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

Surely if Rafa was being targeted, he would have lost a first serve on the 2nd break point in HE's example? In fact, despite receiving a TV two points before he still took 30 seconds (compared to 31 seconds when he got the warning), seemingly content to totally ignore the risk?

Then jhm let's not poke the bear and invite people to laugh eh? Neither of us need it

Born Slippy wrote:Surely if Rafa was being targeted, he would have lost a first serve on the 2nd break point in HE's example? In fact, despite receiving a TV two points before he still took 30 seconds (compared to 31 seconds when he got the warning), seemingly content to totally ignore the risk?

If you look at the sequence of timings I made in that game 33, 25, 22, 26, 22, 26, 31 (break point/time violation), 23, 30 (break point/broken). Nadal could have been given a time violation on 3 of the points prior to the break point but the Umpire waited until a crucial point. They had both played a tie break set and this was the third game in the second set. ie this match had been going on for quite some time and both players would have gone over 25 seconds frequently. So why give out a time violation on a pivitol game when it gets to a break point?

When Wawrinka was under pressure himself (4-1 2nd set) and took  21, 24, 25, 24, 32 (break point), 27, 30 (break point), 27, 30 (break point), 23, 29 (break point), 31, 23, 26, 28, 26 seconds the Umpire could have given 10 time violations including 3 on break points but he didn't.  Why was Wawrinka seemingly content to ignore the risk?

Also when Djokovic was under pressure from Nishikori serving for the set at 5-4 giving away 2 break points he took 34, 30, 32, 27, 25 seconds to save them. Not only was content to ignore the risk but the commentator admired the way he "took a little extra time to prepare for those vital points".

Nadal isn't penalized every time he goes over 25 seconds he is targeted specifically on crucial points. Other players are allowed to take their time on crucial points. It's impossible to say that Nadal is being targeted without reference to the time taken and lack of time violations on crucial points of other players. He can't be looked at in isolation.

Federer vs Warwinka - sample 7 points each
Seconds between points

Federer 12,16,20,18,16,23
Average 17 secs

Warwinka 12,16,13,12,19,15
Average 15 secs

They are much quicker, but thats too small a sample, what would be interesting is how many times, if at all they technically breach that 25 second rule

http://bleacherreport.com/articles/1195433-rafael-nadal-novak-djokovic-and-andy-murray-is-time-violations-here-to-stay#articles/1195433-rafael-nadal-novak-djokovic-and-andy-murray-is-time-violations-here-to-stay

interesting article for those who haven't read it before, it's from 2012 by hte way

http://espn.go.com/tennis/story/_/id/7528836/tennis-length-aussie-open-final-add-up

This article explains that the famous long AO final could have been a whole hour shorter by playing to the rules. Also a 2012 article.

Well you tend to spend more time between points than in them over a match anyway. Would the final have been better if it was the same drama inbetween but a bit shorter?

temporary21 wrote:Well you tend to spend more time between points than in them over a match anyway. Would the final have been better if it was the same drama inbetween but a bit shorter?

I think so - I gave up watching it - just tuned in for the end of each set after the first set. It was going on way too long and I had others things that seemed a better way to spend my time. Enforcing the rule, even just a bit more, would also have meant the players would have tried to shorten the points, knowing they had less recovery time. All in all, I personally found the length of the final to be a big turn off. Maybe that's just me.

For me it only got good in the last hour. Rafa coming back v well to win the fourth and then parts of the fifth.

OK so what if a Federer match went 6 hours? Would it being too long still apply, even if the match itself was very dramatic?

The wasted time between points doesn't affect the match quality and may even improve it slightly, however the point is we all lost an hour of an hour day when we could have been playing with our kids, reading a book, at the gym, or whatever else.

you could do some of those both at once? I was finishing a dissertation through that match if I remember
An extreme case even I couldnt handle was the superbowl. About 11 minutes of play for about 3 hours!

Did anyone bother to time Novak today especially on BP

No I got too bored the first time I did it. Is rather just let the atp do what they may and watch some tennis

I've tired myself out on this topic anyway. I don't mind which way the atp goes really. Go for strictness with a shot clock or just go straight back to umpires call only. A weird middle ground where they're strict but not always etc is a bit arbitrary, but in the end I'm not sure I care enough

temporary21 wrote:or just go straight back to umpires call only.

25s rule has always been there and they never meant to use it in the shot clock sense (for better or for worse). I do not think anything changed all that much. The biggest difference is the (relatively small) change in how they apply the discretion.

One solution, if the technology is available, could be to start watching the match a certain amount of time, perhaps 30 minutes, after it's actually started, on a recording. The recording reduces the breaks between points from 25 seconds to 5, and the change of ends from 90 seconds to 30 seconds, until eventually catching up with the live coverage. The number of replays would be greatly reduced. This would need to be available in the digital age as a secondary option, not as the main option. I would prefer it in many cases.

I had a service once, I think the Eurosport player, and on a recording, it was possible to press a button to tweak ahead the coverage one notch, which I think was either 15 or 20 seconds. Funny thing was, it made the action so frantic that you could hardly keep up with what was going on and sometimes missed a point and sometimes got about 1-2 seconds between points; I think about 5-10 seconds between points is best.

One thing I've tried to do is play with the kids for 20 seconds between points and sometimes it works kind of well.

I am not a good multitasker and I don't think there is a lot you can do in 20 seconds though.

Henman Bill wrote:http://espn.go.com/tennis/story/_/id/7528836/tennis-length-aussie-open-final-add-up

This article explains that the famous long AO final could have been a whole hour shorter by playing to the rules. Also a 2012 article.

The reason that match was so long was because Nadal fought back. Long matches are always a possibility in tennis because of the scoring system. The famous Isner/Mahut match at Wimbledon lasted 11 hours and 5 minutes and had to be player over three days. It was probably unusual as I doubt that either player took more than 10 seconds between points and even less during points. Whatever the time violation rule is used for it is not to make matches quicker. There are many effective ways of shortening matches if that is what's required. The doubles game has gone down this route.

Henman Bill wrote:One solution, if the technology is available, could be to start watching the match a certain amount of time, perhaps 30 minutes, after it's actually started, on a recording. The recording reduces the breaks between points from 25 seconds to 5, and the change of ends from 90 seconds to 30 seconds, until eventually catching up with the live coverage. The number of replays would be greatly reduced. This would need to be available in the digital age as a secondary option, not as the main option. I would prefer it in many cases.

I quite like watching the players between points but I've sometimes used a similar method ie putting the television on pause and starting watching later. I do this so I can fast forward over the adverts. How irritating are they Did you know during televised matches players have something called a TV changeover were they have to remain seated until they are told we have finished being told about PPI claims, catfood, toilet cleaners etc It's even more annoying when returning to the match you discover that something interesting has happened during the changeover and you've missed it.

Henman Bill wrote:

One thing I've tried to do is play with the kids for 20 seconds between points and sometimes it works kind of well.

I feel sorry for your poor kids if they bring in a shot clock

Haddie-nuff wrote:Did anyone bother to time Novak today especially on BP

I take it you did? Let me guess. 30? 31? 32? 33? 34? seconds. Were the commentators seething at Novak's disregard for the rules? Did they notice? Or were they (as they did when he was playing Nishikori) understanding of his need to take a bit of extra time to prepare for crucial points.

hawkeye wrote:

Haddie-nuff wrote:Did anyone bother to time Novak today especially on BP

I take it you did? Let me guess. 30? 31? 32? 33? 34? seconds. Were the commentators seething at Novak's disregard for the rules? Did they notice? Or were they (as they did when he was playing Nishikori) understanding of his need to take a bit of extra time to prepare for crucial points.

I think your assessment is about right.. of course there was also the added concern of   a few pot holes in the clay (imaginary or otherwise) that Novak had to fill in with his foot  before he prepared to serve quite understandably  ... surprisingly they disappeared when Roger was at the same end. !!

I haven't timed Novak recently but in the past he was similar to Nadal. Rafa is a bit slower to get to the line perhaps, but Novak makes up for it with the ball bouncing.

Legitimate question here. For those who saw the Rome final did any of you particularly notice the time between points? I think I noticed once, mostly since the camera did a panning shot and Novak stepped up

Yes as Ive agreed with HE above.. quite blatantly by Novak almost every serve.. I gave up timing in the end.. but not one TV.. the time varied according to his serve preparation, i.e. exchanging balls, bouncing, and the constant filling in of "holes" in the clay. stamping down the clay....changing racket .. etc. Roger was looking a bit miffed at times.

Who was the umpire? Some of them are definitely harsher than others.

Has Bernandes umpired Rafa again by the way after the TV in Rio? Rafa told him he was going to request that he never again umpired one of his matches.

He wasn't even invited to Madrid apparently!
Rafa has a lot of influence maybe?

LuvSports! wrote:
Rafa has a lot of influence maybe?

Born Slippy wrote:Who was the umpire? Some of them are definitely harsher than others.

Not sure it makes much difference. The time violation rule is ignored by all of them. The only time it is used is to penalize one player and even then only on crucial points and lot's of different Umpires have done the same.

Haddie-nuff wrote:Yes as Ive agreed with HE above.. quite blatantly by Novak almost every serve.. I gave up timing in the end.. but not one TV.. the time varied according to his serve preparation, i.e. exchanging balls, bouncing, and the constant filling in of "holes" in the clay. stamping down the clay....changing racket .. etc. Roger was looking a bit miffed at times.

I wonder what the effect would be on Novak if he was the one the ATP targeted with time violations on crucial points. For example during the Nishikori match when he was serving for the first set he took 34, 30, 32 seconds when he faced break points. As noted admiringly by the commentator "he took a little extra time to prepare for those vital points". What would have happened if he had had a first serve taken away? Not only would he have to fend off a break point with just a second serve but he would also have been rattled by the time violation. If this time violation was just one of many he had received on crucial points it would detract from his concentration even more. Would he have still saved those break points? Well he might have but I'm far from 100% sure that he would. It's far from inconceivable that Djokovic would have lost that first set and gone on to lose the match because of it. In fact far from looking unbeatable this year Djokovic has looked a little wobbly. If he was given the odd nudge by a few penalties on crucial points his results may well have been different.

But Djokovic doesn't get time violations and nor do other players. No one is bothered how long they take. Judging by how it's used the rule is only there to disrupt and rattle one player.

The ATP, Umpires, lines people, drug testers and other officials are meant to ensure a level playing field but the way this rule is being used is doing the opposite. The whole thing stinks. As a fan I feel cheated.

The "nadal's a victim" brigade!

hawkeye wrote:

LuvSports! wrote:
Rafa has a lot of influence maybe?

Born Slippy wrote:Who was the umpire? Some of them are definitely harsher than others.

Not sure it makes much difference. The time violation rule is ignored by all of them. The only time it is used is to penalize one player and even then only on crucial points and lot's of different Umpires have done the same.

26 out of the top 30 players were warned of TV in 2013- the last list I've seen.. That's hardly targeting 1 player.

I think djoko was playing a little faster at the beginning of the Fed match... since most of his serves were Federer hitting the return long, Djoko hardly had to move to start a new serve... but as the match went on, Djoko got slower and slower. US comms mentioned he was causing Federer to have to reset his return bend by delaying. Djoko should have definitely received warnings.

Now we are in the 20 second rule for the Major- so will be interesting to see how many TV's are given.

LuvSports! wrote:The "nadal's a victim" brigade!

Well that is the response I would expect when you cannot give any explanation for the disparity. You excuse Novak for taking 32 secs on BP shows exactly your biased. I never once saw him take under 29secs.. but hey ho, that's ok

However HE.. the day that Nadal retires will be the day you and I can rest assured because TV's will  
NEVER be discussed by the current posters of 606v ever again

Ok another question, sorry for the grilling but I thought of this one during Rome.
Say Novaks about to serve and he sees Roger move into his bh corner to hit the fh. In theory he could abort his serve just to put Roger off, it happens a lot in cricket when a bowlers sees a batsmen about to rush forward. What would you think of that? Dirty tricks or savvy tactics?

temporary21 wrote:Ok another question, sorry for the grilling but I thought of this one during Rome.
Say Novaks about to serve and he sees Roger move into his bh corner to hit the fh. In theory he could abort his serve just to put Roger off, it happens a lot in cricket when a bowlers sees a batsmen about to rush forward. What would you think of that? Dirty tricks or savvy tactics?

You do see it occasionally, but it's usually due to wind or a clearly mistimed toss. Happens very rarely, but I've seen nearly every player do it at varying points.

Taking individual players out of the equation, I would consider it gamesmanship and dirty tactics, albeit not worthy of a code violation unless a clear example occurs more than once. A better option - and the top players can and will do this - would be to just bend the serve down the T instead if movement is spotted.

What do you think? Another interesting case in cricket was the Pietersen switch-hitting, which I think is a bit different. That was the bowler pulling out due to perceived unfairness.

In my book dirty tricks. But as I remarked also before, what is stopping a player breaking his racket at a crucial point ie BP in the match ...?? taking extra time to replace it and disrupting the flow of play....its conjecture but it can happen.

Haddie-nuff wrote:

LuvSports! wrote:The "nadal's a victim" brigade!

Well that is the response I would expect when you cannot give any explanation for the disparity. You excuse Novak for taking 32 secs on BP shows exactly your biased. I never once saw him take under 29secs.. but hey ho, that's ok  

However HE..  the day that Nadal retires will be the day you and I can rest assured  because TV's will  
NEVER be discussed by the current posters of 606v ever again

Nope. Wrong again. I have repeatedly said in the past that delpo, murray, djoko etc are also bad. 
Keep up the accuracy skills!
Going by the stats that Rafa had over 30 tv's, that is what I go on.
Maybe he is being targeted. But the onus is on those to not say he is targeted looking at a few matches rather than a whole year's worth as the previous stats showed. 
If I am wrong, I will accept it - but atm the evidence and theory is paper thin.

LS Ive gone over this with you before, and got into hot water, because I did not explain myself properly. THE FACT THAT IT IS NADAL IS NOT THE ISSUE HERE FOR ME..let me establish that fact.  OK lets say it is DelPo who is also a great favourite of mine.  We know Delpo takes his time,and has also had TV's,  To me it matters not how frequent the rule is broken. It matters that the rule, if it is  to be applied fairly, is not broken at all.
My anger/annoyance/frustration is that the Umpires are not penalising fairly.
Novak was on BP and took 32 secs... does it matter if he was squeaky clean and not had a TV.... NO HE HAS BROKEN THE RULE.
Nadal is penalised more often because he does it more often
But that does not imply that the other players be let off because they don't
do it often.  
Its as plain as I can make it.. if you don't understand my meaning please let me know.. OK

Keep up the accuracy skills!


keep poking the bear !!!

TRuffin wrote:

26 out of the top 30 players were warned of TV in 2013- the last list I've seen.. That's hardly targeting 1 player.    

That's the only list I've seen. I looked around quite a bit for a more recent list to help with my research but couldn't find one. Would like to see one for 2014 and 2015. Funny there wasn't much talk about time violations for the last half of 2014.

1. Rafael Nadal: 30
2. Novak Djokovic: 10
3. David Ferrer: 2
4. Andy Murray: 6
5. Juan Martin del Potro: 11
6. Roger Federer: 0
7. Tomas Berdych: 9
8. Stanislas Wawrinka: 0
9. Richard Gasquet: 8
10. Jo-Wilfried Tsonga: 1
11. Milos Raonic: 2
12. Tommy Haas: 2
13. Nicolas Almagro: 1
14. John Isner: 14
15. Mikhail Youzhny: 0
16. Fabio Fognini: 11
17. Kei Nishikori: 5
18. Tommy Robredo: 5
19. Gilles Simon: 2
20. Kevin Anderson: 6
21. Jerzy Janowicz: 1
22. Philipp Kohlschreiber: 0
23. Grigor Dimitrov: 3
24. Ernests Gulbis: 9
25. Andreas Seppi: 3
26. Benoit Paire: 0
27. Jurgen Melzer: 2
28. Feliciano Lopez: 6
29. Dmitry Tursunov: 2
30. Fernando Verdasco: 2

http://blogs.wsj.com/dailyfix/2013/11/14/evolution-of-tennis-speeds-up/

This list doesn't say at what point in the match the time violations were given. I have only been researching the use of the rule in 2015 but I suspect that the majority of those violations were on non crucial points for players other than Nadal as they have been this year. If they weren't I'm sure we would have heard about them. Those penalties are a joke! Players have gone over 25 seconds more in one game from my timings than the total number of time violations they were given for a whole year.

The ATP must have a record of time violations handed out this year and at what point in the match they were given. Although from my own research I doubt there would be anything there that would surprise me.

TRuffin wrote:

Now we are in the 20 second rule for the Major- so will be interesting to see how many TV's are given.

I think the answer to that is obvious. The rule will be completely ignored as usual and I wouldn't be surprised if players go over 20 seconds more often than they serve within this time. No one is bothered about it. The only time it will be used is to take away Nadal's first serve on a break or set point.

Haddie-nuff wrote:LS Ive gone over this with you before, and got into hot water, because I did not explain myself properly. THE FACT THAT IT IS NADAL IS NOT THE ISSUE HERE FOR ME..let me establish that fact.  OK lets say it is DelPo who is also a great favourite of mine.  We  know Delpo takes his time,and has also had TV's,  To me it matters not how frequent the rule is broken. It matters that the rule, if it is  to be applied fairly, is not broken at all.
My anger/annoyance/frustration is that the Umpires are not penalising fairly.
Novak was on BP and took 32 secs... does it matter if he was squeaky clean and not had a TV.... NO HE HAS BROKEN THE RULE.
Nadal is penalised more often because he does it more often
But that does not imply that the other players be let off because they don't
do it often.  
Its as plain as I can make it.. if you don't understand my meaning please let me know.. OK

I know this and I know your views on this. My remark was fishing for bites . 

I just objected to the fact that you said this about me which is completely wrong and inaccurate.

"You excuse Novak for taking 32 secs on BP shows exactly your biased. "


Simples.

To be fair to Luvsports, he has consistently said from the start this isn't just about one player.

Hawkeye, I'm still a bit sceptical about your theory, but your case is a lot more convincing than I thought it would be.

OK LS I accept I was wrong yet again

But postings such as this do not help clarify your position


LuvSports! wrote:
The "nadal's a victim" brigade!

The old bear is poked again lol

Apols.
I am a kooky kidda.

OK; fortunately this old bear is losing its teeth

I came across this on You Tube purely by accident. However it is interesting if you listen to the  comments especially that of Annabel Croft during the last clip of the match with Delpo and Djokovic

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bvE0Cdwdmbo

Haddie-nuff wrote:I came across this on You Tube purely by accident. However it is interesting if you listen to the  comments especially that of Annabel Croft during the last clip of the match with Delpo and Djokovic

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bvE0Cdwdmbo

Yes I certainly found it interesting. At the beginning of 2013 there was much excited talk about how this rule would affect Nadal but much to the disappointment of many he didn't play until February because of injury. That video hasn't been compiled in chronological order but I think it is better to look at the matches featured in the correct order to understand the responses.

The first match is actually the Dubai Djokovic/Del Potro match played in February 2013. Del Potro was given a time violation at 3-6, 3-1, 30-40. So a break back point and a crucial point. Exactly the sort of Point Nadal has been repeatedly targeted with time violations on. The rule was still fresh but judging by the commentator's reaction not a good thing. This is what she said -

"I'm not a fan of this rule I'm really not. I mean he's in his service motion. Now all it does is create even more delay. Once you've added up the delay's on top of the delay's I'm not sure it's worth it.. and it just spoils the whole atmosphere of the match.. and it winds the player up. I think it spoils the atmosphere I really do.. and it's break point not the right time to do it (the other commentator agrees) He was bouncing the ball ready to serve. If he was still moping about trying to pick a towel up I would understand it.. and now how long is it after that? it's about a minute isn't it. It's really going to be a test of his nerve right here. It will either fire him up or put him off. (Del Potro loses the point and his serve) You see that's just ridiculous! (Del Potro smashes his raquet) I'm not surprised he want's to smash his racquet to smithereens.. but they didn't give him a chance they're not even telling him. Incidentally Del Potro took 1 minute and 19 seconds from when he was given the time violation to when he served.

The second match is the Indian Wells Almagro/Haas match played in early March. Haas was given a time violation at 4-4 40-40 in the final set. Another crucial point. This time it's what the Umpire said in response to the protests by Haas.

"We have no judgement.. we have no judgement. I can't use judgement. This year we can't use judgement. I understand that.. not this year. I don't know. It's a crazy rule. I know that. I know that's what they're telling us.. We get abuse from everone here"

The third match is the Miami Melzer/Kanke match. Probably not very representative because Melzer was given one as he waited for Kanke to remove a dead fly from the court.

All three involve players not named Nadal. The commentators in the Del Potro match make it clear that the rule is disruptive and that they strongly disagree with it calling it "ridiculous". The Umpire in the Haas match makes it clear that he disagrees with it too calling it "crazy". I don't know what would have happened if Umpires had continued to hand out time violations on crucial points because as far as I know they didn't (apart from targeting one player with them). By the time Monte Carlo was played in late April Umpires only gave a rare time violations on a non crucial point. This was when the Murray/Vasselin match was played. Murray was given a time violation at 6-1, 3,1 (with a break) 40-30 (game point). This is a good example of when most players will be given a time violation now (if they get any at all) ie on a non crucial point were it is therefore a joke of a punishment. It shows how rarely players are given because this one has already been mentioned in this thread. They are so rare that it's difficult to find any evidence of players being given them at all even the harmless variety.

The only player that regularly gets them is Nadal because judging from the evidence the rule is only used to target him on crucial points. Unlike the incident when Del Potro got one there is no outrage from the commentators about the rule being "ridiculous" they say nothing. Shocking!

A long article from the Telegraph on this issue:

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/sport/tennis/rafaelnadal/11622372/French-Open-2015-Rafael-Nadal-makes-a-mockery-of-the-rule-book.html

Takes a slightly different view than HE!

Born Slippy wrote:A long article from the Telegraph on this issue:

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/sport/tennis/rafaelnadal/11622372/French-Open-2015-Rafael-Nadal-makes-a-mockery-of-the-rule-book.html

Takes a slightly different view than HE!

A different "view" yes but none of it is backed up with evidence. Simon Briggs would be well advised to do a little research into the use of the time violation rule before writing articles in a national newspaper based on prejudice and speculation.

There seems to be quite a lot of research in that article - Lendl, Connors, Kyrgios, Granollers etc. Perhaps it is not the journalist that is prejudiced?