Wimbledon rule change after Nadal-Djokovic roof controversy

GettyImages-1073277994.jpg
 

thrust

Legend
It turns out Nadal was right. It is an outdoor tournament and should be played outdoors. It allowed Djokovic unfair advantage to win 2018 Wimbledon. The rule has been changed. No player consultation now. It will automatically be played outdoors even if it started under the roof the next day.

https://metro.co.uk/2019/04/30/nada...ange-murray-learns-wildcard-deadline-9368482/
NONSENSE! It was Wimbledon's rule to give players the choice in that situation, NOT Novak's rule. Nadal lost that match, fair and square, deal with it!
 

tex123

Hall of Fame
He wasn't right then as the rules were followed. Just because he whined about it after the match doesn't make it a controversy.

You call this "whining" then I don't know what you do on a daily basis.
He was right and that prompted the rule change.


--------
"
Asked if it made sense to have the roof closed, Nadal responded: "No. But I will not talk more about this.

"If not, you going to write about this, and I don't want you to write about this today."
 

Bartelby

Bionic Poster
There are arguments for the previous rule. It wasn't necessarily wrong. The new rule isn't necessarily right. It's just different.

The previous rule privileged continuity of playing conditions, unless both players agreed otherwise, whereas the new one asserts the default position of roof open.
 

Bartelby

Bionic Poster
So it's ok if they play four and a half hours under the roof, then the next day because the weather is fine the tournament suddenly finds its true outdoor self?

There are arguments in favour of the previous rule and it was the one most oriented to the players. The new rule allows the tournament a much freer hand.

A match flipping around at the touch of a roof button will happen one day and people will wring their hands about the rule change.

And the essential fact forgotten here is that the optimal outcome was for the match to be decided that night rather than be arbitrarily aborted at 11pm.

If they have to operate with this restriction then their schedule of play should allow for the most extreme delays so that all play finishes before time.

Thank goodness common sense has prevailed at last and the AELTC have ditched that stupid rule. When the weather is fine, matches at Wimbledon should ALWAYS be played outside!!!
 

ADuck

Legend
He wasn't right then as the rules were followed. Just because he whined about it after the match doesn't make it a controversy.
I disagree. The rules were not followed in either case. The rule beforehand clearly stated that all matches will be played outdoors unless it was raining. The "continuity of conditions" thing was lousily made up on the spot by fans here and there never was a confirmed source for where that came from.
 

ADuck

Legend
Sure they did and then realised the rules are silly. Hence the change. So Nadal was right ..
As far as I'm aware, the rules were not silly, they just weren't followed. Show me the official rules regarding the roof before and after this supposed rule change if I am wrong please.
 

borna coric

Semi-Pro
I disagree. The rules were not followed in either case. The rule beforehand clearly stated that all matches will be played outdoors unless it was raining. The "continuity of conditions" thing was lousily made up on the spot by fans here and there never was a confirmed source for where that came from.

How do you know the "continuity of conditions" was made up?
 
I disagree. The rules were not followed in either case. The rule beforehand clearly stated that all matches will be played outdoors unless it was raining. The "continuity of conditions" thing was lousily made up on the spot by fans here and there never was a confirmed source for where that came from.

Do the Wimbledon organisers know about that?

:unsure:
 

ADuck

Legend
How do you know the "continuity of conditions" was made up?
I don't know. However, the rule stated that the roof would ONLY be used if it was raining (or something like that), and I could never find anything else that addressed "continuity of conditions." The way I see it is if someone here can't prove it otherwise then I'll assume that it was made up and constantly regurgitated.
 
Thank heavens that rule has been changed. It was a rare misstep by AELTC. There was no way they were going to let something like that affect the tournament again. I guess we shouldn't be surprised the decision has been made so quickly..

Can't change the 2018 implementation, but thankfully we can proceed knowing that a farce like that won't affect the players again.
 

Bartelby

Bionic Poster
And the essential fact forgotten here is that the optimal outcome was for the match to be decided that night rather than be arbitrarily aborted at 11pm.

If they have to operate with this restriction then their schedule of play should allow for the most extreme delays so that all play finishes before time.
 

borna coric

Semi-Pro
I don't know. However, the rule stated that the roof would ONLY be used if it was raining (or something like that), and I could never find anything else that addressed "continuity of conditions." The way I see it is if someone here can't prove it otherwise then I'll assume that it was made up and constantly regurgitated.

I don't think the rule is written so specifically to a specific circumstance like "continuity of conditions". I live in Washington DC and most of the times the legislation is written into law in such a way that it makes no sense to "normal" people and it takes the court to interpret the law ;)

I suppose they leave the interpretation up to the Tournament Director (TD) to decide "continuity of conditions" and the TD decided that the roof should be closed to continue where they left off the day before, unless both parties agree to have the roof open. Decisions are made by human and they are not perfect. Not everyone will like it but that's life.
 

Bartelby

Bionic Poster
Once you have lights and a roof there is no possibility any longer of calling Wimbledon an outdoor tournament.

It's a hybrid tournament that can be played under a number of different conditions and so the previous rule simply priviliged the idea that endlessly flipping conditions within a match was wrong.
 

ADuck

Legend
So, what did they based they decision on, and while you are at it, didn't Nadal win the first of the two remaining sets under the roof?

:cool:
Well I can only speculate on why they made that decision. Although the rule made clear in all circumstances the roof would never be used in sunlight, I think that it wasn't made with the foresight that a match could be suspended due to light and continued the next day. So, the organizers thought it was best to improvise in this unfamiliar situation and decide that there should be such a thing as continuity of conditions and let the match continue unless both players decided otherwise, only for them to deliberate what the proper ruling should be later. That, or they disregarded them either because they were not aware of what they had written, or because they did not take what they had themselves had written with such infallibility.

Wasn't the whole match played under the roof? Either way, just because Nadal won the first set doesn't mean he prefered playing outdoors. However, in my opinion i'm actually not sure if outdoor conditions would have helped him. I think the indoor conditions possibly could have helped his game. But I've never argued about this anyway because I fully accept Djokovic won the match fair and sqaure, however I do not agree the proper rules were followed.
 

ADuck

Legend
I don't think the rule is written so specifically to a specific circumstance like "continuity of conditions". I live in Washington DC and most of the times the legislation is written into law in such a way that it makes no sense to "normal" people and it takes the court to interpret the law ;)

I suppose they leave the interpretation up to the Tournament Director (TD) to decide "continuity of conditions" and the TD decided that the roof should be closed to continue where they left off the day before, unless both parties agree to have the roof open. Decisions are made by human and they are not perfect. Not everyone will like it but that's life.
Let me be more clear then. I could find nothing in the rules supporting the decision made by the tournament organizers. I wasn't looking for the phrase "continuity of conditions" when going through the rules, I was just looking at anything that could have supported that line of reasoning.
 

bjsnider

Hall of Fame
Why limit the conspiracy to the 2018 Wimbledon? Wimbledon has systematically conspired against Nadal throughout its history. Knowingly scheduling opponents who were capable of beating Nadal was unfair, as was holding the tournament in years where Nadal was either too young, or not even born yet. Most invidiously, flagrantly playing the tournament on a surface that encourages a style of play for which Nadal is unsuited! It's an outrage! Nadal leads the ATP in moral victories at Wimbledon! All previous trophies should be retroactively transferred to Nadal's ownership and the records should be immediately changed, lest violence result.
 
Well I can only speculate on why they made that decision. Although the rule made clear in all circumstances the roof would never be used in sunlight, I think that it wasn't made with the foresight that a match could be suspended due to light and continued the next day.

Could you post the rules regarding the roof policy?

I think that you are inventing your own rules. The words "never be used in sunlight" were never used as far as anything I have read on the subject is concerned. As far as I am aware there are stipulations that the matches will be played with the roof open whenever the weather allows, but the umpire has the discretion to decide.


So, the organizers thought it was best to improvise in this unfamiliar situation and decide that there should be such a thing as continuity of conditions and let the match continue unless both players decided otherwise, only for them to deliberate what the proper ruling should be later. That, or they disregarded them either because they were not aware of what they had written, or because they did not take what they had themselves had written with such infallibility.

Surely, there must have been at least some guidelines in order to resort to consulting the players. Why would they do that, and take upon them the wrath of one of the players (as it is almost certain that the one that loses will turn to that), if they could just impose whatever decision they deem suitable. It doesn't make sense.


Either way, just because Nadal won the first set doesn't mean he prefered playing outdoors. However, in my opinion i'm actually not sure if outdoor conditions would have helped him. I think the indoor conditions possibly could have helped his game. But I've never argued about this anyway because I fully accept Djokovic won the match fair and sqaure, however I do not agree the proper rules were followed.

How can you disagree with something you don't know?

:cool:
 
Let me be more clear then. I could find nothing in the rules supporting the decision made by the tournament organizers. I wasn't looking for the phrase "continuity of conditions" when going through the rules, I was just looking at anything that could have supported that line of reasoning.

Post the rules regarding the roof policy.

:cool:
 

73west

Semi-Pro
There are arguments for the previous rule. It wasn't necessarily wrong. The new rule isn't necessarily right. It's just different.

The previous rule privileged continuity of playing conditions, unless both players agreed otherwise, whereas the new one asserts the default position of roof open.

Agreed. The old rule minimized the impact of a rain/darkness delay, and I'm sure that was what the priority was.
The new rule avoids the "optics" of playing a traditionally outdoor event under a roof on a sunny day.
 

ChaelAZ

G.O.A.T.
It was a crap decision at that time and glad the rule was changed. Maybe Wimby can become relevant again with these updates and move beyond the social event status to become a tennis tournament.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 
He wasn't right then as the rules were followed. Just because he whined about it after the match doesn't make it a controversy.
Exactly. They followed the rules....

Well,
Don't you think that roof actually helped nadal's aggressive game that day??
If not for roof, a lot of those successful nadal volleys and net approaches would've been passed so many times by nole...
 

EasyGoing

Professional
Well I can only speculate on why they made that decision. Although the rule made clear in all circumstances the roof would never be used in sunlight, I think that it wasn't made with the foresight that a match could be suspended due to light and continued the next day. So, the organizers thought it was best to improvise in this unfamiliar situation and decide that there should be such a thing as continuity of conditions and let the match continue unless both players decided otherwise, only for them to deliberate what the proper ruling should be later. That, or they disregarded them either because they were not aware of what they had written, or because they did not take what they had themselves had written with such infallibility.

Wasn't the whole match played under the roof? Either way, just because Nadal won the first set doesn't mean he prefered playing outdoors. However, in my opinion i'm actually not sure if outdoor conditions would have helped him. I think the indoor conditions possibly could have helped his game. But I've never argued about this anyway because I fully accept Djokovic won the match fair and sqaure, however I do not agree the proper rules were followed.

I googled “wimbledon roof rules”:
The roof takes up to 10 minutes to close, during which time play is suspended. ... The tournament rules for the Wimbledon fortnight dictate that the roof, once closed, must remain closeduntil the end of the match, so some matches may be completed indoors even though the sun has re-emerged.
 

ADuck

Legend
Could you post the rules regarding the roof policy?

I think that you are inventing your own rules. The words "never be used in sunlight" were never used as far as anything I have read on the subject is concerned. As far as I am aware there are stipulations that the matches will be played with the roof open whenever the weather allows, but the umpire has the discretion to decide.
Protocol for use of the roof
These basic principles will govern the use of the roof:
(a) The Championships is an outdoor daytime event. Therefore, in good weather, the roof will only be used if it is too dark to play on without it.
(b) The Referee has ultimate control over use of the roof and his decision is final.
(c) Timings of scheduled play on Centre Court in 2018 are intended to be on the same basis as 2017. This includes the number of matches and the likely timing of those matches to be put on the court. There can be many different circumstances which will govern the opening and the closing of the roof, hence the ultimate control of the Referee. That said, the following may be useful guidelines:
Best efforts will be made to start play each day with the roof open. However, 45 minutes before the start of each day’s play, the Referee will decide if the first match will start with the roof open or closed.
If a match is suspended due to rain, the normal covers will first be deployed, before the roof is closed, and the match continued. Due to the change in playing conditions, players will get a full warm-up on returning to court. If the projected interruption is sufficiently brief, as determined by the Referee, the normal covers will be used and play then continued with the roof open.
The Referee will decide to open or close the roof before the start of each subsequent match
Any match originally scheduled for Centre Court will normally be completed if possible and if necessary the roof closed for reasons of rain or light. Any matches added to the original schedule may be stopped without the deployment of the roof at the discretion of the Referee.
Changes to the order of play, including moving a match from another court onto Centre Court, may be authorised in exceptional circumstances in the best interests of completing The Championships on schedule.


Fair enough. Rule (b) seems to agree with what you are saying, and it does technically give "the referee" the right to do whatever they want. However, the decision still went against rule (a), so technically I am right to say that one of the rules wasn't followed. These are the rules from April 2018 however, now I implore you to post the rules after this supposed change so we can see how they are any different. Fairs fair.

Surely, there must have been at least some guidelines in order to resort to consulting the players. Why would they do that, and take upon them the wrath of one of the players (as it is almost certain that the one that loses will turn to that), if they could just impose whatever decision they deem suitable. It doesn't make sense.
Rule (b) gives them the right to do whatever they want it seems. However it appears this rule was made only to give them a right to improvise in situations such as these. You asking me to explain the thoughts of what is going through their minds is not my problem however, since humans are perfectly capable of making decisions that are not well thought through and do not make sense. If you wish to offer an explanation please go ahead.

How can you disagree with something you don't know?
Are there formal rules on what a person can or can't disagree on which I am not aware of? In fact, isn't when something is not known the only time you can agree/disagree? Else I would just shout, "you're right," or "you're wrong."
 

ADuck

Legend
The tournament rules for the Wimbledon fortnight dictate that the roof, once closed, must remain closeduntil the end of the match, so some matches may be completed indoors even though the sun has re-emerged.

Nowhere in the rules does it state this. And anyone can edit Wikipedia..
 
Protocol for use of the roof
These basic principles will govern the use of the roof:
(a) The Championships is an outdoor daytime event. Therefore, in good weather, the roof will only be used if it is too dark to play on without it.
(b) The Referee has ultimate control over use of the roof and his decision is final.
(c) Timings of scheduled play on Centre Court in 2018 are intended to be on the same basis as 2017. This includes the number of matches and the likely timing of those matches to be put on the court. There can be many different circumstances which will govern the opening and the closing of the roof, hence the ultimate control of the Referee. That said, the following may be useful guidelines:
Best efforts will be made to start play each day with the roof open. However, 45 minutes before the start of each day’s play, the Referee will decide if the first match will start with the roof open or closed.
If a match is suspended due to rain, the normal covers will first be deployed, before the roof is closed, and the match continued. Due to the change in playing conditions, players will get a full warm-up on returning to court. If the projected interruption is sufficiently brief, as determined by the Referee, the normal covers will be used and play then continued with the roof open.
The Referee will decide to open or close the roof before the start of each subsequent match
Any match originally scheduled for Centre Court will normally be completed if possible and if necessary the roof closed for reasons of rain or light. Any matches added to the original schedule may be stopped without the deployment of the roof at the discretion of the Referee.
Changes to the order of play, including moving a match from another court onto Centre Court, may be authorised in exceptional circumstances in the best interests of completing The Championships on schedule.


Fair enough. Rule (b) seems to agree with what you are saying, and it does technically give "the referee" the right to do whatever they want. However, the decision still went against rule (a), so technically I am right to say that one of the rules wasn't followed. These are the rules from April 2018 however, now I implore you to post the rules after this supposed change so we can see how they are any different. Fairs fair.

Rule (b) gives them the right to do whatever they want it seems. However it appears this rule was made only to give them a right to improvise in situations such as these. You asking me to explain the thoughts of what is going through their minds is not my problem however, since humans are perfectly capable of making decisions that are not well thought through and do not make sense. If you wish to offer an explanation please go ahead.


Are there formal rules on what a person can or can't disagree on which I am not aware of? In fact, isn't when something is not known the only time you can agree/disagree? Else I would just shout, "you're right," or "you're wrong."

You don't read carefully the rules, otherwise you would have noticed that the rule B actually includes the policy you are looking for.

(b) The Referee has ultimate control over use of the roof and his decision is final.

In simple words, once the decision of changing the conditions in which the match is held is made, the match will continue and end in those conditions ("his decision is final") with the caveat that the tournament has some kind of policy to ask the players, if they both like that to be changed.

That would guarantee that the match conditions will not be altered again and again for which Bartelby spoke before.

:cool:
 

ADuck

Legend
You don't read carefully the rules, otherwise you would have noticed that the rule B actually includes the policy you are looking for.

(b) The Referee has ultimate control over use of the roof and his decision is final.

In simple words, once the decision of changing the conditions in which the match is held is made, the match will continue and end in those conditions ("his decision is final") with the caveat that the tournament has some kind of policy to ask the players, if they both like that to be changed.

That would guarantee that the match conditions will not be altered again and again for which Bartelby spoke before.

Except rule (a) and rule (b) are standalone rules. Nowhere in rule (b) does it state that it has precedence over rule (a) that is just your interpretation. Nevertheless, I agree they have the right to make any decision they want, however that is still different from having anything to support the decision they made. If you disagree with that, then how is it the supposed "rule change" changes this? For the same thing to not happen again, they would have to remove rule (b) and replace it with something else then. (Once again, I implore you to post the new rules so we can see for ourselves)

In simple words, once the decision of changing the conditions in which the match is held is made, the match will continue and end in those conditions
I disagree, that is also just your interpretation. You cannot replace the rules with your own words and interpretations.
 
Top