2016 Wimbledon Championships - Men (London Sidewalk Cafe Discussions II)

[britbox]

I love to disagree with people. The more important the point, the more important the enforcement of the rules. What would happen if Kyrgios had taken, say, 50 seconds to serve? Oh, but he did not. But what number is ok? I´m sorry, it is easier to keep this door shut. There should not be grey areas in sporting rules. I don´t even agree when people say that it is ok to take more than 25 (or 20) seconds between points after a long rally...

The speed aspect is not universally enforced and I'm glad it isn't. Let's say Player A is at the net and lunges to take a great volley... hits the floor and is a tad slow getting up... is he supposed to sprint back to the baseline to play a point among the crowd shouting out.

Consistent slow play should be penalised... but it certainly shouldn't be based on individual points and definitely not enforced on big ones that can decide the outcome of the match.

 

[mrzz]

Really...no leeway for a long rally and for players to catch their breaths? If the rule about time between points is to keep it moving and interesting for the fans, it would be a shame to encourage shortened rallies, which are also appealing to the fans. And realistically, you're not going to shorten the rallies. So there will be grey areas. You can look to mitigate them, but I don't think you can eliminate them.

Really. If the rule is wrong, or incomplete, or inadequate, change the rule. But don´t leave it to subjective interpretations. That is the door to possible injustice, or dishonesty.

My point is not about shortening the rallies. I am not discussing why the rule is there, I am saying that, since it is there, it should be enforced.

If the rule is clear (and feasible), and it is enforced, there are no gray areas. You are seeing gray areas as you are interpreting the reasons behind the rule. This is not supposed to happen during a match.

You are openly asking to referees to ignore the rules and use their "better judgment". Think for a moment in what happens if this becomes the norm.

 

[mrzz]

The speed aspect is not universally enforced and I'm glad it isn't. Let's say Player A is at the net and lunges to take a great volley... hits the floor and is a tad slow getting up... is he supposed to sprint back to the baseline to play a point among the crowd shouting out.

Consistent slow play should be penalised... but it certainly shouldn't be based on individual points and definitely not enforced on big ones that can decide the outcome of the match.

As for your first paragraph:

First, let us assume that your example indeed shows that it is impossible, or completely irrational, to expect the rule to be enforced, then there´s a good reason to change the rule, or to improve it.

Second, in your example, if the crowd is shouting, the player is not expected to play. He does not have the ideal conditions to play, so he should not be punished.

As for your second paragraph: we really have different views on it. I simply do not understand why we should let go precisely on big points. It is the other way around: things are supposed to be tough (with this set of rules). You do not have time to prepare yourself psychologically for the big points, as you do not have a coach on court to help you.

I understand your point about individual points, specially considering that we don´t have a shot clock, but for the specific case we are discussing (I have seen the match), if I understood correctly the referee had already warned the player, so it does seem to be the case.

By the way, I am starting to root fot Kyrgios (argh). Maybe because I picked him to go far in my bracket...

 

[Moxie]

Really. If the rule is wrong, or incomplete, or inadequate, change the rule. But don´t leave it to subjective interpretations. That is the door to possible injustice, or dishonesty.

My point is not about shortening the rallies. I am not discussing why the rule is there, I am saying that, since it is there, it should be enforced.

If the rule is clear (and feasible), and it is enforced, there are no gray areas. You are seeing gray areas as you are interpreting the reasons behind the rule. This is not supposed to happen during a match.

You are openly asking to referees to ignore the rules and use their "better judgment". Think for a moment in what happens if this becomes the norm.

The fact is that it IS the norm, that umpires use their better judgement, which isn't always to a felicitous outcome, but it doesn't mean ignoring the rules. It means being flexible and judicious in a game that moves fast and isn't always b/w. I don't think that tennis, (or most sports, really,) is completely adaptable to a black/white judgement, with no grey areas. That's why you have an umpire. First server or second serve? Replay the point or award it? Overrule or not. And when a player is dawdling, or when it's a reasonable length between end of point and serve, if they just played a 25-shot rally. It is human to let them catch their breaths. Or where the crowd is so excited, that it takes more than 20-25 seconds to calm them down.

I don't think tennis is well-served by strict rules, although I agree they shouldn't be too flabby. It is mano-a-mano combat, and there has to be some flexibility for how the game is running. I'm just saying that it is wrong for an umpire to step in at the big moments. The umpire's job is to be judicious, smart, and mostly invisible. If you notice their job, they're probably doing it wrong.

 

[mrzz]

The fact is that it IS the norm, that umpires use their better judgement, which isn't always to a felicitous outcome, but it doesn't mean ignoring the rules. It means being flexible and judicious in a game that moves fast and isn't always b/w. I don't think that tennis, (or most sports, really,) is completely adaptable to a black/white judgement, with no grey areas. That's why you have an umpire. First server or second serve? Replay the point or award it? Overrule or not. And when a player is dawdling, or when it's a reasonable length between end of point and serve, if they just played a 25-shot rally. It is human to let them catch their breaths. Or where the crowd is so excited, that it takes more than 20-25 seconds to calm them down.

I don't think tennis is well-served by strict rules, although I agree they shouldn't be too flabby. It is mano-a-mano combat, and there has to be some flexibility for how the game is running. I'm just saying that it is wrong for an umpire to step in at the big moments. The umpire's job is to be judicious, smart, and mostly invisible. If you notice their job, they're probably doing it wrong.

Of course that, in the end, you have to use your better judgment, among other things there are a lot of situations not predicted by the rules. And the role of the referee is precisely to judge to which category predicted by the rules the situations on the court happens to fall in.

But the fact that you know that good judgment is needed does not mean that you must not seek for the most objective possible set of rules. What seems to me that you are not paying attention to is the difference between seeking objectiveness (and thus using better judgment only when necessary) and purposely relying on better judgment.

The case in question, in fact, is a perfect example. We had a very good referee, and he surely tries hard to use his better judgement all the time. And yet we have two reasonable and educated posters here (you and BB) vehemently arguing against the result of his ruling. Who is at fault? You? Him?

Relying on better judgment is at fault. It is as clear as water...

 

[britbox]

The things is @mrzz, is that the umpires aren't consistent at all. Some players have averaged longer than the time allowed throughout the entire match. The rule might be in documented but it's certainly not enforced with any sort of consistency... if it was then you might have a point... but time violations are called pretty infrequently and calling them on huge points seem silly... if you're not going to apply the law properly then don't wait until a match point until you you suddenly decide to do so.

 

[isabelle]

Cilic leads Nishi 5/1 in first set

 

[britbox]

Cilic leads Nishi 5/1 in first set

Shades of the USO?

 

[isabelle]

Shades of the USO?

why not ??

 

[shawnbm]

Did Nishikori throw in the towel and not finish the match?

 

[britbox]

What happened with Nishi? I was watching Cibulkova/Radwanska and missed it.

 

[shawnbm]

I just heard he quit down 1-6, 1-5 against Cilic

 

[britbox]

Looks like Fed will be playing Cilic then.

 

[britbox]

Nishikori Retirement

 

[britbox]

 

[EdbergsGhost]

Gasquet's back went out on him. Bernie (standing like a retard) Tomic lost in five, and Nick dialed it in to Andy just now.

Fed seems to be on course for his 18th, with really only Andy in the way, as I doubt Cilic or Raonic will stop him.

 

[Murat Baslamisli]

Gasquet's back went out on him. Bernie (standing like a retard) Tomic lost in five, and Nick dialed it in to Andy just now.

Fed seems to be on course for his 18th, with really only Andy in the way, as I doubt Cilic or Raonic will stop him.

I wish I was as optimistic as you man...I think Roger has to find the next gear to beat Cilic and another one after that to beat Murray. I am not seeing it yet.

 

[Federberg]

I wish I was as optimistic as you man...I think Roger has to find the next gear to beat Cilic and another one after that to beat Murray. I am not seeing it yet.

I'm more worried about Cilic and Raonic than Murray. If Roger gets to the final I think he wins

 

[mrzz]

I'm more worried about Cilic and Raonic than Murray. If Roger gets to the final I think he wins

I think right now Federer can have a bad day out of the blue and lose to anyone. Cilic seems to be playing fine, but I doubt it will be anything close to USO 2014 level. Murray is playing ok, he is consistent, but, ugh, the Kyrgios match was terrible, pretty low level.

In a nutshell, there´s nobody playing scary tennis. The problem is that "nobody" includes Federer.

What I liked from Federer today was the way he handled Johnson´s approaches to the net. He always gave him fast and very low balls to volley. The serve is ok, the bh slice is doing well. If he keeps this level, he´s a genuine contender. If he finds another gear, things are really looking good. But we never know which level he may show on the next match, so...

 

[mrzz]

The things is @mrzz, is that the umpires aren't consistent at all. Some players have averaged longer than the time allowed throughout the entire match. The rule might be in documented but it's certainly not enforced with any sort of consistency... if it was then you might have a point... but time violations are called pretty infrequently and calling them on huge points seem silly... if you're not going to apply the law properly then don't wait until a match point until you you suddenly decide to do so.

But that´s the whole point. Umpires aren´t consistent because they are using their "better judgement" all the time. I am sure they did not forget the rule, and neither are waiting to apply it in the worst possible moment. They apply it when they "feel" enough is enough.

If you want consistency, you need to consistently enforce the rule. So, for me, the problem is not when someone enforces the rule, it is when they do not do it (which is far more often).