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

Surprisingly an article with some substance, and not just reporting on already public info with a couple of hasty comments. Very interesting that Nadal was able to say what he did on court and tell the umpire publically you won't be umpiring me again. In this case, I think that they should make him have the same umpire again. It's not right that he did that. OK to separate players that have had disputes with umpires, for a while but not if the player has approached the situation in this way.

 HE is biased beyond belief.

There are not many, if any, views on this thread that are not biased to some degree... depending on what side of the net you are on

Let's be fair here. Not one person, even me has gone into this debate without some angle for or against Rafa.  Otherwise people would be unhappy that other people also broke the rule, but they're not really. What little objective info I got, would suggest an endemic issue, if you're the type to really notice this sort of thing, my sports of choice are all slow so I don't notice

Well, again to be fair - the OP is about Rafa, so that is inevitably the main focus - since that is what the OP intended. However, most of us who dislike the extra time that players take between points have criticised all players who do it - not only on this thread but historically as well.

If we criticise Rafa more it's because a) the OP is based around Rafa and b) he is the one that breaks the rule the most.

The problem then becomes that those who defend Rafa inevitably take the same view as temp - that people are only against Rafa and not against the other players - but that simply isn't the case.

The problem then becomes that those who defend Rafa inevitably take the same view as temp - that people are only against Rafa and not against the other players

WRONG again... !!! as I said there is not one view  on this thread that is not seen to be biased one way or another
even yours

But I'm not only against Rafa - all the players who regularly go over the limit should be brought to task and those that do it the most would thus get penalised the most. That seems fair, regardless of bias.

So there is no need for capital letters or rolled eyes.

Because JM I did not say you were.                    . You see you are doing it again!!!

I quote myself

there is not one view  on this thread that is not seen to be biased

The operative word being SEEN.. do you now understand what I have been saying.

Well In my view if the enforcement of the rule properly aw what people cared about only.  Then the stats given by many people here on matches would irritate them more when it wasn't rafa. It doesn't and as such I have my suspicions

That being said JHM perhaps as the mod staff you and I should get this back onto the rule as a whole. Our own views on why this is such a hot topic shouldn't let us derail proper analysis

Modfight!!

temporary21 wrote:Let's be fair here. Not one person, even me has gone into this debate without some angle for or against Rafa.  Otherwise people would be unhappy that other people also broke the rule, but they're not really. What little objective info I got, would suggest an endemic issue, if you're the type to really notice this sort of thing, my sports of choice are all slow so I don't notice

Strongly disagree.

Seconded.

Thirded.

And I disagree with all of you. We will have to leave it there

legendkillarV2 wrote:Thirded.

Quattro/quadruple or whats next.

I have no bias on this thread, all those who waste time should be slapped by the umpire on the court.

In that case I look forward to people putting their passions forward when anyone breaks the rule, not just focus in one guy. What we have shown is this is a big problem.  Well big in one sense

I think the difference between Nadal and the others is his reaction to it. If its true that he has got Bernandes banned from umpiring him then that's shocking. Will be very interesting to see what happens at the French Open.

I would also be very happy to see everyone sensibly punished.

temporary21 wrote:In that case I look forward to people putting their passions forward when anyone breaks the rule, not just focus in one guy. What we have shown is this is a big problem.  Well big in one sense

Let's be honest. The gripe here is the frequency Nadal has been punished. This thread is a bid to prove he isn't the biggest offender. When someone proclaims research, they need to do better than just watch a few matches. It's down to the OP to provide extensive research to prove their point, not the posters to refute their claims. I doubt the OP is going to watch every match on tour to be absolutely certain their claim is accurate.

If he has been punished the most, it can only reflect he is the biggest offender. I have no qualms about this and nor should Nadal fans truth be told.

What everyone has agreed on unianoumsly is that umpires need to be stricter and consistent.

In some Nadal cases yes it wouldn't be much to ask for the umpire to inform him he is taking too long between points and to quicken the pace before a warning, though given his recent run in with Bernandes, I am not sure he has carried many favours with the umpires.

Let's be honest. The gripe here is the frequency Nadal has been punished.


Yes I think  this where I came in ????

Haddie-nuff wrote:Let's be honest. The gripe here is the frequency Nadal has been punished.


Yes I think  this where I came in ????

Are you the OP?

Why should I have to be.???.reading nine pages of this article brings me to one conclusion
I repeat ............this is where I came in !!!!!

Came in where exactly?

I

J

U

S

T

want to help you guys get to quadruple digits

Agree with LK.

When Rafa gets penalized most, the most natural conclusion is that he is the worst offender.  If the argument is that he is in fact not the worst offender but instead the rule is applied unfairly, the onus is to prove that it is so.

Henman Bill wrote:Surprisingly an article with some substance, and not just reporting on already public info with a couple of hasty comments. Very interesting that Nadal was able to say what he did on court and tell the umpire publically you won't be umpiring me again. In this case, I think that they should make him have the same umpire again. It's not right that he did that. OK to separate players that have had disputes with umpires, for a while but not if the player has approached the situation in this way.

I can't believe that people can be taken in by that twisted piece of journalism by Simon Briggs.especially if they have read this thread.

In that match in Rio Nadal was given two time violations in one game when serving at 6-2, 2-3 and consequently lost his serve and went on to lose the match having been in full control. He was heard talking to the Umpire Bernardos during a changeover later in the match in Spanish. He was quite rightly furious and this is what he said

Nadal : " Sur tout le circuit, il n'y a personne comme toi. Ecoute-moi, je vais te dire une chose, je vais demander à ce que tu ne m'arbitres plus jamais parce que je n'en peux plus de toi. Sérieux, je n'en peux plus. "

"On the whole circuit, there is no one like you Listen, I'll tell you one thing, I'll ask that you never referees me because I can do more. you. Seriously, I can not stand it. "

It was perhaps the most angry I have ever seen Nadal on a tennis court he totally lost composure and gave away the second set.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FOY1scQtjZA

Barnardos hasn't Umpired Nadal since.

Simon Briggs doesn't know why but says it is because Nadal said he would "make sure" that Barnardos would never Umpire him again. There could be several reasons why he hasn't done so. It could just be chance. It could just be because the ATP when choosing an Umpire takes into consideration any previous history or incidents. Or it could be that Nadal complained about Barnardos bein biased and his complaints were found justified. He tries to make out that Nadal has the ATP eating out of his hand which really considering the way he is being targeted by this rule is hilarious.

Briggs also states that during the Rio match that "Bernardes followed the letter of the law by handing Nadal two time violation penalties for exceeding the 25-second limit between points, the second of which cost him a first serve". He didn't say that Barnardos completely ignored the rule for the rest of the three hour match. A match that was played over three hours in 90 degrees heat and in extreme humidity. It was also started after 1 am in the morning because of schedule delays. It was on clay and most points involved long ralleys. I would guess that both players were going over 25 seconds more times than they were staying within the 25 seconds. So why did Barnardos ignore all the other occasions and chose those two particular points to take a first serve off Nadal. Barnardos by doing so changed the whole momentum of the match.

Briggs says that Barnardos was the last player to challenge Nadal with the time violation rule. Pfft! He has received many time violations all on crucial points since then. Many of them match changing. Barnardos is far from the only Umpire to target Nadal with time violations. Nadal and his team should approach the ATP with the evidence of his targeted time violations.  

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

Briggs also states that during the Rio match that "Bernardes followed the letter of the law by handing Nadal two time violation penalties for exceeding the 25-second limit between points, the second of which cost him a first serve". He didn't say that Barnardos completely ignored the rule for the rest of the three hour match. A match that was played over three hours in 90 degrees heat and in extreme humidity. It was also started after 1 am in the morning because of schedule delays. It was on clay and most points involved long ralleys. I would guess that both players were going over 25 seconds more times than they were staying within the 25 seconds. So why did Barnardos ignore all the other occasions and chose those two particular points to take a first serve off Nadal. Barnardos by doing so changed the whole momentum of the match.

so you make an assumption that both players in Rio we're going over 25 seconds but can't prove it and yet ask for TV's to handed out when they might not have exceeded the time limit?

Any shred of creditability just left this thread.

summerblues wrote:Agree with LK.

When Rafa gets penalized most, the most natural conclusion is that he is the worst offender.  If the argument is that he is in fact not the worst offender but instead the rule is applied unfairly, the onus is to prove that it is so.

Have you read this thread?

The time violation rule isn't being used. I'm not sure how much evidence you need but there are cold hard numbers in every pro match. Players go over the 25 seconds rule regularly. They are all "offenders" but Umpires look the other way. They certainly don't look at their stop watches. The proof is all there.

Umpires are not meant to apply time violations based on reputation or guessing how long a player takes. It's quite tricky to judge how long 25 seconds is without looking at a stop watch. They are not meant to give them out because a player has taken a long time on previous points. They are not meant to do some complex statistical analysis based on the number of times they think a player may have gone over 25 seconds in the past and hand them out based on this. They are not meant to let a player take longer because they are usually quick. They are not meant to hand out violations because a player uses the time to wipe sweat off their face rather than bouncing a ball.

They are not meant to be doing any of those things. So why are they choosing to only apply the rule to one player at crucial parts of a match?

legendkillarV2 wrote:

so you make an assumption that both players in Rio we're going over 25 seconds but can't prove it and yet ask for TV's to handed out when they might not have exceeded the time limit?

There will be plenty of evidence to back this up. It will be all there in video. The ATP can't make it disappear. Do you really think that there were only two occasions in that long match were either player took longer than 25 seconds

Do you want all players to be penalized when they take over 25 seconds? Or do you think the rule should just be applied to Nadal on crucial points? That is a serious question because you show little concern when other players are allowed to break the rule.

I want the proof from Rio. Seeing as TVs weren't handed out in their droves it's fair to say the players played within the rules. You make an assumption and I am asking you to back it up

Nigel Harman would be proud

To answer your questions I want the rule to be enforced. Simple.

If all players are flouting the rule consistently I ask this. How long do you think matches will be prolonged if the umpire penalised every point that exceeded the time limit? It would be non stop pick my ar$e, part me hair, repeat. Is that really good for the game? Say Djokovic and Nadal in one set get 3 TVs and yet still go over without additional cautions? How many times do they need to be told? Some players who have received TVs have quickened their pace during the time between points. However, those who continually flout the rule should face a stiffer punishment if they continue.

Just so I know, is the hypothesis that the player who abused the rules most emphatically for many years, abetted by complicit Umpires, is now being victimised?

If do, what would have changed to make the sport turn against him so dramatically?

[b]Do you want all players to be penalized when they take over 25 seconds? Or do you think the rule should just be applied to Nadal on crucial points? That is a serious question because you show little concern when other players are allowed to break the rule[/b

Precisely, the point that has been continuously raised on this thread from the beginning. If anyone had bothered to follow it.. hence my comment "this is where I came in" not only is Nadal being targeted unfairly but so are his fans..
I have on numerous occasions stated that my grievance is with the umpires who allow the rule to be broken by ANY player, irrespective of how frequently. and no matter who... However LK's jaundiced view of TV's will never be convinced of that HE, The rule  can only be seen as   bogus if it is not applied fairly, and it is not,. on that we both agree

Let me get the violin out.

legendkillarV2 wrote:

Let me get the violin out.

When speaking of an argument  losing credibility..

Haddie-nuff wrote:

legendkillarV2 wrote:

Let me get the violin out.

When speaking of an argument  losing credibility..

Like when calling someone's view as jaundiced

People in glass houses....

legendkillarV2 wrote:

Haddie-nuff wrote:

legendkillarV2 wrote:

Let me get the violin out.

When speaking of an argument  losing credibility..

Like when calling someone's view as jaundiced

People in glass houses....

You think so????

QUOTE




Let's be honest. The gripe here is the frequency Nadal has been punished.

Your words.. not mine !!!!

Haddie-nuff wrote:

When speaking of an argument  losing credibility..

There is a mountain of evidence that the time violation rule is being ignored. I think it would be impossible to come up with any argument that it isn't being ignored. It's quite easy to gather evidence on the infrequent times when it has been used to give a player a time violation because these occasions are so rare and they tend to get talked about. For example the one Murray received in 2013 has been brought up several times in this thread as "proof" that players other than Nadal have been given them. The only time the rule is used to any effect has been against Nadal and specifically on pivotal points in a match. No other player has had the outcome of their matches affected by a targeted time violation. The only way other players have been affected by this rule is to benefit from having their trickiest opponent handcuffed by the ATP. I guess some players and some fans are quite happy about this. Maybe that's why their only response to all this evidence is to shout "I" or "J" or "U" or "S" Hardly a convincing argument

If that doesn't work they can always use the tried and trusted method of calling people names and making repeated snide comments

Haddie-nuff wrote:

legendkillarV2 wrote:

Haddie-nuff wrote:

legendkillarV2 wrote:

Let me get the violin out.

When speaking of an argument  losing credibility..

Like when calling someone's view as jaundiced

People in glass houses....

You think so????

QUOTE




Let's be honest. The gripe here is the frequency Nadal has been punished.

Your words.. not mine !!!!

And that's being jaundiced??

Talk about dramatic!

hawkeye wrote:

Haddie-nuff wrote:

When speaking of an argument  losing credibility..

There is a mountain of evidence that the time violation rule is being ignored. I think it would be impossible to come up with any argument that it isn't being ignored. It's quite easy to gather evidence on the infrequent times when it has been used to give a player a time violation because these occasions are so rare and they tend to get talked about. For example the one Murray received in 2013 has been brought up several times in this thread as "proof" that players other than Nadal have been given them. The only time the rule is used to any effect has been against Nadal and specifically on pivotal points in a match. No other player has had the outcome of their matches affected by a targeted time violation. The only way other players have been affected by this rule is to benefit from having their trickiest opponent handcuffed by the ATP. I guess some players and some fans are quite happy about this. Maybe that's why their only response to all this evidence is to shout "I" or "J" or "U" or "S" Hardly a convincing argument

If that doesn't work they can always use the tried and trusted method of calling people names and making repeated snide comments

Given I'm sure you'd accept that Nadal was excused breaking the rules for years when he was one of the worst examples, what do you think has changed the sports attitude to him?

This thread is being kept artificially alive, on an life support machine

If you had been following this thread from the outset and seen others viewpoints as well as HE's and mine..you would realise that the comment of yours I have quoted is without doubt biased.
Try calling it dramatic if you will LK.. but you have lost your argument simply because by accident or design you are missing the essence of the debate.

Research into the use of the time violation rule
iS THE TITLE OF THIS ARTICLE.
Not NADAL AND THE TME VIOLATION RULE.

its not all about NADAL its all players........ so yes your viewpoint is jaundiced whether you care to admit it or not.
End of

Dramatic my ar$$ !!!!!!

This is getting silly. The whole thing is sorted with just a rule clarification.  At the moment people aren't sure exactly what clarifies for a tv. No care for whether they go strict or lax but just make it clear and it ends this whole thing

Haddie-nuff wrote:If you had been following this thread from the outset and seen others viewpoints as well as HE's and mine..you would realise that the comment of yours I have quoted is without doubt biased.
Try calling it dramatic if you will LK.. but you have lost your argument simply because by accident or design you are missing the essence of the debate.

Research into the use of the time violation rule
iS THE TITLE OF THIS ARTICLE.
Not NADAL AND THE TME VIOLATION RULE.

its not all about NADAL its all players........ so yes your viewpoint is jaundiced whether you care to admit it or not.
End of

Dramatic my ar$$ !!!!!!

Where's the research?? Oh that's right a few matches!!

Dramatic indeed and misinformed.

the argument never got started!!

The problem Is no one cares close to enough about this to waste their time timing match after match after match. Most people just want to waych good tennis. However when sky sports does show average time between points and it's too high. In theory people should outraged whomever it is