Ridiculous ranking rule costs Nadal and Verdasco ranking points

sp00q

Rookie
"A player who is out of competition for 30 or more days, due to a verified injury, will not receive any penalties."

Is Federer out of competition for 30 or more days? Yes.
Is Nadal out of competition for 30 or more days? No.

Here is your answer.
 

veroniquem

Bionic Poster
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.
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 ?
 
Last edited:

vive le beau jeu !

Talk Tennis Guru
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 !
 

Nuke

Hall of Fame
And that's supposed to benefit the tour in any way?
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?
 

ESP#1

Professional
I guess they are trying to make players take these 500 tourneys serious. That being said I think if someone has a legitimate injury they should not be penalize.

I also think the "rules are rules" train of thought is pretty ridiculous. Its not only your right to question the rules but more an obligation, those of you who against questioning rules would do well in Fascist Germany
 

veroniquem

Bionic Poster
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?
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.
And Verdasco isn't playing DC either, why wouldn't he benefit from the rule in the same way as Roger? What's going on here? There's got to be a different explanation or reason that escapes us. Maybe we should email ATP about it.
Anyway if that happened to be the actual reason (which I still can't believe as Verdasco would obviously have to raise hell about the enigmatic double standards), Nadal should be highly praised for putting his team spirit and love for his country or passion for the game before some screwed up ranking rule that is gonna cost him in the end.
 
Last edited:

seffina

G.O.A.T.
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.
 

raiden031

Legend
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 ?

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.
 

veroniquem

Bionic Poster
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.
Either way that penalty is absurd.
 

seffina

G.O.A.T.
It is in someways. It encourages you not to participate in other 500 events to make up for your missed event. Right? That's not something they want either.
 

veroniquem

Bionic Poster
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.
 

seffina

G.O.A.T.
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'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.
 

veroniquem

Bionic Poster
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.
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.
 
W

woodrow1029

Guest
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.​
 

seffina

G.O.A.T.
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.
 

edmondsm

Legend
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

Good point. It was just the only explanation that I could come up with, but I was wrong. Woodrow appears to have cleared it up very nicely. I guess Nadal didn't think the trip to Dubai for "promotional purposes" was worth it.
 

veroniquem

Bionic Poster
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.
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:.
 
W

woodrow1029

Guest
How do you know that he didn't do anything for the tournament on the next day?
 

NandoMania

Rookie
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.​

That explains it: Those who don't live in Dubai, UAE had their average penalized with a "0". Makes perfect sense. What in the whole, wide world is unfair about that? Let them eat cake. Let them watch HDTV.
1.jpg

4.jpg

1246812_2510e82f36_m.jpeg

610x.jpg
 

NamRanger

G.O.A.T.
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.



The only people who should complain are people like us. Why? Because they (Verdasco, Nadal, Federer, etc.) run around play tennis for millions or dollars. Seriously, get a grip. I don't think Nadal or Verdasco REALLY care that much.
 
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.

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.
 
W

woodrow1029

Guest
Do you? The nature of "promotional" is that people hear about it, no?
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.
 
W

woodrow1029

Guest
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?
 

NamRanger

G.O.A.T.
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.


Oh please, McEnroe of all people played far more tournaments in a single year than either Federer or Nadal. Connors or Lendl at times would play up towards 20+ tournaments a year.
 

seffina

G.O.A.T.
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. It gives injured players who had previously committed to play and the tournament who was depending on their presence (by spending money on advertising and probably selling tickets based on their participation) both a good option. 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.
 
Last edited:

NamRanger

G.O.A.T.
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.


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?
 
W

woodrow1029

Guest
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.
 

NamRanger

G.O.A.T.
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.


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.
 
W

woodrow1029

Guest
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.
There is a section on appealing it also. I can quote it later today.
 

NandoMania

Rookie
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 . . . ? ? ? :|
 
W

woodrow1029

Guest
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.
 

NandoMania

Rookie
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.

Not the williams sisters: They were there sucking up every buck from Dubai and telling other players that they should do the same!

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.

That part I agree with completely, but since the system is run by people who take $$$ from the greedy promoters . . .:mad:
 

NandoMania

Rookie
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.

Really? Who suggested that they should complain then?
 
W

woodrow1029

Guest
Find where it says that Nam Ranger said that they did complain.
 

NandoMania

Rookie
OBVIOUS SOLUTION:

Do not commit to play in any tournament in Dubai unless you, like Roger, live there.

Very, very simple.
:mrgreen:
 

NandoMania

Rookie
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.

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."
 

seffina

G.O.A.T.
at 1000's promotional activities do not take away the penalty.

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.
 
Last edited:
W

woodrow1029

Guest
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."
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.
 

NamRanger

G.O.A.T.
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.
 
W

woodrow1029

Guest
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.
correct...
 
Top