Rogers Cup 2018, Toronto, Canada, ATP Masters

[mrzz]

I think umpires should just be strict about it. It is up to them (and it is easy) to control it. There is already room for their discretion regarding when the 25 seconds period starts (after they call the score). There is no need -- actually it is a stupid thing -- to be open again to subjectiveness as to where it supposed to end. They should just adopt a standard (the ball must be on the air, the racquet must have hit the ball, whatever) and stick to it, otherwise the same discussions will simply continue. I guess that in some points, when players feel disturbed by something, there is some tacit agreement that he can let the shot clock expire. So they should make something about it, either the umpire resets the clock or it keeps ticking as nothing has happened. The whole point is to remove subjectiveness, and in this case it seems to be easy.

 

[GameSetAndMath]

Maybe you do not realise (although I doubt it) but in your points a & b, you actually agree with my points about both clock not stopping at zero, and removal of incentive for large cognitive bias in fans' minds. All people (including myself) have biases, so the emphasised statement is not true, given the large bias incentives you've identified herein. In case you by mistake take it personally, note that my reply was not only to you but also to Moxie ("yous" in my parlance means "both of you") and I don't judge who is more biased here (yourself or herself), I point out the disagreement between you & Moxie is black-on-white evidence of said bias. Ergo, your emphasised statement is not true.
I disagree about your point 2. Me expertise is in image processing and I have decent understanding of the technology behind hawk-eye. But we can even ignore the technology if not available everywhere yet and have the base linesman stop the clock manually once they see the serving motion: it will be their duty extension in addition to call foot fault. Note my reluctance to give this duty to umpires who have historically shown ignorance to the clock, therefore are largely unfit for said duty.

I still don't quite understand you. I have neither taken your message personally nor claim that I am a superhuman who is beyond any bias.
However, I saw on at least three occasions when Rafa's Racquet made contact with the ball after the clock has expired. This is a plain truth as one can see directly with one's own eyes. There is nothing complicated here.

As I already told you, I cannot say how much extra time he took, as the clock does not count after the expiry.

Also, I cannot tell how often Rafa was overshooting the clock as they don't always show both Rafa and the clock in the same frame each time he serves.

Can you clarify, what do you mean here? Doesn't make any sense to me.

 

[Chris Koziarz]

I still don't quite understand you. I have neither taken your message personally nor claim that I am a superhuman who is beyond any bias.
However, I saw on at least three occasions when Rafa's Racquet made contact with the ball after the clock has expired. This is a plain truth as one can see directly with one's own eyes. There is nothing complicated here.

As I already told you, I cannot say how much extra time he took, as the clock does not count after the expiry.

Also, I cannot tell how often Rafa was overshooting the clock as they don't always show both Rafa and the clock in the same frame each time he serves.

Can you clarify, what do you mean here? Doesn't make any sense to me.

Sure. What I mean is inconsistency between what you said above (emphasised) and what Moxie said here, quote: "I did not see them show the shot clock winding down more than once, and then he served immediately". You saw the clock expiring "at least three" times and you pondered how many seconds Nad was behind the clock, while Moxie saw it only once and asserted that Nad "served immediately". A very distinct realities. Then, you call your reality "a plain truth". By deduction we must conclude that you think your reality is at least close to objective but Moxie's reality is a bias. However, given that you assert you're not "a superhuman who is beyond any bias" I suggest that you be not so sure about where the objective reality is in this case.

 

[GameSetAndMath]

Sure. What I mean is inconsistency between what you said above (emphasised) and what Moxie said here, quote: "I did not see them show the shot clock winding down more than once, and then he served immediately". You saw the clock expiring "at least three" times and you pondered how many seconds Nad was behind the clock, while Moxie saw it only once and asserted that Nad "served immediately". A very distinct realities. Then, you call your reality "a plain truth". By deduction we must conclude that you think your reality is at least close to objective but Moxie's reality is a bias. However, given that you assert you're not "a superhuman who is beyond any bias" I suggest that you be not so sure about where the objective reality is in this case.

You misunderstood the meaning of my "at least three". They are not referring to me seeing the expired clock three times. It is enough to see that it has expired once to know Rafa was in violation. What I meant was on three different occasions, I noticed this (Rafa making contact with the ball after the clock has expired).

Once again, at least on the three occasions, I am able to observe, it was a simple plain truth. No belief or bias or bias belief involved.

 

[GameSetAndMath]

Here is an article on shot clock from tennis.com. I was under the impression that the racquet must make contact with the ball before the 25 second shot clock expires. Apparently, that is not the rule. It is enough, if the player starts the service motion before the shot clock expires.

To be fair, Rafa had actually started his service motion on all "the three occasions" that I mentioned earlier. I was thinking it was violation as the racquet did not make contact with the ball before the expiry of the clock (and in my estimation the time for that would have anywhere between 2 and 6 seconds on the three occasions); but, apparently it is not.

So, they get extra time before the shot clock starts (as it is started at the umpire's discretion) and they get extra time after it stops, especially if you have elaborate service motion. Finally, given that players are now more aware of how much time they have, they make full use of it than before when they were in hurry as they don't really know how much time they have.

In conclusion, many believe that this is not really going to speed up the game.

 

[Chris Koziarz]

You misunderstood the meaning of my "at least three". They are not referring to me seeing the expired clock three times. It is enough to see that it has expired once to know Rafa was in violation. What I meant was on three different occasions, I noticed this (Rafa making contact with the ball after the clock has expired).

Once again, at least on the three occasions, I am able to observe, it was a simple plain truth. No belief or bias or bias belief involved.

Now I'm a bit confused with your language but I don't need any more explanations because I understand your motivation. I'm happy to concede that my understanding wasn't perfect in the first place. A clarification in another post of yours was also helpful.

 

[GameSetAndMath]

Now I'm a bit confused with your language but I don't need any more explanations because I understand your motivation. I'm happy to concede that my understanding wasn't perfect in the first place. A clarification in another post of yours was also helpful.

I realize you don't need any more explanations. At the same time, as you are saying you are bit confused, let me try once again.

The "three different occasions" refers to three different times when Rafa was attempting to serve (at different points in the match).
I was not talking about me watching the expired clock three times on the same serve.

 

[Chris Koziarz]

I realize you don't need any more explanations. At the same time, as you are saying you are bit confused, let me try once again.

The "three different occasions" refers to three different times when Rafa was attempting to serve (at different points in the match).
I was not talking about me watching the expired clock three times on the same serve.

Ah, I got it now! I appreciate your effort to clarify yourself even though I wasn't interested in it. I realise that I should've been interested in it because I now understand perfectly what you mean. Thanks and sorry again for my initial misunderstanding.

Oh, well, written communication is tricky... But let's take it easy mate, for my part I admit that I make mistakes and that I even contradict myself sometimes.

 

[mrzz]

I am sure GSM saw the shot clock expire 4 times.

 

[GameSetAndMath]

I am sure GSM saw the shot clock expire 4 times.

The only way to make Rafa serve on time is to attach a bomb to the shot clock so that the bomb explodes once the shot clock expires and let Rafa know about it.

 

[JesuslookslikeBorg]

Didn't last long. Sock's having an atrocious season. Medvedev isn't an easy first rounder though.

sock cannot stop losing. 5-15 this year after cincy fail?.

.its like he is haunted by the ghost of Donald young or vince spadea when they had epic losing streaks.