ATP to discuss time-violation rule with players following complaints

First topic message reminder :

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!

I think my rule is fine.
I really don't see why this is such a big issue.
A few seconds between points really doesn't make a difference in terms of enjoyment of a match, as I said Shanghai 2012 final was one of my favourite matches of the year.
Outside very keen tennis watchers, people don't really keep count or notice. When I'm engrossed in a match, it hardly hinders the experience, in-fact if not anything a few extra seconds builds the atmosphere and tension.
Yet everyone is against this few extra seconds as if it's some sort of killer disease.

25 seconds is fine, if anything they should go shorter.

As was said a while back, 25 seconds wouldn't be even close to an issue if players didn't insist on having a full mani-pedi from a ballkid between every point.

I think the reason that this time limit is now being enforced is because too often after a 1, 2 or 3 shot point a player would towel down, get a few balls, pick his favourite 2, stroll up the the service line, bounce the ball a thousand times, wait.... Then serve. Another quick point means there could be 2 or 3 shots in 2 minutes.

A 30 second rule with warnings before its enforced and discretions is a bit too much in my opinion. I think 25 seconds with discretions is fine. It's more than enough the vast majority of the time. In circumstances where a string breaks or something like that, I'd expect the umpire to judge that as an exception.

It Must Be Love wrote:Yet everyone is against this few extra seconds as if it's some sort of killer disease.

And you're against a few less seconds as if it's some sort of killer disease. The difference is, we agree with the ATP and the existing rule. You want to change the rules of the sport.

It Must Be Love wrote:I think my rule is fine.

It would be increrdible if you'd thought otherwise.....

All Nadal fanboys have been saying all along that it's up to umpire to enforce the rules, and now that thay are doing that a bit more, guess what? They say thay want to change the rule! Bad sports.

Jeremy_Kyle wrote:

It Must Be Love wrote:I think my rule is fine.

It would be incerdble if you'd think otherwise.....

All Nadal fanboys have been saying all along that it's up to umpire to enforce the rules, and now that thay are doing that a bit more, guess what? They say thay want to change the rule! Bad sports.

Nadal has not yet been penalised under the new rule.

So what?? Another pointless remark............

I'm saying, perhaps it's not 'all about Nadal' as you think.

It Must Be Love wrote:I'm saying, perhaps it's not 'all about Nadal' as you think.

Think it is though.

You wouldn't care if Nadal played at a reasonable pace.

JuliusHMarx wrote: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.

Agreed, some rules are difficult to follow initially but with time when everybody get used to it it becomes a routine. May be 5 more seconds can be added to the existing rules but the useless toweling off have to be cut, in sports people should sweat no idea why tennis players cannot get used to it, its really a junk practice.

Towelling shouldn't be allowed between the points and should only be allowed between the games. Those who needlessly oppose the rule let them not play if they can't follow a genuine sportsmanship set rules.

It Must Be Love wrote:

djlovesyou wrote:

It Must Be Love wrote:I'm saying, perhaps it's not 'all about Nadal' as you think.

Think it is though.

You wouldn't care if Nadal played at a reasonable pace.

My concern is really not based on Nadal really.

Liar liar pants on fire.......

I think my rule is fine.

haha obvs you are not gonna say "actually what was i thinking? That was a ridiculous rule, I have tasted my own medicine and IT IS BITTER!"

LuvSports! wrote:

I think my rule is fine.

haha obvs you are not gonna say "actually what was i thinking? That was a ridiculous rule, I have tasted my own medicine and IT IS BITTER!"

I can't see what's wrong with my rule.

Jeremy_Kyle wrote:

It Must Be Love wrote:

djlovesyou wrote:

It Must Be Love wrote:I'm saying, perhaps it's not 'all about Nadal' as you think.

Think it is though.

You wouldn't care if Nadal played at a reasonable pace.

My concern is really not based on Nadal really.

Liar liar pants on fire.......

OK maybe I was 5% lying.

Danny_1982 wrote:I think 25 seconds with discretions is fine. It's more than enough the vast majority of the time. In circumstances where a string breaks or something like that, I'd expect the umpire to judge that as an exception.

This sounds so non-controversial and reasonable to me, and this seems to be exactly what they are trying to do.

What is the big deal with everyone who complains? Especially since this is not a new thing. Are players saying they have ignored the rule for so long that they feel entitled to continue to do so?

It Must Be Love wrote:I can't see what's wrong with my rule.

But why would you even bother proposing it? 25s + discretion in extenuating circumstances should be just fine. Or are you saying that is not enought and we need 30s? If so, then why do we need that?

summerblues wrote:

It Must Be Love wrote:I can't see what's wrong with my rule.

But why would you even bother proposing it? 25s + discretion in extenuating circumstances should be just fine. Or are you saying that is not enought and we need 30s? If so, then why do we need that?

In my eyes 30 seconds seems the right amount of time between points.
*Already with the 25 seconds a few weeks into the year there have been many violations of the rule, not surprising given the heat they're playing in (in-fact the tennis calendar generally avoid any tournament being played in the winter of that particular country- so will usually always be hot conditions). The violations themselves are usually protested by the players... which in turn take more time than the actual extra 5 seconds every time.
I don't see it as a big issue- a few seconds here and there frankly makes no difference to me and my experience of a match- in my eyes it should be a non-issue. Punishing a player everytime they go slightly over... then they protest (and they could well be right, tennis is a tiring sport and especially so in hot conditions)... it just becomes too much of an issue for me. It's making a mountain out of a molehill.

Born Slippy wrote: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#!

simply awesome, its poor Richard didn't grow at all from this match [neither by the height nor by the standards].

Thx for the share BS

Sorry to disagree IMBL but 25 seconds is more than enough time and has been for as long as the rule has been in place so there is no need to change it for anybody. The players evidently aren't fussed as they voted it in but it is a rule of the sport and about time it is implemented. Perhaps it is a direct result of the marathon matches we have had lately. Don't get me wrong - it was full of cracking tennis but how much time was spent towelling down etc etc. True tennis is a tiring sport and always has been so why the need to give special conditions for this generation of players?

The new rules are not new just the implementing of it is and as I pointed out earlier the umpires have already been showing common sense (regards Dimitrov in Brisbane Final). Just accept it and move on IMBL after all it is the same for every player so I really cannot see why the complaints?

It Must Be Love wrote:

LuvSports! wrote:

I think my rule is fine.

haha obvs you are not gonna say "actually what was i thinking? That was a ridiculous rule, I have tasted my own medicine and IT IS BITTER!"

I can't see what's wrong with my rule.

Whats wrong is you don't agree when people prove the given set of stats is wrong time and again.

invisiblecoolers wrote:

It Must Be Love wrote:

LuvSports! wrote:

I think my rule is fine.

haha obvs you are not gonna say "actually what was i thinking? That was a ridiculous rule, I have tasted my own medicine and IT IS BITTER!"

I can't see what's wrong with my rule.

Whats wrong is you don't agree when people prove the given set of stats is wrong time and again.

Which stats?

invisiblecoolers wrote:

Born Slippy wrote: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#!

simply awesome, its poor Richard didn't grow at all from this match [neither by the height nor by the standards].

Thx for the share BS

Just looked at the video - fantastic find Slippy.

Fair enough Caledonian Craig

25 seconds with discretion is IMO how it should be. In fact that is exactly how it was... And exactly what it will revert to as soon as the stupid people who decided to change it realize their stupidity. Notice the AO officials only fell a little short of calling it stupid when they made it clear they were not going to adopt it.

It Must Be Love

No need to extend the time as long discretion is allowed. No one wants players extending the time they already take between points and this is exactly what they would do if given extra time. Also no need to give all those extra warnings as long as discretion is allowed. I would like umpires to have the authority to clamp down quickly if a player is clearly attempting to disrupt play on a key point. I wouldn't want a player to attempt to change their wrist bands on four beak points in a row without being penalized. I believe everyone watching would understand and endorse a penalty when a rule has blatantly been broken.

It Must Be Love wrote:I don't see it as a big issue- a few seconds here and there frankly makes no difference to me and my experience of a match- in my eyes it should be a non-issue. Punishing a player everytime they go slightly over... then they protest (and they could well be right, tennis is a tiring sport and especially so in hot conditions)... it just becomes too much of an issue for me. It's making a mountain out of a molehill.

But if it is not a big issue, then it is not big either way. So why not just stick with the existing rule? Why do players have to towel their faces all the time (I have seen Roddick towel off after his opponent's double fault!)? If they stop doing all that, it should be easy to stay within 25s (special situations such as broken string exempted).

hawkeye wrote:25 seconds with discretion is IMO how it should be. In fact that is exactly how it was...

Yep, that was the rule. But discretion was taken to mean 'never call a time violation ever, no matter how long the player takes, or how often they breach the rule.'

The only difference now is that discretion means what it actually means, and players need to actually stop flouting that particular law.

Oh HE you are ridiculous...

http://sports.yahoo.com/top/news?slug=ycn-10860295

Perhaps OCD, perhaps just gamesmanship.

Danny_1982 wrote:Oh HE you are ridiculous...

Ha ha! Oh Danny_1982 you are ridiculous...

It Must Be Love. No way does Nadal have OCD.

hawkeye wrote:25 seconds with discretion is IMO how it should be. In fact that is exactly how it was...

I agree with your first sentence but am puzzled by the second one.

Under what circumstances would you let players go over 25s? You seem to complain about cases like broken string. I would agree with you, in those cases discretion should be applied.

What are your thoughts on other cases? Say after a long and gruelling rally (I am sort of on the fence for those)? Or how about if a player just happens to have a routine that often stretches over 25s (I think those should not be allowed)?

hawkeye wrote:

Danny_1982 wrote:Oh HE you are ridiculous...

Ha ha! Oh Danny_1982 you are ridiculous...

Yes Hawkeye I agree.

Danny you have been here for so long and you only realise now that Hawkeye is ridiculous. I realised that in the old 606 days.

CaledonianCraig wrote:

hawkeye wrote:

Danny_1982 wrote:Oh HE you are ridiculous...

Ha ha! Oh Danny_1982 you are ridiculous...

Yes Hawkeye I agree.

Danny you have been here for so long and you only realise now that Hawkeye is ridiculous. I realised that in the old 606 days.

I know... Occasionally it deserves to be reiterated though.

At least there are some non stupid people about. This is what Hewitt has to say in an article entitled "Hewitt lashes out at tennis time crackdown". Also I don't think he was happy about not being consulted or even told.

Australian Lleyton Hewitt is no fan of the new time crackdown instigated this season by the ATP, with warning and even point penalties starting to flow on court for slow play.

The local icon criticised the inflexibility of strict enforcement of the long-standing rule which limits the time between points to 25 seconds on the ATP and a mere 20 at the Grand Slams, starting with the Australian Open from Monday.

"I thought it went over the top in Brisbane (last week)," Hewitt said. "I've never gotten time violation that I can recall, and I'm not fast by any means, but it made us all think about it (the rule) and that's not a good thing for tennis. The game is hard enough as it is without that on your mind.

"It's something a player should not have to worry about. It was in my mind playing Brisbane and should not have been."

Hewitt added that the ATP did not do the best job of communicating the crackdown to players either. "I first heard the news at the net for my Brisbane doubles, it was the first I'd heard of it, but perhaps I don't check my email enough."

http://www.tennistalk.com/en/news/20130113/Hewitt_lashes_out_at_tennis_time_crackdown

Hewitt said this?:

"I've never gotten time violation that I can recall, and I'm not fast by any means, but it made us all think about it (the rule) and that's not a good thing for tennis.

LOL

Strange....... I like Hewitt, I never had him down as someone who didn't know the rules of his own sport........................

http://www.tennis.com/pro-game/2013/01/aussie-open-umps-will-be-flexible-time-violations/45964/#.UPMG06Vy9UN

What Hewitt is saying is that it should be a non-entity.
It's frankly irrelevant in the greater context of things, and it shouldn't be punished so punitively.

The point is that the rule has not changed though. The players have known for a long time that they have 25 seconds so why is it an issue at all that it is being enforced?

summerblues wrote:Hewitt said this?:

"I've never gotten time violation that I can recall, and I'm not fast by any means, but it made us all think about it (the rule) and that's not a good thing for tennis.

LOL

Damn them for making me think!

carrieg4 wrote:The point is that the rule has not changed though. The players have known for a long time that they have 25 seconds so why is it an issue at all that it is being enforced?

Agreed. I think the players should be counting themselves lucky for getting away with it for so long.

Danny_1982 wrote:

summerblues wrote:Hewitt said this?:

"I've never gotten time violation that I can recall, and I'm not fast by any means, but it made us all think about it (the rule) and that's not a good thing for tennis.

LOL

Damn them for making me think!

I think what Hewitt means, is that they don't want to be thinking about the rule, they want to be thinking how good their next serve will be

Actually what Hewitt is saying is "I'm a tennis player, so therefore very important and special, if I don't like a rule I should be able to break it and if I'm not allowed I'm going to cry to the press until it's changed."

It Must Be Love wrote:What Hewitt is saying is that it should be a non-entity.

Perhaps, but it does come across funny, as in "these people are forcing me to consider the rules, how dare they". Also, I think it is for players to make sure that the rule is a non-entity. I fail to see why they should have hard time sticking to 25s on a typical point. If it only becomes difficult because they stretch their routines, then I disagree it should be a non-entity. I think that is exactly when it should kick in.

It Must Be Love wrote:It's frankly irrelevant in the greater context of things, and it shouldn't be punished so punitively.

As far as I know, the rule change was to reduce the penalty from a point penalty to a loss of the first serve. So, Hewitt should be happy, unless he is taking the view that it is ok to violate this rule.

This debate is interesting, but is rather circular. A rule which has always been there, is now being consistently enforced. Good for every player. The Player council can vote and change it to 30 or 45 seconds, as they see fit. Spectators can decide how long they want to wait for a point or walk away from the devices where they watch the sport.

As an example, in US NBA, there is publicly visible shot-clock at 24 seconds. There is no arguing with the clock. Tennis has the luxury, of the audience being asked to refrain from noise during the rally, unlike the NBA, and the players get on with the game, and they are multi-millionaires and still respect the rule. And when the umpires and officials bench agree, they will put extra time on the shot-clock, if deemed necessary. This is very similar to the discretion that a chair umpire will apply, like Eva Asderaki did against Baghdatis.

Why is it so hard for Tennis players to respect the rule? As JHM says, the rule is being reinforced with public calls by the umpire, because players, one or more, chose not to follow the rule.

If players feign that they did not know the rule earlier, they know it now.

Players who get penalised and whine (or their respective supporters do on the players' behalf) should just get on with watching the game.

Players Council represents the players, there are no referendums for every decision that needs to be made. If players have an issue, talk to the players council and state your concerns. This trial-by-media is a perfectly wasted effort.

If there is a rule, respect it. When the player gets on the court ready to play, follow all rules, otherwise stay at home.

laverfan wrote:This debate is interesting, but is rather circular. A rule which has always been there, is now being consistently enforced. Good for every player. The Player council can vote and change it to 30 or 45 seconds, as they see fit. Spectators can decide how long they want to wait for a point or walk away from the devices where they watch the sport.

As an example, in US NBA, there is publicly visible shot-clock at 24 seconds. There is no arguing with the clock. Tennis has the luxury, of the audience being asked to refrain from noise during the rally, unlike the NBA, and the players get on with the game, and they are multi-millionaires and still respect the rule. And when the umpires and officials bench agree, they will put extra time on the shot-clock, if deemed necessary. This is very similar to the discretion that a chair umpire will apply, like Eva Asderaki did against Baghdatis.

Why is it so hard for Tennis players to respect the rule? As JHM says, the rule is being reinforced with public calls by the umpire, because players, one or more, chose not to follow the rule.

If players feign that they did not know the rule earlier, they know it now.

Players who get penalised and whine (or their respective supporters do on the players' behalf) should just get on with watching the game.

Players Council represents the players, there are no referendums for every decision that needs to be made. If players have an issue, talk to the players council and state your concerns. This trial-by-media is a perfectly wasted effort.

If there is a rule, respect it. When the player gets on the court ready to play, follow all rules, otherwise stay at home.

I agree with the above. I don't see why they shouldn't adhere to it, and I'm sure that umpire discretion will be utilised in the appropriate manner. These people are all professionals, after all.

Sadly, I think that things could come to a head in a high profile match. The trouble is that if there's any clearly poor discretionary decision-making going on, then the crowd will get involved and it could be used as a springboard to get the rule changed. There needs to be consistency, but also flexibility when required. Above all, player mentality must change - it seems all too entitled at the moment. Let's not forget that many of these players are superstars earning millions of dollars.

Silver wrote:I agree with the above. I don't see why they shouldn't adhere to it, and I'm sure that umpire discretion will be utilised in the appropriate manner. These people are all professionals, after all.

and Silver and CarrieG4.

Silver wrote:Sadly, I think that things could come to a head in a high profile match. The trouble is that if there's any clearly poor discretionary decision-making going on, then the crowd will get involved and it could be used as a springboard to get the rule changed.

An umpiring decision and a player faux-pas did cause a match being lost, for example, Serena v Kim @USO. Even though it was not a time-violation. A high-profile match with such an incident may actually help highlight and underscore the rule even further.

Silver wrote:There needs to be consistency, but also flexibility when required. Above all, player mentality must change - it seems all too entitled at the moment. Let's not forget that many of these players are superstars earning millions of dollars.

IMVHO, there is a bit too much leniency, which is being tightened. Cricket (and many other sports) are leaning towards technology to ensure fairness. Federer does not want a shot-clock besides the court, but it may come down to that, if players continue to play with rules.

There are now traffic cameras which catch traffic rule violations which have a 2-3 second grace period, it makes no difference whether one drives a Ferrari or a Volkswagen.

Exactly Laverfan

I remember a few lower ranked players such as Michael Russell complaining about time violations previously as they felt that higher ranked players were given more leniency than they were. It is hard to conclusively prove this without trawling through every ATP match for the whole year. The only fair way is to ensure that the existing rule is used consistently and evenly, which is just what they are doing

Interesting that Berdych effectively says that a Nadal Djokovic marathon cannot be played within the rules.

Otherwise I don't know why you lot bother to feed the Hawkeye troll, she is ripping what little is left of her reputation into tatters.