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

temporary21 wrote: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

Clearly this thread is about Rafa - HE specifically started it with the purpose of claiming that the rules get unfairly applied to him.  Also, in general, the discussion on whether Rafa is one of the worst abusers of the time rule has no reason to go away - of course it has been around for nearly a decade.

All I was saying was that the argument that Dimi should not be punished for time violation related to his racquet breaking does not have anything to do with Rafa.

So, it is funny when you:

First, interpret it to be about Rafa
Second, admonish people for making it about Rafa
Third, you yourself make it about Rafa

It just seems that you are more in violation of your own advice than just about anyone else on this thread.

Breaking a racquet does not come into the categories you list above.. it is a deliberate act through loss of control by the player. The same as hitting a ball into the crowd deliberately, throwing water bottles at ball boys or girls.
It is unacceptable behaviour,as is,  according to the majority of opinion about time wasting between points, by the player himself. There are various situations that can be classed as gamesmanship and this comes high on the list. imo . Raquet abuse is quite a separate issue and should be penalised by the umpire, however when because of that racquett abuse the player crosses the line into time wasting, that is another penalty. As for disputes with the Umpire, he should know if it is a legitimate complaint or an excuse for time wasting. A separate issue once again. Time to turn the screw on umpires, they earn enough money

temporary21 wrote:

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.

Let me remind you that all of the scenarios I mentioned do and can happen before the next point. So relevant seeing as we want to see players punished for racquet abuse and a time violation.

Rules are rules. The OP wants it enforced no matter what causes a server or receiver to delay the point.

summerblues wrote:

temporary21 wrote: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

Clearly this thread is about Rafa - HE specifically started it with the purpose of claiming that the rules get unfairly applied to him.  Also, in general, the discussion on whether Rafa is one of the worst abusers of the time rule has no reason to go away - of course it has been around for nearly a decade.

All I was saying was that the argument that Dimi should not be punished for time violation related to his racquet breaking does not have anything to do with Rafa.

So, it is funny when you:

First, interpret it to be about Rafa
Second, admonish people for making it about Rafa
Third, you yourself make it about Rafa

It just seems that you are more in violation of your own advice than just about anyone else on this thread.

Yet you yourself are far more interested in being pedantic about my own advice, than to actually answer my question about why Dimi should be let off, given the stance taken on this rule in the thread.
I have to reply to other peoples points SB, I cant NOT make my post about rafa, its the only thing people are talking about. I express my own disappointment in that, that it isnt a wider discussion about how to enforce or change the rule.

legendkillarV2 wrote:

temporary21 wrote:

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.

Let me remind you that all of the scenarios I mentioned do and can happen before the next point. So relevant seeing as we want to see players punished for racquet abuse and a time violation.

Rules are rules. The OP wants it enforced no matter what causes a server or receiver to delay the point.

Yes your'e totally right, i'm not criticising your point at all, in fact I agree. I just want to make the point exactly what all the fuss is really about

temporary21 wrote:

legendkillarV2 wrote:

temporary21 wrote:

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.

Let me remind you that all of the scenarios I mentioned do and can happen before the next point. So relevant seeing as we want to see players punished for racquet abuse and a time violation.

Rules are rules. The OP wants it enforced no matter what causes a server or receiver to delay the point.

Yes your'e totally right, i'm not criticising your point at all, in fact I agree. I just want to make the point exactly what all the fuss is really about

The fuss clearly is that the OP feels one player is singled out more than most. If that is her view, I am fine with it.

Just means she has made a rod for her own back so I will await her further research for the year

temporary21 wrote:than to actually answer my question about why Dimi should be let off

Why should I answer that? I did not take any stance on the topic. I am just saying that those who did did not seem to be relating it to Rafa.

I do not have much opinion on Dimi issue. I would say that in order to be consistent with how the refereeing is done currently (i.e., players only get punished for many repeated violations rather than every time they go over the time limit) it makes more sense to NOT punish Dimi (who is otherwise quite fast between points).

But if referees started to apply the rule more rigorously - i.e., time violation pretty much every time you go over the limit - then yes, I would be inclined to think racquet breaking induced time violations should also be punished.

People has completely misinterpreted what I said...

Theres discussion here that peoples insistence that Dimi should be given a time violation is because he was playing Rafa. THAT is what shouldnt be about Rafa, if we are to be enforcing this properly, his opponent should not matter, in the same way that the identity of the server should not matter.

This is a wide discussion about umpires rule enforcement, that its juts become about Rafa is a bit of a dissapointment.

I reiterate my question .. did anyone watch Raonic v Murray yesterday
Did anyone time Raonic..? Don't tell me he did not violate the time rule

Pleonastic debate rules supreme!

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?

It's not my implication temp. I'd like to know why people think dimi should be punished twice in one point when that's never, to my knowledge, happened before. People are implying that it's unfair that dimi wasn't punished twice - why? Why is it suddenly so important that dimi gets two warnings, when there was no outcry when any other player did it over the years?

I don't think anyone wants Rafa, and only Rafa, to be punished every time he goes over the 25 seconds - no-one has said that, have they?

Then why did you accuse he of mentioning this point just because Rafa was the opponent? Is that really relevant? We both know he too well but in the wider scheme if this rule it's an interesting point. One side is crying favouritism cause it's rafa. On the flip side the others are calling favouritism because it's Rafa...    I think dimis sitch is interesting but let's take the players out if it

I agree it is not about Dimi per se.. but the whole subject of time violation comes under the microscope when once you apply it to the letter. Time violation takes on many forms, the racquet breaking scenario being one of them. Dimi's situation is not to be taken in isolation, as temp says, the fact that he was playing Rafa is immaterial. It was taken  as an example because it came up in HE's statistics.. it could have been Fognini playing Jo Bloggs it matters not. But as HE has highlighted this particular example you have to see it in context. Im sure it was not a deliberate act to make use of the time by Dimi (does not seem that type of player) However you must see that it leaves the door open for abuse of this nature. So another thing that the Umpire should be strict about.

Why else would HE mention it?

I'm pretty sure, but may be wrong, that HE's point is that Rafa is/was treated unfairly, and to illustrate this, gave Dimi as an example of how other players are let off. But no player, none, gets a time violation every time they go over 25 seconds - not Rafa, not anyone.

As I've said before, at the moment, those players who transgress the most are the ones that get punished the most. If the rule was more strictly enforced, it would be exactly the same, except those players would get more warnings. Either way, it seems pretty fair to me. What is unfair about those who transgress the most getting punished the most?

Nothing you are right. But let it apply to everyone, I have already highlighted others, but it still keeps coming back to Rafa. The argument is not about whether Rafa should be penalised (I agree he should) but whether the same rule is applied to others ie Raonic yesterday never even got a warning. The whole thread keeps coming back to Rafa, and nobody else.From my perspective that IS unfair

JuliusHMarx wrote:Why else would HE mention it?

I'm pretty sure, but may be wrong, that HE's point is that Rafa is/was treated unfairly, and to illustrate this, gave Dimi as an example of how other players are let off. But no player, none, gets a time violation every time they go over 25 seconds - not Rafa, not anyone.

As I've said before, at the moment, those players who transgress the most are the ones that get punished the most. If the rule was more strictly enforced, it would be exactly the same, except those players would get more warnings. Either way, it seems pretty fair to me. What is unfair about those who transgress the most getting punished the most?

I think the main point I that the use of a rule should not be a "general trend" but a consistently enforced thing. Then it isnt "likely" that the most transgressions leads to the most warnings, it will be a fact.
A rule isnt just about who breaks it the most, you cant just leave it at that, if its not used properly over the whole spectrum, noonne is ever going to have respect for it.

We both im sure suspect with HE, why this is a big thing, but theres no need to poke the bear so to speak. Lets discuss this without the need for knowing the players

Nadal had this to say about time violations after the Dimitrov match.

Q.  You received a time warning.  Maybe it was not the best timing, right?  Did it disturb you?
RAFAEL NADAL:  In the break point?

Q.  Yeah.
RAFAEL NADAL:  You know, I received it in a set point against, I received it in a set point against, a second warning, so I had to serve second serve.
Something that is not new for me.  I know sometimes I'm slow, but I don't know.  Sometimes I feel that ‑‑ Mohammed is a great umpire, but I feel sometimes that the umpires are only‑‑ they are watching the watch.
There are more things happening on the match that they have to take care of.  I'm not talking for Mohammed, but in general, seems like since few years ago the most important thing of tennis is the time now.
I played eight, nine years of my career using the same time I am using now and I receive just very few warnings for time.
I really don't know who had that interest few years ago to put that‑‑ not a new rule‑‑ but to be very, very strict on that rule.  I am not against, but why you have to be very strict in that rule when we are not that strict in another rules.
I never, during nine years, heard an umpire, when we were at the net, saying, 25 seconds between points.  Since three years ago, before every single match I heard, 25 seconds between the points from the umpire.  They say the rule didn't change, okay?
Something change, and I don't know who had that interest to change that.  But at the end of the day, I have to be quicker, I know.  The umpires have to be a little bit better on the other rules.  Have to be a little bit better taking positions like last what happened in Estoril.  They didn't take the right decision in a very important moment.
So the things have to be fair for everybody, not only in one particular thing.  In my opinion, there is another lot of worse things happening on the other side of the net sometimes that are for sure not the best example for the kids and for everybody.  For sure worst example than being a little bit slower.
Seems like that's not that important than being maybe five, six seconds late.  So accept is always my fault.  I am slower than what I have to be.
But at the end of the day, the umpires have to be more strict on all the rules, not only on this one.

Haddie-nuff wrote: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.

Born Slippy wrote:Timing Rafa here. Last game he went:

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

Great work I have been hoping that people would actually time players. These figures back up what I have found. ie it is routine for players to go over 25 seconds without penalty. Occasionally a player may get a warning on a non important point but if they just get a few a year it is a bit of a joke. The only player who has been punished harshly and repeatedly by this rule is Nadal. This is because he is being targeted on break and even set points with penalties and has lost sets and matches on the back of it. I'm not surprised that he wasn't given a time violation in the Berdych match that Born Slippy timed because he never gave away a single break point in that match. Like other players no one is "bothered" if he takes 27 seconds unless it is a crucial point. Then suddenly the rule is applied to the letter. In the Dimitrov match Nadal gave just one break point away in the second set (I think?) and was given a time violation at 27 seconds.

I am still gathering information but the evidence so far suggests that the rule is being used corruptly.

I'd timed Rafa too during the Dimi and the Berdych matches, he was much slower in that Dimi match but was much much better during the Berdych match. He was over the limit by 2 to 3 secs and also for only a few points in the Berdych match. James Keatavong the umpire for the Berdych match was nice enough to remind Rafa about that during changeover, and Rafa had not gone over the limit since. I think that's the better way of doing things, and sincerely hope that Rafa can keep to the time limit like what he has done in the Berdych match. The match was relatively quick paced, not much time delay, and I like the pace at which the match was played, not slow and not too quick.

hawkeye wrote:

Haddie-nuff wrote: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.

Born Slippy wrote:Timing Rafa here. Last game he went:

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

Great work I have been hoping that people would actually time players. These figures back up what I have found. ie it is routine for players to go over 25 seconds without penalty. Occasionally a player may get a warning on a non important point but if they just get a few a year it is a bit of a joke. The only player who has been punished harshly and repeatedly by this rule is Nadal. This is because he is being targeted on break and even set points with penalties and has lost sets and matches on the back of it. I'm not surprised that he wasn't given a time violation in the Berdych match that Born Slippy timed because he never gave away a single break point in that match. Like other players no one is "bothered" if he takes 27 seconds unless it is a crucial point. Then suddenly the rule is applied to the letter. In the Dimitrov match Nadal gave just one break point away in the second set (I think?) and was given a time violation at 27 seconds.

I am still gathering information but the evidence so far suggests that the rule is being used corruptly.

I timed 16 points on Rafa's serve in the first set. He was over 25 seconds on 10/16 occasions. What I found intriguing though was that Berdych only won 3 of those 16 points. After each point Berdych won Rafa took between 33-35 seconds - by some distance the three slowest gaps. As you say, Rafa didn't face any really important points on his serve. I strongly suspect he would be slower still if he was facing a break point. It is probably for that reason he tends to get warnings on those points.

I also timed 24 points on Berdych's serve. He was over 25 seconds on 6/24 occasions. By far his longest though (34 seconds) was when he was break point down.

Lol corrupt.

Please note that any allegations of corruption will need convincing evidence (i.e. a lot more convincing that anything presented thus far) in order to remain posted on the site. This is for the protection of the forum and the admins.

Born Slippy wrote:

I timed 16 points on Rafa's serve in the first set. He was over 25 seconds on 10/16 occasions. What I found intriguing though was that Berdych only won 3 of those 16 points. After each point Berdych won Rafa took between 33-35 seconds - by some distance the three slowest gaps. As you say, Rafa didn't face any really important points on his serve. I strongly suspect he would be slower still if he was facing a break point. It is probably for that reason he tends to get warnings on those points.

I also timed 24 points on Berdych's serve. He was over 25 seconds on 6/24 occasions. By far his longest though (34 seconds) was when he was break point down.

Great to see some actual figures I've found that players do tend to take longer on break points and over 30 seconds is certainly not unusual. I haven't yet seen a case were a player has been given a penalty on a brake point though let alone a set point (apart from Rafa). I'm not surprised that both Berdych and Nadal were regularly going over 25 seconds because all the timings I've done show this. Berdych isn't a particularly slow player either. Of the 40 points that you timed 16 were over the limit. The ATP have in place a rule that no one can keep.

In the Dimitrov match Nadal was given a time violation on brake point at 27 seconds so that wasn't by any means particularly slow for any player. But it was Nadal and it was a break point and it was over 25 seconds.

JuliusHMarx wrote:Please note that any allegations of corruption will need convincing evidence (i.e. a lot more convincing that anything presented thus far) in order to remain posted on the site. This is for the protection of the forum and the admins.

Don't want to get anyone in trouble. What word should I use in future for a rule that is being targeted at one particular player? I was using the dictionary definition of corrupt but any of these would be equally descriptive.

dishonest, dishonourable, unscrupulous, unprincipled, amoral, untrustworthy, underhand, deceitful, double-dealing, disreputable, discreditable, shameful, scandalous;

You need proof that is it being targeted at one particular player. So far nothing remotely resembling proof has been presented. From what has been presented so far, there does not appear to be any favouritism/bias/corruption etc.

None of those words actually apply to anything that has yet been presented.

For example "He (Rafa) was over the limit by 2 to 3 secs and also for only a few points in the Berdych match. James Keatavong the umpire for the Berdych match was nice enough to remind Rafa about that during changeover" - this evidence does not support your argument. So you need convincing evidence that also counters the other evidence.

Edit - the most logical conclusion is not that one player is being targeted, but that all players are being targeted - but that those that transgress the most are the ones that are most punished - thus giving the appearance that those players are being targeted.

So can I be clear that you dont care if the rule is enforced properly? Long as its dollied out on average about right (given we dont have any real data on that) then thats ok?

If were gonna be strict about it and have a shot clock, then thats alright, but now im confused, now we dont want to be strict on it?

We dont have any actual data lets be clear here. 16 points here and there wont do. We dont know therefore who really transgresses the most in a match, we just reckon. If were going this route then its gotta be done properly.

This is somewhat off-topic but I came upon it while going through the rulebook and have no better place to post it.

This is from the rulebook - I guess they have to think about all kinds of detail:

Tattoo as Logo

Case: A player arrives on court wearing an approved sleeveless
shirt. The chair umpire notices that the player has a tattoo of the
clothing manufacturer on his upper arm. If there is no issue with the
size, is this allowed?

Decision: No.

Born Slippy wrote:My understanding is that time starts to run from the point at which the umpire calls the score.

I did not know when the time started so checked the rulebook:

A maximum of twenty-five (25) seconds shall elapse from the moment the
ball goes out of play until the time the ball is struck for the next point.

temporary21 wrote:We dont have any actual data lets be clear here. 16 points here and there wont do. We dont know therefore who really transgresses the most in a match, we just reckon. If were going this route then its gotta be done properly.

What do you mean?

We need data from at the very leat the whole match

Ive written a statistical program, nothing but about 10 lines. Im going to record every times in the match of both players and put it up here, for some proper stats, not a tiny, not random sample size.

After that Julius can tag in for this thread, for that is the last I have to give to this thread until something actually changes.

temporary21 wrote:So can I be clear that you dont care if the rule is enforced properly? Long as its dollied out on average about right (given we dont have any real data on that) then thats ok?

If were gonna be strict about it and have a shot clock, then thats alright, but now im confused, now we dont want to be strict on it?

I think everyone would be happy with strict enforcement. I think everyone is also agreed that umpires aren't penalising every time a player goes over 25 seconds. The question is whether Rafa is being unfairly targeted in some way.

temporary21 wrote:Ive written a statistical program, nothing but about 10 lines. Im going to record every times in the match of both players and put it up here, for some proper stats, not a tiny, not random sample size.

Hah, that will be interesting.

temporary21 wrote:We need data from at the very leat the whole match

Ive written a statistical program, nothing but about 10 lines. Im going to record every times in the match of both players and put it up here, for some proper stats, not a tiny, not random sample size.

After that Julius can tag in for this thread, for that is the last I have to give to this thread until something actually changes.

So that will be for Nadal v Murray tonight? Should be interesting to see. I should point out that I recorded every point from 2-1 to 6-6. Whilst obviously a whole match would give a better picture, I would say it gives a pretty good view of that particular match.

I care that's it's enforced sensibly - at the moment that is true in the vast majority of cases, including for Rafa. Common sense currently prevails, so I don't mind they way it is currently enforced.

If it is felt by the ATP that it need to be enforced on every point, then I would not object. Of course, some players would then get punished more than others - almost certainly the same players that currently get punished more than others. If that's what people want, then I'd go along with it.

Those that argue that it should be more strictly enforced will no doubt be angered by any umpire 'having a word' with a any player without actually giving them a warning.

Agree Julius. I should point out that I didn't think either Rafa or Berdy were particularly bad yesterday. They both seemed to play at a reasonable pace.

So long as the reason for lack of enforcement is because the umpires are satisfied that actually speed of play is ok (rather than being scared to penalise certain players) I have no problem with a more discretionary approach.

Haddie-nuff wrote:I reiterate my question .. did anyone watch Raonic v Murray yesterday
Did anyone time Raonic..? Don't tell me he did not violate the time rule

First, of course I did not watch Raonic - Murray - who would?

Second, for the benefit of this thread, I just went through the pain of timing Raonic in his QF vs Murray and Rafa in his QF vs Dimitrov.  I was going to do full matches, but it is very painful going, so I did only the first set in each.

Regarding methodology:  I start from the moment ball goes out of play until the ball toss.  I ignored the first point in each game (as that one tends to take longer and it is hard to get consistency between timing the first point after a changeover vs first point in a game where no changeover occurs).  I also ignored points in which there was a dispute about a line call as those tend to take longer for unrelated reasons.

Here are the results:

Raonic:
over 25 secs: 38% times
over 30 secs: 4%
over 35 secs: none

Rafa:
over 25 secs: 70%
over 30 secs: 15%
over 35 secs: 5%

They both go over time but Rafa is significantly worse.

From all I have seen so far (both my impression from watching tennis as well as the bits of the data we get here) I tend to kind of agree with JHM and BS.  The rule is not fully enforced (I am definitely for stricter enforcement) but at least is seems that the worst offenders are penalized most, so that at least appears reasonable.

Good work SB, so that ends the discussion now right?

None of it is "reasonable" all or nothing, no matter who it is and how often.
Its umpiring should be under the microscope at present, and I do not believe they do not have their favourites either. I agree with HE it is questionable. Constantly singling out one player above all others, no matter whether he is worse or not, the others are still offending.

Analogy a man murders one man another three, are you only going to find the latter guilty and punishable..... ??? really

What was the mean and variance of those times? How much on average are they worse.

By the current rule they both should have been defaulted, as such I dont think the current rule is in any way good. The old rule with umpires discretion however, would be fairly reasonable I think

I think what James Keatevong had done is about right, ie have a few words with the player concerned first, and then issue the official warning later. I mean, each point is different, the players are not machines, so sometimes they take a longer time and sometimes they don't. I rewatched the Nadal vs Berdych match again and timed both of them; of the 55 points that Rafa served, about 6 were above 30 secs (never over 34 secs); of the 73 that Berdych served, 7 were above 30 sec ( not over 34 sec). I'm excluding the tiebreak here and also the very first service point of each game. Both did go over 25 secs for some of the rest of the points but usually by only 1-3 secs, Rafa as usual was the one doing it more often than Berdych.

Comparing the two SFs, both finished around one hour and 43 mins, Nadal/Berdych played 20 games including one TB; Murray/Nishikori played 19 games, so average time per game is 5 to 5 + half mins, not unusually long for s clay court match. Seriously, with all the spectators cheering for some or many amazing points, who really care how long each opponent takes between points? It will be tedious and disruptive for players, umpires and spectators if the umpires have to issue TV warnings each and every time a player goes over 25 secs, I did time the other matches not involving Rafa, the players did go over the time limit too. It's the norm, not the exception, so if they are to strictly sticking to the rule, all players except Fed and Stan would be penalized almost always,

Do we really want to see all these TVs issued more often, with the players arguing with the umpires frequently? I think that's more disruptive and detract from continuity of play. I did see Rafa hurry up a bit after Keatevong gave him a few words, so I think that should be the way forward, with TV issued if the player doesn't heed the umpire's prior unofficial warning.

I think James and Mohammed call it about right. ask for the hurry up, cal it if you get a block of way over times. However by the letter of the law they are not doing their job properly at all. They were before the rule came in though

When the rule is applied fairly, and seen to be so, across the board I think the players will respond by speeding up their game of their own accord.
Its the inconsistency of umpiring that frustrates players and fans alike.imo
Rules are rules but please let it be fair.

As far as I can see from the evidence available so far, it is fair at the moment.
It is only when one's preferred player is affected that it can appear unfair.

Rafa was 11% of the time >30 sec (6 out of 55), and 29% >25 sec < 30 sec.(16 out of 55).
Berdych was 10% >30 secs (7 out of 73), and 12 % > 25 sec < 30 sec (9 out of 73).
Plus or minus some errors here and there.

JuliusHMarx wrote:As far as I can see from the evidence available so far, it is fair at the moment.
It is only when one's preferred player is affected that it can appear unfair.

How can it be fair.. when you have two players in the same match both breaking the rule and only one is given a warning... you consider Im biased ??? really have you heard yourself

Haddie-nuff wrote:None of it is "reasonable" all or nothing, no matter who it is and how often.

Why?  So you do not care if Rafa is the worst offender?  As long as other people break the rule (even if it is the fraction of the time he does) you want them to be mentioned and punished as much as he is?

Surely that would be unfair.

I also agree though that a shot clock would eliminate any uncertainty, but are fans prepared to see 8, 10, maybe more, first serves taken away in a match?
Or would a shot clock mean that players who currently take a long time would start adhering to the rule on every point? And would forcing them to do that have an adverse affect on their game? And if it did have a adverse effect, would fans then complain that the shot clock was 'targetting' their player and was hence unfair?

JuliusHMarx wrote:Or would a shot clock mean that players who currently take a long time would start adhering to the rule on every point?

I expect this would happen. It is not hard to stick to about 15 secs on average, so with 25 sec limit, players would have plenty of time and they would very quickly learn to get on with it.

summerblues wrote:

Haddie-nuff wrote:None of it is "reasonable" all or nothing, no matter who it is and how often.

Why?  So you do not care if Rafa is the worst offender?  As long as other people break the rule (even if it is the fraction of the time he does) you want them to be mentioned and punished as much as he is?

Surely that would be unfair.

Yes, of course that would be unfair. At the moment all players are given leeway. When they go over that leeway so much that punishment must be meted out, then that is what happens. Some posters seem to acknowledge that Rafa is the worst offender but want equal punishment for lesser offenders i.e. they want umpires to favour him.