Do the umpires always say...

Like most people I suspect, I don't tend to pay much attention to the toin coss, photo op etc before the matches start, but I saw it before the Berdych/Rochus match last night and the umpire went over the hawkeye rules and said "20 seconds between points".

I know this rule has been spoken about often, but have the umpires always said this and then just usually ignored it during the match, or is it something they've recently started making a point of saying, in which case maybe they plan to be stricter?

Good question. I must say I have not heard it before. I heard a more general speech in teh past. Just saying you "know the rules, have you got any question?"

Great, so now we know the Umpire knows the rules.

The tricky part is getting them to apply it.

If they really did that, then I'm saying for the record that Nadal won't make the final.

Do you think Rafa sprints from the net as the umpire says it?

legendkillar wrote:Do you think Rafa sprints from the net as the umpire says it?

It's probably one of those moments when his command of the language becomes really poor. "que?" (in the style of Manuel).

bogbrush wrote:

legendkillar wrote:Do you think Rafa sprints from the net as the umpire says it?

It's probably one of those moments when his command of the language becomes really poor. "que?" (in the style of Manuel).

that would be gold if we heard that

I think all this talk of the 20 second rule will lead to players abusing it.

They may follow the example set by Murray. At a crucial time in his match with Harrison, Murray started harrassing the umpire about the time Harrison was taking between points. Murray can be very persuasive and the umpire obliged and gave Harrison what very much looked like an unjustified warning. A second "offence" would be a point penalty.

Murray had said before the match that he intended to get Harrison angry to gain an advantage. The warning did get Harrison angry and it did affect the match.

I have heard lots of talk of players been advised to make a fuss about this rule not because the supposed time delay is adversely affecting their game. Rather that by getting the umpire to hand out warnings it will damage the opponants game. If the warning comes at the request of an opponant (as it did in the Murray game) I think there is an added chance that it will.

It should be made clear to all players that enforcing time rules is the responsability of the umpire and not the players.

hawkeye wrote:I think all this talk of the 20 second rule will lead to players abusing it.

They may follow the example set by Murray. At a crucial time in his match with Harrison, Murray started harrassing the umpire about the time Harrison was taking between points. Murray can be very persuasive and the umpire obliged and gave Harrison what very much looked like an unjustified warning. A second "offence" would be a point penalty.

Murray had said before the match that he intended to get Harrison angry to gain an advantage. The warning did get Harrison angry and it did affect the match.

I have heard lots of talk of players been advised to make a fuss about this rule not because the supposed time delay is adversely affecting their game. Rather that by getting the umpire to hand out warnings it will damage the opponants game. If the warning comes at the request of an opponant (as it did in the Murray game) I think there is an added chance that it will.

It should be made clear to all players that enforcing time rules is the responsability of the umpire and not the players.

Brilliant!!

This is EXACTLY what I've been hoping Lendl would encourage him to do - wind people up and generally get under their skin. Andy has spent too much time attacking himself, time he turned it the right way.
Of course, if the Umpires do their job he will be denied that chance, so if he gets to do it he has automatically met your criteria because the Umpire has failed.

I eagerly await his next encounter with Nadal or Djokovic.

Murray is further up in my estimation on the back of that moment. Question rule breaking is not harmful.

If he does to Nadal or Djokovic, I think we will see a new wave of Murray fans!

HE, I've got a brilliant plan to stop your opponent complaining about the time you take between points, leading to a warning from the umpire - can you guess what it is?

bogbrush wrote:

hawkeye wrote:I think all this talk of the 20 second rule will lead to players abusing it.

They may follow the example set by Murray. At a crucial time in his match with Harrison, Murray started harrassing the umpire about the time Harrison was taking between points. Murray can be very persuasive and the umpire obliged and gave Harrison what very much looked like an unjustified warning. A second "offence" would be a point penalty.

Murray had said before the match that he intended to get Harrison angry to gain an advantage. The warning did get Harrison angry and it did affect the match.

I have heard lots of talk of players been advised to make a fuss about this rule not because the supposed time delay is adversely affecting their game. Rather that by getting the umpire to hand out warnings it will damage the opponants game. If the warning comes at the request of an opponant (as it did in the Murray game) I think there is an added chance that it will.

It should be made clear to all players that enforcing time rules is the responsability of the umpire and not the players.

Brilliant!!

This is EXACTLY what I've been hoping Lendl would encourage him to do - wind people up and generally get under their skin. Andy has spent too much time attacking himself, time he turned it the right way.
Of course, if the Umpires do their job he will be denied that chance, so if he gets to do it he has automatically met your criteria because the Umpire has failed.

I eagerly await his next encounter with Nadal or Djokovic.

bogbrush

Have you ever watched Murray play? He is the master of
this technique. I have never understood why people see it as "attacking
himself" as he usually gains from it.

I also await his next
encounters. I have been giving a little coaching advice to Andy's
opponants to help them counter his tricky play. I am surprised at how
poorly prepared other players are for this tactic. I suspect it is
because they spend too much time on the practise court working on their
forehands and backhands... sigh...

JuliusHMarx wrote:HE, I've got a brilliant plan to stop your opponent complaining about the time you take between points, leading to a warning from the umpire - can you guess what it is?

I think this is a trick question? Are you going to say something like "play really, really fast"?

hawkeye wrote:

JuliusHMarx wrote:HE, I've got a brilliant plan to stop your opponent complaining about the time you take between points, leading to a warning from the umpire - can you guess what it is?

I think this is a trick question? Are you going to say something like "play really, really fast"?

Not at all, I was going to say "only take 20 seconds between points"

JuliusHMarx wrote:

hawkeye wrote:

JuliusHMarx wrote:HE, I've got a brilliant plan to stop your opponent complaining about the time you take between points, leading to a warning from the umpire - can you guess what it is?

I think this is a trick question? Are you going to say something like "play really, really fast"?

Not at all, I was going to say "only take 20 seconds between points"

Harrison tried that and it didn't work.

hawkeye wrote:

JuliusHMarx wrote:

hawkeye wrote:

JuliusHMarx wrote:HE, I've got a brilliant plan to stop your opponent complaining about the time you take between points, leading to a warning from the umpire - can you guess what it is?

I think this is a trick question? Are you going to say something like "play really, really fast"?

Not at all, I was going to say "only take 20 seconds between points"

Harrison tried that and it didn't work.

I didn't see the match, so only have your word on that. On the other hand, you so rarely say anything bad about Murray, that it must be true.

I got an idea, if all Federer fans moan hard at the tv every time Nadal and Djokovic waste time, one day they might actually hear them from the comfort of their sofas.

My complaint is purely selfish - much as I like watching Rafa and Djoko play, when they play each other, I just don't have the time to sit around while they don't play each other!

P.S. S_A, I've heard Fed is upset you called him choker. Word reached him apparently. I'd watch out after the AO semis - he'll be round your place. He'll be hiding in the bushes in a white cardigan.

Did he? I understand, he'll rather wait to prove me wrong at New York. Some months to go.

Perhaps Julius you could carry Big Ben to Melbourne and make sure times are kept to? Or perhaps a vuvuzela will do the trick?

Simple_Analyst wrote:Did he? I understand, he'll rather wait to prove me wrong at New York. Some months to go.

Perhaps Julius you could carry Big Ben to Melbourne and make sure times are kept to? Or perhaps a vuvuzela will do the trick?

Must be an easier way. Don't they have some sort of time rule in basketball with a countdown clock - I'm pretty sure they don't use Big Ben.

Julius you disappointment me these days. You arguments are always lacking. Basketball uses the shot clock for the offense to shoot the ball within 24 seconds. That's about it. Ever wonder why a 48 minutes BB game takes about 3 hours to complete?

Or perhaps they put big ben ob court, give the players 18 seconds to finish a point, the crowd 5 seconds to shut up and clap later at home and the players 20 seconds to serve the nex
Anyway i say we give the empire a vuvuzela. Will do the job.

Give the empire a vuvuzela, and Britain will rule the world once again.

Stirring stuff there.

Simple_Analyst wrote:Julius you disappointment me these days. You arguments are always lacking.

I take that as a compliment.

to be fair to Murray, Harrison was taking about 30-35 seconds between points, I think Murray was perfectly entitled to complain about it. In fact, surely it's better to talk to the umpire about it during the match (if you feel your opponent is gaining an unfair advantage from it) than mouthing off to the press afterwards (which I think Tsonga did once - made him look like a sore loser more than anything).

Nothing wrong with what Murray did. Tennis is also a mental battle, and if you can gain an advantage over your opponent that way why shouldn't you? The reason Djokovic and Nadal take too long between points is also to gain an advantage (specifically, Djokovic's ball-bouncing is designed to upset his opponent's return rhythm as much as anything).

Right, so just let me be sure I've got this straight......

Because S_A makes the (hopefully ironic) point that transporting St Stephens Tower (Big Ben is the bell, not the clock tower) to every tennis event is a bit tricky, then timing players on serve is not feasible.

Yep. That looks pretty much what he was saying.

Glad we cleared that up.

Mad for Chelsea wrote:to be fair to Murray, Harrison was taking about 30-35 seconds between points, I think Murray was perfectly entitled to complain about it. In fact, surely it's better to talk to the umpire about it during the match (if you feel your opponent is gaining an unfair advantage from it) than mouthing off to the press afterwards (which I think Tsonga did once - made him look like a sore loser more than anything).

Nothing wrong with what Murray did. Tennis is also a mental battle, and if you can gain an advantage over your opponent that way why shouldn't you? The reason Djokovic and Nadal take too long between points is also to gain an advantage (specifically, Djokovic's ball-bouncing is designed to upset his opponent's return rhythm as much as anything).

Spot on.

And S_A, could we keep this to a MURRAY thread, and not drag Federer into every one, unless you're staying on topic by proposing a way Andy can irritate him?

No i actually prefer giving the umpire a vuvuzela. More effective and easy to use.

bogbrush wrote:

Mad for Chelsea wrote:to be fair to Murray, Harrison was taking about 30-35 seconds between points, I think Murray was perfectly entitled to complain about it. In fact, surely it's better to talk to the umpire about it during the match (if you feel your opponent is gaining an unfair advantage from it) than mouthing off to the press afterwards (which I think Tsonga did once - made him look like a sore loser more than anything).

Nothing wrong with what Murray did. Tennis is also a mental battle, and if you can gain an advantage over your opponent that way why shouldn't you? The reason Djokovic and Nadal take too long between points is also to gain an advantage (specifically, Djokovic's ball-bouncing is designed to upset his opponent's return rhythm as much as anything).

Spot on.

And S_A, could we keep this to a MURRAY thread, and not drag Federer into every one, unless you're staying on topic by proposing a way Andy can irritate him?

I suggest looking im in the eye and saying "you know that cardigan? it sucks" or possibly bringing up some old "grandpa" jokes at the change of ends.

Mad for Chelsea wrote:

bogbrush wrote:

Mad for Chelsea wrote:to be fair to Murray, Harrison was taking about 30-35 seconds between points, I think Murray was perfectly entitled to complain about it. In fact, surely it's better to talk to the umpire about it during the match (if you feel your opponent is gaining an unfair advantage from it) than mouthing off to the press afterwards (which I think Tsonga did once - made him look like a sore loser more than anything).

Nothing wrong with what Murray did. Tennis is also a mental battle, and if you can gain an advantage over your opponent that way why shouldn't you? The reason Djokovic and Nadal take too long between points is also to gain an advantage (specifically, Djokovic's ball-bouncing is designed to upset his opponent's return rhythm as much as anything).

Spot on.

And S_A, could we keep this to a MURRAY thread, and not drag Federer into every one, unless you're staying on topic by proposing a way Andy can irritate him?

I suggest looking im in the eye and saying "you know that cardigan? it sucks" or possibly bringing up some old "grandpa" jokes at the change of ends.

My own view was that the cardie was sheer class. It oozed smooth. I must admit an interest, through the winter months I am a cardie man myself.

The trousers, well I was less comfortable about them. Not so bad when they were the only accessory. However I'm still trying to forget the jacket & trousers combo ...........

Actually the way to annoy Roger is to do really late Hawkeye challenges. It worked for JMDP in 2009.

Simple_Analyst wrote:No i actually prefer giving the umpire a vuvuzela. More effective and easy to use.

Why would he need a vuvuzela when he's got a microphone to say 'Time violation Mr Nadal/Djokovic' with?

bogbrush wrote:

Mad for Chelsea wrote:

bogbrush wrote:

Mad for Chelsea wrote:to be fair to Murray, Harrison was taking about 30-35 seconds between points, I think Murray was perfectly entitled to complain about it. In fact, surely it's better to talk to the umpire about it during the match (if you feel your opponent is gaining an unfair advantage from it) than mouthing off to the press afterwards (which I think Tsonga did once - made him look like a sore loser more than anything).

Nothing wrong with what Murray did. Tennis is also a mental battle, and if you can gain an advantage over your opponent that way why shouldn't you? The reason Djokovic and Nadal take too long between points is also to gain an advantage (specifically, Djokovic's ball-bouncing is designed to upset his opponent's return rhythm as much as anything).

Spot on.

And S_A, could we keep this to a MURRAY thread, and not drag Federer into every one, unless you're staying on topic by proposing a way Andy can irritate him?

I suggest looking im in the eye and saying "you know that cardigan? it sucks" or possibly bringing up some old "grandpa" jokes at the change of ends.

My own view was that the cardie was sheer class. It oozed smooth. I must admit an interest, through the winter months I am a cardie man myself.

The trousers, well I was less comfortable about them. Not so bad when they were the only accessory. However I'm still trying to forget the jacket & trousers combo ...........

and Roger obviously liked the cardie too... Hence why telling him how awful it was should be an easy way to upset him and propel Murray to his first grand slam

Or Federer coudl actually pull his cardigan out of the bag with the 16 slams shields on it (he never leaves it far away from him) after the grandpa joke!

Murray would suddenly stare at it, count the shields once again. He woudl also have noticed that Federer has already prepared the space for teh 17th shield, and turn his head towards his adidas green t shirt with the sole HighlandSprings water shield on it.

Gutted!

Ah but then Andy has got the rise from him.

We're struggling here, but the time delay one is a perfect device elsewhere, since all he's doing actually is appealing for the rules to be enforced.
In fact, after making a deal of it with Harrisson he will look a complete drip if he funks it against Djokovic/Nadal, and since I don't see him that way (and Ivan wouldn't stand for it) I look forward to some excellent fun....... picture the scene.....

Nadal/Djokovic is moving to the baseline after sorting through every ball, towelling down between inspections. He prepares; either it's bum retrieval, trousers, headband, or it's bounce bounce bounce bounce...... the ball goes into the hand but suddenly Murray stands up, raises one hand to stop the process and marches over to the Umpire. Hands on hips to explains that standing to retrieve like that is giving him backache, that we all know the rules and asks the Umpire why he isn't enforcing them. As he protests he keeps saying "how many seconds did you count? How many did you count? Can't you say? Aren't you counting?". Any more lip from the Umpire and he wants the referee on the court. The rules are the rules, he wants the referree because, you see, he's not criticising his opponent, but the Umpire.

If only he could get a wide red headband the image would be complete..

bogbrush wrote:Ah but then Andy has got the rise from him.

We're struggling here, but the time delay one is a perfect device elsewhere, since all he's doing actually is appealing for the rules to be enforced.
In fact, after making a deal of it with Harrisson he will look a complete drip if he funks it against Djokovic/Nadal, and since I don't see him that way (and Ivan wouldn't stand for it) I look forward to some excellent fun....... picture the scene.....

Nadal/Djokovic is moving to the baseline after sorting through every ball, towelling down between inspections. He prepares; either it's bum retrieval, trousers, headband, or it's bounce bounce bounce bounce...... the ball goes into the hand but suddenly Murray stands up, raises one hand to stop the process and marches over to the Umpire. Hands on hips to explains that standing to retrieve like that is giving him backache, that we all know the rules and asks the Umpire why he isn't enforcing them. As he protests he keeps saying "how many seconds did you count? How many did you count? Can't you say? Aren't you counting?". Any more lip from the Umpire and he wants the referee on the court. The rules are the rules, he wants the referree because, you see, he's not criticising his opponent, but the Umpire.

If only he could get a wide red headband the image would be complete..

Interesting. I think you may be correct in the sense that it only has limited use. Murray may well have thought he was "just practising" with Harrison but this is not a tactic that has endless use. He may well have exposed his hand too early.

Murray is quite capable of varying the action though so I too am intrigued as to what other surprises he may have. If he does get to play any of the big three and it fails everyone will just feel sorry for him. They will say his poor on court behaviour prevented him from playing his best. We in the know including Lendl and anyone who listens to what Murray actually says about his on court behaviour will see it differently.

If I were Murray and had to play Nadal I would let the Spaniard go through his full serving motion, including hair fixing and shorts pulling. Just a second before he is finally serving that ball I would put up my hand to indicate that I'm not ready to receive. That would be fun. Timewasting at its very best.

I just checked the Haas/Nadal match and Carlos the referee made no mention of the 20s rule at toss coin.

So clearly what JHM observed was not a general decision to apply to all.

Thinking of it, it's quite funny the referee mentions that for Rochus?Berdych but not in a match with Nadal!

Gutless or what?

Julius, came to my mind. Perhaps we can entertain your idea of the shot clock type used in NBA no matter how ridiculous it may sound but perhaps you can enlighten me on how you plan it to be used? Should it start after the crowd claps for a point, cheer loudly etc or should the clock start ticking before Tom in the crowd shouts Rafa to disrupts him or Jane, Ben, Thomas, Jessica all decided to have a loud chat from the crowds? Remeber, noise doesn't interrupt play in an NBA game.

I think to make it easier, we have the clock on court to time the players but it will come at a price:

1. Ban clapping in the stadium, delays the server. They can watch highlights at home and clap later. After all, there are millions at home clapping anyways.

2. Seal the mouth of everyone entering the stadium with a duct tape. A muted response on a brilliant point means the server will serve fast.

That should do the trick.

Simple_Analyst wrote:Seal the mouth of everyone entering the stadium with a duct tape.

Depends - will you be there?

I will and fortunately i'll have my lips stitched together before the duct tape is used. Extra precaution.

Julius so have you come up with an idea of how the clock should be used? Perhaps we can take a trip to Melbourne and protest outside the gates that the clocks are used in Nadal and Djokovic's matches?

You seem to be full of ideas! Including ones you somehow think I came up with.
I figured a time-keeper (possibly the service line judge, but it could be a separate time-keeper) with an electronic stop-watch who could pass the info to the umpire.
The umpire himself I think should concentrate on all the things he currently concentrates on between points.
Let's face it, it's just time-keeping, not rocket science.

Juliius, i'm just interest to know when you think the clock should start ticking.

As per the rules - the clock starts ticking when the point is over - that's not too hard to decide within a second or so.

It's when the clock stops that can have some leeway e.g. if the crowd are not yet quiet, Hawkeye of course, balls at the wrong end of the court etc. There's no need to call a player out the first time it happens, just a gentle word that they need to speed up, if they're exceeding the alloted time more than 3 or 4 times for no outside reason. If they don't speed up, then point penalties.
Not dissimilar to now, just more rigourously enforced i.e. if it happens in the first few games, then the verbal warning is given in the first few games.

Jeez Simplistic, you're reaching. A whole field full of strawmen to try to make out that timing is hard.

So the crowd could still be cheering and talking
15 seconds into the end of the point and the player should still be expected to serve?

Exactly why i say, ban clapping and cheering in tennis stadiums. How about a pre-recorded claps and cheers which can be played in the stadium after every point? 3 seconds long.

Simple_Analyst wrote:So the crowd could still be cheering and talking
15 seconds into the end of the point and the player should still be expected to serve?

Well, no because the rule is 20 (or 25) seconds. And you're talking about a few points per match and anyway, I've allowed for that, so stop being nonsensical.
But I've seen players hit an ace and then take 30 seconds to serve again, and that's just well outside the rules and there's no reason why it can't be stopped.

They tend to stop talking when the player shapes to serve. Ever noticed? Or watch any Sampras or Federer match and see how the crowd coped with those two guys playing inside the rules.

You're full of it today aren't you? One minute it only works if we fit the biggest clock in Britain in the ground, next we're gagging the crowd.

Nonsensical? What does that mean?

Anyway so the crowd only cheers and talks few points per match? Really Julius? So the 20 seconds clock shouldn't take into account crowd reaction?

Oh i see. So the crowd shuts up when the player attempts to start serving? Wow, they must also
well behaved. Is the 20 seconds for the player to abide by or the crowd? So what if the crowd don't shut up when the player wants to serve?