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

I am doing a little research into the application of the time violation rule. Players are meant to take no more than 25 seconds between points. If they take longer they are meant to be given a warning on the first violation and on subsequent ones lose a first serve. It is proving difficult to find information on the number of penalties handed out and if the rule is being enforced correctly. If anyone is interested maybe they could help?

I would like to know of any instances when players have received a warning or loss of first serve and what the score was at the time.

How often players go over 25 seconds without being penalized.

The first question could be perhaps partly answered from memory and partly from noting new incidents

The second question could be answered by watching parts of any match and timing a few points. I've found this easy to do by using the timer that appears when you rewind or slow live TV as it shows the seconds but a watch or clock would work fine. According to the ATP rule book timing should start when the ball goes out of play and stop when the ball is struck for the next point. I have gathered some information but it's impossible to watch all matches so any information would be useful. 



NEW petition expressing concern about the inconsistent use of the time violation rule

Time limits for tennis players? Time for a response - a request to the ATP & ITF

We want to bring to your urgent attention the fact that growing numbers of tennis fans are raising serious concerns about the inconsistent application of the Time Violation Warning rule in ATP and ITF tournaments. This is beginning to spoil our enjoyment of this exceptional sport.

Umpires are currently issuing warnings randomly and arbitrarily, with some players who persistently go over the time limit not being penalised, and others regularly being given a warning.

In addition, it has been noted that the first warning of a match is suddenly given at a crucial point in a game - e.g. at break point - even when the time has been exceeded previously. We are concerned that this practice could significantly alter the outcome of a match.

We, the undersigned, urge you to find a way of regularising the application of the rule and respectfully request a formal response to the specific concerns highlighted in this petition.

Thank you.

http://www.ipetitions.com/petition/time-limits-for-tennis-players-time-for-a

Nobody collects it and rarely is more than one ever given. Umpires also take it with some common sense and alleviate a bit after a long point. No reliable information is possible without a shot clock.  Which would put an end to the whole overreaction and issue

HE, good to see you back. You were gone for so long I was worried you might never return. Cannot say I always agree with your opinions but it is good to have you here.

To be honest can't remember a single match where someone actually was penalized a first serve.

Some years ago I believe I timed a sample of points during some big 4 matches and, apart from Federer, the others were routinely taking 25-30 seconds (all the time) and occassionally 30-50 after big points.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=el6zj6Q8A7M Murray.

I don't know of any stats. The game is definitely speeding up as players know the rules are going to be enforced, albeit not as strictly as, say, the lines.

It's such an easy rule for anyone to comply with that I doubt anyone will lose points unless they are really desperate.

So, from that list above, Rafa has more than twice as many violations as the second worst offender (Isner).

That is quite an indictment.

HMM, indictment? That's a big word. Could you pls elaborate? 

Allez le Suisse!

Matchpoint wrote:HMM, indictment? That's a big word. Could you pls elaborate? 

Rafa is so far ahead in the number of time violations that it would suggest he either has a particular difficulty in playing to 25 seconds or he is particularly ignoring it. Or indeed both.

25 out of the top 30 kept their number of violations to single figures.

Three players crept into double figures - Djoko 10, JMDP 11, Fognini 11.

Isner is then a bit of an outlier with 14.

And then it jumps all the way up to 30 with Rafa. He's an extreme outlier.

An interesting point would be has it improved in 2014, that was the year they really started cracking down on it. Did it work?

An interesting quirk - four of the five players with no time violations have a SHBH. Paire bucks that trend!

In fairness, three of them are tour vets, so that is perhaps a factor. And Gasquet is one of the worse offenders, so it probably means nothing. Interesting though.

Isnt Paire a double hander? Hes fallen off the radar so much I havent seem him play in a year!

After several months of thorough research (entirely self-funded), I have arrived at the following revelatory ground-breaking conclusions :

1. Many players are guilty of time violations, although a much smaller number are not

2. Rafa Nadal is allegedly guilty of far more TV's than any other top player

3.  Umpires have shown themselves to be less than efficient at imposing the official ATP penalties

4. Er........ that's it.

HM Murdoch wrote:

Matchpoint wrote:HMM, indictment? That's a big word. Could you pls elaborate? 

Rafa is so far ahead in the number of time  violations that it would suggest he either has a particular difficulty in playing to 25 seconds or he is particularly ignoring it. Or indeed both.

25 out of the top 30 kept their number of violations to single figures.

Three players crept into double figures - Djoko 10, JMDP 11, Fognini 11.

Isner is then a bit of an outlier with 14.

And then it jumps all the way up to 30 with Rafa. He's an extreme outlier.

OK. So do you think the time rule plays a role, even a partial one, in the worsening state of his game to date?

Interesting data. I knew Rafa was among the worst offenders but interesting to see how much worse than anyone else he is (unless one takes the view that referees are picking on him).

Rafa also seems to be perhaps the most vocal one in his opposition to the rule enforcement - he has had some spats with referees on that this year too.

That said, unless someone has any data that suggests that the enforcement is more stringent now than it was in 2013 I am inclined to think that the enforcement is at most a minor reason for his relatively poor form.

He can barely hit the ball past the net, Foggy made him look like an amateur.

His lack of play and power, has nothing to do with time between points.

Matchpoint wrote:OK. So do you think the time rule plays a role, even a partial one, in the worsening state of his game to date?

A partial role, but no more than that in my view.

I'm pretty sure that he uses those seconds to take some air in after a long rally (I know that Novak certainly does).

I believe that long rallies are more demanding on him than some of his peers due to his style (as discussed in the other thread i.e. deep court positioning, running round his forehand, the energy needed to create the revs on his forehand).

So it stands to reason that having that time limited will also affect him more than some of his peers.

But I think the main reasons are a lack of confidence (which can change) and his now being into his period of physical decline (which can't change).

I'm a fan of sports like cricket and snooker, where there is a lot of time between action naturally. I've therefore never noticed time between points unless its been pointed out. It's never been an impact on my enjoyment at all. I've never seen Nadal sucking it up in a way that it looks like he needs the extra time so I'm not certain how key this is at All

If you have not noticed for so many years Nadal's stalling between points to relax and annoy the other player, one needs either to be a Nadal fan, or an opticians checkup.

http://www.tennisworldusa.org/Rafael-Nadal-furious-with-Carlos-Bernardes-Ill-make-sure-that-you-dont-arbitrate-me-anymore-articolo22594.html

Some things aren't important enough for me to take specific timed note of them.

Was this on WTF? He sat down and said I will not play any more? Is this one?

Bernardes said, Oh yes you will. Maybe I'm wrong.

This was this year in Rio I think.
Bernardes hasn't umpired rafa since.

Well, he has lost it this year on so many levels, so a little agitated I guess.

Less harsh then Serena's disaster Kill thingy, but not good from a 14 GS holder.

Fed has spoken, Nadal favorite for RG.

Well I suppose there isn't much tennis going on so a bit difficult to do research at the moment...

I will share what I've discovered. Just like Henman Bill I've actually counted seconds and not judged by reputation or guess work. Just like them I've found that all players (I've not just checked the top ones) routinely go over the 25 second limit. In slams the limit is 20 seconds and probably more often than not players go over. On break or crucial points players take longer and after long rally's players take longer. In the Djokovic Nadal semi in Monte Carlo Djokovic was under pressure serving at 3-3 in a very long game in the first set. He took 30,35 and as long as 40 seconds between points without penalty. I'm not singling Djokovic out because all players go over the limit.

The rule is broken so often that Umpires could if they wanted throw in so many penalties that matches would be totally disrupted. They don't time violations are rare and I can understand that socal1976 may never have seen one. Because the rule is broken so often Umpires can also give time violation penalties pretty much whenever they want. Luvsports found that Murray got one in Monte Carlo in 2013. It was given when Murray was leading 6-1, 4-3 (with a break) 40-30. Time violations on non crucial points when they are rarely given are a joke of a punishment and it's no wonder that the rule has been totally ineffective at speeding up play in general.

I have noticed a few recent time violations but they all involve one player..

Miami 2015
Nadal against Versdasco. Nadal serving in the first set at 4-5 on brake/set point. He receives a time violation and loses the set

Monte Carlo 2015
Nadal against Isner. 2nd set Nadal serving at 4-4, 30-40. Isner asks the Umpire to give Nadal a time violation and the Umpire obliges. Nadal loses his serve. Isner holds for the set
Nadal against Ferrer. 1st set Nadal serving 3-3, 30-30 time violation. 2nd set Nadal serving at 3-3, 30-30 time violation Nadal lost his serve. 3rd set Nadal serving at 3-2, 30-40 time violation Nadal went on to win his serve.

Barcelona
Nadal against Almagro. Nadal got a first time violation early in the first set. 2nd set Nadal serving for the match 40-40. Almagro asked the Umpire to give Nadal a time violation and the Umpire obliged.

It is interesting that two of these time violations were given at the request of an opponent.

The rule has had no impact on players in general and has not been effective at quickening play. The only impact has been on one particular player. If the ATP wanted to design a rule that would destroy the mental strength of a player it would be difficult to think of something more effective than targeting them with random harsh penalties on crucial points in matches. The effect of this would of course be cumulative.

Matchpoint. Thank you for finding that data from 2013. I had seen it elsewhere but have had no luck finding more recent data. The ATP must have figures for time violations. But the number of violations doesn't tell the whole story as they have little effect if they are rare and not on a crucial point. I also wonder if there is data available from hawkeye about the time taken between points. Someone needs to do a thorough independent investigation. The rule isn't just unfair. There is a lot of money involved in tennis and matches can swing on a few well aimed penalties. It looks dare I say it a little corrupt.

The 25 second was indeed designed to target one player. An American , IIRC, who routinely took up to a minute or more between points. It was felt that action needed to be taken to prevent this player (and any other player in the future) from doing this.
It had, and still has, the agreement of the players.
Personally, I have never seen an official verbal warning given without the umpire having a quiet word first, at a changeover. However I haven't seen every one, so maybe sometimes no prior warning is given.
I find allegations of corruption to be fanciful at best.

Non sequitor hour with Hawkeye!

Stop clock, stop clock, and indeed , stop clock. Puts a thorough end to all of this, players then know the time, and umpires. Then instead if ruling sometimes randomly in the match, it can be done after the clock is violated say 4 times or something with further done for more if them

Also lets cool down on the corruption talk, it's just a rule not that well enforced

temporary21 wrote:Stop clock, stop clock, and indeed , stop clock. Puts a thorough end to all of this, players then know the time, and umpires. Then instead if ruling sometimes randomly in the match, it can be done after the clock is violated say 4 times or something with further done for more if them

This! Shot clock is needed
- take the randomness out of it. Player gets a few times per match that he can go over without violation- so that he can choose after a long rally or too to get a breather.. Then after that- the clock counts.

First time I have ever seen getting a warning not to do it again as a "random harsh penalty".

JHM - Murray got a warning in Miami I think. He hadn't been previously spoken to and queried how many times he had gone over. The ump said it was the first time.

Was that Miami this year? I admit I didn't see that one.

Born Slippy wrote:First time I have ever seen getting a warning not to do it again as a "random harsh penalty".

JHM - Murray got a warning in Miami I think. He hadn't been previously spoken to and queried how many times he had gone over. The ump said it was the first time.

I agree if you read my post? I agree an odd warning especially on a non crucial point is far from a harsh penalty I described it as a joke of a punishment. That's why all the players continue to go over the limit. The rule is totally ineffective at making players play quicker. Players just ignore it and so do the Umpires.

So Murray got a warning in Miami? What was the score can you remember? It was funny if Murray asked how many times he had gone over the limit as he must know the rules. What was the Umpire supposed to say? Many times but I ignored it? I don't know what match you are referring to but if you can go back and do a little research. I would be totally shocked if Murray hadn't gone over the limit frequently because all players do.

TRuffin wrote:

temporary21 wrote:Stop clock, stop clock, and indeed , stop clock. Puts a thorough end to all of this, players then know the time, and umpires. Then instead if ruling sometimes randomly in the match, it can be done after the clock is violated say 4 times or something with further done for more if them

This! Shot clock is needed
- take the randomness out of it.    Player gets a few times per match that he can go over without violation-  so that he can choose after a long rally or too to get a breather..  Then after that- the clock counts.

Yes the problem with the rule is the way it is being applied. If all players go over the limit frequently with no penalty then taking away the first serve randomly is quite plainly unfair. When one particular player has lost first serves repeatedly on brake points it will affect the outcome of their matches. If the ATP consider this rule to be important there should be transparency in it's application. A shot clock would be a clear indicator and using one would ensure all players are treated the same. As it is Umpires have the power to influence matches by giving out penalties randomly. Even the harshness of the penalty varies. An odd warning several times a year is not the same as repeatedly having a first serve taken away at break point. The first is just a sop to give the impression that the rule is being applied and will do nothing to make play quicker and the second can affect matches. Umpires removing first serves on brake point when opponents ask should never happen.

hawkeye wrote:It is interesting that two of these time violations were given at the request of an opponent.

Well that seems reasonable no? I agree that shot clock or a generally more stringent enforcement would be preferable. But in the absence of both, this at least tells players that if they indiscriminately break the rule, there could be consequences.

Unless they're lying. What if the opponent ta just wants to put them off? A shot clock is a bit draconian but it shuts all conversation of the thing up

temporary21 wrote:Unless they're lying.

The opponent? Presumably the referee does not just take their word for it and their complaint results in a warning/penalty only if the player was indeed taking too long.

Has Federer ever been given one? It would be worth giving him one just to see the look on his face.

To me, the umpire should be fair and do the same to all offenders what the umpire has done to Rafa, ie give TV when theyre serving facing BP or if it is the second time then take away their first serve. Why only does that to Rafa? If this is to punish Rafa, then the umpire(s) should do that to frequent offenders like Isner, Djoko and Delpo too. This has become obvious, they do that to punish Rafa so that he would hopefully rush and keep to the time limit.

I do hope Rafa hurries up a bit, by now he should be used to the pressure of serving second serve when facing BP. Note that Rafa had no issue with the umpires who gave him TVs NOT during crucial moments.

Belovedluckyboy wrote:I do hope Rafa hurries up a bit, by now he should be used to the pressure of serving second serve when facing BP.  

But he can't hurry up enough. That's the problem.

He didnt have issue with Novak at MC, so your point about him feeling the pressure when facing Fog at Barcelona didnt hold up. To me Rafa was just physically tired, hes slow, hit with no power, nothing to do with the time issue or who accross the net. He's still not physically fit yet, at least not yet regain his normal fitness level.

I do believe he'll be physically in better shape at Madrid, after one week rest.

He took longer time between points after coming back from injury, ie when he's physically unfit. I do recall one match vs Tsonga at Miami, I think its either 2011 or 2012. He was sucking air after some long rallies and took more time before he served. Tsonga complained to the umpire, saying he was getting ready to return serve but the ball never came. Rafa was back after injury at AO2011 or after a long tedious final at AO2012 and both years he skipped the Feb tournament before playing at IW.

Rafa isnt physically fit this year coming from long break and so I'm not surprised he took a long time between points esp after long rallies. He should play like he did at Madrid last year before the final, when he was more aggressive and didnt take long to finish his matches. He turned defensive in the final when Kei played offensive tennis. I hope Rafa plays with aggression from start to finish at Madrid thus year.

I suppose the question is (at least regarding the 2013 data) - is Rafa being victimised/picked on more than the other players who break the rule just as much, or does he simply break the rule more and thus get punished more?

No way of actually knowing without watching every match involving those players. As such, we will make the assumptions we are most comfortable with, without having all the necessary data.

BLB, also from the same link I gave above, 

Nadal: “I didn't have enough power or speed on my forehand. I didn't have control of the points with my forehand. When I was in good positions, I couldn't push Fognini back. When that happens, my game can't hurt my opponent. That was the case today.”

Credit to him, he never mentioned a word about being "physically tired" as the reason for his poor play. It's more about who is on the other side, as I argued earlier. But of course, you're more than welcomed to disagree.

Why he didnt have power? Why was he slow? Obviously he was tired, but that doesn't mean Fog didnt play well; theyre not mutually exclusive! Rafa being more defensive playing so far behind the baseline wont help. Almagro was also just back from injury so beating Almagro wasnt a good gauge of his level. And you're telling me Rafa feared Fog more than Novak, that he had no confidence when facing Fog?

In reply to Hawkeye's earlier post. The Murray violation in Miami was against Anderson in the second game of the set 2 (Murray had won Set 1). Murray lost the game and the second set. I don't think however it was the violation that caused the lost set.

More relevant though if we are talking about it only being Nadal who is being singled out at important stages in matches Murray v Berdych AO semi this year. Murray 2 - 1 in sets up. 2-3 down in the fourth and two break points down. Saves the first and then is given a time violation warning before the second. He actually saved the point, won the game and ultimately the match. If that is not  a violation given at a crucial time I don't know what is.

Please note I am not complaining about this. The rule is clearly there. The players need to stick to it or take the consequences even if it is at an important stage.