Nadal’s conduct: not exemplary

First topic message reminder :

I understand the topic has been extensively debated, but it seems useful to me to summarize the reasons that have persuaded many , and me amongst them, to form a non positive opinion about Nadal’s conduct on court.

Here are some discussion points:

1) Nadal’s constant violation of the 20sec rule has the effect of causing recurring delays, of stopping the flow of the game and ultimately irritating his opponents. It’s important to notice that this is a FACT and not an allegation and that, regarding to this point, Nadal is breaching the rules of the game, as the numerous warnings he receives can confirm.

2) Nadal’s numerous medical time outs, often occurring in important matches and important moments have coused irritation in his opponents who in some cases have made complains to the umpire (as Del Potro yesterday). This is also a Fact, and the same behaviour has been widely criticised by media and experts when other players were involved as: Fognini and Djokovic in the past.

3) Nadal has verbally intimidated the umpire when he received a warning for breaching the 20 sec. rule yesterday.


4) On court coaching, for which he has been fined on at least one occasion. This is against the rule also.

5) Keeping opponents waiting before the match (by deliberately spending extra time in the locker room whilst the opponent waits in the corridor - this is despite knowing when the players are scheduled to come out, and, I do believe that the players are given a few minutes advanced warning right before they're expected to come out. Also making his opponent and umpire wait at the net before the coin toss and making his opponent wait after 'time' has been called at the end of the warm up (he usually spends an extra minute serving).

I , on the other hand, do not remember Federer having ever engaged in any of such antics, thus the argument of the Nadal devotees that “we never criticize Federer’s behaviour on court” appears as totally out of place.

Jeremy_Kyle wrote:

legendkillar wrote:

Jeremy_Kyle wrote:

parthi wrote:he can be the nicest man you have ever met off the court, that does not mean that what he does on the court can be excused.

If you think they dont affect the outcome then you have never stepped on the arena for any sport.

I still cant get my head around as to why fed or anyother player is being discussed here.

I believe parthi is right: you really have to have competed in any sport, no matter at what level, to understand the point. It has nothing to do with off court behaviour....

Does that count when my nephew shouts out when I try and serve?

Now doubt that sometimes in sport someone resorting 'gamesmanship' can be off putting, but then we find the true test of persons character if they handle distractions mentally

LK: apologies, when I said "no matter at what level" I didn't really mean it literally........

The cheek of it

"1) Nadal’s constant violation of the 20sec rule has the effect of causing recurring delays, of stopping the flow of the game and ultimately irritating his opponents. It’s important to notice that this is a FACT and not an allegation and that, regarding to this point, Nadal is breaching the rules of the game, as the numerous warnings he receives can confirm.

"
Ive had enough of this issue repeatedly raised - i've posted the info below twice before on here to show why the rule is not broken and why most commentators have shut up about it. It was also posted on 606 and other tennis forums. This was found from clarification with ATP by a forum member.:

"Aside form the topic being discussed here i'm also a bit bored with this long break thing between points. Now, i'm not sure you'll remember this, but back when the 606 board went from the super duper board to the more basic one we used before it closed, there was a breakaway forum some people went to. On this forum the 20s rule was discussed to the n'th degree and eventually some one found out from the ATP how the rule is applied. It all revolves around the fact that the traditional rules do not account for cheering from the crowd and so in these big tournaments the umpires have to account for the crowd cheering. Basically a point is not deemed to have officially ended until the umpire shouts out the score. Now the thing with baseline play is that it produces longish rallies that can frequently end in a build up of excitement in the crowd and a long applause. The umpire waits for the crowd noise to settle before shouting the score and officially ending the point. It is at this point the 'timer' is started, not the moment the ball goes out of play. The umpire does this to give the server 20s of quiet time to prepare to serve. He could shout over the crowd if he wanted to, he does have the benefit of a loud speaker afterall, but apart from times when he thinks the crowd are being overly long in applause, he seldom does this and waits for natural quiet.

To test this, a few years back i timed gaps between points for service from Roddick and Nadal. I assume most people would be happy for Roddick to be used an as example of some one who is medium/fast during service games. I choose a particular match that people were moaning about for Nadals speed, his includes a match point opportunity that people said he slowed for. So i have tried to be particularly mean to Nadal here.

I timed it two ways: Exact time from when the ball goes for a winner/out of play/into the net until when the serve is struck

Roddick (s):
16
26
16
15
26
30
25

Average = 22 seconds

Nadal:
27
27
22
32
28
32
25
30

Av. = 28 seconds.

So you can see Nadal averages an extra 6 seconds over Roddick in this comparison.

Now the same points, but timed from when the umpire shouts the score out for the last point to the serve being struck (as the rule is applied)

roddick:
11
21
15
20
25
24
25

Av. 20.1 seconds

Nadal:
24
19
23
21
27
20
24
17
23

Av. = 22 seconds

So you can see that due to applause and crowd noise Nadal actually has around 6 seconds of free time while they settle before the umpire shouts out the score. Roddick on the other hand, hitting mainly service winners/short points only gets around 2 seconds of free time due to applause. Naturally around match points etc etc the crowd takes ages to settle and so it may appear players take longer on these points, but the contributing factor is often the crowd, especially if some silly fan shouts out randomly, as the timer get reset in that case, hence the 40s gaps we sometimes see.

I also timed Nalbandian who took an identical time to Nadal, as do many of the other players. I don't think the umpires are bothered about 10% over the time restriction


You might have noticed that many of the commentators have largely shut up about how long Nadal takes; i'm fairly sure some one has told them how this rule is applied. Now by all means if you choose to disagree with the rule the way it is implemented, then fine, but it isn't simply one player being let off the hook repeatedly.



"

I was listening to commentators throughout the Nadal vs Delpo match and they referred to Nadal taking long on his serve several times. I'm not sure where you've come up with the idea they've 'shut up' about it from. I'm taking it you watched the match and listened to the commentary too?

Btw Tom, Nadal wasn't going over the 20 second rule by 2 seconds yesterday, it was over by 6 seconds. In fact, the match was going by so slowly that I switched over to the Fed game and they'd already reached the tie breaker before Nadal got his MTO, that's how long both of them were taking, even though they started about 10 minutes earlier!

Tom_____ wrote:"1) Nadal’s constant violation of the 20sec rule has the effect of causing recurring delays, of stopping the flow of the game and ultimately irritating his opponents. It’s important to notice that this is a FACT and not an allegation and that, regarding to this point, Nadal is breaching the rules of the game, as the numerous warnings he receives can confirm.

"
Ive had enough of this issue repeatedly raised - i've posted the info below twice before on here to show why the rule is not broken and why most commentators have shut up about it. It was also posted on 606 and other tennis forums. This was found from clarification with ATP by a forum member.:

"Aside form the topic being discussed here i'm also a bit bored with this long break thing between points. Now, i'm not sure you'll remember this, but back when the 606 board went from the super duper board to the more basic one we used before it closed, there was a breakaway forum some people went to. On this forum the 20s rule was discussed to the n'th degree and eventually some one found out from the ATP how the rule is applied. It all revolves around the fact that the traditional rules do not account for cheering from the crowd and so in these big tournaments the umpires have to account for the crowd cheering. Basically a point is not deemed to have officially ended until the umpire shouts out the score. Now the thing with baseline play is that it produces longish rallies that can frequently end in a build up of excitement in the crowd and a long applause. The umpire waits for the crowd noise to settle before shouting the score and officially ending the point. It is at this point the 'timer' is started, not the moment the ball goes out of play. The umpire does this to give the server 20s of quiet time to prepare to serve. He could shout over the crowd if he wanted to, he does have the benefit of a loud speaker afterall, but apart from times when he thinks the crowd are being overly long in applause, he seldom does this and waits for natural quiet.

To test this, a few years back i timed gaps between points for service from Roddick and Nadal. I assume most people would be happy for Roddick to be used an as example of some one who is medium/fast during service games. I choose a particular match that people were moaning about for Nadals speed, his includes a match point opportunity that people said he slowed for. So i have tried to be particularly mean to Nadal here.

I timed it two ways: Exact time from when the ball goes for a winner/out of play/into the net until when the serve is struck

Roddick (s):
16
26
16
15
26
30
25

Average = 22 seconds

Nadal:
27
27
22
32
28
32
25
30

Av. = 28 seconds.

So you can see Nadal averages an extra 6 seconds over Roddick in this comparison.

Now the same points, but timed from when the umpire shouts the score out for the last point to the serve being struck (as the rule is applied)

roddick:
11
21
15
20
25
24
25

Av. 20.1 seconds

Nadal:
24
19
23
21
27
20
24
17
23

Av. = 22 seconds

So you can see that due to applause and crowd noise Nadal actually has around 6 seconds of free time while they settle before the umpire shouts out the score. Roddick on the other hand, hitting mainly service winners/short points only gets around 2 seconds of free time due to applause. Naturally around match points etc etc the crowd takes ages to settle and so it may appear players take longer on these points, but the contributing factor is often the crowd, especially if some silly fan shouts out randomly, as the timer get reset in that case, hence the 40s gaps we sometimes see.

I also timed Nalbandian who took an identical time to Nadal, as do many of the other players. I don't think the umpires are bothered about 10% over the time restriction


You might have noticed that many of the commentators have largely shut up about how long Nadal takes; i'm fairly sure some one has told them how this rule is applied. Now by all means if you choose to disagree with the rule the way it is implemented, then fine, but it isn't simply one player being let off the hook repeatedly.



"

Tom: the rule should be implemented. Full stop. Everything else is pointless conjecture.

luciusmann wrote:I was listening to commentators throughout the Nadal vs Delpo match and they referred to Nadal taking long on his serve several times. I'm not sure where you've come up with the idea they've 'shut up' about it from. I'm taking it you watched the match and listened to the commentary too?

Btw Tom, Nadal wasn't going over the 20 second rule by 2 seconds yesterday, it was over by 6 seconds. In fact, the match was going by so slowly that I switched over to the Fed game and they'd already reached the tie breaker before Nadal got his MTO, that's how long both of them were taking, even though they started about 10 minutes earlier!

Largely shut up about it - not entirely. Nethertheless my post above shows the rub of it. It may interest you guys to know that Federer is one of the swiftest guys out there - i timed a few of his service games and he was taking between 10 and 16s for his serves. When against Nadal it exaggerates how slow Nadal is. Like i said be annoyed with the way the rule is interpreted and that fine, but its not a case of Nadal just being allowed to get away with it for years and years. Del P is actually quite slow also and certainly was yesterday as i think he was physically red-lining it relatively often.

Tenez wrote: Can we write a similar thread about Youzhny or Tsonga?

Why Lydian do you excuse a player playing outside the rule? I read somewhere you were a fan of tennis and not of a particular player. So explain.

Don't bring this thread down to hate or love of a player....discuss the points. Why do you allow a player to break the time and MTO rule and then you find it fine when he complains to the referee.

Go ahead and write whatever threads you want. If Nadal is taking too long between points then he should be pulled up for it - I'm all in favour with all players sticking to the rules. Seems a no-brainer to me. But where we differ is that I dont think he does it for gamesmanship reasons.

The love/hate thing is that precisely this thread is only discussing 1 player on a number of "issues" that many players perhaps fall foul of...again I dont necessarily agree they are all gamesmanship but if we're to discuss these topics properly then lets discuss all players!

Jeremy_Kyle wrote:

Tom_____ wrote:"1) Nadal’s constant violation of the 20sec rule has the effect of causing recurring delays, of stopping the flow of the game and ultimately irritating his opponents. It’s important to notice that this is a FACT and not an allegation and that, regarding to this point, Nadal is breaching the rules of the game, as the numerous warnings he receives can confirm.

"
Ive had enough of this issue repeatedly raised - i've posted the info below twice before on here to show why the rule is not broken and why most commentators have shut up about it. It was also posted on 606 and other tennis forums. This was found from clarification with ATP by a forum member.:

"Aside form the topic being discussed here i'm also a bit bored with this long break thing between points. Now, i'm not sure you'll remember this, but back when the 606 board went from the super duper board to the more basic one we used before it closed, there was a breakaway forum some people went to. On this forum the 20s rule was discussed to the n'th degree and eventually some one found out from the ATP how the rule is applied. It all revolves around the fact that the traditional rules do not account for cheering from the crowd and so in these big tournaments the umpires have to account for the crowd cheering. Basically a point is not deemed to have officially ended until the umpire shouts out the score. Now the thing with baseline play is that it produces longish rallies that can frequently end in a build up of excitement in the crowd and a long applause. The umpire waits for the crowd noise to settle before shouting the score and officially ending the point. It is at this point the 'timer' is started, not the moment the ball goes out of play. The umpire does this to give the server 20s of quiet time to prepare to serve. He could shout over the crowd if he wanted to, he does have the benefit of a loud speaker afterall, but apart from times when he thinks the crowd are being overly long in applause, he seldom does this and waits for natural quiet.

To test this, a few years back i timed gaps between points for service from Roddick and Nadal. I assume most people would be happy for Roddick to be used an as example of some one who is medium/fast during service games. I choose a particular match that people were moaning about for Nadals speed, his includes a match point opportunity that people said he slowed for. So i have tried to be particularly mean to Nadal here.

I timed it two ways: Exact time from when the ball goes for a winner/out of play/into the net until when the serve is struck

Roddick (s):
16
26
16
15
26
30
25

Average = 22 seconds

Nadal:
27
27
22
32
28
32
25
30

Av. = 28 seconds.

So you can see Nadal averages an extra 6 seconds over Roddick in this comparison.

Now the same points, but timed from when the umpire shouts the score out for the last point to the serve being struck (as the rule is applied)

roddick:
11
21
15
20
25
24
25

Av. 20.1 seconds

Nadal:
24
19
23
21
27
20
24
17
23

Av. = 22 seconds

So you can see that due to applause and crowd noise Nadal actually has around 6 seconds of free time while they settle before the umpire shouts out the score. Roddick on the other hand, hitting mainly service winners/short points only gets around 2 seconds of free time due to applause. Naturally around match points etc etc the crowd takes ages to settle and so it may appear players take longer on these points, but the contributing factor is often the crowd, especially if some silly fan shouts out randomly, as the timer get reset in that case, hence the 40s gaps we sometimes see.

I also timed Nalbandian who took an identical time to Nadal, as do many of the other players. I don't think the umpires are bothered about 10% over the time restriction


You might have noticed that many of the commentators have largely shut up about how long Nadal takes; i'm fairly sure some one has told them how this rule is applied. Now by all means if you choose to disagree with the rule the way it is implemented, then fine, but it isn't simply one player being let off the hook repeatedly.



"

Tom: the rule should be implemented. Full stop. Everything else is pointless conjecture.

Like i said some one on a forum wrote to the ATP and got the obove back in reply. I do not have the post myself and so don't beleive me if you don't want to, but feel free to ask them yourself. The rule is implemented in this way and it is not conjecture. Simply the times after the ball goes out of playto when the timer starts varies massively due to crowd noise that is not present in the 'textbook' tennis match and so it has to be accounted for to reduce crowd influence - Remember also that if someone shouts out in the run up to a serve, the server is always given a few more seconds on top of the above to gather himself to reduce crowd influence on point. Naturally this occurs so much more in the close matches. It you have a problem with it write to the ATP and suggest changes.

Aaah Tom_____, you did not know about Nadal's fans who deliberately cheer to give their hero breathing time....

If that's right and the players know it, then that means that they don't have to wait in readiness for a serve which never comes, they only need to buckle down when they hear the score announced.

If you want to see a catty exchange about this sort of stuff you need look no further than Wimbledon's own site.

http://www.wimbledon.com/en_GB/news/articles/2011-06-27/201106271309176322554.html?promo=sl_toparticles

barrystar wrote:Aaah Tom_____, you did not know about Nadal's fans who deliberately cheer to give their hero breathing time....

If that's right and the players know it, then that means that they don't have to wait in readiness for a serve which never comes, they only need to buckle down when they hear the score announced.

If you want to see a catty exchange about this sort of stuff you need look no further than Wimbledon's own site.

http://www.wimbledon.com/en_GB/news/articles/2011-06-27/201106271309176322554.html?promo=sl_toparticles

Very catty exchange there - didn't know wimbledon had its on 'have your say' type section

Its worth noting thats there a limit to the delay caused by the crowd, in that that after a few seconds of cheers the Umpire always cuts across with the score announcment to quieten them down (its usually 6-7s max from the timings ive done, with big exceptions in Wimbledon 2008, where the crowd would not quieten at times)

I agree with your final two points, but up to a point. If his biggest rivals thought he was a grossly unfair player on court, rather than (as I do) a serial envelope pusher who takes advantage of weak officialdom they would not have the respect for him that they do I suggest..
----------------------------

We don;t know the level of respect the other players have. At the beginning it seemed Nadal was very much disliked by his antics on courts. And then they all accepted it.

What they respect in my view is the marketable product. Davydenko is a much nicer player to watch, especially against Nadal, but he will never attract the crowds and make the game popular.

Federer has this unique class and talent appreciated by those who play the game. Djoko tried to create a funny character and Murray currently carries the hope of the anglo-saxons in the UK and US. But Rafa is the secret lover of all women in the world...and if that was not enough is liked by the biggest share of children.

He brings a lot of money and excitement to those who don;t care about tennis itself, those who can't see how much more talented Davydenko is. And by that feat, he is making all the players richer.

That;s what they respect, in my view, not the man.

"But Rafa is the secret lover of all women in the world.."
Not, ALL, Tenez, not ALL

Davydenko? Rofl. He couldn't wait to choke in another slam could he? Seems the only relation you have to Davy is his 6-4 head to head against Nadal. A nicer player to watch? Don't make me laugh. I thought according to you he was going to beat Nadal at the FO, lol.
Federer has many obsessive fans who think tennis started and ends with him. Too bad, when he retires even if tomorrow, stadiums will continue to be filled and matches will be appreciated by those who love the game. Will he be missed, surely but wouldn't last even two months. Convince yourself other wise.

noleisthebest wrote:"But Rafa is the secret lover of all women in the world.."
Not, ALL, Tenez, not ALL

In my draft I had written "except NITB maybe"... but then deleted it!

True though!

Put it back.....pleeease, and remember me when you take your cushy seat tomorrow at 1PM

I have to admit I was a bit disappointed with Rafa in this match. From all the news I was hearing and his comments after the match I thought he had actually seriously injured himself. It seems that now Chris fowler has confirmed that the reason he took the MTO before the tiebreak was because the tape on the foot was too tight??

cbfowler Chris Fowler
Nadal's Dr just said foot scare caused by too tight tape-job, which Rafa mistook for injury. No concern for semi v Fish. http://twitter.com/#!/cbfowler

I don't believe he was faking the pain but the exaggeration from him and his team was very disappointing. Every player experiences some pain but they do not call the trainer for every little thing. This behaviour is not what you would expect from the world 1.

noleisthebest wrote:Put it back.....pleeease, and remember me when you take your cushy seat tomorrow at 1PM

I certainly will. Last time I saw him live here at Wimbledon he lost v Haas. HOpe he wins tomorrow....but I want Tomic to make him run enough so he can be an easy meat for Federer...

The right or wrong of the applying of the 20 second thing is interesting, but did anyone comment on how Nadal uses this time? It is scary. He used every second to nail his composure and mental state on the other guy, and to psych out his opponent, with the "my mental state is impenetrable" thing. It is not that the other players are frustrated by the time he takes... maybe that, too, but first they are freaked out by his dominating the psychic space between points. What is Nadal going to do? Slow down to be polite? No, his is going to use every single second to his advantage to win, win, win with his iron will.
This is one scary thing about Nadal as a Fed fan - the other is the injuries Nadal has which mean that in the middle of Wimbledon he takes time to go to hospital to get scanned (for goodness sake), before he 'dominates' these injuries with his will power, using them, and the stir they create, to make himself even more pumped up personally and even more terrifying in the eyes of his opponents - as if he was a wounded bear protecting mother and cubs. Bloody scary. Nadal looks more the indominatable beast than ever he did before. A total F*** off attitude to anyone even thinking they might even think of taking even a set of him. I am afraid Nad will once again prove to be Kryptonite to RF's superman, and I need a shoulder to cry on! If the final comes down to these two, I'll not be watching.

I can't believe this line Tom is taking; that it's the fans cheering that makes it look like Nadal takes longer.

Come on, get real.

Tropicalfruiter wrote:The right or wrong of the applying of the 20 second thing is interesting, but did anyone comment on how Nadal uses this time? It is scary. He used every second to nail his composure and mental state on the other guy, and to psych out his opponent, with the "my mental state is impenetrable" thing. It is not that the other players are frustrated by the time he takes... maybe that, too, but first they are freaked out by his dominating the psychic space between points. What is Nadal going to do? Slow down to be polite? No, his is going to use every single second to his advantage to win, win, win with his iron will.
This is one scary thing about Nadal as a Fed fan - the other is the injuries Nadal has which mean that in the middle of Wimbledon he takes time to go to hospital to get scanned (for goodness sake), before he 'dominates' these injuries with his will power, using them, and the stir they create, to make himself even more pumped up personally and even more terrifying in the eyes of his opponents - as if he was a wounded bear protecting mother and cubs. Bloody scary. Nadal looks more the indominatable beast than ever he did before. A total F*** off attitude to anyone even thinking they might even think of taking even a set of him. I am afraid Nad will once again prove to be Kryptonite to RF's superman, and I need a shoulder to cry on! If the final comes down to these two, I'll not be watching.

But I will remember him as a player who never won a slam within the rules!

Yeah, we get the (same old) message Tenez.

....on every post, on every thread...yawn yawn yawn

bogbrush wrote:I can't believe this line Tom is taking; that it's the fans cheering that makes it look like Nadal takes longer.

Come on, get real.

Its not a line i'm taking - its simply how the rule is applied. Deal with it or don't thats up to you.

Your thought isn't worth "dealing with" because it's fatuous. I'm sorry, but Nadals serves take longer because he messes about.

It's astonishing that you need this fact reiterating.

bogbrush wrote:Your thought isn't worth "dealing with" because it's fatuous. I'm sorry, but Nadals serves take longer because he messes about.

It's astonishing that you need this fact reiterating.

He takes longer of course, but the crowd noise gives him the time within the interpretation of the rule. Contact the ATP - ask for clarification. Like i said deal with it or don't.

It strikes me that different people require different lengths of time to focus on serving; the only shot that (theoretically anyway) you can entirely control. I'm no professional but I personally prefer to serve quickly because too much thinking time inhibits my serving instinct. You could say that Nadal, Djokovic, Del Potro and others are amongst the slower to prepare... others prepare quicker. It was clear in the Nadal - Del Potro match that DP didn't mind Nadal's timing whereas others might.

One possibility may be that players elect for a 20s 25s or 30s rule for each match and then adhere to it (in case of dispute it could be decided at the coin toss)

Given that the timing rule is elastic anyway ie at umpire's discretion after long rallies, perhaps the situation could be resolved by a challenge system. To be fair to both players, the rule of thumb would be 20s and if a player went significantly over this the opponent could appeal to the umpire. If the appeal was upheld by the umpire, the server woulds lose their first serve.

One last thought: maybe receivers take different lengths of time to focus. How about servers not being allowed to serve UNDER 20s

Talatonian wrote:It strikes me that different people require different lengths of time to focus on serving; the only shot that (theoretically anyway) you can entirely control. I'm no professional but I personally prefer to serve quickly because too much thinking time inhibits my serving instinct. You could say that Nadal, Djokovic, Del Potro and others are amongst the slower to prepare... others prepare quicker. It was clear in the Nadal - Del Potro match that DP didn't mind Nadal's timing whereas others might.

One possibility may be that players elect for a 20s 25s or 30s rule for each match and then adhere to it (in case of dispute it could be decided at the coin toss)

Given that the timing rule is elastic anyway ie at umpire's discretion after long rallies, perhaps the situation could be resolved by a challenge system. To be fair to both players, the rule of thumb would be 20s and if a player went significantly over this the opponent could appeal to the umpire. If the appeal was upheld by the umpire, the server woulds lose their first serve.

One last thought: maybe receivers take different lengths of time to focus. How about servers not being allowed to serve UNDER 20s

Servers do have to makes sure receivers are ready to receive. But the receiver must make effort to be ready for the server to serve when ready. With federers fast rate of 10-16s its quite a lot of pressure on the receiver to be ready. I remember him complaining about some one being not ready once and the umpire was not happy with him because of the pace he was setting - it works both ways. The ball bouncing thing Djoko does receives a lot of complaints because 'supposedly' the ex-stream concentration a player has just before a serve can only last for a few seconds - so the excess bouncing goes right through that period

I guess nobody cheers Federer points then, otherwise he'd be unable to serve so quickly.

Look, all this discussion is froth. Nadal (and others, he's not alone) take too long and break the rules. The Umpires should call them on it like they'd call a ball out but they almost never do, which is absurd, and when they do Nadal has a hissy fit so they leave it at that.

BBC Sport's Mike Henson on Twitter: wrote:Looks like some light strapping on Nadal's left ankle, but the champ is hopping about as usual. Keeps stretching his left hand though.

More MTOs on the way?

Good points made, i like watching Nadals matches usually but i find myself turning it off just at the ridiculous time it takes for a set to be completed. He can make a 3 setter last over 3 hours no problem, there's no reason for him to be so slow between points.

There are no two ways about it, Nadal takes too long between points. I do think the umpires timing wasn't the smartest, but they've made a rod for their own backs for letting it go for so long. Now, if they do raise it, the players get prickly.

bogbrush wrote:I guess nobody cheers Federer points then, otherwise he'd be unable to serve so quickly.

Look, all this discussion is froth. Nadal (and others, he's not alone) take too long and break the rules. The Umpires should call them on it like they'd call a ball out but they almost never do, which is absurd, and when they do Nadal has a hissy fit so they leave it at that.

obviously its up to Federer when he serves, cheers or no. However Obviously a 15 shot rally is always going to get more applause than an Ace, so you could argue, brutal efficiency draws less crowd participation generally.

Finally once again they are not breaking the rules in the way it is interpreted - by all means complain about the method of application, but the players are doing fine.

Positively 4th Street wrote:There are no two ways about it, Nadal takes too long between points. I do think the umpires timing wasn't the smartest, but they've made a rod for their own backs for letting it go for so long. Now, if they do raise it, the players get prickly.

Check out my post on how the rule is interpreted - Several players take a long time between points - like Del P and on Occasion ive timed Nalbandian at over 40s, but again crowd noise delayed the score call on that one. Ive seen over a minute between points before, but that was due to a fan shouting out and the timer being reset. Its fairer this way, because if a Fan shouted out with only a few seconds left, people would be on here complaining about how crowds upset servers rythm unfairly.

Tom: are you able to hand over your source, regarding the application of the ATP rules. It seems to me highly surprising that the application of the rule is based on interpretation to such degree.

Also: are you able to document that this ATP interpretation is followed upon by the principal ITF associations?

thanks in advance

Well the case for is that if the umpires are not enforcing the rules to the letter of the law, are we complaining about the leniancy shown by the umpires?

LK: a genuine good point: the umpires seem to increasingly losing autority and no longer be able to cope with the overwhelming influence of the top player

Me personally, for timing violations on serve, I think if the player violates, they should lose the first serve. I think that way it is being 'innovative' it would motivate the player to speed up and would certainly stop any contesting from the players. But that is me. I think there is room somewhere for innovation in keeping rules enforced.

Jeremy_Kyle wrote:Tom: are you able to hand over your source, regarding the application of the ATP rules. It seems to me highly surprising that the application of the rule is based on interpretation to such degree.

Also: are you able to document that this ATP interpretation is followed upon by the principal ITF associations?

thanks in advance

No, as i said, we had this debate in length over two years ago after the posh version of the 606 board closed and a lot of people went to another tennis forum. On that forum this was fully thrashed out and another poster contacted the ATP for clarification and posted the interpretation i have stated. It isn't officially part of 'tennis' rules as tennis rules don't tend to account for the presence of a large noisy crowd, so there is no official documentation on it - however as i said a poster managed to get a response on the matter from the ATP and that ended the debate on that forum. If you think about it it makes sense that the crowd is accounted for in a game that is played in silence. It seems to make total sense to me. As i am not the one complaining and never have been, i suggest anyone with an issue contacts the ATP for clarification and then discuss it afterwards when you have something tangible to talk about. Right now its just endless peddling the same complaint. Now the way the rule is applied after crowd noise is debatable in my view - but lets have that debate, rather than this tosh about players breaking rules, when people aren't prepared to seek clarification for it.

If it's not even known who actually was behind this mail, I would be a little cautious when considering that as the official voice of the ATP. particularly considering the sensitivity of the issue.

By the way just to clear something else up - a lot of people are working to ITF rules which i think say 20s, whereas ATP rules say 25s. So many of you are totally mistaken and working to the wrong time limit considering the ATP covers most tournaments and all tournaments appear to use the same umpires, who no doubt will be appying the same rules to every tournament including the slams. I worked to 20s in my examples just to be as stringent as possible.

From what i remember as the clarification. A lot of it revolves around the definition of 'the ball goes out of play'. In the modern tournament game this is described not as the moment the ball literally falls out or goes for a winner, but after the umpire announces the score to allow firstly for the crowd to shut up and secondly for any challenges to be made - only at that stage is the point classed as 'over' and the timer for the next one starts. Makes sense doesn't it?

It was also mixed in with tennis law whereby you have this type of clarification:

"iii) Play shall be resumed upon the statement of “Let’s Play” by the supervisor and the players must proceed to commence play and the twenty-five (25) second clock shall commence."


Usually this is applied in a scenario where a player is complaining, but effectively when point finishes and is deemed to finish fairly the Umpire uses the score announcement to signal the beginning of the next point 'play' and hence the 25s clock starts.

"Time Violation or Code Violation. A Time or Code Violation must be assessed if the ball is not struck for the next point within the twenty-five (25) seconds allowed, except if the chair umpire extends the time for special circumstances defined by the ATP. There is no time warning prior to the expiration of the twenty- five (25) seconds."

Theres this 'special circumstances' clause also in the rules next to the 25s rule which is basically effective all the time in these matches to allow for crowd noise. So they are basically always operating under special circumstances.

Sorry i don't have the actual response form the ATP, but thats the rub of what i remember.

What annoys me is if you type into google you get forums stating exactly what ive been saying as far back as 2008 and a lot of people are acting as if its just been made up. Its been around for ages, yet people pedal the same nonsense without actually checking the rules or old forums for themselves.

Also some of you might find this chart interesting:

https://2img.net/h/i619.photobucket.com/albums/tt272/bogbot/Fedtime.png

Its the 2008 wimbledon final. Literal timings of Federer between points form the ball going out. Note that even Federer broke the 25s rule on over 30 occasions when the rule is applied in the incorrect way that many of you are arguing for.

In my view, it's not that the real problem, it's just that as a source of evidence, it doesn't sounds totally reliable as based on indirect speeches and not on a clear cut position taken by officials. it may well be that the query is so hot they are unable to come out with a clear cut opinion......

Jeremy_Kyle wrote:In my view, it's not that the real problem, it's just that as a source of evidence, it doesn't sounds totally reliable as based on indirect speeches and not on a clear cut position taken by officials. it may well be that the query is so hot they are unable to come out with a clear cut opinion......

Like i said earlier, deal with it or don't, its up to you personally. For me this argument is three years old and i'm surprised it hasn't been fully taken up with the ATP by now or forgotten about. What does seem to happen all to often is posters who already know of the interpretation described, forget it exists and trott out the same stuff over and over without any hope of resolution. If you don't like it - complain to the ATP about it.

Like is said earlier, deal with it or don't, its up to you personally. For me this argument is three years old and i'm surprised it hasn't been fully taken up with the ATP by now or forgotten about. What does seem to happen all to often is posters who already know of the interpretation described, forget it exists and trott out the same stuff over and over without any hope of resolution. If you don't like it - complain to the ATP about it.[/quote]

I certainly don't like it. Before complaining to the ATP I'd need to find a reliable document stating the official interpretation of the ATP. Since by now, I couldn't find any clear evidence of that document I will refrain from doing so.

Nadal played perfectly within the time limit today though.

Fed's does his dirty work behind the scenes getting match times altered to suit him etc etc, his way of playing as quickly as possible ie not letting his opponent settle etc is that a tactic ...of course it is.....you Feds fans are as bad as he is you are totally inglorious in defeat.... have to find fault .....next old Feds will be saying that he had a bit of flu or didn't get a good nights sleep because of the twins et etc......he lost .....he wasn't good enough on his favourite surface, he's not No1.....and what's more won't get that No1 spot back again, Sampras/Borg are still the kings of Wimbledon ....really sorry Feds fans ....that as they say...is that.

Have to say Fed really gracious without excuse today

Talatonian wrote:Have to say Fed really gracious without excuse today

Agree - it surprised me but was nice to see Fed not being a smug

Interesting stats earlier Tom. I think its fair to say that most players probably fall foul of the rule at times. The problem is the umpires arent dealing with it, or not consistently anyway.

superochog wrote:

Talatonian wrote:Have to say Fed really gracious without excuse today

Agree - it surprised me but was nice to see Fed not being a smug

I think for a while Roger has been gracious (on the whole) about Nadal. I think he's found it harder to accept the other up and comings...but now with more losses to them he is recalibrating and he's ther better for it. My partner who could never stand his smugness now quite likes him! Meanwhile Nadal has never really got past his #2 mentalikty which he needed for so many years!

Talatonian wrote:

superochog wrote:

Talatonian wrote:Have to say Fed really gracious without excuse today

Agree - it surprised me but was nice to see Fed not being a smug

I think for a while Roger has been gracious (on the whole) about Nadal. I think he's found it harder to accept the other up and comings...but now with more losses to them he is recalibrating and he's ther better for it. My partner who could never stand his smugness now quite likes him! Meanwhile Nadal has never really got past his #2 mentalikty which he needed for so many years!

My mother in law who can't stand Fed's smugness was saying....oooo he was sweet...after his interview today

lydian wrote:Interesting stats earlier Tom. I think its fair to say that most players probably fall foul of the rule at times. The problem is the umpires arent dealing with it, or not consistently anyway.

Agreed. It drives me potty people blaming players like they make the rules. If the umpires are not implementing the rules, it is not the fault of the players. I think more creative 'punishments' that umpires feel comfortable with and that the players will respect will certainly help with players playing within the laws of the game.