Injury Time Out Rule

[dh003i]

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. You don't know that players are "abusing" the rule at all. That's nothing more than a personal belief.

When players take MTOs on other player's serves, during key moments in a match, don't ever take them when they're ahead, come on, it is just common sense.

If there is a loophole that can be abused, there are going to be unscrupulous players who will abuse it.

Irrelevant of what you think, the opportunity for abuse exists. A game penalty would counteract that, and is completely appropriate.

 

[dh003i]

When players take MTOs on other player's serves, during key moments in a match, don't ever take them when they're ahead, come on, it is just common sense.

If there is a loophole that can be abused, there are going to be unscrupulous players who will abuse it.

Irrelevant of what you think, the opportunity for abuse exists. A game penalty would counteract that, and is completely appropriate.

also, as has been stated before, there is no other sport where the momentum can be halted out of character to the rest of the game due to an injury.

 

[Mustard]

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.

I'm pretty sure back in 1995, that you couldn't have any treatment for cramps during the change of ends either. It was treated as a lack of condition, and the player's fault.

 

[Mustard]

When players take MTOs on other player's serves, during key moments in a match, don't ever take them when they're ahead, come on, it is just common sense.

If there is a loophole that can be abused, there are going to be unscrupulous players who will abuse it.

Irrelevant of what you think, the opportunity for abuse exists. A game penalty would counteract that, and is completely appropriate.

When you're ahead:

1. You want to keep the momentum going
2. Your morale is better, so you don't feel the pain as much

When things are going wrong, you feel the pain much more.

 

[dh003i]

I'm pretty sure back in 1995, that you couldn't have any treatment for cramps during the change of ends either. It was treated as a lack of condition, and the player's fault.

Which I honestly think is how it should be treated.

 

[dh003i]

When you're ahead:

1. You want to keep the momentum going
2. Your morale is better, so you don't feel the pain as much

When things are going wrong, you feel the pain much more.

#1 clearly points to abuse, #2 is just psychological and entirely subjective.

You aren't making a good case for yourself. You're basically saying that players will systematically not take MTOs when they are doing better, as they don't want to disrupt their rhythm and give their opponent a chance to regroup, but systematically will take them when they are doing worse to throw off their opponent's momentum (stop the momentum).

 

[Mustard]

#1 clearly points to abuse, #2 is just psychological and entirely subjective.

You aren't making a good case for yourself. You're basically saying that players will systematically not take MTOs when they are doing better, as they don't want to disrupt their rhythm and give their opponent a chance to regroup, but systematically will take them when they are doing worse to throw off their opponent's momentum (stop the momentum).

Did you see Matsuoka at the 1995 US Open? Do you want those sort of scenes to return to tennis just because you have a personal belief (not a fact) that MTOs are being used "strategically"?

 

[Bartelby]

Cramping does not get you an MTO, but you can get a rubdown, so they are irrelevant when re-assessing the rules.

No one would have begrudged Nadal a rubdown for his twinge.

 

[Kalin]

Did you see Matsuoka at the 1995 US Open? Do you want those sort of scenes to return to tennis just because you have a personal belief (not a fact) that MTOs are being used "strategically"?

So we should allow all sorts of MTO abuses because one guy cramped on court once almost 20 years ago?? Come on now...

 

[dh003i]

Did you see Matsuoka at the 1995 US Open? Do you want those sort of scenes to return to tennis just because you have a personal belief (not a fact) that MTOs are being used "strategically"?

This is just FUD.

A game penalty is far from forfeiting a match, so if it were a real issue a player would take the MTO. Or maybe they'd play through it, their choice.

 

[Bartelby]

We had the Azarenka farce last year and the Nadal one this year, so there needs to be some sort of review.

 

[Mustard]

So we should allow all sorts of MTO abuses because one guy cramped on court once almost 20 years ago?? You can't be serious...

You make it sound so simple. The Matsuoka situation was the straw that broke the camel's back, because he was left to suffer for some time after the default had happened, and it had already gotten bad in the match itself. If you cramped, no treatment was allowed of any kind, and if you couldn't keep time, you got defaulted. That had always been the rule beforehand.

 

[Mustard]

This is just FUD.

A game penalty is far from forfeiting a match, so if it were a real issue a player would take the MTO. Or maybe they'd play through it, their choice.

A game penalty, based on nothing more than a hunch, is preferable to a MTO? Nope, I don't think so.

 

[Bartelby]

The main proposal is for a point penalty and this would encourage treatment during changeovers and sets rather than MTOs. It's worth a trial at the highest level.

 

[dh003i]

A game penalty, based on nothing more than a hunch, is preferable to a MTO? Nope, I don't think so.

It isn't based on a hunch. It really doesn't matter whether the player is abusing the rule or not in their intentions. It disrupts the flow of the game and can throw the opposing player off their game, which is unfair. There is no reason why the player who isn't hurt should be penalized.

Hence, a game penalty is an appropriate way to deal with it. Take an MTO for strategic reasons or not, you lose a game.

 

[Bartelby]

Maybe a 2 point penalty would be enough if 1 did not work, but a game is a step too far without research into the effects of a smaller change.

 

[dh003i]

Maybe a 2 point penalty would be enough if 1 did not work, but a game is a step too far without research into the effects of a smaller change.

Probably a good idea. It might also be a good idea for the penalty to be different depending the scoreline in the current game.

 

[Bartelby]

That would be a very subjective and controversial call.

A penalty is different however if you are serving as opposed to receiving.

But it's best to ignore such complications as they make things unworkable.

Probably a good idea. It might also be a good idea for the penalty to be different depending the scoreline in the current game.

 

[woodrow1029]

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?

There have not been MTO's for cramping for about 4 years now. CHangeover treatment is allowed on 2 complete changeovers only.

 

[Kalin]

You make it sound so simple. The Matsuoka situation was the straw that broke the camel's back, because he was left to suffer for some time after the default had happened, and it had already gotten bad in the match itself. If you cramped, no treatment was allowed of any kind, and if you couldn't keep time, you got defaulted. That had always been the rule beforehand.

I haven't seen the situation and I'm sure you're right. However, it was one isolated accident where the rule was probably taken to the extreme. That was my point.

There is no easy call on MTO's. You ban them, people will have to default more often thus hurting the spectacle. You allow them, they get abused....

 

[Kalin]

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.

What if he gets accidentally beheaded?

 

[Kalin]

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.

Unfortunately, even this may not help. As an independent doctor, would you want to be the guy who waved off Rafa's supposedly fake injury just for him to get really crippled afterwards and then sue you into oblivion. Even independent doctors will most likely take the safe option and agree to a treatment.

 

[esgee48]

I disagree with this point. The rules of the tournament can be amended to use an independent Dr. You waived the right to sue for any reason even if you disagree with the Dr. Let's say the Dr says No injury. You disagree. Now it's back in your court to continue play or retire. It's the player's choice. If the player is dumb enough to continue play when he/she thinks they're really injured (irrespective of Dr.'s opinion), then I think it's their own fault to continue.

 

[Bartelby]

The doctor suggestion suffers from the same problem as the trainer. The only way to go is point penalties.