Should MTO's Be Allowed For Cramping?

This something that has intrigued me for a while about MTO's. I was watching Gasquet vs Ramos and I have to admit that I was fuming in the 3rd set when Ramos called the MTO for 'cramping' he seemed embarrassed and annoyed when the trainer told him it was cramping and that he had to wait for the change of ends. I was livid given that in the next game he was recieving and he was running around without any noticeable injury. Falla did it against Fish at the Australian Open. Should the rules prohibit players from calling the trainer for cramping?

Perhaps... certainly if the rules are being abused it probably needs to be looked at.

I seem to think there is an existing clear rule covering the incidence of cramping, in relation to use of the trainer and hence MTO's also. I believe MTO's are not permitted on the basis that cramping is not considered an 'injury' as such. (folk who are better informed on the pro game than me will perhaps be able to provide more detail). The difficulty of enforcing the rule revolves of course around the exact definition and assessment of any injury - and by implication the honesty of player + trainer.

It depends a lot on how bad it is. If someone's in debilitating pain I don't see why not. The thing with cramping is, you can't eliminate it with one MTO, so it kind of defeats the purpose of calling for MTO in the first place.

I don't remember seeing a cramping MTO for a long time anyway.

We have discussed that before....and in my view players should buy MTOs with points.

give 1point to the opponent for a one minute massage or something like that. Then we'd know whether it's serious or not.

In theory no, but in practice if a crowd is deprived of a dramatic match by something that can be treated they won't like it and will probably think it 'unfair'.

I do think that a player who sees his opponent received medical treatment should not be required to serve afterwards. Therefore, a player who calls an MTO should be concede however many games needed would take him to his next service game - therefore a maximum of 2. If he wants treatment between games or in the changeover he should either wait until he is serving next or concede his opponent's service game immediatley after the treatment.

I think that would strike a fair balance and ensure that players only call for treatment which could otherwise upset the serving rythmn of their opponent when they really need it. If they lose 'because' they needed treatment that's a fair allocation of the 'unfairness' of suffering injury in a physical game.