Why do Umpires ignore code violations?

First topic message reminder :

After Becker admitted that he coaches Djokovic on court I wanted to check what punishment should be receiving for this extra help.

According to the ATP rule book (found on the ATP site - section on "the code") penalties should be issued using the point penalty schedule as follows

2) Point Penalty Schedule
a) The Point Penalty Schedule to be used for Code Violations is as follows:
FIRST OFFENSE WARNING
SECOND OFFENSE POINT PENALTY
THIRD AND EACH SUBSEQUENT OFFENSE GAME PENALTY
However, after the third Code Violation, the supervisor shall determine whether
each subsequent offense shall constitute a default.

Clearly the Umpires are turning a blind eye to Becker's illegal hand signals because I would imagine he will give more than 3 per match.

I also noticed that a few other players are getting off lightly too because this same point penalty schedule should also apply to Ball abuse, Racquet or equipment abuse, physical or verbal abuse (of official, opponent, spectator or other person within the precincts of the tournament site ), audible or visible obscenity and unsportsmanike conduct. In fact for any of these offenses other than ball or raquet abuse a single incident if judged severe will constitute a Major Offense of Aggravated behavior. The punishment for this is default. In addition these offenses carry a fine penalty. Any player who has acquired a cumulative total of $10,000 in fines over a twelve month period will also be liable to suspension from the tour.

Very interesting. I wonder why the ATP doesn't crack down on players that break these rules

Matosevic got fined for coaching in 2014. Over $3000 or so, around double what Nadal got.

In other words HE, you're in favour of draconian punishment for offences that your favourite player doesn't do, but would like a rule change to accommodate your favourite player for the rule that he does break.

JuliusHMarx wrote:In other words HE, you're in favour of draconian punishment for offences that your favourite player doesn't do, but would like a rule change to accommodate your favourite player for the rule that he does break.

JHM haven't you fed that hobby horse of yours yet ?? its constantly chomping at the bit

It doesn't sound like that to you?

My personal gripe is racket breaking - I'd like a rule change to see that more severely punished.

Haddie-nuff wrote:Sorry you are placing all the blame at the doors of players.

Misbehaved children are the product of bad parenting

Better umpiring could have prevented many of the problems that have been created Kyrigos is an example of the youth that is entering this sport he has little respect for the sport, the umpires, his opponents and even less for himself. That is the future of tennis without consistent umpiring.
I rest my case.
We agree to disgree

That is paternalism at it's worst - these are not children, they are grown @$$ men, who should take responsibility for their actions. And of course it's the players responsibility - who is it that's breaking the rules - the player or the umpire? Give me a break. And for a player (like Nadal has said in the past) that it is the umpire's responsibility to ensure he stays under the limit, is a childish cop out that we should reject out of hand. A players lack of respect for the rules, and abjection of his duty to operate within the rules is no more the umpire's responsibility than it if he were to put his shorts on backwards. That just doesn't make any sense.

MMT1 wrote:

Haddie-nuff wrote:Sorry you are placing all the blame at the doors of players.

Misbehaved children are the product of bad parenting

Better umpiring could have prevented many of the problems that have been created Kyrigos is an example of the youth that is entering this sport he has little respect for the sport, the umpires, his opponents and even less for himself. That is the future of tennis without consistent umpiring.
I rest my case.
We agree to disgree

That is paternalism at it's worst - these are not children, they are grown @$$ men, who should take responsibility for their actions. And of course it's the players responsibility - who is it that's breaking the rules - the player or the umpire? Give me a break. And for a player (like Nadal has said in the past) that it is the umpire's responsibility to ensure he stays under the limit, is a childish cop out that we should reject out of hand. A players lack of respect for the rules, and abjection of his duty to operate within the rules is no more the umpire's responsibility than it if he were to put his shorts on backwards. That just doesn't make any sense.

like Nadal has said in the past  Yes over and over and over

Take your obsession with Nadal, his tv.s. and the subject that surrounds him to the Sticky thread where it belongs
This thread is not about NADAL its about players in general. get a grip man your hatred is showing

ONCE AGAIN. This is about how the umpires deal with offences after they've been done. Not rafael bloody nadal! umpires aren't as strict with some players than others probably because the application if the rule us up to them

A few points -

1. In football there is inconsistencies between referees, but individual referees can be consistent to themselves i.e. more prone to giving red/yellow cards, so at least the players know what they are going to get from a particular referee. The same is probably true of tennis umpires.

2. If a player breaks a rule 20 times and gets penalised twice, and then another player breaks the rule 10 times and gets penalised once, that is actually consistent, despite player A getting twice as much punishment.

3. Does any ref/umpire in any sport the letter of the law entirely strictly all the time? If not, then what we hope for is that the intent of the laws are applied and the spirit of the game is kept intact by the officials. To that extent, apart from the odd error (even umpires are human) I don't see any obvious or genuine problems or inconsistencies in the umpiring of tennis matches. Certainly nothing to suggest anything untoward is going on.

4. The rules could be more strictly enforced, and they probably should be, but imho umpires are running a bit scared of the players. But I see no inconsistencies in how they are applied across players (except on a very few occasions, which is human error more than anything else I think).

JuliusHMarx wrote:A few points -

1. In football there is inconsistencies between referees, but individual referees can be consistent to themselves i.e. more prone to giving red/yellow cards, so at least the players know what they are going to get from a particular referee. The same is probably true of tennis umpires.

2. If a player breaks a rule 20 times and gets penalised twice, and then another player breaks the rule 10 times and gets penalised once, that is actually consistent, despite player A getting twice as much punishment.

3. Does any ref/umpire in any sport the letter of the law entirely strictly all the time? If not, then what we hope for is that the intent of the laws are applied and the spirit of the game is kept intact by the officials. To that extent, apart from the odd error (even umpires are human) I don't see any obvious or genuine problems or inconsistencies in the umpiring of tennis matches. Certainly nothing to suggest anything untoward is going on.

4. The rules could be more strictly enforced, and they probably should be, but imho umpires are running a bit scared of the players. But I see no inconsistencies in how they are applied across players (except on a very few occasions, which is human error more than anything else I think).

I understand your point JHM,.. but if we are to bring "one certain player" into the mix JUST ONE MORE TIME
it is to say this Perhaps he has highlighted the point Im trying to make. He should have been brought to task months and months ago.. why wasn't he??  It has escalated to the situation we have now and brought him, but more importantly umpiring, into question. Because there seems no rhyme nor reason as to why they have applied that rule so strictly to him now when it should, and could have been done at the outset, I am trying to say that if the Umpires were more strict in applying the rules regularly, consistently and fairly from the outset  the players would come to realise that their violation, whatever that is, will not be tolerated and therefore modify their behaviour accordingly. Thus normal service would be resumed. Umpiring made easier and ever player knows exactly where they stand.
Take again Kyrigos .. he is only 19 yrs old, he should be jumped on now and be made an example of to all the young players entering the sport,. His behaviour is unacceptable by anyone's standards but he is being allowed to get away with it. He is guilty of ball abuse, verbal abuse, swearing which are in my view far more serious than TV's.
Rules are rules, apply them  then all PLAYERS  will get the message.

The argument that the Umpire is always right in these matters does not hold water with me Im afraid
They do not walk on water, they have the power to make or break a match and  a tournament
I do not think they are as vulnerable as you give them credit for .. they have the clout when needed
I believe that players have the right , as indeed Roger did in one match, call the umpire into question..

Kyrgios - yes, should have been defaulted. However, the article you linked to stated that the umpire had not seen the final ball abuse. So either that is genuinely the case, or the umpire bottled it because it was a third set tie-break.

Rafa - My personal view is that no-one wanted to crack down on him - or Djokovic or Murray (although they don't break the time rule as often as Rafa, they still do it too much) - too hard and that they were hoping that giving tv warnings and not causing them to lose first serves would be enough for them to get the hint. Far from targeting Rafa (or anyone else), I think they were trying to nudge him in the right direction. I think they still are. Personally, I agree with that initial approach - it may not be the letter of the law, but it has more common sense and to an extent, more consideration for the players. But maybe it hasn't worked and a proper crackdown is needed.

Why I question it JHM is that liken it to drink driving... would drinkers be guided by their conscience not to drink and drive or are they only concerned about getting caught.?? If the strict penalties for that offence were not in place and drivers were not aware that they could be fined, disqualified or even given  a prison sentence, we would have mayhem on our roads. Drivers will not govern themselves, why  would anyone  expect players, who are earning mega bucks to win a tournament, do so.? Players are human, all of them; they will walk that  line if allowed to.  Umpiring could be made easier

1. Players go over the time limit very frequently and hardly ever get punished.

2. Players swear, break racquets etc less frequently and while these tend to be punished somewhat more frequently than slow play, they also quite often go unpunished.

I agree that all of these should be punished more frequently, but at the same time I do not see any huge inconsistency anywhere in the current set-up.

Haddie-nuff wrote:Why I question it JHM is that liken it to drink driving... would drinkers be guided by their conscience not to drink and drive or are they only concerned about getting caught.?? If the strict penalties for that offence were not in place and drivers were not aware that they could be fined, disqualified or even given  a prison sentence, we would have mayhem on our roads. Drivers will not govern themselves, why  would anyone  expect players, who are earning mega bucks to win a tournament, do so.? Players are human, all of them; they will walk that  line if allowed to.  Umpiring could  be made easier

Absolute total nonsense. Individuals don't drink drive because they might die. Or kill someone else. Perhaps their kids or a family member. Or someone else's kids. That is why they don't drink and drive. Not because they might get fined or disqualified. The people who drink and drive now, do so regardless of penalties. It's an inherently flawed decision made under the influence, where penalties or consequences have no reasoning. If the decision is made before hand, then the penalties don't serve any purpose and the point stands about being inconsequential.

To compare a game and it's rule set, which the overwhelming majority of matches and players involved have no problem with what so ever, to an action which can have such devastating consequences for everyone involved, is frankly unbelievable and not remotely comparable.

Why would anyone expect players to govern themselves? Well as I've pointed out - the overwhelming vast majority do. You should be asking, why are a minority of players (correctly) being cited for offences? Additionally, why are a small proportion of this minority of players being cited (again correctly) for the same offence?

It's nanny state on steroids. That individuals cannot, and should not, be held responsible for their own actions? Unbelievable. Thank god murder is an offence. Otherwise we'd all go round killing everyone.

Ha, here comes the fuzz (Haddie).

Johnyjeep wrote:

Haddie-nuff wrote:Why I question it JHM is that liken it to drink driving... would drinkers be guided by their conscience not to drink and drive or are they only concerned about getting caught.?? If the strict penalties for that offence were not in place and drivers were not aware that they could be fined, disqualified or even given  a prison sentence, we would have mayhem on our roads. Drivers will not govern themselves, why  would anyone  expect players, who are earning mega bucks to win a tournament, do so.? Players are human, all of them; they will walk that  line if allowed to.  Umpiring could  be made easier

Absolute total nonsense. Individuals don't drink drive because they might die. Or kill someone else. Perhaps their kids or a family member. Or someone else's kids. That is why they don't drink and drive. Not because they might get fined or disqualified. The people who drink and drive now, do so regardless of penalties. It's an inherently flawed decision made under the influence, where penalties or consequences have no reasoning. If the decision is made before hand, then the penalties don't serve any purpose and the point stands about being inconsequential.

To compare a game and it's rule set, which the overwhelming majority of matches and players involved have no problem with what so ever, to an action which can have such devastating consequences for everyone involved, is frankly unbelievable and not remotely comparable.

Why would anyone expect players to govern themselves? Well as I've pointed out - the overwhelming vast majority do. You should be asking, why are a minority of players (correctly) being cited for offences? Additionally, why are a small proportion of this minority of players being cited (again correctly) for the same offence?

It's nanny state on steroids. That individuals cannot, and should not, be held responsible for their own actions? Unbelievable. Thank god murder is an offence. Otherwise we'd all go round killing everyone.

It is total nonsense in YOUR opinion.
It is remotely comparable.. but not in your opinion. I don't agree with your opinion either but I am not arrogant enough to call it nonsense and recognise that you are entitled to believe it whether I do or not. So don't be so bliddy rude

Enough for petes sake you both know what youre doing...
Once again, this is about consistent application of a rule, AFTER the fact a rule was broken. Why, or who or how and how much they break it is of complete inconsequence to the topic, you are correct to point out that drink driving is no comparison, drink driving has serious consequences.
All these rules however, in the grand scheme of things are of total insignificance or consequence.

To that end theres no right answer to this one, if you dont really care, thats a perfectly valid stance on something so inconsequential, who REALLY gives a monkeys unless one guy is stabbing the otherr. If it eats you every minute of the day, fair dos as well, you like things more queens rules, but most people wont share your outrage on something like this.

Bear in mind though that all big players bend the rules if they can to get an edge, tv's, MTO's and toilet breaks if 2 sets down or two sets all that they dont really need. They also all get angry, and say bad things, mostly because theyre frustrated because theyre soo good. Not seen single player who has always self governed themselves with perfection

Anyway, the primary importance of a rule is in its consistency across the board. As far as im concerned, if a rule isnt 100% consistent, then theres something wrong

temporary21 wrote:Enough for petes sake you both know what youre doing...
Once again, this is about consistent application of a rule, AFTER the fact a rule was broken. Why, or who or how and how much they break it is of complete inconsequence to the topic, you are correct to point out that drink driving is no comparison, drink driving has serious consequences.
All these rules however, in the grand scheme of things are of total insignificance or consequence.

To that end theres no right answer to this one, if you dont really care, thats a perfectly valid stance on something so inconsequential, who REALLY gives a monkeys unless one guy is stabbing the otherr. If it eats you every minute of the day, fair dos as well, you like things more queens rules, but most people wont share your outrage on something like this.

Bear in mind though that all big players bend the rules if they can to get an edge, tv's, MTO's and toilet breaks if 2 sets down or two sets all that they dont really need. They also all get angry, and say bad things, mostly because theyre frustrated because theyre soo good. Not seen single player who has always self governed themselves with perfection

Anyway, the primary importance of a rule is in its consistency across the board. As far as im concerned, if a rule isnt 100% consistent, then theres something wrong

Why are you having a go at me I addressed my comments to JHM and I am being attacked by another poster because of my views and told that it was nonsense because that is what he didn't agree. Are we not allowed an opinion without being told its nonsense.... Hell I  have merely defended my stand ;point I don't expect to be addressed in such an aggressive manner now you want to be seen as being fair well your are not.
Don't make me the guilty party..jeeeze

Haddie-nuff wrote:I am trying to say that if the Umpires were more strict in applying the rules regularly, consistently and fairly from the outset  

If your talking about the time violation rule then prior to all the talk about enforcing the guideline time strictly I don't believe Nadal or any other player who had a regular and consistent service routine would have considered to have been breaking any rules. Umpires had discretion and it wouldn't have been judged as disruption. Lots of tittle tattle changed that and somehow a couple of seconds was seen to be disruption. But perhaps only when the subject of the tittle tattle was slower than the time on crucial points

The problem is that because it isn't really disruption it would make penalizing players routinely look draconian. That's why after the initial crack down because of the outrage it was causing Umpires stopped enforcing it. Apart from the rare penalty to other players (a sort of sop to the rule) the only player who the rule is used on is Nadal.

JuliusHMarx wrote:

Rafa - My personal view is that no-one wanted to crack down on him - or Djokovic or Murray (although they don't break the time rule as often as Rafa, they still do it too much)

How do you know other players don't break the rule (whatever it is) as often as Rafa? Have you timed them all over a long period of time. If the ITF and ATP are handing out more penalties to Nadal on the basis that he goes over the limit more frequently I would hope they have firm evidence to back this up and not just relying on tittle tattle. I hope they also are factoring in the time taken by other players when they deliberately disrupt play in a way that isn't part of a regular service routine. For example changing broken raquets. If they are not penalizing players every time they go over 25 seconds I hope they can show how they choose the points were they give a rare penalty. If they can't prove they are keeping track of all time violations and have a clear system for giving out penalties when they do then there is no transparency. When so many have been given to one player at pivotal points in matches and have the power to change the outcome of matches it's little wonder that some want clarification.

http://www.tennis-x.com/xblog/2015-06-28/19878.php

http://www.sport24.co.za/Tennis/Wimbledon/Djokovic-denies-on-court-coaching-claims-20150629

If there's something I hate, it's this undercurrent of exceptionalism that's pervasive in tennis.  

It's against the rules, but it's somebody else job to make sure it's not done.  
It's against the rules, but everybody does it.  
It's against the rules, but it's not an important rule, etc.  

Djokovic is no different, with his (non)explanation of his own brand of cheating (which Nadal happens to violate as well, but I digress).  The purpose of this rule is to be sure that it's the player, and not the coach, who figures out how to win the match.  That's something that differentiates tennis from other sports, where the influence of the coach is almost unlimited beyond playing the game, and one of the things that makes tennis special.  What they do with on court coaching on the WTA tour is an abomination, and I really hope they get their heads out of their collective @$$es with that (unlikely now that the genie is out of the bottle) but at least over there it's no longer against the rules, so the women can feel free to look as weak and dependent as they want to a world wide audience.

But on the men's side, the game is still played (as close to) as it should be (as possible, with a few glaring exceptions) and I think the worst thing they could do would be to make legal what is now illegal (as far as coaching is concerned) and still connects the game to its history of great independent, self-reliant champions who figure things out for themselves.

Well said MMT1.

I concur with all that you say on this

I hope Novak has given Boris an earful about all this. Stories like the Federer one and the coaching-during-the-match just cause distractions during an important tournament and were told for no other reason than to sell some books.

On the issue of coaching, it's a silly situation.

As far as I believe and can tell from what cameras pick up, the "communication" is no more than looks that say "you're doing well" or "keep fighting, hang in there" etc. It's reassurance that Boris is offering, not tactics.

I can't see that it really impacts the match, so I'm not feeling very animated over it. It's a non-story to me.

But why do it? The rules clearly say NO communication, so why break them in such a pointless way? Does an experienced elite athlete really need a re-assuring look from his coach?

I like MMT1's post above. It's the attitude behind the infringement rather the infringement itself that's irritating to me.

If the coach cant even clap and encourage their player, then there is quite literally no reason for them to even be in the box.
Players should play within the rules, but its naive I think to expect people to always follow the more minor rules to the letter, especially when you see your opponent doing it. If everybody always perfectly self governed, you wouldnt need an umpire, would be NICE, but this is competitive sport, with a lot of money on the line.

Most these smaller rules would be much easier to deal with, if they wernt soo wishy washy with it. Dont let the coaches be in the court, etc tc

Clapping and encouragement is one thing, but coaching is another - let's not confuse the two. Djokovic is claiming that all he does is get encouragement, then this is much ado about nothing. However, anything beyond encouragement is strictly prohibited and should be enforced. The problem with this rule is that it requires the umpire to be observing what the coaches do, and that is really an enormous waste of his time and concentration, because there are a lot more things on the court he is responsible for that would be sacrificed to police this nonsense. That's why I found Djokovic's "...it's the umpire's responsibility..." bit to be a childish abdication of responsibility, and it is this cavalier "...catch me if you can..." attitude that I find to so unsporting and cynical.

It is not the umpire's responsibility to catch you cheating - it is your responsibility as a sportsman to play by the rules. I have no patience for this passing of the buck, and a great champion like Djokovic ought to be ashamed of himself for so blithely washing his hands of something that he ought to adhere to, just like all the other players on tour who DON'T cheat with coaching.

P.S. I find it mildly ironic that Becker, who never listened to any of his coaches, and frequently did the opposite of what they told him to do (including illegal coaching, to which his former manager Ion Tiriac admitted to doing with him and with Vilas) is now casting himself as the brains behind the operation. That he would proclaim for himself, what he never allowed his own coaches to do for him, is ironic and telling of his character.

Thats a valid stance

I just think its far too much wishful thinking to think people will ever be that noble in the heat of battle, with that much prestige, and cash on the line, Im not personally surprised at all.

Another rule people take advantage of which sometimes gets my goat (heh...) is the toilet comfort break. Players always seem to need the toilet conveniently when they need a break or are two sets down. Ive seen EVERY player do this, in theory it is NOT a comfort break, but then, Im not sure i could crucify them for bending it a little bit, thats kind of human nature.

Here is the rule on toilet breaks per the ITF Rules:

4. Toilet/Change of Attire Break
A player is allowed to request permission to leave the court for a reasonable time for a toilet break/change of attire break (women’s events). Toilet breaks should be taken on a set break and can be used for no other purpose. Change of attire breaks (women’s events) must be taken on a set break.
In women’s singles events a player is entitled to two (2) breaks during a match.
In men’s singles events a player is entitled to one (1) toilet break during a best of three (3) set match and two (2) toilet breaks during a best of five (5) set match.
In all doubles matches, each team is entitled to a total of two (2) breaks. If partners leave the court together, it counts as one of the team’s authorised breaks. Any time a player leaves the court for a toilet break, it is considered one of the authorised breaks regardless of whether or not the opponent has left the court. Any toilet break taken after a warm-up has started is considered one of the authorised breaks.
Additional breaks will be authorised but will be penalised in accordance with the Point Penalty Schedule if the player is not ready to play within the allowed time.

As you can see, the rule has remedies for abuse, and a lines person is supposed to accompany the player to ensure they're not getting coaching or anything like that. I think they have too many breaks in the rules, but that is a rule change, not an abuse of the rules. I don't think anyone should get more than one bathroom break in a match - if it's really an emergency they can take a medical time out (which I also think there are too many of - I think there should be one per match and that's it).

Here's one rule that everyone really does abuse, and should be eliminated - the short changeover and the changeover in the tie-break. That's absurd - they should just get on with it, but if you absolutely HAVE to take a swig do it in 30 seconds and move along. I've seen 20 minute games where the players didn't get water, so this is not essential. Soccer players frequently play 45 minutes at a time without water, and nobody says boo.

They dont take the break for the toilet though.

MMT1 wrote:Clapping and encouragement is one thing, but coaching is another - let's not confuse the two.  Djokovic is claiming that all he does is get encouragement, then this is much ado about nothing.  However, anything beyond encouragement is strictly prohibited and should be enforced. The problem with this rule is that it requires the umpire to be observing what the coaches do, and that is really an enormous waste of his time and concentration, because there are a lot more things on the court he is responsible for that would be sacrificed to police this nonsense. That's why I found Djokovic's "...it's the umpire's responsibility..." bit to be a childish abdication of responsibility, and it is this cavalier "...catch me if you can..." attitude that I find to so unsporting and cynical.

It is not the umpire's responsibility to catch you cheating - it is your responsibility as a sportsman to play by the rules.  I have no patience for this passing of the buck, and a great champion like Djokovic ought to be ashamed of himself for so blithely washing his hands of something that he ought to adhere to, just like all the other players on tour who DON'T cheat with coaching.

P.S. I find it mildly ironic that Becker, who never listened to any of his coaches, and frequently did the opposite of what they told him to do (including illegal coaching, to which his former manager Ion Tiriac admitted to doing with him and with Vilas) is now casting himself as the brains behind the operation.  That he would proclaim for himself, what he never allowed his own coaches to do for him, is ironic and telling of his character.

Becker admitted to using secret hand signals to coach Djokovic during matches. If he admitted it then presumably it's not necessary for the Umpire to notice it. Code violations can be given when the Umpire doesn't see them and this issue is addressed in the rule book.

https://www.606v2.com/t59493-boris-becker-admits-to-coaching-djokovic-during-matches

From the rule book

Coaching and Coaches
i) Players shall not receive coaching during a tournament match. Communications
of any kind, audible or visible, between a player and a coach may
be construed as coaching.

In circumstances that are flagrant and particularly injurious to the success
of a tournament, or are singularly egregious, the supervisor shall have the
authority to relocate the position of a coach if there is reasonable belief
that coaching is occurring or the supervisor may order the coach to be
removed from the match site or tournament site and upon his failure to
comply with such order, may declare an immediate default of such player

I wonder if it's a "flagrant" violation of the rule to boast about it on BBC1's "One Show"

I've seen players take toilet breaks during sets before.

Now before Rafa fans go "oohhh god LS is singling out Nadal here again bla bla bla yackity smackity" - well it's the only time I can recall it off the top of my head.

Indian Wells 2012 sf vs Feds. Before he served for the match, Rafa took a toilet break. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KVwQX731aVM

I have heard in the past other players like feds used a toilet break in the past when he didn't even need the toilet, which isn;t good. 

But as it's in the 2 mins i dont see much wrong with it.

Well if its desperate then yes ok. The point is those are NOT comfort breaks to gather your composure, doing them at only 2 sets down is highly unlikely to be proper use of them

Andy Murray credits toilet pep talk for US Open victory

Andy Murray has revealed how a toilet pep talk inspired him to win his maiden grand slam title at the US Open in September. Murray, who booked his place in Sunday's final of the Sony Open after beating Richard Gasquet, admitted four straight defeats in the finals of majors had left his self-belief "pretty low" when he faced Novak Djokovic in the 2012 showpiece at Flushing Meadows.

The Scot appeared on course for a fifth dose of final heartbreak after squandering a two-set lead to tee up a decider against the Serbian, but a comfort break before the fifth set proved decisive.

"It had got to me," Murray told the Times. "I had played four grand slam finals before playing Novak in New York and had only won one set. Wherever I walked, I walked with hunched shoulders and with my head down.

"I think in my own mind I had bought the idea that I was not a real winner until I had won a grand slam. I was very negative in my own mind at the end of the fourth set at the US Open. My self-belief was pretty low."

Murray retreated to the sanctuary of the lavatory cubicle near the players' entrance to Arthur Ashe Stadium. "When you walk out of the stadium there is a cubicle on the right-hand side," Murray explained. "It is small, not much more than a toilet, a sink and a mirror. I was thinking: 'Why do I keep losing these finals? Do I lack something? How on earth did I squander a two-set lead?'

"I could not go back on to the court feeling like that. I would have lost the deciding set before the first ball was hit.

"I never talk to myself, not out loud. Isn't that supposed to be the first sign of madness? That is why that toilet break was so unusual. I stood in front of the
"I never talk to myself, not out loud. Isn't that supposed to be the first sign of madness? That is why that toilet break was so unusual. I stood in front of the mirror with sweat dripping down my face and I knew I had to change what was going on inside.

"So I started talking. Out loud. 'You are not losing this match,' I said to myself. 'You are not losing this match.' I started out a little tentative but my voice got louder. 'You are not going to let this one slip. This is your time.'

"At first, I felt a bit weird, but I felt something change inside me. I was surprised by my response. I knew I could win." A break of the Djokovic serve in the first game of the decider was evidence enough that Murray had indeed conquered his demons, and he had no trouble closing out the final set 6-2.

http://www.theguardian.com/sport/2013/mar/30/andy-murray-toilet-us-open

I remember Fed doing the same thing against Davydenko. In the post-match on court interview he said it had helped him to re-group, then said "Oh, and of course I needed to go to the toilet".
Murray was obviously taking notes.

That he did, a lot of guys have said about it. I cant say I blame them, but they are technically foul of the rule there

yep - it's just one of those rules it's impossible to police - unless you start measuring the volume produced!

Well the linesman in the Kyrgios/Monaco match reported Kyrgios to the umpire for swearing and Kyrgios decided to mock the umpire at the change of ends.

Yeah. Even the Aussie press of all things have given Nick the third degree for his first round too