Wimbledon rule change after Nadal-Djokovic roof controversy

helterskelter said:
I understand your confusion. Nadal did of course win all five sets, so it is mystifying that they made him play all of them. This is all part of the long conspiracy against him whereby tournament organizers do everything they can do to sabotage his chances. Fortunately, they have not yet succeeded even once and the task now seems absolutely impossible! But they continue to tilt at windmills!
Click to expand...

Only a humble bragging bull Warrior is allowed to play on after winning the first three sets (with a 6-0 6-0 6-0 score no less), just to make a humble bragging point about his moral excellence. I pity the fool who came up with the idea that closing the roof will taint his spotless record. Probably a hack of lowish status and questionable moral himself.

:cool:
 
Last edited:
beard said:
LOL at some posters @ADuck @DSH ...knowing rules better than Wimbledon officials... In country where law is a law...
Click to expand...

It is no coincidence that the Wimbledon committee changed its decision, ergo, they admitted their past mistake.
But as I mentioned before, well for the Serbian being slightly superior to his opponent in decisive moments like the tiebreak of the third set and the final part of the match where, thanks to first services and the passsing shot in the trascensdental fifteenth game of the last partial, he was mentally stronger than the Spaniard and he was able to prevail at the end of the match.
 
In tennis, exist is a tradition / principle of consistency, it relate to a court - when a match is started on one court, it is finished on the same court. Of course, this has a logistical reason (it would be difficult to move viewers from the court without roof into the court with roof, if started raining, for example), but now I'm talking about a situation where a match is not completed on the day due to darkness, for example, and the match is set for the next day. The logistical reason does go away, but the tradition / principle of consistency determines that the match is to be completed on the same court. That is why the legendary match between Isner and Mahut in 2010 Wimbledon took place on Court No. 18 in its entire length, although in his second day has become the longest match of tennis history and originated considerations that the third part was to be played at Center Court or No. 1 Court, but the tradition / principle of consistency was against.

Similarly, but not equally, the tradition / principle of consistency applies to the tennis environment. As far as possible, the match is completed in the same environment as it was started. When the match starts in the outdoor environment, it starts raining and roof is available, so the environment turns into indoor, we saw it when watching many matches. Organizers are forced to make a forced change. However, the Djoker-Nadal match in Wimbledon 2018 began in the indoor environment and was not completed on Friday due to curfew. The organizers offered both players to choose the environment for the second part of the match, but both had to vote to open the roof because the referees' office (had third vote) was behind the continuation of the match in indoor environment due to the tradition / principle of consistency.

Unfortunately, the organizers didn't adequately explain the procedure, so they met with misunderstanding and criticism on social networks and tennis forums. So now they have changed their progress for the next matchs in similar situation. But I can assure you that Saturday part of the Djoker-Bull match, which was under the roof was not against the tennis tradition. A And that for Nadal was indoor environment disadvantageous? He's supposed to deal with such circumstances, after all, he's a professional tennis player.
 
jhhachamp said:
If I was in the crowd that day, I would be enjoying the amazing tennis match. The roof being open or closed would not affect my enjoyment of the match very much.
Click to expand...

So you wouldn't mind being under a roof, rather than sitting basking in the sunshine?

Sure....
 
Moses85 said:
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.
Click to expand...
The controversy is behind the rule itself, though, and not the outcome of the match or the fact that Nadal wasn't favored in the results.
 
  • Like
Reactions: DSH
Rafa is quite a drama queen... There's always something that worked against him... At Wim he didn't like indoors, at MC other day he didn't like the wind (outdoors) against zoning Fog...

They both had their say, which had to be unanimous, for the roof to open. He didn't get it his way and didn't like it.
OTOH, he didn't have a problem denying the permission to water the super dry clay at Djoker's request, at RG finals, few years ago...

Sent from my SM-G965W using Tapatalk
 
ajou-say-drama-queen-like-its-a-bad-thing-its-4307207.png


BlueB said:
Rafa is quite a drama queen... There's always something that worked against him... At Wim he didn't like indoors, at MC other day he didn't like the wind (outdoors) against zoning Fog...
Click to expand...
 
Is it correct if the rain stops the roof would reopen in the same day? If so the new rule is consistent. The old rule doesn’t make much sense however it was the rule at the time of the match.
 
It makes sense that if the first five hours of a match were played under a roof then it's best to finish it under such, although people may prefer it otherwise

The complicating factor here is that the match happened at night under lights and should have been finished that night but for the rather arbitrary curfew kicking in at 11pm.

I have a feeling that it was this curfew that led to the players being asked to agree to the roof being opened the next day, but I may be wrong.

If you think about it they were in effect finishing the night match as if it were still night.

moonballs said:
Is it correct if the rain stops the roof would reopen in the same day? If so the new rule is consistent. The old rule doesn’t make much sense however it was the rule at the time of the match.
Click to expand...
 
Yeah nadal is such a whiner.

"Normally I am very critical with myself,” he said. “[But] I hit great shots. I played aggressive. Nothing to complain about. I think I played a great match.
“I have not much more inside me. I gave it my best, and that’s it. It’s fair to say that was a great match and he beat me. Well done for him. I felt, of course, that I lost an opportunity to try to win another very important title for my career. But that’s it. Nothing else. I go for holidays proud of the things that I’m doing.”

How horrible of him.
 
There was no reason for the roof to be closed to complete the match. But they just followed procedure for a situation that had never occurred. It's unfortunate because it likely did impact the match but it doesn't really make it a "he got robbed!" scenario. It's just fun to see some people betray their "Wimbledon tradition" spiel just to make an argument that a roof had to be closed on a perfect day because Nadal said that was bad (and it was).

Glad it's been fixed.
 
Slightly D1 said:
There was no reason for the roof to be closed to complete the match. But they just followed procedure for a situation that had never occurred. It's unfortunate because it likely did impact the match but it doesn't really make it a "he got robbed!" scenario. It's just fun to see some people betray their "Wimbledon tradition" spiel just to make an argument that a roof had to be closed on a perfect day because Nadal said that was bad (and it was).

Glad it's been fixed.
Click to expand...

Actually, the people talking about "Wimbledon tradition" insist that the roof should have been opened, because Wimbledon is "traditionally" an outdoor tournament.

It is more a case of the rules not describing every situation in the book (as is often the case), and the careful interpretation of the then existing rules without getting carried away by which side the person supports as is with many who support the one or the other position.

Can you post the new rule here? Thanks.

:cool:
 
I know it's a bit early, but, who do you think are the 4, 5 candidates to take the Wimbledon title?
 
donquijote said:
Without a roof he would beat Djokovic anyday on grass.
Click to expand...
Are you sure about that, lol?

What was the problem at the AO this year? Let me think. Sorry, I'm too old. Um, was the roof closed or open? Did they play on grass or HC :unsure:. Please help me out. I'm confused :X3:.

They followed the rules at that time. I'm not even sure why people are still talking about this. It's hilarious.
 
No right thinking person would choose to play an outdoor tournament indoors. Some tournament directors make the most crass decisions. It's nearly 10 years since that marathon between Isner/Mahut (2010), why on earth didn't they do something about the open ended 5th set then? They totally ruined the men's semi-final and final last year, because their marquee SF had to be split over 2 days and played indoors and Anderson was knackered in the final so Djokovic was handed the trophy
 
Last edited:
clayqueen said:
No right thinking person would choose to play an outdoor tournament indoors. Some tournament directors make the most crass decisions. It's nearly 10 years since that marathon between Isner/Mahut (2010), why on earth didn't they do something about the open ended 5th set then? They totally ruined the men's semi-final and final last year, because their marquee SF had to be split over 2 days and played indoors and Anderson was knackered in the final so Djokovic was handed the trophy
Click to expand...

Quick recap:

1) all TDs of the GS tournaments are "not thinking" since they all opted for a roof on their main court/s
2) one match is enough to change the rules of the sport. On a related note, I wonder why one match of the Nadal wasn't enough to introduce strict regulations about the time wasting, but it required literally hundreds of matches for something to be done about it?
3) A SF is "ruined", if it stretches over two days
4) One of the players (that had a long semi) is "knackered", but the other one, who had to play over two days and had less time to rest before the final was not?
5) if the opponent can't finish his match in the regular manner, it is Djokovic's fault, so he is "handed the trophy"

:cool:
 
clayqueen said:
No right thinking person would choose to play an outdoor tournament indoors. Some tournament directors make the most crass decisions. It's nearly 10 years since that marathon between Isner/Mahut (2010), why on earth didn't they do something about the open ended 5th set then? They totally ruined the men's semi-final and final last year, because their marquee SF had to be split over 2 days and played indoors and Anderson was knackered in the final so Djokovic was handed the trophy
Click to expand...
That this thing still surprises you (oh yeah, Nadal fan :rolleyes:)
Outdoor tournaments that have purchased and installed a roof, have become outdoor tournaments with option of indoor matches. Like it or not, that's the reality.
The principle of consistency is why organizers have left the roof closed in Saturday. As far as possible, the match is completed in the same environment in which it was launched. This principle will continue to apply, but will no longer apply to the part of the match in next day, that in original day hasn't been played due to the curfew.
By the way, SF Djokovic-Nadal was a excelent match with a good end :giggle:
 
Luka888 said:
Are you sure about that, lol?

What was the problem at the AO this year? Let me think. Sorry, I'm too old. Um, was the roof closed or open? Did they play on grass or HC :unsure:. Please help me out. I'm confused :X3:.

They followed the rules at that time. I'm not even sure why people are still talking about this. It's hilarious.
Click to expand...
On TW it is normal, that Djoker loses hypothetical matches. He's great only in real matches.
 
Enceladus said:
That this thing still surprises you (oh yeah, Nadal fan :rolleyes:)
Outdoor tournaments that have purchased and installed a roof, have become outdoor tournaments with option of indoor matches. Like it or not, that's the reality.
The principle of consistency is why organizers have left the roof closed in Saturday. As far as possible, the match is completed in the same environment in which it was launched. This principle will continue to apply, but will no longer apply to the part of the match in next day, that in original day hasn't been played due to the curfew.
By the way, SF Djokovic-Nadal was a excelent match with a good end :giggle:
Click to expand...
Of course you can't appreciate that an outdoor tournament should be played outdoors and the roof is only a fallback in bad weather.
 
DSH said:
Sure, which is why Joker asked to continue playing indoors.
:rolleyes:
Click to expand...
Get your facts straight :X3:
It's not your first time coming with conspiracy theory, , suggesting t'nt organization is working in Djokovic favor at other player cost .
Wimbledon rule was such that match that was interruped by curfew (indoors due lights installed in the roof) has to be continued under same conditions unless BOTH players agree otherwise. So Djokovic only agreed , not asked anything , he was asked.
 
NoleFam said:
The begin of the Djokovic resurgence? Yes you are right sir. ;)
Click to expand...

I will never forget it. The build up, night match under the lights (but got postponed after 3 sets), Djokovic vs Nadal, the sound of the ball as it echoed throughout the centre centre court. You could hear a pin drop. I envy those people who were in the stadium that day. They experienced something special. A sporting event for the ages.

And Djokovic coming out of it as a winner after almost 2 years watching Nadal and Federer pile up slams while he couldn’t do anything about it. The saved BPs late in the 5th, just wow. After that he was truly back. Thinking of this match always puts a smile on my face, more than any other.
 
RF-18 said:
I will never forget it. The build up, night match under the lights (but got postponed after 3 sets), Djokovic vs Nadal, the sound of the ball as it echoed throughout the centre centre court. You could hear a pin drop. I envy those people who were in the stadium that day. They experienced something special. A sporting event for the ages.

And Djokovic coming out of it as a winner after almost 2 years watching Nadal and Federer pile up slams while he couldn’t do anything about it. The saved BPs late in the 5th, just wow. After that he was truly back. Thinking of this match always puts a smile on my face, more than any other.
Click to expand...

one of the greatest matches of all time and the best between djokovic and nadal. and probably the most important one, even if it was not a final.

if nadal had won, i am sure he would be the sole leader in the slam race, and djokovic would maxne still have 12 and be retired years ago. this was the match that brought him back.
 
  • Like
Reactions: DSH
JasonZ said:
one of the greatest matches of all time and the best between djokovic and nadal. and probably the most important one, even if it was not a final.

if nadal had won, i am sure he would be the sole leader in the slam race, and djokovic would maxne still have 12 and be retired years ago. this was the match that brought him back.
Click to expand...
Then you really know little about Djokovic mentality. He didn't give up after Melzer defeat being 2 sets up. What makes you think he would give up after eventual SF loss to Nadal. Before W one could see he is getting close to his old self. Lost narrowly Queens final
And are you're sure Nadal would beat Anderson on grass, he had already have loses to big serving Muller (x2) , Rosol, Brown even serveless underpowered Darcis?
 
LaVie en Rose said:
Then you really know little about Djokovic mentality. He didn't give up after Melzer defeat being 2 sets up. What makes you think he would give up after eventual SF loss to Nadal. Before W one could see he is getting close to his old self. Lost narrowly Queens final
And are you're sure Nadal would beat Anderson on grass, he had already have loses to big serving Muller (x2) , Rosol, Brown even serveless underpowered Darcis?
Click to expand...
You are correct about the rules. The rule was that the match will continue in the settings of the previous day UNLESS both players agree to open the roof. Nadal wanted in to open, Djokovic said that they will continue like the day before. End of the story, nothing controversial about it. Nadal had a bad luck that the day that he had probably one of the best grass court form of the last 10 years, freakin Anderson and Isner decided to ruin the day.

And yes Nadal would beat Anderson easily. Anderson was really tired after that Isner match plus he wasn't that good of a player as redlining left handed Muller. Rosol and Brown met Nadal when he played really badly at Wimb. The real final was Djokodal semi and Djokovic deserved that win. Wimbledon is so much about serve/return dynamic and he is better at it than Nadal on fast conditions.
 
The only reason Djokovic won that match was the roof being closed. It gave him the extra edge he needed in the serve-return dynamic. Nadal was the better player in the match and should have won.

It is essentially a "stolen" title for Djokovic, with a big asterisk.
 
  • Like
Reactions: DSH
weakera said:
The only reason Djokovic won that match was the roof being closed. It gave him the extra edge he needed in the serve-return dynamic. Nadal was the better player in the match and should have won.

It is essentially a "stolen" title for Djokovic, with a big asterisk.
Click to expand...
RG 2021 was also a steal, if you don't believe it, ask Strongrule.
:giggle:
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

DRII
So I wasn't crazy! Wimbledon reverses stupid rule regarding roof usage after last's years 'controversial' semi between Nadal and Djokovic!
Replies
34
Views
1K
Deleted member 758560
D
Enceladus
The Wimbledon closed roof was meaningful
Replies
14
Views
1K
zep
Z
DRII
very good analysis of 2018 Wimbledon Semi: Nadal vs Djokovic (from Quora)
2 3
Replies
111
Views
7K
NoleFam
NoleFam
Berrettini_Fan
Did 2018 Wimbledon SF Affect 2019 Wimbledon F?
2
Replies
52
Views
745
nolefam_2024
nolefam_2024
marc45
Golf Site Criticises Wimbledon
2 3
Replies
122
Views
5K
FrontHeadlock
F
Back
Top