Slow play, stricter enforcement

[Iona16]

I didn't see this match live. Was the umpire correct?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QyPK7BWszRQ

 

[Riotbeard]

Timely. Murray is complaining about receivers not being taken into account and wants a timer.

http://www.tennis.com/pro-game/2013/04/they-said-what/47131/#.UXChtIKmDAg

 

[Moxie]

These are examples of what might be pressure on the umpires. Because they clearly aren't fair judgements, in terms of time violations.

 

[Andrew William]

How about each player can use one of their available challenges to challenge a ruling on the penalty accessed to them where the chair must rewind actual footage to determine whether or not the player actually did take longer than the time allowed. If the player loses his challenge, the call stands. If the player wins the challenge that player gets the penalty point lifted and gets one free service directed at said chair umpire.

Rules are rules.

 

[JesuslookslikeBorg]

*topical bump*

 

[I.Haychew]

I say change the rule to 31 seconds between points and have a serve clock on court. (I can't bring myself to call it a "shot" clock.) I don't think that a serve clock would distract from the actual tennis being played because there's no actual tennis being played while you're watching the serve clock...unless you consider toweling off, ball bouncing, and a$$ picking to be "tennis".

 

[Front242]

No offense but 31 seconds is taking the pi$$ when you're watching matches. I think it would benefit the already slow culprits and frankly annoy the hell out of not only spectators but players who like to get on with things and play to their own pace/liking.

 

[I.Haychew]

Probably, Front...But I just picked an arbitrary number to allow a little extra time for "long, grueling" rallies while still keeping it uniform. My simplistic view is that the rule is the rule and it should be enforced as such, regardless of the circumstances. Kinda like referees in the NFL and NBA who "let the players decide the game" in the final seconds, but not during the rest of the game. A foul is a foul and interference is interference, regardless of when it happens. Same with tennis for me. Just my opinion.

 

[Front242]

I personally think the current 20 seconds in slams is more than enough save for a few gruelling rallies left to the umpire's discretion. For every long rally there's usually a quick point or ace to balance it all out and players taking too long between points completely disrupts the flow of the match. That and they're either fit or they're not.

Stalling mind games are not on, especially when one player knows the other likes to play at a faster pace. Yes, you know who I'm talking about

 

[Ricardo]

uh they make the rules, but don't enforce them with any kind of effect and hardly much effort. So what if i take an average of 28 seconds which is 8 seconds over the official limit? it all works in my favor, if it pisses my opponent off all the better!!

some players like it fast and some like it slow, be it 15s or 20s it's fine as long as its legit. But it upsets many players when some take extra 10s or so point in and point out, then it becomes unfair. Surely players don't usually complain to umpire about it (for diplomatic reasons or whatever), it's still unfair for them.