Rafa's Back And He's Not Backing Down

First topic message reminder :

It's not just Rafa's heavy topspin forehand that has been missed from the tour. When so many players shy away from saying anything remotely controversial and sound like they are reading directly from a carefully constructed PR script it's refreshing to have one top player not shy away from saying what he thinks. The carefully promoted views on blood testing comes to mind. Bla, bla, bla we need to go after the bad guys so that proves I'm a good guy bla, bla, bla

This is what Nadal had to say about the two topics that continue to make him cross and continue to make some cross because he is cross. No surprises but he is still mad about the stupid "new" or as many prefer to call it "more strictly enforced" time rule and hard courts. The quotes are from after last nights match against Harrison.

Listen to what he thinks about the new ATP rule which requires umpires to clamp down on anyone taking longer than 25 seconds between points:

“That’s true,” he replied when asked about playing at a faster pace. “I played much faster, no? I am doing that because someone very smart puts in a new rule that is a disaster in my opinion. Not in places like here, which is dry. But it is a complete disaster when we are playing in humid places like Acapulco, Brazil or Chile.”

Nadal said he went back to watch some of his matches in Grand Slams to check how long it took him and his opponent to recover from long rallies.

“You have to see the third set of the US Open 2011 against (Novak) Djokovic and tell me if the crowd was very happy in that set or not. You need 40 seconds rest after a great point of 30, 40 shots. Tell me if with this new rule that can happen again.”

Hard courts were another target.

“Somebody has to think, not for today,” Nadal said. “I’m not talking about my career. We’re going to finish my career playing the same number of tournaments on hard (courts) because that’s the dynamic. But my opinion is for the next generations.

"Hard courts are aggressive for the body. It’s a medical thing. If the next generations want to finish their careers with better conditions physically, the ATP has to find a solution and not continue playing more and more tournaments on this surface that is harder for the joints and for the knees; for the foot, for the ankles, for the back, for everything.

"I would not answer this question in 2005, 2006 — but now I have won a lot of tournaments on hard (courts) and that gives me the confidence to say this to you. I am not having this opinion just because I prefer to play on clay.”

http://msn.foxsports.com/tennis/story/Rafael-Nadal-wins-Indian-Wells-slams-ATP-over-new-rules-030913

Julius. I don't know what your question was? Did you watch the AO semi by any chance?... Oops... sorry

laverfan. I'm not 100% sure of course but I reckon that Harrison didn't intend to play a 20 shot ralley at that point. He was going to come in recklessly and attempt to volley as he had done "several" times before... cough.

Red wrote:

JuliusHMarx wrote:

Red wrote:

JuliusHMarx wrote:

Red wrote:Julius en fuego today, recovering well after the embarrassment of his unanswered quiz

Not as embarrassing as you going on about your pathetic quiz ad infinitum. Is there a yawn smiley?

Grrr, someone is fuming today

You mean Rafa? He seems to be fuming all the time these days. Oh the injustice of it all....oh, the humanity....

Nope, I was talking about you.

Gee really? You don't say. As usual, you fail to understand. Is the answer to your quiz "infantile"?

hawkeye wrote:Julius. I don't know what your question was?

Because asking it twice wasn't enough for you? Do you want me to write it out slowly so you can understand?

JuliusHMarx wrote:

hawkeye wrote:Julius. I don't know what your question was?

Because asking it twice wasn't enough for you? Do you want me to write it out slowly so you can understand?

You really don't need to be so patronising Julius.

Red wrote:

JuliusHMarx wrote:

hawkeye wrote:Julius. I don't know what your question was?

Because asking it twice wasn't enough for you? Do you want me to write it out slowly so you can understand?

You really don't need to be so patronising Julius.

Sorry mother.

JuliusHMarx wrote:

Red wrote:

JuliusHMarx wrote:

hawkeye wrote:Julius. I don't know what your question was?

Because asking it twice wasn't enough for you? Do you want me to write it out slowly so you can understand?

You really don't need to be so patronising Julius.

Sorry mother.

I'm just giving my honest opinion.

Red wrote:

JuliusHMarx wrote:

Red wrote:

JuliusHMarx wrote:

hawkeye wrote:Julius. I don't know what your question was?

Because asking it twice wasn't enough for you? Do you want me to write it out slowly so you can understand?

You really don't need to be so patronising Julius.

Sorry mother.

I'm just giving my honest opinion.

That's what I was trying to get hawkeye to do.

Danny_1982 wrote:But it's hard to ignore the fact that everything he is pushing for would benefit himself. Possibly more than anyone else in the game.

It all makes it sound a bit disengenuous.

I do not so much mind that he is in support of things that would benefit him. It is fairly natural to think that whatever works for me is a good thing in general, and there is a reasonable process to deal with this: Everyone expresses their opinions and whatever on balance satisfies the "stakeholders" (ie., fans, sponsors, tennis players, etc) best hopefully prevails. So I, for example, do not have a big problem with him pushing for fewer hard court tourneys or two year ranking (though I myself do not like either).

In principle, I do not mind him pushing for more time between points either (though again I would disagree). However, the right way to do it would have been to stick to the limit all along and - while playing by the rules - lobby to change them. By habitually breaking the rule, he kind of lost the moral right to complain about it in my mind. If anything, he should feel ashamed for what he has been doing all along. I suspect it does not make a big difference in the outcome of matches, but it is something where he has been cheating all along to help himself a bit.

Julius. Maybe this will answer your question. This is the new rule as set in the ATP rule book. Read it slowly and carefully and you may be able to figure out why Rafa is a little peeved

M. Continuous Play/ Delay of Game
Play shall be continuous, except that a maximum of twenty-fi ve (25) seconds may
elapse from the moment the ball goes out of play at the end of one point to the time
the ball is stuck for the next point. When a changeover ends, ninety (90) seconds
may elapse. The procedures for enforcing this rule are as follows:
1) 25 Seconds/Continuous Play
a) Start Stop Watch. The chair umpire must start the stopwatch after the ball
goes out of play or when the players are ordered to play.
b) Time Violation or Code Violation. A Time or Code Violation must be assessed
if the ball is not struck for the next point within the twenty-fi ve (25)
seconds allowed, except if the chair umpire extends the time for special circumstances
defi ned by the ATP. There is no time warning prior to the expiration
of the twenty-fi ve (25) seconds.
c) A player may not receive back-to-back Time Violations because consecutive
delays shall be penalized by a delay of game Code Violation, unless there
has been a non-continuous game changeover.
2) 90 Seconds/Change-Over (Changing Ends)
a) Start Stop Watch. The chair umpire must start the stopwatch the moment the
ball goes out of play.
b) “Time.” The chair umpire must announce to players “Time” after one (1) minute
has elapsed. If requested, prior to the match, by a television broadcaster,
the chair umpire shall have the authority to delay the start of play until the end
of the ninety (90) second changeover period.

c) “15 Seconds.” The chair umpire may announce to players “15 Seconds” if
the players are still at their chairs and/or have not started toward their playing
positions.
d) Time Violation or Code Violation. The chair umpire must assess a Time
Violation or, when applicable, a Code Violation (after a medical time-out or
treatment) if the ball is not struck for the next point within the ninety (90) seconds
allowed, provided there has been no interference which prevented the
Server from serving within that time or a delay by the chair umpire.
3) 120 Seconds/Set Break
a) Start Stop Watch. The chair umpire must start the stopwatch the moment the
ball goes out of play.
b) “Time”. The chair umpire must announce to players “time” after 90 seconds
has elapsed. If requested, prior to the match, by a television broadcaster, the
chair umpire shall have the authority to delay the start of play until the end of
the one hundred twenty (120) second set break.
c) “15 Seconds.” The chair umpire may announce to players “15 Seconds” if
the players are still at their chairs and/or have not started toward their playing
positions.
d) Time Violation or Code Violation. The chair umpire must assess a Time
Violation or, when applicable, a Code Violation (after a medical time-out or
treatment) if the ball is not struck for the next point within the one hundred
twenty (120) seconds allowed, provided there has been no interference which
prevented the server from serving within that time or a delay by the chair
umpire.
4) Not Playing to the Reasonable Pace of the Server
a) Start Stop Watch. The chair umpire must start the stopwatch when the player
is ordered to play or the moment the ball goes out of play.
b) Time Violation or Code Violation. The chair umpire must assess a Code
Violation if the receiver is employing “gamesmanship.” The chair umpire must
issue a Time Violation before the expiration of twenty-fi ve (25) seconds if the
receiver’s actions delay the reasonable pace of the server

N. Time and Equipment Cases
Crowd Movement
Case: The server is given a Time Violation for going beyond the 25
seconds that is allowed between points. The server claims that he
should have been given additional time because there were some
spectators taking their seats.
Decision: The Time Violation stands. The continuous play procedures
shall be in effect regardless of spectator movement unless
the chair umpire believes the movement is intended as a deliberate
attempt to distract a player(s) or occurs in the designated lowest tier
of seats.
Ball Person as Personal Valet
Case: A player receives a time violation from the chair umpire while
waiting for the ball person to retrieve a towel. The player claims the
ball person caused the delay.
Decision: The Time Violation stands. Toweling off between points
with or without the help of a ball person is not a valid reason for
delay.
Time Violation, No Play, Results in Code
Case: A player, upon hearing a Time Violation, comes to the chair
umpire and asks “Why?” He receives an explanation followed by
“Let’s Play”. The player continues his discussion and is given a
Code Violation. The player appeals to the supervisor saying he
should have received a Time Violation, Point Penalty.
Decision: The chair umpire suspends play and calls for the supervisor.
Upon arrival, the supervisor affi rms the decision of the chair
umpire (two time violations are not given back-to-back unless there
was a game changeover between them.
Time Violation + 25 Seconds = Code
Case: A player receives a time violation while standing at the back
fence. He does not move to play and the chair umpire says, “Let’s
play”. After another 25 seconds elapses, what does the chair
umpire do?
Decision: A Code Violation is announced, (and possibly an inquiry,
such as, “Are you OK?”) followed by “Let’s Play”.
Two Explanations are Enough
Case: A player asks for an explanation and is given one. He then
raises another point and receives another response. How long may
this go on?
Decision: Normally only twice since continuous play provisions are
not being complied with. After two brief responses, the chair umpire
announces “Let’s Play” and subsequently issues a Code Violation if
the ball is not in play as a result of that player’s action.
Changing Shoes
Case: May a player receive extra time on a changeover in order to
change his shoes and/or socks? If yes, how many times may he do
so during the course of the match?
VII. THE COMPETITION
Decision: Yes. The chair umpire may allow a reasonable extension
of the allotted changeover time in order for a player to change his
shoes and/or socks. The player should not be allowed to leave the
court in this instance. The player is limited to one change per match
when extra time is granted unless the provisions for “equipment out
of adjustment” take precedent. In that case, the chair umpire has the
authority to decide each request on its own merit.
Contact Lens
Case: During a match, a player requests permission to leave the
court in order to put in a contact lens.
Decision: The request to leave the court is denied. Contact lenses
shall not be considered as equipment out of adjustment unless the
player is wearing them at the time of the incident.
Note - Every attempt should be made to assist the player so that he
may put the contact lenses in during the changeover.
Time: Refusal to Play
Case: After several close calls that go against him, a player comes
to his chair on the changeover and says, “I’m not playing until the
line umpire Crew is changed”. After the chair umpire calls “Time”,
the player says“, I told you I’m not playing until the line umpires are
changed”. What should the chair umpire do?
Decision: The chair umpire should order the player to play and after
25 seconds use the Point Penalty Schedule.
Re-Gripping Racquet
Case: During a change of ends, while a player is re-taping the grip
of his racquet, the chair umpire calls time. The player walks out to
the baseline still taping the grip. At the end of the 90 seconds, the
player has failed to commence his serve and is still working on the
grip.
Decision: The chair umpire issues a Time Violation. The racquet
is not equipment out of adjustment and therefore the player must
serve within the allotted time. (Rules of Tennis, 29.) Similarly, adjusting
the position of the strings or fi xing string savers is not an excuse
for delaying play.
Replacing Shoes
Case: During a match, a player requests permission to leave the
court area to retrieve another pair of tennis shoes. He states that he
is slipping and wants to get a pair of shoes with a different sole from
his locker.
Decision: The request is denied. However, the chair umpire should
use all possible means to have the shoes retrieved and brought to
the court. This is not considered “Equipment Out of Adjustment”.
The shoes could have been brought to the court with the player and
changed on-court; however, once he has the shoes, reasonable
time is allowed for the change.
Shoe Breaks
Case: A player breaks his shoe and he needs to change, but his
second pair is in the locker room.

Decision: The chair umpire should stop play and allow the player to
get shoes.
No Play After 90 Seconds
Case: A player is not ready to play after the ninety (90) second
changeover (no injury involved).
Decision: A Time Violation is announced. “Let’s Play” is normally
added. The same applies if a player is not ready to play after the
120-second set break

...................


I think that is most of the relevant bits. I may have missed some so you may like your lawyer to check the ATP site too.

Rafa's peeved because for him to win more matches he feels he needs to break those rules.

Personally, when I play I get peeved that I am expected to hit the ball within the lines and actually lose a point if I hit it a fraction outside the line.
I know that rule applies to every other player, but I feel it works against me and would like it changed. I'm not being unreasonable, am I?

JuliusHMarx wrote:
Personally, when I play I get peeved that I am expected to hit the ball within the lines and actually lose a point if I hit it a fraction outside the line.
I know that rule applies to every other player, but I feel it works against me and would like it changed. I'm not being unreasonable, am I?

I'm not sure your example is a direct comparison with the issue at hand.
Time between points isn't set in stone.. it is simply a judgement set by the ATP on how much is 'enough.' With tennis having more long rallies (which many like), some will argue it's time to reform the rule to fit the new conditions. Others will say that 25 seconds is enough, and more than that is unnecessary and inappropriate.
So, in all seriousness, I don't see it as crystal clear as hitting between the lines.

As for Nadal's second comment, the over-use of hard-courts, I think he is correct there (ask LF for the surface by surface breakdown).

The umpire, by the way, DOES have the discretion to add time between points. But he/she doesn't do it at the request of the player. Possibly because the player might be a bit biased towards himself, whereas the unpire impartially applies the rules. The cad.

I think umpire should have discretion and apply common sense... earlier this year the server (I think Baghdatis) was docked a first serve because his opponent took ages to change his racket. Also if it's really humid, the time rule could be flexible.

I prefer the Fleming view which was:

"If Rafa is feeling tired after long rallies, maybe he should try coming into the net more"

Seems reasonable.

legendkillarV2 wrote:I prefer the Fleming view which was:

"If Rafa is feeling tired after long rallies, maybe he should try coming into the net more"

Seems reasonable.

I don't think it's too bad for Rafa- if he is fitter than his opponent- then after a long rally he should be in a better position to recover quicker. The only exception I think is against Djokovic (and Murray?) who are fitter than him.

Red wrote:

JuliusHMarx wrote:
Personally, when I play I get peeved that I am expected to hit the ball within the lines and actually lose a point if I hit it a fraction outside the line.
I know that rule applies to every other player, but I feel it works against me and would like it changed. I'm not being unreasonable, am I?

I'm not sure your example is a direct comparison with the issue at hand.
Time between points isn't set in stone.. it is simply a judgement set by the ATP on how much is 'enough.' With tennis having more long rallies (which many like), some will argue it's time to reform the rule to fit the new conditions. Others will say that 25 seconds is enough, and more than that is unnecessary and inappropriate.
So, in all seriousness, I don't see it as crystal clear as hitting between the lines.

As for Nadal's second comment, the over-use of hard-courts, I think he is correct there (ask LF for the surface by surface breakdown).

The players agreed to it last year. Have long rallies just started in the last 2 months?

My comparison is not rule-by-rule - it is to illustrate how Rafa would like to change the rules for his own benefit, much as I would. Rafa's intent and my intent are the direct comparison.

JuliusHMarx wrote:

Red wrote:

JuliusHMarx wrote:
Personally, when I play I get peeved that I am expected to hit the ball within the lines and actually lose a point if I hit it a fraction outside the line.
I know that rule applies to every other player, but I feel it works against me and would like it changed. I'm not being unreasonable, am I?

I'm not sure your example is a direct comparison with the issue at hand.
Time between points isn't set in stone.. it is simply a judgement set by the ATP on how much is 'enough.' With tennis having more long rallies (which many like), some will argue it's time to reform the rule to fit the new conditions. Others will say that 25 seconds is enough, and more than that is unnecessary and inappropriate.
So, in all seriousness, I don't see it as crystal clear as hitting between the lines.

As for Nadal's second comment, the over-use of hard-courts, I think he is correct there (ask LF for the surface by surface breakdown).

The players agreed to it last year. Have long rallies just started in the last 2 months?

My comparison is not rule-by-rule - it is to illustrate how Rafa would like to change the rules for his own benefit, much as I would. Rafa's intent and my intent are the direct comparison.

The players did not have a vote.. it was a handful of players in the players council who agreed on it.
They are elected by the players though, just like the Conservatives and Lib Dems have been elected by us. I don't think they'll stand for everything the public want.
And as I explained, in terms of long rallies, I think it will only benefit Rafa against Djokovic and Murray (who are fitter than him). Against everyone else I think they will find it more difficult to recover for a longer rally.
And even Djokovic and Murray aren't that much fitter than Nadal, so it doesn't make a huge difference.

btw Nadal has already been cutting down time between points since he has comeback.

As have Djokovic and Del Potro to be fair.

legendkillarV2 wrote:I prefer the Fleming view which was:

"If Rafa is feeling tired after long rallies, maybe he should try coming into the net more"

Seems reasonable.

I think Rafa knows that if he tried to shorten the rallies, he'd lose more of them. For the same reason, he fails to mention the alternative of changing conditions (strings/balls/courts) to ensure less rallies last 30-40 shots.
Neither of those would benefit him, so he doesn't raise the possibility.

You're missing the point Julius.
If Nadal is so much fitter than his opponents, then surely he'd want to have less time between points, as they would struggle more?

Red wrote:

JuliusHMarx wrote:

Red wrote:

JuliusHMarx wrote:
Personally, when I play I get peeved that I am expected to hit the ball within the lines and actually lose a point if I hit it a fraction outside the line.
I know that rule applies to every other player, but I feel it works against me and would like it changed. I'm not being unreasonable, am I?

I'm not sure your example is a direct comparison with the issue at hand.
Time between points isn't set in stone.. it is simply a judgement set by the ATP on how much is 'enough.' With tennis having more long rallies (which many like), some will argue it's time to reform the rule to fit the new conditions. Others will say that 25 seconds is enough, and more than that is unnecessary and inappropriate.
So, in all seriousness, I don't see it as crystal clear as hitting between the lines.

As for Nadal's second comment, the over-use of hard-courts, I think he is correct there (ask LF for the surface by surface breakdown).

The players agreed to it last year. Have long rallies just started in the last 2 months?

My comparison is not rule-by-rule - it is to illustrate how Rafa would like to change the rules for his own benefit, much as I would. Rafa's intent and my intent are the direct comparison.

The players did not have a vote.. it was a handful of players in the players council who agreed on it.
They are elected by the players though, just like the Conservatives and Lib Dems have been elected by us. I don't think they'll stand for everything the public want.
And as I explained, in terms of long rallies, I think it will only benefit Rafa against Djokovic and Murray (who are fitter than him). Against everyone else I think they will find it more difficult to recover for a longer rally.
And even Djokovic and Murray aren't that much fitter than Nadal, so it doesn't make a huge difference.

What's more likely - that the players council went against the majority of players' wishes, or that the council did not go against the majority of players wishes?

JuliusHMarx wrote:

Red wrote:

JuliusHMarx wrote:

Red wrote:

JuliusHMarx wrote:
Personally, when I play I get peeved that I am expected to hit the ball within the lines and actually lose a point if I hit it a fraction outside the line.
I know that rule applies to every other player, but I feel it works against me and would like it changed. I'm not being unreasonable, am I?

I'm not sure your example is a direct comparison with the issue at hand.
Time between points isn't set in stone.. it is simply a judgement set by the ATP on how much is 'enough.' With tennis having more long rallies (which many like), some will argue it's time to reform the rule to fit the new conditions. Others will say that 25 seconds is enough, and more than that is unnecessary and inappropriate.
So, in all seriousness, I don't see it as crystal clear as hitting between the lines.

As for Nadal's second comment, the over-use of hard-courts, I think he is correct there (ask LF for the surface by surface breakdown).

The players agreed to it last year. Have long rallies just started in the last 2 months?

My comparison is not rule-by-rule - it is to illustrate how Rafa would like to change the rules for his own benefit, much as I would. Rafa's intent and my intent are the direct comparison.

The players did not have a vote.. it was a handful of players in the players council who agreed on it.
They are elected by the players though, just like the Conservatives and Lib Dems have been elected by us. I don't think they'll stand for everything the public want.
And as I explained, in terms of long rallies, I think it will only benefit Rafa against Djokovic and Murray (who are fitter than him). Against everyone else I think they will find it more difficult to recover for a longer rally.
And even Djokovic and Murray aren't that much fitter than Nadal, so it doesn't make a huge difference.

What's more likely - that the players council went against the majority of players' wishes, or that the council did not go against the majority of players wishes?

Well we don't know, do we?
The players council do what they think is correct... not every decision they make necessarily represents the tour.
eg as I said think of the UK government, they are elected... but do we agree with every policy they make?

Red wrote:You're missing the point Julius.
If Nadal is so much fitter than his opponents, then surely he'd want to have less time between points, as they would struggle more?

But he himself wants more time - surely that is the point. He has said he wants more time so he can play at a higher standard. But the rules don't give him that, so he want the rules changed.

Red wrote:

JuliusHMarx wrote:

Red wrote:

JuliusHMarx wrote:

Red wrote:

JuliusHMarx wrote:
Personally, when I play I get peeved that I am expected to hit the ball within the lines and actually lose a point if I hit it a fraction outside the line.
I know that rule applies to every other player, but I feel it works against me and would like it changed. I'm not being unreasonable, am I?

I'm not sure your example is a direct comparison with the issue at hand.
Time between points isn't set in stone.. it is simply a judgement set by the ATP on how much is 'enough.' With tennis having more long rallies (which many like), some will argue it's time to reform the rule to fit the new conditions. Others will say that 25 seconds is enough, and more than that is unnecessary and inappropriate.
So, in all seriousness, I don't see it as crystal clear as hitting between the lines.

As for Nadal's second comment, the over-use of hard-courts, I think he is correct there (ask LF for the surface by surface breakdown).

The players agreed to it last year. Have long rallies just started in the last 2 months?

My comparison is not rule-by-rule - it is to illustrate how Rafa would like to change the rules for his own benefit, much as I would. Rafa's intent and my intent are the direct comparison.

The players did not have a vote.. it was a handful of players in the players council who agreed on it.
They are elected by the players though, just like the Conservatives and Lib Dems have been elected by us. I don't think they'll stand for everything the public want.
And as I explained, in terms of long rallies, I think it will only benefit Rafa against Djokovic and Murray (who are fitter than him). Against everyone else I think they will find it more difficult to recover for a longer rally.
And even Djokovic and Murray aren't that much fitter than Nadal, so it doesn't make a huge difference.

What's more likely - that the players council went against the majority of players' wishes, or that the council did not go against the majority of players wishes?

Well we don't know, do we?
The players council do what they think is correct... not every decision they make necessarily represents the tour.
eg as I said think of the UK government, they are elected... but do we agree with every policy they make?

A party-political democracy of 60 million represented by 600 is hardly analogous to the ATP and it players council.

JuliusHMarx wrote:

Red wrote:You're missing the point Julius.
If Nadal is so much fitter than his opponents, then surely he'd want to have less time between points, as they would struggle more?

But he himself wants more time - surely that is the point. He has said he wants more time so he can play at a higher standard. But the rules don't give him that, so he want the rules changed.

No but he's making the case for both players.
Think if he is fitter than his opposition, and they have a long rally, and they have a short gap between the next point.. it is his opponent who is not as fit who will suffer more, not Nadal.
This is exactly what Monfils was saying earlier:
Actually, I like it because I’m the type of player who plays with his physique. So it’s cool if you have a shorter time to recover, I’m happy with that. … If it’s like 10 seconds, I’d be happier, because I don’t know any players that can run and get back in 10 seconds. http://www.tennis.com/pro-game/2013/02/monfils-time-violations-just-let-me-dry-my-hands/46579/#.UT0WENbQpCE

Nadal is right though, his opponent will probably be so tired in the next point that he won't be in a fit state to compete in another long rally after that... the only exception to this is Djokovic who is marginally fitter than Nadal (but even this is marginal).

Julius, I don't think we know for sure that every single rule the council agree on is backed by the players... on a smaller scale and with such subjectivity, this is even more the case here.

JuliusHMarx wrote:The umpire, by the way, DOES have the discretion to add time between points. But he/she doesn't do it at the request of the player. Possibly because the player might be a bit biased towards himself, whereas the unpire impartially applies the rules. The cad.

I'm not sure if your just trying to be awkward or if you really don't understand the changes that have been made to the ATP rule book. They are concrete changes as the wording within the rule book is now different. Many players have commented on the changes not just Nadal. Are you trying to be funny when you say that Nadal thinks that he rather than the umpire should be the one to decide when a penalty should be given? Or do you really believe that's what he's saying? Nadal makes it clear that the umpire should be the one to decide when players are abusing the system and that it shouldn't be determined by counting seconds on a stop watch.

Red wrote:Time between points isn't set in stone.. it is simply a judgement set by the ATP on how much is 'enough.' With tennis having more long rallies (which many like), some will argue it's time to reform the rule to fit the new conditions.

None of the rules are set in stone. They are all a judgment of the authorities on what works reasonably well, and all are potentially subject to change.

But if long rallies indeed require more time between the points then it just makes Rafa's cheating worse. Yes, it may be a good argument (for those who like long rallies) to change the rules for future. However, at the same time it means that the difference between 25s and say 30s is not immaterial. Therefore, it makes breaking the rule even worse.

summerblues wrote:

Red wrote:Time between points isn't set in stone.. it is simply a judgement set by the ATP on how much is 'enough.' With tennis having more long rallies (which many like), some will argue it's time to reform the rule to fit the new conditions.

None of the rules are set in stone. They are all a judgment of the authorities on what works reasonably well, and all are potentially subject to change.

But if long rallies indeed require more time between the points then it just makes Rafa's cheating worse. Yes, it may be a good argument (for those who like long rallies) to change the rules for future. However, at the same time it means that the difference between 25s and say 30s is not immaterial. Therefore, it makes breaking the rule even worse.

Read my posts Summerblues.. my point is Nadal will be fine.
He has already cut down on time between points.. and is play has not been negatively affected at all.
Read my post at 11:17, I explain, it will be his opponent who suffers more than Nadal is he plays quicker between points (apart from maybe against Djokovic).

Red wrote:Read my posts Summerblues.. my point is Nadal will be fine.
He has already cut down on time between points.. and is play has not been negatively affected at all.
Read my post at 11:17, I explain, it will be his opponent who suffers more than Nadal is he plays quicker between points (apart from maybe against Djokovic).

It is not really relevant whether or not he will be fine, that is not the point.

Also, you do not explain, you theorize. So you are suggesting that by taking extra time Rafa was really hurting his chances to win (perhaps for the benefit of the general public)? Possible, but unlikely.

Red wrote:Julius, I don't think we know for sure that every single rule the council agree on is backed by the players... on a smaller scale and with such subjectivity, this is even more the case here.

I could have sworn I asked which is more likely?

Please read (carefully and sloooooowwwwwwllllllllyyyyyyyyyyyyyyy)...

The ATP World Tour requires players to take no more than 25 seconds between serves. In past years, though, umpires rarely enforced the rule — and almost never at Grand Slams, when players by rule should get just 20 seconds. Rafael Nadal and Novak Djokovic, who played in four straight Grand Slam finals through last year’s French Open, regularly flouted the rules, including at the 2011 U.S. Open and, memorably, at last year’s Australian Open final, which took five hours and 53 minutes.

To encourage umpires to step up enforcement, the tour changed the rules. This season, after an umpire has issued a warning for time-wasting, the next instance is punished with the loss of a first serve, not the loss of a point. This lighter penalty was intended to encourage umpires to call it more often. And they have been, to the chagrin of many players, though they had been notified by email before the season and are reminded by umpires before matches.

“The players have been given notice of the change in the rule regarding a second violation and at the same time have been notified that rule of the time between points would be more strictly enforced,” said ATP spokesman Nicola Arzani in an email this week. Arzani added that “it is too early to draw any conclusions in terms of hard comparisons with previous years, but the feedback is that the players are adjusting, as expected, and the pace of play is improved.”

http://blogs.wsj.com/dailyfix/2013/01/11/2013-australian-open-atp-world-tour-time-delay-between-serves/


Despite all this being clear, there is a repeated discussion of this rule.

summerblues wrote: Possible, but unlikely.

It depends on who is playing.
Normally I really don't think it makes a huge difference... Nadal is too good for the majority of his opposition, but in terms of longer points it would benefit the lesser fit player to have extra time to get a few breaths.
As I said, it depends who is the fitter player, eg against Djokovic this may count against Nadal.

JuliusHMarx wrote:

Red wrote:Julius, I don't think we know for sure that every single rule the council agree on is backed by the players... on a smaller scale and with such subjectivity, this is even more the case here.

I could have sworn I asked which is more likely?

Unless there is actually a vote in the top 100, then I don't really know.

hawkeye wrote:

JuliusHMarx wrote:The umpire, by the way, DOES have the discretion to add time between points. But he/she doesn't do it at the request of the player. Possibly because the player might be a bit biased towards himself, whereas the unpire impartially applies the rules. The cad.

I'm not sure if your just trying to be awkward or if you really don't understand the changes that have been made to the ATP rule book. They are concrete changes as the wording within the rule book is now different. Many players have commented on the changes not just Nadal. Are you trying to be funny when you say that Nadal thinks that he rather than the umpire should be the one to decide when a penalty should be given? Or do you really believe that's what he's saying? Nadal makes it clear that the umpire should be the one to decide when players are abusing the system and that it shouldn't be determined by counting seconds on a stop watch.

I understand the changes and I'm not being awkward. I was about to ask you the same question.
The umpire has discretion to extend the time between points. Do you deny that?
I have never said Rafa thinks he, not the umpire, should be the one to decide when a penalty should be given. Not even said anything remotely like that.
Nadal makes it clear that he want more time between points. In a previous interview (last week?) he said he wants that extra time so that he can play at a higher level.

Red wrote:

JuliusHMarx wrote:

Red wrote:Julius, I don't think we know for sure that every single rule the council agree on is backed by the players... on a smaller scale and with such subjectivity, this is even more the case here.

I could have sworn I asked which is more likely?

Unless there is actually a vote in the top 100, then I don't really know.

Would you like me to tell you?

Red wrote:As I said, it depends who is the fitter player

This is actually far from obvious. Maybe yes, maybe no. But that does not really matter. The point is, if the rule is material (i.e., we believe that the kind of play that is possible depends on it) then it makes it less acceptable to break the rule.

JuliusHMarx wrote:

Red wrote:

JuliusHMarx wrote:

Red wrote:Julius, I don't think we know for sure that every single rule the council agree on is backed by the players... on a smaller scale and with such subjectivity, this is even more the case here.

I could have sworn I asked which is more likely?

Unless there is actually a vote in the top 100, then I don't really know.

Would you like me to tell you?

Unless you have talked to the top 100.. how would you know?

It's fairly easy to know that the players' council is more likely to represent the players' views than not represent them.

Yes, but it may not always be the case.

laverfan wrote:Please read (carefully and sloooooowwwwwwllllllllyyyyyyyyyyyyyyy)...

The ATP World Tour requires players to take no more than 25 seconds between serves. In past years, though, umpires rarely enforced the rule — and almost never at Grand Slams, when players by rule should get just 20 seconds. Rafael Nadal and Novak Djokovic, who played in four straight Grand Slam finals through last year’s French Open, regularly flouted the rules, including at the 2011 U.S. Open and, memorably, at last year’s Australian Open final, which took five hours and 53 minutes.

To encourage umpires to step up enforcement, the tour changed the rules. This season, after an umpire has issued a warning for time-wasting, the next instance is punished with the loss of a first serve, not the loss of a point. This lighter penalty was intended to encourage umpires to call it more often. And they have been, to the chagrin of many players, though they had been notified by email before the season and are reminded by umpires before matches.

“The players have been given notice of the change in the rule regarding a second violation and at the same time have been notified that rule of the time between points would be more strictly enforced,” said ATP spokesman Nicola Arzani in an email this week. Arzani added that “it is too early to draw any conclusions in terms of hard comparisons with previous years, but the feedback is that the players are adjusting, as expected, and the pace of play is improved.”

http://blogs.wsj.com/dailyfix/2013/01/11/2013-australian-open-atp-world-tour-time-delay-between-serves/


Despite all this being clear, there is a repeated discussion of this rule.

laverfan. You are quoting from a blog! Did you see my cut and paste from the actual ATP rule book. If you want to see the full version it's available on the ATP site. This is a relevant bit.

The procedures for enforcing this rule are as follows:
1) 25 Seconds/Continuous Play
a) Start Stop Watch. The chair umpire must start the stopwatch after the ball
goes out of play or when the players are ordered to play.
b) Time Violation or Code Violation. A Time or Code Violation must be assessed
if the ball is not struck for the next point within the twenty-fi ve (25)
seconds allowed, except if the chair umpire extends the time for special circumstances
defi ned by the ATP. There is no time warning prior to the expiration
of the twenty-fi ve (25) seconds.

If you read this you can see references to stop watches and not discretion. Special circumstances are referred to but they are listed specifically (look back at my cut and paste to see the list) and the general discretion that the umpire used to hold has been removed. This is what Nadal is referring to.

I agree. It's made what should be a simple rule far too complicated. Instead of saying that 25 seconds is a guidline and allowing the umpire to decide when the rule is being abused. The rule is now that 25 seconds is a fixed time (timed with a stop watch) and that any player taking longer will receive a code violation. There are special circumstances when a player can take longer but these circumstances are only those "defined by the ATP" and listed in the rule book. Having to compose such a list is in itself fraught with difficulty and unnecessary if the umpires just continued to have that catch all phrase "discretion". But the umpire no longer can make judgements about what constitutes special circumstances or what is a reasonable amount of time or about when a player is abusing the rules. They must use a stop watch and refer to the list.

I've got no legal training (Ha ha!) but I can clearly see the difference. And it is obvious that the new definitions will cause problems.

How can you see a difference when you are only looking at the new rule? How did the old rule differ?

HE - there are at least 3 occassions in the rules you posted where the umpire can use his own discretion/judgement.
They are intended to stop players abusing the rule that has been in place for 20 years. One specific rule that has always been in place (but not always enforced) is that no extra time should be allowed for recovery. Rafa clearly states he wants extra time for recovery i.e. he wants the rule to be ignored or changed. For his own benefit.

From 2013, on both the ATP World Tour and ATP Challenger Tour, a time violation between points (25 seconds) will be penalised in the first instance with a warning. For the second and all subsequent violations, the penalty will be a fault for the server and a point penalty for the receiver. Currently, the rule is a warning and then point penalty for both the server and receiver.

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

Official (non-blog) version from ATP....

Is that better, HE?

Rafa may be self-serving, but it doesnt mean he is wrong. An acknowledgement that him serving punctually has had little/no bearing on his season. Interesting to note that the three notorious time wasters, JMDP, Rafa & Nole have been assembled very good starts to 2013. So their worlds have not fallen due to their tactic of time wasting being outlawed. Truth be told, the rule does create some really ugly tennis once the players have clocked some mileage- for all its five-set-thrillernerss, Federer-Murray AO was at times a dogs breakfast, the final wasnt much better. Neither was the Dubai final. Only final that really impressed me, ironically was Mexico, but that was more because watching a genius dissamble an also-ran makes me feel good about myself

This will end up being an own goal by ATP. It will actually end up favouring guys like Nadal, Murray and Djokovic, i.e. the fittest guys on tour. After long ralleys they'll be the ones with better chance of recovery within 25s, so if anything it will encourage them to prolong ralleys by getting opponents moving left and right for 30 shots knowing their opponent will be less able than them to recover in time. In the long term all this rule does is send the game down the physical route even further by encouraging tactically longer ralleys (not the opposite) to wind opponents, then guys knowing this so they get fitter and fitter and fitter so they can recover within time.

Secondly, this places a lot of onus on players knowing how long the 25s actually is...they may lose track of time after a long/significant point only to be punished. They'll have to ensure the current on court clock has a 2nd hand/digital seconds counter so players can judge time more precisely (but not a shot clock that counts down from 25s each time).

kingraf wrote:Rafa may be self-serving, but it doesnt mean he is wrong.

Most politicians are like that.

kingraf wrote:An acknowledgement that him serving punctually has had little/no bearing on his season. Interesting to note that the three notorious time wasters, JMDP, Rafa & Nole have been assembled very good starts to 2013. So their worlds have not fallen due to their tactic of time wasting being outlawed.

So sticking to the rule was always possible all along, but required a stick to enforce and get it followed. Is that correct? Should I now quote my traffic-speeding example, where consecutive violations increase the punishment severity for each subsequent violation? Is that what we want/need?

kingraf wrote:Truth be told, the rule does create some really ugly tennis once the players have clocked some mileage- for all its five-set-thrillernerss, Federer-Murray AO was at times a dogs breakfast, the final wasnt much better. Neither was the Dubai final. Only final that really impressed me, ironically was Mexico, but that was more because watching a genius dissamble an also-ran makes me feel good about myself

To each his own, KinGraf. Not everyone likes the the same food, either.

lydian wrote:This will end up being an own goal by ATP. It will actually end up favouring guys like Nadal, Murray and Djokovic, i.e. the fittest guys on tour. After long ralleys they'll be the ones with better chance of recovery within 25s, so if anything it will encourage them to prolong ralleys by getting opponents moving left and right for 30 shots knowing their opponent will be less able than them to recover in time. In the long term all this rule does is send the game down the physical route even further by encouraging tactically longer ralleys (not the opposite) to wind opponents, then guys knowing this so they get fitter and fitter and fitter so they can recover within time.

That was not the case in Acapulco. The points were much shorter and aggressive, on Clay.

Let us take Acapulco as an example (and assume that playing conditions are more or less similar),

2013 Final - http://www.atpworldtour.com/Share/Match-Facts-Pop-Up.aspx?t=807&y=2013&r=7&p=F401

65 minutes to play 88 points - 1.35 points/minute

2012 Final - http://www.atpworldtour.com/Share/Match-Facts-Pop-Up.aspx?t=807&y=2012&r=7&p=F401

70 minutes to play 89 points - 1.27 points/minute

2011 Final - http://www.atpworldtour.com/Share/Match-Facts-Pop-Up.aspx?t=807&y=2011&r=7&p=F401

162 minutes to play 218 points - 1.35 points/minute

2005 Final - http://www.atpworldtour.com/Share/Match-Facts-Pop-Up.aspx?t=807&y=2005&r=7&p=N409

52 minutes to play 72 points - 1.38 points/minute

lydian wrote:Secondly, this places a lot of onus on players knowing how long the 25s actually is...they may lose track of time after a long/significant point only to be punished. They'll have ensure the current on court clock has a 2nd hand/digital seconds counter so players can judge better (but not a shot clock that counts down from 25s each time).

This discussion came up yesterday during Fognini-Djokovic match. Both were given time violations. Fognini, after a coaching violation, argued with the lines-person. Djokovic, based on the screen time-between-points, was over the limit. Bernardes had talked to Djokovic and asked him to speed up a bit during a different point in the match (when Djokovic was taking too long to serve), prior to announcing the violation.

Koenig explained that what they showed on screen was from the handheld of Bernardes. When Bernardes calls the score and touches the device with his stylus, is when a timer on the device automatically starts. The TV screen statistics for ATP broadcasts (and apparently TennisTV.com) come from that live feed. He also said that stepping to base-line is not when the clock stops/starts, but when the ball touches the racquet during the service motion to start a point, or when Bernardes calls the score.

If 25 seconds (20 for ITF/Slams) is too short, let that discussion happen in private, in the player council, and ITF, not in a public trial-by-media setting. If it needs to change, let it be 30-40 seconds, but enforcement should be less discretionary, than it has been in the past. You have also suggested that. This is to ensure all players have a uniform code applied to, to level the playing field for the little and big players, equally.

lydian wrote:This will end up being an own goal by ATP. It will actually end up favouring guys like Nadal, Murray and Djokovic, i.e. the fittest guys on tour. After long ralleys they'll be the ones with better chance of recovery within 25s, so if anything it will encourage them to prolong ralleys by getting opponents moving left and right for 30 shots knowing their opponent will be less able than them to recover in time. In the long term all this rule does is send the game down the physical route even further by encouraging tactically longer ralleys (not the opposite) to wind opponents, then guys knowing this so they get fitter and fitter and fitter so they can recover within time.

There's nothing to stop the other players getting fitter if they want to. Except money, of course, for personal trainers, egg chambers etc. But then the top guys can also afford dieticians, the top coaches, better flights/hotels (for better rest) etc etc so that's a wider issue about how it's easier to stay at the top than get to the top.

We also hear a lot about how the likes of Berdych, Tsonga etc would win slams if not for their mental flakiness. The implication being that their fitness is not the issue, but other factors are.

Furthermore, if a player is mkaing another player do all the running and can tactically prolong rallies, then it's their skill in being able to do that that is winning them the match, moreso than their fitness.

It's clear Rafa wants more time in between points to recover, not less time. That's what he's said and he obviously believes it. Of course, it's possible he's got it wrong and he would benefit from less time/25 seconds maximum, but clearly he doesn't think so - he's asked for up to 40 seconds.
Maybe, when playing e.g. Djoko and Murray, he expends more energy (or at least has less energy left) than those guys, so he wants more time to recover to even things up. Or maybe he's not as fit as we thought and it affects him in more matches. He does, IMHO, have a style of play that uses up a lot of energy.

Djokovic has signaled he’s amenable to the change. Referring to last year’s Australian Open final, the world No. 1 said, “As much as it was a pleasure to be part of such a classic match and in history, I think nobody likes to spend six hours on the court.”

http://tennis.si.com/2013/01/11/novak-djokovic-time-violation-rules/