Nadal's super quick serving.

First topic message reminder :

This guy used to be so fast, he even put Roddick and RF to shame back in the day...

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KzKuv4j67aw&feature=player_embedded#!

I do believe for Nadal to win off clay again, he has to go back to basics and play as quick as this, not letting his man able to breathe. Think that we all can see he has altered his game too much, if he goes back to his super quick 1999 self, I believe Djokovic may struggle with him like he often does with Federer and (at times) Niko Davydenko when they take the ball on early and play faster.

P.S; If Rafa suddenly changes his game and plays super fast, I will take the credit and expect a royalty in the region of 20% of future successes'.

Yours Truly,

Josiah

LF - I am not ignoring your posts, I simply can;t make sense of them. Sorry.

WoW...

Tenez wrote:LF - I am not ignoring your posts, I simply can;t make sense of them. Sorry.

It is all right. There are other posters on this thread as well. You can post responses to my posts at your convenience, or perhaps never. It would not offend me in any way.

Tenez wrote:LF - I am not ignoring your posts, I simply can;t make sense of them. Sorry.

At times you need to change the record, it has become bit tedious now and you know that I am not a Nadal fan.

Tenez, will you drop the agenda crap? I really dont have one, its a figment of your imagination.
Nadal stretches the time, everyone knows that, I'm not here to defend him or any other rule breaker.
And stop calling him "my player", geez...how many more times!!!

The issue is that the rule ISNT working and I dont see the umpires suddenly applying it either. At the end of the day they can apply discretion and with so many longer ralleys going on these days its going to be a brave umpire that makes out of breath players get a wriggle on! It hasnt really happened so far has it....so whats going to change in future? How is it going to be applied Tenez when it isnt currently. The answer is, it isnt! That's because in general umpires as a collective clearly dont see it as an issue or else they would act!

Credibility in arguments? That's a little rich coming from a guy who's raison d'etre is clearly known to centre around anti-Nadalism...you've always perceived me to be some out and out huge fan of his hence the fact we never get on. You always were quick to go on the attack against anyone who didnt agree with your subjective views on tennis. By all means continue to push your rather sizeable and long held agenda against Nadal (has the guy refused to sign an autograph for you years ago or something?), but I'm not really that fussed. Just dont TELL me I have an agenda when I dont!

laverfan wrote:

Tenez wrote:LF - I am not ignoring your posts, I simply can;t make sense of them. Sorry.

It is all right. There are other posters on this thread as well. You can post responses to my posts at your convenience, or perhaps never. It would not offend me in any way.

That I uderstand! Cheers.

lydian wrote:!

The issue is that the rule ISNT working and I dont see the umpires suddenly applying it either.

That doesn;t make sense at all. It's a rule. full stop....and more so, it's a rule that's worked for the last 30years at least.

The fact is that there is a player bending the rule because his popularity allows him to. That is something we can discuss certainly. Not the rule.

Tenez wrote:The fact is that there is a player bending the rule because his popularity allows him to. That is something we can discuss certainly. Not the rule.

Plenty of players bend the rule, just some more than others. It would, of course, be wrong to penalise just one player and not the others.

JuliusHMarx wrote:

Tenez wrote:The fact is that there is a player bending the rule because his popularity allows him to. That is something we can discuss certainly. Not the rule.

Plenty of players bend the rule, just some more than others. It would, of course, be wrong to penalise just one player and not the others.

Can you honestly say that the rule was a problem prior to Nadal? Some did break it certainly but they were warned as the rule was enforced. Now of course, more are breaking it. Certainly. when the top players show the way, the others follow suit.

Do you really think I believe we should be more lenient with some than others? In turn, are you saying that because more players have learnt to break it, it's fine?

I don;t understand your point? Or is it that you want to appear as a fair poster with no particular bias to the biggest offender of the rule?

Tenez wrote:The fact is that there is a player bending the rule because his popularity allows him to. That is something we can discuss certainly. Not the rule.

.... and he is not 'your player'...

JuliusHMarx wrote:Plenty of players bend the rule, just some more than others. It would, of course, be wrong to penalise just one player and not the others.

Wish Tenez saw the sport as 'our' sport, rather than 'your' or 'mine'. Very well said, Julius.

You should post the 25% link again, just to reiterate your point.

Edit:

Tenez wrote:In turn, are you saying that because more players have learnt to break it, it's fine?

The more players breaking it, the more it needs to be revisited and perhaps, changed.

In the judicial world, laws and rules which are no longer conducive to the 'greater' good have been repealed. Should I mention 'gay' marriages in the Western world?

Agreed, many players break the rule, including Federer at times. Nadal may be the worst offender but that doesnt mean the others are not without blame too. Who knows whether Nadal was the first to break them in recent years...it doesnt matter though because why blame the players. Players in all sports push the rules, their very competitiveness ensures this.

The issue is that the blame lies at the door of weak umpires who have let the horse bolt and cant now shut the stable doors behind. They've created their own problem by not acting properly before...the rule might have "worked" for 30 years but the game has changed a lot in recent years...the umpires havent embraced the situation and enforced the game properly. Its not just because 1 player is popular - could it be because they dont really believe the rule applies to current conditions of play anymore?

This must be the case because at the end of the day, no one seems to really care about the rule on the circuit since the umpires only call it 2 times a year. Its just become a rule of comedy, if they're not going to apply the rule then they might just as well scratch it!! In many respects their weakness in application has effectively done that anyway...

laverfan wrote:
Wish Tenez saw the sport as 'our' sport, rather than 'your' or 'mine'. Very well said, Julius.

You should post the 25% link again, just to reiterate your point.

Again, plain wrong. "our sport's" rules are defined by the ITF and ATP. I am the one keen to having our sport's rules to be applied for all unlike you and some who would like special rules for "our player(s)".

I am amazed by your posts again LF. Neither do I understand them, nor do you seem to understand the very simple and basic points I make. But I certainly noticed your effort in trying to get other posters on your side...at all costs!

There is a clear case of a rule being obsolete, because of it's inconsistent application, lack of enforceability, etc.

Tenez wrote:But I certainly noticed your effort in trying to get other posters on your side...at all costs!

Should I try a career in politics and oppose Sarkozy or Cameron or Obama? Not sure about Gaddafi or Mubarak or Saleh or Assad, though?

laverfan wrote:In the judicial world, laws and rules which are no longer conducive to the 'greater' good have been repealed. Should I mention 'gay' marriages in the Western world?

Fine, but do you suggest chaos until we redefine them? Many players send the ball out or in the net, including some beautiful shots. That's not right! Should we call them in until we change the courts dimension and draw a big enough court without a net?

Think LF!


Likewise, should we change the rules for for the 75% who abide by the rule cause 25% don't?

Tenez, can you ever stop being antagonistic to other posters? Its like you need to find division to be motivated to post...we're all tennis fans here supposedly. Hard to believe really.

I'm sure everyone, me included, ideally wants rules applied otherwise anarchy ensues. You mention the rules being created by ITF/ATP but even they cant agree on the time span. For instance, why would events with 5 sets have shorter timeframes than those with 3. Maybe the illogicality of the rules, together with the umpires reticence in applying them, have rendered them somewhat impotent? The issue lies at the foot of the ITF and ATP - they have not seen them applied! Conversely, why do you think the rules will suddenly be applied after umpires have lost the cojones to apply said rules for years? Rules are only seen to be rules when they are applied by the people who make them!

lydian wrote:Agreed, many players break the rule, including Federer at times. Nadal may be the worst offender but that doesnt mean the others are not without blame too. Who knows whether Nadal was the first to break them in recent years...it doesnt matter though because why blame the players. Players in all sports push the rules, their very competitiveness ensures this.

The issue is that the blame lies at the door of weak umpires who have let the horse bolt and cant now shut the stable doors behind. They've created their own problem by not acting properly before...the rule might have "worked" for 30 years but the game has changed a lot in recent years...the umpires havent embraced the situation and enforced the game properly. Its not just because 1 player is popular - could it be because they dont really believe the rule applies to current conditions of play anymore?

This must be the case because at the end of the day, no one seems to really care about the rule on the circuit since the umpires only call it 2 times a year. Its just become a rule of comedy, if they're not going to apply the rule then they might just as well scratch it!! In many respects their weakness in application has effectively done that anyway...

Yes, the blurrer the better. Let's accuse everybody except the biggest offender.


The game has not changed. The players have but we can't change the rules as soon as there is a new kid in town!

You are really trying hard to find excuses for your player...which is why I find it difficult not to call it "your player".

lydian wrote:I'm sure everyone, me included, ideally wants rules applied otherwise anarchy ensues. You mention the rules being created by ITF/ATP but even they cant agree on the time span. For instance, why would events with 5 sets have shorter timeframes than those with 3. Maybe the illogicality of the rules, together with the umpires reticence in applying them, have rendered them somewhat impotent? The issue lies at the foot of the ITF and ATP - they have not seen them applied! Conversely, why do you think the rules will suddenly be applied after umpires have lost the cojones to apply said rules for years? Rules are only seen to be rules when they are applied by the people who make them!

It's very simple. Because before being a sport, it's actually a show...and a lucrative one. But Nadal and some others break the rule of both the ATP and ITF...so no excuse there either.

Tenez - you dont seem to GET it. I have said I'm not defending the guy, that he flouts the rules. I dont give a crap about finding excuses. Comprende?

But what you dont 'comprende' is that the umpires are not enforcing the rule. This is important because its not just Nadal breaking it. You need to take off your rabid anti-Nadal blinkers and see that the issue lies with the the governing bodies for lack of rule enforcement. Actually the game has changed Tenez...so the players change with it. Ever heard of being a product of your environment? Rules need to sometimes evolve to reflect the world we live in or they become irrelevant - or simply be applied....the issue is lack of application. Again I ask you - why will the umpires suddenly start enforcing them again?

Tenez wrote:

laverfan wrote:In the judicial world, laws and rules which are no longer conducive to the 'greater' good have been repealed. Should I mention 'gay' marriages in the Western world?

Fine, but do you suggest chaos until we redefine them? Many players send the ball out or in the net, including some beautiful shots. That's not right! Should we call them in until we change the courts dimension and draw a big enough court without a net?

There is already a set of rules in place. An amendment is what is needed to replace the 20/25 seconds by a <n>/<m> seconds, or better still, <x>/<x> seconds for uniformity, as Lydian alludes to. BTW, should we discuss the dimensions of the court on this thread, or perhaps another?

Tenez wrote:Think LF!

That is precisely why I am questioning the 20/25 seconds limits. Another example from the judicial world, Roe v. Wade (1973) which did not have a precedent. The change starts somewhere.

Tenez wrote:Likewise, should we change the rules for for the 75% who abide by the rule cause 25% don't?

Despite humanity being one, there are different rules in different countries. Try throwing a piece of chewing gum on a street in Singapore vs. defecating in the street in Dharavi, Mumbai, India.

lydian wrote:Tenez - you dont seem to GET it. I have said I'm not defending the guy, that he flouts the rules. I dont give a crap about finding excuses. Comprende?

But what you dont 'comprende' is that the umpires are not enforcing the rule. This is important because its not just Nadal breaking it. You need to take off your rabid anti-Nadal blinkers and see that the issue lies with the the governing bodies for lack of rule enforcement. Actually the game has changed Tenez...so the players change with it. Ever heard of being a product of your environment? Rules need to sometimes evolve to reflect the world we live in or they become irrelevant - or simply be applied....the issue is lack of application. Again I ask you - why will the umpires suddenly start enforcing them again?

Clearly you are the one with the comprehension problems cause as I have said many times, problems with enforcing the rule doesn't mean there is a problem with the rule itself.

You need to take off your pro-Nadal blinkers and see that the issue lies with Nadal abusing of his popularity by threatening the referees like he has done on a few occasions. It's not because you don;t understand the leverage a popular player has on the tournament and its referee that the problem comes from the referee and the rules. It's because fans like you don;t want to see much wrong with this kind of behaviour that Nadal abuses it. If he were booed by the crowd as soon as he gets over 20s he would stop abusing the rule.

As I said a 1000s times, the rule might evolve but until it does it has to be enforced. I am pretty sure more players woudl want to have that rule stay as is and enforced than extended. Lots of players have complained about the time taken by players, and I am sure we have not heard them all. So though the rule might change, we have little to suggest players as a whole want it to be changed. And I am pretty sure that the crowd wants it enforced more than extended.

And again, your argument doesn;t hold, cause the though the game evolves, it's because it evolved into a more physical game in the 7os that the time between point was shorten...not extended. The issue has already been dealt with!

Tenez wrote:

The issue has already been dealt with!

... with a rule which is seldom enforced....

Tenez wrote:

problems with enforcing the rule

... the why have it defined at all in the ATP rule book? It just a set of words that every Umpire must read and ignore? Very interesting....

Bump...

Tenez wrote:

lydian wrote:There is no reason why playing more quickly wouldnt benefit Nadal most of the time. He did used to play quikcly and it didnt hurt his results before - I dont believe Tenez's Miami theory at all.

So Nadal losing the last 6 games in a row in the only 5 setter he played within 20s is my theory? Non-sense. It's not my theory, it's simply a fact you are denying cause teh fact goes against, not what you think, but what you would like to think. Comical really!

Nadal @18+ in 2005 vs. Nadal in 2011. Very similar to Federer in 2005 vs. Federer in 2011.

Both now are approaching 'higher' recovery times. Correct Tenez?

Shortening points to make it less physical is now a distinct advantage, but the seeds for a such a style had already been sown.

One reaps what one sows.

Uncle Toni admits that what Nadal did to Federer, is what Djokovic is doing to Nadal.

I am looking forward to 2012 with Murray in the mix and see how the two 'veterans' (Fedal) cope with Djokurray.

Federer's longevity has his desire to shorten points, yet being fit and injury free, as a very important factor.

I have to say that reading this thread has got to the point of wanting to throttle you all.

Has anyone taken the view that umpires view it as a rule that only a handful break consistently and that as they can see it serves no advantage to the receiver or server? As LF said about Gonzales earlier, what about those who break the 10 second barrier.

Look at football by where the rule stats that the goalkeeper has 6 seconds to release the ball once in possession and yet this rule is broken religiously game in and game out.

Look at the principle of it. Does it bother me Rafa takes time to remover a wedgie, stroke his hair and then serve? No. Does it bother me that Djokovic bounces the ball more than basketball player before serving? No. It is something that is of disconcern to the umpire, it isn't them being lenient, maybe just a spectator like many others that just want a good tennis match.

Tenez wrote:

JuliusHMarx wrote:

Tenez wrote:The fact is that there is a player bending the rule because his popularity allows him to. That is something we can discuss certainly. Not the rule.

Plenty of players bend the rule, just some more than others. It would, of course, be wrong to penalise just one player and not the others.

Can you honestly say that the rule was a problem prior to Nadal? Some did break it certainly but they were warned as the rule was enforced. Now of course, more are breaking it. Certainly. when the top players show the way, the others follow suit.

Do you really think I believe we should be more lenient with some than others? In turn, are you saying that because more players have learnt to break it, it's fine?

I don;t understand your point? Or is it that you want to appear as a fair poster with no particular bias to the biggest offender of the rule?

I don't really care how I appear, although I try to be fair and consider being fair to be a good thing. As I've stated previously I don't think the rule should be changed and I do think it should be enforced more strictly. Clearly this would have more effect on the biggest offenders. Quite rightly IMO.

Tennis can function only if the rules are applied rigorously.

Who fails to spot that is naive at best.

JuliusHMarx wrote:As I've stated previously I don't think the rule should be changed and I do think it should be enforced more strictly.

My understanding from some of the ATP folks (unofficially, of course) is that the handheld devices employed by ATP and provided to umpires, have a timer which visually starts once the outcome of the last point is entered into the device. It does allow a stricter enforcement of the 20/25 second rule. Due to differences in playing styles, the umpires' discretionary powers play a significant role in matches involving different players. The FIBA/NBA shot clock and the ATP/ITF timer have very similar 'overrides' available to the human supervisors of the game, hence a 'subjective' application of the rule takes place.

The FIBA/NBA shot clock has the advantage of being publicly visible, unlike the ATP/ITF counterpart. One possible option, as a first step, is to consider making it publicly viewable, but the completion of the last point and it's entry is still controlled by a human, the umpire in ATP/ITF, unlike a separate autonomous team of 'shot-clock' controllers in NBA/FIBA. ATP/ITF are unwilling to incur the financial burden of such a team, but may bow to public pressure.

JuliusHMarx wrote:Clearly this would have more effect on the biggest offenders. Quite rightly IMO.

If a good middle ground is possible, similar to the FIBA/NBA, then it would definitely be a positive step.

Jeremy_Kyle wrote:Tennis can function only if the rules are applied rigorously.

Tennis, a human player game, with human spectators, human supervisors (assisted by machines though), unlike a machine-to-machine (or human-to-machine) game, comes with human foibles, gratis.

Judicial systems use laws and rules as guidelines, and pay humans to interpret and apply them. How is Tennis any different?

Jeremy_Kyle wrote:Who fails to spot that is naive at best.

This discussion so far has been due to posters' ability to spot it and discuss it, perhaps a bit more passionately than usual.

lydian wrote:The current rule isnt working, nor is imposed. The question is....is it really a big deal? After all there never used to be a rule just "play shall be continuous".

Open your eyes and mind and read Rule 29. http://www.itftennis.com/shared/medialibrary/pdf/original/IO_54584_original.PDF

lydian wrote:

Going back to the OP statement. I think Nadal would benefit from playing quickly - its just a habit he's got locked into IMO. If Nadal was to speed up I think it would hurt his opponents far more due to what he can take out of them in the ralleys - sure he puts alot into his points but he also has opponents moving left and right which is exhausting for them. By taking 20-30s he's giving them recovery time - and I believe they need it more than him.

This was a tactic Muster used to put to great effect on clay...he used to move his opponents left and right and played pretty quickly inbetween points giving them little recovery time. After the first set most of them were pretty shot and capitulated...Agassi wore guys out too, used to move them around on a piece of string and then serve quickly. Actually, Muster would love today's slower surface conditions!

There is no reason why playing more quickly wouldnt benefit Nadal most of the time. He did used to play quikcly and it didnt hurt his results before - I dont believe Tenez's Miami theory at all.

If you who is no better than a tennis fan has realized this great thing which can work so much in Nadal's favour, how come the master Toni and his whole team of experts and Nadal himself doesn't realize it. Why couldn't he speed up his serving taking 15 sec between points against Djo in US open to defeat Djo who was already suffering. If he or his team are such idiots that they cant figure this out that, then maybe you can apply for Nadal's next coach since there already are talks of them parting ways. Sounds great, right??

Just a habit?? He never had any such habit as a young player. Why as a pro and mostly after 2005, he has become a repeat offender. This transition is deliberate. I'm not buying the habit excuse.

Even if its a habit, he knows the rules clearly. He has been warned for time violation more than any other player, that the excuse of habit and forgetting it can't be bought. Nadal has been playing at pro level for 8+ years now. There is no room for excuses like 'habit' in professional world. No rule can be violated just because someone has a certain 'habit'. Can a dope tainted player get an excuse for the PED violation saying "I'm addicted to this drug and its my habit". Next things is you'll be suggesting why not do that as well. Funny how people can find excuses even for the wrong things done by their favorite players. And its not a habit at all. Its a deliberate violation. The violation often occurs during break points, set points or important points in the match which could be deciding. A violation in a attempt to gain composure, extra resting time, get a breather, and disturbing the opponent's rhythm by keeping him waiting. Its not only the serve. Nadal also keeps is opponent waiting while receiving. But that that stat is not calculated. No rule exists for the receiver to get ready to receive the serve. Some players take advantage of that, keep the opponent waiting and disturb his rhythm, get composure and more resting time. This also explains why the time taken between serves at times get over the rule of 20/25 sec even when the opponent is serving against those players.

Nadal keeps the opponent waiting even at the nets for the coin-toss. And I know you have big bag of excuses ready for that that as well. Or rather suggest how keeping the opponent waiting for the toss-up actually works in the opponents favor.

Ridiculous !!

The OP clip shows 3 things:

1 - Obvious difference in talent between the 2 players.

2- Nadal was not naturally fitter than Gasquet as both have exactly the same age and after 3 sets, it seems Gasquet is as quick, as powerful and more agile than Nadal.

3 - Once again that Nadal playing fast lost again.


Itis indeed an interesting clip. Another junior resut is Gasquet winning the first set 6/2 and Nadal retiring in the second set.

laverfan wrote:

raiders_of_the_lost_ark wrote:
I asked you what you think why do they violate this rule again and again and why do they need more time when others are okay

See Julius's article (over 25% exceed time limit and Carrieg4's comments).

1. Still 75% of the points were played within the time rule. I think 75 is greater than 25 and so any suggestion to change the rules favoring the 25% minority is invalid.

2. US open this year was a lot disturbed by weather conditions. Lots of days of windy conditions especially during the morning and afternoon session. many rain interruptions and plays in wet damp conditions. Its expected that if the playing conditions are not ideal, there can be a delay in the 20 sec time rule. These are things beyond control and no one has any issues with that.

3. The stat of 25% is just an attempt to make it black and white which is incorrect. This stat will take a point for violating the rule even if it clocks 21 sec. 1-3 sec delay is fine I think. But 35 sec is over the limit. Some player take more than 50sec. This stat of 25% didn't say out of these 25% how many were violating the time by what margin and how many of those were by which players. There is room for discretionary reasoning in this time rule which can allow a few extra seconds depending on the circumstances. This is acceptable. But as long as the rule is there, there is no justification for its deliberate violation.

4. Some players take long time even to be ready to receive, keeping the other guy waiting to serve. I see Nadal doing it quite often. There is no rule for how long a receiver can take to get ready to receive the serve. The serve time violators are often the ones who even take long time getting ready to receive. This only delays things, but the server is held accountable by the blind stats for no fault.

raiders_of_the_lost_ark wrote:Just for 2 or a handful of players rules can not be altered.

My favourite example of a rule change for a single tennis player is Pancho Gonzalez. He was considered 'too quick' and there was a rule added to not allow him to step inside the court after his own serve till the opponent's racquet had touched the ball. I would suggest you take a look at that change.


Correction: the returned serve had to bounce before the server could make his own first shot, thereby keeping Gonzales from playing his usual serve-and-volley game.


===================

I've seen it already. Its funny someone can suggest a ridiculous and totally unprofessional change that happened in a sport more than 50 years ago as a basis for a suggestion to do it even now. It was wrong that time, and will be wrong anytime. Those days tennis was nothing like its now. A club can always alter its rules to suite some. It can make a rule that the son of the president will always be playing in the finals no matter what. Can such e.g. be brought in suggestion for anything in the professional tennis world. If you think this, you need to re-think again. There is no way a rule should be altered to benefit only 2 or a handful of player in anytime.

raiders_of_the_lost_ark wrote:2. The rule is 20/25 seconds between points. I didn't see any place where it states that it can well within the rules be valid to have a let and the server can take another 20/25 seconds before attempting the serve again. If someone has a link please provide. My understanding is a point must be started within the 20/25 sec of the previous point, if its a let/fault the next attempt must be immediate ( certainly not after another 20/25 sec of the first attempt.)

Please watch Mardy Fish and Justine Henin (... and many others). They do not get two balls to start their serve, but just one. If the first serve is a let, the 20/25 second is dependent on ball being provided to the player by the ball persons and hence is out of control of the players themselves. Umpire discretion and observations now come into play. There is no rule which forces a player to ask for two balls to start their first serve.


Yes but there is rule to keep continuous play. If a player doesn't have the ball, its fine. but when they do, they can't keep holding it for another 20/25 seconds before they attempt to serve again. Even it maybe allowed on a few times, but certainly is breaking rules if its done everytime and considertable break in play is observed.

raiders_of_the_lost_ark wrote:4. If the time rule is increased to what you say, it will again be worse for the game.

Has it been tried? What feedback, if any came out of such a trial. Worse for the game... is purely subjective, because it may perhaps bore a specific set of spectators/fans. Fans in the play area (not Television) are used to players sitting down on chairs between consecutive games. If it avoids injuries of any kind, it will be better for the game.


==============================

Even using a gun is not tried in tennis before. Shall that be also tried before anything substantial can be concluded? What feedback if came out of such trial. You have nothing to backup the point that players taking long time helps avoid injuries. If it did, Nadal and Djo the biggest culprits in this matter must not have any injuries at all. But they are the ones who often have injuries. So Your idea about extra time helping in avoiding injuries is hollow.


Please see LKs comment. It is not that every player will take time allotted. Federer (one of the fastest servers exceeds time around 5% time - see Julius's article link).


I've seen both . You see Tenez's comment "


Of course they are not the ones but this is essentially happening now because top players have been granted the right to abuse the rule. That leaves everbody else the right to override that rule. "

If some players are violating the rule and are let off, it does encourage the other and up coming players to violate it. They see that some are using it to gain advantage and they too should. Have there been so many articles in press and media and so much talk about time violation in slams in the days on 80s, 90s? That does prove that some player violating the rules and getting away, encourages the others to follow.

laverfan wrote:

Jeremy_Kyle wrote:Tennis can function only if the rules are applied rigorously.

Tennis, a human player game, with human spectators, human supervisors (assisted by machines though), unlike a machine-to-machine (or human-to-machine) game, comes with human foibles, gratis.

Judicial systems use laws and rules as guidelines, and pay humans to interpret and apply them. How is Tennis any different?

Jeremy_Kyle wrote:Who fails to spot that is naive at best.

This discussion so far has been due to posters' ability to spot it and discuss it, perhaps a bit more passionately than usual.

I am sure it will come as a shock to you ,but judicial systems don't work all in the same way, as you seem to believe. There are systems based on Common law where judges have the authority to create and interpret the low, and others, the vast majority, based on Civil law, where the judges' role is merely to apply the rules.

Now, to compare the umpire to a judge is already quite bizarre, given the low profile of their role in modern tennis. It is even more bizarre to compare the rules of a sport to those of the judicial system. In tennis in particular, that I know the 99.9 % of rules are extremely clear cut with no space of interpretation whatsoever. The fact that the time limit rule is not applied rigorously represents one of those marginal exceptions, which is surely kept willingly in a grey area as a result of the underlying opposition of powerful interests that the ITF and ATP prefer not to disturb.

Jeremy_Kyle wrote:Now, to compare the umpire to a judge is already quite bizarre, given the low profile of their role in modern tennis. It is even more bizarre to compare the rules of a sport to those of the judicial system.

Welcome to LF's world!

Put simply a fact in front of him and you end up exploring the univers with him...The greek sophists would have been proud of him.

Jeremy_Kyle wrote:

laverfan wrote:

Jeremy_Kyle wrote:Tennis can function only if the rules are applied rigorously.

Tennis, a human player game, with human spectators, human supervisors (assisted by machines though), unlike a machine-to-machine (or human-to-machine) game, comes with human foibles, gratis.

Judicial systems use laws and rules as guidelines, and pay humans to interpret and apply them. How is Tennis any different?

Jeremy_Kyle wrote:Who fails to spot that is naive at best.

This discussion so far has been due to posters' ability to spot it and discuss it, perhaps a bit more passionately than usual.

I am sure it will come as a shock to you ,but judicial systems don't work all in the same way, as you seem to believe. There are systems based on Common law where judges have the authority to create and interpret the low, and others, the vast majority, based on Civil law, where the judges' role is merely to apply the rules.

Now, to compare the umpire to a judge is already quite bizarre, given the low profile of their role in modern tennis. It is even more bizarre to compare the rules of a sport to those of the judicial system. In tennis in particular, that I know the 99.9 % of rules are extremely clear cut with no space of interpretation whatsoever. The fact that the time limit rule is not applied rigorously represents one of those marginal exceptions, which is surely kept willingly in a grey area as a result of the underlying opposition of powerful interests that the ITF and ATP prefer not to disturb.

Ummmm given that you are suggesting that judges are only there to apply the rules is quite a limited view you have. So when the judge sets bail, applys a punishment to a crime and yet not all in the same capacity as stated in the 'rules' does that mean they are not enforcing the law????

It is called interpretation. Same with a umpire. He may see the time violation, and decide not to punish it. A judge may decide to jail a burglar or only impose community service with a suspended sentence. These can be challenged by others. Like players can question time taken between points.

Anyone else want to be limited in such views?

Tenez wrote:

Jeremy_Kyle wrote:Now, to compare the umpire to a judge is already quite bizarre, given the low profile of their role in modern tennis. It is even more bizarre to compare the rules of a sport to those of the judicial system.

Welcome to LF's world!

Put simply a fact in front of him and you end up exploring the univers with him...The greek sophists would have been proud of him.

I think LF would make a wanderful lawyer, but a terrible judge, in my book

Jeremy_Kyle wrote:

Tenez wrote:

Jeremy_Kyle wrote:Now, to compare the umpire to a judge is already quite bizarre, given the low profile of their role in modern tennis. It is even more bizarre to compare the rules of a sport to those of the judicial system.

Welcome to LF's world!

Put simply a fact in front of him and you end up exploring the univers with him...The greek sophists would have been proud of him.

I think LF would make a wanderful lawyer, but a terrible judge, in my book

You mean a wanderer-ful lawyer as opposed to a wonderful one.

legendkillar wrote:Ummmm given that you are suggesting that judges are only there to apply the rules is quite a limited view you have. So when the judge sets bail, applys a punishment to a crime and yet not all in the same capacity as stated in the 'rules' does that mean they are not enforcing the law????

It is called interpretation. Same with a umpire. He may see the time violation, and decide not to punish it. A judge may decide to jail a burglar or only impose community service with a suspended sentence. These can be challenged by others. Like players can question time taken between points.

Anyone else want to be limited in such views?

LK, a rule is a rule...it may carry exceptions and the referees are there to consider those exceptions, not to allow the rule to be broken after after every single point or so.

As JK said, those who fail to spot that are naive at best...but more likely fans of a player instead of fan of tennis.

Tenez wrote:

legendkillar wrote:Ummmm given that you are suggesting that judges are only there to apply the rules is quite a limited view you have. So when the judge sets bail, applys a punishment to a crime and yet not all in the same capacity as stated in the 'rules' does that mean they are not enforcing the law????

It is called interpretation. Same with a umpire. He may see the time violation, and decide not to punish it. A judge may decide to jail a burglar or only impose community service with a suspended sentence. These can be challenged by others. Like players can question time taken between points.

Anyone else want to be limited in such views?

LK, a rule is a rule...it may carry exceptions and the referees are there to consider those exceptions, not to allow the rule to be broken after after every single point or so.

As JK said, those who fail to spot that are naive at best...but more likely fans of a player instead of fan of tennis.

Like I said Tenez. Interpretation. If such are given the responsibility to make 'judgements' they should be respected.

I would go as far as to say those imply themselves to be 'martyrs' are quite over generous.

I would go as far to say have you not broken or bent a single rule in your life?

raiders_of_the_lost_ark wrote: And I know you have big bag of excuses ready for that that as well. Or rather suggest how keeping the opponent waiting for the toss-up actually works in the opponents favor.

Take a chill pill raiders. I dont need or have any desire to find excuses.
We all agreed that time rules shouldnt be broken so your vitriol at me is a waste of time.
You dont know anymore than I do whether the extended time he now takes is habitual or desired. Nadal appears to take the same amount of time whether he's played a 4 stroke ralley or a 20 stroke ralley - that's why I call it habitual, otherwise he'd be taking 10 secs for a 4 stroke ralley then 30 secs for a 20 stroke ralley if it was linked to the so called recovery time he needs.

No-one is answering my question though - why arent the authorities enforcing the rule? If you had burglars breaking into houses but not arrested/charged there would be uproar - similarly here, the rule is broken but nothing is being done! Nadal will simply carry on until he's brought into line - the habitual nature of the time breaking will mean he will continue to do so until he's told otherwise!

And - its not just Nadal so stop focusing on one player too. ATP/ITF need to clamp down but they're not are they! And the more they dont, the more the players will start doing it and then the whole system is in chaos. The rule seems in chaos already to be honest - because again I ask, why do the umpires not have the cojones to enforce the rule?

Jeremy_Kyle wrote:I think LF would make a wanderful lawyer, but a terrible judge, in my book

Let us assume I am Nadal's lawyer and you are the judge. You have a body of evidence in front of you, anecdotal, circumstantial and statistical.

You have a set of 'judges' (umpires) who interpret the same law differently. You are one of the several judges. Let us leave your personal feelings out of this.

Julius has clearly stated that he does not want the time limit changed, so have you.

Tenez/RaidersOTLA are arguing 'hang him', 'hang him' outside your courtroom.

Lydian/I and LK feel that the current rule as it exists, needs a re-examination and perhaps a minor amendment of a number from 25 to, say 45 seconds.

Does the subject merit discussion or not? Can you as a judge describe the sacrosanctity of a number say 25 vs. another say 45?

Edit: Since the rule is not enforced uniformly and universally, what would you recommend be done to make it enforceable whether it is 20/25 or 40/45?

Why not put it to player commitee to vote whether they feel the rule needs to be examined. Then that way it would serve as a gauge to see what players really think. One if they decide would like for it to be 'examined' would show no issues. If they didn't, would show that time violation is something on their minds.

legendkillar wrote:
I would go as far to say have you not broken or bent a single rule in your life?

I try not to avoid being in such a situation. I ceratinly don't constantly break the rule at the expense of others.

How you can justify that is beyond me.

Tenez wrote:

legendkillar wrote:
I would go as far to say have you not broken or bent a single rule in your life?

I try not to avoid being in such a situation. I ceratinly don't constantly break the rule at the expense of others.

How you can justify that is beyond me.

Who is seeking justification? Me? No. Nadal? No.

Is it something that is clearly giving advantage to someone to ehance or improve performance? IMO no.

Breaking a rule is something that serves to personal gain more so to do at the expense of someone else. Rule breaking is to see 'benefit'

For people to condem someone for 'rule breaking' given we all have is quite hysterical.

legendkillar wrote: Has anyone taken the view that umpires view it as a rule that only a handful break consistently and that as they can see it serves no advantage to the receiver or server? As LF said about Gonzales earlier, what about those who break the 10 second barrier.

This is exactly my point! I keep asking why arent the umpires enforcing the rules.
The answer I'm not getting (which I gave some time back) is obvious - its because they dont see it as a BIG DEAL or advantageous to a player! I think they know the game better than we do and will discuss these things at council meetings for sure. But nothing has changed.
So those bleating that Nadal should play within the limits are missing the point - if it was so serious and put players at a disservice (pardon the pun) then I'm sure the umpires would seriously act on it. But they dont.
If anything, Nadal is giving more recovery time to guys like Federer who Tenez tells us runs out of gas after a set but yet was able to beat Nadal over 5 sets in 2005 because Nadal is also frail when playing to 20 secs...it seems like everyone is frail to Tenez! Maybe they should just play best of 1 set? Or maybe Tenez is going to tell us that a reduction of 5 seconds off Nadal's recovery time would mean the difference between Federer losing and winning in 5 sets? Yeah right...

I agree up to a point Lydian, but unfortunately it is not a level playing field. We all saw poor Cilic (and I say this as a devoted Fed fan) given a warning when Fed had break point on Cilic's serve, when Cilic had been taking far, far less time than the main culprits of time violations. If the umpire had felt that Cilic was taking too long, he should have been warned before such a crucial point. It was certainly not glaringly obvious to spectators that he was taking too long, nor was he obviously wasting time.

The truth is that umpires are often reluctant to tackle the marquee players. I am really sorry but charming as Rafa may be, he is very very naughty about exceeding time, taking MTOs for tactical reasons and then proceeding to play like a mini god, and all kinds of other mind games. If he can get away with it, then I have to say well why wouldn't he - but don't lets pretend that one of the best and fiercest competitors of all time in any sport is somehow unaware that he is being disruptive or is not seeking an advantage in any way

lydian wrote:

legendkillar wrote: Has anyone taken the view that umpires view it as a rule that only a handful break consistently and that as they can see it serves no advantage to the receiver or server? As LF said about Gonzales earlier, what about those who break the 10 second barrier.

This is exactly my point! I keep asking why arent the umpires enforcing the rules.

You have been told a 1000 times but you choose to ignore it. The reasons are the same that allowed Agassi to get away with PED while less popular players like Ulihrach or Korda got exposed. You keep ignoring that it's a show more than proper sport (essentially because of fans like you) and a show takes care of its most popular actors at the expense of maybe better actors.

Wait until Nadal slips up in ranking and his popularity moves to another player and you will see they will treat him like they treated Ciilic who got penalised for going over 1 sec or 2 at the last USO v Federer.

The injustice is there but you refuse to see it.

The rule being broken after every single point makes a mockery of the sport. It's like changing the length of a race track according to the favourite racer's preference.

Absurd...but more so of those trying to find excuses to a corrupt sport.

It's Nadal the culprit cause if he had not abused of his popularity it woudl have been much easier for the referees to keep everybody in check with that basic rule.

Tenez is 100% correct here and no amount of deflection will work. The Umpires don't enforce because the TDs will lean on them because Nadal brings in the fans/TV exposure and they don't want to fall out and be by-passed.

Simple really.

legendkillar wrote:

Jeremy_Kyle wrote:

laverfan wrote:

Jeremy_Kyle wrote:Tennis can function only if the rules are applied rigorously.

Tennis, a human player game, with human spectators, human supervisors (assisted by machines though), unlike a machine-to-machine (or human-to-machine) game, comes with human foibles, gratis.

Judicial systems use laws and rules as guidelines, and pay humans to interpret and apply them. How is Tennis any different?

Jeremy_Kyle wrote:Who fails to spot that is naive at best.

This discussion so far has been due to posters' ability to spot it and discuss it, perhaps a bit more passionately than usual.

I am sure it will come as a shock to you ,but judicial systems don't work all in the same way, as you seem to believe. There are systems based on Common law where judges have the authority to create and interpret the low, and others, the vast majority, based on Civil law, where the judges' role is merely to apply the rules.

Now, to compare the umpire to a judge is already quite bizarre, given the low profile of their role in modern tennis. It is even more bizarre to compare the rules of a sport to those of the judicial system. In tennis in particular, that I know the 99.9 % of rules are extremely clear cut with no space of interpretation whatsoever. The fact that the time limit rule is not applied rigorously represents one of those marginal exceptions, which is surely kept willingly in a grey area as a result of the underlying opposition of powerful interests that the ITF and ATP prefer not to disturb.

Ummmm given that you are suggesting that judges are only there to apply the rules is quite a limited view you have. So when the judge sets bail, applys a punishment to a crime and yet not all in the same capacity as stated in the 'rules' does that mean they are not enforcing the law????

It is called interpretation. Same with a umpire. He may see the time violation, and decide not to punish it. A judge may decide to jail a burglar or only impose community service with a suspended sentence. These can be challenged by others. Like players can question time taken between points.

Anyone else want to be limited in such views?

Nobody is saying here that the rule should by applied ruthlessly by umpires, without the slightest degree of interpretation. If this was the case, a player like Nadal would literally beat himself, by accruing not just points penalty , but possibly whole games penalty.

It's plain and obvious that during the matches, there may arises occasional circumstances which must be taken in consideration before warning players or giving penalty points.

On the other hand it appears slightly grotesque to observe how an important rule of the game is currently totally ignored, and how few players can get away violating the rule not just a handful of times per match, but consistently, persistently and by a very large margin.

laverfan wrote:

Jeremy_Kyle wrote:I think LF would make a wanderful lawyer, but a terrible judge, in my book

Let us assume I am Nadal's lawyer and you are the judge. You have a body of evidence in front of you, anecdotal, circumstantial and statistical.

You have a set of 'judges' (umpires) who interpret the same law differently. You are one of the several judges. Let us leave your personal feelings out of this.

Julius has clearly stated that he does not want the time limit changed, so have you.

Tenez/RaidersOTLA are arguing 'hang him', 'hang him' outside your courtroom.

Lydian/I and LK feel that the current rule as it exists, needs a re-examination and perhaps a minor amendment of a number from 25 to, say 45 seconds.

Does the subject merit discussion or not? Can you as a judge describe the sacrosanctity of a number say 25 vs. another say 45?

Edit: Since the rule is not enforced uniformly and universally, what would you recommend be done to make it enforceable whether it is 20/25 or 40/45?

You fail to recognize that a discussion around the opportunity to modify a rule, and the application of the same rule are completely different matters.

As long as a rule is in place, it has to be applied and enforced. A debate around the opportunity to change the rule will have ,eventually, a future impact, provided that the authority who set the rules decides to change the rules and regulation of the sport. Laws should apply prospectively and not retrospectively. Here the lawyer also is letting me down

Again I come back to the point of interpretation. If the umpire is choosing not to act upon it, is showing their belief in the rule.

PED's is altogether another discussion.

If the rule is to be upheld and I for one would not disagree with it being upheld, introduce a shot clock. Least it is then inthe players minds as well as the umpire.

Let's look at solutions and not player bash eh?

legendkillar wrote:If the rule is to be upheld and I for one would not disagree with it being upheld, introduce a shot clock. Least it is then inthe players minds as well as the umpire.

Let's look at solutions and not player bash eh?

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/07/01/sports/tennis/in-tennis-idea-of-shot-clock-has-some-momentum.html?pagewanted=all

I posted this link ages ago with a similar discussion. But thought it might be of interest again given your point legend. It is certainly an interesting solution