umpire decides to issue a warning at break point he is potentially altering the outcome of the match. That could be considered to be tantamount to match fixing.

 

[Gary Duane]

Losing a first serve is nothing and if Nadal can't cope with that then he can either obey the rule or ignore its implementation and play on as normal.

Losing the first serve on break point when trying to end a match is only nothing in the mind of Bartelby.

The site is American and the population is biased toward Americans and in any event the unscientific poll only really shows that opinions are divided.

You are like a bot. Can't you come up with something new?

You can't prove that most of the people who post in this site are American. What are you basing this on? Answer:

The unscientific poll answered by "nobodies" shows that opinions are "divided" towards a view you don't like, and very much in favor of a shot clock.

You are like my father's aunt, from England, who could only say "nonsense" when anyone disagreed with her.

She thought the whole thought of a a cold being a virus was "nonsense". Anything that disagreed with her very tiny worldview was "nonsense".

 

[smash hit]

Next point: JWS, up 40/30, almost 31 seconds. 23-24 seconds after score called. So now I am 100% sure Bernard had a vendetta against Nadal.

The issue with Bernardes has been going on for some time now. Bernardos was the Umpire in Rafa's semi with Murray at the US Open in 2011. Murray decided that he needed to change his sweatband when serving at break point down in the fourth set, he took over a minute to change it Even the commentators said Rafa was just looking at Bernardes as if to say "If that was me". Bernardos just smiled at Murray and nodded. Afterwards Peter Flemming said Murray took over a minute between points but Bernardos did the right thing by being lenient with him. Pfft! !

 

[Bartelby]

The continuous play rule is a judgement call.

It is not an in/out rule like a line call.

There are all sorts of rules in the world.

Nadal lost a serve and he needs to deal with it when it happens.

It's his problem and the penalty is trivial.

All of the above is totally meaningless if the umpire is arbitrarily choosing when to start timing.

As a fan of Rafa, who also enjoys watching other players I have no problem in saying that Rafa needs to speed up and I do think he is trying. What I do have a problem with, is a rule that is not used fairly.

When an umpire decides to issue a warning at break point he is potentially altering the outcome of the match. That could be considered to be tantamount to match fixing.

 

[Laurie]

I voted yes, and definitely no discretions.

 

[LETitBE]

How many time violations will Nadal receive tonight?It all depends on the umpire doesnt it.Its WRONG! get a shot clock in NOW!

 

[Bartelby]

You are the infant with the child-like notion that there is only one kind of rule in the world and mummy and daddy must always punish litte Gary fairly.

The poll is unscientific: Have you not studied a social science in your life? Do you know what a representative sample means and bias?

You're a Nadal tragic who'll go to any lengths.

Losing the first serve on break point when trying to end a match is only nothing in the mind of Bartelby.

You are like a bot. Can't you come up with something new?

You can't prove that most of the people who post in this site are American. What are you basing this on? Answer:

The unscientific poll answered by "nobodies" shows that opinions are "divided" towards a view you don't like, and very much in favor of a shot clock.

You are like my father's aunt, from England, who could only say "nonsense" when anyone disagreed with her.

She thought the whole thought of a a cold being a virus was "nonsense". Anything that disagreed with her very tiny worldview was "nonsense".

 

[Bartelby]

You're a Nadal tragic as well.

The reality is that if you flout the rules ostentatiously, taking 20 seconds to get to the service line before another 20 seconds of fidgeting, then you are going to get penalised more than others.

The issue with Bernardes has been going on for some time now. Bernardos was the Umpire in Rafa's semi with Murray at the US Open in 2011. Murray decided that he needed to change his sweatband when serving at break point down in the fourth set, he took over a minute to change it Even the commentators said Rafa was just looking at Bernardes as if to say "If that was me". Bernardos just smiled at Murray and nodded. Afterwards Peter Flemming said Murray took over a minute between points but Bernardos did the right thing by being lenient with him. Pfft! !

 

[smash hit]

You're a Nadal tragic as well.

The reality is that if you flout the rules ostentatiously, taking 20 seconds to get to the service line before another 20 seconds of fidgeting, then you are going to get penalised more than others.

In the words of the parable, Matthew 7:3

.Why do you look at the speck of sawdust in your brother’s eye and pay no attention to the plank in your own eye? !How can you say to your brother, ‘Let me take the speck out of your eye,’ when all the time there is a plank in your own eye?


You miss the whole point about fair and equal application of a rule.

 

[vive le beau jeu !]

In the words of the parable, Matthew 7:3

.Why do you look at the speck of sawdust in your brother’s eye and pay no attention to the plank in your own eye? !How can you say to your brother, ‘Let me take the speck out of your eye,’ when all the time there is a plank in your own eye?

 

[Bartelby]

You need to read Wittgenstein's Philosophical Investigations on all the varieties of language games that exist and what we do when we follow a rule.

Rather, when investigating meaning, the philosopher must “look and see” the variety of uses to which the word is put. An analogy with tools sheds light on the nature of words. When we think of tools in a toolbox, we do not fail to see their variety; but the “functions of words are as diverse as the functions of these objects” (PI 11). We are misled by the uniform appearance of our words into theorizing upon meaning: “Especially when we are doing philosophy!” (PI 12)

The continuous play rule is not the same as a rule pertaining to lines. Fairness in the former is based on the impartiality of the judgement of the umpire who takes into consideration a multiplicity of factors. The line call rule's fairness depends on the impartiality of a perception, or of a machine, which involves a single criterion.

I have addressed the issue of fairness and equal application on many occasions, as I do here yet again, so I have not missed it as you suggest.

It's you who missed my argument.

In the words of the parable, Matthew 7:3

.Why do you look at the speck of sawdust in your brother’s eye and pay no attention to the plank in your own eye? !How can you say to your brother, ‘Let me take the speck out of your eye,’ when all the time there is a plank in your own eye?


You miss the whole point about fair and equal application of a rule.

 

[darrinbaker00]

Player dribbles ball off foot and goes over time, crowd boos and jeers.

Player stops because someone screams in the stands and goes over time, crowd boos and jeers.

Ball boy drops ball and it rolls toward court and player hesitates and goes over time, crowd boos and jeers.

Huge gust of wind disrupts ball toss so player tries again but runs out of time, crowd boos and jeers.

etc., etc. etc.

Point being.....?

 

[TheTruth]

Jack went over 20 seconds because Tennis Channel was timing from the moment the last points was done, ball out or into the net.

Nadal was going over 25 seconds. He was about 5 seconds slower before th 4th set, when he started playing faster.

But most likely the ump was timing from the time he announced the score. If you time it this way, Sock was never over, and Nadal was.

It's the same problem: we don't know when the umps start timing. And neither do the players. This actually gives them the potential to go after only one player, or a few players. Because they choose when to give the violation. And we have no idea what is on their screens.

If we don't know when the umpire starts timing then it's a moot point. The fact of the matter is that Jack went over 67% of the time, and not once was he penalized. That's how I see it, and Jack isn't the only one.

 

[TheTruth]

well, 2 wrongs don't make 1 right, do they? Let's say you're Sock, why should you play within 20 sec when you see your opponent, Rafa, clearly take more than that to put the ball in play? Why should you play fair when the other doesn't? Not saying that Sock has any real chance to beat Rafa even taking a hour of break between points, but you get my point, right? If the umpire doesn't enforce it right from the beginning, then it's all downhill from there. And if I were Rafa, why would I play faster if I know for a fact that I can do all my idiosyncrasies for hours and still not being whistled? Hehe...

Why not get a shot clock to be fair to everyone? You do know what happened with the shot clock on screen. They found that everyone went over the time limit and it did not "prove" anything.

So, they quickly abandoned it because it was a witch hunt from the start. Do you actually believe that everyone on the tour plays within the twenty-twenty second limit?

Maybe it works for you. It doesn't work for me. I never saw it being implemented until Rafa started beating Federer.

That's what I think, especially if you watch any classic matches. Not once will you see this BS rule. Hee hee. It's even funnier that people actually buy into it, IMO.

 

[TheTruth]

If the rule is going to be there, then I support a serve clock with umpire discretion in terms of supporting existing rules.

So basically, it goes like this... the chair announces the score and starts the clock.

The following existing tennis rules need to be enforced:

1) The receiver must still play to the pace of the server
2) The server must wait for the receiver to be ready before serving.
3) The server has a right not to be hindered during the serve/shot.

If any of the above are violated, the chair resets the clock until the situation is rectified. I think this is the absolute most fair and reasonable way to enforce a serve time rule.

All of this being said, I think the serve time violation rule is stupid. However... if it is going to be there... it needs to be enforced as consistently as other objective rules in tennis.

Absolutely. The way it's being enfoced is haphazard and targeted. They had a shot clock on screen, but it didn't give them what they wanted. Now, they an apply the rule unfairly, and only to who they want.

Sometimes in the interest of "fairness" they will randomly give a player a warning. It's so transparent as to be ludicrous.

Get a shot clock. I'm all for it, but I doubt that they will. It's called motive.

 

[britam25]

Right now:

44 Yes
23 No
21 Yes, but with descretion
2 Other

I don't know what the two "other" people want, but that's almost 75% of the people polled who want some kind of clock.

I'm waiting to see if Bartelby spins that as 75% of "nobodies" or simply what "no one" wants.

Waiting...

Your point is well taken, but, as he said, stating that Nadal was "hammered" for one warning with 100% non-compliance isn't exactly dripping with logic, either.

 

[TheTruth]

I understand people who don't want a shot clock. I don't understand people who are OK with how it is right now, because the rule as it is makes a mockery out of fairness.

It's pretty obvious that the same ump who throws violations at one player (Nadal) throws none at another. Well, he can do that because he doesn't answer to anyone. He can start the timer whenever he wants then ignore it when it goes over, any time he wants, throw a violation, whenever he wants.

Power corrupts. I don't care if it is someone sitting in a chair, at a tennis match, or some petty bureaucrat in a government office, or a teacher with tenure. If someone in the position of a judge, umpire, and so on can potentially do whatever he wants, with no one to stop him, that's a bad thing.

In the past I've thought that Nadal was definitely the slowest player, but that is obviously no longer the case. Watch carefully to see if JWT gets a pass next match when he is over the limit.

Outstanding post. The rule is not being applied fairly or across the board. The power is being misused and on the most important points.

At this rate the umpire can actually help to determine the outcome of a match with cleverly placed time violations. We don't know if the violations are earned and neither does the player. This TV (time violation) garbage is just a crock.

The fact that almost no one gets called but one player shows that it's set up. There are too many players on the ATP tour and everyone, always falls into line, is thinking about the seconds to play, and never going over? That's insanity. If anyone thinks that this makes sense...

 

[britam25]

I count myself as a nobody in this case, but the reality is that the poll is completely unscientific and no one is seriously pushing for a shot clock at the level that initiates change.

'Putz' is as much an ethnolect as 'shot clock' is ethnocentric.

Nice non response response, the fact is, you said nobody wanted something that you don't want, and you were dead wrong, don't try and spin things. And, why is it "completely unscientific," because YOU say so? I'm not sure if you realize how pompous remarks like that and the "nobody" remark make you sound.

 

[TheTruth]

In the words of the parable, Matthew 7:3

.Why do you look at the speck of sawdust in your brother’s eye and pay no attention to the plank in your own eye? !How can you say to your brother, ‘Let me take the speck out of your eye,’ when all the time there is a plank in your own eye?


You miss the whole point about fair and equal application of a rule.

Fantastic post. Many are not interested in fairness. You couldn't be when you're trying to support that one player went over the limit 66% of the time and you're OK with that.

Awesome about the speck and the plank. This is a perfect example of people being unjust.

 

[Mustard]

What I support is ending the rule of 20-25 seconds between points. Throw it in the dustbin.

 

[britam25]

For the record, I was rooting for JWT today because I like his style of tennis. I didn't like the slow play. I never do.

And obviously you have missed all the times I have complained about Nadal's slow play. I was all for having him get violations when they started this. I am sick of the tics, the toweling off, tracing lines, all the other stall tactics.

Does that really sound like a fanboy talking?

I'm saying that ALL the players who regularly are over the limit should be hit with violations, or none of them.

And as it is, right now, Nadal is no longer clearly the slowest. He has company.

You are confusing the idea of a "fan" and the idea of "fairness".

Sorry, but the fact that you timed one match by JWS, playing in his national championship, does NOT convince me that "...Nadal is no longer clearly the slowest." If one is an inveterate rule breaker, you shouldn't get the benefit of the doubt, it's like the credibility of a felonious snitch on the witness stand-he's been breaking the rule for years, not just in quantity, but also by margin over the time limit. Implying that JWS is worse is ludicrous, IMO.

 

[britam25]

What I support is ending the rule of 20 seconds between points.

Ahh, after dealing with this issue, I intended to make my rounds to greet certain posters, and you, most definitely, are on that list. Something to say about the first men's match today?:grin::wink::smile::twisted:

 

[Mustard]

Ahh, after dealing with this issue, I intended to make my rounds to greet certain posters, and you, most definitely, are on that list. Something to say about the first men's match today?:grin::wink::smile::twisted:

I've already had my say in the match thread.

 

[TheTruth]

What I support is ending the rule of 20-25 seconds between points. Throw it in the dustbin.

That would be the better choice. It's a stupid rule for a very physical game. Total BS in my opinion.

 

[Gary Duane]

The issue with Bernardes has been going on for some time now. Bernardos was the Umpire in Rafa's semi with Murray at the US Open in 2011. Murray decided that he needed to change his sweatband when serving at break point down in the fourth set, he took over a minute to change it Even the commentators said Rafa was just looking at Bernardes as if to say "If that was me". Bernardos just smiled at Murray and nodded. Afterwards Peter Flemming said Murray took over a minute between points but Bernardos did the right thing by being lenient with him. Pfft! !

That's the way it seems to me. Murray was over a zillion times today, no call.

 

[Gary Duane]

The continuous play rule is a judgement call.

Yup. Which umps are free to twist any way they want.

It is not an in/out rule like a line call.

Before Hawkeye that was twisted too.

Nadal lost a serve and he needs to deal with it when it happens.

Again, this is about fairness.

If you are really honest here, that won't bother you no matter who it happens to.

It would bother me if Murray or JWT got hit with a violation on a key break point.

Maybe that's really our difference.

 

[Gary Duane]

You are the infant with the child-like notion that there is only one kind of rule in the world and mummy and daddy must always punish litte Gary fairly.

I'm just leaving that there for other people to read.

You're a Nadal tragic who'll go to any lengths.

I was 100% behind Novak today. The two top players this year on clay have clearly been Novak and Murray. I would like one of them. Again, I'll let other people read that.

I know know that won't change your answer.

 

[Gary Duane]

If we don't know when the umpire starts timing then it's a moot point. The fact of the matter is that Jack went over 67% of the time, and not once was he penalized. That's how I see it, and Jack isn't the only one.

No, he is not the only one who regularly went over, which is how I continue to see it.

Mustard wants to get rid of the rule. I don't agree with him, because I think the rule has sped up the game, and I like that. But he is right in saying that the rule, as it is, is horribly implemented.

 

[Gary Duane]

Why not get a shot clock to be fair to everyone? You do know what happened with the shot clock on screen. They found that everyone went over the time limit and it did not "prove" anything.

When was that? I never saw that. I'd love to see that happen. It would prove what a joke this rule is as it is now defined.

 

[okdude1992]

Nice non response response, the fact is, you said nobody wanted something that you don't want, and you were dead wrong, don't try and spin things. And, why is it "completely unscientific," because YOU say so? I'm not sure if you realize how pompous remarks like that and the "nobody" remark make you sound.

Right on. Bartleby will keep beating the dead horse. There are always those who resist positive change.

 

[Gary Duane]

Your point is well taken, but, as he said, stating that Nadal was "hammered" for one warning with 100% non-compliance isn't exactly dripping with logic, either.

The "hammered" part is about the timing of the violations. As I keep saying, JWT was over the limit many times, and he did not even get a warning.

Same thing with Murray today, no warnings. I wanted Murray to win. When violations come on things like breaks at key moments, it can change a match.

This is when all the slower players really slow down. It is on break points, especially at the end of sets.

That's why I think Nadal got hammered. He may have otherwise pulled out the 3rd set. If the same thing happens to Murray against Novak, people who like Murray will be furious. I would not blame them.

If it were called against Novak, same thing. Because Murray and Novak are two others who go over. Of the former Big Four, Federer is the only person who is usually under 20 seconds, and even he goes over some times. That's how stupid the rule is, as it is now applied.

 

[okdude1992]

this thread:

 

[VPhuc tennis fan]

I don't think it works to compare football to tennis. Football never stops because of crowd noise - or other team sports.

In tennis the crowd noise is mostly predictable. If it gets out of hand, as I've said before, reset the clock or add X number of seconds, and keep doing it. This is something I would leave to the umpire's discretion, but I want to see the time as he does it.

Time stops in football. And when the ref puts the ball down, the countdown begins no matter how loud or how long the fans scream. Apply this to tennis, the players only need to watch for the shot clock on the scoreboard. No need if you play fast, but for many others, well, it's never too late to learn to glance at the board. It doesn't matter when the umpire starts the timer.
Now about the umpire and timer, I've already proposed in another thread something like "A) 5 sec after he/she calls the score and no noise from the crowd, B) in case of crowd applause or else, wait 10 sec, announce the score and start timer 5 sec thereafter, and C) no matter what option A or B, always have a visual cue like a flag to raise when he starts the timer". Like that, the players have no argument since there are 2 cues to look for: the umpire flag and the shot clock. No more whining, no more guessing.