For Those That Like a Modicum of Intelligence in Their Threads

[winstonplum]

I don't even need to read through the thirteen pages of Nadal-hating sludge to know what was written--the OP gives his game away. However, the OP while trying to be humorous fails to notice the irony of pointing out Sock's statistics too. Actually, I did read part of the thread, and besides Mustard's usual landslide of common sense amongst the stupidity, several other people pointed out the same point I am about to make. To wit:

Jack fricking Sock went over the limit on more than six out of ten serves!!!!!! FFS, anybody that is comparing it to fault-faulting has got to get their head examined. So to complete your inane analogy, Nadal should get penalized for foot-faulting ten out of ten times, while Sock should never get penalized for foot-faulting 7 out of 10 times. Makes all the sense in the world.

Take it from the three time major champ and DC Captain to become rightly apoplectic over the stupidity, the utter and complete amateurish stupidity of a second warning at the tail end of the third set at bp when N is serving for the match! The absolute stupidity! So not on any of the other forty serves that he had in the set, not any of the other forty serves in the second set after the warning. And the stats frickin' show the stupidity! He was breaking the rule of every frickin' serve.

I love tennis. Hawkeye is the greatest thing since sliced bread, but these umpires are absolutely humiliating themselves and mocking a mockery of the sport. Make it a rule or don't. If it means that much to the ATP and ITF, then it has to be an ironclad rule like foot faults and let cord serves. If the ITF and ATP are scared about a player revolt, have an anonymous vote amongst all players in the top 200 or top 1000 or whatever; majority carries the day. This grey area is embarrassing. Courier rightly stated that if Nadal got dinged serve and serve to start a match, he damn well right would change his routines. But to let an entire effing matching go by and ding him on one of the most points is just disgusting.

On a positive note, Nadal crawling into the twilight of his career, headed to sure defeat on Wednesday, shows his incredible, once in a generation clutchness again by losing the set but regrouping and taking it in four. Nadal has depths of self-control and will and fortitude on the tennis court that are a continual source of inspiration to his fans all over the world.

 

[spinovic]

Well said.

I don't care one way or the other about the 25-second rule, but they need to $&%# or get off the pot, as some say.

The ATP/ITF are the ones who have made this a train wreck. Admittedly, watching Nadal (and Djokovic at one time) take an eternity to serve could get annoying at times, it was never a big deal to me.

Then, gradually, the talking heads kept bringing it up more and more until the geniuses in control of the rules decided to make a rule specifically for a player that they obviously never wanted to enforce it against.

It's like the talk once upon a time from the WTA to outlaw screeching, only it wouldn't apply to the current screamers, but only to future ones.

It is absurd. They need to start enforcing it by the book, across the board, or get rid of it. They are the ones who have made this a disaster.

 

[Bartelby]

Nadal is a cheat.

It's a simple rule and a simple rectification would eliminate it from his game.

He refuses to make any change.

Time wasting is not appealing for spectators and its strategic use is quite frankly repugnant.

 

[chjtennis]

I don't even need to read through the thirteen pages of Nadal-hating sludge to know what was written--the OP gives his game away. However, the OP while trying to be humorous fails to notice the irony of pointing out Sock's statistics too. Actually, I did read part of the thread, and besides Mustard's usual landslide of common sense amongst the stupidity, several other people pointed out the same point I am about to make. To wit:

Jack fricking Sock went over the limit on more than six out of ten serves!!!!!! FFS, anybody that is comparing it to fault-faulting has got to get their head examined. So to complete your inane analogy, Nadal should get penalized for foot-faulting ten out of ten times, while Sock should never get penalized for foot-faulting 7 out of 10 times. Makes all the sense in the world.

Take it from the three time major champ and DC Captain to become rightly apoplectic over the stupidity, the utter and complete amateurish stupidity of a second warning at the tail end of the third set at bp when N is serving for the match! The absolute stupidity! So not on any of the other forty serves that he had in the set, not any of the other forty serves in the second set after the warning. And the stats frickin' show the stupidity! He was breaking the rule of every frickin' serve.

I love tennis. Hawkeye is the greatest thing since sliced bread, but these umpires are absolutely humiliating themselves and mocking a mockery of the sport. Make it a rule or don't. If it means that much to the ATP and ITF, then it has to be an ironclad rule like foot faults and let cord serves. If the ITF and ATP are scared about a player revolt, have an anonymous vote amongst all players in the top 200 or top 1000 or whatever; majority carries the day. This grey area is embarrassing. Courier rightly stated that if Nadal got dinged serve and serve to start a match, he damn well right would change his routines. But to let an entire effing matching go by and ding him on one of the most points is just disgusting.

On a positive note, Nadal crawling into the twilight of his career, headed to sure defeat on Wednesday, shows his incredible, once in a generation clutchness again by losing the set but regrouping and taking it in four. Nadal has depths of self-control and will and fortitude on the tennis court that are a continual source of inspiration to his fans all over the world.

Nicely put. I agree the rules should either be abolished or applied more appropriately.

 

[winstonplum]

Nadal is a cheat.

It's a simple rule and a simple rectification would eliminate it from his game.

He refuses to make any change.

Time wasting is not appealing for spectators and its strategic use is quite frankly repugnant.

Nadal is not a cheat.

According to your logic, then Nole is a cheat, Delpo was a cheat, any other player in the top 20 that goes over the 20 second rule in a slam is a cheat. I find it hard to believe that you would claim that they were cheating and they were doing it purposely to gain an advantage.

"Time wasting" i.e., not serving within 20 seconds after the umpire changes the score is unappealing for you. Taking just this small sample size of "tennis aficionados" as represented by these boards, a large percentage of them state opinions the exact opposite of yours; in other words, then don't even notice the 30 seconds between serves.

To claim it is strategically used is to claim to know what Nadal is thinking. The fact is you have know idea what Nadal is thinking. He may just have a routine and figures, hey, most guys go over the 20 second rule so why can't I. That's just as logical, perhaps even more so, than your conclusion.

I have no problem with the rule in principle. But it either needs to be enforced or not. To enforce it with absolutely no rhyme or reason is, frankly, embarrassing. It's as if the adults running the ATP and ITF don't have the gumption or the clarity of thought to take a firm stance.

 

[bullfan]

Nadal is a cheat.

It's a simple rule and a simple rectification would eliminate it from his game.

He refuses to make any change.

Time wasting is not appealing for spectators and its strategic use is quite frankly repugnant.

I fail to see you call out other players or the powers that be for either abusing the rules, and that includes Jack Sock today or the Umpires for not calling Nadal out on every single serve?

 

[VexlanderPrime]

"Mustard's usual landslide of common sense." Yup, stopped reading right there lol.

 

[Bartelby]

Nadal even refuses to come onto court until the last possible moment, but as there is no rule it is not cheating.

But it is evidence of a mentality that wants to keep an opponent waiting and he uses the serve strategically for the same purpose.

The rule is not being properly enforced in part for the simple reason that spectators would be better off Nadal being disqualified from a match than it being ruined by time violation calls.

 

[Bartelby]

If you were an umpire faced with Nadal and Sock and with a riding instruction not to overly call time violations, then who would you choose?

 

[BringBackSV]

The rule or its enforcement needs tweaking. Have a shot clock or get rid of it.

 

[Bartelby]

The shot clock is a profoundly stupid idea supported by next to no one.

 

[bullfan]

If you were an umpire faced with Nadal and Sock and with a riding instruction not to overly call time violations, then who would you choose?

It is not an either or. Call one, call the other. Isnt that what you want, time rules called?

If thats the case, the time rule should be called every single stinking time, for every single tennis player.

Not just Nadal on set points.

 

[Bartelby]

He was warned once and lost one serve.

Not exactly the bombing of Dresden.

The umpires are clearly instructed to call time violations as little as possible in the hope of some sort of 'demonstration effect'.

And who can argue that a one serve penalty for a four set match, whenever it came, is a tiny penalty indeed.

 

[zep]

Couldn't agree more. If you want to enforce it, enforce it every time someone goes over the time limit, which would obviously be a disaster or don't enforce it at all. I don't understand this tactic of waiting for the most important moments to call it. I can understand if someone is trying to deliberately waste over a minute between serves but is there really a difference between taking 20 seconds and say 28 seconds? It was never a big deal until 2012 and then they tried to fix a system which was not broken in the first and made it worse.

 

[winstonplum]

He was warned once and lost one serve.

Not exactly the bombing of Dresden.

The umpires are clearly instructed to call time violations as little as possible in the hope of some sort of 'demonstration effect'.

And who can argue that a one serve penalty for a four set match, whenever it came, is a tiny penalty indeed.

You're correct, it's not the bombing of Dresden. However, as the "demonstration effect" is clearly what the ATP/ITF have settled on for the time being, would it not be fairer to the many players that are going over the 20 second rule, to have that demo at 1-1 in the first set, and maybe the first serve taken away at 3-2 of the first set.

Who knows, perhaps that would have whipped both Sock and Nadal into shape for the remainder of the match.

 

[Gary Duane]

The shot clock is a profoundly stupid idea supported by next to no one.

That is a lie.

 

[bullfan]

He was warned once and lost one serve.

Not exactly the bombing of Dresden.

The umpires are clearly instructed to call time violations as little as possible in the hope of some sort of 'demonstration effect'.

And who can argue that a one serve penalty for a four set match, whenever it came, is a tiny penalty indeed.

Completely unacceptable, and your being fine with arbitrary enforcement shows your lack of understanding the concept of rules. And acting like set point is just another point is bs, and you know it.

Very disengenuous.

I noticed that you defended Novak trying to minimize time, but Nadal took 2 towels on court to shave off time. What is that if not an effort to reduce time? Sounds like Nadal cant get an ounce of credit in your eyes.

 

[bullfan]

You're correct, it's not the bombing of Dresden. However, as the "demonstration effect" is clearly what the ATP/ITF have settled on for the time being, would it not be fairer to the many players that are going over the 20 second rule, to have that demo at 1-1 in the first set, and maybe the first serve taken away at 3-2 of the first set.

Who knows, perhaps that would have whipped both Sock and Nadal into shape for the remainder of the match.

No kidding, and it is unfair not to penalize every offender.

 

[Bartelby]

Yes, there are things they could do that they don't do.

Getting called in a tight situation might be seen as tough, but if Nadal were to be grown up about it he's getting a great deal.

For four sets of taking as much time as he liked, he got a one serve penalty. The fact that he went on to lose the set may or may not have something to do with the penalty.

Either way, if you want to take your time then it's a price he's willing to pay.

At that level, good luck to him for seeing the rule as an opportunity.

Just don't bleat when he gets called.

As a viewer I don't like time wasting.

 

[BringBackSV]

The shot clock is a profoundly stupid idea supported by next to no one.

The shot clock would be the most fair for all players. Even Andy acknowledged that players don't know how long it's been, which I told you a while back. You of course weren't sharp enough to realize it and were quite hard headed as usual. I don't need the majority to agree with me either, Im not a sheep.

 

[bullfan]

He was warned once and lost one serve.

Not exactly the bombing of Dresden.

The umpires are clearly instructed to call time violations as little as possible in the hope of some sort of 'demonstration effect'.

And who can argue that a one serve penalty for a four set match, whenever it came, is a tiny penalty indeed.

The demostration should start at the beginning of the match, so that players understand they should play within a time box. And they are screwed if they dont.

 

[Bartelby]

It's judicious enforcement, not arbitrary.

It's an attempt to keep play continuous without ruining the match with too many time violations.

Cuttting out most of the ball bouncing is a significant move by Djokovic compared to some change in towel usage.

Nadal really only has to shave off about five seconds from his rituals, so if he wants to pay a fine for keeping them then that's his call.

Completely unacceptable, and your being fine with arbitrary enforcement shows your lack of understanding the concept of rules. And acting like set point is just another point is bs, and you know it.

Very disengenuous.

I noticed that you defended Novak trying to minimize time, but Nadal took 2 towels on court to shave off time. What is that if not an effort to reduce time? Sounds like Nadal cant get an ounce of credit in your eyes.

 

[Bartelby]

As if they don't know the rule and the controversy surrounding it! You're becoming laughable.

The demostration should start at the beginning of the match, so that players understand they should play within a time box. And they are screwed if they dont.

 

[bullfan]

As if they don't know the rule and the controversy surrounding it! You're becoming laughable.

Actually, you sadly are. I am fine if they call out all players each and every time.

You are not, which makes you into selective rules.

The rule is not written as selective. Show me where its written exactly when to call and on whom to call?

You and your Nadal hate are sadly out of bounds.

Farewell, you have just promoted yourself to the ignore list.

 

[Gary Duane]

Jack fricking Sock went over the limit on more than six out of ten serves!!!!!! FFS, anybody that is comparing it to fault-faulting has got to get their head examined. So to complete your inane analogy, Nadal should get penalized for foot-faulting ten out of ten times, while Sock should never get penalized for foot-faulting 7 out of 10 times. Makes all the sense in the world.

That statistic is probably very wrong. Again, we do not know when the umps start timing. If the start timing when they call the score, Sock was comfortably within the limit. No problem.

Nadal was over the limit the point before he was coded, then clearly over the limit on the break point. I could not see the earlier violation because that part of the match was not shown.

I checked a bit of Novak's match today. He was play at about the same speed as Sock. Both were usually done around 15 seconds after the score was called. Nadal was finishing around 20 seconds after the score was called.

So when he went over, he was at about 25 seconds.

The problem with the rule is that know one knows how they are timing.

I don't want a beep, but I want a display that tells us what the umps are seeing. There is already a display for service speed. It would not hurt to show seconds. I'd have a LOT more confidence in umps if I did not suspect they are free to apply whatever standard they are using unfairly.

Take it from the three time major champ and DC Captain to become rightly apoplectic over the stupidity, the utter and complete amateurish stupidity of a second warning at the tail end of the third set at bp when N is serving for the match! The absolute stupidity! So not on any of the other forty serves that he had in the set, not any of the other forty serves in the second set after the warning. And the stats frickin' show the stupidity! He was breaking the rule of every frickin' serve.

I totally agree with Courier on this point. It's a bad rule, a REALLY bad rule.

Better would be to give one or two warnings, then take away a serve. Don't take a way a point, don't default a player. Simply continue to take away a serve, and do it EVERY TIME. No one is going to continue to give away his first serve. Nadal can adjust. He did in the last set.

But it has to be visible so that when a violation is given, we can see that it was done fairly. When someone gets a foot fault they show a replay to see if it really looks like the foot went over. I'd like to see foot faults reviewed with something like Hawkeye - if they can get that technology. I think Hawkeye is great.

If Bernard or another ump gets a stick up his a@# the way the system is set up now that ump can get vindictive. He might start the clock differently for two different players. Or he might let one player go over a few times, but not the other. He might throw a violation at one player who is at 21 seconds, at another for being at 23.

We don't know. As a spectator I want to be able to judge the fairness of an umpire. With Hawkeye we can do that. If an ump over-rules a call at the wrong time, and Hawkeye confirms he is wrong, we can see it. If an ump says a shot is good, and replay shows that it bounced twice before it was hit, we can see it. But if an ump starts a timer early or late, we don't know.

I'm not about to assume fairness when there is no proof of fairness.

I love tennis. Hawkeye is the greatest thing since sliced bread, but these umpires are absolutely humiliating themselves and mocking a mockery of the sport.

I agree, but I would also say that the sport has put umps in an untenable position. It is a mess.

 

[Bartelby]

Nadal is happy to forfeit a serve to retain his rituals so why can't his fans be happy with 'the deal' he's done?

 

[Bartelby]

The point that people forget is that the time violation rule is a rule that does not involve the ball in play.

It is merely to start a point, so why the hell do we need to know whether the umpire is timing things fairly?

It's not a foot fault or a line call. It's just about getting the horses to the starting gate.

We just need him to keep the players playing.

 

[Gary Duane]

The shot clock would be the most fair for all players. Even Andy acknowledged that players don't know how long it's been, which I told you a while back. You of course weren't sharp enough to realize it and were quite hard headed as usual. I don't need the majority to agree with me either, Im not a sheep.

Note that Barelby flat out lies, which is why it is so vexing trying to have a conversation with him.

In every topic about some kind of visible time clock (which does not mean a sound or something invasive) he makes the same claim - that no one wants a clock.

The reason it is a lie is that in every thread there are at least as many people who want a clock as do not want it.

And he knows that. He's not stupid. He just likes to play games.

 

[Gary Duane]

The point that people forget is that the time violation rule is a rule that does not involve the ball in play.

It is merely to start a point, so why the hell do we need to know whether the umpire is timing things fairly?

I don't know. If people have power, are in charge, and they are not totally honest, what could possibly go wrong?

 

[Bartelby]

A shot clock is not necessary, whether it makes a noise or not, because no shots are being made.

It would be a serve clock and I don't see the need to know whether someone is timed fairly or not.

The player should and does know how to keep within the time limit and Nadal just prefers to take more time and wear the penalty.

 

[MichaelNadal]

Couldn't agree more. If you want to enforce it, enforce it every time someone goes over the time limit, which would obviously be a disaster or don't enforce it at all. I don't understand this tactic of waiting for the most important moments to call it. I can understand if someone is trying to deliberately waste over a minute between serves but is there really a difference between taking 20 seconds and say 28 seconds? It was never a big deal until 2012 and then they tried to fix a system which was not broken in the first and made it worse.

Couldn't have said it better myself.

 

[Bartelby]

It's a serve to start a point.

There's more unfairness currently in the late call situation.

And this is one that is hardly talked about.

I don't know. If people have power, are in charge, and they are not totally honest, what could possibly go wrong?

 

[Bartelby]

Do I get a raise with the promotion?

Farewell, you have just promoted yourself to the ignore list.

 

[Gary Duane]

The shot clock is a profoundly stupid idea supported by next to no one.

The shot clock would be the most fair for all players. Even Andy acknowledged that players don't know how long it's been, which I told you a while back. You of course weren't sharp enough to realize it and were quite hard headed as usual. I don't need the majority to agree with me either, Im not a sheep.

There's two of us who support a shot clock. If you are so sure that next to no one wants one, I dare you to start a poll and find out if you are right.

 

[Gary Duane]

It's a serve to start a point.

There's more unfairness currently in the late call situation.

And this is one that is hardly talked about.

Start a thread on that. You will find a lot of people who think that's awful too. I'm one of them. A ball hits the line, the opposing player makes a play on it, nets it, then a lines person calls it out - when a playback clearly shows that the ball was hit before the wrong call.

I saw it happen the other day in a Serena/Azarenka match. I'm not a fan of either, but it was a horrible call that may have changed the whole match.

At least we could see that the ump blew the call. There was a replay that showed clearly that Serena heard nothing until after she hit the ball. She may not have know that. But we did.

I don't want that stuff in the dark where we can't at least see that something unfair took place.

 

[Gary Duane]

do i get a raise with the promotion?

lololololol!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!