Do the umpires always say...

First topic message reminder :

Like most people I suspect, I don't tend to pay much attention to the toin coss, photo op etc before the matches start, but I saw it before the Berdych/Rochus match last night and the umpire went over the hawkeye rules and said "20 seconds between points".

I know this rule has been spoken about often, but have the umpires always said this and then just usually ignored it during the match, or is it something they've recently started making a point of saying, in which case maybe they plan to be stricter?

If anyone in the crowd makes a noise they should be given a warning. If they do so again they should be removed.

Simple_Analyst wrote:Nonsensical? What does that mean?

Anyway so the crowd only cheers and talks few points per match? Really Julius? So the 20 seconds clock shouldn't take into account crowd reaction?

Definition http://www.thefreedictionary.com/nonsensical

The crown only cheers beyond 20/25 seconds on a few points per match, especially as, as BB says, they quieten down when they see a player preparing to serve, regardless of how long it has taken to prepare.
You do watch tennis occasionally, don't you?

And why, when I've already said twice that the 20 sec rule should take into account crowd reaction, do you still have to ask?

One thing I will guarantee - if it was Fed breaking the rule, I would be saying the same thing - and you'd be agreeing with me!

So they should also employ crowd control security standing every where with binoculars spying on noisy individuals? Will they be dressed like secret agents?

Julius so if those few points are 10 per match, a time warning on the first offence for the server and a point deduction there after? We might as well toss up a coin at the net before the match starts and decide the winner.

Have i been to a match before? You want to answer that? You seem to be an expect on how crowds react.

Simple_Analyst wrote:Julius so if those few points are 10 per match, a time warning on the first offence for the server and a point deduction there after? We might as well toss up a coin at the net before the match starts and decide the winner.

Have i been to a match before? You want to answer that? You seem to be an expect on how crowds react.

Are you just deliberately not reading/understanding anything I write? You do know the difference between "should" and "shouldn't" - or do you need another link?
I can't keep repeating myself in the vague hope that one day you'll understand what I write.

No not at all. I'm just interested in that few points per match part.What do you suggest is done there? You know the basketball clock doesn't even go a hundredth of a second over? Any such will lead to a review in the game? Perhaps should the umpire also stop the server at 20.5 seconds and dish out a warning or a penalty? Delaying further?

As I've previously indicated, more than once, in those few points per match, where the crowd is going wild after a great point, or it's match point, the umpire allows leeway, as they do currently. They might even say "Quiet please".
Is that so difficult to grasp?

No not really. So when does the umpire say quiet? Before or after the clock sounds? By the way you haven't answered the 20.5 seconds question?

Sorry, S_A, you're just being childish and dull now, so it's time for me to 'flee' this thread

Sorry Julius unfortunately for you, i decided to show interest in this weekly time threads. Just happens to be yours. Too bad because you'd rather prefer some Federer fans to pat your back and agree with you without telling us logically how they want the rule kept to. Don't worry i will not interfere in such threads next time with questions inconvenient to you and Federer fans agendas because i wouldn't care if players take a nap between points. However the many questions you haven't answered yet still hangs on the nonsense that is thinking Federer will start beating Nadal and Djokovic regularly if they played within 20 seconds.

You obviously never watched a match between players abiding by the rules.

Says it all really.

Of course i haven't. Why would i seek expert advice from those of you who have?

Julius also remember 20.2 seconds between points if NBA type system is used is a warning or penalty. And this must be applied to t
99.9% accuracy in all slam and atp matches. The NBA clock is that accurate. Good luck!

Simple_Analyst wrote:Of course i haven't. Why would i seek expert advice from those of you who have?

Julius also remember 20.2 seconds between points if NBA type system is used is a warning or penalty. And this must be applied to t
99.9% accuracy in all slam and atp matches. The NBA clock is that accurate. Good luck!

Morning S_A. I'm refreshed again, but busy today. I hope you've recovered from last night's temporary bout of 'slow brain' where you failed to grasp the most simple of concepts, obvious to anyone with the slightest common sense. I've answered your questions, yet you keep asking the same ones - bizarre!
You are aware, I guess, that players currently do receive time violations. Umpires provide some discretional leeway (as per the rules) but repeat offenders get warned and penalised. It is not difficult to a) reduce the number of repeat offences before a warning b) knock a few seconds off the leeway, which is usually around 30-35 seconds, even in slams. Unless you think umpires at the moment just guess how long a player is taking and hope they get it right when warnings are given?

Morning Julius. But the rules says 20 seconds so the rule must be applied almost instantly with no exceptions. How many warnings do you think a player should get before points penalty? How is the umpire's going to rule fairly in a tight 5th set match at USO where the crowd can be notorious many times?
I also don't get your 30-35 seconds Leeway thing part.

The crowd at the US is even loud during play so that's a non issue.

Nadal has yet to win a slam within the 20s rule. Last time he played a five setter within the 20s he lost the last 6 games in a row!

I know you heard this before but I felt it good to remind everyone!

Oh ok good to know Nadal hasn't yet. Perhaps we could ask the ITF to get his slam trophies back and engrave next to his name - "Slam won playing above 20 seconds between points" ?

No need to. We all know that. The iTF's job is about making his fans happy and cash it on it. BUt real tennis fans know the rule of the game and understand that under heavy pressure from sponsors and fans we let the Spaniard have it his way.

History books will have an * next to his slams.

Simple_Analyst wrote:Morning Julius. But the rules says 20 seconds so the rule must be applied almost instantly with no exceptions.

Ah, now I understand - you haven't read the rule. It doesn't say that at all. If you read the rule on the ITF web-site you'll understand more what I'm saying.

Tenez wrote:No need to. We all know that. The iTF's job is about making his fans happy and cash it on it. BUt real tennis fans know the rule of the game and understand that under heavy pressure from sponsors and fans we let the Spaniard have it his way.

History books will have an * next to his slams.

There are no * in the history books (except Wimby 1973 perhaps)

But * is not a bad thing next to slams. I think it adds more to the slam won. Federer has about 10 of those next to his slams looks pretty.

JuliusHMarx wrote:

Tenez wrote:No need to. We all know that. The iTF's job is about making his fans happy and cash it on it. BUt real tennis fans know the rule of the game and understand that under heavy pressure from sponsors and fans we let the Spaniard have it his way.

History books will have an * next to his slams.

There are no * in the history books (except Wimby 1973 perhaps)

There is no official history book anyway. Mine has plenty of ***.

Julius so the allows the 20 seconds rule to be broken several times? Will this not make the clock ineffective then? Remember, the NBA shot clock is 24 seconds and nothing else after.

Isner should've really asked the umpire to give Nalbandian his challenge, now if Isner is in the same situation with an umpire, he should not be helped out.

Nalby took too much time to decide. Had HE called it out, it would really have annoyed Isner to serve his second serve so late. Isner was very quick to call when that serve was called out....why coudl not Nalby do the same?

And I really wanted David to win but that's the kind of behaviour that ruined his career.

Simple_Analyst wrote:Julius so the allows the 20 seconds rule to be broken several times? Will this not make the clock ineffective then? Remember, the NBA shot clock is 24 seconds and nothing else after.

Yes
No
The NBA clock has nothing to do with it. I never suggested using it - I asked how it worked, as I didn't know. Now I do know, and I don't think a 'public' countdown clock would work in tennis. Hence my other suggestions.

I think a public clock will work out if they play within the 20s. We can;t compare the crowd supporting a team with one supporting a player. Completely different. Nothing can prevent teh crowd to make a noise while a player serves. It's very rare;ly done, essentially at DCs only.

The clock shoudl be there for all to see and if teh player goes over he shoudl be be given a second serve only!

This rule was crated specifically to force players in going for shots and prevent the long rallies and time abuse we had in the late 70s early 80s.

Snipers in the crowd. On the mark of 20 seconds, shoot.

Before you think I'm completely mental, the first shot would only be a warning shot just one around the feet to make them dance.

This would also boost ticket sales and TV ratings so it's a win win.

You might find it funny but for the last 4 years I spent hours explaining that Nadal's time taking was to takeadvantage of a his gruelling game and that he may not have won as many slams if he hadn't taken an average of 15s extra per point. It's like playing with the spaghetti string racquet...it was later rules out.

Only now people understand why Nadal and others are abusing the rule. It's like calling a ball in out or vice versa, it's cheating.

It also funny to hear the referee reminding the rule before start of game between Rochus and Berdych but teh referee of the Nadal Haas match did not say a word about it.

Just tells you the pression the referees are under when referring a big name.

Let's just extend it to 30 seconds, and then if anyone goes over, which they probably won't, they will be given a warning.

amritia3ee wrote:Let's just extend it to 30 seconds, and then if anyone goes over, which they probably won't, they will be given a warning.

Why 30, what's wrong with 25?
I watched the last set of Wawrinka vs. Baggy - quite a vocal crowd, and both players were regularly taking 20 seconds, no problem. There's an argument for making it 25 seconds in all tournaments, not 20 in slams, but can't see any need to extend to 30.
Plenty of players go over 30 now - do you think applying the rule more strictly would stop this?

Extend it to 40.

I'll see your 40 and raise you 50

If it's 30 for 1st AND 2nd serve included...maybe we could discuss teh rulee.

The rule says 20s for a first serve and a second serve shoudl be played just after. This is where Nadal abuses the rule most. He takes 35s first serve and another 10 for a second serve....often reaching teh minute if a let thanks to checking another 3 or 4 balls.

All this is perfectly orchestrated so that he never goes over too much.

JuliusHMarx wrote:I'll see your 40 and raise you 50

I'll raise you to 70.

Also Tenez will be happy as less people will be breaking the rules.

So the talk has switched back to Nadal and time rules (not Nadal and decline or Nadal and imminant retirement). Judging by past history this means he must be playing well.

So Julius the 20 seconds rule can be broken. Then Nadal and Djokovic are not doing anything wrong. Good to see you dropped the clock idea. Don't worry Julius i'm always here to educate you on a certain sports.

So what should be done to stop Nadal and Djokovic winning slams? Since Federer fans are in delusion he can beat them often if they played within 20 seconds.
After how many warning should the umpire deduct points. So you as a spectator who paid money to watch will feel you got value if a player loses 10 -15 points in a match due to penalty?

Simple_Analyst wrote:After how many warning should the umpire deduct points. So you as a spectator who paid money to watch will feel you got value if a player loses 10 -15 points in a match due to penalty?

Since you ask the question, pretty peed off that the player I had paid good money to watch was so hell bent on self-destructively breaking the laws that he cost himself umpteen points despite being warned about it.

Interesting that your assumption, like mine, is that such players are simply not interested in obeying rules which they consider are to their disadvantage. It's a bad state of affairs.

Simple_Analyst wrote:So you as a spectator who paid money to watch will feel you got value if a player loses 10 -15 points in a match due to penalty?

They would lose even more points if they were to abide by the 20s rule. Nadal didn't lose 10points last time he played within the rule....He lost 6 games in a row!!!!that's at least 24pts!!!! Just because his muscles were craving for oxygen but Nadal wasn't listening to them!

Well then we should go back, review all slam matches are strip Djokovic and Nadal of the slams wins. I wonder how many points can help Federer win FO 08 though. He can certainly. be given the USO 2010 and 2011 trophies too.
Lets get the protest going.

I work with a lady who goes to Wimbledon and when I mentioned the 20 second rule, she had never heard of it.

Like so many of the 'so called' tennis fans that go these events, they want more bang from their bucks and really don't care for the rule. They want to see long and outdrawn matches. If Nadal had to retire due to the damage sustained by his style of play, would they re-visit the length of the season or change the conds?

legendkillar wrote:Like so many of the 'so called' tennis fans that go these events, they want more bang from their bucks and really don't care for the rule. They want to see long and outdrawn matches. If Nadal had to retire due to the damage sustained by his style of play, would they re-visit the length of the season or change the conds?

Watching a tennis match is a bit like having sex - most people invariably say that the longer it goes on for the better, but it's possible for monotony to set in.

Doesn't know the rules, but probably knows after how many games Nadal changes his t-shirt.

That's your stereotypical Nadal fan sadly. Which is fine until they become vocal with opinions.

At least the lady pays to attend a match. Perhaps our resident sofa tennis expects should also pay and go to a match?

Simple_Analyst wrote:So Julius the 20 seconds rule can be broken. Then Nadal and Djokovic are not doing anything wrong. Good to see you dropped the clock idea. Don't worry Julius i'm always here to educate you on a certain sports.

So what should be done to stop Nadal and Djokovic winning slams? Since Federer fans are in delusion he can beat them often if they played within 20 seconds.
After how many warning should the umpire deduct points. So you as a spectator who paid money to watch will feel you got value if a player loses 10 -15 points in a match due to penalty?

Players get warned for breaking the rule - e.g. Ryan Harrison vs Murray - so clearly they are doing something wrong. Most of the time they get away with it, which I think is wrong and rule-breaking shoud be addressed - unless you advocate rule-breaking as a good thing?
Like any rule-breaking - warning then point then game penalties. I doubt many players would get that far and they'd only have themselves to blame if they did.

Basketball not my thing - ice hockey is much better!

Well she is a paying fan and she enjoys seeing Nadal bash the ball and hurrying and scurrying on the baseline. The real value at Wimbledon is the outer courts anyway. You tend to find 3-4 5 setters.

Well the rule book says breaking it is a good thing.
So as a spectator matches can be decided on regular basis by players losing 10-20 points per match through penalties and you will be happy?

Simple_Analyst wrote:Well the rule book says breaking it is a good thing.
So as a spectator matches can be decided on regular basis by players losing 10-20 points per match through penalties and you will be happy?

Very happy. But knowing Nadal he would hate losing those points so he would finally stick to the rule....then we would have the pleasure to see him running out of steam like in did in Miami 2005 or like he did in his 6 finals v Djoko last year...except that he would lose versus many more players.

Cause let's face it SA, He can't make tennis look easy, can he?

Not exactly, he will have to play better than he did at FO 08 final to make it look easy.

10-20 points??

Well it shouldn't get past 1 point. If the players questioned obeyed the rules, maybe this wouldn't be such a sore subject. My reasoning is that on Centre Court with say 15,000 spectators are not going to be baying for blood. However another factor is the fans being noisey between points. So logic would suggest that Tenez yes fans could do something to prevent this rule being broken and have fans shut up in between points before players commence play

I like the idea of the clock on court cause it woudl make everybody aware. And I am sure that teh crowd woudl be quite up to.....20s but it might get more difficult to control and the crowd should be invited to express their anger at breaking the rule.

Not so long ago, players used to practice their routine between points to be 20s or even less but now the routine is studied to abuse it.