Injury Time Out Rule

Rabbit

Rabbit

G.O.A.T.
The current Injury Time Out rule is clearly being abused. Players are using it to "ice" their opponent, take a break, leave the court, or just stop play because they feel it's in their best interest. One has to wonder what percentage of the time outs taken are actually for injuries. There have been numerous WTA players who've pointed out their fellow players who abuse the rule. In my opinion, Victoria Azarenka wouldn't have won the AO last year had it not been for a bogus injury time out.

I have a suggestion, one that is radical and sure to be controversial, but one that cannot be used to an advantage or gamesmanship. Let's call it:

The Loss of Conditioning Rule

If a player, for any reason, is unable to continue a match within the prescribed time limit, he/she should default. The only exception to this rule is if the chair umpire sees a flagrant injury and then the trainer can be called once for three minutes.

This may sound harsh, but tennis has gone too far in my opinion and allowed players to stall, ice, throw off, and generally cheat their opponents by using the rule. It is time that the rule be instituted to stop this.

Today's players have more access to physios and more technology in their favor than at any time before. If they cannot prepare themselves to play, then they should not play. The Aussies of yesterday said "If you enter, you play...if you're injured you don't enter". I think it's high time we reverted to that.

This is not a commentary on whether Nadal was faking his injury or not. It is, however, an observation on how his time out affected a player who was clearly on top of his game and winning handily. If Nadal was really hurt, and I suspect he was, he should have continued until he couldn't. That decision is for him alone to make, just as his tactics during the match are his decision alone.

Included is an article written by Pat Cash on this topic:

http://www.patcash.co.uk/2012/01/how-tennis-players-cheat/
 
A much better idea, and more doable politically, is to simply deduct a point for taking an MTO under whatever circumstance.

This is an idea from the Economist that I introduced in another thread.
 
I don't think there's any chance of implementing a rule that would stop a match in its tracks and send millions of viewers out the door grumpy.
 
why not just have a Overall Time Out you can call anytime... but you straightaway lose 1 game every 5 mins or part thereof? :) neat & simple!
 
Agree with OP, if you don't follow time constraints (playing the next point) you should be penalized accordingly then defaulted. Get treated all you want during changeovers in the normal allotted time.
 
A time out is unnecessary and if used for other than medical conditions what happens if one arises?

The punters want the show to go on.
 
Bartelby said:
A much better idea, and more doable politically, is to simply deduct a point for taking an MTO under whatever circumstance.

This is an idea from the Economist that I introduced in another thread.
Click to expand...

Nadal has a chronic condition. You guys are so hard on someone having a handicap.
 
There is nothing wrong with the MTO rule. We don't want to go back to the sort of situation where Shuzo Matsuoka was cramping against Petr Korda at the 1995 US Open, and got defaulted for being unable to keep time during the match.
 
Were there MTO's years ago? Why do I have the feeling it is a recent thing. I don't recall so many interventions before... but maybe I'm wrong.

There is no one rule that everyone will be happy with but it is clear the MTOs are being frequently abused. Overall, I agree with Rabbit's view: if you're injured you have the option a) to continue as is or b) to forfeit

Loss of points is also an idea. 1 point per 1 minute of MTO?
 
First of all, as it was pointed out, they are never going to do away with medical timeouts because injuries that can be treated would go untreated, and more matches would end in retirements.

Secondly, for loss of conditioning, cramping, heat-related illnesses, there are no medical timeouts allowed. That was a big step, because now for cramping players can only get changeover treatment on 2 complete changeovers.

Thirdly, you can't have the chair umpires be in charge of making medical determinations as to whether it is a legitimate injury. That is what the trainers are for. So if there was a doubt, play would still have to be stopped for the trainer/doctor to come out and see if it is a "flagrant" injury.

The point penalty is not a bad idea. Men's college Division 1 tennis has implemented that rule, and I think it has greatly cut down on the amount of MTO's in college tennis.
 
woodrow1029 said:
First of all, as it was pointed out, they are never going to do away with medical timeouts because injuries that can be treated would go untreated, and more matches would end in retirements.

Secondly, for loss of conditioning, cramping, heat-related illnesses, there are no medical timeouts allowed. That was a big step, because now for cramping players can only get changeover treatment on 2 complete changeovers.

Thirdly, you can't have the chair umpires be in charge of making medical determinations as to whether it is a legitimate injury. That is what the trainers are for. So if there was a doubt, play would still have to be stopped for the trainer/doctor to come out and see if it is a "flagrant" injury.

The point penalty is not a bad idea. Men's college Division 1 tennis has implemented that rule, and I think it has greatly cut down on the amount of MTO's in college tennis.
Click to expand...

Thanks for explaining this. Still, isn't an MTO supposed to be only three minutes? Or is that just something I've heard/read. Is there an upper time limit higher than 3 minutes? And if that's get broken, is there a consequence?

I agree with a point or game penalty.
Perhaps like this: If you take it as the opponent is about to serve, you receive a game penalty (i.e. he does not need to serve anymore). If you do it before your own service game, you either receive a 0-15 or 0-30 start. That would cut down on the questionable MTO's.
 
Chanwan said:
Thanks for explaining this. Still, isn't an MTO supposed to be only three minutes? Or is that just something I've heard/read. Is there an upper time limit higher than 3 minutes? And if that's get broken, is there a consequence?

I agree with a point or game penalty.
Perhaps like this: If you take it as the opponent is about to serve, you receive a game penalty (i.e. he does not need to serve anymore). If you do it before your own service game, you either receive a 0-15 or 0-30 start. That would cut down on the questionable MTO's.
Click to expand...
The actual treatment time is limited to 3 minutes. But, the evaluation time is "reasonable time" to diagnose the injury.
 
And the actual treatment time often lasts longer than three minutes, so the rule reads hard but plays soft.
 
woodrow1029 said:
Thirdly, you can't have the chair umpires be in charge of making medical determinations as to whether it is a legitimate injury. That is what the trainers are for. So if there was a doubt, play would still have to be stopped for the trainer/doctor to come out and see if it is a "flagrant" injury.
Click to expand...

Problem is, as per the article quoted, the trainers basically work for the players. If a trainer makes a determination then he/she could get a bad rap from the players. I've not seen too many trainers refuse to treat. I can't remember one refuse to treat a top player. Azarenka's "injury" comes to mind.

On this, I agree with Cash. There should be an independent doctor who is not employed by either tour to make a determination.

woodrow1029 said:
The point penalty is not a bad idea. Men's college Division 1 tennis has implemented that rule, and I think it has greatly cut down on the amount of MTO's in college tennis.
Click to expand...

I too think this is a reasonable solution. However, in conjunction with this, a "shot" clock should be installed on court indicating the time between points. The chair then would be taken out of the decision. This goes hand in hand with the current problem of stalling and gamesmanship.
 
Bartelby said:
And the actual treatment time often lasts longer than three minutes, so the rule reads hard but plays soft.
Click to expand...
The treatment time is limited to three minutes. That doesn't mean that the player gets the whole three minutes if treatment is complete within that time. Once treatment is complete, or three minutes elapses, the player has 30 seconds to play. The player has time to put socks/shoes on that is not counted as part of the 30 seconds. In other words, if there is an ankle injury, and the treatment takes the entire 3 minutes, the player still has time to get the shoes/socks on without being penalized/warned.

If treatment is done in 60 seconds, the player needs to be ready at 90 (unless it is at a setbreak, then he gets an extra 30 seconds).
 
I saw Sharapova leave the court and come back in a new dress. I wonder if she showered.
Rabbit said:
The current Injury Time Out rule is clearly being abused. Players are using it to "ice" their opponent, take a break, leave the court, or just stop play because they feel it's in their best interest. One has to wonder what percentage of the time outs taken are actually for injuries. There have been numerous WTA players who've pointed out their fellow players who abuse the rule. In my opinion, Victoria Azarenka wouldn't have won the AO last year had it not been for a bogus injury time out.

I have a suggestion, one that is radical and sure to be controversial, but one that cannot be used to an advantage or gamesmanship. Let's call it:

The Loss of Conditioning Rule

If a player, for any reason, is unable to continue a match within the prescribed time limit, he/she should default. The only exception to this rule is if the chair umpire sees a flagrant injury and then the trainer can be called once for three minutes.

This may sound harsh, but tennis has gone too far in my opinion and allowed players to stall, ice, throw off, and generally cheat their opponents by using the rule. It is time that the rule be instituted to stop this.

Today's players have more access to physios and more technology in their favor than at any time before. If they cannot prepare themselves to play, then they should not play. The Aussies of yesterday said "If you enter, you play...if you're injured you don't enter". I think it's high time we reverted to that.

This is not a commentary on whether Nadal was faking his injury or not. It is, however, an observation on how his time out affected a player who was clearly on top of his game and winning handily. If Nadal was really hurt, and I suspect he was, he should have continued until he couldn't. That decision is for him alone to make, just as his tactics during the match are his decision alone.

Included is an article written by Pat Cash on this topic:

http://www.patcash.co.uk/2012/01/how-tennis-players-cheat/
Click to expand...
 
Has there been studies done, or statistics kept, on how long they actually last in reality?



woodrow1029 said:
The treatment time is limited to three minutes. That doesn't mean that the player gets the whole three minutes if treatment is complete within that time. Once treatment is complete, or three minutes elapses, the player has 30 seconds to play. The player has time to put socks/shoes on that is not counted as part of the 30 seconds. In other words, if there is an ankle injury, and the treatment takes the entire 3 minutes, the player still has time to get the shoes/socks on without being penalized/warned.

If treatment is done in 60 seconds, the player needs to be ready at 90 (unless it is at a setbreak, then he gets an extra 30 seconds).
Click to expand...
 
i can see both sides--


1- a player might feel an injury and think they are capable of continuing-- this is where the "assessment" to me is important IF the trainer can detect a more serious issue they can tell them that playing on could cause a serious injury-- to me this is THE only reason for the trainer to come out-- to consult the player and tell them they arent going to tear a ligament or something apart by continuing.

2_ there should be some penalty invoked for any mto-- its not the opponents fault- if you run them around enough and they hurt themselves the timeout lets them heal- at least a minimum loss of first serve just as any time violation- and every XX minute of MTO is a point- so for any extension of time you lose points- then there is an incentive to be quick - if you are injured and the MTO enables you to continue the match thats better even if you lose one point for every 2 or 3 minutes thats the price you pay .

azarenkas AO last year with 2 injuries at the same time was a joke-- 10 minutes and came out and didnt "seem" injured- i think hers was a mental timeout..

there shouldnt be any "leaving the court" you want to continue then you get your massage or whatever on court in front of everyone- a trainer can feel the muscles and rub under the clothes..
 
Making the chair determine a "flagrant" injury is dangerous. He/she does not have the medical skills. For example, looking at the blood from Rafa's blisters, I would have thought it was a flagrant injury, but he defeated Dimitrov with it. On the other hand, I might easily miss serious conditions that I cannot see.
 
I don't think a MTO should be an automatic point penalty, but I definitely think players should be penalized for taking additional time beyond what's alloted. Like every 20 seconds extra is a point penalty (since technically that's how long players have between points).
 
sureshs said:
Making the chair determine a "flagrant" injury is dangerous. He/she does not have the medical skills. For example, looking at the blood from Rafa's blisters, I would have thought it was a flagrant injury, but he defeated Dimitrov with it. On the other hand, I might easily miss serious conditions that I cannot see.
Click to expand...

My point in that phrase was that if the chair saw a player roll an ankle, then there would be no question of an injury. However, the final arbiter of any pain has to be the player. In my view, the player can either continue or cannot. If he cannot, then he should forfeit.
 
I think with the ticket prices being so high people want to see a match. So players can pretty much do whatever they want.
 
Tamiya said:
why not just have a Overall Time Out you can call anytime... but you straightaway lose 1 game every 5 mins or part thereof? :) neat & simple!
Click to expand...

I say just grant 2 ten minute time outs per match that the player can use for any reason...if they choose to use them to "ice" their opponent, then they risk not having their use for an injury. Caveat being you can't use 2 timeouts within 4 games.

Near the end of the match, this could build tension as players "ice" the other player looking to serve out the match, and you eliminate the whole fake injury thing that Nadal is obviously guilty of on numerous occasions, unless you think he's never been losing a match that he wasn't injured in.
 
I would not mind the proposals to have an independent Dr. determine if injury is real; MTO = loss of 1 game plus 1 point for every additional minute up to a max of 10 minutes; if Dr is called, then an MTO is invoked; after 10 minutes, default.

Cramps and heat prostrations, etc. don't count as these are loss of conditioning.

I would also like the use of a shot clock, say 25 seconds after the end of the last point. No excuses allowed.

While we're opining, focus a camera on the player's boxes and see if the coach is tipping or signaling. 1st time is a warning. 2nd time is loss of game. 3rd time is default.

2 cents.
 
tennisaddict said:
I say 1 game penalty.

You have a foot fault and lose a point, so it has to be something more.
Click to expand...

That is too harsh. Besides a fault is 1/2 point.

You don't want the penalty too harsh so that the likes of Azarenka and Nadal choose to play through career threatening injuries. Crying wolf or not they are good tennis players.
 
moonballs said:
That is too harsh. Besides a fault is 1/2 point.

You don't want the penalty too harsh so that the likes of Azarenka and Nadal choose to play through career threatening injuries. Crying wolf or not they are good tennis players.
Click to expand...

If you suspect you are not well, you got to retire.

I cannot think of any other professional sport that has such a 'hole' in the rule , that is being abused by Nadal .

Imagine halting the momentum of a football , basketball , swimming ?
 
Cash's item says you can't receive treatment for cramp yet you can and have been able to call for the trainer/doctor for years now to get medication for cramp. Does he just mean treatment in terms of massage or manipulation?
 
Rabbit said:
My point in that phrase was that if the chair saw a player roll an ankle, then there would be no question of an injury. However, the final arbiter of any pain has to be the player. In my view, the player can either continue or cannot. If he cannot, then he should forfeit.
Click to expand...

What if he feels better with some strapping, massage and sprays? If he goes on to win, we will say he faked the injury, while he will say that the treatment did the job. Again, only a medical person can take a good guess as to which one is true.

2 weeks ago, I was injured in the chest with a freak injury. I was on 800 mg ibuprofens and painkillers. I would have trouble sleeping at night due to the pain, then get up and actually play an hour of tennis without problem, and then I would come back and collapse again, unable to move my left hand. I cannot explain how I was able to play.
 
Mustard said:
There is nothing wrong with the MTO rule. We don't want to go back to the sort of situation where Shuzo Matsuoka was cramping against Petr Korda at the 1995 US Open, and got defaulted for being unable to keep time during the match.
Click to expand...

Actually this is exactly what we want. Then the cheating from Nadal will stop.
 
if the injury is so bad that u shouldnt keep playing then u should retire ......i like the lose 1 game and lose one point every extra minute

that said Cheatdal will figure out how to exploit it to the max
 
You nadal haters are lucky that nadal's injuries had not been serious.

I tell you, if nadal ever breaks a leg during a match, he will call MTO, go to the hospital, have surgery, then rehab/physio, and come back to finish the match. That's how intense he is. He will never give up a match.
 
tennisaddict said:
Nadal has a chronic condition. You guys are so hard on someone having a handicap.
Click to expand...
His chronic condition had nothing to do with his injury in the AO final. His "knees" and his "blisters" were not the issue. He apparently tweaked his back during the match in the second set. That's not a chronic anything. And, as the OP very clearly stated:
This is not a commentary on whether Nadal was faking his injury or not. It is, however, an observation on how his time out affected a player who was clearly on top of his game and winning handily. If Nadal was really hurt, and I suspect he was, he should have continued until he couldn't. That decision is for him alone to make, just as his tactics during the match are his decision alone.
Click to expand...
 
I agree there has to be some penalty for MTO. Simply, because the player who is waiting is getting iced for no fault of his own and in the case where he/she has been winning, is at risk of losing momentum. We all saw how Stan lost concentration and had to re-group after Nadal's time out.

Also, I think the penalty has to be a game that matters. So someone who is losing 1-5 in a set does not take medical time out thinking that the penalty would not make any difference.
 
They should deduct a point per minute that you exceed for an injury timeout.
So, 4 minutes extra = 1 lost game.. 24 minutes = set..

You will see guys who limped off court come back sprinting :)
 
Rabbit said:
The current Injury Time Out rule is clearly being abused. Players are using it to "ice" their opponent, take a break, leave the court, or just stop play because they feel it's in their best interest. One has to wonder what percentage of the time outs taken are actually for injuries. There have been numerous WTA players who've pointed out their fellow players who abuse the rule. In my opinion, Victoria Azarenka wouldn't have won the AO last year had it not been for a bogus injury time out.

I have a suggestion, one that is radical and sure to be controversial, but one that cannot be used to an advantage or gamesmanship. Let's call it:

The Loss of Conditioning Rule

If a player, for any reason, is unable to continue a match within the prescribed time limit, he/she should default. The only exception to this rule is if the chair umpire sees a flagrant injury and then the trainer can be called once for three minutes.

This may sound harsh, but tennis has gone too far in my opinion and allowed players to stall, ice, throw off, and generally cheat their opponents by using the rule. It is time that the rule be instituted to stop this.

Today's players have more access to physios and more technology in their favor than at any time before. If they cannot prepare themselves to play, then they should not play. The Aussies of yesterday said "If you enter, you play...if you're injured you don't enter". I think it's high time we reverted to that.

This is not a commentary on whether Nadal was faking his injury or not. It is, however, an observation on how his time out affected a player who was clearly on top of his game and winning handily. If Nadal was really hurt, and I suspect he was, he should have continued until he couldn't. That decision is for him alone to make, just as his tactics during the match are his decision alone.

Included is an article written by Pat Cash on this topic:

http://www.patcash.co.uk/2012/01/how-tennis-players-cheat/
Click to expand...

Interesting thread, Rabbit. I always hope the players have enough sportsmanship not to abuse injury timeouts--and if they do abuse the rules, that other players will call them out on it like many did with Djokovic--but I'm unsure if that's enough.

I guess the part I don't like is Nadal leaving the court and play stopping not on the changeover. I could see the trainer coming out during the changeover or in the event that it's something serious that's observed (obvious examples: a player fainting due to heat or a player taking a bad spill into the net post or something along those lines).

On the other hand, I don't want players to get hurt.
 
Yes, it has the virtue of simplicity and penalizing by the minute is not a sensible idea. It makes a player think twice and apparently has reduced MTOs where introduced.



moonballs said:
I like the Bart/Economist idea: 3min MTO approved by trainer =1point penalty. Problem solved.
Click to expand...
 
How many short MTOs in practice as opposed to overly long ones?



woodrow1029 said:
The treatment time is limited to three minutes. That doesn't mean that the player gets the whole three minutes if treatment is complete within that time. Once treatment is complete, or three minutes elapses, the player has 30 seconds to play. The player has time to put socks/shoes on that is not counted as part of the 30 seconds. In other words, if there is an ankle injury, and the treatment takes the entire 3 minutes, the player still has time to get the shoes/socks on without being penalized/warned.

If treatment is done in 60 seconds, the player needs to be ready at 90 (unless it is at a setbreak, then he gets an extra 30 seconds).
Click to expand...
 
The players already have access to medical treatment outside MTOs:


d. Medical Treatment
A player may receive on-court medical treatment and/or supplies from the Physiotherapist/Athletic Trainer and/or Tournament Doctor during any changeover or set break. As a guideline, such medical treatment should be limited to two (2) changeovers/set breaks for each treatable medical condition, before or after a Medical Time-Out, and need not be consecutive. Players may not receive medical treatment for non-treatable medical conditions.
 
Mustard said:
There is nothing wrong with the MTO rule. We don't want to go back to the sort of situation where Shuzo Matsuoka was cramping against Petr Korda at the 1995 US Open, and got defaulted for being unable to keep time during the match.
Click to expand...

There certainly is something wrong with the MTO rule when players are abusing it and it throws off the other player.

I completely agree with sacrificing a game. That creates a natural disincentive against selectively abusing the MTO rule.
 
dh003i said:
There certainly is something wrong with the MTO rule when players are abusing it and it throws off the other player.

I completely agree with sacrificing a game. That creates a natural disincentive against selectively abusing the MTO rule.
Click to expand...

I totally disagree. Matsuoka was left writhing in pain on the court, even after being defaulted, because his cramps were treated as his own fault. Eventually, he was attended to. I don't want those sort of scenes coming back. You don't know that players are "abusing" the MTO rule at all. That's nothing more than a personal belief.
 
Strangely enough, crampinng won't get you an MTO because it was systematically abused as well.

Muscle Cramping: A player may receive treatment for muscle cramping only during the time allotted for change of ends and/or set breaks. Players may not receive a Medical Time-Out for muscle cramping.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

Rabbit
The Rules and Injury Time Outs
Replies
12
Views
7K
coloskier
C
TechnoJock
Injury / Medical Timeout
Replies
0
Views
1K
TechnoJock
TechnoJock
NandoMania
New cramping rule at Australian Open
Replies
2
Views
1K
CanadianChic
CanadianChic
Aussie Darcy
  • Poll Poll
Kyrgios is denied a medical time out and yet Harrison is allowed to leave court to change clothes
2 3
Replies
109
Views
8K
Deleted member 742196
D
jamesblakefan#1
Injury Time-Outs Are a Tour Epidemic
2
Replies
55
Views
3K
Underhand
Underhand
Back
Top