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

First topic message reminder :

I've timed a bit of the Rafa match. Have to say that's as quick as I've seen him play.

I timed the two service games prior to the TV (at 2-1 and 3-2) and he was within 25 seconds on every point.

In the TV game I broadly agree with HE's timings. He gets the warning at bang on 25 seconds. I agree that it is very odd that he gets it on that point.

I then timed the final game. Notably there was no attempt to speed up with Rafa going over time on more or less every point. On the matchpoint he takes 32 seconds to prepare himself - doesn't lose his 1st serve.

JuliusHMarx wrote:I suspect this forum is the wrong place to answer your questions.

Any place that discusses tennis should be interested in a rule that can and is used in such a way that it can influence the results of matches.

legendkillarV2 wrote:

So we chastise the umpire for making a correct decision?

It's good to know they are damned if they do and damned if they don't. I know we are demanding consistency, but the fact remains that Maria was correct either way to issue those TV's.

I wouldn't deem 30-30 'crucial' given there is still another point after that to play for.

The Umpire ignored the rule for the entire match apart from two points at crucial times. 5-5, 30-30 is a crucial time. Why did the Umpire wait until late in the second set to give out a tv? Why didn't he give out any to Murray? Why did he again wait until a crucial game in the third giving out another penalty to Pospisil? Murray won two sets on the back of being broken on the back of Pospisils tv's. Even the pro Murray crowd booed they don't want it to look like Murray was assisted by the Umpire. Umpiring not only has to be fair it must also be transparently fair.

hawkeye wrote:

JuliusHMarx wrote:I suspect this forum is the wrong place to answer your questions.

Any place that discusses tennis should be interested in a rule that can and is used in such a way that it can influence the results of matches.

That's twisting my words - I didn't say we're not interested. You're asking questions that the posters on this forum cannot give the answers to. Surely it would be better for you to ask the people who can provide the answers (although admittedly they might not give you any) and then pass those answers on to the forum.

hawkeye wrote:

legendkillarV2 wrote:

So we chastise the umpire for making a correct decision?

It's good to know they are damned if they do and damned if they don't. I know we are demanding consistency, but the fact remains that Maria was correct either way to issue those TV's.

I wouldn't deem 30-30 'crucial' given there is still another point after that to play for.

The Umpire ignored the rule for the entire match apart from two points at crucial times. 5-5, 30-30 is a crucial time. Why did the Umpire wait until late in the second set to give out a tv? Why didn't he give out any to Murray? Why did he again wait until a crucial game in the third giving out another penalty to Pospisil? Murray won two sets on the back of being broken on the back of Pospisils tv's. Even the pro Murray crowd booed they don't want it to look like Murray was assisted by the Umpire. Umpiring not only has to be fair it must also be transparently fair.

As per JHM I can't answer on the behalf of Pascal Maria. However, he was right within the rules to issue the TV's.

hawkeye wrote:

legendkillarV2 wrote:

So we chastise the umpire for making a correct decision?

It's good to know they are damned if they do and damned if they don't. I know we are demanding consistency, but the fact remains that Maria was correct either way to issue those TV's.

I wouldn't deem 30-30 'crucial' given there is still another point after that to play for.

The Umpire ignored the rule for the entire match apart from two points at crucial times. 5-5, 30-30 is a crucial time. Why did the Umpire wait until late in the second set to give out a tv? Why didn't he give out any to Murray? Why did he again wait until a crucial game in the third giving out another penalty to Pospisil? Murray won two sets on the back of being broken on the back of Pospisils tv's. Even the pro Murray crowd booed they don't want it to look like Murray was assisted by the Umpire. Umpiring not only has to be fair it must also be transparently fair.

As per JHM I can't answer on the behalf of Pascal Maria. However, he was right within the rules to issue the TV's.

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. Who was the umpire ? I'll give you one guess. He seems to be consistent on giving them out at crucial times. Not that I am complaining as he was correct to do so.

Why does it happen ? Who knows apart from the umpires. I think it is likely that an off record warning has been given earlier however at these crucial times the player slows down even more going well over time. I did see him talking with Pospisil at a change over earlier in the second set. Possibly he was giving a quiet warning then.

JuliusHMarx wrote:

hawkeye wrote:

JuliusHMarx wrote:I suspect this forum is the wrong place to answer your questions.

Any place that discusses tennis should be interested in a rule that can and is used in such a way that it can influence the results of matches.

That's twisting my words - I didn't say we're not interested. You're asking questions that the posters on this forum cannot give the answers to. Surely it would be better for you to ask the people who can provide the answers (although admittedly they might not give you any) and then pass those answers on to the forum.

Maybe there will be a response from the ATP and ITF to the petition set up to address concerns. I do understand that none of us will know the reasons why those two particular points were chosen by Pascal Maria. The lack of transparency is damaging. In this case it has caused much hard feeling in Canada. 

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

Calder106 wrote: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. Who was the umpire ? I'll give you one guess. He seems to be consistent on giving them out at crucial times. Not that I am complaining as he was correct to do so.

Why does it happen ? Who knows apart from the umpires. I think it is likely that an off record warning has been given earlier however at these crucial times the player slows down even more going well over time. I did see him talking with Pospisil at a change over earlier in the second set. Possibly he was giving a quiet warning then.

Did he also talk to Murray? If so Murray was still over the limit 60% of the time with no tv's.

Well this thread appears to be a masterclass in saying the same thing over and over again. Zzzz....

Nor do we know what goes on behind the scenes - perhaps the umpires and players have a non-public tacit agreement to be more lenient overall, but to target the so-called more important points i.e. nearer to the conclusion of a game, especially when the players are taking even more time than usual.

Canadian fans, Murray fans, and fans of tennis in general should be grateful the rule was not applied to the letter - there would have been dozens of warnings - which would have been far more damaging to the sport.
Perhaps the players should just learn to play within the rules - would make things a lot simpler.

Re the application of the rules - try finding any sport where the rules are applied strictly, consistently and all of the time

A good one to start with if you want to spam another 20 pages of repetitive drivel on another board would be shirt pulling in football

I thought HE's position was that Nadal was being targeted by unfair TVs? The Pospisil incident appears to be further evidence that is not the case. Other players are also being penalised in similar circumstances.

We know there is not a strict application of the 20 second rule. As mentioned above, Pospisil's match average was 25 seconds yet he averaged 30 and 33 seconds per point in the two games in which he was penalised. That suggests the umpire deemed he was taking too long.

JuliusHMarx wrote:Nor do we know what goes on behind the scenes - perhaps the umpires and players have a non-public tacit agreement to be more lenient overall, but to target the so-called more important points i.e. nearer to the conclusion of a game, especially when the players are taking even more time than usual.

Canadian fans, Murray fans, and fans of tennis in general should be grateful the rule was not applied to the letter - there would have been dozens of warnings - which would have been far more damaging to the sport.
Perhaps the players should just learn to play within the rules - would make things a lot simpler.

It deserves a kiss! Someone who sees it like I do!

Born Slippy wrote:I thought HE's position was that Nadal was being targeted by unfair TVs? The Pospisil incident appears to be further evidence that is not the case. Other players are also being penalised in similar circumstances.

There is a perception that Nadal is the only one who takes too long (not true of course) and when he gets penalized too often it's just seen as the rule being used correctly. It is rare for another player to be penalized but when they are more fuss is made. Remember the fuss that the media made when Murray picked up a couple at the FO. It is even rarer for a player to get them on crucial points and rarer for a player that has a little media backing to have what could be match changing penalties given. When this happens it is more likely that people will see exactly how ridiculous the rule is. The Pospisil incident has maddened both the media and the public in both Canada and the US. Headlines such as "Wimbledon match tarnished by absurd time violations" do the sport no favors. http://ftw.usatoday.com/2015/07/tennis-time-violation-rules-andy-murray-30-seconds-25-pascal-maria-violation-wimbledon

Unbelievably Pospisal was on the receiving end of another targeted time violation last time he played Murray

A previous match between the Murray and Pospisil in Rotterdam last winter was an even better illustration of the ridiculousness of the rule enforcement.

This time, chair umpire Cédric Mourier called Pospisil for a second time violation when he was serving for the second set. On set point, after a crazy 30-shot rally, he got docked the loss of serve. Pospisil didn’t win another game.

Yes, he was over time. The issue was that the Canadian took 32 seconds to serve after the first point of that game, and 27 seconds after the third point. But it was only after that crazy rally, when a little judgment could have been used and both players were equally winded, that Mourier called it.

Earlier in the set, when Murray was down love-40 on his serve, he went over 30 seconds before serving – and didn’t get called.

https://ca.sports.yahoo.com/blogs/eh-game/vasek-pospisil-hurt-by-the-unworkable-time-violation-rule-against-murray--a-rule-that-won-t-change-any-time-soon-234939001.html

JuliusHMarx wrote:

Canadian fans, Murray fans, and fans of tennis in general should be grateful the rule was not applied to the letter - there would have been dozens of warnings - which would have been far more damaging to the sport.
Perhaps the players should just learn to play within the rules - would make things a lot simpler.

The rule was only applied to one player and the other was allowed to go unpunished. The Umpire instead of ensuring a level playing field did the opposite. It's not on! Whatever rules the ITF and ATP have they need to be transparent and applied to all players evenly. If they want to enforce a strict limit a shot clock is the only way.

Perhaps the players should just learn to play within the rules - would make things a lot simpler.

That is the best solution for the good of the game. Players playing by the rules will benefit the game far more than any other approach.
What is preventing them doing that? Lack of respect for the sport? Human nature?

JuliusHMarx wrote:Perhaps the players should just learn to play within the rules - would make things a lot simpler.

That is the best solution for the good of the game. Players playing by the rules will benefit the game far more than any other approach.
What is preventing them doing that? Lack of respect for the sport? Human nature?

Well given the most recent example why would Murray play within the rules. He could use the excuse that because he wasn't penalized he thought he was. Same goes for most players in most matches because they are allowed to take as long as they want. Unless the Umpire decides they want to get involved in the match.

I'm with vtr here. This is going round in circles. It's incredibly naive to expect players to perfectly self govern especially on something they're not counting. All sport has that. Why this rule in particular is being given such attention compared to the others I don't know

Oh I know why

I have my suspicions. Any at if we do want them to self govern then they should be given a shot clock at least

legendkillarV2 wrote:Oh I know why

:bounce Don't we all but there are no prizes !!!

Djokovic taking soooo looong to serve during the 2nd set tie break against Federer. No tv's although that's not unusual but no nagging by commentators either. Has everyone forgotten their anger at players not playing quickly?  

Did you time any of the points?

hawkeye wrote:Djokovic taking soooo looong to serve during the 2nd set tie break against Federer. No tv's although that's not unusual but no nagging by commentators either. Has everyone forgotten their anger at players not playing quickly?  

Not unless the player(s) is called Nadal

Haddie-nuff wrote:

hawkeye wrote:Djokovic taking soooo looong to serve during the 2nd set tie break against Federer. No tv's although that's not unusual but no nagging by commentators either. Has everyone forgotten their anger at players not playing quickly?  

Not unless the player(s) is called Nadal

You're comparing two unlike things - a player who's over the limit on every serve and then is penalized when he's way over the limit, versus a player who's over limit from time to time. When he used to bounce the ball 20 times between points every point he used to get criticized as well, but he doesn't do that any more so nobody cares when he is occasionally over the limit. Nadal should learn from him if he wants to be treated the same way, but expecting him to be treated the same way when he doesn't behave the same way, is madness.

Nobody's out to get Nadal - he brings this on himself.

In that case lets all stop making this about just him eh. I thought the final was pretty quick the umpire obviously understood the gravity if the moment so didn't ruin it unless it got really really out of hand.

temporary21 wrote:I'm with vtr here. This is going round in circles. It's incredibly naive to expect players to perfectly self govern especially on something they're not counting. All sport has that.  Why this rule in particular is being given such attention compared to the others I don't know

I have a theory on why this rule is being addressed aggressively.  First of all, it is broken more frequently by some of the highest profile players in the world, players that are frequently on tv whenever tennis is on tv.  And because (1) people who put tennis on tv are after profits and (2) tennis is particularly profitable when the casual fan tunes in regularly for the big events.  That won't happen with matches that should be done in an 2 hours that take 3, just because every game takes 1 minute longer to finish than it should.

So, if the only thing between more profits for the money men of tennis is one or two guys who can't be bothered to hurry the bloody hell up, they will find a way to make it happen, because nobody plays forever, and there aren't many new stars on the horizon that can keep the money flowing into tennis the way it has for the last 15 years, just by signing autographs and saying all the right things.  Eventually you either need genuine stars (which cannot be manufactured), or you have to trim the fat, so to speak, and the first thing on that list is time wasting.

At best people put up with it if the show is worth the wait, but eventually people just find better things to do than watch players pick their butts and adjust their head bands and bounce the ball 20 times before serving.  Not real tennis fans, of course, I'm talking about casual fans that really pad the ratings - they'll just find something more densely entertaining to watch.

What weve found though, in the man times we tried to makes this a wide reaching discussion is that its not "one of two players" theres a lot of guys going overr the limit. The obsession with just a couple of guys appears to come more from personal dislike than application of rule.

In any case, the quality of the game will always be the priority, few cared that Novak was slow in the final, they were far too busy being gripped by how good he was, people who really hate him, of course, notice the time thing a lot, but many casuals simply dont care.

temporary21 wrote:people who really hate him, of course, notice the time thing a lot, but many casuals simply dont care.

I certainly don't "hate" Novak! However I do notice the time thing because he is allowed to play in a similar way to his biggest rival without being targeted on crucial points. Of course other players are allowed to do so as well but Novak is the closest player as far as profile to Rafa and so it's particularly noticeable. He gets lots of exposure and yet the media is silent when he "makes a mockery of the rule book" (to quote a phrase from a particularly biased telegraph journalist).

The rules are there to ensure a level playing field but the way they have been used (particularly this year) have handcuffed one of the top players.

MMT1 wrote:

I have a theory on why this rule is being addressed aggressively.  First of all, it is broken more frequently by some of the highest profile players in the world, players that are frequently on tv whenever tennis is on tv.  And because (1) people who put tennis on tv are after profits and (2) tennis is particularly profitable when the casual fan tunes in regularly for the big events.  That won't happen with matches that should be done in an 2 hours that take 3, just because every game takes 1 minute longer to finish than it should.

So, if the only thing between more profits for the money men of tennis is one or two guys who can't be bothered to hurry the bloody hell up, they will find a way to make it happen, because nobody plays forever, and there aren't many new stars on the horizon that can keep the money flowing into tennis the way it has for the last 15 years, just by signing autographs and saying all the right things.  Eventually you either need genuine stars (which cannot be manufactured), or you have to trim the fat, so to speak, and the first thing on that list is time wasting.

At best people put up with it if the show is worth the wait, but eventually people just find better things to do than watch players pick their butts and adjust their head bands and bounce the ball 20 times before serving.  Not real tennis fans, of course, I'm talking about casual fans that really pad the ratings - they'll just find something more densely entertaining to watch.

The rule is not being applied aggressively it is being largely ignored. Yes many high profile names regularly go over the time limit but it's only Nadal that gets talked about. He is the only player who has been repeatedly targeted on crucial points and has gone from a player known for his mental strength to one who has gained a reputation for getting the jitters on crucial points.

Tennis fans and casual viewers alike tune in to watch the big names. The two biggest names in tennis are by far Federer and Nadal. They will fill stadiums and get people watching like no other players. Of course they won't be here forever but they are here now. So why has one of them been targeted with penalties from a rarely used rule?

Even if the time violation rule was applied aggressively and all players played within 20/25 seconds it would have a negligible affect on the length of matches. Umpires use this rule so rarely that obviously it has had no effect whatsoever in making players play more quickly. The only effect on the tour is to give Nadal the jitters and make a few other players such as Pospisil and their fans mad for taking the odd token hit on the chin.

There are many ways to shorten matches. For example play three sets not two or use the same scoring as doubles. But if people are not interested in who is playing they won't watch.

Nadal got another time violation on a crucial point in his first round match against Verdasco in Hamburg today.

Nadal lost the first set and was serving first in the second. It was a long closely fought game and had lasted 11 or 12 minutes. There had been several deuces already when Nadal got a time violation when preparing to serve once more at deuce.

This time he won the next point with an nonreturnable first serve and also won the subsequent point and the match. The game proved to be pivitol and Nadal went on to break in the next game and win the match. Why did the Umpire choose to interfere at such a pivotal point in the match

I sense the tautological force is strong with this one my master.

hawkeye wrote:Nadal got another time violation on a crucial point in his first round match against Verdasco in Hamburg today.

Nadal lost the first set and was serving first in the second. It was a long closely fought game and had lasted 11 or 12 minutes. There had been several deuces already when Nadal got a time violation when preparing to serve once more at deuce.

This time he won the next point with an nonreturnable first serve and also won the subsequent point and the match. The game proved to be pivitol and Nadal went on to break in the next game and win the match. Why did the Umpire choose to interfere at such a pivotal point in the match

Because he was over the time limit?

Just throwing it out there really, I don't know?

Nadal said this after the match:

“For my mentality, it is important to finish the match better than how I started. To be able to make that change during the match was a very positive thing to me. I’m just happy (with) the way I came back.”

When saying the bit in bold HE, do you think he managed to change shorts the right way round this time?

hawkeye wrote:Nadal got another time violation on a crucial point in his first round match against Verdasco in Hamburg today.

..................................................................................................................

Why did the Umpire choose to interfere at such a pivotal point in the match

I didn't see the match, but this is an appalling state of affairs.

Umpires need to stop interfering just because a player is breaking some rule or other. I mean what is it with these rules ?? They only get in the way of doing what you want.

It reminds me of schooldays : the teachers that taught me weren't cool .... filling me up with their rules  

It's not cricket (no ... really .....it's not cricket).

http://www.tennisnow.com/Blogs/NET-POSTS/August-2015/Video-Fognini-Barks-at-Nadal-During-Hamburg-Chang.aspx

Be interesting to hear if anything else comes out from this. How peed off is the Fog.

legendkillarV2 wrote:http://www.tennisnow.com/Blogs/NET-POSTS/August-2015/Video-Fognini-Barks-at-Nadal-During-Hamburg-Chang.aspx

Be interesting to hear if anything else comes out from this. How peed off is the Fog.

Oh really ??? pot kettle did anyone bother to time Foggy I bet not... how long did it take him to mosey his way back to the service line??? Ive taken a quicker stroll in the park... he then had to  kick over the service line and then change balls half a dozen times.. give us a break lk. If anyone should not be complaining its him... 6 plus half a dozen !!!
he was miffed he had beaten Rafa twice and thought he was in for some silverware..

Another Nadal tourny another one or two TVs. yet another time I didn't notice at all.  I doubt fog was that quick when he was down either. You either want this to be the sole defining reason for his ill gotten success or you don't give a rats. It's not gonna change anytime soon

You don't have to doubt anything the man walked at snails pace between serves.. he had no reason to complain in fact at one stage he got a slow hand clap from the crowd. Sour grapes and nothing more

Haddie-nuff wrote:

legendkillarV2 wrote:http://www.tennisnow.com/Blogs/NET-POSTS/August-2015/Video-Fognini-Barks-at-Nadal-During-Hamburg-Chang.aspx

Be interesting to hear if anything else comes out from this. How peed off is the Fog.

Oh really ??? pot kettle did anyone bother to time Foggy I bet not... how long did it take him to mosey his way back to the service line??? Ive taken a quicker stroll in the park... he then had to  kick over the service line and then change balls half a dozen times.. give us a break lk. If anyone should not be complaining its him... 6 plus half a dozen !!!
he was miffed he had beaten Rafa twice and thought he was in for some silverware..

I have not stated my position on this as I don't know what was said. All I can see is that Foggy was miffed. Will be interested to see if anything is clarified from the exchange. Either way Foggy can be a bit temperamental to say the least.

I watched the entire match he has no reason to be miffed other than he lost.
The crowd gave him a slow hand clap after he dropped a ball and took untold time picking it up and preparing to serve... His perfunctory hand shake after the match said it all.but then where TV's and Rafa are concerned he will get the sympathy he is looking for bless him

temporary21 wrote:Another Nadal tourny another one or two TVs. yet another time I didn't notice at all.  I doubt fog was that quick when he was down either. You either want this to be the sole defining reason for his ill gotten success or you don't give a rats. It's not gonna change anytime soon

As far as I know the time violation Nadal was given on the 3rd deuce of his first service game in the second set of his match with Verdasco was the only one he was given. Not sure if any other player was given one either   In their previous match Nadal suffered a shocking loss after being given a tv when serving at 4-5, 30-40 in the first set and went on to lose the point, set and match. It must have felt like deja vu for him to be penalized on a crucial point once more so it was an excellent test for his nerves. This time he passed the test and was able to play freely after managing to win the game and win the match.

Fogninni gave Nadal another test in the final as he was another player who had beaten a nervy Nadal this year. In the second set he decided to pick a verbal fight with Nadal after breaking to serve for the second set. Probably an attempt to make Nadal lose it as he did in their match in Rio. This time Nadal passed the confidence test and Fogninni didn't win another game.

It proved to be a great move playing Hamburg. Restored confidence and a move up to 6th in the race. Nadal isn't as far behind Berdych, Wawrinka, Federer and Murray as some people imagine so he has a lot to play for. Also will be seeded 8th in Canada so will avoid a first round match.

Haddie-nuff wrote:but then where TV's and Rafa are concerned he will get the sympathy he is looking for bless him

Poor Fog. He was trying to concentrate on his return of serve and whilst doing so got distracted by carefully timing exactly how many seconds Rafa was taking between serves. He was just trying to get fair play when he went up to Rafa and raged at him waving his finger in his face and throwing insults

"apparently Fognini originally complained to the umpire about Toni's coaching, telling Nadal what to do...then Nadal said to the umpire to shut Fognini up and that he is talking too much...that's when Fognini lost it and said what he did."

http://www.b92.net/sport/tenis/vesti.php?yyyy=2015&mm=08&dd=03&nav_id=1023061

Let us give it up for Foggy....awwwwwwwwwwwwwww.. bless him

Quite the sportsman from what I saw
That wicked Rafa person

If that is the case maybe Nadal should take a leaf out of the Tomic book and have Toni ejected.

Alternatively Rafa and his camp could get a slow boat back to Manacor and we could close down this whole thread because it would then be obsolete as it doesn't apply to anyone else

#justiceforrafa

The petition expressing concern about the time violation rule was sent to Chris Kermode (president of the ATP) and others I believe.

This was his reply

Thank you for your correspondence related to the Time Violation rule on the ATP world tour.

While we appreciate your concerns, we also believe we have a responsibility to ensure that the pace of play at ATP events is continuous in order to protect against excessive dead time during matches. This is a matter which has been deteriorating progressively over the past decade, and one which the ATP executive management, Board of directors, as well as the ATP player Council deemed necessary to address.

ATP World Tour chair umpires, when possible, use many tools during a match to control the pace of play-issuing a time violation is just one and is usually the last step after other means have failed. While we understand that it may not be to the liking of all fans, our data tells us that the stricter enforcement of the Time Violation rule has significantly improved the pace of play since it's implementation at the beginning of 2013.

The rule is intended to be applied under the best judgement of the umpire. Please rest assured that this is an area that the ATP officiating compartment continues to prioritise - ultimately we are striving for consistency in the enforcement of the rule and within the spirit of the rule

-----

A complete fob off!

This is interesting! It's a google translate of an interview with Toni. He is asked about the time violation rule. As a google translate it's a bit clunky but one sentence jumped out at me.

Rafael is repeatedly criticized for the timeout on impact and also cautioned occasionally. What is your opinion at the time rule?

Rafael takes too much time. That's his fault. But it is incredible that previously nothing happened. Since then, the ATP Board has changed the rule, he gets in almost every match a warning, sometimes even two.

Find this rule interpretation fair?

Firstly, we must ask ourselves why this is happening at all. The rule was changed on the advice of some players. Secondly, we must ask ourselves, what game we want to see. Let's see a very fast game, where there is no angular backlash, or we want to see a game where there is much tactics and think the players about their beats? This means that the ATP has to deal. I think the audience can see it better when the ball often flies over the net. In some cases, the referees are also not as strict as in the time game. I've seen it many times that players use ugly words and are not cautioned. Rafael always behaves very correctly on the square. It is incredible that he conceded more warnings than players who curse and throw rackets. In Estoril example had nick kyrgios fired the ball out of the stadium and had to two previously conceded warnings actually have to be disqualified. But nothing happened.

https://translate.google.es/translate?sl=de&tl=en&js=y&prev=_t&hl=es&ie=UTF-8&u=http%3A%2F%2Ftennisnet.com%2Fde%2Fherren%2Fatp%2F4789728%2FToni-Nadal-exklusiv_Wir-mussen-uns-fragen-welches-Spiel-wir-sehen%3Fcountry%3D0&edit-text=

The rule was changed on the advice of some players.

What players? Why should "some players" have such influence?