Do you need a spine to remind the player warned that there is an actual rule? So that player gets mad, tell them they have 20 seconds to get over and serve again. Seriously, you wrote this?
Nadal 'bending rules again'
- Thread starter kostak
- Start date
Do you need a spine to remind the player warned that there is an actual rule? So that player gets mad, tell them they have 20 seconds to get over and serve again. Seriously, you wrote this?
W
woodrow1029
Guest
Yeah, and usually they do speed up. Again, it's easy to talk like that on a discussion board right, but when it's obviously not causing an issue on court, except the maybe 1% of the time the opponent complains about it, then what's the point of interfering with the match with a point penalty for something like that.
Last edited by a moderator:
Forehand Avenger
Banned
You are a shameless person. How dare you call Nadal and Henin scum? What have you ever achieved in your pathetic life that can compare to the achievements of those two?
Yeah, Nadal the scum. The same scum that is respected and well liked by the main rival in his career (Federer.)
Federer has lost more by Nadal than anybody else, and Federer likes and respects him. If he thought of him as a cheater and a scumbag like you do, we would know about it.
I'd like to know what the greatest achievement in the life of someone that has the bollocks to call Nadal scum in an internet forum is. You pathetic you...
falkenburg
Banned
That's EXACTLY what I was thinking. You don't, or shouldn't, get to break laws or rules you don't like with impunity-or complain about why it's not being enforced against others. If you are doing 70mph on the highway with 10 other cars and get pulled over for speeding, try asking the cop why didn't he pull somebody else over and let me know how that works out...
Forehand Avenger
Banned
You are not an umpire unlike woodrow, and you will never be. So you will never be in the position to make that kind of judgement (thank God for that.) I hope you can use your proverbial spine in your real life though. Try to stand up to the jerks that ask you for too much ketchup with their fries, for example.
vincent_tennis
Professional
hahaha good one ahha
falkenburg
Banned
Then, I was talking about what's most wrong with the men's tour, currently, and that is the inconsistency and spineless officials who run the sport-you know, kind of like an alleged umpire who is too scared to tell the players to-gasp!-actually follow the rules. Here, I was talking about nitwits who say that coaching is inconsequential and pointed out that players who were at the top of each tour were cheaters and kept on cheating, for the obvious reason that they benefited from it and were allowed to continue getting away with it. Two related, but not identical subjects. If you think so little about what I think, why, then, do you keep coming up with these stupid questions?
Last edited:
W
woodrow1029
Guest
It's so hard to keep up with your foolishness. The "alleged umpire" part is amusing.
W
woodrow1029
Guest
Which question do you want me to answer?
falkenburg
Banned
What would the motive be for not making public "99%" of the fines players received? Or, for that matter, making 1% of them public?
If the USTA isn't spineless and corrupt, why then, did they cover up Agassi's drug test results?
If many players are fined for illegal coaching, why then did you specifically mention only retired players on the men's side?
Are you saying that other players have been fined for illegal coaching as much or more than Nadal, but the people who run tennis chose not to publicize it?
Do you realize how spineless you sound saying you don't enforce the rules sometimes because somebody is going to be "furious?"(I wasn't even the first to point it out on this occasion).
Why, as an alleged official, do you have no comment on the fact that one of the game's top players is viewed by many-announcers, journalists, and by the people who "police" the sport, as a cheater, not to mention that he has admitted to cheating himself?
That will do for now...
Last edited:
vernonbc
Legend
Could be, but he's not. He's one of the best liked and that's why last year the other players voted him the Most Sportsmanlike Player on the Tour.
W
woodrow1029
Guest
1. Ask the media. They're the ones who decide what makes the news. Probably because not many people care if someone outside the top few players get fined.
2. I have no idea about anything dealing with that.
3. Because those were the few I could think of of off the top of my head.
4. Again ask the media.
5. I did not say that. I said that either way people will be mad. So you can't please everyone. I did not say I would not do it because someone would be mad. I also said that I don't see the point of just handing out point penalties for time violations when it is not causing an issue on court.
6. Why would I as an official have to comment on the feelings of others?
2. I have no idea about anything dealing with that.
3. Because those were the few I could think of of off the top of my head.
4. Again ask the media.
5. I did not say that. I said that either way people will be mad. So you can't please everyone. I did not say I would not do it because someone would be mad. I also said that I don't see the point of just handing out point penalties for time violations when it is not causing an issue on court.
6. Why would I as an official have to comment on the feelings of others?
You understand that this might put the opponent in a situation where they might opt not to complain about it because they don't want to deal with a possible altercation, with you or the player in question, even though they might be inconvenienced or irritated by the delay.
Last edited:
W
woodrow1029
Guest
A lot of it has to do with judgement. Some think it's black and white. It's not. Even after nadal gets a time violation warning, he picks up the pace. He may go over a few times by a few seconds, but really if a player who is going at 45-50 seconds then gets a warning, then speeds up an occasionally meter in the match goes over by a few seconds you've controlled it. It got a lot better. And again there is not a player out there who has not gone over 25 seconds in a match. Ever Roddick or Agassi.
So nasal gets a warning, them ten games later serves at 30 seconds, you think he should get a point penalty? Well, I don't.
So nasal gets a warning, them ten games later serves at 30 seconds, you think he should get a point penalty? Well, I don't.
What does the rule say?
falkenburg
Banned
Precisely. It says, under the situation described, that he should get docked a point, but some people don't want to do their job. And, even worse, Nadal has come in on occasion come in at FIFTY seconds, as this and other threads have mentioned.
W
woodrow1029
Guest
Actually the wording in the rules of tennis includes "as a principle, play should be continuous," which is where the discretionary part comes in.
Additionally, in the ATP rulebook and WTA rulebook, it is part of the code of conduct which is what gives it a discretionary status.
Additionally, in the ATP rulebook and WTA rulebook, it is part of the code of conduct which is what gives it a discretionary status.
I don't know Woodrow, your few past post it has been sounding either evasive or inconsistent. So you give a player a warning the first time then he (doesn't have to be Nadal like your example) goes over the time allowed again, you said you won't give a warning. What's different between the first and the second instance?
Then you mention the principle of continuity........Ok bouncing the ball before the serve is part of the ritual. But since you have mentioned Nadal , who fixes his socks, picks his underwear, smells fingers, swipes fingers by both ears, etc.....then proceeds to starts bouncing the ball then goes over the alloted time repeatedly. How would you personally handle that as an umpire? Have you personally officiated his match?
W
woodrow1029
Guest
Well of course I wouldn't give a warning the second time. If I were to do anything the second would be a point.
I have never chaired a Nadal match.
I have never chaired a Nadal match.
W
woodrow1029
Guest
It can only be black and white it discretionary.
If it's black and white, you have to give a time violation every time the limit is exceeded regardless of a broken string, crowd noise, strong wind gust or any reason.
Or it can be discretionary like code of conduct where it is used when needed to control the match.
To me it's obvious that it is not a black and white thing.
And it would be bad for the game to just start handing out time violation point penalties for all reasons, no doubt.
If it's black and white, you have to give a time violation every time the limit is exceeded regardless of a broken string, crowd noise, strong wind gust or any reason.
Or it can be discretionary like code of conduct where it is used when needed to control the match.
To me it's obvious that it is not a black and white thing.
And it would be bad for the game to just start handing out time violation point penalties for all reasons, no doubt.
Last edited by a moderator:
falkenburg
Banned
1. How can the media decide who makes the news if the federation is the one who decides if the amount of the fine is even realized?
2. That's pretty convenient. Well, would it be fair to say, given their action, that they ARE spineless and corrupt?
3. Again, "many" players have been fined, but the best you can come with is guys who have been retired for YEARS already(except for Mr. Comeback)? Well, make it lower "on your head," how about somebody a little more recent, since there are "many."
4. Again, how can the media decide if another player was fined privately as often as Nadal has been publicly, if they aren't even aware of the fine at all? Also, if you're not in a position to answer this question, it would seem to indicate you're also not in a position to state that "many" other players are fined for illegal coaching.
5. It's not the ump's job to "please everybody" or try and make sure that everybody isn't mad, it's his job to keep score and enforce the rules, and it's unclear why you would mention the words "mad" and "furious" if you didn't feel they were relevant. I don't think there is a much "discretion" as you indicate, we've all watched matches, and if a player isn't moving-or, is bouncing the ball 20 times a la Nole-and 20 or 25 seconds passes by, then I guess it isn't continuous, is it? Now, the ball boys may fumble the throw downs, or the player may occasionally do the 'ole Jimmy Connors "I gotta tie my shoelaces" trick, but it's generally pretty clear when somebody is stalling, and there are some 100% certain signs, too: if you take 50 seconds, your a.s.s needs to be docked, period.
Finally, a question which I forgot in the previous thread, but which I mentioned earlier: even if another player was found with 2 or more PUBLIC fines for illegal coaching, how does that make Nadal any less of a cheater?
Last edited:
W
woodrow1029
Guest
If the press for a certain country wants to ask if a player is fined, they are more than welcome to. Are you for real? Say someone from outside the USA ranked 102 at the us open gets a code for coaching? Do you think it's going to make the new York times?
However if nadal or Federer or djokovic or Serena get a code, it may if they getthe info from the tournament and want to publish. None of it is secret.
However if nadal or Federer or djokovic or Serena get a code, it may if they getthe info from the tournament and want to publish. None of it is secret.
falkenburg
Banned
Agree about the inconsistent part, and that drives me crazy in other sports, too: I've read some baseball umpires say they favor the pitcher on the first two strikes, and the hitter on the 3rd strike. So, that means the same pitch could be called differently, depending on the ball/strike count. WTF?!?! And I just love when in basketball(or hockey), a foul (or penalty) is committed and the announcer says, "You can't make the call (in the waning seconds)!" B.S., it's a foul whether it's with 1.5 seconds left or 1.5 seconds after the tip off (and the tennis equivalent comes from McEnroe, who twice during the Open showed he didn't know other rules despite being around the tour for over a third of a century, yelping, "You don't give a time abuse warning at 4 all, 30 all!" The score of the contest should NOT determine the call, period.
falkenburg
Banned
Well, why don't you tell us of the well known players in the Top 20, or Top 10, who have gotten more than one fine for illegal coaching...other than Nadal. And, I couldn't help notice you answered none of the other questions, including the newbie, # 6.
I appreciate that you "try" to answer most if the questions but yet again, a bit evasive. Since we have mentioned Nadal, it is common knowledge he goes over the time limit because he indulges in his preserve rituals or even Djokovic with the excessive ball bouncing, with or without crowd noise, with or without broken strings, with or without elemental distractions.
I feel it's primarily the concerned players, who practice almost on a daily basis and play the tour year round, so there is no excuse for them to say they are not aware of the rules, or get mad when they get called on it. The umpires should consider what's causing the delay, especially if it's clear there are DELIBERATE REDUNDANT actions that contribute to the delay. You don't have to be an umpire with the power of discretion to see that.
W
woodrow1029
Guest
Because first of all most of the questions are stupid. I dont know anyThing about your Agassi question then you say "that's convenient." that is another stupid comment. Finally you just twist words around from what people say and make it into how you want it to look so you can insult them.
I am not responding to anything else from you. So I don't care about your questions, I don't care if you choose not to believe that I have been a chair umpire and/ or line umpire at 26 grand slams, 5 Davis cup ties and 2 Olympics, that I have chaired 2 grand slam finals (3 if you count the roddick vs ginepri juniors final at the open in 2000), and I don't care what you think about this response.
Several of your posts have already been deleted throughout the last couple days, so I am anticipating you won't be around much longer anyway.
So have fun with your supermodels and your service of them on your yacht with all your bucks.
but then why dont you just drop the explicit 25 seconds part of the rule since youre not applying it anyway?
just have the rule say the player has to serve in a way that makes for continuous play and if he doesnt will receive a warning and in extreme cases may also recieve a point penalty.
then it would be perfectly discretionary and roddick or söderling would not have any ground for complaining.
but as long as the rule names an explicit time limit they have a right to complain. you cant just say "yes i know its the rule, but i dont think its important". why get yourself on such slippery ground when you could just adapt the rule to be the way youre actually going to carry it out on the court? then this discussion would not take place.
that aside, you say nadal has gotten alot better in this. has he really? you say he only still goes over the time limit in important situations and then speeds up a little after hes being warned until the next tight situation. is that really better?
and i cant even blame him. looking at it from his point of view, whats his motivation to actually try and change it? from his experience, its like this:
"ok so i serve normally, then in the first important situation i can basically take however long i want. next time changing sides i will get a "soft warning". if i speed it up a little i will be fine. i can still exceed the time limit just try to take maybe 40 seconds instead of 50. if it gets tight again in the next set i can take as long as i want again. this time i will get a "warning" but i wont get a point penalty. at least if i slightly speed up after the warning. i can basically repeat this pattern as often as i need to (whenever i serve in an important situation), i will never get a point penalty anyway.
id say his motivation to change is 0. understandably
"So nasal gets a warning, them ten games later serves at 30 seconds, you think he should get a point penalty? Well, I don't."
this i find interesting. so lets say a player gets a warning and ten games later serves at 50 seconds. would he get a point penalty then?
just have the rule say the player has to serve in a way that makes for continuous play and if he doesnt will receive a warning and in extreme cases may also recieve a point penalty.
then it would be perfectly discretionary and roddick or söderling would not have any ground for complaining.
but as long as the rule names an explicit time limit they have a right to complain. you cant just say "yes i know its the rule, but i dont think its important". why get yourself on such slippery ground when you could just adapt the rule to be the way youre actually going to carry it out on the court? then this discussion would not take place.
that aside, you say nadal has gotten alot better in this. has he really? you say he only still goes over the time limit in important situations and then speeds up a little after hes being warned until the next tight situation. is that really better?
and i cant even blame him. looking at it from his point of view, whats his motivation to actually try and change it? from his experience, its like this:
"ok so i serve normally, then in the first important situation i can basically take however long i want. next time changing sides i will get a "soft warning". if i speed it up a little i will be fine. i can still exceed the time limit just try to take maybe 40 seconds instead of 50. if it gets tight again in the next set i can take as long as i want again. this time i will get a "warning" but i wont get a point penalty. at least if i slightly speed up after the warning. i can basically repeat this pattern as often as i need to (whenever i serve in an important situation), i will never get a point penalty anyway.
id say his motivation to change is 0. understandably
"So nasal gets a warning, them ten games later serves at 30 seconds, you think he should get a point penalty? Well, I don't."
this i find interesting. so lets say a player gets a warning and ten games later serves at 50 seconds. would he get a point penalty then?
Woodrow1029, I'll bet you are a great umpire. You have the patience of a saint.
Falkenburg has been acting just like Roddick has a few times - just won't let something go and looks very stupid for carrying on a nonsensical argument.
Seriously. I can't believe that this thread is still going at this point. What a waste.
You know, in other sports with a time limit for the players to act, there is a clock that is visible, so the players know if they are taking too long. In basketball, there is a shot clock, clearly visible to the players... and in American football there is a play clock, also clearly visible. So if the issue of the time taken before serving is such a big deal and so upsetting to some of these people, then why not support the idea of a "service clock"? When the time expires, a buzzer could go off indicating that the player's service time has ended.
Otherwise, it is up to the officials to enforce the discretionary rule. It seems silly to blame the player for not having a perfect clock in their head. I mean, come on, people. Grow up.
Again, even after recieving time warnings Nadal continonously will attempt to freeze his opponents on important points. I personally don't think it has anything to do with the amount of time wasted (although that is somewhat important), but more about how the time is spent. Clearly if one guy is tired then yes, give him a little extra time. However, if someone is clearly wasting time, then there needs to be some penalties given out.
actually, given how well you develop routines for your own service games i think the pros have a very good idea for how long they are taking. or at least they could have if they really cared enough to have someone telling them the time during practice. after a couple hundred times im sure youd know very well how long it usually takes for you to walk back and get the towel, wipe your arms, get new balls, and walk back to set up your serve.
in any case they will be well aware if theyve just taken twice as long as the rule is. even without a play clock on court.
but i agree if it was to be carried out rigurously they should be given a play clock. which would not be all that difficult to do tho.
Similar threads
