The Rules and Injury Time Outs

[Rabbit]

The injury time out rule needs to be thrown out. Tennis needs to go back to the lack of conditioning being a hard line, if you can't play, you default. The current rule invites gamesmanship and less than proper tactics. The pros today leverage the rule to the point that it is cheating.

Just for reference as to how much today's players are coddled by themselves, I was watching a replay of the WITC from the mid to late 70s which Pancho Gonzales was a commentator. During the match, a player changed shirts because it was extremely hot/humid. Gonzales said "Smith is changing his shirt now...I don't think that should be allowed..."

 

[ollinger]

Not sure how "lack of conditioning" pertains to rolling an ankle for example, but perhaps the rules can be toughened without being abandoned. Something like one 5-minute injury timeout per match allowed. Want it tougher? No trainer, rub your own cramped thigh or tape your own anke if you need to. Even "Spiderman" on Broadway allows for some injury time-outs.

 

[roundiesee]

The injury time out rule needs to be thrown out. Tennis needs to go back to the lack of conditioning being a hard line, if you can't play, you default. The current rule invites gamesmanship and less than proper tactics. The pros today leverage the rule to the point that it is cheating.

Just for reference as to how much today's players are coddled by themselves, I was watching a replay of the WITC from the mid to late 70s which Pancho Gonzales was a commentator. During the match, a player changed shirts because it was extremely hot/humid. Gonzales said "Smith is changing his shirt now...I don't think that should be allowed..."

Agree wholeheartedly! Those were the good old days where players came on court with 2 rackets and a sweater, play without wiping their sweat endlessly with towels in between points, and stand to drink water at the change of ends! But alas, the powers that be will not allow this to happen.....

 

[Mustard]

The rule was changed after the 1995 US Open. During a first round match of that tournament between Shuzo Matsuoka and Petr Korda, Matsuoka was cramping badly and the rules at the time stated that Matsuoka would have forfeited the match if he had received medical attention for those cramps.

Despite leading by 2 sets to 1, and the fourth set being on serve with Matsuoka serving at 5-6, Matsuoka was defaulted for repeated delays of the match due to the cramping. Korda won the match 7-6, 6-7, 6-7, 6-5 def.

This match is what lead to the changes in the MTO rules.

 

[vive le beau jeu !]

are we talking about injury time-outs in the middle of a game, or during the change-overs ?

 

[tusharlovesrafa]

are we talking about injury time-outs in the middle of a game, or during the change-overs ?

LOl.. what's ur name??

 

[Sentinel]

Just wondering.
A player may not know whether the given condition can be played through or will cause irreparable or long term damage.
Will removing MTO's result in more matches being defaulted, or people playing through injuries and resulting in long term damage. ??

 

[Rabbit]

The rule was changed after the 1995 US Open. During a first round match of that tournament between Shuzo Matsuoka and Petr Korda, Matsuoka was cramping badly and the rules at the time stated that Matsuoka would have forfeited the match if he had received medical attention for those cramps.

Despite leading by 2 sets to 1, and the fourth set being on serve with Matsuoka serving at 5-6, Matsuoka was defaulted for repeated delays of the match due to the cramping. Korda won the match 7-6, 6-7, 6-7, 6-5 def.

This match is what lead to the changes in the MTO rules.

Yep, I remember the match. The change in rules was a knee jerk reaction to the image of Matsuoka in the fetal position on court cramping very badly. But in my view, they should not have gone as liberal as they did. A general loss of conidtioning, the inability to play, is a clean and proper rule. It is not subject to the kind of interpretation that we saw with the Fognini match. It is not a way to "cool" your opponent off. If you can't play, you default. The Aussies used to say "If you enter, you play, if you're hurt don't enter".

As to injury, that's always been part of any sport. The player is often and always the final judge of how well they can compete. If a player feels they cannot compete, then they should bag it plain and simple. Drawing out the inevitable by taking a time out every change is detrimental to the sport and downright unfair to your opponent. It is too often used as much as a tactic as anything else.

And I agree, what's up with going to the towel after every point when it's 60 degrees in Paris? There's too much stalling, too much complaining, and too much money now.

Just to add fuel to the fire, they should add a dadgum play clock at both ends of the court, right next to the elapsed time clock. The umpire should start it immediately upon calling score. If the play clock gets down to 0....you get written up.

 

[Sreeram]

I feel if you get injured and you need treatment you can and the game will continue once you recover - which is the current rule. But to avoid a player playing a tournament with injuries we need to setup a rule like if you took a medical help in previous match you are not allowed to take one more this match atleast for the same reason.
There is a similar rule in cricket, if you cannot run during a game and you ask for a runner (to run instead of you) and you continue to bat, then in the next match you cannot do the same. You wont be given a runner no matter what hapens to you.

 

[woodrow1029]

The rules were changed already to not allow medical timeouts for cramping. This happened a while ago. The rules were also changed as to when a player can take a medical time out.

If the player requests a medical during a game, he needs to wait for the changeover unless he has an acute medical condition that requires immediate attention.

With regard to cramping, they can only now have changeover time for cramping on two changeovers. If they are cramping during a game and can't wait to the changeover, they can forfeit any points or games necessary to get to the changeover. These forfeited points do not count as code violations.

 

[Mustard]

Here's an article on the situation:

http://www.tennischick.net/2009/04/tainted-legacy-of-shuzo-matsuoka.html

I don't agree with a lot of the opinions voiced in the article, but I know many people do.

 

[woodrow1029]

Forget about the opinions. A lot in that article is factually wrong. Not a well written article.

 

[coloskier]

It could be handled as simply as if you have to take an injury timeout, you automatically lose your next game and/or your next service game, whichever happens first. Your opponent should not be forced to lose his/her momentum because of your own injury. The injury was not the opponents fault and he/she should not be penalized for it. Injuries are part of tennis and you either play with the injury or quit, simple as that. If you are cramping, maybe you should have done the work off the court to keep it from happening on the court, OR maybe you should change your game plan so that cramping will not occur. The cramping is most likely occurring because your opponent is better shape than you are and is beating you like a bad stepchild. OR, your game plan involved trying to outlast your opponent but you cannot physically do it. I DETEST gamesmanship, whether it be "injury timeouts" or bathroom breaks.