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!

carrieg4 wrote:

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.

It very probably was deliberate from Murray, but it was a tactical move against taking time away from Rafa as Rafa does to Murray. The trouble with the rule not being enforced more often before was not that we would see one or two players time wasting to interrupt rhythm, but that their opponents would very soon be instructed by coaches to do the same and so impose their own timing on a match. It was sensible of Murray to play Nadal this way, and quite frankly that is what the majority do because everyone comments on how Nadal routinely makes the other player wait - soon we could have stand offs in time wasting in games unless something is done to redress the balance slightly.

I do think the suggestion by danny (I think) about umpires tolerating 5 or so over the time violations in matches before beginning to clamp down sounds sensible, as long as a player is not fragrantly disregarding the rules.

Oh and HE - it is not a new rule - others have pointed this out to you, but you still persist in calling it so!

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#!

In so many ways, this is one of the best posts I've ever seen! Marvellous stuff.

summerblues wrote: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.

Confirmation that these endless matches depend on breaking the rules.

Just hard lines on the guys staying inside the rules I suppose?

YvonneT wrote: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.

Yvonne ( wow very nice name indeed!) I believe Grigor Dimitrov stated very clearly the fact in question during an after match interview. Now if you have more specific insider information please share. Otherwise is either you or Dimitrov who got it wrong..........

CaledonianCraig wrote: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.

Apparently Kevin Anderson voted for it too:

"South African Kevin Anderson, the world No.36 who reached the final of the Sydney International this week, is one of the 10 members of the ATP players’ council that voted for it. He said he had heard rumblings already that some players didn’t like it."

Are you ok with this Yvonne?

Jeremy (lovely name too ), I did acknowledge that the player council reps had a vote in the changes, but I just think it is misleading to say "the players voted for it" which can imply that there was a vote of the player population.

BTW, I'm not convinced that article in The Australian (http://www.theaustralian.com.au/sport/novak-djokovic-untroubled-by-pace-of-play-change/story-e6frg7mf-1226552693474) is really correct either. Not the bit about Kevin Anderson, but these bits:

The problem is neither of them have played in an ATP tournament yet where the new 25-seconds in-between points came into effect this year. It was reduced from 30 seconds

The difference is the ITF rule allows for a fair amount of discretion by umpires. The ATP has removed any discretion and as Marcos Baghdatis found out in his semi-final in Brisbane, he was penalised a point for taking oo long.
(The "oo" for "too" is the newspaper's typo, not mine)

According to the ATP, the change is to the penalty and not the time. And any mandate to the umpires on whether to apply discretion or not is not to do with the rule as such, but simply a change in practice. And as born_slippy says, some umpires are applying sensibly and where there are small infringements just over 25s, they are letting them go. The Nisikori one that hawkeye mentions (where he got a penalty while his opponent changed his racquet) was poor umpiring.

http://www.atpworldtour.com/News/Tennis/2012/09/Feature/ATP-Board-Approves-Change-In-Time-Violation-Penalty.aspx

Oh, and since hawkeye can't remember any players using gamesmanship to disturb his opponent's rhythm apart from that Murray example from 2011, I will remind her of Nadal's "I wasn't ready" response to a Rosol ace in their match at Wimbledon. I'm still a bit gobsmacked at that one.

YvonneT wrote:The difference is the ITF rule allows for a fair amount of discretion by umpires. The ATP has removed any discretion and as Marcos Baghdatis found out in his semi-final in Brisbane, he was penalised a point for taking oo long.
(The "oo" for "too" is the newspaper's typo, not mine)

Never miss a chance to use sic

"...he was penalised a point for taking oo (sic) long."

Obviously the players voted, means the players council voted....AS I don't think Dimitrov is in there, one can only think there has been some sort of consultation with the players, and anyway the council is the official organ representing the players. Surely it's quite natural a few of them may have disagreed.

Yes, the new rule is about the way the existent time in between the points rule is enforced and nothing else.

Our current coalition government are currently representing the British public, they are like the 'players council'.

Two mistakes in that article (the Australian one):

1. There was no change from 30 to 25 secs - it was always 25 secs

2. Baghdatis was not penalised a point, merely a first serve, which is the new rule!

Cheers all, I've found the Dimitrov interview:

Q. What's your take on the time violation? Did that have much of an impact there?
GRIGOR DIMITROV: I think rules are rules. They're put out there, so there is not much else I can say about it. I'm sure to put him off a little or something.

Q. There is more focus on it now than there has been for a long time. Could you empathize with him a little bit or not?
GRIGOR DIMITROV: Yeah, of course. We had a long rally before that. I think it was over 20 shots.
But, I mean, whatever is for him is the same for me. That makes us even, I guess.

Q. Do you feel the stricter policing of that rule is a good thing for tennis?
GRIGOR DIMITROV: I think it's good. I think it's good, of course. Let's not forget that the players voted for that, so I guess it's‑‑ if they want it to be there, it's there.
So it's kind of their call.

http://www.asapsports.com/show_interview.php?id=85688

I'm interested in the politics of sport, which was why I asking. I'm curious now find out exactly what Dimitrov means though (does he mean the player council, or there was actually a player vote - and on the change in penalty, or also the stricter enforcement).

Sorry probably no-one else is interested in this detail!

My guess on it would be that all the players were balloted, a majority supported the new rule and the Players Council on behalf of the players accepted the rule. May be wrong but that is the logical process I would have thought.

YvonneT wrote:Oh, and since hawkeye can't remember any players using gamesmanship to disturb his opponent's rhythm apart from that Murray example from 2011, I will remind her of Nadal's "I wasn't ready" response to a Rosol ace in their match at Wimbledon. I'm still a bit gobsmacked at that one.

And they were made to replay the point! That was one of the worst examples of cowardly refereeing/umpiring that I've ever seen in any sport.

HM Murdoch wrote:

YvonneT wrote:Oh, and since hawkeye can't remember any players using gamesmanship to disturb his opponent's rhythm apart from that Murray example from 2011, I will remind her of Nadal's "I wasn't ready" response to a Rosol ace in their match at Wimbledon. I'm still a bit gobsmacked at that one.

And they were made to replay the point! That was one of the worst examples of cowardly refereeing/umpiring that I've ever seen in any sport.

Yeah agree with both of you. I was pretty gobsmacked too, at the audacity if it and the poor umpiring.

Danny_1982 wrote:

HM Murdoch wrote:

YvonneT wrote:Oh, and since hawkeye can't remember any players using gamesmanship to disturb his opponent's rhythm apart from that Murray example from 2011, I will remind her of Nadal's "I wasn't ready" response to a Rosol ace in their match at Wimbledon. I'm still a bit gobsmacked at that one.

And they were made to replay the point! That was one of the worst examples of cowardly refereeing/umpiring that I've ever seen in any sport.

Yeah agree with both of you. I was pretty gobsmacked too, at the audacity if it and the poor umpiring.

So you don't like Nadal... What has this incident got to do with the new 25 second rule? Anyway if Rosol served before his opponent was ready. Of course the point should be replayed otherwise players would always be attempting to do this. The Murray incident was a deliberate attempt to gain advantage by disrupting play and taking a good deal longer than the guideline time. The reason I mentioned it was it was the only time I can remember a player attempting to gain advantage in this way. Berdych said that he couldn't recall a single indecent of such behavior and I can only think of one. It is rare so why implement a poorly thought out rule that will have an impact on the outcome of matches?

Players didn't vote individually for this rule it was according to Anderson a vote taken on their behalf by the player council. From this it doesn't sound like much consultation took place.

Q. Just your thoughts on the time violations and the rules becoming a little more strict that way.
KEVIN ANDERSON: 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 rules just for tennis in general, I think it's a very good rule.
And just being on the council, I was just part of the talks when we decided to put that through last year. I know it's tough. I think we have a players' meeting coming up in Australia tomorrow, and I think a few players will talk out about it.
But I think it's good to keep it in.

Q. Did you take a hand vote before it was passed? Some of the guys were saying there wasn't really a vote taken; some guys say there was.
KEVIN ANDERSON: No, I mean, I can tell you firsthand that Gayle Bradshaw put through two things that we voted on. One was the net cord rule, which as you know is now just being tried out at the challenger level for three months.
The other one was a time violation. We actually went through a few options. We talked about having a sort of clock on the court, and we thought that wasn't the best option. We spoke about the problem just before about umpires being really reluctant to give away a point straightaway. This was another option.
I can't remember what the vote was, but there's ten of us, so there was a deciding vote to put that through.

Q. Did you discuss it with all the players before the council took a vote? They must have known about it to some degree.
KEVIN ANDERSON: Yeah, I mean, we were presented that at I think it was US Open. I'm not sure if the rule went in straightaway. I mean, it's tough. The players do elect us in there. We try our best to talk about as many as we can. I think there might have been ones, you know, that just we voted for on behalf, so it's the consistency that we represent.



http://www.asapsports.com/show_interview.php?id=85813

The problem is that Nadal is so slow all of the time, it's hard to pick out individual instances of deliberate gamesmanship because they all blend in together with the 'normal' OCD behaviour.

When Murray does it once, it's obvious because it stands out amongst all the other times when he follows the rules correctly.

Did you see Murrays average time taken in the Shanghai final??

HE - Just because I think that was a particularly bad piece of gamesmanship from Rafa, why does that mean I don't like him?

On the contrary, I like him a lot and can't wait until he's back on tour. The vast majority of my posts on Rafa are positive. But that doesn't mean that where criticism is justified it shouldn't be given.

It's called balance. You know, like you always use when writing articles about Murray.

As for the enforcement of an existing rule (it's not a new rule. The time limit has always been there) I agree that it is unclear if and how it went through a player vote. But that shouldn't make you leap to the conclusion that it didn't.

And in case... I reiterate, It isn't a new rule. It's enabling umpires to enforce an existing time limit.

My point exactly. When Murray does it, it stands out. Either individual points or full matches.

Nadal does it every point and every match so therefore it's not seen as a problem, it's due to the OCD or being an alien pod-person or whatever the latest excuse is from the fans.

It Must Be Love wrote:Did you see Murrays average time taken in the Shanghai final??

Shush! No one is meant to time other players between points. The only reason some have for arguing that this stupid rule is a good thing is they have fantasies of Nadal being punished...

Goes both ways though, the only reason why you don't like this perfectly reasonable rule is because it's bad for Nadal.

Either in terms of affecting his performances, or the fact that if he has to hurry up, it lowers the amount of bicep watching time.

It Must Be Love wrote:Did you see Murrays average time taken in the Shanghai final??

IMBL - I think you're a good and balanced poster but a defence of "look at what Murray did!" sounds more like someone else than something you'd normally say.

The old rule was reasonable but the new rule is clearly stupid. IMO the new rule will have been watered down by the time Nadal returns. Unlike others I'm not fixated about its impact on one player.

Ha ha! If I was interested in bicep watching I would watch Murray. Did you know he has put on 3 pounds of lean muscle in the past few weeks?

Danny, I was talking about DJ's post, where he/she mentions that Murray always follows the rule.
I think both Murray and Djokovic on average were taking around 27 seconds or something, so I think DJ was wrong on that.

But look, I didn't complain about that at all. I barely would have noticed it if those stats weren't put up on the screen, and certainly did not spoil my experience of watching the match.

So yes I'm 'look what Murray did!'' but not really in a negative way. I really enjoyed the play in the Shanghai final.

hawkeye wrote:
Ha ha! If I was interested in bicep watching I would watch Murray. Did you know he has put on 3 pounds of lean muscle in the past few weeks?

Stamina, fitness, and muscle wise; Djokovic, Murray and Nadal are all up there now.
If not anything I'd say Murray was the fittest.

Good for him He is working very hard for tennis, and there's absolutely nothing wrong with that. I've always admired Murray's commitment, and still do.

Danny_1982 wrote:

It Must Be Love wrote:Did you see Murrays average time taken in the Shanghai final??

IMBL - I think you're a good and balanced poster but a defence of "look at what Murray did!" sounds more like someone else than something you'd normally say.

Danny_1982. So you really do think the new rule only applies to Nadal? Or are you saying that Murray has special exemption?

The old rule was only reasonable for you HE as it was never implemented and suited your favourite player down to a tee. Time violation has always been a rule and so should be adhered to and if they are found to being broken then that player should be punished WHOEVER it is. Pray tell what is so stupid about that. Simple, break the rule and you get punished - like every other sport in the land. It is time for tennis to fall into line.

hawkeye wrote:

Danny_1982 wrote:

It Must Be Love wrote:Did you see Murrays average time taken in the Shanghai final??

IMBL - I think you're a good and balanced poster but a defence of "look at what Murray did!" sounds more like someone else than something you'd normally say.

Danny_1982. So you really do think the new rule only applies to Nadal? Or are you saying that Murray has special exemption?

No, he's not saying either of those things.

CaledonianCraig wrote:The old rule was only reasonable for you HE as it was never implemented and suited your favourite player down to a tee. Time violation has always been a rule and so should be adhered to and if they are found to being broken then that player should be punished WHOEVER it is. Pray tell what is so stupid about that. Simple, break the rule and you get punished - like every other sport in the land. It is time for tennis to fall into line.

Murray was saying that we should stretch the time rule to 30 seconds, and then implement that harshly.
Do you agree with Murray CC? I think he's right.

hawkeye wrote:

Danny_1982 wrote:

It Must Be Love wrote:Did you see Murrays average time taken in the Shanghai final??

IMBL - I think you're a good and balanced poster but a defence of "look at what Murray did!" sounds more like someone else than something you'd normally say.

Danny_1982. So you really do think the new rule only applies to Nadal? Or are you saying that Murray has special exemption?

My point to IMBL was that "what about Murray?" Suited the default position of a certain other poster rather than her.

When have I said either of those things? Seriously, provide me the quote where I've said the new rule (it's not a new rule) only applies to Rafa, and doesn't apply to Murray. It applies to everyone.

It Must Be Love wrote:

hawkeye wrote:

Danny_1982 wrote:

It Must Be Love wrote:Did you see Murrays average time taken in the Shanghai final??

IMBL - I think you're a good and balanced poster but a defence of "look at what Murray did!" sounds more like someone else than something you'd normally say.

Danny_1982. So you really do think the new rule only applies to Nadal? Or are you saying that Murray has special exemption?

No, he's not saying either of those things.

In terms of whether it should be 30 seconds to begin with to allow a smoother transition to the extra enforcement, I can see where Murray is coming from but I personally don't think it needs an extra 5 seconds. It should be fairly straight forward for all of the players to work within that time.

It Must Be Love wrote:

CaledonianCraig wrote:The old rule was only reasonable for you HE as it was never implemented and suited your favourite player down to a tee. Time violation has always been a rule and so should be adhered to and if they are found to being broken then that player should be punished WHOEVER it is. Pray tell what is so stupid about that. Simple, break the rule and you get punished - like every other sport in the land. It is time for tennis to fall into line.

Murray was saying that we should stretch the time rule to 30 seconds, and then implement that harshly.
Do you agree with Murray CC? I think he's right.

Hmm not sure I do to be honest but whatever it is then players should know they have to adhere to it.

Danny, I replied to your post at 3:44 pm
(btw I'm a he )

CaledonianCraig wrote:

It Must Be Love wrote:

CaledonianCraig wrote:The old rule was only reasonable for you HE as it was never implemented and suited your favourite player down to a tee. Time violation has always been a rule and so should be adhered to and if they are found to being broken then that player should be punished WHOEVER it is. Pray tell what is so stupid about that. Simple, break the rule and you get punished - like every other sport in the land. It is time for tennis to fall into line.

Murray was saying that we should stretch the time rule to 30 seconds, and then implement that harshly.
Do you agree with Murray CC? I think he's right.

Hmm not sure I do to be honest but whatever it is then players should know they have to adhere to it.

It doesn't really make a big difference to me.
For example Shanghai final both players took a lot of time between points, but it didn't spoil it at all, in-fact it was a great match!

Exactly IMBL but Hawkeye is going berserk as if it is some sort of a new rule and an injustice. It is an injustice to nobody.

I know you are IMBL - my bloody phone always assumes I'm trying to say 'her'.

It Must Be Love

If we are talking about players that go over 25 seconds surely it is relevant to point out ALL players that do so. But when you pointed out that you noticed Murray doing so that was considered unreasonable. Why?

Interesting that you qualified it so as not to upset a Murray fan by saying

It Must Be Love wrote:

But look, I didn't complain about that at all. I barely would have noticed it if those stats weren't put up on the screen, and certainly did not spoil my experience of watching the match.

So yes I'm 'look what Murray did!'' but not really in a negative way. I really enjoyed the play in the Shanghai final.

So its OK for Murray to do this? And why is there no talk of this rule being introduced to punish Murray or any other players? The fantasy is that it will impact on Nadal.

Keeping the inflexibility but extending the time to 30 seconds is IMO even more stupid. Players will then just take 30 seconds between every point. Some have clearly lost the plot...

No Hawkeye it is you that has lost the plot. I said earlier WHOEVER breaks the rules and that includes Murray should be punished. I can almost smell your fear at the prospect of this rule across the ethernet.

Some never had the plot HE....

IMBL's comments are reasonable. Interesting that you're annoyed now that he confirmed she was not jumping on your bandwagon.

Bloody phone!!

hawkeye wrote:It Must Be Love

If we are talking about players that go over 25 seconds surely it is relevant to point out ALL players that do so. But when you pointed out that you noticed Murray doing so that was considered unreasonable. Why?

Interesting that you qualified it so as not to upset a Murray fan by saying

It Must Be Love wrote:

But look, I didn't complain about that at all. I barely would have noticed it if those stats weren't put up on the screen, and certainly did not spoil my experience of watching the match.

So yes I'm 'look what Murray did!'' but not really in a negative way. I really enjoyed the play in the Shanghai final.

So its OK for Murray to do this? And why is there no talk of this rule being introduced to punish Murray or any other players? The fantasy is that it will impact on Nadal.

Keeping the inflexibility but extending the time to 30 seconds is IMO even more stupid. Players will then just take 30 seconds between every point. Some have clearly lost the plot...

No the new rule applies to everyone.
No one has said differently

I didn't say that not to upset Murray fans, I said that because it's what I genuinely believe.
I don't think it's a massive problem, a few seconds of someone bouncing the ball or picking their arse hardly spoils the experience for me, and I genuinely did enjoy the Shanghai final as one of the favourite matches of the year (even though it was the second worst to AO final in terms of both players taking time).
And I don't think Murray's lost the plot either- I think his comments were quite interesting.

Danny_1982 wrote:Bloody phone!!

lol

Personally, if I'm to be really honest, I would make the rule this:

-Extend the time limit to 30 seconds.
-Have 4 warnings, before on the 5th time of breaking rule, point should be deducted from player.
-Umpires should have discretion and be allowed to use common sense, for example if it's sweltering conditions/ change of racket; umpire could choose not to impose warning.

That would be my rule.

Hawkeye, Danny, CC, does my rule seem reasonable?

It Must Be Love wrote:Hawkeye, Danny, CC, does my rule seem reasonable?

Frankly, no as 30 seconds is too long in my opinion. Warnings? Why? The players know the rules so shouldn't need warned. As for your third point the umpires are doing that now anyway. I Brisbane International Final Dmitrov changed a racket between points and the clock showed approaching 28 seconds before the serve and he never got a warning so common sense is being used as far as I can tell.

No, your rule is ridiculous. You would be a terrible chairman for the ATP player council.

25 seconds and discretion. Simple.

The only reason why it's even an issue is because tennis players are brought up to be entitled and incredibly self-centred. It's just the nature of an individual sport where players are molly-coddled from a very early age.

The just need to get over themselves, which they won't, so their whinges and whines need to be taken with a pinch of salt.

The mistake we make is that when our favourite player has a big moan, we actually fall into the trap of agreeing with them.

Boo hoo, drug tests. Boo hoo, long season. Boo hoo, time limits. Boo hoo, hard courts. All unreasonable moans which are taken far too seriously.

Jeremy_Kyle wrote:No, your rule is ridiculous. You would be a terrible chairman for the ATP player council.

We'll come down and discuss this on your show tomorrow morning.
I'll bring the secret DNA sample to see if I'm fit for the job.

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.