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

I'm sorry, but I have to call this out - I think this thread is an attempt to again put the focus of code of conduct (and other) violations on the umpires, and not on the players where they belong. It is a fact that in sports, players violate the rules all the time, and officials use their discretion on which violations to cite and which ones to let go. There is absolutely nothing unseemly about it, because without this discretion, the rules of any game would become obstructive.

The real issue is that players should learn the rules and stick to them, rather than complaining about the officiating, or worse, interfering with it. Note the response of some players in this article, to news that Nadal's request to exclude Bernardes from his matches:

http://www.tennis.com/pro-game/2015/05/players-weigh-nadals-umpire-complaint/55067/#.VYq8IWC-p94

To summarize, Djokovic has never made such a request, Federer insists that all players should expect to be treated the same and should just get on with it, and Wawrinka agrees with my contention that the only reason an umpire should be excluded from matches is if they make errors of law or judgement.

He also echoed my assessment that umpires being excluded from matches (or the threat thereof) will cause them to apply the rules differently for those players who persistently make the latter stages of tournaments (which all officials want to be a part of). Tsonga for his part hedged his response, but ultimately felt umpires shouldn't be excluded for applying the rules properly.

Nadal's answer is incoherent - he doesn't cite any error of law for his exclusion request, then states that one shouldn't question his motives because essentially he's an honest guy. He may be honest, but that's irrelevant because there are a lot of honest players, but they don't all agree that Bernardes should have been excluded.

It's high time that we place the focus on the players, and not the officials, who are there to apply the rules judiciously. Players who plainly violate rules have not business complaining about the proper application thereof, and certainly shouldn't receive tacit approval of both their breaking of the rules, and actions taken that would reduce the proper application of the rules, such as excluding perfectly well performing umpires from their matches.

The whole thing is a farce.

But then round we go again. A lasses faire approach means you get inconsistency in application between matches, leading to people feeling targeted. Consistency is all that matters, consistently tough, or consistently forgiving.  Then again if you're worrying more about between the points than actually the points, I can't see much enjoyment in it

MMT1 wrote:I'm sorry, but I have to call this out - I think this thread is an attempt to again put the focus of code of conduct (and other) violations on the umpires, and not on the players where they belong.  It is a fact that in sports, players violate the rules all the time, and officials use their discretion on which violations to cite and which ones to let go. There is absolutely nothing unseemly about it, because without this discretion, the rules of any game would become obstructive.

The real issue is that players should learn the rules and stick to them, rather than complaining about the officiating, or worse, interfering with it.  Note the response of some players in this article, to news that Nadal's request to exclude Bernardes from his matches:

http://www.tennis.com/pro-game/2015/05/players-weigh-nadals-umpire-complaint/55067/#.VYq8IWC-p94

To summarize, Djokovic has never made such a request, Federer insists that all players should expect to be treated the same and should just get on with it, and Wawrinka agrees with my contention that the only reason an umpire should be excluded from matches is if they make errors of law or judgement.

He also echoed my assessment that umpires being excluded from matches (or the threat thereof) will cause them to apply the rules differently for those players who persistently make the latter stages of tournaments (which all officials want to be a part of). Tsonga for his part hedged his response, but ultimately felt umpires shouldn't be excluded for applying the rules properly.

Nadal's answer is incoherent - he doesn't cite any error of law for his exclusion request, then states that one shouldn't question his motives because essentially he's an honest guy. He may be honest, but that's irrelevant because there are a lot of honest players, but they don't all agree that Bernardes should have been excluded.

It's high time that we place the focus on the players, and not the officials, who are there to apply the rules judiciously.  Players who plainly violate rules have not business complaining about the proper application thereof, and certainly shouldn't receive tacit approval of both their breaking of the rules, and actions taken that would reduce the proper application of the rules, such as excluding perfectly well performing umpires from their matches.

The whole thing is a farce.

So focus on the players? Or just focus on Nadal? Again. Again?  There's no point either sidr of this claiming superiority frankly. We're now spending more time talking about between point semantics than anything else, and we still can't get an wide reaching discussion.

It might help the discussion if the OP actually offered an opinion on it, rather than just asking for everyone else's.

MMT1 wrote:I'm sorry, but I have to call this out - I think this thread is an attempt to again put the focus of code of conduct (and other) violations on the umpires,

I'm not sure how you've come to that conclusion? It's about why clear rules in the ATP rulebook are not being enforced. For example audible obscenity is not allowed. This rule would be quite simple to enforce and quite simple for players to comply with. Players know the rules and Umpires know the rules. So why do players regularly flaunt it and why do Umpires ignore it?

JuliusHMarx wrote:It might help the discussion if the OP actually offered an opinion on it, rather than just asking for everyone else's.

I don't know. Certainly hope it isn't anything to do with what you suggested earlier.

temporary21 wrote:But then round we go again. A lasses faire approach means you get inconsistency in application between matches, leading to people feeling targeted. Consistency is all that matters, consistently tough, or consistently forgiving.  Then again if you're worrying more about between the points than actually the points, I can't see much enjoyment in it

But, as MMT1 shows, if you're consistently within the rules, you don't need to be worried whatsoever about the umpire's consistency.

biugo wrote:

temporary21 wrote:But then round we go again. A lasses faire approach means you get inconsistency in application between matches, leading to people feeling targeted. Consistency is all that matters, consistently tough, or consistently forgiving.  Then again if you're worrying more about between the points than actually the points, I can't see much enjoyment in it

But, as MMT1 shows, if you're consistently within the rules, you don't need to be worried whatsoever about the umpire's consistency.

But then you're saying it's ok for the umpires to be inconsistent. Now they're not doing their job properly. Eugh and round and round, why is it just one sides fault all the time. Surely the correct response to this is for both sides to deal with their issues

hawkeye wrote:

MMT1 wrote:I'm sorry, but I have to call this out - I think this thread is an attempt to again put the focus of code of conduct (and other) violations on the umpires,

I'm not sure how you've come to that conclusion? It's about why clear rules in the ATP rulebook are not being enforced. For example audible obscenity is not allowed. This rule would be quite simple to enforce and quite simple for players to comply with. Players know the rules and Umpires know the rules. So why do players regularly flaunt it and why do Umpires ignore it?

Maybe because there is some leeway in what constitutes an audible obscenity. Is there a list of words concerned? in which languages? Couldn't screaming or shouting (whatever the words or non-words) be considered offensive/disrepectful conduct? What gestures are offensive?
Time limit is 20-25 sec - but doesn't the code states that the umpire may use discretion (especially to account for public noise, heat, hawkeye...).Is it clearly stated from what moment the clock should start ticking?
Ball abuse and racket breaking are more straight forward so this could be enforced 100% I guess.

Why players flaunt the rules? Because they can potentially get away with it.
Why umpires ignore it? Because they can use some discretion and ignore what doesn't seem disruptive to the game to them.

temporary21 wrote:

biugo wrote:

temporary21 wrote:But then round we go again. A lasses faire approach means you get inconsistency in application between matches, leading to people feeling targeted. Consistency is all that matters, consistently tough, or consistently forgiving.  Then again if you're worrying more about between the points than actually the points, I can't see much enjoyment in it

But, as MMT1 shows, if you're consistently within the rules, you don't need to be worried whatsoever about the umpire's consistency.

But then you're saying it's ok for the umpires to be inconsistent. Now they're not doing their job properly. Eugh and round and round, why is it just one sides fault all the time. Surely the correct response to this is for both sides to deal with their issues

It's ok for the umpires to be inconsistent merely because they are ALLOWED to be inconsistent. They still have a part of interpretation to their job (hence the post just above where I think ball abuse and racket smashing should be penalized every time because there is not really any interpretation).
If consistency of umpires is the trouble, then rules need to be tighten up (shot clock for example, but for the behavior and obscenity it's still hard to get rid of interpretation...). But, yes, once again: if one doesn't break any rule, it's a non-question.

However, a player should be able to file a case against an umpire for wrong doing with a commission looking at the case.
Re TV, you could create a time keeper umpire (or robot) working like the LET robot: once the line umpire shouts OUT, clock ticks - or even from the moment the ball strikes the ground. So it would count 20-25 sec for serve, with a bip before the ball leave the servers hand; 2-3sec to be able to call for HE... But would that take into account the time the receiver may take to prepare? Wouldn't that bring tactics to slow down the server... That's why umpire's discretion is important.

hawkeye wrote:

JuliusHMarx wrote:It might help the discussion if the OP actually offered an opinion on it, rather than just asking for everyone else's.

I don't know. Certainly hope it isn't anything to do with what you suggested earlier.

It's part of it I'm afraid. The players bring in the money. The big players bring in the big money. The umpires are expendable and they know it. I feel almost certain that any umpire who stuck rigidly to the letter of law would soon be out of a job due to disgruntled players complaining.
I wonder how many tennis fans would actually want every match to be played strictly to the letter of the law?

Most fans just want to see a match played. We do t live in Disneyland, people will sometimes break the rules quite often by accident.  Normal people might be slow because they're tired or nervous or swear in frustration. If your policy is to be inconsistent in ruling these then don't be shocked or angry if criticism comes their way. The end of the day though most people would rather just watch the tennis.

biugo wrote:

Maybe because there is some leeway in what constitutes an audible obscenity. Is there a list of words concerned? in which languages? Couldn't screaming or shouting (whatever the words or non-words) be considered offensive/disrepectful conduct? What gestures are offensive?

The rule book defines what constitutes an audible and visible obscenity.

Audible Obscenity
i) A player shall not use an audible obscenity while on-site. Audible obscenity
is defined as the use of words commonly known and understood to be
profane and uttered clearly and loudly enough to be heard

Visible Obscenity
i) Players shall not make obscene gestures of any kind while on-site. Visible
obscenity is defined as the making of signs by a player with hands and/or
racquet or balls that commonly have an obscene meaning

I think most know what these are. If you don't 606v2 has rules about such things too so you should perhaps ask someone in real life Notice players can be punished if they break this code anywhere on site and not just when they are on court.

If players shout and scream at someone then it would be considered verbal abuse and carries heavier penalties than audible or visible obscenities

d) Verbal Abuse
i) Players shall not at any time directly or indirectly verbally abuse an offi
cial, opponent, sponsor, spectator or any other person within the precincts
of the tournament site. Verbal abuse is defined as any statement
about an official, opponent, sponsor, spectator or any other person that
implies dishonesty or is derogatory, insulting or otherwise abusive

I think they are allowed to shout generally as long as it's not to distract their opponent.

temporary21 wrote:Most fans just want to see a match played. We do t live in Disneyland, people will sometimes break the rules quite often by accident.  Normal people might be slow because they're tired or nervous or swear in frustration. If your policy is to be inconsistent in ruling these then don't be shocked or angry if criticism comes their way. The end of the day though most people would rather just watch the tennis.

Probably true - although some people are so irked by it that they started a petition.

temporary21 wrote:Most fans just want to see a match played. We do t live in Disneyland, people will sometimes break the rules quite often by accident.  Normal people might be slow because they're tired or nervous or swear in frustration. If your policy is to be inconsistent in ruling these then don't be shocked or angry if criticism comes their way. The end of the day though most people would rather just watch the tennis.

Yes I think the relative inconsistency is quite normal and I don't see an unfair treatment of any player. To me it's fine the way it is. I might try a comparison with speeding tickets, or not paying your bus/tramway ticket, or even jaywalking to take the most common - and not all policemen would apply the way the rules.

hawkeye wrote:

biugo wrote:

Maybe because there is some leeway in what constitutes an audible obscenity. Is there a list of words concerned? in which languages? Couldn't screaming or shouting (whatever the words or non-words) be considered offensive/disrepectful conduct? What gestures are offensive?

The rule book defines what constitutes an audible and visible obscenity.

Audible Obscenity
i) A player shall not use an audible obscenity while on-site. Audible obscenity
is defined as the use of words commonly known and understood to be
profane and uttered clearly and loudly enough to be heard

Visible Obscenity
i) Players shall not make obscene gestures of any kind while on-site. Visible
obscenity is defined as the making of signs by a player with hands and/or
racquet or balls that commonly have an obscene meaning

I think most know what these are. If you don't 606v2 has rules about such things too so you should perhaps ask someone in real life Notice players can be punished if they break this code anywhere on site and not just when they are on court.

If players shout and scream at someone then it would be considered verbal abuse and carries heavier penalties than audible or visible obscenities

d) Verbal Abuse
i) Players shall not at any time directly or indirectly verbally abuse an offi
cial, opponent, sponsor, spectator or any other person within the precincts
of the tournament site. Verbal abuse is defined as any statement
about an official, opponent, sponsor, spectator or any other person that
implies dishonesty or is derogatory, insulting or otherwise abusive

I think they are allowed to shout generally as long as it's not to distract their opponent.

Thanks for the clarification HE. The discretion is in "audible" and "commonly known" of course. As a joke I could say German could be penalized for anything they shout and Spaniards for nothing (or it depends on how sweet to your ears is each of their language). Same goes jokingly with hand gestures (what could a fist pump be reminiscent off?). By the way, against Del Potro, did Federer get fined for his behavior against the umpire, or for his use of Frak as an adjective (which doesn't sounds much of an offense). That's where the Verbal abuse is the most important: I feel umpire apply audible and visible obscenity penalties mostly if they are directed at someone else, rather than muttering to themselves.

hawkeye wrote:

MMT1 wrote:I'm sorry, but I have to call this out - I think this thread is an attempt to again put the focus of code of conduct (and other) violations on the umpires,

I'm not sure how you've come to that conclusion? It's about why clear rules in the ATP rulebook are not being enforced. For example audible obscenity is not allowed. This rule would be quite simple to enforce and quite simple for players to comply with. Players know the rules and Umpires know the rules. So why do players regularly flaunt it and why do Umpires ignore it?

Rules are violated in sports (and in life) and officials in sports (and in life) use their discretion on when to cite violations - that's standard in sports and life. What is out of the ordinary (and why the focus continues to return to Nadal) is when he perpetually violates the rules, objects to being cited for (one or some of his perpetual) violations, and wants to exclude an umpire for doing his job properly in citing him.

The alternative you should be advocating is for Nadal to start getting time violations from the first point he goes over the limit, and for every point after that, and as such he should be defaulted by the middle of the second game. It seems to me that the officials are trying to accommodate him (and those of us who enjoy watching him play) by applying the same frequency of citations to violations as other players. Unfortunately his rate of violations is perpetual on the time limit, so he's getting cited every match. If his serving pace were more reasonable he might be cited once a tournament - but that's down to the player in the first place.

Putting the focus on the umpires will never solve the problem - this can all go away if the players in question simply play by the rules and accept when the umpire cites them when they break the rules...unless of course the citations are in error - then they should protest.

MMT1 wrote:

hawkeye wrote:

MMT1 wrote:I'm sorry, but I have to call this out - I think this thread is an attempt to again put the focus of code of conduct (and other) violations on the umpires,

I'm not sure how you've come to that conclusion? It's about why clear rules in the ATP rulebook are not being enforced. For example audible obscenity is not allowed. This rule would be quite simple to enforce and quite simple for players to comply with. Players know the rules and Umpires know the rules. So why do players regularly flaunt it and why do Umpires ignore it?

Rules are violated in sports (and in life) and officials in sports (and in life) use their discretion on when to cite violations - that's standard in sports and life.  What is out of the ordinary (and why the focus continues to return to Nadal) is when he perpetually violates the rules, objects to being cited for (one or some of his perpetual) violations, and wants to exclude an umpire for doing his job properly in citing him.

The alternative you should be advocating is for Nadal to start getting time violations from the first point he goes over the limit, and for every point after that, and as such he should be defaulted by the middle of the second game.  It seems to me that the officials are trying to accommodate him (and those of us who enjoy watching him play) by applying the same frequency of citations to violations as other players.  Unfortunately his rate of violations is perpetual on the time limit, so he's getting cited every match.  If his serving pace were more reasonable he might be cited once a tournament - but that's down to the player in the first place.

Putting the focus on the umpires will never solve the problem - this can all go away if the players in question simply play by the rules and accept when the umpire cites them when they break the rules...unless of course the citations are in error - then they should protest.

Can I ask why you keep bringing tihis thread back to you wanting to have another dig at Nadal.. why can you not go to the sticky thread that is specifically for your grievances against this player and his time violations.
There the rest of us can chose to read your "lets have another go at Rafa" comments if we want to.

No where has the OP mentioned Nadal but rather what the rest of us are concerned about i.e. the Umpires inconsistency in applying the rules.

You have made your opinion known on that point..

temporary21 wrote:But then round we go again. A lasses faire approach means you get inconsistency in application between matches, leading to people feeling targeted. Consistency is all that matters, consistently tough, or consistently forgiving.  Then again if you're worrying more about between the points than actually the points, I can't see much enjoyment in it

Like I said no sport in this world applies the letter of the law to every match/game. So why al of a sudden does tennis need to set that precident? The umpire has a tough enough job as it is.

None of this was a problem a couple of years ago. I wonder what changed...

I was umpiring a cricket game the weekend. Couple of young lads (bowling and batting). Young lad nicked it, routine catch behind, bowler turned around appealing (in fact the whole team). After a couple of seconds (actually felt like an eternity) and the fact I hadn't raised my finger, I could see the rage about to erupt - when I politely pointed out the batsman was half way back to the pavilion.

Then I pointed out to the captain of the opposing team that an umpire should only ever get involved if there is a dispute - not to decide what has happened (unlike referees). This seemed to confuse the chap who congratulated us on our conduct.

The point being, it's the players responsible to act within the laws of the game. It makes officiating impossibly tough when they don't. Look at football.

The only person to blame for getting a TV, or any code violation - is the player. Period. End of. It is absolutely no one else's fault.

lk@ trying to look at it from another angle is that applying the rules consistently is not only fair on the players but on the Umpires themselves.
Making fish of one player and foul of another can be misconstrued on various levels.. surely from an Umpires point of view he would wish to be seen as a fair professional that there are no favourites that no special considerations are being given or applied. That every individual player has faith and trust in that he will do his job professionally, fairly and  without bias

Why things have changed in recent years is ponderable I will agree..

Haddie-nuff wrote:Can I ask why you keep bringing tihis thread back to you wanting to have another dig at Nadal.. why can you not go to the sticky thread that is specifically for your grievances against this player and his  time violations.
There the rest of us can chose to read your "lets have another go at Rafa" comments if we want to.

No where has the OP mentioned Nadal but rather what the rest of us are concerned about i.e. the Umpires inconsistency in applying the rules.

You have made your opinion known on that point..

That's actually a fair point - then I would restrict my comments to this: the question of this thread is (as stated, perhaps not in intent) naive and not at all probative. All judges (including officials in sports) use discretion when they cite violations of the rules - in and of itself, there is no value in asking this question because the presumed response (more frequent citations) are a slippery slope to the rule being applied universally (without discretion) which becomes intrusive to the endeavor (like a tennis match). The same goes for the rules of tennis.

There is also no evidence that the code violations are ignored when the violations are egregious or perpetual, which is also in line with all areas of judgment - the first ones to get cited are the ones who break the rules most often and most egregiously - otherwise a reckless drunk driver is treated the same as someone who fails to signal in a lane change, and that is not justice.

legendkillarV2 wrote:

temporary21 wrote:But then round we go again. A lasses faire approach means you get inconsistency in application between matches, leading to people feeling targeted. Consistency is all that matters, consistently tough, or consistently forgiving.  Then again if you're worrying more about between the points than actually the points, I can't see much enjoyment in it

Like I said no sport in this world applies the letter of the law to every match/game. So why al of a sudden does tennis need to set that precident? The umpire has a tough enough job as it is.

None of this was a problem a couple of years ago. I wonder what changed...

Second your final line there lk, on all counts. I think I've gone as far as I can go on this one. A final point. There's some confusion here. Nobody is suggesting that umpires call warnings when s player doesn't break the rules. That isn't fot dispute. What's on dispute is the consistency in which they do call it when it happens   This thread isn't to do with the players whatsoever

Haddie-nuff wrote:lk@ trying to look at it from another angle is that applying the rules consistently is not only fair on the players but on the Umpires themselves.
Making fish of one player and foul of another can be misconstrued on various levels.. surely from an Umpires point of view he would wish to be seen as a fair professional that there are no favourites that no special considerations are being given or applied. That every individual player has faith and trust in that he will do his job professionally, fairly  and  without bias

Why things have changed in recent years is ponderable I will agree..

Not necessarily Haddie.

Say I umpire a Nadal/Murray match. Nadal serves first and say on the first point goes over. IMO it is strong to issue a TV. Then say he wins the next 4 points to which he was over on all of them, I would be inclined at the change of ends to say to him "come on Rafa you were over on all points, can you speed up please" now if on his next service game he does the same and I call a TV on all points. Then still no change in pace. In my mind that will restrict my focus and I will give him more attention than Murray who might be taking a similar time between points as Rafa. Despite all his warnings Nadal hasn't addressed or sped up his game. It's he same with the other players too who have received TVs. If you want consistency, imagine Nadal getting a warning on every point? Imagine Murray getting the same? Wouldn't be much of a match. In my mind though when officiating a Nadal match again will be the time between points because of time experience. I believe if Nadal sped up and made an effort to do so, he wouldn't find himself in the firing line.

The point being Haddie if Nadal wasn't over so much on his points, umpires would likely give him some leeway. You will get the odd rulebreak, that's just natural. The Kyrgios ball smash out of the stadium. I don't know if he done it before that or since. Since he isn't doing it consistently and it was a first time offence I think it would be harsh to hammer him with the book. IIRC Federer did that at Montreal 2006 after losing to Murray?

Players and officials need to talk before taking any further action in any sport during a match.

biugo wrote:

Thanks for the clarification HE. The discretion is in "audible" and "commonly known" of course. As a joke I could say German could be penalized for anything they shout and Spaniards for nothing (or it depends on how sweet to your ears is each of their language). Same goes jokingly with hand gestures (what could a fist pump be reminiscent off?). By the way, against Del Potro, did Federer get fined for his behavior against the umpire, or for his use of Frak as an adjective (which doesn't sounds much of an offense). That's where the Verbal abuse is the most important: I feel umpire apply audible and visible obscenity penalties mostly if they are directed at someone else, rather than muttering to themselves.

Well anything "commonly" known to be obscene is a violation whatever language it is. It has nothing to do with being tougher on players who speak common languages though it is because there will be bigger numbers of people watching who will understand it. I don't understand the need for excuses. If a player is ignorant about why they should abide by this code maybe someone could sit down and explain the reasons to them. But even if they are ignorant and don't understand or don't want to understand then tough. It's a rule if they don't stick to it the could be defaulted or suspended.

As I've said before audible obscenity is just saying something load enough to be heard. If it is directed at anyone then it will be considered verbal abuse (a more serious code violation).

temporary21 wrote:

legendkillarV2 wrote:

temporary21 wrote:But then round we go again. A lasses faire approach means you get inconsistency in application between matches, leading to people feeling targeted. Consistency is all that matters, consistently tough, or consistently forgiving.  Then again if you're worrying more about between the points than actually the points, I can't see much enjoyment in it

Like I said no sport in this world applies the letter of the law to every match/game. So why al of a sudden does tennis need to set that precident? The umpire has a tough enough job as it is.

None of this was a problem a couple of years ago. I wonder what changed...

Second your final line there lk, on all counts. I think I've gone as far as I can go on this one. A final point. There's some confusion here. Nobody is suggesting that umpires call warnings when s player doesn't break the rules. That isn't fot dispute. What's on dispute is the consistency in which they do call it when it happens   This thread isn't to do with the players whatsoever

Consistency would be great, except there would be those who push it to extreme limits.

Imagine calling say 30 TVs in one BO3 match. You would be reaching for the razor after that match!

Haddie-nuff wrote:


I wonder how many sticky threads will be created for this young man in future. [/b]

He will never get a sticky

No player has a sticky - surely that's the point - it's not about any player. Just like that petition

Oh pleeeeze LK why are we speaking of Rafa.
I do not have a problem with Rafa being penalised for TV

How the hell it has got back to this subject only biased Nadal posters can tell me.

If Rafa was not in breach of TV's what would you penalise him for?

Coaching on court, addressed and penalised and fined. One incident to my knowledge which Rafa took full responsibility for (Novak gets away scot free as has Murray)
Raquet abuse??? never broken one in his life
Verbal abuse not to my knowledge and I speak Spanish
Throwing water bottles or swearing at ball boys/girls not at any match I have ever watched.

What about players who repeatedly swear, break raquets, hit balls into the crowd.. When will someone give this man a break.
Now Im outta here.. there is so much bigotry here

JuliusHMarx wrote:No player has a sticky - surely that's the point - it's not about any player. Just like that petition

'

That sticky is 20+pages of Rafa Nadal's time violations on 606v2 we are not talking of petitions jHM
No names no pack drill eh

Haddie-nuff wrote:Oh pleeeeze LK why are we speaking of Rafa.
I do not have a problem with Rafa being penalised for TV

How the hell it has got back to this subject only biased Nadal posters can tell me.

If Rafa was not in breach of TV's what would you penalise him for?

Coaching on court, addressed and penalised and fined. One incident to my knowledge which Rafa took full responsibility for (Novak gets away scot free as has Murray)
Raquet abuse??? never broken one in his life
Verbal abuse not to my knowledge and I speak Spanish
Throwing water bottles or swearing at ball boys/girls not at any match I have ever watched.

What about players who repeatedly swear, break raquets, hit balls into the crowd.. When will someone give this man a break.
Now Im outta here.. there is so much bigotry here

It was just an example Haddie. Calm down.

Ill calm down lk when any one has something other than a derogatory comment to make about ONE player.
There are so many examples of other players violations and pushing the boundaries yet we keep coming back to Rafa
The posters on 606v2 will be speechless when he retires

Haddie it's not SUPPOSED to be about that, but the more we mention it the more it becomes

temporary21 wrote:Haddie it's not SUPPOSED to be about that, but the more we mention it the more it becomes

temp I know that  but it is not me you should be addressing.
However fear not my friend I can see how this thread is developing yet again and I am sick of trying to make my point for there are none so blind as those who are determined not to see

I've offered my reasons why code violations may be ignored, as have others. Does anyone else want to provide reasons, if they have not yet done so?

Again, I have to pierce the veil of objectivity here: is the purpose of a rule to be followed so as to be consistent for consistency's sake?  Or is it to affect the intent of the rule? To insist that umpires be "consistent" regardless of the reasons to be anything else, implies that consistency is a value - it is not - it is a means to an end, namely the intent of the rule. For example, the time violation rule is intended to (1) make things fair to the returner and (2) keep the match enjoyable for spectators.

Applying the rule "consistently" to players who perpetually violate it, would result in matches ending in default in the second or third game, and that does nobody any good.  Players who violate this rule know that is the case, so they intentionally put the umpire in a position where he must either apply the rules "consistently", and  ruin the match (possibly the tournament) by correctly defaulting the persistent offender.  Or they can do it judiciously, maintaining fairness to the returner and not ruining it for fans.  However they then leave themselves open to this abstract, and at once insidious, argument that they must be "consistent".  This cynical conundrum is precisely the nexus that the persistent rule violator (and their apologists) hopes to put the umpire in as the violator gets away with intentionally breaking the rules.

The best argument for consistency is to default players who violate the rule perpetually. The best argument for the intent of the rule is to apply it judiciously, which is very difficult to get right when a player perpetually violates the rules. That's another reason why it's so important for the players to take responsibility for following the rules, not dump that responsibility on umpires.

As for Kyrigos, there were 3 reported incidents in that match, and two were cited - a fairly high ratio of citations to violations. I will concede that he should have been defaulted in the third incident, if you concede that Nadal (or any other persistent time violator) should be defaulted in the first or second game when he goes over the time-limit a 3rd/4th time.

Finally, I think the most obvious reason why officials apply the rules differently is because someone who violates a rule over and over again, can hardly expect to be treated the same as someone who does it from time to time. This is another example of a question that begs the answer, and in my opinion, disingenuously and cynically, because the purpose is not to solve the problem (which can more effectively be achieved by the player) but to actually to make it harder for the umpire to do their job judiciously.

Haddie-nuff wrote:Ill calm down lk when any one has something other than a derogatory comment to make about ONE player.
There are so many examples of other players violations and pushing the boundaries yet we keep coming back to Rafa
The posters on 606v2 will be speechless when he retires

Your missing my point completely.

I wasn't degrading Rafa, I was making the point that in his case that being the big offender of the time violation and that given he himself hasn't sped up will no doubt play on the mind of an umpire say compared with a Kyrgios bashing the ball out of the park who to my knowledge had no previous prior to rule break and post rule break. Hence why he is more likely to go under the radar when it comes to his ball bashing out of the stadium exploits.

This doesn't exempt Kyrgios's actions. I am trying to link this to umpire consistently. If any player doesn't improve on their conduct on court, they make themselves an easy target. Say if Murray was pulled up on his swearing on a more consistent basis, we could see him make improvements on that aspect of his conduct.

In any sport Haddie I have seen many athletes get pulled on one aspect of their conduct. The only examples I can think of off the top of my head are Stuart Broad getting done galore about leaving spike marks on the pitch or Saeed Ajmal getting penalised for his bowling action. Gareth Bale getting pulled for diving or Kevin Davies in football getting booked galore. Sometimes something sticks more than others. It could be bias or just something easier to enforce knowing the offender will offend.

The level of consistency posters are requesting to me are beyond human levels IMO.

OK lk

You and I don't have a problem here ok?? Im not normally a black and white  person believing ..there are varying shades of gray (not 50 I might add )
But I a stickler for fairness . I believe most people can take what is coming to them if they know that that is the rules and it applies to everyone.
My concern is not from a players perspective lk
I have to be careful how I word this for fear of repercussions.

We are living in a world where there is a huge amount of money to be made from sport..an enormous money making industry.It will get even more so imo. Decisions by Umpires can change the outcome of a match.. and thus it can change the outcome of a tournament where millions of dollars are involved. Surely from any Umpires perspective it is important if not essential that he is SEEN to be without prejudice.. consistency therefore is vital... thus they must be  squeaky clean... are you following my drift.

I don't want to start giving scenarios because I am cautious in where that will lead the debate. I will leave you to draw your own conclusions.
Now, having spoken of you being  cynical lk I can be accused of the same.
Or on the other hand am I a realist.?
This beloved sport of ours has kept clean for so many years, there have been rumours, insinuations and accusations about players
Are umpires the son's of Mother Theresa or are they human like the rest of us.?

Please note mods I am not making any accusations about any ATP or ITF officials.. but I merely question

Consistency is a means to an end and every rule has a purpose, so the abstract notion of being consistent (e.g. in order to be perceived as fair) constitutes an incomplete directive. If, for example, the audible obscenities rule is intended to make tennis matches kid friendly environments, then citing a player even one time for cursing effectively under his breath repeatedly, does not serve the intent of the rule at all - but by god, you'd be consistent, and nobody could accuse you of bias...even though the intent of the rule is not at all met. That's a classic example of officiating to be perceived as a good official, rather than to meet the intent of all the rules you're enforcing.

But if you let a player curse just once, but so loud that it can be heard in row Z, that also does not serve the intent of the rule - in that case, you should be draconian (by the number anyway) and cite the player. The player will accuse you of being draconian, but so what - the purpose of the rule isn't to enforce it, it's to meet the objective of the rule, and unfortunately in this case, one very big slip up, is worse than 10 little ones that nobody will ever notice.

Consistency is not an end, it's a means to an end of, of achieving the intent of the rules, when consistency would serve that intent. Determining when deference to "consistency" unduly trumps the intent of the rules the officials are meant to uphold, is a value added by a good official, and why there should be discretion.

Not some abstract adherence to the altar of "consistency" for consistency's sake - that's just nonsense.

Im sorry but your point escapes me.. I am doubtless, thick, unintelligent,
or just plain dumb

In simple terms my idea of consistency is if you apply a rule to player A and yet either in the same match or subsequent matches you ignore that rule in the case of player B that amounts to inconsistency in my book  and could be misconstrued as bias,prejudice or favouritism or plain just unfair. or ???. Too simplistic ??? sorry but Im just  simple person.

Haddie-nuff wrote:OK lk

You and I don't have a problem here ok?? Im not normally a black and white  person believing ..there are varying shades of gray (not 50 I might add )
But I a stickler for fairness . I believe most people can take what is coming to them if they know that that is the rules and it applies to everyone.
My concern is not from a players perspective lk
I have to be careful how I word this for fear of repercussions.

We are living in a world where there is a huge amount of money to be made from sport..an enormous money making industry.It will get even more so imo. Decisions by Umpires can change the outcome of a match.. and thus it can change the outcome of a tournament where millions of dollars are involved. Surely from any Umpires perspective it is important if not essential that he is SEEN to be without prejudice.. consistency therefore is vital... thus they must be  squeaky clean... are you following my drift.

I don't want to start giving scenarios because I am cautious in where that will lead the debate. I will leave you to draw your own conclusions.
Now, having spoken of you being  cynical lk I can be accused of the same.
Or on the other hand am I a realist.?
This beloved sport of ours has kept clean for so many years, there have been rumours, insinuations and accusations about players
Are umpires the son's of Mother Theresa or are they human like the rest of us.?

Please note mods I am not making any accusations about any ATP or ITF officials.. but I merely question

I do get your drift Haddie, but if we do talk in riddles for a second we can easily say that the top of this sport is dominated by rather marketable players and it does serve the purpose for their presence to be at the later stage of every major tournament. That's for a more pessimistic discussion when the season has died down

In terms of where the sport finds itself with its officials and how it applies those rules, how extreme do we want to be with their application. Do we want every violation no matter how small enforced? Rule breaking will continue to happen as a day is long and whether it is intentional or not. We are led to believe that the 2012 AO final was the one reason a rule was going to be more rigourusly enforced? It does beggar belief that the mind of matches they lauded for athletic endurance became the very thing they wanted to move away from.

We could well see umpires cracked down on for not applying the rules, at the same time I would feel disappointed if a player was being penalised correctly for a rule break and that if it was losing them matches and they did nothing to try and address and prevent it from happening in future events. Improvements needed all round

LK we are, believe it or not on the same page.
No I don't want every violation to be penalised
Players after all are human beings not machines.
They go out on court under pressure situations occur that would make a saint swear. On the face of it I think they conduct themselves remarkably well, with a few exceptions
I agree some players need to look to themselves for what is happening.
But again, people who drink and drive or speeding should not be doing so.. but the police give penalty points to ALL drivers LK irrespective of how often they have done so. That being said if the said driver continues to break the law in the same manner, he has his licence taken away.
As has been said before, yes certain players repeatedly violate the rules, and should be punished but that being said it does not absolve any other player receiving such penalties irrespective of the frequency in which they do it.
If it became known amongst ALL players that such violations would not be tolerated then they would correct themselves.

A point to note.. in Spain there is a nil tolerance for drink driving.
No matter how many, or how few times you violate this law. How little or how much you drink.
You are fined .. and on the spot at that
In consequence the friends I know NEVER drink and drive

Haddie-nuff wrote:Im sorry but your point escapes me.. I am doubtless, thick, unintelligent,
or just plain dumb

In simple terms my idea of consistency is if you apply a rule to player A and yet either in the same match or subsequent matches you ignore that rule in the case of player B that amounts to inconsistency in my book  and could be misconstrued as bias,prejudice or favouritism or plain just unfair. or ???. Too simplistic ??? sorry but Im just  simple person.

First of all, your example A and B example occurs everywhere with every rule in tennis - that's too simplistic to be useful. But to my point, there has been repeated insistence in this thread on consistency as if consistency itself is the objective - it is not. If consistency were the issue, you would be equally satisfied with a consistently incorrect ruling as a consistently correct ruling, which we would all obviously reject. So consistency in an of itself is insufficient.

The intent of the rule in question is the objective, and if being consistent does not achieve that intent, then your insistence on consistency would be part of the problem, not the solution.

I know you're probably being glib, but I feel the need to dispel the myth that consistency is some kind of virtue - it isn't if the objective of the rules you enforce wouldn't be achieved by being consistent. This is why the discretion of a good umpire is adds value to officiating.

Then MMT I can only say, that even  with your excessive use of the word consistent(cy) that if you are a parent with more than one child, that if you apply your logic to the discipline of those children in the same manner you wish to apply it to individual players, , then truly  my friend you have or will have an enormous problem on your hands.
And your right Im not being glib.. but pardon me if I say you are somewhat overstating your case

This is why the discretion of a good umpire is adds value to officiating


Measured by whose yard stick I would ask?? :

Let's just think of the purpose of the code of conduct in the first place. They didn't need a code of conduct when the majority of tennis players rarely behaved objectionably on a tennis court. But the rise of Nastase and Connors and McEnroe also gave rise to an increasing frequency of long, drawn out, farcical behavior that turned matches into circuses. Before the code of conduct, the only recourse of the umpire was to default a player - but that would lend itself to the extremes of either capricious abuse of the remedy and/or an abject fear of using this tool at all (because a player is so popular or the match is so important).

So, to combat the worst behavior of the worst offenders (who were also immensely popular) tennis developed the code of conduct. The purpose of the code of conduct was not to penalize players for a curse here, or a curse there - it was intended to have a progression of citations that would allow a player (by way of each progression) to eventually censor himself lest he be rightfully defaulted after receiving multiple warnings to stop his bad behavior.

But to read this discussion, it's almost as if the code of conduct was developed to entirely silence players and rid them of anything that could be construed as ebullient behavior - it was not. But to sacrifice the umpire's discretion at the altar of consistency so to avoid being (ironically) cited by the most biased of observers as biased doesn't serve the purpose of the code of conduct at all - which was intended to stop THE WORST behavior, not every little bit of mildly objectionable behavior, just to be "consistent".

The intent of the rules is important in judging how well a match and/or tournament is officiated, not just the raw numbers and odd example here or there of "inconsistency".

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

MMT1 wrote:

But if you let a player curse just once, but so loud that it can be heard in row Z, that also does not serve the intent of the rule - in that case, you should be draconian (by the number anyway) and cite the player.  The player will accuse you of being draconian, but so what - the purpose of the rule isn't to enforce it, it's to meet the objective of the rule, and unfortunately in this case, one very big slip up, is worse than 10 little ones that nobody will ever notice.

According to the rule book. If a player makes one audible obscenity he should get a warning. It is only the second time that the penalty is a point deduction and the third time a game deduction. The player can say what he/she wants but that's the rules and they know the rules when they walk on court. I have little sympathy really because I fail to understand why it should be so difficult to not shout obscenities in public. Apart from anything else it's just basic courtesy and failing to do so just shows lack of respect for those watching. However a player can be defaulted for just one audible obscenity if the Umpire believes it is a serious violation. So players should think very carefully before they shout something particularly offensive so loud that it offends the audience in row Z.

HE do you feel the same way about players that break the 25-second time limit?

JuliusHMarx wrote:HE do you feel the same way about players that break the 25-second time limit?

Well personally I think the rule made more sense when it was simply "play should be continuous". Deliberate disruption should not be allowed but taking a few extra seconds as part of a service routine would never have been considered disruption. But it's not for me to make the rules and if the ATP and ITF want to penalize players who take longer than a specific set time then they need to enforce this rule across the board. As spectators we need to know when a player will be penalized and the reasons need to be clear to all. That's not what is happening at the moment. Time taken between points is not an indicator for when a player will receive a tv.

But this thread is about code violations...