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

[Crisstti]

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.

I think a rule of some sort is needed so that some players wouldn't use it as gamesmanship and take eternal amounts of time... maybe even just something like "the server must serve within a reasonable amount of time".

I would like to know if it really was after Miami 2005 that Nadal started to get slower (out of pure curiosity)... Was he slower already in, say, RG 2005 or Madrid that year?.

Point penalties or anything similar, indeed, is not tennis, points and matches cannot be decided by the umpire.  What we have now, while not perfect, works really just fine.  To have matches decided that way, now THAT would be ruining tennis.
I'm not sure a fine would be very fair, since it'd mean players like Nadal, Djokovic, del Potro could afford to take as long as they want, while the lower ranked players couldn't...

I don't think players take 40+ seconds at the start of matches?. This is so not an issue as far as I'm concerned, that I hadn't even noticed Nadal or Delpo took long, or that Djokovic bounced the ball many times, until others pointed it out.

 

[TMF]

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.

No. The server control the pace of the game. Just like on other sports(eg soccer, basketball), the defender(s) has to be ready all the time, and the offensive players dictate the pace.


And try to stay on topic(stop trolling) by not bringing up Toni said about "hoping" Fed and Nole will get injured.

 

[heninfan99]

I wouldn't want to be the one to tell Nadal to speed it up but I have to say watching old Rod Laver clips is a pleasure. Many of those guys from back then took only 1 second between serves and held two balls in their hand!

I think they should start the warning process early on in a match. Sometimes it seems they wait for breakpoints and tie breaks to start warning. If they don't enforce it they should change the rule.

 

[Crisstti]

No. The server control the pace of the game. Just like on other sports(eg soccer, basketball), the defender(s) has to be ready all the time, and the offensive players dictate the pace.

And try to stay on topic(stop trolling) by not bringing up Toni said about "hoping" Fed and Nole will get injured.

As long as it's within reasonable time, he has to wait for the receiver. This has been discussed before, the rules posted, etc.

You know, just like the Toni quote about "trusting" Fed and Novak get injured.

 

[heninfan99]

Yes. Kind of the opposite of the notorious 1994 Sampras/Goran Wimby final someone posted about recently.

I agree. The Aust Open Final between Nadal and Djokovic last year was a great match for the standard of play, but the first 4 sets were largely ruined as a spectacle by the slowness of play. It became a great match in the 5th because of the tension. I've also never understood why Djokovic's opponents let him get away with bouncing the ball 20 times for some serves and only 5 for others. When he keeps bouncing it they should just walk away

 

[fps]

I gotta say, just as a viewer, I find it really boring when there is a 35 second break for someone to hit one serve, the guy to miss the return, then ANOTHER 35 second break, it's ridiculous. Even more annoying when the person misses their first serve, then takes another twenty seconds. A whole minute can pass where nothing happens.

God Nadal-Djokovic at the AO was boring for this reason, the tennis, don't get me wrong, was great, but there's so much other stuff that isn't tennis that happens, nothing flows, everyone just resets endlessly, while nothing happens, and me, the viewer, I get bored.

 

[woodrow1029]

No. The server control the pace of the game. Just like on other sports(eg soccer, basketball), the defender(s) has to be ready all the time, and the offensive players dictate the pace.

You really like to tell it how it isn't and just make up information, don't you?

 

[TTMR]

Then enforce it without exceptions. Not to quiet the crowd, not to recover from a 35 shot rally, not to get a new racquet, not to demand an unnecessary roof closure. Maybe if debris flies onto the court you can give sufficient time to clear it off, but no more.

The trouble is the pharisees don't actually want a literal application of the rule. They just want it enforced against players they don't like. Notice how many of them said failure to enforce the rule hurts players like Federer and Del Potro because they can't build on the momentum of their fast, attacking game style. Del Potro is one of the most egregious offenders among the top players. He takes ages between points especially as that match wears on. But we like Del Potro and he is a big strong aggressive player so we can't possibly lump him into the same category as Nadal and Djokovic.

 

[Towser83]

I think a rule of some sort is needed so that some players wouldn't use it as gamesmanship and take eternal amounts of time... maybe even just something like "the server must serve within a reasonable amount of time".

I would like to know if it really was after Miami 2005 that Nadal started to get slower (out of pure curiosity)... Was he slower already in, say, RG 2005 or Madrid that year?.

Point penalties or anything similar, indeed, is not tennis, points and matches cannot be decided by the umpire.  What we have now, while not perfect, works really just fine.  To have matches decided that way, now THAT would be ruining tennis.
I'm not sure a fine would be very fair, since it'd mean players like Nadal, Djokovic, del Potro could afford to take as long as they want, while the lower ranked players couldn't...

I don't think players take 40+ seconds at the start of matches?. This is so not an issue as far as I'm concerned, that I hadn't even noticed Nadal or Delpo took long, or that Djokovic bounced the ball many times, until others pointed it out.

I'm not sure if Nadal slowed down straight after Miami, but watching bits of that final again he did seem to serve quicker then I think in MC you see him do stuff like adjusting his socks etc. I don't know if this was just a thing to calm himself down and take a few extra seconds. Not saying he intended to take more time than allowed but could have been to slow down a bit and calm his mind and save energy.

Yeah I guess higher ranked guys could take the fine..

Maybe I was exaggerating a bit but some matches people are slow early on and it frustrates me a bit sometimes. mainly just how many times they take the towel, like after every point.

maybe there should be some sort of clock that monitors how much a player is going over time, but it just accumulates and after a certain amount of accumulated time you get a warning, plus the player can see how much time they are running up so they can see if they need to be a bit quicker. Would need to work out a reasonable amount though.

If it can't be solved though, just do away with the rule, let the umpire decide if there's too much time wasting. I watch snooker and it's like that apart from certain events that have a shot clock (you can also call a time out if you need more time, you have a certain amount of time outs) but most events it's up to the referee to decide if you are taking too long.

 

[Akubra]

The trouble is the pharisees don't actually want a literal application of the rule. They just want it enforced against players they don't like. Notice how many of them said failure to enforce the rule hurts players like Federer and Del Potro because they can't build on the momentum of their fast, attacking game style. Del Potro is one of the most egregious offenders among the top players. He takes ages between points especially as that match wears on. But we like Del Potro and he is a big strong aggressive player so we can't possibly lump him into the same category as Nadal and Djokovic.

That's absurd. I want the rule enforced against everyone, whether I like them or not. Heck, I like Nadal. I don't blame him for the delays. I blame the umpires. He's a professional who wants to win. He's going to do everything he can to do so. If the umpires will give him 1 minute to recover between points, he'd be a fool not to take it. Likewise, if they start giving him only 25 seconds, I'm sure he'd adapt in short order.

We pull out examples of players, not because want them to get benefits from the rule, but because they would or should have no problems playing within the rules because they already do so. I haven't watched Del Potro much this year because of just timing issues, so I can't comment reliably on the pace he plays his matches at. Given the style of his game, he should be easily able to get by with 25 seconds. If he can't, then he needs to get his butt into shape and that's on him.

 

[TTMR]

That's absurd. I want the rule enforced against everyone, whether I like them or not. Heck, I like Nadal. I don't blame him for the delays. I blame the umpires. He's a professional who wants to win. He's going to do everything he can to do so. If the umpires will give him 1 minute to recover between points, he'd be a fool not to take it. Likewise, if they start giving him only 25 seconds, I'm sure he'd adapt in short order.

We pull out examples of players, not because want them to get benefits from the rule, but because they would or should have no problems playing within the rules because they already do so. I haven't watched Del Potro much this year because of just timing issues, so I can't comment reliably on the pace he plays his matches at. Given the style of his game, he should be easily able to get by with 25 seconds. If he can't, then he needs to get his butt into shape and that's on him.

Okay, if you don't have time to watch a match with Del Potro, you shouldn't claim he is fast between points. And if you don't have time to watch him, you probably don't have time to watch other players as well, and are just making assumptions based on the kind of players you like and dislike. The style of play is irrelevant. Del Potro is notoriously slow between points and commentators have complained about it often. He starts off matches at a normal pace and then slows to a crawl as it drags on. One of the worst culprits is John Isner, the quintessential modern 'attacker'--certainly no grinder.

Given you've admitted you don't have much time to watch tennis and yet still proceed to decry the lack of enforcement of an antiquated rule, perhaps you should put aside the simplistic notion that a 'slow grinder' means 'serves at a slow pace' and 'aggressive attacker' means 'serves quickly'. Did you know that during last year's Australian Open semifinal, Federer took an average time of 23 seconds between points (the rule at grand slam events is 20 seconds)? If 20 seconds is not enough time, how do we know that 25 is? And if rules are rules, surely they should not be adapted to the state of the game today, and Federer should have received warnings and point penalties as well.

 

[Akubra]

Okay, if you don't have time to watch a match with Del Potro, you shouldn't claim he is fast between points. And if you don't have time to watch him, you probably don't have time to watch other players as well, and are just making assumptions based on the kind of players you like and dislike.

I'm wondering if you can also deduct what my blood type is and my favorite color? I mean you're making some pretty serious conclusions there based off my saying that I hadn't gotten a chance to watch a *single* pro player play much this year. I said it was due to *timing* issues, not time issues. As in, I've had bad luck watching his matches specifically because they tended to be on during times I wasn't able to watch.

But FYI I watch a lot of tennis. I coach a college tennis team for a living. I played in college myself, played Futures for a while. It's kind of a big deal to me and more than the hobby it is for most of the people on these boards - it is my livelihood and one that I am deeply invested in being good at.

So, despite your awesome assumptions, I watched a lot of pro tennis this year. I watch a lot of it every year. I'm quite familiar with the types of players I like and don't like without having to make assumptions.

The style of play is irrelevant. Del Potro is notoriously slow between points and commentators have complained about it often. He starts off matches at a normal pace and then slows to a crawl as it drags on. One of the worst culprits is John Isner, the quintessential modern 'attacker'--certainly no grinder.

I listed one name in error. So shoot me. Style doesn't have much to do with it right now, because the umpires are lax about enforcing the rules. But it DOES have a big impact if they do decide to enforce the rules properly. Then style has a huge impact. Attacking players play shorter points and do less running than defensive/counterattacking players do. They typically and traditionally have played at a faster pace, and I'd anticipate that long-standing trend staying true if the rules become more enforced again.

Given you've admitted you don't have much time to watch tennis and yet still proceed to decry the lack of enforcement of an antiquated rule, perhaps you should put aside the simplistic notion that a 'slow grinder' means 'serves at a slow pace' and 'aggressive attacker' means 'serves quickly'.

There you go with your assumptions again

Did you know that during last year's Australian Open semifinal, Federer took an average time of 23 seconds between points (the rule at grand slam events is 20 seconds)? If 20 seconds is not enough time, how do we know that 25 is? And if rules are rules, surely they should not be adapted to the state of the game today, and Federer should have received warnings and point penalties as well.

I did in fact know that, and it doesn't surprise me one bit. Federer, like Nadal and the others is a competitor. I know the lack of time enforcement bothers Federer - he's complained about it in the past. He's probably got his internal clock ticked on a little under 25 seconds pretty well due to the 25 second rule at the majority of tournaments he plays every year. He is well aware that at the slams unless someone is consistently and egregiously over the limit nothing will be said. So he consistently steals a few extra seconds without concern.

My point that i made above, is that these guys are professionals. Like pros in any sport, they will adapt to, not only the rules of the game, but the officiating of the game. If the umpires change the way they enforce the time limit rule, we wouldn't see a sustained rash of warnings and penalties for years to come. They would quickly adapt to the time limits and all we'd see is faster-paced matches.

PS, maybe we can continue the conversation without you assuming things about me you know nothing about? I haven't written anything about you, how much tennis you watch OR your knowledge of the game because, well, I don't know you. Just like you don't know me.

 

[Steve0904]

I think the rule should either be enforced or chucked out. As it stands, I think the rule should be changed to 30 or 35 seconds anyway considering the rallies these days, although I maintain that Djokovic and Nadal in particular are at the point where they could be faster if they wanted to be, but they have near OCD's or actual OCD's that compel them to bounce the ball 20 times before especially a pressure serve, or pick wedgies out of their pants.

 

[coloskier]

I don't understand why Nadal constantly feels the need to break the time rule. He's a talented guy that doesn't need to resort to such tactics....or does he?

Of course he does. With his style of play he needs a lot more rest between points to recover than players such a Fed who don't waste the energy that Nadal does.

 

[fluffyyelloballz]

They must enforce the rules for consistency. They cannot enforce rules like the one that got Serena defaulted from US Open 09 or the challenge in a timely manner which screwed over Nalby at Melbourne this year when they just overlook another rule, and a really important one too. It makes them look unprofessional.

 

[Hood_Man]

It would be nice if the officials were stricter in the earlier stages of the match, but I don't like the idea of countdown clocks or automatic point deductions either.

Someone taking a minute between first and second serves at a critical juncture in a 4th or 5th set is adding to the tension, but at 2 all in the first set it's just tedious.

 

[woodrow1029]

They must enforce the rules for consistency. They cannot enforce rules like the one that got Serena defaulted from US Open 09 or the challenge in a timely manner which screwed over Nalby at Melbourne this year when they just overlook another rule, and a really important one too. It makes them look unprofessional.

First of all, Serena did not get defaulted.

Secondly, the foot fault did not cause her to get a point penalty. Her actions after the call did.

Finally, You can't compare foot faults, to time violations. Comparing a discretionary call from a chair umpire to a basic line call from a line umpire is comparing apples and oranges.

 

[North]

First of all, Serena did not get defaulted.

Secondly, the foot fault did not cause her to get a point penalty. Her actions after the call did.

Finally, You can't compare foot faults, to time violations. Comparing a discretionary call from a chair umpire to a basic line call from a line umpire is comparing apples and oranges.

You are very patient Woodrow. That's how many times just this thread you've pointed that out? Take a deep breath and have a beer lol.

 

[mental midget]

That's absurd. I want the rule enforced against everyone, whether I like them or not. Heck, I like Nadal. I don't blame him for the delays. I blame the umpires. He's a professional who wants to win. He's going to do everything he can to do so. If the umpires will give him 1 minute to recover between points, he'd be a fool not to take it. Likewise, if they start giving him only 25 seconds, I'm sure he'd adapt in short order.

We pull out examples of players, not because want them to get benefits from the rule, but because they would or should have no problems playing within the rules because they already do so. I haven't watched Del Potro much this year because of just timing issues, so I can't comment reliably on the pace he plays his matches at. Given the style of his game, he should be easily able to get by with 25 seconds. If he can't, then he needs to get his butt into shape and that's on him.

i don't disagree that lenient officiating opens the door to abuse of the rules, however, choosing to walk through that door repeatedly is in my opinion a character issue. there are people who abide by the rules because they are forced to do so, and there are others who do it because 'those are the rules.' we all tend to become fans of the players whose playing style reflects the things we find pleasing or that have value to us. i don't personally agree with the mercenary 'win at all costs' mentality, i think to separate the rules from the sport erodes the integrity of the game. if they want to make an official change and bump the time between points up a few seconds, that's fine, but it should either be made official, or enforced as it stands.

 

[Crisstti]

Then enforce it without exceptions. Not to quiet the crowd, not to recover from a 35 shot rally, not to get a new racquet, not to demand an unnecessary roof closure. Maybe if debris flies onto the court you can give sufficient time to clear it off, but no more.

The trouble is the pharisees don't actually want a literal application of the rule. They just want it enforced against players they don't like. Notice how many of them said failure to enforce the rule hurts players like Federer and Del Potro because they can't build on the momentum of their fast, attacking game style. Del Potro is one of the most egregious offenders among the top players. He takes ages between points especially as that match wears on. But we like Del Potro and he is a big strong aggressive player so we can't possibly lump him into the same category as Nadal and Djokovic.

i don't disagree that lenient officiating opens the door to abuse of the rules, however, choosing to walk through that door repeatedly is in my opinion a character issue. there are people who abide by the rules because they are forced to do so, and there are others who do it because 'those are the rules.' we all tend to become fans of the players whose playing style reflects the things we find pleasing or that have value to us. i don't personally agree with the mercenary 'win at all costs' mentality, i think to separate the rules from the sport erodes the integrity of the game. if they want to make an official change and bump the time between points up a few seconds, that's fine, but it should either be made official, or enforced as it stands.

Taking more time to serve does not erode the integrity of the sport. Actual unsportsmanlike attitudes like pointing the wrong ball print do.

 

[Magnus]

If they actually enforce it, it would be great. Nadal better not return because he will never be able to avoid butt picking for 40-50 seconds per point.

 

[Magnus]

Some players are slower than others. Get over it.

For a self-proclaimed tennis fan, who knows much about history and facts, you sure make some fanboyish comments. Let me ask you this - do you believe rules should not be enforced?

 

[merlinpinpin]

Taking more time to serve does not erode the integrity of the sport. Actual unsportsmanlike attitudes like pointing the wrong ball print do.

Obvious question here:

Why?

Why is cheating a bit okay for the integrity of the sport, but cheating a bit more isn't? Where do you draw the line? (Except where it favors Rafa, of course.)

 

[feetofclay]

Nadal isn't the only player who takes longer than is allowed, but he is the one that people like to name. Back in October Sky sports were discussing this topic and they asked people to send in emails. Here is a copy of the one I sent,



"I have to take issue with Peter Fleming on this topic. He berates Nadal for taking 35 seconds after a long rally, but he says nothing when Del Potro takes 46 seconds after playing a twenty shot rally in the Cilic match, last night. Not only did he fail to comment about the 46 seconds he actually said, "It's amazing to see these big guys playing long rallies". He said a similar thing last week in defence of John Isner. If I remember correctly he said, "It's no wonder he takes so much time between points. Come on he's a big guy, 6'10" and weighing about 240 pounds, that's a lot of weight to carry around". So Mr Fleming is it OK to take your time if you live in the land of the giants? But if you are a mere 6'1" and weigh in at 188 pounds and if you name happens to be Rafael Nadal it's a crime and an unfair advantage.

I am heartily sick of hearing Rafa castigated about time wasting, yes he does take his time, but so do others. Last nights match between Rafa and Stepanek was a perfect example. Rafa was not alone in ignoring the umpire at the end of the warm up time, in fact he was the first to leave the court and he was also the first up on court to start the match, but no mention was made of Stepanek taking his time. Cilic and Del Potro are not exactly speedy. I have timed Cilic at 30 seconds and over many times tonight, counting from when the umpire called the point. As for the time taken between points not being good for tennis, which by inference is saying that Rafa is not good for tennis., look at the evidence, Rafa sells tickets whether it be for singles or doubles.

If we are talking strictly timing the time taken between points this has to be the same for everyone. When does the timing start? Immediately after the point has finished , or when the umpire calls the point? If it is the latter then that is variable. Some umpires give time for the crowd to be involved, which can make a difference of quite a few seconds. I noticed last week in Indian Wells that Fergus Murphy, who just happened to issue time penalties to Rafa in both of the matches he umpired, called the points immediately the point had finished, he did not do the same in matches that didn't involve Rafa. Had he made his mind up to issue penalties even before the match had started? Was he swayed by Roger Federer naming Rafa as a time waster? Strange that Federer only named Rafa. Is he the only person he feels threatened by?

Finally I will say that the time Rafa takes does not spoil tennis for me . Isn't it odd that he has been involved in many of the most exciting matches ever to be played."

 

[sbengte]

^^ Has been said before but here we go again : Nadal (and Djokovic) being top players and multiple slam champions are big names in the sport and so called 'faces of the game'. Anything they do, good or bad, will obviously garner more attention than what Cilic or Stepanek or even Delpo do on court. Nothing surprising about it.
In fact, Nadal gets away with a lot when it comes to gamesmanship, dubious MTOs etc and hardly gets called out for it.

 

[woodrow1029]

The time is from the time the previous point ends.

 

[TMF]

Obvious question here:

Why?

Why is cheating a bit okay for the integrity of the sport, but cheating a bit more isn't? Where do you draw the line? (Except where it favors Rafa, of course.)

If they just enforce the rules, Nadal can't cheat no more. Rules are there so no player(team) can take unfair advantage.

It'a great that we have a hawk-eye in place to cover up bad/missed call by the line judges. Now if they add the 25/30 second clock, the game will fair for every player. Whoever wins should be depend on their performance, nothing else.

 

[dudeski]

It's starting to get interesting. I can't wait to see what happens to Nadal when he finally comes back.

 

[veroniquem]

There is nothing worse than players rushing between points. The quality of the rallies may suffer unfortunately.

 

[dudeski]

There is nothing worse than players rushing between points. The quality of the rallies may suffer unfortunately.

Maybe Nadal will finally get rid of some his OCDs. Nothing wrong with that. Plus it should benefit him since according to all commentators he is the fittest player on the tour. So he should have no problem with less recovery time unlike other players. Also, it might force everyone to shorten points and be more aggressive. Again, nothing wrong with that.

I really hope ATP will enforce rules for everyone.

 

[Clarky21]

Funny how many player's go over the time limit, but Nadal was the only one receiving crap about it. No surprise there.

I also do not think 25 seconds is anywhere near long enough. The quality of the tennis is going to suffer for this ridiculous crackdown on time limits. With the slow courts and gruelling rallies that come along with it, these guys need more time than they are allowing them to have. I think 35-40seconds is fair because 20-25 seconds is a joke, and doesn't give enough time for them to be ready to slug it out again in a what could be a 40+ shot rally.

 

[veroniquem]

Dudeski: I don't know why you're obsessing about Nadal. I'm not thinking about him. I'm talking in general.

 

[dudeski]

Dudeski: I don't know why you're obsessing about Nadal. I'm not thinking about him. I'm talking in general.

I am talking about everyone. But I know that you are afraid that both Nadal and possibly Djokovic will be impacted the most while Federer much less. What if Nadal was the one who played the quickest and tried to rush game while Federer was the one trying to slow things down? How would you react then?

I think viewers would enjoy tennis much more if they didn't have to wait so long between points. Also, players might take more risks and go for winners more often if they knew they can't spend so much time to recover.

 

[Hood_Man]

It can get pretty tedious. I hope they stick with this rule for a year to see what happens.

 

[dudeski]

Funny how many player's go over the time limit, but Nadal was the only one receiving crap about it. No surprise there.

I also do not think 25 seconds is anywhere near long enough. The quality of the tennis is going to suffer for this ridiculous crackdown on time limits. With the slow courts and gruelling rallies that come along with it, these guys need more time than they are allowing them to have. I think 35-40seconds is fair because 20-25 seconds is a joke, and doesn't give enough time for them to be ready to slug it out again in a what could be a 40+ shot rally.

Maybe there shouldn't be 40+ shot rallies and instead more winners and volleys. It's not empire's fault players like to push.

 

[veroniquem]

I am talking about everyone. But I know that you are afraid that both Nadal and possibly Djokovic will be impacted the most while Federer much less. What if Nadal was the one who played the quickest and tried to rush game while Federer was the one trying to slow things down? How would you react then?

I think viewers would enjoy tennis much more if they didn't have to wait so long between points. Also, players might take more risks and go for winners more often if they knew they can't spend so much time to recover.

I actually think the rule will benefit Rafa because until now, he'd got unfairly targeted when most players take longer than 25 seconds plenty of times. This rule should definitely make that clear. However, I'm not convinced the rule is gonna benefit tennis in general. I think there is a risk in some cases it may hurt the quality of the rallies.

 

[dudeski]

I actually think the rule will benefit Rafa because until now, he'd got unfairly targeted when most players take longer than 25 seconds plenty of times. This rule should definitely make that clear. However, I'm not convinced the rule is gonna benefit tennis in general. I think there is a risk in some cases it may hurt the quality of the rallies.

The quality of the rallies is often not as good as the total number of shots might imply. I see a lot of medium pace exchanges between Nadal/Djokovic/Murray that seem to go for 20+ shots before they attempt to approach the net or go for a winner. For example last year at USO final or AO final. Both matches were exciting because of the stakes but I wouldn't say most of rallies were that great.

If Nadal can get rid of some of his OCDs (we know he can because he doesn't do it during training) he can easy fit in the time limit and if he is as fit as everyone claims this change should benefit him.

 

[Brett UK]

I expect that less recovery time will cause Rafa's 1st serve % to drop significantly.

 

[veroniquem]

The quality of the rallies is often not as good as the total number of shots might imply. I see a lot of medium pace exchanges between Nadal/Djokovic/Murray that seem to go for 20+ shots before they attempt to approach the net or go for a winner. For example last year at USO final or AO final. Both matches were exciting because of the stakes but I wouldn't say most of rallies were that great.
.

I wasn't trying to imply that every single rally should be long. I have just noticed that often, when players feel rushed, the quality of their serve and the attention given to point construction or strategy suffers. If someone is having an UE streak, sometimes slowing down helps a bit . Rushing can make things even worse and not much fun to watch for the spectators when that happens.

 

[woodrow1029]

I think the new rule is working very well. Obviously, players are going to complain about it, because nobody paid attention to the supervisors the past 3 months when they were being warned that it would be strict starting the first week of the season.

While, losing a first serve at 2-2 15-15, may not be a big deal, wait until a player takes his time to think at 4-5, 15-40, and then all of a sudden has to step up and hit a second serve only. It is not as harsh as a point penalty, but definitely harsh enough to make the players pay attention to it. It is obviously more enforceable now that way too, and more fan friendly.

As I mentioned in other threads, there are ways for a player to buy time. Bobby Jr. made a good one that a player can step up to the line, get ready to serve, then look up and ask the umpire "Hey, what's the score again?" Legitimate question, and can easily buy him 5-10 more seconds. More useless challenges on line calls will allow more time between the points.

I think a "time out" rule may be good. A player can use 1-2 "time outs" per set, to double the 25 seconds if they need it to towel off, or whatever.

 

[veroniquem]

Nadal isn't the only player who takes longer than is allowed, but he is the one that people like to name. Back in October Sky sports were discussing this topic and they asked people to send in emails. Here is a copy of the one I sent,



"I have to take issue with Peter Fleming on this topic. He berates Nadal for taking 35 seconds after a long rally, but he says nothing when Del Potro takes 46 seconds after playing a twenty shot rally in the Cilic match, last night. Not only did he fail to comment about the 46 seconds he actually said, "It's amazing to see these big guys playing long rallies". He said a similar thing last week in defence of John Isner. If I remember correctly he said, "It's no wonder he takes so much time between points. Come on he's a big guy, 6'10" and weighing about 240 pounds, that's a lot of weight to carry around". So Mr Fleming is it OK to take your time if you live in the land of the giants? But if you are a mere 6'1" and weigh in at 188 pounds and if you name happens to be Rafael Nadal it's a crime and an unfair advantage.

I am heartily sick of hearing Rafa castigated about time wasting, yes he does take his time, but so do others. Last nights match between Rafa and Stepanek was a perfect example. Rafa was not alone in ignoring the umpire at the end of the warm up time, in fact he was the first to leave the court and he was also the first up on court to start the match, but no mention was made of Stepanek taking his time. Cilic and Del Potro are not exactly speedy. I have timed Cilic at 30 seconds and over many times tonight, counting from when the umpire called the point. As for the time taken between points not being good for tennis, which by inference is saying that Rafa is not good for tennis., look at the evidence, Rafa sells tickets whether it be for singles or doubles.

If we are talking strictly timing the time taken between points this has to be the same for everyone. When does the timing start? Immediately after the point has finished , or when the umpire calls the point? If it is the latter then that is variable. Some umpires give time for the crowd to be involved, which can make a difference of quite a few seconds. I noticed last week in Indian Wells that Fergus Murphy, who just happened to issue time penalties to Rafa in both of the matches he umpired, called the points immediately the point had finished, he did not do the same in matches that didn't involve Rafa. Had he made his mind up to issue penalties even before the match had started? Was he swayed by Roger Federer naming Rafa as a time waster? Strange that Federer only named Rafa. Is he the only person he feels threatened by?

Finally I will say that the time Rafa takes does not spoil tennis for me . Isn't it odd that he has been involved in many of the most exciting matches ever to be played."

Great email! Did you get any reply?

 

[veroniquem]

I think the new rule is working very well. Obviously, players are going to complain about it, because nobody paid attention to the supervisors the past 3 months when they were being warned that it would be strict starting the first week of the season.

While, losing a first serve at 2-2 15-15, may not be a big deal, wait until a player takes his time to think at 4-5, 15-40, and then all of a sudden has to step up and hit a second serve only. It is not as harsh as a point penalty, but definitely harsh enough to make the players pay attention to it. It is obviously more enforceable now that way too, and more fan friendly.

As I mentioned in other threads, there are ways for a player to buy time. Bobby Jr. made a good one that a player can step up to the line, get ready to serve, then look up and ask the umpire "Hey, what's the score again?" Legitimate question, and can easily buy him 5-10 more seconds. More useless challenges on line calls will allow more time between the points.

I think a "time out" rule may be good. A player can use 1-2 "time outs" per set, to double the 25 seconds if they need it to towel off, or whatever.

Interesting ideas! thanks for sharing.

 

[Crisstti]

Obvious question here:

Why?

Why is cheating a bit okay for the integrity of the sport, but cheating a bit more isn't? Where do you draw the line? (Except where it favors Rafa, of course.)

Taking some more seconds to serve is not cheating. If it was everyone would be cheaters because everyone goes over the time limit sometimes.

I don't see what's so hard to understand. In football, when someone makes a foul (clearly against the rules) no one considers that cheating. Diving (pretending to get fouled so as to get a free kick, a penalty, an opposing player sent out), on the other hand, clearly is.

The quality of the rallies is often not as good as the total number of shots might imply. I see a lot of medium pace exchanges between Nadal/Djokovic/Murray that seem to go for 20+ shots before they attempt to approach the net or go for a winner. For example last year at USO final or AO final. Both matches were exciting because of the stakes but I wouldn't say most of rallies were that great.

If Nadal can get rid of some of his OCDs (we know he can because he doesn't do it during training) he can easy fit in the time limit and if he is as fit as everyone claims this change should benefit him.

I would agree about Djokovic-Murray matches. The others tend to go for more.

Maybe Nadal has those compulsions in matches and not in practice because matches are high pressure situations and practise is not.

I guess he just would have to though.

 

[Crisstti]

Maybe there shouldn't be 40+ shot rallies and instead more winners and volleys. It's not empire's fault players like to push.

Which shows most people whining about the time between points just want a certain style favoured, and are not actually outraged about the "cheating".

 

[dafinch]

Sure - most players do, because there's no reason not to since they don't enforce it.



It's only ungenerous to the players who need extra time than others. Not a level playing field.



Maybe they're longer now because certain players are being given double the recovery time that the rules allow. This lets them expend more energy on each point and get a fully recovery, resulting in longer rallies as there is no cost-benefit for them to take more risks and be more attacking.

Take away the extra time, and we'll see more attacking tennis and shorter points.



Which players? There are lots of players for whom playing within the time allowed by the rules isn't an issue. The problem is you ARE seeing matches decided by the umpires - by not enforcing the rules equally they are not providing a level playing field and unfairly rewarding defensive-minded players who want to grind out a win.

If you want the players to decide it, then let them all follow the rules and see who plays the better tennis.

Well stated, and well buttressed by facts.

 

[dafinch]

Which shows most people whining about the time between points just want a certain style favoured, and are not actually outraged about the "cheating".

You don't, or shouldn't, get to ignore rules that you don't like-you know, like, saying the ban on coaching is "stupid?"-and it doesn't matter what players or what style one likes, those rules are not being enforced.

 

[Joko]

Since there are already a couple of threads regarding this topic, I wasn't sure where I should put this.
Anyway here is the video of Lopez and Monfils and their discussion with the umpire:

Lopez:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_detailpage&v=wBLsUAgZ-Zc#t=2740

Monfils:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=71j6rcmVhjE

 

[dje31]

Not sure what's worse for TV spectators between points: watching the players piddle around, towel off, go through their OCD routine, lest something bad happen...or the commentators mindlessly yapping about nothing useful, just to fill up the empty space.

Do they pay these nitwits by the word? What, are they lawyers in their spare time?

 

[sbengte]

Nadal fans unhappy with the enforcement of the rule, think of it this way : Due to this if Nadal is now forced to give up on his grinding to become super aggressive , it will make him less injury prone and extend his career and perhaps help him win more too.
Now tell me, are you for enforcing the rule or against it ?

 

[Rock Strongo]

Maybe there shouldn't be 40+ shot rallies and instead more winners and volleys. It's not empire's fault players like to push.

Well... They do have Nadal on their side...