Research into the use of the time violation rule - NEW petition expessing concern about it's inconsistant use

First topic message reminder :

I am doing a little research into the application of the time violation rule. Players are meant to take no more than 25 seconds between points. If they take longer they are meant to be given a warning on the first violation and on subsequent ones lose a first serve. It is proving difficult to find information on the number of penalties handed out and if the rule is being enforced correctly. If anyone is interested maybe they could help?

I would like to know of any instances when players have received a warning or loss of first serve and what the score was at the time.

How often players go over 25 seconds without being penalized.

The first question could be perhaps partly answered from memory and partly from noting new incidents

The second question could be answered by watching parts of any match and timing a few points. I've found this easy to do by using the timer that appears when you rewind or slow live TV as it shows the seconds but a watch or clock would work fine. According to the ATP rule book timing should start when the ball goes out of play and stop when the ball is struck for the next point. I have gathered some information but it's impossible to watch all matches so any information would be useful. 



NEW petition expressing concern about the inconsistent use of the time violation rule

Time limits for tennis players? Time for a response - a request to the ATP & ITF

We want to bring to your urgent attention the fact that growing numbers of tennis fans are raising serious concerns about the inconsistent application of the Time Violation Warning rule in ATP and ITF tournaments. This is beginning to spoil our enjoyment of this exceptional sport.

Umpires are currently issuing warnings randomly and arbitrarily, with some players who persistently go over the time limit not being penalised, and others regularly being given a warning.

In addition, it has been noted that the first warning of a match is suddenly given at a crucial point in a game - e.g. at break point - even when the time has been exceeded previously. We are concerned that this practice could significantly alter the outcome of a match.

We, the undersigned, urge you to find a way of regularising the application of the rule and respectfully request a formal response to the specific concerns highlighted in this petition.

Thank you.

http://www.ipetitions.com/petition/time-limits-for-tennis-players-time-for-a

Mad for Chelsea wrote:
As for temp's question of whether people were actually bothered by it, then I would say that Yes, I am. Watching Nadal-Djokovic at times is painful: I have time to switch over to the cricket, watch a couple of overs, and get back just in time to see Nadal finish unpicking his boxers or Djokovic finish bouncing the ball. Gets a bit silly, and at times has actually annoyed me enough to switch the match off.

Temp does this to deflect away from the fact that Nadal and Djokovic are pushing the limits in an effort to gain control. Is it acceptable that the returner of serve has to wait an extra 10 seconds through time wasting thus losing his rhythm? I've seen players take 25 seconds to serve again after a 30 shot rally, compared to Nadal who takes longer than that for a 15 shot rally

Just a few reminders.

Mad for Chelsea wrote:

Then enforce it STRICTLY. Only exceptions change of racquet for a broken string (an additional 5 or 10 secs say), and of course a linecall dispute (HE challenge, or Umpire checking a mark on clay). No other exceptions, remove the "discretion" for long points, which just makes things murkier, and IMO encourages players to push the limits, knowing that umpires are still somewhat reluctant to enforce them. Players WILL adapt, I am absolutely sure of it.

The rule change in 2013 took away Umpires discretion. They have to time points with a stop watch starting when the ball goes out of play and give a time violation if the ball is not served within 25 seconds. It is quite explicit. For example this is from the rule book

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.

The rule is there it's clear but for some reason it's not being enforced (apart from on rare occasions when it is most damaging to one player) Please note I have only quoted part of the rulebook. The rest is available on the ATP site    

Jahu wrote:I would also take away the towels, they have a break, serve once, asks for towel after 10 seconds on court. Let alone Nadal with 2 towels on each corner.

Ban the towels, wipe your face with your t-shirts or sweatband.

Asking for towel and wiping, is the biggest time consumption between points.

There are no rules about what a player does in the 25 seconds.

The answer to the question about whether notice the odd extra second or two is quite obvious. They don't. No one appears to have noticed that all players do regularly. The exception is Nadal as there are many that notice that he does and may be put off watching him. It's interesting that a few can remember Djokovic's extravagant ball bouncing but they fail to recognize that he still takes as long as 40 seconds if need be. One of the most popular players on the tour plays relatively quickly and the other one plays relatively slowly. So in general popularity isn't affected by the odd second between points.

I thought this article posted by laverfan was interesting.

laverfan wrote:Lydian used http://www.riaanbooysen.com/misc/47-tennis?start=4 as an extensive reference for his previous discussions.

I can dig up many of the older threads of similar vein, if necessary.

It's not really relevant to this thread as neither of these players were breaking any rules. Prior to 2013 Umpires were given discretion to ensure play was continuous and 25 seconds was just a guideline. So older threads of a similar vein are not relevant. If you have more recent relevant evidence that would be much appreciated  

I thought it was interesting for a different reason. Why was someone so obsessed about the specific time in seconds when no rules were being broken? Odd.

hawkeye wrote:
The rule is there it's clear but for some reason it's not being enforced (apart from on rare occasions when it is most damaging to one player)

I disagree. I have seen it enforced on more than one player. I believe that the players (plural) that break the rule most often, and take the most time over the 25 seconds are, in general, the ones that are punished the most. In that sense it seems relatively fair. It is a good thing for those players (plural) that it is not enforced more rigidly for they would be the ones who would suffer the most.

No-one is being picked on. There is no justification for any persecution complex of conspiracy theory. If it is still the case that Rafa is given more warnings (we have no evidence of this) then this would simply be because he is the one who transgresses most frequently/by the most amount. I don't really see too many people complaining about this - even most Rafa fans accept this with good grace..

Josiah Maiestas wrote:

Mad for Chelsea wrote:
As for temp's question of whether people were actually bothered by it, then I would say that Yes, I am. Watching Nadal-Djokovic at times is painful: I have time to switch over to the cricket, watch a couple of overs, and get back just in time to see Nadal finish unpicking his boxers or Djokovic finish bouncing the ball. Gets a bit silly, and at times has actually annoyed me enough to switch the match off.

Temp does this to deflect away from the fact that Nadal and Djokovic are pushing the limits in an effort to gain control. Is it acceptable that the returner of serve has to wait an extra 10 seconds through time wasting thus losing his rhythm? I've seen players take 25 seconds to serve again after a 30 shot rally, compared to Nadal who takes longer than that for a 15 shot rally

Still cant bring myself to give more than a glancing care, I enjoy snooker and cricket, I can deal quite happily with 30 seconds between points. I still maintain my old stance though, happy for a good system to some along and rule it in a way that isnt arbitrary,
Players do lots of things to disrupt rythm that isnt really in the rules. Bathroom breaks at convenient times are another trick, that gets my goat personally, but I dont think its worth the fuss.

Catching up with the Nadal/Dimitrov match.

Nadal serving at 1-1, 30-40 was issued with a time violation 27 seconds after the ball went out of play. He was broken.

Later in the match Nadal was serving 3-3, 15-0 when Dimitrov broke his raquet. He delayed play by 46 seconds. Nadal served a double fault afterwards. (The time violation rule is also meant to be applied if the receiver delays play).

Yeah I saw that. Total double satndarads as usual when it comes to rafa. that's why the rule is a joke.

would like to see the video to confirm that 27 seconds or a sourced report. If not, how do you know?
obviously people need more time when they break their racket, that is hardly double standards, that is just common sense.

Henman Bill wrote:would like to see the video to confirm that 27 seconds or a sourced report. If not, how do you know?
obviously people need more time when they break their racket, that is hardly double standards, that is just common sense.

You are joking right????

Agree with haddie, you break your raquet, you should get a warning for that alone, not just for wasting time

Assuming Dimi broke his racket deliberately he would/should have received a warning for racket abuse. I would not expect him to then further receive a time violation for fetching a new racket.

JuliusHMarx wrote:Assuming Dimi broke his racket deliberately he would/should have received a warning for racket abuse. I would not expect him to then further receive a time violation for fetching a new racket.

Ill tell Rafa that one

Henman Bill wrote:
obviously people need more time when they break their racket, that is hardly double standards, that is just common sense.

I don't think that's a good enough excuse tbh

Haddie-nuff wrote:

JuliusHMarx wrote:Assuming Dimi broke his racket deliberately he would/should have received a warning for racket abuse. I would not expect him to then further receive a time violation for fetching a new racket.

Ill tell Rafa that one

Which part do you find unreasonable? I have never seen a player given a racket abuse warning and then a time violation on the same point. Have you?

So in your assessment a player who loses control on court, can smash a racquet deliberately, then amble to the bench and exchange it for a new one, at any time during  match, even say match point, keeping his opponent waiting for 45 seconds, thus disrupting the flow of play, as opposed to taking 2 seconds over the time limit when serving, is acceptable is it ??? Not to be accused of gamesmanship or penalised.WOW  Oh yeah,??? I  would love to say let us see it if Rafa tries it but we know it wont happen don't we... the reason?  He has never smashed a racquet in his career. And he is thus penalised for that and crucified for 2 seconds. Fair play??? only when it applies to Nadal

Any player that breaks a racquet it's because of losing your cool, not the same thing with regards to time wasting, as you already know HN. Fair play to Nadal not breaking his racquets but that's not the issue here, you are just wanting to change the topic to racquets when it's about breaking the time rule.

Its a double warning then. Breaking your raquet does not under the new ruling constitute a special reason for more time. In short, dont break your raquet

Haddie-nuff wrote:So in your assessment a player who loses control on court, can smash a racquet deliberately, then amble to the bench and exchange it for a new one, at any time during  match, even say match point, keeping his opponent waiting for 45 seconds, thus disrupting the flow of play, as opposed to taking 2 seconds over the time limit when serving, is acceptable is it ??? Not to be accused of gamesmanship or penalised.WOW  Oh yeah,??? I  would love to say let us see it if Rafa tries it but we know it wont happen don't we... the reason?  He has never smashed a racquet in his career. And he is thus penalised for that and crucified for 2 seconds. Fair play??? only when it applies to Nadal

No, obviously from my post, that isn't my assessment. I'm not sure which part I wasn't clear on.

You don't break your racquet thinking that you can disrupt the opponent and wait longer to play the next point.

Josiah Maiestas wrote:Any player that breaks a racquet it's because of losing your cool, not the same thing with regards to time wasting, as you already know HN. Fair play to Nadal not breaking his racquets but that's not the issue here, you are just wanting to change the topic to racquets when it's about breaking the time rule.

.


That is not the point of my argument and you know it There is nothing, but nothing, stopping a player doing just that when they know they are not going to be penalised. It amounts to the same thing, There are ways to disrupt a match at any stage and you know it. And this according to you can be used to waste time without penalty.. But I know better than to attempt to discuss this with you.. If you ever decide to take up umpiring please way until Nadal retires
Forget it JHM I know precisely where you stand on this matter

HN doing her bit for Nadal as usual.

I'm assuming he was penalised for racket abuse - he should have been, and if he wasn't then the umpire was in the wrong.

You don't seem to know where I stand, because you keep putting your own incorrect interpretations on what I write.

Josiah Maiestas wrote:You don't break your racquet thinking that you can disrupt the opponent and wait longer to play the next point.

And you know that do you ???
Lets get this straight Im not just talking about what happened with Dimo today,  Im talking about ANY PLAYER PLAYING ANY PLAYER  ( there are those among us that cant read you understand). It applies to ALL, make and exception as has been said on this thread, and you open the gates for all. NO MATTER WHO IT IS

JuliusHMarx wrote:I'm assuming he was penalised for racket abuse - he should have been, and if he wasn't then the umpire was in the wrong.  

You don't seem to know where I stand, because you keep putting your own incorrect interpretations on what I write.

Then might I suggest you do not leave yourself open to such misinterpretations

I wrote this "Assuming Dimi broke his racket deliberately he would/should have received a warning for racket abuse. I would not expect him to then further receive a time violation for fetching a new racket."

The reason for the latter is because "I have never seen a player given a racket abuse warning and then a time violation on the same point"

For consistency of umpiring, I thus would not expect Dimi to have been punished twice on one point. But of course, I would have expected him to be punished.

JuliusHMarx wrote:I wrote this "Assuming Dimi broke his racket deliberately he would/should have received a warning for racket abuse. I would not expect him to then further receive a time violation for fetching a new racket."

The reason for the latter is because "I have never seen a player given a racket abuse warning and then a time violation on the same point"

For consistency of umpiring, I thus would not expect Dimi to have been punished twice on one point. But of course, I

would have expected him to be punished.

Fine then we agree to disagree, there is only one person who can obviously be accused of time wasting....
who is that now??? I have put forward a valid point and you choose to ignore the possibility that there is a current player or maybe a future player that could abuse this excuse for time wasting.. fine.. then I don't agree . As I said you have made it more than clear where you stand END OF.................

But if the goal was to waste time, why break the racket, why not just look at the racket, say 'oh a string is going, I need to get another one', then faff around in the bag - and then hope the umpire believes you and you don't get a warning. By breaking a racket, you guarantee a warning.
To break a racket in order to waste time makes no sense.
You seem to want Dimi punished twice, simply because he was playing Nadal - that's favouritism and biased. I want to see him punished the same way as all other players in the past, regardless of who he was playing - which is the fairest, most unbiased way.

You seem to want Dimi punished twice, simply because he was playing Nadal - that's favouritism and biased. I want to see him punished the same way as all other players in the past, regardless of who he was playing - which is the fairest, most unbiased way


Look back at HE's post ..... really >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

Haddie-nuff wrote:

Josiah Maiestas wrote:You don't break your racquet thinking that you can disrupt the opponent and wait longer to play the next point.

And you know that do you ???
Lets get this straight Im not just talking about what happened with Dimo today,  Im talking about ANY PLAYER PLAYING ANY PLAYER  ( there are those among us that cant read you understand). It applies to ALL, make and exception as has been said on this thread, and you open the gates for all. NO MATTER WHO It iS

Did you even read this

Haddie-nuff wrote:You seem to want Dimi punished twice, simply because he was playing Nadal - that's favouritism and biased. I want to see him punished the same way as all other players in the past, regardless of who he was playing - which is the fairest, most unbiased way


Look back at HE's post ..... really  >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

Surely, since the discussion is with yourself, I should be looking at your posts?
HE's post does not say whether Dimi received a racket abuse warning or not. If he did not, then that was a mistake by the umpire. If he did, then that follows standard and established umpiring protocol. To give a racket abuse warning, followed by a time violation would, I think, be unprecedented. I don't see any reason why Dimi should be the first player to ever be given such punishment.

Well the thing is dimi broke the time rule even if he did not mean to. If we're saying we should only apply it if the person has broken it deliberately to waste time then we get very subjective on this.

You're still in the booth, Julius? Grounds for a recount, surely

I'm not sure of the exact rules, but is there anything which says you can't get 2 different violations for one incident ?

JuliusHMarx wrote:
To break a racket in order to waste time makes no sense.

Is the rule applied to all cases of breaking the time rule, or when you can be sure a player intentionally deliberately breaks the rules ?
If the latter, then doesn't that muddy things in general ?

All I'm saying is this "To give a racket abuse warning, followed by a time violation would, I think, be unprecedented. I don't see any reason why Dimi should be the first player to ever be given such punishment.2

Can anyone explain why they think otherwise in this particular incident, as to why it should be treated differently from all other such previous incidents?

Is it because it was vs Nadal?

JuliusHMarx wrote:
Is it because it was vs Nadal?

No, no; who you play should have nothing to do with it.

JuliusHMarx wrote:All I'm saying is this "To give a racket abuse warning, followed by a time violation would, I think, be unprecedented. I don't see any reason why Dimi should be the first player to ever be given such punishment.2

Can anyone explain why they think otherwise in this particular incident, as to why it should be treated differently from all other such previous incidents?

My question wasn't on whether there was a precedent, but on what the rules say.

Dimi got a warning for racquet abuse.

End of the matter for me.

legendkillarV2 wrote:Dimi got a warning for racquet abuse.

End of the matter for me.

Yes and if he was abusing his racquet in his own time that would be the end of the matter (unless he did it again). But he was also not playing at the reasonable pace of the server. 46 seconds is by no means reasonable. That carries a stiffer penalty and as it was deliberate it should have been assessed as a code violation and not a mere time violation. A code violation results in a point penalty.

From the rule book (I haven't obviously quoted the whole ATP rule book )

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.

It's funny how the same people get all hot under the collar and are happy for Nadal to be victimized on break points with time violations (a harsh penalty indeed given the timing) are the same ones who say "not bothered" or similar when other players are allowed to do the same without penalty. They also are the same ones that are happy for more serious violations to go unpunished. So they appear to be in favor of strict rule enforcement but only for one player. Odd!

But he wasn't employing gamesmanship, so why should he have received a point penalty?

Because he was playing Rafa and all is never "fair" apparently.

I think this thread has outlived itself, now it has started to be kept alive with silly pro Rafa defense.

Timing Rafa here. Last game he went:

28, 27 and 25 seconds. None of the points were long or important.

Now you're just picking on him

Stop mentioning Rafa everyone the dimi incident has nothing to do with his opponent. The point is he got one warning for the racquet. However he also broke the time rule. By letter if the law which many seem to advocate he should get a second warning. There's some ridiculous idea of it being unfair or he should be let off because he didn't mean to. Why does that apply to dimi and not other people? The rule isn't enforced consistently, you can't tell me you want to apply letter of the law to Rafa but dimi didn't mean it soo he's kosher.   It's one trench against another. So are we being lenient with it, or strict? Enforce it a lot or a little? Or is everyone's opinion only appky when it's rafa were on about?  Let's at least keep it consistent eh

temporary21 wrote:Stop mentioning Rafa everyone

temporary21 wrote:apply letter of the law to Rafa but dimi...is everyone's opinion only appky when it's rafa were on about?

I do not think anyone suggested one rule should be applied to Rafa and another for others. Maybe you should heed your own advice

No but thats the implication. People want a blanket rule when were on about rafas violation but when its dimi its all he didnt mean it and he shouldnt have it applied to him. It doesnt need to be said, people are so inconsistent about it thats what they mean

If im to be convinced this whole thing is anything but a thinly veiled excuse for the old rafa trench war, I need to know why people think dimi should not have got a warning, but its black and white for another.

So? What is it?

temporary21 wrote:No but thats the implication.

No, why? Again, heed your own advice - you only think this is the implication because for *you* it is all about Rafa.

temporary21 wrote:No but thats the implication. People want a blanket rule when were on about rafas violation but when its dimi its all he didnt mean it and he shouldnt have it applied to him. It doesnt need to be said, people are so inconsistent about it thats what they mean

If im to be convinced this whole thing is anything but a thinly veiled excuse for the old rafa trench war, I need to know why people think dimi should not have got a warning, but its black and white for another.

So? What is it?

Don't spoil their fun temp its a 606v pastime Rafa fans are well aware of the reasons behind the whole subject of time violation.  Daring to even mention another player on this thread less it detract from the Rafa bashing, did anyone bother to time Raonic yesterday against Murray... I bet not.. I don't think he had much less than 27/28 seconds between serves.  But that's ok he at least didn't smash a racquet and his name is not Nadal

If you dont want this to be all about Rafa, perhaps you should all start timing other players to...

This has been going on nearly a decade now

hawkeye wrote:

legendkillarV2 wrote:Dimi got a warning for racquet abuse.

End of the matter for me.

Yes and if he was abusing his racquet in his own time that would be the end of the matter (unless he did it again). But he was also not playing at the reasonable pace of the server. 46 seconds is by no means reasonable. That carries a stiffer penalty and as it was deliberate it should have been assessed as a code violation and not a mere time violation. A code violation results in a point penalty.

From the rule book (I haven't obviously quoted the whole ATP rule book )

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.

It's funny how the same people get all hot under the collar and are happy for Nadal to be victimized on break points with time violations (a harsh penalty indeed given the timing) are the same ones who say "not bothered" or similar when other players are allowed to do the same without penalty. They also are the same ones that are happy for more serious violations to go unpunished. So they appear to be in favor of strict rule enforcement but only for one player. Odd!

So as you want to take this to pedantic levels, what shall one do if the crowd doesn't settle down between points? Shall we time the server and punish accordingly? How about if either player breaks a string and decides to change racquet between points? Punish the offender? Or how about after a point a player decides to challenge the umpire? Shall we punish the offender?

legendkillarV2 wrote:

hawkeye wrote:

legendkillarV2 wrote:Dimi got a warning for racquet abuse.

End of the matter for me.

Yes and if he was abusing his racquet in his own time that would be the end of the matter (unless he did it again). But he was also not playing at the reasonable pace of the server. 46 seconds is by no means reasonable. That carries a stiffer penalty and as it was deliberate it should have been assessed as a code violation and not a mere time violation. A code violation results in a point penalty.

From the rule book (I haven't obviously quoted the whole ATP rule book )

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.

It's funny how the same people get all hot under the collar and are happy for Nadal to be victimized on break points with time violations (a harsh penalty indeed given the timing) are the same ones who say "not bothered" or similar when other players are allowed to do the same without penalty. They also are the same ones that are happy for more serious violations to go unpunished. So they appear to be in favor of strict rule enforcement but only for one player. Odd!

So as you want to take this to pedantic levels, what shall one do if the crowd doesn't settle down between points? Shall we time the server and punish accordingly? How about if either player breaks a string and decides to change racquet between points? Punish the offender? Or how about after a point a player decides to challenge the umpire? Shall we punish the offender?

Let me remind you that this is all about the time bewteen the tennis, a period of difference of about 5 seconds. This is not even anything to do with whats going on during the tennis. Should we also time toilet breaks if they go over a few seconds? What if the guy has a bad stomach? This is way OTT for me, and I mean from both ends of the argument here.