Slow play: Gamesmanship or process?

[bajana]

I actually don't have much of an issue with the length of time he takes in his service routine. Obviously some common sense should be applied if it's a long rally before. But it's a big difference if he is routinely breaking up the server's rhythm. I've seen that before, and that is gamesmanship. Even then I actually give some leeway if it's done under exceptional circumstances. A breakpoint for example, but not all the time. It's a common tactic. But if the opposition plays quickly, you MUST play at the servers rhythm. To continuously and deliberately disrupt the players rhythm is not sporting, and it frustrates the heck out of me when umpires don't do their jobs

This does not seem to sync with the specific rule which states: "No extra time shall be given to allow a player to recover condition" (Exhibits: 29. CONTINUOUS PLAY c.).

It is interesting that similar wording appears as far back as Spalding's tennis annual publication for 1922, and still appears in the "Changes to 2015 Rulebook - March 2015"

 

[Federberg]

^That's true bajana. And a part of me sympathises with that view point. It's all very well people saying that the likes of Rafa and Novak are the best conditioned athletes on the tour, but if they are taking all that recovery time perhaps they're not quite as conditioned as we think they are. But on the other hand, even if the rulebooks say otherwise, I don't think anyone would begrudge them a little longer after a long point. Particularly if they are encouraged to speed up after shorter ones, say for instance after an ace..

 

[bajana]

^While I tend more towards if you don't want to play by the rules, find another game - I too would tend to give a little leeway if people wouldn't spend forever after the opponent has played an ace, or the player has bunted a first serve into the net.

 

[Federberg]

^Agreed.

For me though... slowing down the server's routine is a no no. The excuse that it was a long point beforehand is meaningless, as the server is ready to go. One can only conclude that the receiver slowing down the server is unfairly disrupting the server. I would like to see umpires enforce this more aggressively

 

[bajana]

^^ Two good examples of a server refusing to fall for those tactics (both unfortunately involving Nadal) were Tsonga in th 2008 AO SF - Nadal actually complained to the umpire that Tsonga was fast serving him, and Tsonga complained that Nadal was trying to slow him down from his normal time; and the Kyrios Wimbledon match. For a youngster on the big stage for the first time, he did very well in not allowing Nadal to dictate the pace to him.

 

[Federberg]

^^ Two good examples of a server refusing to fall for those tactics (both unfortunately involving Nadal) were Tsonga in th 2008 AO SF - Nadal actually complained to the umpire that Tsonga was fast serving him, and Tsonga complained that Nadal was trying to slow him down from his normal time; and the Kyrios Wimbledon match. For a youngster on the big stage for the first time, he did very well in not allowing Nadal to dictate the pace to him.

I didn't realise that. That's very interesting thanks

 

[Riotbeard]

Do we really need a discussion. It's against the rules. There has to be limit (Although I personally take 30 minutes between points, because of rhythem/physical style of play). Who cares why? If it were gamesmanship or not, does it make a difference?

 

[bajana]

Do we really need a discussion. It's against the rules. There has to be limit (Although I personally take 30 minutes between points, because of rhythem/physical style of play). Who cares why? If it were gamesmanship or not, does it make a difference?

So a game with you lasts how long? 3 months? :lolz: You play tennis chess or what? :snicker

 

[Riotbeard]

Do we really need a discussion. It's against the rules. There has to be limit (Although I personally take 30 minutes between points, because of rhythem/physical style of play). Who cares why? If it were gamesmanship or not, does it make a difference?

So a game with you lasts how long? 3 months? :lolz: You play tennis chess or what? :snicker

At least! 50+ shot rallies every point! :devil

 

[GameSetAndMath]

People should realize that even though there is no shot clock, every umpire carries a stop watch and
uses them, if not on every point, at least random checks when they get doubt.

 

[DarthFed]

^^ Two good examples of a server refusing to fall for those tactics (both unfortunately involving Nadal) were Tsonga in th 2008 AO SF - Nadal actually complained to the umpire that Tsonga was fast serving him, and Tsonga complained that Nadal was trying to slow him down from his normal time; and the Kyrios Wimbledon match. For a youngster on the big stage for the first time, he did very well in not allowing Nadal to dictate the pace to him.

I'm pretty sure it became an issue at Wimbledon '12 when Rosol blasted Rafa off the court. Interesting to see what all 3 matches have in common.

 

[Federberg]

People should realize that even though there is no shot clock, every umpire carries a stop watch and
uses them, if not on every point, at least random checks when they get doubt.

I don't think anyone doubts that. What we want to see is transparency. Let the rest of us see what the umpires are up to so we can hold them accountable

 

[GameSetAndMath]

People should realize that even though there is no shot clock, every umpire carries a stop watch and
uses them, if not on every point, at least random checks when they get doubt.

I don't think anyone doubts that. What we want to see is transparency. Let the rest of us see what the umpires are up to so we can hold them accountable

The reason they don't do it is that even the letter of the rule does not say the time between points is 25 seconds. The umpire has the discretion to extend it. See official rules posted earlier.

 

[GameSetAndMath]

The notion that time violation is given cumulatively is bogus. In chess, you are given some amount of time in total and you can take less for one move and more for another difficult move as long as you are within the total time allowed (for some number of moves). In tennis, there is no such cumulative time business.

After every point, the server is expected to serve within 25 seconds unless the umpire allows to extend it.

 

[GameSetAndMath]

The notion that players should be allowed more time before serving on break points and other important points is ridiculous. That is almost like taking "time out" in football or basketball when there is a need to strategize. As everybody knows, there is no "time out" in tennis.

 

[Moxie]

Do we really need a discussion. It's against the rules. There has to be limit (Although I personally take 30 minutes between points, because of rhythem/physical style of play). Who cares why? If it were gamesmanship or not, does it make a difference?

My OP wasn't about slower than allowed, just slower than those who play quickly. I do believe players must play within the rules. I also think that umpires should give a little leeway after extremely long rallies, and of course, when there is spectator disruption, etc. This is why I don't like a shot clock. Also, because it's a bit distracting to everyone concerned. That said, maybe they could try it, and see if it helps. It opens other questions, such as should ATP tournaments and Slams go to the same time limit? I guess the umpire would control the clock.

 

[Riotbeard]

Do we really need a discussion. It's against the rules. There has to be limit (Although I personally take 30 minutes between points, because of rhythem/physical style of play). Who cares why? If it were gamesmanship or not, does it make a difference?

My OP wasn't about slower than allowed, just slower than those who play quickly. I do believe players must play within the rules. I also think that umpires should give a little leeway after extremely long rallies, and of course, when there is spectator disruption, etc. This is why I don't like a shot clock. Also, because it's a bit distracting to everyone concerned. That said, maybe they could try it, and see if it helps. It opens other questions, such as should ATP tournaments and Slams go to the same time limit? I guess the umpire would control the clock.

The only reason I would support a shot clock is due to the fact that as is, this rule is not enforced, and I think it should be. Shot clock could help since the umps/atp seem unwilling to consistently enforce it. In general, I agree about common sense discretion (some of the rallies in the 2012 AO final come to mind). I think ITF should probably uniform it's time to the ATP.

 

[Moxie]

Do we really need a discussion. It's against the rules. There has to be limit (Although I personally take 30 minutes between points, because of rhythem/physical style of play). Who cares why? If it were gamesmanship or not, does it make a difference?

My OP wasn't about slower than allowed, just slower than those who play quickly. I do believe players must play within the rules. I also think that umpires should give a little leeway after extremely long rallies, and of course, when there is spectator disruption, etc. This is why I don't like a shot clock. Also, because it's a bit distracting to everyone concerned. That said, maybe they could try it, and see if it helps. It opens other questions, such as should ATP tournaments and Slams go to the same time limit? I guess the umpire would control the clock.

The only reason I would support a shot clock is due to the fact that as is, this rule is not enforced, and I think it should be. Shot clock could help since the umps/atp seem unwilling to consistently enforce it. In general, I agree about common sense discretion (some of the rallies in the 2012 AO final come to mind). I think ITF should probably uniform it's time to the ATP.

Obviously, they have been trying to enforce the rule more in the last couple of years, but it comes rather randomly. I don't agree with those who say it's not cumulative. The umpires generally give the player a nudge at the changeover to tell them they're going a bit over, occasionally, then the give them the official warning. Then they dock them a first serve, but we have no way of knowing when/why they choose when they do it, and some have come at inopportune times. (And I'm not just talking about Nadal.) Perhaps it would be cleaner to have a shot-clock, to make things clearer for everyone. I've never been for it, but I'm rethinking. Hawkeye certainly made things easier, and the time violation thing is getting cranky.

 

[Riotbeard]

My OP wasn't about slower than allowed, just slower than those who play quickly. I do believe players must play within the rules. I also think that umpires should give a little leeway after extremely long rallies, and of course, when there is spectator disruption, etc. This is why I don't like a shot clock. Also, because it's a bit distracting to everyone concerned. That said, maybe they could try it, and see if it helps. It opens other questions, such as should ATP tournaments and Slams go to the same time limit? I guess the umpire would control the clock.

The only reason I would support a shot clock is due to the fact that as is, this rule is not enforced, and I think it should be. Shot clock could help since the umps/atp seem unwilling to consistently enforce it. In general, I agree about common sense discretion (some of the rallies in the 2012 AO final come to mind). I think ITF should probably uniform it's time to the ATP.

Obviously, they have been trying to enforce the rule more in the last couple of years, but it comes rather randomly. I don't agree with those who say it's not cumulative. The umpires generally give the player a nudge at the changeover to tell them they're going a bit over, occasionally, then the give them the official warning. Then they dock them a first serve, but we have no way of knowing when/why they choose when they do it, and some have come at inopportune times. (And I'm not just talking about Nadal.) Perhaps it would be cleaner to have a shot-clock, to make things clearer for everyone. I've never been for it, but I'm rethinking. Hawkeye certainly made things easier, and the time violation thing is getting cranky.

I think if the rule was enforced every point (within some level of discretion), it would have prevented rafa's faux paux. second point of first game at 27 seconds, give a verbal reminder, 3rd point, if the same thing happens, you give the official warning... I should be enforced for one or two seconds, every point, then guys like rafa wouldn't expect to be able to get away with it most points.

 

[Moxie]

The only reason I would support a shot clock is due to the fact that as is, this rule is not enforced, and I think it should be. Shot clock could help since the umps/atp seem unwilling to consistently enforce it. In general, I agree about common sense discretion (some of the rallies in the 2012 AO final come to mind). I think ITF should probably uniform it's time to the ATP.

Obviously, they have been trying to enforce the rule more in the last couple of years, but it comes rather randomly. I don't agree with those who say it's not cumulative. The umpires generally give the player a nudge at the changeover to tell them they're going a bit over, occasionally, then the give them the official warning. Then they dock them a first serve, but we have no way of knowing when/why they choose when they do it, and some have come at inopportune times. (And I'm not just talking about Nadal.) Perhaps it would be cleaner to have a shot-clock, to make things clearer for everyone. I've never been for it, but I'm rethinking. Hawkeye certainly made things easier, and the time violation thing is getting cranky.

I think if the rule was enforced every point (within some level of discretion), it would have prevented rafa's faux paux. second point of first game at 27 seconds, give a verbal reminder, 3rd point, if the same thing happens, you give the official warning... I should be enforced for one or two seconds, every point, then guys like rafa wouldn't expect to be able to get away with it most points.

I agree. Kieran said on the Bernardes thread early on that Nadal was allowed to develop habits, and then had to see them changed. Not excusing, but it's difficult. It's similar to "grandfathering" the shrieking on the women's side, and forcing the younger players to be different. Except that there's no grandfathering. Obviously rules are rules, but habits are also habits. A shot clock might take the feeling of randomness out of it. I can't believe I'm beginning to argue for trying it, but it might make things more transparent and straightforward. Folks made a lot of Nadal complaining about Bernardes, but, if it really does feel that the rules are differently applied, umpire to umpire, one might see where a player could get irritated about it.