Uhmmm, whats the big deal???
Roger doesnt make the rules. Blame your baby for having so much injuries and stop crying about the rules. They'r there for a reason.
I thought dear Roger was supposed to be injured. One rule for Roger and another for everyone else.
So the more tournaments you'll withdraw from, the better it will be for your ranking? And players will actually be encouraged to stay out of the tour for a longer time regardless of the nature of an injury in order to avoid penalty? And that's supposed to benefit the tour in any way? That is utterly ridiculous, I can't imagine players in general would put up with this nonsense. I thought the main idea was to DISSUADE players from withdrawing from tournaments, not INCITE them to do so: "ha you're gonna be penalized for not playing this tournament but if you skip the next tournament too, then we're OK with it" :shock:. What the heck ?I understand the intention of this rule and agree with it. Players routinely drop out of tournaments at the last minute claiming an injury and they have no problem getting a doctor to say they need rest. Then they pop up the next week ready to go, looking no worse for wear. Something had to be done and this rule, while not perfect, is as good as any. Federer hasn't played in awhile and is skipping the Davis Cup this weekend, so his "injury" is OK. Nadal is playing DC this weekend, did not sit out the 30 days, so he loses. There's no preferential treatment for Federer. Case closed.
ok for nadal, but what about verdasco ? we didn't see him since the AO !I understand the intention of this rule and agree with it. Players routinely drop out of tournaments at the last minute claiming an injury and they have no problem getting a doctor to say they need rest. Then they pop up the next week ready to go, looking no worse for wear. Something had to be done and this rule, while not perfect, is as good as any. Federer hasn't played in awhile and is skipping the Davis Cup this weekend, so his "injury" is OK. Nadal is playing DC this weekend, did not sit out the 30 days, so he loses. There's no preferential treatment for Federer. Case closed.
Absolutely, by discouraging the common "one week injury" pullouts. Do you think it helps the tour when a tournament advertises the top players that have entered, sells tickets based on their expected appearances, and then are left with a swiss-cheess draw full of holes after the pullouts?And that's supposed to benefit the tour in any way?
That argument is ludicrous. How is it going to help ANY tournament that the player misses 2 (or more) instead of 1. How is it going to help the Davis cup that Federer is not gonna play it? I'm gonna tell you how, low attendance, lower TV ratings and one-sided results.Absolutely, by discouraging the common "one week injury" pullouts. Do you think it helps the tour when a tournament advertises the top players that have entered, sells tickets based on their expected appearances, and then are left with a swiss-cheess draw full of holes after the pullouts?
So the more tournaments you'll withdraw from, the better it will be for your ranking? And players will actually be encouraged to stay out of the tour for a longer time regardless of the nature of an injury in order to avoid penalty? And that's supposed to benefit the tour in any way? That is utterly ridiculous, I can't imagine players in general would put up with this nonsense. I thought the main idea was to DISSUADE players from withdrawing from tournaments, not INCITE them to do so: "ha you're gonna be penalized for not playing this tournament but if you skip the next tournament too, then we're OK with it" :shock:. What the heck ?
Either way that penalty is absurd.The more tournaments you withdrawl from, the more you are going to hurt your own ranking by having less results to get points from. You might not get a 0-point penalty for an event, but you will get 0 points simply by missing too many events and not getting your minimum number played.
What do you mean? It was less than a month from IW when Federer told them too (the announcements were made at a couple days interval), and neither has played since AO. As far as I can see, Verdasco and Federer's situations are identical. I hope journalists bring the issue up in interviews because the whole thing looks bad at the moment.Verdasco let them know too late, maybe? I think it'll be less than a month from when he told them to IW. Just guessing.
As I said earlier, I agree with the intention of the rule. It's hard for tournaments when they have pull outs like this. They have done promos and made arrangements and all that.
It really sucks that Rafa has to suffer because of this. He legitimately hurt himself and needed rest. He shouldn't be penalized for that, but the rules weren't created after he was injured. There were there before. Obviously the ATP cares for its new 500 tournaments and want people to take them seriously. Maybe the rules will get better once this new system is set.
Until then, players will just deal with it. Let's just hope in the long run it doesn't matter for Nadal, Verdasco, or Andy's ranking.
What do you mean? It was less than a month from IW when Federer told them too (the announcements were made at a couple days interval), and neither has played since AO. As far as I can see, Verdasco and Federer's situations are identical. I hope journalists bring the issue up in interviews because the whole thing looks bad at the moment.
You know, you may be right, another quirky rule. I'm curious to see if the players concerned are upset about it. I haven't heard anything from them yet.You're right. I really don't know then. Maybe the promotional event that Federer went to made a difference somehow. I do hope it is cleared up.
nadal and verdasco lost points.... thats the "big deal".
Federer played the final on 1st february and dubai tourney started on 23rd. This is less than a month. Shouldnt federer get the same 0 pointer--- or is it from start of Australian open jan 19th.
Federer always seems to get the rules ,draw and schedule in his favour- perhaps we can make a movie on this conspiracy theory
Really? So one appearance at the players' party would qualify as participating in "a reasonable amount of promotional activities over a 2 day period"? Notwithstanding that he lives there and doesn't have to "travel" at all... Hum still looks like taking advantage of a loop in the system to me but whatever I guess :roll:.Thanks, woodrow1029. That does clear it up. I don't think this will make much of a difference in the long run, but it's good to know.
So, from the ATP 2009 Rulebook under Repeal of Penalties for ATP 500 series events, it reads:
c) Promotional Activities.A player who was not on-site when the withdrawal/late withdrawal occurred but
travels to the tournament within the first three (3) days of the main draw, unless
otherwise determined by the ATP, and participates in a reasonable amount of
promotional activities over a two (2) day period, as determined by the ATP, shall
not have the applicable fine and ranking penalties assessed. Players who travel
to the event to complete their promotional activity requirement shall receive
full hospitality from the day of arrival through the night following the completion
of their promotional obligation.
Maybe that will clear up some confusion as to why Federer was not penalized.
Do you? The nature of "promotional" is that people hear about it, no?How do you know that he didn't do anything for the tournament on the next day?
Do you? The nature of "promotional" is that people hear about it, no?
Unfair and nonsensical rule. I hope the players who are on the ATP board can do something about it. This situation when players did exactly the same thing and some of them will be penalized whereas others won't shows the absurdity of it and the necessity to review it ASAP.
It makes the news on TW, especially if Federer is involved, trust me!People in Dubai. Are you in Dubai? Usually a tennis player doing photo ops doesn't make global news.
No, I don't know what he did the next day. Your quote implied that you know for a fact that all he did was attend the party. I just quoted what the rule says.Do you? The nature of "promotional" is that people hear about it, no?
Possibly. I don't know if all the photos were from 2009 though.Look in the photos above. The photo of him dressed in local attire was shot during the day. Could have been something he did the next day?
Its all about money.
Promoters want to force players to play as much as possible regardless of injury so that thy can line their pockets.
The only way to beat this is to simply not care about rankings which really dont matter anyway. The williams sisters undersdtand this. They just keep winning slams and let women like Jankovic be #1.
Sampras also understood this and was ranked very low but preserved himself so that he could compete healthy for the US Open. The promoters lost money because of this.....But Pete won the open!
Rankings dont mean sheet. They simply represent who plays the most. The sytem needs to be changed so that greedy promoters do not ruin the sport.
Really? So one appearance at the players' party would qualify as participating in "a reasonable amount of promotional activities over a 2 day period"? Notwithstanding that he lives there and doesn't have to "travel" at all... Hum still looks like taking advantage of a loop in the system to me but whatever I guess :roll:.
I didn't say I agreed with or liked the rule, just that I understand now what happened that gave Verdasco a 0 and Federer no penalty.
It isn't Federer's fault that he lives there. He might not have traveled to a far away location, but that's moot right now. Why shouldn't he use the rules to his benefit? It's not a loop in the system, it's part of the system.
The Williams will be doing promotional events instead of attending IW as well. It gives the player a way to get out of being penalized. The promotional thing is trying to make the system more fair instead of less fair. It also states that they will provide all benefits of coming as they would if you had played. I think that's fair. Unless you're so injured you can't travel.. then I'm sure you can appeal that. Just my opinion.
According to the new rules, yes they can, unless you attend a promotional activity as in the quoted rule above.Legitimate injuries that prevent you from playing / traveling are excusable (it's in the rules somewhere, I'm sure woodrow knows where it is). They can't penalize you if you have a broken foot now can they?
According to the new rules, yes they can, unless you attend a promotional activity as in the quoted rule above.
at 1000's promotional activities do not take away the penalty.
There is a section on appealing it also. I can quote it later today.Well, that's kind of lame. I'm sure you could appeal it somehow though. I think having a broken foot is a legitimate excuse for not attending promotional activities.
The new rules were to prevent players from using "fake" injuries so that they wouldn't have to play in a tournament that they did not want to. I think those who are legitimately injured should get a free pass.
I don't see why Nadal or Verdasco should complain about this being unfair. It was written in the rulebook, and it is pretty damn specific about it also.
I don't believe that in his post he does say that they did complain. Others suggested that they should complain, and NamRanger is just saying why they shouldn't complain.I believe you are flat wrong when you say Nadal or Verdasco complained,
but if you have a link to any such complaint . . . ? ? ? :|
Its all about money.
Promoters want to force players to play as much as possible regardless of injury so that thy can line their pockets.
The only way to beat this is to simply not care about rankings which really dont matter anyway. The williams sisters undersdtand this. They just keep winning slams and let women like Jankovic be #1.
Rankings dont mean sheet. They simply represent who plays the most. The sytem needs to be changed so that greedy promoters do not ruin the sport.
There is a section on appealing it also. I can quote it later today.
Originally Posted by NamRanger
I don't see why Nadal or Verdasco should complain about this being unfair. It was written in the rulebook, and it is pretty damn specific about it also.
I believe you are flat wrong when you say Nadal or Verdasco complained,
but if you have a link to any such complaint . . . ? ? ? :|
I don't believe that in his post he does say that they did complain. Others suggested that they should complain, and NamRanger is just saying why they shouldn't complain.
I don't believe that in his post he does say that they did complain. Others suggested that they should complain, and NamRanger is just saying why they shouldn't complain.
Find where it says that Nam Ranger said that they did complain.
at 1000's promotional activities do not take away the penalty.
You can find it in here whoever suggested going to the ATP Player Council, (which by the way Nadal is on). All I am saying, is in NamRanger's post, he says they should NOT complain, not that they should.I already quoted Nam Ranger's post, woodrow1029. And you butted in between my post to him. Therefore, now it's your turn to put up or shut up and quote the "others" who you claimed (in your butt-in-sky post) "suggested that they should complain."
I already quoted Nam Ranger's post, woodrow1029. And you butted in between my post to him. Therefore, now it's your turn to put up or shut up and quote the "others" who you claimed (in your butt-in-sky post) "suggested that they should complain."
They keyword is "should" which implies that they have not complained yet. Others are implying (such as many Nadal fans) that Nadal and Verdasco should complain.
correct...They don't take away the points penalty, but they do take away the fines and the suspensions. Which is fair, IMO.
I also just saw that once you play certain amount of Masters matches on the tour or are of a certain age, you don't have to play as many Masters. Interesting.