Slow play: Gamesmanship or process?

[Riotbeard]

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.

I agree with this, but you have to concede rafa has made about zero effort. In 2010 Novak was just as bad a time waster as Rafa. He is not perfect today, but he is leagues better. Rafa chose not to.

 

[Moxie]

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.

I agree with this, but you have to concede rafa has made about zero effort. In 2010 Novak was just as bad a time waster as Rafa. He is not perfect today, but he is leagues better. Rafa chose not to.

Not zero effort...everyone concedes he's faster, but not enough. Here I'll go back to my OP a bit:
Rafa and Djokovic did their concentrated routines to gather their thoughts. To focus. A kind of zen, if you will. I do think it's that, and not trying to game the opponent. Nole's routine was shorter and easier to curtail. Nadal's is elaborate, and even tightening it still can put him over time too often. But think about this: Nadal is considered to be, or at least until the last year or so, the strongest player, mentally, on tour, and even with his lapses, probably still. It takes something to be that person. For him, he says it's the routines that put him in the moment and focus him. I know he's not right to take too much time, but I'm saying this is why I think he does.

 

[I.Haychew]

1) it's distracting for all parties involved, including the crowd, who might start to make noise if the shot clock is about to run down, at which point the player could use that as an excuse to stop his service motion/routine by claiming the crowd isn't quiet.

2) what if a player is bouncing the ball and it inadvertently bounced off his foot? Does he get penalized? Does the shot clock restart?

3) what if two players had just went through a 50 stroke rally and neither are in much of a rush? You still penalize the server?

4) what if a player is protesting a call or has a legitimate issue with something that went down on the court?

5) what if a player messes up the ball toss in windy conditions?

6) what if there's a gust of wind and clay flies into the server's eyes so he has to wait?

You could answer that the umpire could show discretion and use his judgment, but he can just do that now all the while properly enforcing the rules without needless headaches.

I'm guessing that I'll be in the minority, but here's my take (Keep in mind that I'm not a tennis purist. I grew up a baseball, basketball, and football fan.)...

1) I've never quite understood why there can be no crowd noise or movement during tennis matches. Is this one of those "unwritten" rules? Or is it an actual rule? Extreme concentration is required in other sports, yet the fans are permitted to move about, and be as noisy, as they please. I say tennis players should learn how to play through it. I'm guessing that tennis tradition and etiquette is against me, though.

2) Yes. He gets penalized. If an NBA player inadvertently dribbles the ball off his leg and loses control, should the shot clock be re-set?

3) Depends on how fit the server and returner are. If the server is in better shape than the returner, then serve clock may be to the server's advantage. But, yes. If the server doesn't serve within the alloted time frame, whatever that may be, then he should be penalized. If the returner stalls and doesn't play at the server's pace, then HE should be penalized.

4) Start the serve clock after the issue is resolved by the chair ump.

5) Learn to serve the ball, within the alloted time, in "less than ideal" conditions. What if the player's ball toss sucks in ideal situations, such as indoors?

6) Deal with it or call a medical timeout/call for the trainer. If clay gets in a player's eye, or if his shoe comes untied, or if he drops his racquet during a rally, should he be allowed to call a let, stop play, and get a "do over"?

Again, I'm not a tennis purist/traditionalist. So, if I'm completely way off base, then I guess I'm completely way off base. I'm not dead-set in my ways, though. I CAN be convinced otherwise.

 

[atttomole]

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.

I agree with this, but you have to concede rafa has made about zero effort. In 2010 Novak was just as bad a time waster as Rafa. He is not perfect today, but he is leagues better. Rafa chose not to.

Not zero effort...everyone concedes he's faster, but not enough. Here I'll go back to my OP a bit:
Rafa and Djokovic did their concentrated routines to gather their thoughts. To focus. A kind of zen, if you will. I do think it's that, and not trying to game the opponent. Nole's routine was shorter and easier to curtail. Nadal's is elaborate, and even tightening it still can put him over time too often. But think about this: Nadal is considered to be, or at least until the last year or so, the strongest player, mentally, on tour, and even with his lapses, probably still. It takes something to be that person. For him, he says it's the routines that put him in the moment and focus him. I know he's not right to take too much time, but I'm saying this is why I think he does.

As someone who is considered mentally the strongest player on tour, then Nadal would be expected to be able to change his routines without being affected significantly. I think being able to change his habits, and still be the same warrior he has been for years, is also a sign of mental strength. No?

 

[Moxie]

I agree with this, but you have to concede rafa has made about zero effort. In 2010 Novak was just as bad a time waster as Rafa. He is not perfect today, but he is leagues better. Rafa chose not to.

Not zero effort...everyone concedes he's faster, but not enough. Here I'll go back to my OP a bit:
Rafa and Djokovic did their concentrated routines to gather their thoughts. To focus. A kind of zen, if you will. I do think it's that, and not trying to game the opponent. Nole's routine was shorter and easier to curtail. Nadal's is elaborate, and even tightening it still can put him over time too often. But think about this: Nadal is considered to be, or at least until the last year or so, the strongest player, mentally, on tour, and even with his lapses, probably still. It takes something to be that person. For him, he says it's the routines that put him in the moment and focus him. I know he's not right to take too much time, but I'm saying this is why I think he does.

As someone who is considered mentally the strongest player on tour, then Nadal would be expected to be able to change his routines without being affected significantly. I think being able to change his habits, and still be the same warrior he has been for years, is also a sign of mental strength. No?

I don't think these things are switched on like a light-bulb, so, perhaps, no.

 

[I.Haychew]

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?

I do believe players must play within the rules. I also think that umpires should give a little leeway after extremely long rallies

Seems contradictory to me. Players either play within the rules, or they don't. And umpires either enforce the rules, or they don't.

 

[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?

I do believe players must play within the rules. I also think that umpires should give a little leeway after extremely long rallies

Seems contradictory to me.

If you're going to watch a sport played by individuals that have no substitutes, and whose matches can go from an hour and a half to 5 hours long, or more, I think you have to believe that there are rules, and there is leeway.

 

[I.Haychew]

I do believe players must play within the rules. I also think that umpires should give a little leeway after extremely long rallies

Seems contradictory to me.

If you're going to watch a sport played by individuals that have no substitutes, and whose matches can go from an hour and a half to 5 hours long, or more, I think you have to believe that there are rules, and there is leeway.

I DO believe that there are rules. And you said that players must play within those rules. You also said that umpires should give a little leeway, which means that players don't have to play within the rules. If players played within the rules, as you suggest, then maybe matches wouldn't LAST five hours, or more.

 

[bajana]

Process? No.

Imagine, if you will, 128 Nadal/old Djokovic-like time players at the beginning of a Grand Slam, where even with the large amount of extra courts, scheduling is tight. Then imagine a couple of those matches running to five sets and taking 6 hours, like the AO Open final . That would be 12 hours on one court for just two matches, In no time, there'd be a backlog to rival 5 straight days of rain delays at Wimbledon.

As far as I can gather from researching it, while the ATP reduced its interval between points frpm 30 to 25 seconds largely because of Lendl just standing up there until the 30 seconds was up before he served and others decided to take advantage as well, the ITF reduced its period from 25 seconds to 20 seconds, because matches were taking too long.

One can only imagine the consternation that that 6-hour match must have caused

 

[Moxie]

Seems contradictory to me.

If you're going to watch a sport played by individuals that have no substitutes, and whose matches can go from an hour and a half to 5 hours long, or more, I think you have to believe that there are rules, and there is leeway.

I DO believe that there are rules. And you said that players must play within those rules. You also said that umpires should give a little leeway, which means that players don't have to play within the rules. If players played within the rules, as you suggest, then maybe matches wouldn't LAST five hours, or more.

Tennis is open-ended. It can last for hours without any time-wasting involved. The umpire is there to make human judgments. They are not all going to be clear-cut.

 

[I.Haychew]

If you're going to watch a sport played by individuals that have no substitutes, and whose matches can go from an hour and a half to 5 hours long, or more, I think you have to believe that there are rules, and there is leeway.

I DO believe that there are rules. And you said that players must play within those rules. You also said that umpires should give a little leeway, which means that players don't have to play within the rules. If players played within the rules, as you suggest, then maybe matches wouldn't LAST five hours, or more.

Tennis is open-ended. It can last for hours without any time-wasting involved. The umpire is there to make human judgments. They are not all going to be clear-cut.

I don't know what "Tennis is open-ended" means. I thought that the umps were there to enforce the rules...not to make human judgments. Seems pretty clear-cut to me...If you go over the serve time limit, then you've gone over the serve time limit. If you hit a ball out, then you've hit a ball out (if Hawkeye confirms). If you've foot faulted, then you've foot faulted. If you've hit a ball out of the stadium, you've hit a ball out of the stadium. Whatever the rules say the "punishment" is, then I say that's what the punishment should be.

EDIT: Actually, I DO know what "Tennis is open-ended" means. It means that there's no game /match clock. However, in my opinion, there should be a "serve clock".

 

[Moxie]

I DO believe that there are rules. And you said that players must play within those rules. You also said that umpires should give a little leeway, which means that players don't have to play within the rules. If players played within the rules, as you suggest, then maybe matches wouldn't LAST five hours, or more.

Tennis is open-ended. It can last for hours without any time-wasting involved. The umpire is there to make human judgments. They are not all going to be clear-cut.

I don't know what "Tennis is open-ended" means. I thought that the umps were there to enforce the rules...not to make human judgments. Seems pretty clear-cut to me...If you go over the serve time limit, then you've gone over the serve time limit. If you hit a ball out, then you've hit a ball out (if Hawkeye confirms). If you've foot faulted, then you've foot faulted. If you've hit a ball out of the stadium, you've hit a ball out of the stadium. Whatever the rules say the "punishment" is, then I say that's what the punishment should be.

It means it's not governed by a clock or specific time-frame. Like baseball, it can theoretically go on forever. (See: Isner v. Mahut, Wimbledon 2010.) Umpires negotiate a lot of things that aren't just strict rule-overseeing. If you think it should be the way you say, then why not have all lines done by shot spot and make the chair a glorified score-keeper? With two opponents, no substitutions, I do think there is a human element that the chair makes judgement calls on.

EDIT: I do see that you've edited your post. I have also recently stated that I could revise my opinion to consider a serve clock. Why not try it?

 

[brokenshoelace]

1) it's distracting for all parties involved, including the crowd, who might start to make noise if the shot clock is about to run down, at which point the player could use that as an excuse to stop his service motion/routine by claiming the crowd isn't quiet.

2) what if a player is bouncing the ball and it inadvertently bounced off his foot? Does he get penalized? Does the shot clock restart?

3) what if two players had just went through a 50 stroke rally and neither are in much of a rush? You still penalize the server?

4) what if a player is protesting a call or has a legitimate issue with something that went down on the court?

5) what if a player messes up the ball toss in windy conditions?

6) what if there's a gust of wind and clay flies into the server's eyes so he has to wait?

You could answer that the umpire could show discretion and use his judgment, but he can just do that now all the while properly enforcing the rules without needless headaches.

I'm guessing that I'll be in the minority, but here's my take (Keep in mind that I'm not a tennis purist. I grew up a baseball, basketball, and football fan.)...

1) I've never quite understood why there can be no crowd noise or movement during tennis matches. Is this one of those "unwritten" rules? Or is it an actual rule? Extreme concentration is required in other sports, yet the fans are permitted to move about, and be as noisy, as they please. I say tennis players should learn how to play through it. I'm guessing that tennis tradition and etiquette is against me, though.

2) Yes. He gets penalized. If an NBA player inadvertently dribbles the ball off his leg and loses control, should the shot clock be re-set?

3) Depends on how fit the server and returner are. If the server is in better shape than the returner, then serve clock may be to the server's advantage. But, yes. If the server doesn't serve within the alloted time frame, whatever that may be, then he should be penalized. If the returner stalls and doesn't play at the server's pace, then HE should be penalized.

4) Start the serve clock after the issue is resolved by the chair ump.

5) Learn to serve the ball, within the alloted time, in "less than ideal" conditions. What if the player's ball toss sucks in ideal situations, such as indoors?

6) Deal with it or call a medical timeout/call for the trainer. If clay gets in a player's eye, or if his shoe comes untied, or if he drops his racquet during a rally, should he be allowed to call a let, stop play, and get a "do over"?

Again, I'm not a tennis purist/traditionalist. So, if I'm completely way off base, then I guess I'm completely way off base. I'm not dead-set in my ways, though. I CAN be convinced otherwise.

You're kinda proving my point. Yes, each issue I raised, individually, has a solution. Except these solutions, when combined, make a very simple rule (time allowed in between points) much more complex, contrived, and will create problems for the players. Also, your first solution is not really a solution. You want players to serve through crowd noise? That's a whole different issue altogether, which will probably be even more controversial than the shot clock and requires even more debate. I don't get the shot clock solution that deals with the carriage rather than the horse. Umpires should just enforce the rules more. Problem solved.