It is amazing what a tennis player can do

yuccachix

New User
The umpire who defied Rafael Nadal pays the price
May 22, 2015 - 8:00AM


By SIMON BRIGGS

As Rafael Nadal prepares to defend his French Open crown in Paris next week, his time-wasting is making a mockery of the tennis rulebook.

Carlos Bernardes, the last umpire to seriously challenge Nadal on this point, has been withdrawn from Nadal's matches since and is unlikely to officiate him at Roland Garros.

The bad blood between the two dates back to February 22, and the semi-final of the Rio Open. Bernardes followed the letter of the law by handing Nadal two time violation penalties for exceeding the 25-second limit between points, the second of which cost him a first serve. In a Spanish exchange captured by the courtside microphones, a furious Nadal then told Bernardes: "I will make sure that you don't arbitrate me anymore." Clearly agitated, he went on to lose to Fabio Fognini in three sets.


The bad blood between Rafael Nadal and Carlos Bernardes goes back several months. Photo: AFP
Nadal has played 24 matches since, on a men's tour which has nine "elite" umpires. Bernardes, who ranks highly within that group, would have been available for 20 of them. Significantly, though, he has not been called upon.

The Association of Tennis Professionals, which runs the tour, told The Telegraph "a number of factors are taken into consideration in the [umpire] selection process, including badge qualifications, nationality, as well as any previous history or incidents".

It is hardly news that umpires tend to be kept away from players with whom they have had a recent disagreement.

In most cases, however, the row tends to be over a one-off issue such as a line call or a double bounce. Former ATP umpire Richard Ings told The Telegraph that, during the 1990s, he had not officiated any matches involving Ivan Lendl for a year after a bust-up over an overrule on match point.

What makes the Nadal situation different is that his poor timekeeping has been a constant issue throughout his career; an issue that the authorities have purported to address, without ever actually doing so.

At the beginning of 2013, the ATP announced it was trying to crack down on violations of the 25-second rule, in a response to the six-hour Australian Open final between Nadal and his great rival Novak Djokovic the previous year.

But here we have an umpire who has actually applied the rule, only to be kept away from Nadal's matches since. After such a precedent, it is hardly surprising Nadal has not been penalised by the loss of a first serve since that day in Rio. He has received a first warning - the shot across the bows - on several occasions in the past three months, but nothing substantive.

ATP umpires might recall the case of Jeremy Shales, the British official who had a huge falling-out with Jimmy Connors at the Lipton Championships in 1986, then found that his contract was not renewed the following year.

The incident highlighted a fundamental weakness in a sport where the officials are effectively employed by the players. (The ATP is constituted as a 50-50 alliance between players and tournaments.)

Nadal was asked about the Rio situation in a press conference a few weeks later in Indian Wells. Bernardes was "not fair enough the last couple of times", he replied.

"He has been putting more pressure on me than other umpires. For me it is not right [when] you see players doing bad words, breaking rackets, doing shows on court, and that's less important than five seconds late, six seconds late? Sorry, I cannot accept that, I cannot say that's right.

"I know I am little bit slow, but in Rio the weather conditions ??? I finish every match and my hand was like I have been two hours in the jacuzzi."

It is true that tennis has a variety of rules which are only patchily enforced, the "audible obscenity" call standing high on the list. In a sport that treasures its gentlemanly image, umpires are reluctant to cause a scene. In a typical incident in Estoril last month, Nick Kyrgios hit a ball out of the stadium - "ball abuse" - during a final-set tie-break, and should technically have lost the match there and then, as he had already been docked a point. Yet umpire Fergus Murphy chose to turn a blind eye.

Still, as Sky analyst Barry Cowan points out: "Rules are rules and this isn't a grey area. We often see Nadal getting a first warning, and it's usually on a big point - when he's serving for the set perhaps - as if the umpires want so say, 'Hey, we're getting tough here'. But then they don't take the next step. Whereas when Marcel Granollers cramped up in a match in Madrid the other day and couldn't get into position, bang: point gone. We heard Dimitry Tursunov say it during a match last year: it's one rule for Rafa and one for everyone else."

Nadal is generally perceived to have quickened up his pace of play slightly in the last couple of seasons. He now takes only one towel to the back of the court for sweat removal, where it used to be two. But he still remains the man most likely to spill over the stipulated 25 seconds.

In Rome last week, he was regularly arriving at the service line after 22 seconds had already elapsed, and only then embarking on his characteristic series of tics: the plucking of the shorts, the touch of the nose and the eyebrows.

ATP officials are understood to have passed a message on to his coach and uncle, Toni Nadal, insisting that he needs to be up at the service line more quickly.

All eyes will now be on Nadal's matches in Paris next week. In theory, the grand slams operate a stricter policy of 20 seconds between points. But in practice - as in so many instances in this often quixotic sport - the rule is rarely enforced.


Copyright © 2015 Fairfax Media
 
It's always been a stupid rule. It was stupid in 1988 when Wilander was beating Lendl 6-4, 4-1 in the US Open final and was then given a time violation. The next thing, Wilander has lost 5 games in a row.
 
There was a beautiful thread about this, but it disappeared as mysteriously as Carlos Bernardes' chances of umpiring at Roland Garros. Arrangements have been made. Be careful, you are dealing with forces you can't understand.

omerta.jpg
 
Last edited:
It's always been a stupid rule. It was stupid in 1988 when Wilander was beating Lendl 6-4, 4-1 in the US Open final and was then given a time violation. The next thing, Wilander has lost 5 games in a row.

Do spectators really want to watch players picking shorts or bouncing balls for hours on end?

It's a good rule. There should be a shot clock that gets started by the umpire after the end of a point (to allow some leverage for specially long points). If the serve is not hit before the timer expires, they get an automatic warning, then they lose a serve.

Boom, problem solved.
 
Do spectators really want to watch players picking shorts or bouncing balls for hours on end?

It's a good rule. There should be a shot clock that gets started by the umpire after the end of a point (to allow some leverage for specially long points). If the serve is not hit before the timer expires, they get an automatic warning, then they lose a serve.

Boom, problem solved.

If there's a shot clock, expect audiences to start shouting "5, 4, 3, 2, 1". That's not tennis, but ridiculous bureaucracy. The fact is, in any sport, some players are fast paced, some players are medium paced, and some players are slow paced. Nadal is slow paced. He is slow and good. It's his natural game.

The people who go on and on and on about the rule, are not tennis fans. They are just pushing ridiculous bureaucracy.
 
If there's a shot clock, expect audiences to start shouting "5, 4, 3, 2, 1". That's not tennis, but ridiculous bureaucracy. The fact is, in any sport, some players are fast paced, some players are medium paced, and some players are slow paced. Nadal is slow paced. He is slow and good. It's his natural game.

The people who go on and on and on about the rule, are not tennis fans. They are just pushing ridiculous bureaucracy.

He can be slow paced if he wants, but he needs to respect the rules and not exceed the time limit. If he does, then he should get a time violation. And he gets the most out of anybody, but should get even more as umps lets him of the hook

That is the rules and always been. Imagine if there wasn't a time rule, it would not work.
 
If there's a shot clock, expect audiences to start shouting "5, 4, 3, 2, 1". That's not tennis, but ridiculous bureaucracy. The fact is, in any sport, some players are fast paced, some players are medium paced, and some players are slow paced. Nadal is slow paced. He is slow and good. It's his natural game.

The people who go on and on and on about the rule, are not tennis fans. They are just pushing ridiculous bureaucracy.

That it is the worst excuse I have ever heard to deny a shotclock. Do you attend many basketball matches where people are hollering shotclock time? What a farce.

There is literally no bureaucracy involved with a shotclock. You set a visible timer on court. When the timer is up you have served, or you have conceded the point. Simple, straightforward, no roundabout interpretation of bureaucratic nonsense and controversial umpire judgements.
 
If tennis was a major sport in the US, this rule would be strictly enforced. Why? Because networks hate it when sporting events take more time than they should. And they are the ones paying the big bucks for tv contracts.
 
If tennis was a major sport in the US, this rule would be strictly enforced. Why? Because networks hate it when sporting events take more time than they should. And they are the ones paying the big bucks for tv contracts.

100% correct. This is also noticeable in American tennis culture through its 5-set tiebreaks at Flushing Meadows.
 
That is the rules and always been.

I doubt that. I think we have a certain Mr. Nastase to thank.

Imagine if there wasn't a time rule, it would not work.

I have frequently imagined it, and tennis would be much better off.

Players should be allowed to play at their pace. It would be ridiculous to force Federer to wait 25 seconds between points before he could serve, and it's ridiculous to force Nadal to serve before 25 seconds. Nadal is slow and good, and it's his natural game.
 
It's always been a stupid rule. It was stupid in 1988 when Wilander was beating Lendl 6-4, 4-1 in the US Open final and was then given a time violation. The next thing, Wilander has lost 5 games in a row.

Cool. So that's Wilander's fault then, yes?
 
Mustard said:
If there's a shot clock, expect audiences to start shouting "5, 4, 3, 2, 1".

This can be easily avoided by having the LED panel display the following:
.
.
12
11
Give back that towel now!
9
8
Get back to that line!
7
6
You're cutting it close!
4
Throw the damn ball up!
3
Serve NOW!!!
2
Don't say I didn't warn you buddy!
Zero Zero Zero Zero Zero
You lose!
 
If there's a shot clock, expect audiences to start shouting "5, 4, 3, 2, 1". That's not tennis, but ridiculous bureaucracy. The fact is, in any sport, some players are fast paced, some players are medium paced, and some players are slow paced. Nadal is slow paced. He is slow and good. It's his natural game.

The people who go on and on and on about the rule, are not tennis fans. They are just pushing ridiculous bureaucracy.

I do agree on that, Ralphie IS a little slow, isn't he?

bF2HDDJ.gif
 
Cool. So that's Wilander's fault then, yes?

No. It's the stupid rule. As a result, a tennis match's momentum was changed. Wilander is a player who went into a cocoon of concentration in order to play his best tennis, and that time violation threw him off.
 
I doubt that. I think we have a certain Mr. Nastase to thank.



I have frequently imagined it, and tennis would be much better off.

Players should be allowed to play at their pace. It would be ridiculous to force Federer to wait 25 seconds between points before he could serve, and it's ridiculous to force Nadal to serve before 25 seconds. Nadal is slow and good, and it's his natural game.

And what if the server wants to wait 50 seconds?
 
And what if the server wants to wait 50 seconds?

If that's their natural game and not just blatant gamesmanship, why not? Why should it all be played at a very fast pace around 10 seconds just to satisfy those with short attention spans? One of the positives in watching a slower paced player is the buildup in anticipation before the serve, i.e. in wondering how he's going to serve and how the point is going to go. I'd like to enjoy that without people whinging about the slow pace.
 
The umpire who defied Rafael Nadal pays the price
May 22, 2015 - 8:00AM


By SIMON BRIGGS

As Rafael Nadal prepares to defend his French Open crown in Paris next week, his time-wasting is making a mockery of the tennis rulebook.

Carlos Bernardes, the last umpire to seriously challenge Nadal on this point, has been withdrawn from Nadal's matches since and is unlikely to officiate him at Roland Garros.

The bad blood between the two dates back to February 22, and the semi-final of the Rio Open. Bernardes followed the letter of the law by handing Nadal two time violation penalties for exceeding the 25-second limit between points, the second of which cost him a first serve. In a Spanish exchange captured by the courtside microphones, a furious Nadal then told Bernardes: "I will make sure that you don't arbitrate me anymore." Clearly agitated, he went on to lose to Fabio Fognini in three sets.


The bad blood between Rafael Nadal and Carlos Bernardes goes back several months. Photo: AFP
Nadal has played 24 matches since, on a men's tour which has nine "elite" umpires. Bernardes, who ranks highly within that group, would have been available for 20 of them. Significantly, though, he has not been called upon.

The Association of Tennis Professionals, which runs the tour, told The Telegraph "a number of factors are taken into consideration in the [umpire] selection process, including badge qualifications, nationality, as well as any previous history or incidents".

It is hardly news that umpires tend to be kept away from players with whom they have had a recent disagreement.

In most cases, however, the row tends to be over a one-off issue such as a line call or a double bounce. Former ATP umpire Richard Ings told The Telegraph that, during the 1990s, he had not officiated any matches involving Ivan Lendl for a year after a bust-up over an overrule on match point.

What makes the Nadal situation different is that his poor timekeeping has been a constant issue throughout his career; an issue that the authorities have purported to address, without ever actually doing so.

At the beginning of 2013, the ATP announced it was trying to crack down on violations of the 25-second rule, in a response to the six-hour Australian Open final between Nadal and his great rival Novak Djokovic the previous year.

But here we have an umpire who has actually applied the rule, only to be kept away from Nadal's matches since. After such a precedent, it is hardly surprising Nadal has not been penalised by the loss of a first serve since that day in Rio. He has received a first warning - the shot across the bows - on several occasions in the past three months, but nothing substantive.

ATP umpires might recall the case of Jeremy Shales, the British official who had a huge falling-out with Jimmy Connors at the Lipton Championships in 1986, then found that his contract was not renewed the following year.

The incident highlighted a fundamental weakness in a sport where the officials are effectively employed by the players. (The ATP is constituted as a 50-50 alliance between players and tournaments.)

Nadal was asked about the Rio situation in a press conference a few weeks later in Indian Wells. Bernardes was "not fair enough the last couple of times", he replied.

"He has been putting more pressure on me than other umpires. For me it is not right [when] you see players doing bad words, breaking rackets, doing shows on court, and that's less important than five seconds late, six seconds late? Sorry, I cannot accept that, I cannot say that's right.

"I know I am little bit slow, but in Rio the weather conditions ??? I finish every match and my hand was like I have been two hours in the jacuzzi."

It is true that tennis has a variety of rules which are only patchily enforced, the "audible obscenity" call standing high on the list. In a sport that treasures its gentlemanly image, umpires are reluctant to cause a scene. In a typical incident in Estoril last month, Nick Kyrgios hit a ball out of the stadium - "ball abuse" - during a final-set tie-break, and should technically have lost the match there and then, as he had already been docked a point. Yet umpire Fergus Murphy chose to turn a blind eye.

Still, as Sky analyst Barry Cowan points out: "Rules are rules and this isn't a grey area. We often see Nadal getting a first warning, and it's usually on a big point - when he's serving for the set perhaps - as if the umpires want so say, 'Hey, we're getting tough here'. But then they don't take the next step. Whereas when Marcel Granollers cramped up in a match in Madrid the other day and couldn't get into position, bang: point gone. We heard Dimitry Tursunov say it during a match last year: it's one rule for Rafa and one for everyone else."

Nadal is generally perceived to have quickened up his pace of play slightly in the last couple of seasons. He now takes only one towel to the back of the court for sweat removal, where it used to be two. But he still remains the man most likely to spill over the stipulated 25 seconds.

In Rome last week, he was regularly arriving at the service line after 22 seconds had already elapsed, and only then embarking on his characteristic series of tics: the plucking of the shorts, the touch of the nose and the eyebrows.

ATP officials are understood to have passed a message on to his coach and uncle, Toni Nadal, insisting that he needs to be up at the service line more quickly.

All eyes will now be on Nadal's matches in Paris next week. In theory, the grand slams operate a stricter policy of 20 seconds between points. But in practice - as in so many instances in this often quixotic sport - the rule is rarely enforced.


Copyright © 2015 Fairfax Media

Good article so everybody knows Nadal's real character.
 
No. It's the stupid rule. As a result, a tennis match's momentum was changed. Wilander is a player who went into a cocoon of concentration in order to play his best tennis, and that time violation threw him off.

So we're supposed to leave Djokovic to bounce the ball excessively (although he's gotten better at this) and Nadal to pick his *** looking for brown treasures so we can have more 6 hour finals on a slow *** HC in Australia.

Yippeee! No thank you.
 
So we're supposed to leave Djokovic to bounce the ball excessively (although he's gotten better at this) and Nadal to pick his *** looking for brown treasures so we can have more 6 hour finals on a slow *** HC in Australia.

Yippeee! No thank you.

Lol. Please bring Carlos Bernardes back.
 
If that's their natural game and not just blatant gamesmanship, why not? Why should it all be played at a very fast pace around 10 seconds just to satisfy those with short attention spans? One of the positives in watching a slower paced player is the buildup in anticipation before the serve, i.e. in wondering how he's going to serve and how the point is going to go. I'd like to enjoy that without people whinging about the slow pace.

You said there shouldn't be a time rule, period.

I'm not stating that it should be 20 seconds, I'm simply asking you what happens if someone wants to wait 50 seconds. Your arguing that they should be be allowed to, yes?
 
If that's their natural game and not just blatant gamesmanship, why not? Why should it all be played at a very fast pace around 10 seconds just to satisfy those with short attention spans? One of the positives in watching a slower paced player is the buildup in anticipation before the serve, i.e. in wondering how he's going to serve and how the point is going to go. I'd like to enjoy that without people whinging about the slow pace.

That's ridiculous. As are your excuses for breaking a perfectly normal rule.
50 seconds between serves would be acceptable to you?? 25 seconds are enough to prepare for the next point. If 34 year old Federer can play at normal speed, so can Nadal.
Also, it's not like umpires give warnings after only one violation. Nadal exceeds 25s 10+ times in a match.
 
If there's a shot clock, expect audiences to start shouting "5, 4, 3, 2, 1". That's not tennis, but ridiculous bureaucracy. The fact is, in any sport, some players are fast paced, some players are medium paced, and some players are slow paced. Nadal is slow paced. He is slow and good. It's his natural game.

The people who go on and on and on about the rule, are not tennis fans. They are just pushing ridiculous bureaucracy.

On the other hand, I remember when Novak would bounce the ball 14 times before serving. Thankfully, he does not do that anymore.
 
So we're supposed to leave Djokovic to bounce the ball excessively (although he's gotten better at this) and Nadal to pick his *** looking for brown treasures so we can have more 6 hour finals on a slow *** HC in Australia.

Yippeee! No thank you.

Tone down your hate a little bit man, it doesn't look pretty.
 
Last edited:
I think ITF is giving false hope to Rafa by withdrawing Carlos Bernandas. I am expecting every umpire to be strict in this tournament & teach the Fake Bull a lesson. Would love to see his face when that happens!! What will he do then? Make sure every damn umpire not officiate his match or what?
 
They just need to make sure players dont constantly break the rule. It has always been common in tennis for players to try and take an extra long break after important points, and it is part of the game. They should be allowed to exceed the time limit when it is reasonable to do so. This is probably why umpires are left to enforce the rule as they see fit.
 
If that's their natural game and not just blatant gamesmanship, why not? Why should it all be played at a very fast pace around 10 seconds just to satisfy those with short attention spans? One of the positives in watching a slower paced player is the buildup in anticipation before the serve, i.e. in wondering how he's going to serve and how the point is going to go. I'd like to enjoy that without people whinging about the slow pace.

The tennis equivalent of Hitchcockian movie suspense?

I like it. In theory.

Problem is that players spend that time bouncing balls or pulling wedgies.

Not very suspenseful. Or aesthetically pleasing.
 
It's always been a stupid rule. It was stupid in 1988 when Wilander was beating Lendl 6-4, 4-1 in the US Open final and was then given a time violation. The next thing, Wilander has lost 5 games in a row.

Nothing wrong with the rule if it's enforced properly, that is EVERY player is treated equally.
 
If that's their natural game and not just blatant gamesmanship, why not? Why should it all be played at a very fast pace around 10 seconds just to satisfy those with short attention spans? One of the positives in watching a slower paced player is the buildup in anticipation before the serve, i.e. in wondering how he's going to serve and how the point is going to go. I'd like to enjoy that without people whinging about the slow pace.
I'm sure you would agree at some point the amount of time taken is too long. Perhaps for you it's not 50 seconds. 90 seconds? 120 seconds? 5 minutes? An hour? The precise time doesn't matter as much as you would draw the line somewhere. So, in the end, you likely believe there does need to be a maximum amount of time. Do you want that time to be completely flexible and have chair umpires all rule differently. Do you want chair umpires to mind read and decide whether a player is honestly concentrating a lot, or implementing gamesmanship? The only way to be fair to everyone is to have standardization. And enforcement.

You also have to consider that fitness plays a role in tennis, as it does in all sports. There is a reason you can't take an extra 30 seconds to come out of your corner in boxing. Even if the previous round was especially tiring. Ot take an extra minute time out in basketball because the other team is full court pressing. Same with hockey if you want to have your first line on for an extended period of play.

I actually don't see it being the least bit fair not to have a set time between points. And the rule should be enforced just like any other rule. But I do believe tennis could add one time out per set to be taken for any reason.
 
Last edited:
If there's a shot clock, expect audiences to start shouting "5, 4, 3, 2, 1". That's not tennis, but ridiculous bureaucracy. The fact is, in any sport, some players are fast paced, some players are medium paced, and some players are slow paced. Nadal is slow paced. He is slow and good. It's his natural game.

The people who go on and on and on about the rule, are not tennis fans. They are just pushing ridiculous bureaucracy.

This post is ridiculous in so many ways, I don't even....

So let's ignore the rule instead and let the slow players play at their pace. So anything is acceptable, right ? How about 2 minutes between points ? 5 minutes ?

Heck, how about you take a nice massage between points for 15 minutes , because, you know, some players need it ?

EDIT : Didn't see the post directly above mine which says the same thing.
 
I don't agree with the clock, I think it's tacky. I think things are fine now where the umpire can use discretion after long or crazy points. Nadal needs to speed up, it is what it is.
 
I don't agree with the clock, I think it's tacky. I think things are fine now where the umpire can use discretion after long or crazy points. Nadal needs to speed up, it is what it is.

Yeah, a shot clock type thing would probably be 'tacky'.

It's tough though that the server can't see the timer the umpire can see. I think the umpire should lightly advice players "you're going X amount of seconds over" prior to giving a hard warning.
 
If that's their natural game and not just blatant gamesmanship, why not? Why should it all be played at a very fast pace around 10 seconds just to satisfy those with short attention spans? One of the positives in watching a slower paced player is the buildup in anticipation before the serve, i.e. in wondering how he's going to serve and how the point is going to go. I'd like to enjoy that without people whinging about the slow pace.

:lol:

Oh my good lord. If the 25 de jure seconds they get (25-40 de facto in many cases) isn't enough time to build suspense between serves, I suggest watching competitive grass growing.

It's not an arbitrary rule - perhaps 25 seconds is an arbitrary yard mark, but nobody wants to watch a three hour match stretched to a six hour telethon of time-wasting.
 
Yeah, a shot clock type thing would probably be 'tacky'.

It's tough though that the server can't see the timer the umpire can see. I think the umpire should lightly advice players "you're going X amount of seconds over" prior to giving a hard warning.

They already do that at change of ends.They warn Nadal before they even warn him.And the recividist turd still doesnt get it.
 
[emoji38]

Oh my good lord. If the 25 de jure seconds they get (25-40 de facto in many cases) isn't enough time to build suspense between serves, I suggest watching competitive grass growing.

It's not an arbitrary rule - perhaps 25 seconds is an arbitrary yard mark, but nobody wants to watch a three hour match stretched to a six hour telethon of time-wasting.

Perhaps play a Star Wars tune each time before a serve to help building the suspense[emoji13]

Longer time between serves perhaps helps some people to concentrate or enjoy dramatic suspense, but often it would bore the receiver to death. It is also bad for the environment too as the longer the match goes the longer the electricity is being used.
 
Perhaps play a Star Wars tune each time before a serve to help building the suspense[emoji13]

Longer time between serves perhaps helps some people to concentrate or enjoy dramatic suspense, but often it would bore the receiver to death. It is also bad for the environment too as the longer the match goes the longer the electricity is being used.

Good point.Get the greenies onto it problem solved poste haste.
 
Anyone who is not willing to lose the pre-serve ritual of touching 16 different body parts including his crack, deserves no mercy from the umpires. That habit alone adds 10 seconds between points.
 
Anyone who is not willing to lose the pre-serve ritual of touching 16 different body parts including his crack, deserves no mercy from the umpires. That habit alone adds 10 seconds between points.
I don't think he can control it.
It used to be only the butt but it's become worse with time (proportional to increase in stress I assume). He keeps adding things and he also does the stuff on receiving now (it used to be before serving only). He looks so much more nervous on court these days, it makes me nervous just watching him.
 
Back
Top