ATP to discuss time-violation rule with players following complaints

Surprise, Surprise! There have been complaints about the new inflexible time-violation rule and there will be a meeting today between players and Brad Dewitt (The ATP chief).

(Reuters) - Association of Tennis Professionals (ATP) chief Brad Drewett will meet with players on Saturday and address a new rule aimed at speeding up the game that has drawn criticism from professionals on the men's tour.

This year, the ATP are enforcing a regulation that gives players 25 seconds to serve the ball or face a warning and then the loss of a point for a second violation.

The new rule has sparked complaints from players who have fallen foul of the law.

The new rule was endorsed by the ATP player's council last month but stricter enforcement at warm-up tournaments ahead of next week's Australian Open has raised concerns from players about a crackdown at the year's first grand slam where five-set matches in extreme heat often feature.

Australian Open tournament director Craig Tiley on Friday indicated players would be afforded some leeway at Melbourne Park, where officials would use "good sense, good judgement" in enforcing the 20-second rule.

http://uk.reuters.com/article/2013/01/12/uk-tennis-open-time-idUKBRE90B06420130112

Hopefully good sense will prevail and the ATP will follow the guidelines given to officials at the Australian Open. Far better to use "good sense and good judgement" than to continue to be stupid!

Presumably they wil give them up to 5 extra seconds - making it 25 seconds

Perhaps the stupidity is having a slow court in hot conditions, thereby ensuring rallies last longer and exhaust the players.

No the stupidity is making the time inflexible. It would be even more stupid if they increased the guideline time and kept it inflexible. Players would then routinely take longer but it would still be stupid when a player was punished for a genuine reason for going over a said number of seconds.

Are you suggesting this rule was brought in to change the way players play points?

The rule was originally brought in because there was some guy who used to bounce the ball 50 times before serving in the 1980s. A few fans were getting a bit bored.

I suspect that they decided to enforce it again now because players were regularly taking 30+ seconds between points for no good reason i.e. getting into unnecessary habits like towelling down after an ace. Again, this was both frustrating for the fans, and against the spirit of the game.

The players were abusing the rule, knowing they could get away with it.

Something needed to be done, IMHO, and in the opinion of the ATP and the ATP players council, and this was a way to effectively say "cut out this cr@p, it's bordering on cheating"

The ATP have a choice of allowing the umpire judgement, which can lead to great inconsistency, or firmly applying the rule so that all players know what to expect and are treated equally.

It's up to the players really - if they're going to try to get away with things like naughty schoolkids, they'll get treated like naughty schoolkids. If they start behaving like professional sportsmen, they'll probably find the rule is relaxed a little again.

Agree with that Julius. It definitely needs to be enforced as players taking 30+ seconds after an ace or a 2 shot rally is ridiculous.

What it needs to cater for is when someone breaks a string or a shoe lace comes undone. Umpires should know the game enough to differentiate between a necessary delay and gamesmanship.

It's kinda ironic that the players voted this change in and some are now complaining about it. Part of me thinks it should be altered slightly so that players can get used to the harder enforcement with a little more time, part of me thinks 'tough, get used to it'.

Either way, something needs to be in place to stop some players being able to apply this form of gamesmanship.

Clearly the only ones that have complained about it are those that have been.pulled up for it. I would say as well that their complaint is not about the rule itself but more about them feeling they were unjustly punished as in pulled up for changing their racket etc. No big deal and no mass mutiny by the players despite what some may hope.

Even shoelaces can be a problemto judge i.e. if a player tries to say that it was about to come undone. Also changing rackets because they think a string is about to break etc.
The problem for the umpire is then that every point can become a judgement call - a lot easier for the umpire to have a set rule to enforce.

Let's face it - double knots will keep your shoelaces done up and players can check their strings at a changeover - or run to get a new one between points, rather than dawdle and then remove the plastic bag, test a couple for tension etc etc.

Danny_1982 wrote:

What it needs to cater for is when someone breaks a string or a shoe lace comes undone. Umpires should know the game enough to differentiate between a necessary delay and gamesmanship.

Yes it should be an umpire call and not a rigid rule.

Indecently one of the worst instances of a player deliberately attempting to take too long between points in order to gain advantage involved a change of non vital equipment at a crucial part of a match. The player in question chose to change a sweatband when serving at break point down in the semi final of a slam. The player deliberately took a very long time to do this. This is the sort of incident that should be clamped down on. Not punishing a player that takes 26 seconds and not 25 when no deliberate disruption has taken place.

JuliusHMarx

Players can and do have double knots or the equivalent coming mysteriously undone at crucial points in a match as my previous post demonstrates. But this is something an umpire can judge. Who says being an umpire is easy? But sometimes a human judgement is required. Pretending it isn't will just cause too much interference in the game. As a viewer I don't want my enjoyment spoiled because a stupid rule interferes with the flow of play.

HE, you're assuming the no deliberate disruption has taken place. If the player is slowly preparing to serve, in order to deliberately take the fully allowed time i.e. towel down, check 3 balls, give one back, bounce ball 13 times etc, but then goes over, that should defintiely be punished.

Applying this rule will be far less disruptive to enjoyment than players constantly and deliberately flounting the rule for their own benefit because they know they won't get punished.

Let's be honest, the new practice was not put in place to punish players whose shoelaces come undone or whose strings break. It's the one who consistently take too much time between points.

Maybe the umpire should keep track of the number of times a player more than 25 seconds (shouldn't be a problem with today's technology). If it happens more than 5 times in a set, the strict enforcement of the rule kicks in.

Yes hawkeye, shoelaces might come undone 6 times in a set (even with double knots), but still this would be a very reasonable approach and the frequent offenders will get reminded of the rule this way.

I agree with Prostaff. They should allow a certain number of times over the limit per set before deducting a fault or a point. Maybe 10. And then at the change of ends the umpire could state "You have over the limit 5 times so far, and when you reach 10 you will start losing serves or points."

hawkeye wrote:

Danny_1982 wrote:

What it needs to cater for is when someone breaks a string or a shoe lace comes undone. Umpires should know the game enough to differentiate between a necessary delay and gamesmanship.

Yes it should be an umpire call and not a rigid rule.

Indecently one of the worst instances of a player deliberately attempting to take too long between points in order to gain advantage involved a change of non vital equipment at a crucial part of a match. The player in question chose to change a sweatband when serving at break point down in the semi final of a slam. The player deliberately took a very long time to do this. This is the sort of incident that should be clamped down on. Not punishing a player that takes 26 seconds and not 25 when no deliberate disruption has taken place.

We are saying different things. I think there should be a rule in place. You don't. All I was saying is that if someone breaks a string and happens to go a second or two over the time, they should be allowed to do so without punishment. But the rule should exist.

You've picked out a Murray point as an example of time wasting... What a great surprise!

You're right though. Murray is always messing with his shorts, putting his hair behind his ears or aligning his bottles to make people wait.

JuliusHMarx wrote:The rule was originally brought in because there was some guy who used to bounce the ball 50 times before serving in the 1980s. A few fans were getting a bit bored.

I suspect that they decided to enforce it again now because players were regularly taking 30+ seconds between points for no good reason i.e. getting into unnecessary habits like towelling down after an ace. Again, this was both frustrating for the fans, and against the spirit of the game.

The players were abusing the rule, knowing they could get away with it.

Something needed to be done, IMHO, and in the opinion of the ATP and the ATP players council, and this was a way to effectively say "cut out this cr@p, it's bordering on cheating"

The ATP have a choice of allowing the umpire judgement, which can lead to great inconsistency, or firmly applying the rule so that all players know what to expect and are treated equally.

It's up to the players really - if they're going to try to get away with things like naughty schoolkids, they'll get treated like naughty schoolkids. If they start behaving like professional sportsmen, they'll probably find the rule is relaxed a little again.

Danny_1982 wrote:

hawkeye wrote:

Danny_1982 wrote:

What it needs to cater for is when someone breaks a string or a shoe lace comes undone. Umpires should know the game enough to differentiate between a necessary delay and gamesmanship.

Yes it should be an umpire call and not a rigid rule.

Indecently one of the worst instances of a player deliberately attempting to take too long between points in order to gain advantage involved a change of non vital equipment at a crucial part of a match. The player in question chose to change a sweatband when serving at break point down in the semi final of a slam. The player deliberately took a very long time to do this. This is the sort of incident that should be clamped down on. Not punishing a player that takes 26 seconds and not 25 when no deliberate disruption has taken place.

We are saying different things. I think there should be a rule in place. You don't. All I was saying is that if someone breaks a string and happens to go a second or two over the time, they should be allowed to do so without punishment. But the rule should exist.

You've picked out a Murray point as an example of time wasting... What a great surprise!

You're right though. Murray is always messing with his shorts, putting his hair behind his ears or aligning his bottles to make people wait.

Quelle surpise! Wonder how long that one took to dig up

Julius, some school-kids may make mistakes in spelling tests as they have disabilities- eg dyslexia.

Is it morally right to punish and pick in them for their errors which they can't help?

hawkeye wrote:. Not punishing a player that takes 26 seconds and not 25 when no deliberate disruption has taken place.

If only 26 seconds was the problem.

More misdirection.

It Must Be Love wrote:Julius, some school-kids may make mistakes in spelling tests as they have disabilities- eg dyslexia.

Is it morally right to punish and pick in them for their errors which they can't help?

IMBL - you've lost me a bit there. I don't get the analogy, or at least how it relates to any tennis players.

You're surely not suggesting any tennis players have a disability.... Are you?

Henman Bill wrote:I agree with Prostaff. They should allow a certain number of times over the limit per set before deducting a fault or a point. Maybe 10. And then at the change of ends the umpire could state "You have over the limit 5 times so far, and when you reach 10 you will start losing serves or points."

10 per set?

Come on, that's just rule suspension.

Danny_1982 wrote:

It Must Be Love wrote:Julius, some school-kids may make mistakes in spelling tests as they have disabilities- eg dyslexia.

Is it morally right to punish and pick in them for their errors which they can't help?

IMBL - you've lost me a bit there. I don't get the analogy, or at least how it relates to any tennis players.

You're surely not suggesting any tennis players have a disability.... Are you?

Surely not another effort to flog the bullsh1t OCD excuse?

I guess Tomas Berdych may have been one of the players that complained. This is what he had to say in an article entitled "Tomas Berdch warns 25-second service rule will wreck men's game"

It's not going to help improving the game, there's going to be no chance to see the matches, like Rafa and Djoko in the final," he said after his first-up win over Ivan Dodig at the AAMI Classic at Kooyong yesterday

"I don't think tennis is going to move higher, like every other sport.

"I experienced that last week and I was not happy at all. I think there are many question marks around it and I don't see any good reason to have this rule.

"The hot conditions, it's almost impossible to make it (time between points). I had the experience in Chennai where it was really humid and you need the towel every time you finish a rally.

"The whole game (pattern) goes away, everything you've been doing for so many years is just gone in one decision.

"I haven't seen one single guy delaying a game for a purpose. Not my opponent, not ones I see on TV. No-one. And they come up with this idea.

"The first time I heard about it was in Chennai when I saw it written on the wall. I said, 'What is this?' and they said they sent an email with the change of the rules.

"I said, 'You're changing such a big thing and you tell people only like that?'. And they said 'Yeah, we sent an email'.

http://www.couriermail.com.au/sport/tennis/tom-berdych-warns-25-second-serve-rule-will-wreck-mens-game/story-fnddkbrz-1226550691790

Interesting that he says he has never seen any player deliberately delaying a game. So despite commentators boring us to death on this topic for as long as I can remember Berdych didn't think there was a problem. Well he does now! Quite rightly too. The rule is clearly stupid!

hawkeye wrote:I guess Tomas Berdych may have been one of the players that complained. This is what he had to say in an article entitled "Tomas Berdch warns 25-second service rule will wreck men's game"

It's not going to help improving the game, there's going to be no chance to see the matches, like Rafa and Djoko in the final," he said after his first-up win over Ivan Dodig at the AAMI Classic at Kooyong yesterday

"I don't think tennis is going to move higher, like every other sport.

"I experienced that last week and I was not happy at all. I think there are many question marks around it and I don't see any good reason to have this rule.

"The hot conditions, it's almost impossible to make it (time between points). I had the experience in Chennai where it was really humid and you need the towel every time you finish a rally.

"The whole game (pattern) goes away, everything you've been doing for so many years is just gone in one decision.

"I haven't seen one single guy delaying a game for a purpose. Not my opponent, not ones I see on TV. No-one. And they come up with this idea.

"The first time I heard about it was in Chennai when I saw it written on the wall. I said, 'What is this?' and they said they sent an email with the change of the rules.

"I said, 'You're changing such a big thing and you tell people only like that?'. And they said 'Yeah, we sent an email'.

http://www.couriermail.com.au/sport/tennis/tom-berdych-warns-25-second-serve-rule-will-wreck-mens-game/story-fnddkbrz-1226550691790

Interesting that he says he has never seen any player deliberately delaying a game. So despite commentators boring us to death on this topic for as long as I can remember Berdych didn't think there was a problem. Well he does now! Quite rightly too. The rule is clearly stupid!

He didn't know that he was only supposed to take 25 seconds? What game has he been playing all these years???

Also if you are calling the rule stupid Hawkeye then heck there is a load of stupid tennis players out there as they voted for it.

CaledonianCraig wrote:Also if you are calling the rule stupid Hawkeye then heck there is a load of stupid tennis players out there as they voted for it.

Perhaps if we keep reminding her that the players voted it in, she'll eventually accept it.

bogbrush wrote:

hawkeye wrote:. Not punishing a player that takes 26 seconds and not 25 when no deliberate disruption has taken place.

If only 26 seconds was the problem.

More misdirection.

That is the entire problem with this inflexible rule. 26 seconds is now a punishable offense. I know you believe that Federer is above this rule because he generally plays relatively quickly but it will apply to him also. There are many reasons why even Federer may take 26 seconds between a point. If it was at break point down in a slam final even he could end up losing a match because of a stupid inflexible rule.

I can't believe how naive some are to believe that this rule will target Rafa and Rafa alone. The really funny thing is I am pretty sure he is one of the few that won't suffer from its stupidity as I'm pretty sure flexibility will have been re-introduced by the time he picks up his racquet.

CaladonianCraig

I don't think Berdych is stupid and he certainly didn't vote for it. Didn't you read he first heard about it in an e-mail? I'm not sure what input the players had in this decision. Someone posted elsewhere that they didn't have any. Clearly Tomas didn't have a say. Maybe they just rounded up some stupid players to vote for it because clearly only stupid players would vote for a stupid rule...

Why do people keep saying the players voted for this - I've not seen any source for that.

And hawkeye, what makes you say that the penalties for breaking the rule are rigid - the umpire still has discretion. They are just enforcing more than before on the existing rule.

I saw the incident hawkeye describes from Murray's semi with Rafa and it did warrant a warning or a penalty (if there'd been a previous warning) - though as far as I can see, the penalty in slams would still be loss of point rather than loss of first serve, as the changes apply to ATP matches only.

South Africa's Kevin Anderson last week:

“I'm a huge fan of the rule. I mean, it's tough. You know, I feel like I'm playing quicker and I'm still adjusting to it, but I think the rule - just for tennis in general - is a very good rule.

“And being on the (ATP players) council, I was just part of the talks when we decided to put that through last year. I know it's tough. We have a players' meeting coming up in Australia (next week) and I think a few players will talk out about it again.

“But I think it's good to keep it in.”

That's 30 seconds of research using google. So I'm surprised nobody can find anything that states this is an ATP players council decision!

hawkeye wrote:I'm not sure what input the players had in this decision. Someone posted elsewhere that they didn't have any. Clearly Tomas didn't have a say. Maybe they just rounded up some stupid players to vote for it because clearly only stupid players would vote for a stupid rule...

Well the player council reps had input, we don't know which ones or how much consultation they did with the player population as a whole. Nor do we know whether the extent of enforcement of the time limit was discussed, or simply the change the penalty for going over the time limit. If just the latter, then all they agreed to was a downgrading the penalty.

So I presume those involved with the draw of the Australian Open are lying then? During the preamble the tapped onto the players voting for the rule. As for Berdych who says he never got sent an email? Perhaps it was sent to an old email address that he no linger accesses or one he has cancelled so lets not speculate.

YvonneT wrote:Why do people keep saying the players voted for this - I've not seen any source for that.

Dimitrov and AO organisers

YvonneT wrote:And hawkeye, what makes you say that the penalties for breaking the rule are rigid - the umpire still has discretion. They are just enforcing more than before on the existing rule.

Exactly

YvonneT wrote:I saw the incident hawkeye describes from Murray's semi with Rafa and it did warrant a warning or a penalty (if there'd been a previous warning) - though as far as I can see, the penalty in slams would still be loss of point rather than loss of first serve, as the changes apply to ATP matches only.

I would have to watch the match again but you could be right. Very interesting that Hawkeye selected that one though...........................

Exactly Yvonne. Players have still been going over 25 seconds from time to time. I saw a stat in one match that both players were averaging 23 seconds. They must therefore have been at 26 seconds or more plenty of times but they weren't been warned every time. The point is to make the players realise they can't just play at their own pace and it is working.

Danny, I'm not saying the players didn't have input in the form of player council reps, but that's not quite the same as saying the players voted for it.

The player council reps were part of the ATP competition committee that decided the new penalty.

It's a bit of a side issue, but a few people have mentioned the players voted for it as though they should accept some democratic player decision when it wasn't quite like that.

I do think they shouldn't complain though - but because the time limit hasn't actually changed.

www.google.co.uk/search?sourceid=chrome-mobile&ie=UTF-8&q=new+20+second+tennis+rule+voted+for+by+players

Read the first link here.

This report quotes Players Council Representative Kevin Anderson as saying they voted for the rule.

YvonneT wrote:I do think they shouldn't complain though - but because the time limit hasn't actually changed.

That is the crux of the issue. It is exactly the same time limit as before, except it is being enforced. This way everyone knows exactly where they stand.

YvonneT

I was watching the Doha tournament when the new rule was introduced. At the beginning of every match the umpire explained the new rule to the players. The time 25 seconds was the same, the change was that it was to be rigidly enforced at 25 seconds. The umpire explained that if a player took 26 seconds they would be immediately penalized. And some were! If you look around you will see some bizarre incidents including one player who was punished because his opponent changed racquets!

At least the Officials at the Australian Open have seen sense as I have just read this:

Australian Open tournament referee Wayne McEwen told AAP that the tournament will be flexible and that he has instructed chair umpires "to keep it fair, keep it consistent. We don't want players out there being penalized after playing a fantastic point, but then again we don't want players deliberately taking too long and that's what we really look at. We focus on that and tell them to use good common sense, good judgment. ... The players sometimes need a little time to recover, especially in the heat of the day, or in a long match. Last year's final was a classic match, the points were lasting incredibly long. In a case like that, you don't want to be killing it for everyone."

http://www.tennis.com/pro-game/2013/01/aussie-open-umps-will-be-flexible-time-violations/45964/#.UPHcm_Ky5QQ

I am sure that once the sensible people at the ATP stop listening to the stupid ones they will follow suit.

Oh and I picked on the Murray incident because it was the only one I could think of where a player had deliberately disrupted the time taken between points in order to gain an advantage. The quote from Berdych indicated that these incidents are rare and I agree. Obvious disruption like this can easily be dealt with using the present rule as the difference between something like that and a player mistakenly taking 26 seconds between points is clear to everyone.

It Must Be Love wrote:Julius, some school-kids may make mistakes in spelling tests as they have disabilities- eg dyslexia.

Is it morally right to punish and pick in them for their errors which they can't help?

What if they can't serve for 50 seconds, or a couple of minutes - surely you wouldn't punish them would you? Just let them do it in their own time.

hawkeye wrote:Oh and I picked on the Murray incident because it was the only one I could think of where a player had deliberately disrupted the time taken between points in order to gain an advantage.

Of course. I can't think of a single other player,especially not any Spanish players, who have deliberately wasted time in between points to gain an advantage. That one incident from Murray is probably the only time it's ever happened in tennis.

That's why when people talk about time wasters, they automatically think of Murray. Nobody else.

hawkeye wrote:Oh and I picked on the Murray incident because it was the only one I could think of where a player had deliberately disrupted the time taken between points in order to gain an advantage.

Sorry can't stop laughing. I doubt that even you believe this nonsense post.

I don't think the Murray incident was deliberate, I disagree with HE there.

It Must Be Love wrote:I don't think the Murray incident was deliberate, I disagree with HE there.

Danny_1982 wrote:

It Must Be Love wrote:Julius, some school-kids may make mistakes in spelling tests as they have disabilities- eg dyslexia.

Is it morally right to punish and pick in them for their errors which they can't help?

IMBL - you've lost me a bit there. I don't get the analogy, or at least how it relates to any tennis players.

You're surely not suggesting any tennis players have a disability.... Are you?

I think as a society we should adjust for different people having certain disabilities- rather than hitting them with an iron rod.
That's all Im saying

Quite right IMBL - no time limit between points, that's the adjustment we need!

No.

Why not? Surely to impose a time limit of any sort on those with mental disorders would be the sign of an intolerant, uncivilized society?

There may be a young player out there right now who needs 3 minutes between points and a court-side therapist to help him out - you wouldn't punish him, would you?

This is what we really want to see. This little chap only takes about 10-15 seconds per point.

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

It will be interesting to see if ATP will stick to the rule. If enough players complain loudly enough, ATP may indeed cave in.

So Tomas said this (as per HE's article):

"there's going to be no chance to see the matches, like Rafa and Djoko in the final,"

At least he is being honest here. Pretty sad state of the affairs.

JuliusHMarx wrote:

It Must Be Love wrote:Julius, some school-kids may make mistakes in spelling tests as they have disabilities- eg dyslexia.

Is it morally right to punish and pick in them for their errors which they can't help?

What if they can't serve for 50 seconds, or a couple of minutes - surely you wouldn't punish them would you? Just let them do it in their own time.

I very very much doubt IMBL is being serious.