Umpires should ACTUALLY enforce the 25 second rule starting in early 2013!

[egn]

Speak for yourself. I think the 20-25 second rule is ridiculous. Many of the umpires obviously agree, because they use their own discretion rather than rigidly enforcing the rule.

Oh and guess what, it's still a rule. Therefore it should be enforced. That's like the dumb argument of foot faults not being called. They are rules, they exist for a reason. Players abuse them it's unfair. Considering there are guys like Ferrer, Roddick etc. who took pride in their conditioning and thats where it shined through for them, meanwhile you have guys like Isner, Nadal and crew who after a long point or when they are tired drag out their in between serve to get that energy back. No not fair. Besides where does an umpire draw the line

Yeah, because you play at the level of these guys who play on the pro tour, don't you? You do not play against the best players in the world on very slow courts where rallys can last 40 shots or more. Your weekend warrior situation is not even remotely the same at all.

Well look at the condescending internet giant over here. I don't play at the pro level, however considering I work a full time job and play tennis probably 3-4 times a week I'm also not in the same level of conditioning etc. as them. So what is a more modest 10-15 shot rally takes a much larger toll on myself than a 40 shot rally. Please the average rally on the pro tour is not 40 shots either, the point is the 25 seconds is not insane. You have changeovers to rest

 

[Bartelby]

Foot faults are always called in officiated tennis.

 

[sbengte]

Some players are slower than others. Get over it.

Really ? Didn't expect this from you , tbh. So why not violate all other existing rules as well using whatever caveat suits you ? A player like Rochus or Ferrer is at a disadvantage due to his height , so should he be given a couple of extra serves ? Another player may not have as sharp a tennis brain as others, due to which he is disadvantaged, so should he get coaching from the stands ?

Will you still be saying "some players are shorter/not as smart as others, get over it" ? Do you see how absurd that sounds ?

 

[sbengte]

No, I don't. I want the rules to be enforced, and people to play within the rules no matter what style of tennis they play. If someone chooses to be a grinder, then let them find a way to win grinding while playing within the rules. Period.

So should Federer then be able to walk up and hit his serves from 5 feet behind the net without getting a penalty by the umpire? Or how about letting Murray get two bounces before he gets to the ball if he wants? If people should be able to break one of the rules without any consequence, why not any of the other rules?

This. I didn't see your post before I wrote something on the same lines above.

The problem is that if the umpires were to strictly enforce the rule 100% of the time , you would not just catch the frequent abusers like nadal but you would also potentially catch guys who occassionally cross the line. Think of this as a fishing net problem. If your holes are too big, you don't catch any fish, not even the big ones like nadal. But iIf your holes are too small, you catch everyone and actually harm th game.

I think that is not a very convincing reason for not enforcing the rule, kragster. As long as it is enforced consistently, everyone will be required to clean up their act, big fish or small. Someone who does it at every point will lost entire set going by the no. of point penalties he will accumulate ;-)

 

[Say Chi Sin Lo]

This is clearly a rare occurrence and exaggerates the problem, but it demonstrates the point that OP and some of the posters here are making:

(I'm sure it's been posted somewhere else on this forum at one point or another)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=29EV2I5wt3U

 

[Deleted member 307496]

The time usage is a way of goading the player at the other side of the net. It's friendly and it's a subtle use of aggressiveness.

 

[Tennis_Hands]

Some players are slower than others. Get over it.

Are you calling Nadal SLOW?

:roll:

 

[merlinpinpin]

Some players are slower than others. Get over it.

And some players make UE's, while some others don't (much). Should there also be a rule stating that all UE's should be replayed, so that players making UE's aren't at a disadvantage?

 

[axel89]

honestly it depends on the point a 5 stroke rally shold be 10 seconds-15 while a 40 strkoe rally should be like 35 trust me when you play a long rally you need some breathing time

 

[vive le beau jeu !]

great news !
evenf if just talking about it to the goldenbull worshippers is already a bit like shaking a nest of rabid hornets (a nest of "hornards" ?)...

now if the nadal complains there wasn't any cute attention to welcome him warmly on tour... how ungrateful from him it would be !

Only time will tell. No pun intended.

i hope this rule will help him to go back more quickly to golf and poker (can't wait to see clarly predicting the nadal will lose again while he has 5 aces in his hand).

Some players are slower than others. Get over it.

Are you calling Nadal SLOW?

 

[Magnetite]

After brutal points, they should get a bit of leeway, and in slams, in the 5th set, the rule should be increased to 35 seconds.

That being said, I do hate when the players take forever in between points for no reason.

 

[Akubra]

I think whenever these discussions come up , people say " umpires should enforce the rule" without understanding why it is that they are currently failing .

The problem is that if the umpires were to strictly enforce the rule 100% of the time , you would not just catch the frequent abusers like nadal but you would also potentially catch guys who occassionally cross the line. Think of this as a fishing net problem. If your holes are too big, you don't catch any fish, not even the big ones like nadal. But iIf your holes are too small, you catch everyone and actually harm th game.

This non-enforcement of the rule is a recent phenomenon. Players were abiding by a time limit rule for years. The vast majority of them will be able to abide by them without any difficulty. The trick is this - the umpire's job is to use a small level of discretion. If the server is at the line, and he hits his serve 26 seconds after the last point obviously that's not a big drama. The idea was they could use their noggin to determine when it was appropriate to allow the *occasional* slip-up.

Then along come Nadal and Djokovic, for example. Djokovic steps up to the line 20 seconds after his last point, and looks set to be comfortably inside the time limit. He bounces the ball a few times. Then bounces it some more. And some more. He bounces it 20+ times, and now we're 10-15 seconds *over* the time limit he should have easily been able to meet.

And Nadal.. I don't get why there hasn't been any real effort about him. He doesn't even try that trick. He just takes forever. Towels off, dances around, does whatever... 45 seconds, 50 seconds, a minute... and not a word is said.

The thing is, the net *used* to be a good size. And then umpires took out their knives and cut a gaping hole in it for the benefit of a small handful of players.

I think given the slowing of surfaces leadin to longer rallies, right now 25 seconds is too tight a net and umpires will never be willing to enforce so tight a net . I'd be willing to bet that you take a match between any 2 random players and you'd find them going over the time limit at least 20-30 times in the match.

Rather, the extra time allowed for recovery lets people play longer rallies and expend more energy in defense over and over again without having to worry about the next point.

Change the law to 30 or 35 seconds, that way umpires will feel more confidence in enforcing it and you make sure that the only ones penalized are the biggiest offenders like Rafa and djokovic .

30 seconds I could get behind. 35 is too long.

 

[Bartelby]

But umpires are employees and they are probably given instructions as to the interpretation of rules so there is consistency across a tournament.

 

[Alchemy-Z]

Slower surfaces need to allow for longer recovery.

if anything they need to up the time between points.

You know what I don't want to watch?....a bunch of winded double faults ...sloppy unforced errors ..instead of skillful winners...long powerful rallies etc..

 

[Akubra]

Slower surfaces need to allow for longer recovery.

if anything they need to up the time between points.

You know what I don't want to watch?....a bunch of winded double faults ...sloppy unforced errors ..instead of skillful winners...long powerful rallies etc..

You won't see winded double faults. You will see certain players having to be smarter about their shot selection and weigh the risk-rewards a little more. I mean let's be clear here - Federer plays within the time limits without any problems whatsoever. Most of the players do. It's only a select handful who go significantly over.

 

[Crisstti]

No, I don't. I want the rules to be enforced, and people to play within the rules no matter what style of tennis they play. If someone chooses to be a grinder, then let them find a way to win grinding while playing within the rules. Period.

If they can't, then they should find another style, or mix their style up more. But it isn't fair to have one set of rules, but then if you're a big enough star it gets ignored so you can take 50+ seconds between points instead of the 25 you're supposed to have. That isn't fair.

So should Federer then be able to walk up and hit his serves from 5 feet behind the net without getting a penalty by the umpire? Or how about letting Murray get two bounces before he gets to the ball if he wants? If people should be able to break one of the rules without any consequence, why not any of the other rules?

PS The server is supposed to control the tempo. It doesn't happen a lot of the time, especially if your last name is Nadal, and your first name begins with "Raf" and ends with "ael".

Why not any other rules?, because this particular rule isn't logical, which is why umpires use their discretion, like they should.

This really is the same argument over and over again, every time a Fed fan / Nadal hater posts this thread because they want Fed to be gifted points (and matches) he can't win on the court, on a technicality.

That is why we never see non-**** Fed fans like Towser or Zagor whining about this.

Speaking of non-**** Fed fans, I haven't seen FashFlare in a while

 

[Crisstti]

I shouldn't say all the time, but he does it awfully a lot, especially during a critical point(e.g. break point)

Toni Nadal: "I hope now Roger Federer and Novak Djokovic will get injured"

http://www.**************.org/Toni-...k-Djokovic-will-get-injured-articolo7168.html
http://www.tennisearth.com/news/ten...nd-Novak-Djokovic-will-get-injured-478826.htm

some more seconds ?
You mean like 20-30 seconds. That's a lot.

People fall asleep.

No, he doesn't. The server has to wait for the receiver to be ready, as long as it's within reasonable time. If the server wants to serve after just 7 seconds or so that doesn't mean the receiver has to be ready then.

As for your quote, it's been proven here several times it's inaccurate. You know that, which is why you don't answer, and then just post your initial links later on when challenged about it.

I don' feel like wasting my time, so I'll just post a link to what's been already said:
http://tt.tennis-warehouse.com/showthread.php?t=447478

 

[kragster]

This. I didn't see your post before I wrote something on the same lines above.



I think that is not a very convincing reason for not enforcing the rule, kragster. As long as it is enforced consistently, everyone will be required to clean up their act, big fish or small. Someone who does it at every point will lost entire set going by the no. of point penalties he will accumulate ;-)

But you are looking at the problem and saying "Umpires just need to do a better job" without diagnosing why they are doing a bad job.

We need to get to the bottom of why umpires aren't enforcing the time limit. Is it

a) They think the law is reasonable but are too lazy to enforce it
b) They think the law is reasonable but are too afraid/uncomfortable to enforce it given that it will make them unpopular with some of the crowd
c) They think the law is too strict for them to apply objectively (i.e. to everyone) but are worried to apply it subjectively

My feeling is that it could potentially be the 3rd i.e. right now their only options are penalize everyone (albeit someone like Nadal/Djoker would be penalized much more) or penalize no-one. So given those choices they are choosing to penalize no one.

There is no magic 'right number' for this. You may very well be right that if we increase it to 30 seconds, umpires still would not enforce it. But we need to be open to trying different options. Simply asking umpires to enforce the rule more strictly won't do anything, unless you are prepared to fire umpires over this issue, which I highly doubt the ATP would be willing to do.

 

[jjaded]

But you are looking at the problem and saying
c) They think the law is too strict for them to apply objectively (i.e. to everyone) but are worried to apply it subjectively

I think you are probably right, maybe they should switch from 25 seconds to 35 seconds with strict enforcement. As a fan it get annoying to watch really long breaks (I think that is half the reason players use their challenges—to have more time).

I only remember Djoker being reprimanded once for a very long ball bouncing. I understand refs hesitation when it is really windy or the crowd is being noisy, and a player is just waiting for a lull.

 

[woodrow1029]

But you are looking at the problem and saying "Umpires just need to do a better job" without diagnosing why they are doing a bad job.

We need to get to the bottom of why umpires aren't enforcing the time limit. Is it

a) They think the law is reasonable but are too lazy to enforce it
b) They think the law is reasonable but are too afraid/uncomfortable to enforce it given that it will make them unpopular with some of the crowd
c) They think the law is too strict for them to apply objectively (i.e. to everyone) but are worried to apply it subjectively

My feeling is that it could potentially be the 3rd i.e. right now their only options are penalize everyone (albeit someone like Nadal/Djoker would be penalized much more) or penalize no-one. So given those choices they are choosing to penalize no one.

There is no magic 'right number' for this. You may very well be right that if we increase it to 30 seconds, umpires still would not enforce it. But we need to be open to trying different options. Simply asking umpires to enforce the rule more strictly won't do anything, unless you are prepared to fire umpires over this issue, which I highly doubt the ATP would be willing to do.

A.) Not lazy (usually)
B.) Umpires are not afraid to make a call because the crowd might not like it.
C.) That's closest to the reason out of the 3 options.

It's a dumb rule the way it is now, which is why it is now being changed for 2013. Nobody pays attention to the FACT that if players start getting time violations (point penalties), ATP/WTA/ITF are going to lose even MORE of the few fans they already have. Now that it will only be a fault, and not loss of point, it will make it more enforceable. And to the people that think it won't affect anything to the players to just have a second serve, that argument is complete rubbish.

And, again, once time violations start getting handed out, and players start losing first serves on break points at tight points of a close match, and then they have to hit a second serve only to a top returner, you will see just as much resentment towards the umpires as you do now, but on the other side. It's going to be quite comical actually.

 

[Akubra]

Why not any other rules?, because this particular rule isn't logical, which is why umpires use their discretion, like they should.

This really is the same argument over and over again, every time a Fed fan / Nadal hater posts this thread because they want Fed to be gifted points (and matches) he can't win on the court, on a technicality.

That is why we never see non-**** Fed fans like Towser or Zagor whining about this.

Speaking of non-**** Fed fans, I haven't seen FashFlare in a while

What's illogical about the rule? Should players be allowed to take as long as they want between points? "Hey I'm a bit winded...let's pick back up in 20 minutes or so." Of course not. A line has to be drawn and it needs to be tempered with some common sense. 25 seconds was the line the ATP settled on. It's a rule.

I think the umpires should enforce of the rules. If you foot fault on an important point in a slam final, you foot faulted. You shouldn't get no call because of who you are or what round of the tournament it is. The point of having rules is to provide a level playing field for all of the competitors.

If a player isn't fit enough or savvy enough to find a way to win following the rules, then they need to change the way they do things. If Federer was a foot faulted then I'd be frustrated at the linespeople if they weren't calling it on him. Win within the rules or go home.

 

[woodrow1029]

What's illogical about the rule? Should players be allowed to take as long as they want between points? "Hey I'm a bit winded...let's pick back up in 20 minutes or so." Of course not. A line has to be drawn and it needs to be tempered with some common sense. 25 seconds was the line the ATP settled on. It's a rule.

I think the umpires should enforce of the rules. If you foot fault on an important point in a slam final, you foot faulted. You shouldn't get no call because of who you are or what round of the tournament it is. The point of having rules is to provide a level playing field for all of the competitors.

If a player isn't fit enough or savvy enough to find a way to win following the rules, then they need to change the way they do things. If Federer was a foot faulted then I'd be frustrated at the linespeople if they weren't calling it on him. Win within the rules or go home.

Let me guess, you're one who thinks there should be no discretion about it right? You think there should be a shot clock right? Because it shouldn't matter why or when a player goes over the 25 seconds (or 20 in WTA/ITF), right? I love how people compare the time violation rules to a line call.

 

[woodrow1029]

By the way, the rule in the ATP rulebook makes it clear that it is a discretionary rule. Nobody seems to realize that though. A foot fault is not a discretionary call.

 

[woodrow1029]

Maybe ATP should take out the wording in the rule that makes it a discretionary rule.

 

[3fees]

Probably, yet I doubt they will unless very long delay.

 

[Roforot]

Maybe ATP should take out the wording in the rule that makes it a discretionary rule.

Is the "special circumstances" what you mean by discretionary? Do you know where they have these special circumstsances defined? Thanks.
----------------------

Time Violation or Code Violation. A Time or Code Violation must be as- sessed if the ball is not struck for the next point within the twenty-five (25) seconds allowed, except if the chair umpire extends the time for special cir- cumstances defined by the ATP. There is no time warning prior to the expira- tion of the twenty-five (25) seconds.

 

[woodrow1029]

Is the "special circumstances" what you mean by discretionary? Do you know where they have these special circumstsances defined? Thanks.
----------------------

Time Violation or Code Violation. A Time or Code Violation must be as- sessed if the ball is not struck for the next point within the twenty-five (25) seconds allowed, except if the chair umpire extends the time for special cir- cumstances defined by the ATP. There is no time warning prior to the expira- tion of the twenty-five (25) seconds.

It's the basic stuff that makes it discretionary, excessive crowd noises, broken strings, etc. no I don't think it's written actually.

 

[Crisstti]

What's illogical about the rule? Should players be allowed to take as long as they want between points? "Hey I'm a bit winded...let's pick back up in 20 minutes or so." Of course not. A line has to be drawn and it needs to be tempered with some common sense. 25 seconds was the line the ATP settled on. It's a rule.

I think the umpires should enforce of the rules. If you foot fault on an important point in a slam final, you foot faulted. You shouldn't get no call because of who you are or what round of the tournament it is. The point of having rules is to provide a level playing field for all of the competitors.

If a player isn't fit enough or savvy enough to find a way to win following the rules, then they need to change the way they do things. If Federer was a foot faulted then I'd be frustrated at the linespeople if they weren't calling it on him. Win within the rules or go home.

It's too little time. It doesn't take into account whether the previous point was too gruelling, there's crown noise, etc. Too old a rule also that doesn't consider how tennis has evolved.

There still needs to be a rule however, or players could take any amount of time. I don't see either how making it 35 seconds or whatever would be better, since players could go and take longer than they do now (no, Nadal and Djokovic don't take that long all the time, many times they're within 20/25 seconds).

Also, what Woodrow said:

By the way, the rule in the ATP rulebook makes it clear that it is a discretionary rule. Nobody seems to realize that though. A foot fault is not a discretionary call.

 

[Akubra]

Let me guess, you're one who thinks there should be no discretion about it right? You think there should be a shot clock right? Because it shouldn't matter why or when a player goes over the 25 seconds (or 20 in WTA/ITF), right? I love how people compare the time violation rules to a line call.

You can guess. You'd be wrong. I think there needs to be room for a little discretion on the part of the umpire. I don't think there should be a shot clock. They are professionals. They know what 25 seconds feels like.

The problem is, discretion of allowing small, occasional amounts of overage has turned into some players taking significantly over on a regular basis. The rule has been abused in recent years the referees are not doing enough to keep matches moving the way that they should. Giving the players an extra 5-10 seconds after a longer, more physical rally I've got no issue with. It's when someone takes a minute between points that you realize it has gone too far.

 

[Clarky21]

No, he doesn't. The server has to wait for the receiver to be ready, as long as it's within reasonable time. If the server wants to serve after just 7 seconds or so that doesn't mean the receiver has to be ready then.

As for your quote, it's been proven here several times it's inaccurate. You know that, which is why you don't answer, and then just post your initial links later on when challenged about it.

I don' feel like wasting my time, so I'll just post a link to what's been already said:
http://tt.tennis-warehouse.com/showthread.php?t=447478

TMF is huge troll. Continually bringing up such an inaccurate quote like that, even though he knows Toni never said that and that he is a lying through his teeth, more than proves it. He's been on my ignore list for a very long time, and that doesn't look to be changing any time soon.

 

[Towser83]

Why not any other rules?, because this particular rule isn't logical, which is why umpires use their discretion, like they should.

This really is the same argument over and over again, every time a Fed fan / Nadal hater posts this thread because they want Fed to be gifted points (and matches) he can't win on the court, on a technicality.

That is why we never see non-**** Fed fans like Towser or Zagor whining about this.

Speaking of non-**** Fed fans, I haven't seen FashFlare in a while

Well I don't whine about it but I do think that the time taken between points is getting out of hand, and if umpires aren't going to do anything about it then just get rid of the rule.But if there's a rule, it's silly mostly ignoring it. It's like on court coaching and how they actually alllow this at the womaen's tour except for slams.

The thing is, Djokovic one of my favourite players is a prime offender and I admit that and wish he would speed up. It's like he has a mental issue where he has to bounce the ball 15 times in a tight situation. If the rules say he is going over time then really he should have to play without constantly using that mental crutch. Nadal used to be a bit quicker but after running out of gas in the Miami 2005 final he seemed to slow his service routine down. Delpo seem to be so big he can't walk any faster but who knows :lol: Even Murray who I think is naturally fairly swift is thinking "might as well slow down like everyone else and recover from these long rallies"

Now I don't want to see point penalties, because that's not tennis. But Maybe they can get warned now and then and hopefully it'll be a little reminder.. maybe just dock them a carefully chosen amount of money :lol: that way the match is still won or lost on play, but you know you might get fined if you are really being slow.

I dunno, I mean it's not a huge thing for me, but it can get frustrating watching guys take 40+ seconds towelling down after every point from right at the start of the match. It's got to the point where I don't even feel they need that long sometimes they just have become used to it. It's totally different if it's late in a match or there has been an epic rally though.

Maybe up the time between points to 30 seconds though and you get a warning if you take over 40 or something. I would much rather see a better mix of slow AND fast HCs, more grass and the WTF being the best of 5 than the time rule being enforced, sadly I don't think it really can be.

Speak for yourself. I think the 20-25 second rule is ridiculous. Many of the umpires obviously agree, because they use their own discretion rather than rigidly enforcing the rule.

No I think they just don't want the hassle of calling them out. They get enough hassel when they foot fault someone. Have you EVER seen a time violation warning get followed up with a point penalty? The umpires won't touch it. Plus if it was rigidly enforced they would be calling time violation about 30 times a match :lol: Doesn't mean they ALL think the rule is wrong. I would be shocked if every single umpire was of the same opinion.

 

[woodrow1029]

You can guess. You'd be wrong. I think there needs to be room for a little discretion on the part of the umpire. I don't think there should be a shot clock. They are professionals. They know what 25 seconds feels like.

The problem is, discretion of allowing small, occasional amounts of overage has turned into some players taking significantly over on a regular basis. The rule has been abused in recent years the referees are not doing enough to keep matches moving the way that they should. Giving the players an extra 5-10 seconds after a longer, more physical rally I've got no issue with. It's when someone takes a minute between points that you realize it has gone too far.

Yes a few people abuse it, but it's very rarely a minute. Wen it is a minute, usually it's after a great point an the crowd taking 40 seconds to start to calm down.

It's made more f a big deal on discussion forums than anywhere else. I've not chaired a Nadal match; however, I have chaired thousands of matches on numerous stadium courts all over te world, and yes I've been in matches where one player was going over the time consistently. Usually they correct it when spoken to on a changeover. Even Nadal usually does. Most people don't even realize that nadal gets soft wanings on changeovers. He does. And after he receives a soft warning or formal warning, he might ***** about it but he usually picks up the pace. After that, he may take a while a few times, but not as consistently. The time violations are there for a pattern, not for a couple or few instances. If they or the most part correc it after being warned, then the umpire shouldn't get too involved. I don't think umpires should get involved deep in a right match, especially when 99% of the time the opponent isn't worried about it, and try usually are not. It's te people on discussion boards that complain about it.

I do believe it should be enforced more, but I also believe in 2012/2013 25 seconds is not reasonable. 20 seconds at ITF/WTA is even less reasonable.

Even more unreasonable is that I don't even think ITF has adopted te new penalty system to make it a fault instead of loss of point. You can't expect consistency when the organizations don't even make consistent rules. Furthermore when you word the rule in such a way that its clearly discretionary, it's gonna be even less consistent.

You have to give the umpire better tools to work with before they can consistently enforce things.

Also some people think that it should be enforced EVERY time. Shouldn't and won't happen.

Bump the time up to 30-35 seconds, make it more enforceable, make the rules consistent so the umpires don't have to go from week to week doing different things, being more strict or less strict, allowing more or less time. We lose credibility with the players because they don't even know some of the rules are different sometimes.

 

[eliars]

The rule needs to be either enforced or changed. I would go for the latter. The rule was made back in the day, when there weren't many 20+ grueling rallies and where the game generally wasn't as physical demanding as it is today. Inflation needs to be accounted for. Throwing in another 5 seconds would be fair to be honest.

 

[woodrow1029]

Well I don't whine about it but I do think that the time taken between points is getting out of hand, and if umpires aren't going to do anything about it then just get rid of the rule.But if there's a rule, it's silly mostly ignoring it. It's like on court coaching and how they actually alllow this at the womaen's tour except for slams.

The thing is, Djokovic one of my favourite players is a prime offender and I admit that and wish he would speed up. It's like he has a mental issue where he has to bounce the ball 15 times in a tight situation. If the rules say he is going over time then really he should have to play without constantly using that mental crutch. Nadal used to be a bit quicker but after running out of gas in the Miami 2005 final he seemed to slow his service routine down. Delpo seem to be so big he can't walk any faster but who knows :lol: Even Murray who I think is naturally fairly swift is thinking "might as well slow down like everyone else and recover from these long rallies"

Now I don't want to see point penalties, because that's not tennis. But Maybe they can get warned now and then and hopefully it'll be a little reminder.. maybe just dock them a carefully chosen amount of money :lol: that way the match is still won or lost on play, but you know you might get fined if you are really being slow.

I dunno, I mean it's not a huge thing for me, but it can get frustrating watching guys take 40+ seconds towelling down after every point from right at the start of the match. It's got to the point where I don't even feel they need that long sometimes they just have become used to it. It's totally different if it's late in a match or there has been an epic rally though.

Maybe up the time between points to 30 seconds though and you get a warning if you take over 40 or something. I would much rather see a better mix of slow AND fast HCs, more grass and the WTF being the best of 5 than the time rule being enforced, sadly I don't think it really can be.



No I think they just don't want the hassle of calling them out. They get enough hassel when they foot fault someone. Have you EVER seen a time violation warning get followed up with a point penalty? The umpires won't touch it. Plus if it was rigidly enforced they would be calling time violation about 30 times a match :lol: Doesn't mean they ALL think the rule is wrong. I would be shocked if every single umpire was of the same opinion.

Chair umpires don't call the foot faults. Line umpires do. Line umpires don't have any discretionary calls. It's a line call.

People need to stop comparing time violations to foot faults. Apples and oranges.

 

[Towser83]

Chair umpires don't call the foot faults. Line umpires do. Line umpires don't have any discretionary calls. It's a line call.

People need to stop comparing time violations to foot faults. Apples and oranges.

True about line judges calling it, but the point is time violations and foot faults are calls people don't want to make.

 

[Akubra]

It's made more f a big deal on discussion forums than anywhere else.

Where else would it be made a big deal of? Everything is a big deal on some message board somewhere!

Even Nadal usually does. Most people don't even realize that nadal gets soft wanings on changeovers. He does. And after he receives a soft warning or formal warning, he might ***** about it but he usually picks up the pace. After that, he may take a while a few times, but not as consistently.

This is where the problem comes in for me. The guy is a repeat offender. He comes out on the court every time going over, and waits for someone to say something before he fixes it. And as you say 'usually'. Which means there are times when he doesn't, and nothing comes of it. Of all the tennis I've watched, I think I've only ever seen him warned once. Maybe twice.

The time violations are there for a pattern, not for a couple or few instances.

I completely agree. My problem is that when there are patterns, nothing or little is being done about it.

It's te people on discussion boards that complain about it.

That's because we're fans and we watch and play the sport. We care. Take us away and the whole house of cards comes tumbling down (by us I mean fans, not the internet message boards). We have a right to complain about it when we watch our sport not being treated the way it should be.

To my mind, make it either 25 across the board or 30 across the board. Allow discretion for crowd noise or *external* interruptions, and maybe 2 warning-free violations per set (to no more than 50 seconds or something similar) for delays that are player-caused. The rest of the time, step up and play when you should.

 

[woodrow1029]

For that matte you can say an out call is a call one doesn't want to make.

Baseline umpires don't go out to the court saying I hope I don't have to call a foot fault. I never did anyway. There are players that you go out there knowing there's a chance you will have to. Hewitt, Sampras, Serena, Bryan Brothers, rusedski, zimonjic, etc.

Sometimes they surprise you. People just think line umpires are hesitant to call them. Not the case.

 

[Towser83]

For that matte you can say an out call is a call one doesn't want to make.

Baseline umpires don't go out to the court saying I hope I don't have to call a foot fault. I never did anyway. There are players that you go out there knowing there's a chance you will have to. Hewitt, Sampras, Serena, Bryan Brothers, rusedski, zimonjic, etc.

Sometimes they surprise you. People just think line umpires are hesitant to call them. Not the case.

No not quite the same. A guy gets an out call and unless it's really far from a correct call it's probably not going to stir up much fuss, especially now with hawkeye. But hawkeye can not deal with footfaults. I';ve seen Roddick go CRAZY over a footfault and of course Serena physically threatened a lineswoman over something which SHE COULD NOT SEE. Unlike an out call where you might get a really good look at it, a footfault is something you do not have even slightly in your field of vision. Yet players go nuts at them. I've heard ex player/commentators say that in a important moment like that Serena incidenet, they should not call footfaults. That's how much people hate getting them. I would not want to call one and have Serena threaten my *** :lol:

I mean you know better than me, but at the same time you can't know what's in other linespeople's heads. And to the matter in hand, you really think there isn't a case of umpires not enforcing time violations because of the hassle it would cause?

 

[woodrow1029]

No not quite the same. A guy gets an out call and unless it's really far from a correct call it's probably not going to stir up much fuss, especially now with hawkeye. But hawkeye can not deal with footfaults. I';ve seen Roddick go CRAZY over a footfault and of course Serena physically threatened a lineswoman over something which SHE COULD NOT SEE. Unlike an out call where you might get a really good look at it, a footfault is something you do not have even slightly in your field of vision. Yet players go nuts at them. I've heard ex player/commentators say that in a important moment like that Serena incidenet, they should not call footfaults. That's how much people hate getting them. I would not want to call one and have Serena threaten my *** :lol:

I mean you know better than me, but at the same time you can't know what's in other linespeople's heads. And to the matter in hand, you really think there isn't a case of umpires not enforcing time violations because of the hassle it would cause?

The problem is that people believe the moron ex-players commentators make dumb comments like a line call shouldn't be made because its a tight time of the match.

Then people watching believe the nonsense. Then it makes it look like the umpires think they are a bad guy because they just made an easy line call against a viewer's favorite player. Then it gets translated that a line umpire doesn't want to make that call. When in reality, we don't want to and don't not want to. It's just a line call to us and to the players 99% of the time. That 1% of the time that a player blows up, and it gets blown way out of proportion.

 

[amx13]

This issue has an easy fix, an NBA-shotclock-like device where both players can see it (maybe along side of the signs with the serve speed?), and a small buzzer when the time is up, so theres no need to get mad at the umpires for enforcing the rule.

 

[woodrow1029]

No not quite the same. A guy gets an out call and unless it's really far from a correct call it's probably not going to stir up much fuss, especially now with hawkeye. But hawkeye can not deal with footfaults. I';ve seen Roddick go CRAZY over a footfault and of course Serena physically threatened a lineswoman over something which SHE COULD NOT SEE. Unlike an out call where you might get a really good look at it, a footfault is something you do not have even slightly in your field of vision. Yet players go nuts at them. I've heard ex player/commentators say that in a important moment like that Serena incidenet, they should not call footfaults. That's how much people hate getting them. I would not want to call one and have Serena threaten my *** :lol:

I mean you know better than me, but at the same time you can't know what's in other linespeople's heads. And to the matter in hand, you really think there isn't a case of umpires not enforcing time violations because of the hassle it would cause?

I just said that its too inconsistent of a rule (time violations) with the rule changing from week to week. So yeah, the players don't know the rules are different an it would cause a hassle. Add it to the fact that the rule is dumb the way it is, sure a lot of chair umpires don't want to get involved.

But is it not true what I said, brad Gilbert can sit there for a while saying he's going over the time limit, put a stupid shot clock out there, the umpire isn't doing his job, etc. when the other player doesn't seem to care, or the other player is going over time as well, but noone pays attention to that because he's playing nadal, or whatever reason. Then 3 minutes later, the umpire gives a time violation, and brad Gilbert says, what is e doing, I can't believe he have a warning, etc. it's so stupid to listen on TV, then the same comments pop up here.

People watching make a much bigger deal about it ten the players playing. And if time violations are given out like candy, tennis is gonna lose viewers and popularity and its going to be a joke.

Btw sorry for the typos tonight. Trying to type fast with iPhone.

 

[woodrow1029]

This issue has an easy fix, an NBA-shotclock-like device where both players can see it (maybe along side of the signs with the serve speed?), and a small buzzer when the time is up, so theres no need to get mad at the umpires for enforcing the rule.

Shot clock is not a good fix, actually. However, at some point we might see one.

 

[Towser83]

The problem is that people believe the moron ex-players commentators make dumb comments like a line call shouldn't be made because its a tight time of the match.

Then people watching believe the nonsense. Then it makes it look like the umpires think they are a bad guy because they just made an easy line call against a viewer's favorite player. Then it gets translated that a line umpire doesn't want to make that call. When in reality, we don't want to and don't not want to. It's just a line call to us and to the players 99% of the time. That 1% of the time that a player blows up, and it gets blown way out of proportion.

yeah i'm not saying a linesperson is going to ignore a footfault or think twice about calling it, i'm just saying they are aware of the fact players often get annoyed and the crowd does too. But of course they make it anyway because it's an important call, even if they will be looked at as the bad guy.

Time violations also will make the umpire unpopular with the player an probably crowd, but it's not as important. There's some descretion applied and so I think an umpire has to know several times a player is going past time but doesn't call it.Which I think is fair enough, i can't see it working if you had a clock and you got rigidly held to the time limit. Also an umpire probably doesn't want to give out a time violation every time cos it would slow the game down more than the slow play and players would lose so many points. I also have seen Djokovic and Nadal get a warning but NEVER seen a second infringement called. This can't be just chance, they don't want to call it and dock a point. Surely this is the reason? I'm not accusing umpires of doing anything unprofessional, like i said it's up to their discretion.

 

[Bartelby]

Why don't we wait to see the fault for server penalty system works in the ATP events?

As it will be normally a first service penalty I think it will create a new sense of urgency.

 

[woodrow1029]

yeah i'm not saying a linesperson is going to ignore a footfault or think twice about calling it, i'm just saying they are aware of the fact players often get annoyed and the crowd does too. But of course they make it anyway because it's an important call, even if they will be looked at as the bad guy.

Time violations also will make the umpire unpopular with the player an probably crowd, but it's not as important. There's some descretion applied and so I think an umpire has to know several times a player is going past time but doesn't call it.Which I think is fair enough, i can't see it working if you had a clock and you got rigidly held to the time limit. Also an umpire probably doesn't want to give out a time violation every time cos it would slow the game down more than the slow play and players would lose so many points. I also have seen Djokovic and Nadal get a warning but NEVER seen a second infringement called. This can't be just chance, they don't want to call it and dock a point. Surely this is the reason? I'm not accusing umpires of doing anything unprofessional, like i said it's up to their discretion.

I wouldn't disagree with this post.

 

[Towser83]

I wouldn't disagree with this post.

Cool. It's a tricky subject though because the rule is not an easy one to enforce without runining matches.

 

[TMF]

This issue has an easy fix, an NBA-shotclock-like device where both players can see it (maybe along side of the signs with the serve speed?), and a small buzzer when the time is up, so theres no need to get mad at the umpires for enforcing the rule.

I like this idea. At first it maybe akward, but eventually they will get use to it.

 

[sbengte]

But you are looking at the problem and saying "Umpires just need to do a better job" without diagnosing why they are doing a bad job.

We need to get to the bottom of why umpires aren't enforcing the time limit. Is it

a) They think the law is reasonable but are too lazy to enforce it
b) They think the law is reasonable but are too afraid/uncomfortable to enforce it given that it will make them unpopular with some of the crowd
c) They think the law is too strict for them to apply objectively (i.e. to everyone) but are worried to apply it subjectively

My feeling is that it could potentially be the 3rd i.e. right now their only options are penalize everyone (albeit someone like Nadal/Djoker would be penalized much more) or penalize no-one. So given those choices they are choosing to penalize no one.

There is no magic 'right number' for this. You may very well be right that if we increase it to 30 seconds, umpires still would not enforce it. But we need to be open to trying different options. Simply asking umpires to enforce the rule more strictly won't do anything, unless you are prepared to fire umpires over this issue, which I highly doubt the ATP would be willing to do.

Well, if I had to pick an option, my guess would be (b). Have the umpires been given a uniform directive to not enforce this rule ? Who knows ? Don't think so because players have been warned in certain cases. It makes no sense to make the enforcement of this rule left to the discretion of the umpire completely without any kind of consistency. Like many have already said, I think they should either revisit the rule itself and change it or enforce it as it is. Don't make a mockery out of it by having it in the book and let it be routinely abused. Like Akubra said, where is the limit ? What if a top player takes a minute after each point tomorrow and the umpire allows it using his discretion ?

 

[tudwell]

The problem is that people believe the moron ex-players commentators make dumb comments like a line call shouldn't be made because its a tight time of the match.

That's what I really hate.

By the way, I remember a Karlovic match not too long ago in which he was called for something like ten foot faults and complained about the calls afterward. I assume almost all the time line judges do their best to be fair and reasonable, but are there times when biases become apparent (and was that one case)? If so, how long before that judge is removed and replaced by another one, if that's indeed what happens?

 

[tudwell]

yeah i'm not saying a linesperson is going to ignore a footfault or think twice about calling it, i'm just saying they are aware of the fact players often get annoyed and the crowd does too. But of course they make it anyway because it's an important call, even if they will be looked at as the bad guy.

Time violations also will make the umpire unpopular with the player an probably crowd, but it's not as important. There's some descretion applied and so I think an umpire has to know several times a player is going past time but doesn't call it.Which I think is fair enough, i can't see it working if you had a clock and you got rigidly held to the time limit. Also an umpire probably doesn't want to give out a time violation every time cos it would slow the game down more than the slow play and players would lose so many points. I also have seen Djokovic and Nadal get a warning but NEVER seen a second infringement called. This can't be just chance, they don't want to call it and dock a point. Surely this is the reason? I'm not accusing umpires of doing anything unprofessional, like i said it's up to their discretion.

Another aspect to this is that different umpires will use different levels of discretion. How much, how often, and by how long the player goes over time could stay constant between matches and get varying results from the umpire. I don't think a rigid shot clock is the answer, but I think the current system could be tidied up for sure.