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

by hawkeye Sat 25 Apr 2015, 10:31 pm

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.

Smile

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

by Haddie-nuff Wed 27 May 2015, 9:13 pm

Born Slippy wrote:
Haddie-nuff wrote:Jeeeze its getting like a game of Chinese whispers.

If it is true what Stan says about Umpires not wishing to get tough with the top players... for what reason??? because they are protecting top players.
B.S !! they get more money when they are umpiring the matches in the last throes of the tournament.. they don't want players requesting them not to officiate..

This whole argument is losing credibility by the minute
Phone Stan up and ask him which of the versions are correct .. because its take your choice time whichever side of that cynical net your on, No one is going to get to the truth but keep digging the dirt

I don't follow this post. The argument makes sense - how is credibility being lost?

Do you really need me to spell it out... how can any of this be credible when there is no PROOF, either of the accusations being hurled at Rafa, or the flimsy defence .. i.e. the words issued by the ATP concerning the frequency.
We have two versions of what Warwrinka has to say.. and about 4,000 of what Rafa has supposedly said and done.
Was the Umpire requested, was he banned barred or did Rafa respectfully request, demand or bully,
The TRUTH is that it depends on what each poster WANTS to believe,
I know what I believe, as well as I know what others do by now. And unless someone can provide irrefutable evidence to the contrary, INNOCENT UNTIL PROVEN GUILTY.. and that is not about to happen. So yes BS this argument loses its credibility until someone can come up with the proof.. but don't hold your breath.

by Jahu Wed 27 May 2015, 9:21 pm

Oh this thread since being locked and then opened, has become very good.

See, punishment and threats work here, I know it first hand, I got scars to prove it Laugh

by bogbrush Wed 27 May 2015, 9:46 pm

CaledonianCraig wrote:
Matchpoint wrote:
CaledonianCraig wrote:
I would now agree that Wawrinka thing was nonsense.
Finally, this is all I need to hear. The rest iare side issues but I appreciate the feedback, thanks.

But don't forget the ATP spokesman says these requests are much more common than people think so until he is proven to be a liar or we hear he has been sacked for mistruths then his word should be accepted.

What a hopeless argument; you get to declare that one particular statement from a politician trumps people like Djokovic until he's sacked?

Honestly, the standard of logic on here sometimes defies credulity.

Note to mods: I have criticised the appalling argument, not the poster.

by bogbrush Wed 27 May 2015, 9:49 pm

Oh so now nothing can be believed until proven to legal standards?

Yes, definitely one of the last resorts of the lost argument. Just use your judgement; look at the actions, think about prior behaviour of participants and make a judgement. I truly despise the culture of retreating behind formality to avoid making decisions, I see too much of it in business though to be honest that makes my life easier.

by hawkeye Wed 27 May 2015, 9:56 pm

biugo wrote:Aren't the TV networks or IBM keeping some track on the time between points?
As no one is making research into the TV, except Temp21, maybe at least the likes of IBM could get out some data. They probably count the effective time of play - getting the average time between points is easy.
I recall a poster (no idea who) posted a screenshot of a USO match between Djoko and Nadal, with the prompter below stating: Average time between points: 31s (ND), 35s (RN)... (keeping in mind limit would normally be 20s)
Certainly this kind of data could be given for all matches in the IBM slamtracker

That's a good point and I've thought the same thing. I do think the ATP must have some evidence. I would think Umpires must have to record when they give a time violation on the score sheet. Details were given for the number of time violations given out in 2013 although this wasn't from an official source. I have tried to get more recent figures but with no luck. A bit frustrating really because there must be a record somewhere.

The onscreen indicators often show average time between points and I'm not sure where this information comes from. However it's not the average time that is important it's the number of times the rule is broken. If the average time is calculated by counting how long the effective time of play is and subtracting this from the match time it may give a rough indicator but beyond that is of little use. It also wouldn't factor in times when the Umpire had allowed for extra time ( checking marks, hawkeye, broken strings, broken racquets, crowd interference, players falling etc). If the Umpires did really do what they are meant to do and time each point with a stop watch then that information would be invaluable

by Haddie-nuff Wed 27 May 2015, 9:59 pm

What defies credulity is that all posters on here without exception have no proof of the accusations made against Nadal. No evidence has been provided of the so called events that have taken place to lead to this "crime" Circumstantial evidence is all anyone has including those who profess to know so much more than anyone else.
The rest is opinion, biase or otherwise, conjecture, suspicion, and hearsay.
There is no logic in this argument.. there cant be there are too many versions. Djokovic's opinion has suddenly become words of the Messiah when it appears there is condemnation of Nadal.. until he says anything about RF
then he suddenly reverts the devil incarnate

by hawkeye Wed 27 May 2015, 10:01 pm

bogbrush wrote:
CaledonianCraig wrote:
Matchpoint wrote:
CaledonianCraig wrote:
I would now agree that Wawrinka thing was nonsense.
Finally, this is all I need to hear. The rest iare side issues but I appreciate the feedback, thanks.

But don't forget the ATP spokesman says these requests are much more common than people think so until he is proven to be a liar or we hear he has been sacked for mistruths then his word should be accepted.
What a hopeless argument; you get to declare that one particular statement from a politician trumps people like Djokovic until he's sacked?

Honestly, the standard of logic on here sometimes defies credulity.

Note to mods: I have criticised the appalling argument, not the poster.

Djokovic > ATP Laugh

by Silver Wed 27 May 2015, 10:06 pm

hawkeye wrote:That's a good point and I've thought the same thing. I do think the ATP must have some evidence. I would think Umpires must have to record when they give a time violation on the score sheet. Details were given for the number of time violations given out in 2013 although this wasn't from an official source. I have tried to get more recent figures but with no luck. A bit frustrating really because there must be a record somewhere.

The onscreen indicators often show average time between points and I'm not sure where this information comes from. However it's not the average time that is important it's the number of times the rule is broken. If the average time is calculated by counting how long the effective time of play is and subtracting this from the match time it may give a rough indicator but beyond that is of little use. It also wouldn't factor in times when the Umpire had allowed for extra time ( checking marks, hawkeye, broken strings, broken racquets, crowd interference, players falling etc). If the Umpires did really do what they are meant to do and time each point with a stop watch then that information would be invaluable

Definitely agree with everything here. If we knew exactly how they were calculating - and the fact that they are means that there must be data that could be made publicly available - we'd have a much easier time figuring everything out. There must be a record of not only TVs doled out, but also a generalised 'time between points' statistic for each match.

As you say though, it could just be Match Time minus Play Time, which would be vaguely helpful but not enough. Given the discrepancies in calculating UEs and winners across different tournaments, it might be too much to hope for a standardised methodology in the TV-related data collection Sad

by Haddie-nuff Wed 27 May 2015, 10:10 pm

Would any of the tv broadcasters have this sort of data.? naïve ?
And indeed if they did would they consider it appropriate to make it public chin

by Silver Wed 27 May 2015, 10:24 pm

I don't know.

by bogbrush Wed 27 May 2015, 10:27 pm

hawkeye wrote:
bogbrush wrote:
CaledonianCraig wrote:
Matchpoint wrote:
CaledonianCraig wrote:
I would now agree that Wawrinka thing was nonsense.
Finally, this is all I need to hear. The rest iare side issues but I appreciate the feedback, thanks.

But don't forget the ATP spokesman says these requests are much more common than people think so until he is proven to be a liar or we hear he has been sacked for mistruths then his word should be accepted.
What a hopeless argument; you get to declare that one particular statement from a politician trumps people like Djokovic until he's sacked?

Honestly, the standard of logic on here sometimes defies credulity.

Note to mods: I have criticised the appalling argument, not the poster.

Djokovic > ATP

Naivety

by Calder106 Wed 27 May 2015, 10:29 pm

bogbrush wrote:
CaledonianCraig wrote:
Matchpoint wrote:
CaledonianCraig wrote:
I would now agree that Wawrinka thing was nonsense.
Finally, this is all I need to hear. The rest iare side issues but I appreciate the feedback, thanks.

But don't forget the ATP spokesman says these requests are much more common than people think so until he is proven to be a liar or we hear he has been sacked for mistruths then his word should be accepted.
What a hopeless argument; you get to declare that one particular statement from a politician trumps people like Djokovic until he's sacked?

Honestly, the standard of logic on here sometimes defies credulity.

Note to mods: I have criticised the appalling argument, not the poster.

I quite believe that Djokovic has never asked for an umpire not to be in charge of his matches and is against it. However he is speaking from a personal perpective. Does he know if other players have requested this ? We know that Nadal has but the ATP guy says players and umpires have done it. So without names and confirmation from the players/umpires, which is unlikely, it will always be conjecture. I would not imagine that Novak sits down and looks at who umpires which matches although he might do now.

by Haddie-nuff Wed 27 May 2015, 10:30 pm

After the matches they publish the statistics.. dbl faults, aces, ue's it is reasonable to suppose that such info is taken automatically. Not being an analytical expert I can only assume this is computer generated. However whether they actually archive such information is conjecture on my part
But is that worth further investigation ? Erm

by bogbrush Wed 27 May 2015, 10:51 pm

The data won't be computer generated, there is a decision to be made (was that error forced or unforced?).

by Haddie-nuff Wed 27 May 2015, 11:02 pm

Really wow

http://blog.tennisscoretracker.com/

by temporary21 Wed 27 May 2015, 11:14 pm

Still at it......

What I will note is if youre saying Nadal has thrown his weight out to ban an umpire, as a fact, you DO need proper evidence to post it, or it IS libel.Hearsay and rumors may form your own opinion, but it is not gonna be good enough to convince anyone of an extreme opinion.

Now then can anyone find a site or anything that tracks time between points. An app or study or anything

by temporary21 Wed 27 May 2015, 11:18 pm

There is old book called "Sceince and raquet sports IV", that might have some very old data (early 00's) on this, need to pay though and its a proper statistical book, very dry. Chapter 34 is the relevant one

by temporary21 Wed 27 May 2015, 11:30 pm

Here we go this site

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

Weve seen the table of time violations, 2 years old now, an interesting quote people missed

"This year through the Shanghai tournament last month, umpires had called 659 time violations against servers, 49 of them costing the server a first serve; and 47 violations against returners, costing three points, according to the ATP. For all of last year, umpires called just 59 time violations, and assessed zero point penalties."

Thats 650! without the year having ended yet, from 60 the year previous. no way in heck are you gonna convince me this is a one man show now!

Another big quote
“In the beginning, we had to be very, very strict, to send a message to players,” Graff said. “But then as time goes on, maybe you don’t enforce it as tough as in the beginning. Maybe you use more judgment.” Graff being an umpire, which might explain why its not a blanket rule, they appear to be trying to avoid a shot clock.

any thought?

by temporary21 Wed 27 May 2015, 11:37 pm

Another good a guy I almost totally agree with, hes basically done the work for you all
"http://fivethirtyeight.com/features/does-tennis-need-a-shot-clock/" Even Roger, very occasionally overshoots time, with a shot clock, he would have been in theory penalized, whic doesn't seem right at all

Not gonna lie to you all, these wernt hard to find whatsoever while this was all going on.......

by Haddie-nuff Wed 27 May 2015, 11:40 pm

the Score Tracker as shown above does

image

Tennis Score Tracker also supports recording and statistics of penalties. The types of penalties recorded are warning, point, game, or match, and are awarded at the discretion of the referee, depending on the severity of a player’s actions. For example, cursing or slamming your racket down could result in a penalty warning. Throwing your racket at your opponent could most certainly result in a match penalty.

here it is again

http://blog.tennisscoretracker.com/

by **JuliusHMarx** Wed 27 May 2015, 11:47 pm

temporary21 wrote:Here we go this site

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

Weve seen the table of time violations, 2 years old now, an interesting quote people missed

"This year through the Shanghai tournament last month, umpires had called 659 time violations against servers, 49 of them costing the server a first serve; and 47 violations against returners, costing three points, according to the ATP. For all of last year, umpires called just 59 time violations, and assessed zero point penalties."

Thats 650! without the year having ended yet, from 60 the year previous. no way in heck are you gonna convince me this is a one man show now!

Another big quote
“In the beginning, we had to be very, very strict, to send a message to players,” Graff said. “But then as time goes on, maybe you don’t enforce it as tough as in the beginning. Maybe you use more judgment.” Graff being an umpire, which might explain why its not a blanket rule, they appear to be trying to avoid a shot clock.

any thought?

Wow, 659 - I'd never have guessed it was that much. Just goes to show how many we don't see.

by Henman Bill Thu 28 May 2015, 12:57 am

thanks temp 21 for the links

by Silver Thu 28 May 2015, 1:45 am

temporary21 wrote:Thats 650! without the year having ended yet, from 60 the year previous. no way in heck are you gonna convince me this is a one man show now!

Nobody has suggested that it's a one-man show. MP's post is the 8th in this thread and clearly shows otherwise.

That being said, great post and very valuable stats. I would've never guessed that it was 650, they seem to average one or two per tournament at best! And interesting to note the huge increase from the previous year, too.

by summerblues Thu 28 May 2015, 2:06 am

temporary21 wrote:Another good a guy I almost totally agree with, hes basically done the work for you all
"http://fivethirtyeight.com/features/does-tennis-need-a-shot-clock/" Even Roger, very occasionally overshoots time, with a shot clock, he would have been in theory penalized, whic doesn't seem right at all

Not gonna lie to you all, these wernt hard to find whatsoever while this was all going on.......

I came upon this article yesterday. It is interesting to collect these kinds of bits of data but in the end I think they all confirm what we kind of knew all along. That many - if not most - players tend to take quite long and that only a very small fraction of times it gets called. Also, the players that we intuitively expect to be slow end up being slow and players that we intuitively expect to be not so slow end up not so slow.

I think if we want to discuss whether or not we think the current ATP policy on TV is in general too lenient or too stringent, and what our thoughts are on how it should be done, we do not really need to collect any data. Our general observations are good enough.

I think we only really need more data if we want to specifically check whether or not Rafa gets penalized unfairly (in the sense that he gets penalized too much relative to his time wasting). That is difficult to ascertain from a handful of matches. We know that he is (a) among the more frequently punished players and also (b) among the slowest players. To see if (a) and (b) are actually in sync or whether he is underpunished or overpunished would therefore require fair amount of data collection - I suspect far more than we are actually willing to do.

by summerblues Thu 28 May 2015, 2:11 am

BTW, I am wondering whether it would have made more sense to leave the Bernardes discussion as a separate thread - the way BB initially started it.

I know it fits very well with the original post so in that sense it belongs here. On the other hand, it does tend to bring up a very different - and much more emotional - kind of discussion.

I think both branches of this thread - general discussion of TVs and average times for various players etc, as well as Rafa vs Bernardes saga - are worth discussing, just not sure they fit very well together as they elicit very different types of arguments.

by **laverfan** Thu 28 May 2015, 2:32 am

Every ATP umpire has a heavily modified (and secure) PDA (Apple devices are slowly coming in). There is a point entry made by the umpire when the point ends and the next one starts. There is now a discussion of using voice recognition and voice-activated time keeping and cueing. It is not fool proof due to ambient noise levels at such events. There is also a discussion about ball tracking to augment and supplement this data.

This data is fed back to ATP/WTA/ITF computers for every match. ATP/WTA and Slams have this data already. They do not publish it for public consumption.

ESPN does it's own such data collection and does not rely on ATP/WTA/ITF for such data for matches it covers.

by summerblues Thu 28 May 2015, 2:39 am

Unsuccessfully looking for an old 606v2 article, I have accidentally come upon this quote from HE. I think she may have a point.

hawkeye wrote:Are umpires dealing with players trying to influence the out come of matches effectively? Have umpires become less trusted? Has the balance of power shifted to far in the players favour making it difficult for umpires to do their job? How should umpires deal with a player who questions their authority? Are umpires swayed by players that shout the loudest to treat them more favourably?

by Henman Bill Thu 28 May 2015, 2:56 am

Players don't respect umpires and don't treat them well, Roddick was a good example. Players generally look like primadonnas when they are in discussion with umpires.

by **laverfan** Thu 28 May 2015, 3:28 am

There is no one like Jeff Tarango or John McEnroe or Pancho Gonzalez. Pancho even argued with lines person, while Nalbandian made one bleed. McEnroe argued with a camera person and lost the 1984 RG. There are many such cases, but in general, there is mutual respect rather than an adversarial mentality.

TVs or lack thereof should not be generalized into overall attitude towards umpires or us v them between players and umpires. Both are necessary for the sport to function within rules.

Being an umpire is not easy, just ask the MLB umpires in the USofA.

Specifically, Bernardes v Nadal has happened before too, at WTF.

by bogbrush Thu 28 May 2015, 6:27 am

Fractious relationships with officials are nothing new - look at the state of football, as so often showing that what is thought of as extreme in tennis is nothing elsewhere!! - but the key is to draw the line at allowing participants to influence who officiates. Permitting that opens the door to undue influence over court control.

The idea of "respect" is a piece of fluff - it's nice to have but not essential for effective match operation.

Excellent stats on TVs, temp, illuminating for sure. I suggested a few pages back that an average shot time, available to the Umpire, could be the basis of no-discretion, reasonable ruling. It would overlook the odd infraction so long as the average was ok. It even permits the odd 30 + second break after a very long point, so long as the overall adherence is good. I thought that reasonable; any opinions?

by hawkeye Thu 28 May 2015, 9:11 am

temporary21 wrote:Here we go this site

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

Weve seen the table of time violations, 2 years old now, an interesting quote people missed

"This year through the Shanghai tournament last month, umpires had called 659 time violations against servers, 49 of them costing the server a first serve; and 47 violations against returners, costing three points, according to the ATP. For all of last year, umpires called just 59 time violations, and assessed zero point penalties."

Thats 650! without the year having ended yet, from 60 the year previous. no way in heck are you gonna convince me this is a one man show now!

Another big quote
“In the beginning, we had to be very, very strict, to send a message to players,” Graff said. “But then as time goes on, maybe you don’t enforce it as tough as in the beginning. Maybe you use more judgment.” Graff being an umpire, which might explain why its not a blanket rule, they appear to be trying to avoid a shot clock.

any thought?

That's a great find Very Happy

Just to be clear it was dated Nov 2013 so refers to the period when we were told Umpires would no longer be able to use discretion. At the beginning of the year it was obvious that there was an attempt to apply the rule fairly. If you remember back in this thread Haddie posted a you tube video showing a few time violation penalties being given and the reaction to them. One in particular where the Umpire called the rule crazy but said he had to apply it as he was not allowed to use judgement "this year" and another showing the incredulous reaction and sympathy to Del Potro receiving one. That would fit in with the "in the beginning we had to be very strict" bit. But then later that year it was obvious that something changed because time violations were only very rarely if ever handed out. Graff confirms this by saying Umpires were allowed to use judgement. The time violations given to players not named Nadal tend to be of the harmless variety like the one given to Murray in the same video later in the year.

I think it's fair to assume that most of those 659 tv's were given at the beginning of 2013 and less were given once Umpires were told to use judgement again. Odd that there was no official announcement about this considering the big media hoo ha at the beginning of the year. Since then it would hardly be surprising if figures have dropped to the levels they were pre 2013. I'm not surprised they wanted to avoid a shot clock because when the ATP did attempt to apply the rule fairly across the board it was far from popular.

If it is just pulled out of the bag occasionally it can be used to target one player specifically on crucial points. The lack of transparency in it's application can be used as a cover. ie If a player has a first serve taken away when serving at break/set point because they have taken 28 seconds then we are told that the Umpire is following the letter of the law but when in the majority of cases when players take as long or longer they go unpunished then the Umpire is just being understanding. It stinks! It stinks for any player just as it stunk when Del Potro was given a time violation on a crucial point back at the beginning of 2013. There would be a whole big stink if players other than Nadal continued to get penalized in the same way that Nadal is. The ATP can't have that so no wonder they don't want to be exposed by having an on court shot clock. Pathetic.

by hawkeye Thu 28 May 2015, 9:18 am

Just dug this up from the beginning of this thread. It shows how the rule was applied at the beginning of 2013 and the reaction to it during the time when the ATP will have issued the bulk of those 659 tv's. Then a time violation from later in the year a similar one to the sort handed out now at a nice friendly point.

hawkeye wrote:
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!

by bogbrush Thu 28 May 2015, 9:22 am

Oh hawkeye, stop with the "Nadal as victim" thing please.

Fact: He's been one of the biggest ever violators of the time rules for over a decade, and the worst offender amongst leading players.
Fact: He has had just 1 point docked; almost all warnings have been the toothless type
Fact: That Umpire is no longer handling his matches, hardly the stuff of victimisation (of Nadal)

If players played to the rules (and put their shorts on the right way round) there'd be nothing to talk about. Play to the rules.

by Guest Thu 28 May 2015, 9:27 am

I find it comical those demanding proof against Nadal, but won't themselves provide proof that ATP umpires are not issuing TV's based on fairness rather than consistency. clap

by Born Slippy Thu 28 May 2015, 9:31 am

bogbrush wrote:Oh hawkeye, stop with the "Nadal as victim" thing please.

Fact: He's been one of the biggest ever violators of the time rules for over a decade, and the worst offender amongst leading players.
Fact: He has had just 1 point docked; almost all warnings have been the toothless type
Fact: That Umpire is no longer handling his matches, hardly the stuff of victimisation (of Nadal)

If players played to the rules (and put their shorts on the right way round) there'd be nothing to talk about. Play to the rules.

Just to be clear, he hasn't had any points docked. The penalty was downgraded to a lost 1st serve to encourage umpires to actually enforce.

by **JuliusHMarx** Thu 28 May 2015, 9:36 am

Of those 659 in 2013 how many did you personally see hawkeye? How many were on key points?
From other links, 30 of those were given to Rafa. What's your view on the other 629? Were they fair or not?

Can we assume that you have also seen every tv over the last couple of years and done a similar evaluation in order to determine if Rafa is being unfairly targeted? Presenting an argument requires presenting unbiased evidence based on proper and full research. It seems to me that you can't be bothered to do that - as such your argument loses all credibility. Repeating it over again fails to address your lack of evidence.
It is insufficient to say that you have sampled Rafa's data and a few others and then hope to present a logical and credible argument. Do you have any intention of doing any proper research to back up your case?

by CaledonianCraig Thu 28 May 2015, 9:45 am

I sit here really pretty stunned about a mountain being made out of a molehill here.

Now I may not be seeing it from others views here but the time violation thing I think is stretching it way too far to try to paint it as blatant cheating. Tennis is NOT a time-orientated sport such as football and in football blatant time wasting is more cheating but I do not see anything like such a hoo-hah in that sport. All the best teams in the world run down the clock in numerous ways feigning injury, kicking the ball away, making substitutions, running the ball into the corners of the pitch etc etc etc but those teams are not dubbed blatant cheats. Football remember, is a sport, which returns a result once the 90 minutes is up and that is not the case in tennis.

Time between points is a grey area between umpires as is the time violation rule and since it is not commonly enforced that backs up what I am saying that officials do not see it as cheating so where does this idea come from? Sure it is infringing a rule but a rule hardly worth bothering about by umpires - much like say footballers having to tape up jewellery. In other words a triviality.

That is why I don't buy into this cry that it is cheating - that is way over the top it really is. Cheating is doping or such-like or else do we go the whole hog and call swearing at umpires (a wrong-doing) cheating as well.

I'd say feel free to discuss time violations but leave it out with proclamations of horror and calling it cheating and talk about what should be done. If people feel so strongly get up a petition and post it off to the ATP or LTA or ask someone at those organisations for something to be done to get umpires to enforce the law unilaterally across the board in a better way than it is at present.

Okay that is me done.

by HM Murdock Thu 28 May 2015, 9:55 am

bogbrush wrote: I suggested a few pages back that an average shot time, available to the Umpire, could be the basis of no-discretion, reasonable ruling. It would overlook the odd infraction so long as the average was ok. It even permits the odd 30 + second break after a very long point, so long as the overall adherence is good. I thought that reasonable; any opinions?

I thought that was a very good suggestion.

It's very easy for a player to go over 20/25 seconds on a given point. They could be way out of position when the previous point ended, the ball boy may be slow in providing the ball, spectators could be making noise etc. Any number of legitimate reasons could cause a delay to starting a point.

Keeping within an average time over a certain period however, would seem to tick the boxes of playing to the letter of the law (if the average is strictly enforced) and also the spirit of the law (to not unduly delay the starting of a point).

by Guest Thu 28 May 2015, 10:08 am

HM Murdoch wrote:
bogbrush wrote: I suggested a few pages back that an average shot time, available to the Umpire, could be the basis of no-discretion, reasonable ruling. It would overlook the odd infraction so long as the average was ok. It even permits the odd 30 + second break after a very long point, so long as the overall adherence is good. I thought that reasonable; any opinions?
I thought that was a very good suggestion.

It's very easy for a player to go over 20/25 seconds on a given point. They could be way out of position when the previous point ended, the ball boy may be slow in providing the ball, spectators could be making noise etc. Any number of legitimate reasons could cause a delay to starting a point.

Keeping within an average time over a certain period however, would seem to tick the boxes of playing to the letter of the law (if the average is strictly enforced) and also the spirit of the law (to not unduly delay the starting of a point).

I know the Masters event sometimes shows the average time taken between points. Not sure that info is cascaded to the umpires though.

I agree with the principle though.

by dummy_half Thu 28 May 2015, 10:21 am

HM Murdoch wrote:
bogbrush wrote: I suggested a few pages back that an average shot time, available to the Umpire, could be the basis of no-discretion, reasonable ruling. It would overlook the odd infraction so long as the average was ok. It even permits the odd 30 + second break after a very long point, so long as the overall adherence is good. I thought that reasonable; any opinions?
I thought that was a very good suggestion.

It's very easy for a player to go over 20/25 seconds on a given point. They could be way out of position when the previous point ended, the ball boy may be slow in providing the ball, spectators could be making noise etc. Any number of legitimate reasons could cause a delay to starting a point.

Keeping within an average time over a certain period however, would seem to tick the boxes of playing to the letter of the law (if the average is strictly enforced) and also the spirit of the law (to not unduly delay the starting of a point).

Was about to suggest something similar. The purpose of the time limit is to keep the game flowing, but does it really matter if there is the odd occasion in a match where someone takes 35 seconds to serve as long as the rest of the time they are within the 25s limit.

Players who are consistently too slow should be given a warning to keep play moving, but enforced TVs should be a rare thing.

by HM Murdock Thu 28 May 2015, 10:29 am

I also think bringing the slams in line with the ATP would be a good idea.

If a player plays to 25 seconds all year, it's an unneccessary stumbling block to then have to play to 20 seconds at the four slams. Without a shot clock, a player is relying on feel, so it doesn't help that their usual routines often can't be used at the biggest events.

A 25 second average enforced all year seems sensible to me.

by bogbrush Thu 28 May 2015, 10:41 am

CaledonianCraig wrote:I sit here really pretty stunned about a mountain being made out of a molehill here.

Now I may not be seeing it from others views here but the time violation thing I think is stretching it way too far to try to paint it as blatant cheating. Tennis is NOT a time-orientated sport such as football and in football blatant time wasting is more cheating but I do not see anything like such a hoo-hah in that sport. All the best teams in the world run down the clock in numerous ways feigning injury, kicking the ball away, making substitutions, running the ball into the corners of the pitch etc etc etc but those teams are not dubbed blatant cheats. Football remember, is a sport, which returns a result once the 90 minutes is up and that is not the case in tennis.

Time between points is a grey area between umpires as is the time violation rule and since it is not commonly enforced that backs up what I am saying that officials do not see it as cheating so where does this idea come from? Sure it is infringing a rule but a rule hardly worth bothering about by umpires - much like say footballers having to tape up jewellery. In other words a triviality.

That is why I don't buy into this cry that it is cheating - that is way over the top it really is. Cheating is doping or such-like or else do we go the whole hog and call swearing at umpires (a wrong-doing) cheating as well.

I'd say feel free to discuss time violations but leave it out with proclamations of horror and calling it cheating and talk about what should be done. If people feel so strongly get up a petition and post it off to the ATP or LTA or ask someone at those organisations for something to be done to get umpires to enforce the law unilaterally across the board in a better way than it is at present.

Okay that is me done.

Let's be clear

- hawkeye is making a huge deal out of "unfair" tvs
- many others including me are very concerned about players having influence over Umpire appointments

I don't think the latter is a minor concern - the inference is obvious, Umpire the way I like or you'll miss out on matches, and since I'm a very big player that can mean Slam finals etc.

by **JuliusHMarx** Thu 28 May 2015, 10:45 am

HM, I said a long time ago (two years?) that 25 seconds should be for all tournaments (incidentally, this would benefit Rafa - so yes, I have long been in favour of a rule change that would benefit Rafa).
A public shot clock would be a disaster imo - and in any case there is no way a player could keep an eye on it while preparing to serve, so who would it benefit? And what if the player hit the serve half a second after it went red - could the other player challenge and get a replay to see if it went over time?

There could however, be greater transparency with published data. I suspect there is already a view amongst umpires that the average time is taken into consideration - hence players are rarely, if ever, given a warning on the first offence, or even the first few offences. There could probably also be more consistency between umpires but again research would be required to see if some umpires give out more TV's than others. Some umpires do seem to have a quiet word with players before giving a tv later if it continues - not sure if all do though.
Of course, if players are worried, they could always ask the umpire "How am I doing for time on my serve?" at a changeover.

by bogbrush Thu 28 May 2015, 10:48 am

Yeah, I don't really see why 20 secs applies to the longest matches. You'd almost understand it better the other way round.

by CaledonianCraig Thu 28 May 2015, 11:01 am

bogbrush wrote:
CaledonianCraig wrote:I sit here really pretty stunned about a mountain being made out of a molehill here.

Now I may not be seeing it from others views here but the time violation thing I think is stretching it way too far to try to paint it as blatant cheating. Tennis is NOT a time-orientated sport such as football and in football blatant time wasting is more cheating but I do not see anything like such a hoo-hah in that sport. All the best teams in the world run down the clock in numerous ways feigning injury, kicking the ball away, making substitutions, running the ball into the corners of the pitch etc etc etc but those teams are not dubbed blatant cheats. Football remember, is a sport, which returns a result once the 90 minutes is up and that is not the case in tennis.

Time between points is a grey area between umpires as is the time violation rule and since it is not commonly enforced that backs up what I am saying that officials do not see it as cheating so where does this idea come from? Sure it is infringing a rule but a rule hardly worth bothering about by umpires - much like say footballers having to tape up jewellery. In other words a triviality.

That is why I don't buy into this cry that it is cheating - that is way over the top it really is. Cheating is doping or such-like or else do we go the whole hog and call swearing at umpires (a wrong-doing) cheating as well.

I'd say feel free to discuss time violations but leave it out with proclamations of horror and calling it cheating and talk about what should be done. If people feel so strongly get up a petition and post it off to the ATP or LTA or ask someone at those organisations for something to be done to get umpires to enforce the law unilaterally across the board in a better way than it is at present.

Okay that is me done.
Let's be clear

- hawkeye is making a huge deal out of "unfair" tvs
- many others including me are very concerned about players having influence over Umpire appointments

I don't think the latter is a minor concern - the inference is obvious, Umpire the way I like or you'll miss out on matches, and since I'm a very big player that can mean Slam finals etc.

But you do agree with the premise that time violations is not cheating but rather an annoyance?

Also it really is down to the umpire to do a Spartacus and stand as one and rigidly dish out time violations to one and all. Until it happens the current situation will not change. It is the umpires who have the power to change things at the end of the day - if they really feel it important enough to do so that is.

by Matchpoint Thu 28 May 2015, 11:04 am

CaledonianCraig wrote:
Matchpoint wrote:
CaledonianCraig wrote:
I would now agree that Wawrinka thing was nonsense.
Finally, this is all I need to hear. The rest iare side issues but I appreciate the feedback, thanks.

But don't forget the ATP spokesman says these requests are much more common than people think so until he is proven to be a liar or we hear he has been sacked for mistruths then his word should be accepted.

An ATP rep made a general statement (and nothing special as far as I'm concerned) without implicating any named player. So what? I don't understand.

by Matchpoint Thu 28 May 2015, 11:08 am

CaledonianCraig wrote:Okay that is me done.

You sure? Didn't you say that this time yesterday? laughing

by CaledonianCraig Thu 28 May 2015, 11:10 am

Matchpoint wrote:
CaledonianCraig wrote:Okay that is me done.
You sure? Didn't you say that this time yesterday?

Until I have something new to add.

by Belovedluckyboy Thu 28 May 2015, 11:13 am

Time they revisit the 25 sec time limit. I see many players going over the time limit,it's a matter of how frequently each player does that during each match.

The umpires have to exercise discretion, so far Mohamed Layani and James Keatavong are the best two umpires, exercising discretion, and warning players privately before officially issuing TV warnings. Bernardes is one of the worst, not flexible, not exercising discretion at all! I mean, you think it's fun having to change shorts on the tennis court with so many pairs of eyes watching? If I were Rafa, I would also get angry and do something about it! What if it's Fed or Stan having to change shorts on court? Would they not get angry? I don't think so, and I would not blame them! It's time the players get to say something when the umpires are inflexible to the extent of being unreasonable; it's not solely about TV warnings but the embarrassment that Rafa had to suffer in that shorts change incidence. Rafa wasn't complaining about the other umpires and was fine with them when they gave him TV warnings.

It's poor journalism that they made a big fuss out of this; as if Rafa is a big bully! If he is, he would have more umpires removed from his matches since they enforce the rule, why only Bernardes? They talked as if Bernardes was a hero, for daring to give Rafa TV warnings, as if Rafa didn't get any warnings from the other Umpires!! Bernardes ought to be ashamed of his poor umpiring, for making a player having to change his shorts on court! It's also terrible that so many people criticize Rafa for wanting Bernardes out of his matches, would they do the same if it's their favorite player suffering the embarrassment on court?

My opinion: time to reconsider the 25 sec rule, set a reasonable time limit and enforce it strictly, with heavier penalty like point deduction if it's frequent offences during a match. Start timing only after umpire call the score, and umpires have to exercise discretion and give allowances for unexpected incidences.

Rant over, not coming to this thread anymore,

by Matchpoint Thu 28 May 2015, 11:20 am

bogbrush wrote:Oh hawkeye, stop with the "Nadal as victim" thing please.

Fact: He's been one of the biggest ever violators of the time rules for over a decade, and the worst offender amongst leading players.
Fact: He has had just 1 point docked; almost all warnings have been the toothless type
Fact: That Umpire is no longer handling his matches, hardly the stuff of victimisation (of Nadal)

If players played to the rules (and put their shorts on the right way round) there'd be nothing to talk about. Play to the rules.

Seems to me Nadal becomes a very big "victim" only when he's in a losing position. Be patient. When he goes back to winning mode, cries of "Nadal as victim" will somehow also dissipate. Funny that some fans' thought process is not conditioned by logic or common sense but a lot by whether their guy is losing or winning. Whistle

I agree with the rest of your comments. thumbsup

by Sponsored content