When is it Absolutely Legit To Call For A Trainer? [Archive] - MensTennisForums.com

When is it Absolutely Legit To Call For A Trainer?

gogogirl
06-03-2008, 12:35 AM
All,

Once and for all, when is it absolutely ok and legitimate for players to call for a trainer? Is it when:

1. A player seems to be suffering from the heat?

2. A player is feeling strain in said back and needs it massaged?

3. A player is cramping and needs the trainer to work out some kinks? (Remember Baggy against Andre at the US Open)

4. A player is having trouble breathing?

5. A player has a stomach ache and needs to eat a bannana or something?

6. A player feels a pain in the (fill in the blank) and needs a pain killer?

7. A player needs blisters treated?

Remember when Andre last played the French? He'd had a shot beforehand and it didn't last throughout the match. The commentators were commenting on how his back was hurting him so bad that he couldn't run after balls and what not - and therefore, he might not last and would have to retire? Yet, he finished and let his opponent get the applause. Was it worth it for him to have even gotten the shot and/or continued play?

Seriously, is the point of an injury timeout called to try to treat a legitmate injury(ies) so a player can play on? And if so, does it matter more if it is a GS, and if it's either a quarterfinal, semifinal or final?

Should some players just retire and get it over with if they are legitimately injured or should they try - try - try to keep playing by calling for the trainer - and in some cases, having a trainer on standby? WITH!

GlennMirnyi
06-03-2008, 12:42 AM
None of them. Lack of fitness isn't reason for treatment.

The only legit reason would be a clear injury like twisting your ankle.

leng jai
06-03-2008, 12:46 AM
The ATP needs to make the rule stricter but this isn't going to happen.

StevoTG
06-03-2008, 12:51 AM
None of them. Lack of fitness isn't reason for treatment.

The only legit reason would be a clear injury like twisting your ankle.

What about suffering from the heat, I said that this was no excuse before the AO but had my mind changed. Humans just aren't made for running around in 35c+ temperatures (FFS all the other animals seek shade in the heat) and I think that if a player is suffering from the heat then he/she should get treatment... and severe heat can lead to cramping and blisters so then being treated for these would also be acceptable ;)

Neely
06-03-2008, 12:52 AM
All of them should be allowed. If you're starting to make the rule more difficult, having special exceptions like "when blood flows, he is allowed to call the trainer", "if he twists his ankle with at least 70 degrees, then he is allowed to call the trainer" or if it depends too much on the nature of the injury, you're just going to make it more complicated.

Allow almost for everything one injury timeout, or allow hardly none at all which would be stupid because getting retapes for ankles or treating small problems are important for the players' healths and sometimes allow that a match properly continues instead of a retirement or a lame effort due to a small problem which can be solved.

And if you want to be very correct, you have to make a difference between calling the trainer and an eventual time-out.

I'd rather have a player call the trainer or doctor in order to get expertise if he's suffering from a problem like extreme heat or just a bad daily conditions, bad stomach, allergy or whatever than continue him at all price to endure or risk more severe long-lasting problems.

gogogirl
06-03-2008, 12:58 AM
What about suffering from the heat, I said that this was no excuse before the AO but had my mind changed. Humans just aren't made for running around in 35c+ temperatures (FFS all the other animals seek shade in the heat) and I think that if a player is suffering from the heat then he/she should get treatment... and severe heat can lead to cramping and blisters so then being treated for these would also be acceptable ;)

All,

This reason is the only one I can seriously agree with. Remember that Capriati/Hingis match? My God! It was like 120 degrees on the court and yet, these two troopers trooped on. It really was amazing. They didn't call for a trainer I don't remember, but they did take bathroom breaks and apply ice packs on their necks.

A player suffering from the heat is a bonafide reason to call for a trainer to me. I agree.

GlennMirnyi
06-03-2008, 01:04 AM
What about suffering from the heat, I said that this was no excuse before the AO but had my mind changed. Humans just aren't made for running around in 35c+ temperatures (FFS all the other animals seek shade in the heat) and I think that if a player is suffering from the heat then he/she should get treatment... and severe heat can lead to cramping and blisters so then being treated for these would also be acceptable ;)

So? If they want an easy job they should have studied to work in a lab with air conditioning. Every outdoor sport is played under heat.

Merton
06-03-2008, 01:09 AM
It is clear that the rules today for injury timeouts can be abused from players intent on halting the opponent's momentum. Cramps, blisters, muscle soreness are not injuries and a timeout for a player to address those penalizes the opponent. One way to address the issue is to allow for medical timeouts at the end of a set. Any other request for a timeout during the set will incur a game penalty, unless it is related to an actual injury. This way injury timeouts become costly, and the opponent who did not get the timeout gets compensated for his opponent's timeout.

TMJordan
06-03-2008, 01:11 AM
When Novak Djokovic feels like it.

gogogirl
06-03-2008, 01:13 AM
It is clear that the rules today for injury timeouts can be abused from players intent on halting the opponent's momentum. Cramps, blisters, muscle soreness are not injuries and a timeout for a player to address those penalizes the opponent. One way to address the issue is to allow for medical timeouts at the end of a set. Any other request for a timeout during the set will incur a game penalty, unless it is related to an actual injury. This way injury timeouts become costly, and the opponent who did not get the timeout gets compensated for his opponent's timeout.


All,

Great analysis Merton. Neely, I have to admit, you made some great points too. I'll holler at you all tomorrow. Have a good one.

Neely
06-03-2008, 01:14 AM
So? If they want an easy job they should have studied to work in a lab with air conditioning. Every outdoor sport is played under heat.
All fine and good if you're thinking like that, but then lets not whine about the tournament calendar anymore if there are back-to-back Masters, and then at the same time, on the other hand, we're agreeing to toy with the player's health forcing them to play under condidtions which are scientifically prooved to be extremely dangerous, extremely increasing the risk of heat stroke, heat illness, coma etc. and sometimes even death if it could be prevented that easily.

Neely
06-03-2008, 01:22 AM
It is clear that the rules today for injury timeouts can be abused from players intent on halting the opponent's momentum. Cramps, blisters, muscle soreness are not injuries and a timeout for a player to address those penalizes the opponent. One way to address the issue is to allow for medical timeouts at the end of a set. Any other request for a timeout during the set will incur a game penalty, unless it is related to an actual injury. This way injury timeouts become costly, and the opponent who did not get the timeout gets compensated for his opponent's timeout.
This approach doesn't sound too bad. It would make sense to introduce a sort of penalizing, but it would have to be with any injury time-out occuring, no matter if the injury is legit or not. Otherwise you're running into troubles again to judge what qualifies as a "real" injury or reason, and what not.

Of course experienced trainers and doctors can feel most muscle strains and other problems. So this could be a solution. But the chair umpire is unable to judge or detect that properly more often than not.

GlennMirnyi
06-03-2008, 01:25 AM
All fine and good if you're thinking like that, but then lets not whine about the tournament calendar anymore if there are back-to-back Masters, and then at the same time, on the other hand, we're agreeing to toy with the player's health forcing them to play under condidtions which are scientifically prooved to be extremely dangerous, extremely increasing the risk of heat stroke, heat illness, coma etc. and sometimes even death if it could be prevented that easily.

Poor players... have you ever thought how much they earn to do just that? While a normal person has to study years and years and work his ass off to get 10%. It's not like they can't retire if they don't feel well.

Neely
06-03-2008, 01:29 AM
Poor players... have you ever thought how much they earn to do just that? While a normal person has to study years and years and work his ass off to get 10%. It's not like they can't retire if they don't feel well.
No problem, I already said it's okay to think like that and I'm surely not known best for pitying the (top) players for their baaaaaad and uncomfortable life on the Tour, but my point was simply that these two things don't go along very well.

GlennMirnyi
06-03-2008, 01:31 AM
No problem, I already said it's okay to think like that and I'm not known best for pitying the (top) players for their baaaaaad and uncomfortable life on the Tour, but my point was simply that these two extremes don't go along.

I'm definitely not complaining about the tour schedule. No player is playing at gunpoint. ;)

Bernard Black
06-03-2008, 01:47 AM
Perhaps leave it down to the discretion of the umpire to call a legitimate injury or not.

Players getting massages mid-match is ridiculous. If you've run your opponent ragged for 4 hours with great angles they shouldn't be allowed recovery time and massages, that's just a joke. Tennis is a sport, and fitness has to play a key role as well as skill.

Deivid23
06-03-2008, 02:05 AM
Only when you´re close to death, and even then, you´ll see some clowns moaning in here

Merton
06-03-2008, 02:14 AM
This approach doesn't sound too bad. It would make sense to introduce a sort of penalizing, but it would have to be with any injury time-out occuring, no matter if the injury is legit or not. Otherwise you're running into troubles again to judge what qualifies as a "real" injury or reason, and what not.

Of course experienced trainers and doctors can feel most muscle strains and other problems. So this could be a solution. But the chair umpire is unable to judge or detect that properly more often than not.

Clearly it should be the call of the doctor that it is a legit injury, not the umpire. A concern is that the distinction between for example muscle soreness and muscle strain is not always clear, I don't see a solution for that.

fast_clay
06-03-2008, 02:16 AM
when defeat is imminent

Action Jackson
06-03-2008, 06:29 AM
The ATP needs to make the rule stricter but this isn't going to happen.

That will never happen and all course Shuzo Matsuoka fell over like he has been shot with cramps, this rule got changed and it's more clownish than Mariano Puerta's Wimbledon record.

What about suffering from the heat, I said that this was no excuse before the AO but had my mind changed. Humans just aren't made for running around in 35c+ temperatures (FFS all the other animals seek shade in the heat) and I think that if a player is suffering from the heat then he/she should get treatment... and severe heat can lead to cramping and blisters so then being treated for these would also be acceptable ;)

Wear sun block, drink more water than you would normally, manage your breathing.

There should never be treatment for blisters or cramps, or wow I have a headache this must mean I'm injured.

It is clear that the rules today for injury timeouts can be abused from players intent on halting the opponent's momentum. Cramps, blisters, muscle soreness are not injuries and a timeout for a player to address those penalizes the opponent. One way to address the issue is to allow for medical timeouts at the end of a set. Any other request for a timeout during the set will incur a game penalty, unless it is related to an actual injury. This way injury timeouts become costly, and the opponent who did not get the timeout gets compensated for his opponent's timeout.

Players should be rewarded for being fitter and stronger, especially if they are the around same skill level. They should only get one timeout and not during a game unless it's something like happened to Berdych at Davis Cup or Monaco in Vina del Mar for example.

It's not hard to tape an ankle or take some tape off during a changeover or at an end of a set. The way the rule is abused is a complete joke.

When Novak Djokovic feels like it.

Good answer.

bad gambler
06-03-2008, 06:48 AM
Close to impossible to enforce or police a strict rule around injury timeouts. It's always going to be open to exploitation and I think the players these days pretty much resign to the fact that it is part of the tactics of gamesmanship.

martine2
06-03-2008, 07:50 AM
It is clear that the rules today for injury timeouts can be abused from players intent on halting the opponent's momentum. Cramps, blisters, muscle soreness are not injuries and a timeout for a player to address those penalizes the opponent. One way to address the issue is to allow for medical timeouts at the end of a set. Any other request for a timeout during the set will incur a game penalty, unless it is related to an actual injury. This way injury timeouts become costly, and the opponent who did not get the timeout gets compensated for his opponent's timeout.

Makes sense :yeah:


Players getting massages mid-match is ridiculous.

True, but :awww: I like to watch it :crazy:

Action Jackson
06-03-2008, 07:55 AM
True, but :awww: I like to watch it :crazy:

Watch a male stripper in that case.

Herdwick
06-03-2008, 08:01 AM
I don't have a problem with calling for the trainer or medical timeouts; surely the idea is to assess/nip any potential problem in the bud and thus enable the player to continue. Rafa the other day had a precautionary check and treatment on his blister to stop it getting any worse; makes perfect sense to me.

Action Jackson
06-03-2008, 08:03 AM
I don't have a problem with calling for the trainer or medical timeouts; surely the idea is to assess/nip any potential problem in the bud and thus enable the player to continue. Rafa the other day had a precautionary check and treatment on his blister to stop it getting any worse; makes perfect sense to me.

Blisters aren't an injury. Therefore it's not legit.

martine2
06-03-2008, 08:04 AM
Watch a male stripper in that case.

Exactly the reaction I expected :p

(was meant as a joke btw)

Herdwick
06-03-2008, 08:25 AM
Blisters aren't an injury. Therefore it's not legit.

Semantics here - having seen his foot in Rome the blister was clearly the reason for Rafa's loss there. So if it's not entirely healed by all means ensure it's monitored and controlled. If that means taking a 2 minute break on court for treatment I for one would rather see that happen than have Rafa lose at RG because he can't move properly. And that goes for any other player...

Action Jackson
06-03-2008, 08:44 AM
Semantics here - having seen his foot in Rome the blister was clearly the reason for Rafa's loss there. So if it's not entirely healed by all means ensure it's monitored and controlled. If that means taking a 2 minute break on court for treatment I for one would rather see that happen than have Rafa lose at RG because he can't move properly. And that goes for any other player...

Medical science is not semantics. Injury timeouts are meant to be for injuries and since cramps and blisters aren't injuries. Medical science clearly proves this is the case.

If a doctor suggests that those 2 conditions are injuries, then they should be struck off the medical register. If I as a medical student were to submit that these 2 particular conditions classify as an injury, then I'd be told by my lecturers that after laughing for 5 minutes, please enrol in another course, so the serious students can pass and become medical professionals.

Cramps are a loss of conditioning and blisters are a skin condition, therefore they aren't injuries.

Herdwick
06-03-2008, 08:50 AM
Medical science is not semantics. Injury timeouts are meant to be for injuries and since cramps and blisters aren't injuries. Medical science clearly proves this is the case.

If a doctor suggests that those 2 conditions are injuries, then they should be struck off the medical register. If I as a medical student were to submit that these 2 particular conditions classify as an injury, then I'd be told by my lecturers that after laughing for 5 minutes, please enrol in another course, so the serious students can pass and become medical professionals.

Cramps are a loss of conditioning and blisters are a skin condition, therefore they aren't injuries.

:rolleyes:So - let's be clear - you'd rather see Rafa lose/withdraw because of blisters, on the grounds that they are not an injury, rather than have them treated on court and thus be able to finish his match?

Do you work for your local council by any chance?

Action Jackson
06-03-2008, 08:59 AM
:rolleyes:So - let's be clear - you'd rather see Rafa lose/withdraw because of blisters, on the grounds that they are not an injury, rather than have them treated on court and thus be able to finish his match?

Do you work for your local council by any chance?

No, lets be clear. They aren't injuries and no amount of whining from you is going to say otherwise. Like I said go to a qualified doctor and ask them this question and tell me what the answer is.

If you have some foolproof scientific and medical evidence that says otherwise, then show it. But you don't.

Blisters are preventable and if they can retire because of blisters, then they might as well get treatment for stray false eyelashes.

The medical timeout rule is meant to be for injuries and since it's clear that blisters and cramps are not injuries, therefore no treatment should be allowed.

Petrovic
06-03-2008, 09:09 AM
I somebody is injured or having problems i agree to be aloowed doctor/trainer and timeout.
It's better then retireing !

We all seen what happend at Rome masters. People retired and crowd loved it, right ?
But that is ok , if Novak Djokovic ask for doctor than it's a problem coz he is bad person !

I think player can ask for doctor if one of the reasons above is in question !
If not than we will witnnes more Rome situations and tennis will be ruined.

Herdwick
06-03-2008, 09:09 AM
No, lets be clear. They aren't injuries and no amount of whining from you is going to say otherwise. Like I said go to a qualified doctor and ask them this question and tell me what the answer is.

If you have some foolproof scientific and medical evidence that says otherwise, then show it. But you don't.

Blisters are preventable and if they can retire because of blisters, then they might as well get treatment for stray false eyelashes.

The medical timeout rule is meant to be for injuries and since it's clear that blisters and cramps are not injuries, therefore no treatment should be allowed.

Am not qualified to say to whether they're considered 'injuries' in a medical sense; however it has no bearing on my POV which is that a player should be able to be treated for a blister on court. I see no benefit to anyone in a player being unable to finish a match solely because treatment is not permitted, thus I regard it as legitimate. So we will simply agree to differ.

Action Jackson
06-03-2008, 09:24 AM
Am not qualified to say to whether they're considered 'injuries' in a medical sense; however it has no bearing on my POV which is that a player should be able to be treated for a blister on court. I see no benefit to anyone in a player being unable to finish a match solely because treatment is not permitted, thus I regard it as legitimate. So we will simply agree to differ.

Considering the medical timeout rule is meant to be for injuries and not lead to break momentum in matches and get a massage. The rule as it states is an absolute joke and will continue to be one as it won't be enforced.

If someone is weak enough to retire with blisters, then go and play another sport like swimming.

Yes, I forgot blisters and cramps are so serious, that they never happened at all until 2008.

FiBeR
06-03-2008, 12:50 PM
I think a solution for all injuries times out (though a tad unfair but.. it will prevent whinners from taking timeouts) is..

whoever calls for an injury timeout, gets it, just like right now, but as a consequence loses a game

like, if you re 3-2* and call for trainer, you get the trainer and then resume play at 3-3*

in that way, whoever asks for a timeout will think it twice before asking for one..cos a game can be crucial in a tight match (:p and will prevent those annoying timeouts when serving for the match)

DwyaneWade
06-03-2008, 04:49 PM
Considering the medical timeout rule is meant to be for injuries and not lead to break momentum in matches and get a massage. The rule as it states is an absolute joke and will continue to be one as it won't be enforced.

If someone is weak enough to retire with blisters, then go and play another sport like swimming.

Yes, I forgot blisters and cramps are so serious, that they never happened at all until 2008.

:haha::haha::haha::haha:

I'm sorry, I don't post often but this just made me laugh. GWH, you are more knowledgeable about many things than I ever could hope to be, but this is pure BS. Really, cramps and blisters aren't medical conditions? Really? What medical school did you go to? What field are you specializing in? Because as a recent medical student graduate in sports medicine, I have to call BS when I see it.

BTW, I really have no issue with not allowing medical timeouts for cramps and blisters, just come up with an argument not laced with made-up information.

Neely
06-04-2008, 02:06 PM
Medical science is not semantics. Injury timeouts are meant to be for injuries and since cramps and blisters aren't injuries. Medical science clearly proves this is the case.

If a doctor suggests that those 2 conditions are injuries, then they should be struck off the medical register. If I as a medical student were to submit that these 2 particular conditions classify as an injury, then I'd be told by my lecturers that after laughing for 5 minutes, please enrol in another course, so the serious students can pass and become medical professionals.

Cramps are a loss of conditioning and blisters are a skin condition, therefore they aren't injuries.
Well, I already had with you this argument before in the "if you could change one rule in tennis" thread as you didn't believe me that blisters are injuries and told me to name any respected journals which call blisters injuries. Well, here are some reading references for you.

M. Xing, N. Pan, W. Zhong, H. Maibach: Skin friction blistering: computer model. Skin Research and Technology 2007; 13(3), 310–316
B.B. Adams: Dermatologic disorders of the athlete. Sports Medecine 2002; 32(5): 309-21.
K. Reynolds, A. Darrigrand, D. Roberts, J. Knapik, J. Pollard, K. Duplantis, B. Jones: Effects of an antiperspirant with emollients on foot-sweat accumulation and blister formation while walking in the heat. Journal of American Academy of Dermatology, Oct 1995; 33(4): 626-30.
F.H. Brennan Jr.: Managing blisters in competetive athletes. Current sports medicine reports, Dec 2002; 1(6): 319-22
D.A. Townes, T.S. Talbot, I.S. Wedmore, R. Billingsly: Event medicine: injury and illness during an expedition-length adventure race. The Journal of Emergency Medicine, Aug 2004; 27(2): 161-5.
E.A. Mailler, B.B. Adams: The wear and tear of 26.2: dermatological injuries reported on marathon day. British Journal of Sports Medicine, Aug 2004; 38(4): 498-501.
T.J. Gabbett and L. Hodgson Phillips: Incidence of injury in semi-professional rugby league players. British Journal of Sports Medicine, Feb 2003; 37: 36-44.

And that's only a small excerpt of the first page which came up after a database search.

I hope peer-reviewed and internationally leading and respected medical journals in the fields of dermatology and sports medicine are credible enough for you. And yes, peer-reviewed means not anybody can hand in any shit which gets published in the next issue.

jayjay
06-04-2008, 02:19 PM
I don't know why some people are so worried about defining cramping. The fact is that the rules allow for one medical timeout to deal with cramping (introduced following the Matsuoka incident at the US Open). So taking a timeout for that reason is not against the rules, it is not against the spirit of rules. It is the rule.

Whether people agree with this rule or not is up for them to debate. Personally, I have no issue with it. What is permitted and when is quite clear, it is up to the umpire to enforce it.

star
06-04-2008, 02:24 PM
I hope peer-reviewed and internationally leading and respected medical journals in the fields of dermatology and sports medicine are credible enough for you. And yes, peer-reviewed means not anybody can hand in any shit which gets published in the next issue.


As one who has hiked a great deal, blisters seem like an injury to me. :lol:

But you know how it goes in internet arguments: You've got your set of facts and he has his set of facts, and ne'er the twain shall meet. :)

Action Jackson
06-04-2008, 02:25 PM
:haha::haha::haha::haha:

I'm sorry, I don't post often but this just made me laugh. GWH, you are more knowledgeable about many things than I ever could hope to be, but this is pure BS. Really, cramps and blisters aren't medical conditions? Really? What medical school did you go to? What field are you specializing in? Because as a recent medical student graduate in sports medicine, I have to call BS when I see it.

BTW, I really have no issue with not allowing medical timeouts for cramps and blisters, just come up with an argument not laced with made-up information.

Cramps and blisters are injuries? Answer that question. If they are actual injuries, then why is this the case?

If it's agreed that these are injuries. Then sleep apnoea, narcolepsy, altitude motion sickness, nausea, stomach bugs, dermatitis, hypothermia, heat exhaustion, low blood pressure, chronic fatigue syndrome, and anemia are injuries.

That isn't the case. So the local head of the Australian Medical Union is a moron then. I asked him about that and there is a difference between an injury and a medical condition.

Did Pete Sampras take time out to treat his anemia?

star
06-04-2008, 02:26 PM
Only when you´re close to death, and even then, you´ll see some clowns moaning in here

:lol: The answer that popped into my head when I saw the title was: Never! Because according to MTF, all injuries are faked. :)

Pigpen Stinks
06-04-2008, 02:31 PM
:haha::haha::haha::haha:

I'm sorry, I don't post often but this just made me laugh. GWH, you are more knowledgeable about many things than I ever could hope to be, but this is pure BS. Really, cramps and blisters aren't medical conditions? Really? What medical school did you go to? What field are you specializing in? Because as a recent medical student graduate in sports medicine, I have to call BS when I see it.

BTW, I really have no issue with not allowing medical timeouts for cramps and blisters, just come up with an argument not laced with made-up information.

Hey, what's so wrong with Georgie making up medical facts per his whim? Isn't the self annointed king of MTF allowed to do such things?

RickDaStick
06-04-2008, 02:31 PM
"Whenever you are tired and need a break to catch your breath" - Novak Djokovic

Fumus
06-04-2008, 02:34 PM
An injury in my opinion is any physical aliment that inhibits your play. In order to ensure the players can compete we must attempt treat those injuries so that matches can continue to be played, and players can prevent serious injury.

I think every other sport has a form of a timeout, in tennis it's calling the trainer. For better or worse that's the way it is. You can dislike players that misuse injury timeouts but that is as much a part of the game as any other taboo tactic(e.g. drop shotting an immobile opponent.)

star
06-04-2008, 02:49 PM
Hey, what's so wrong with Georgie making up medical facts per his whim? Isn't the self annointed king of MTF allowed to do such things?

Or even making up anything at all. George has been known to make up lots of things.

Jogy
06-09-2008, 03:08 PM
Hey, what's so wrong with Georgie making up medical facts per his whim? Isn't the self annointed king of MTF allowed to do such things?
great show again :haha: GeorgeHitler is too arrogant and too stubborn to admit with simple facts that he was so wrong. Of course when he saying blisters are no injuries nothing else counts. I had to laugh only more when I used google to look for one article and it started in the very first sentence with "skin blisters, one of the most frequent injuries in sports"

Or even making up anything at all. George has been known to make up lots of things.
You as a old user know his antics as well as me. Four years ago, of course MarcRossetisTall and his "cousin" rass-clown would have come to tell you how wrong you are :p

To troll is one things, to try to play the "I know all" ressource and "others are never right" attitude of a message forum that is never wrong just to boost your own crediblity and prestige is another one.

woodrow1029
12-07-2009, 09:11 PM
New ITF medical timeout rules for 2010 (affecting ITF circuit events, Grand Slams and Davis Cup/Fed Cup). I have not seen the 2010 ATP or WTA rules yet, so don't know for sure if it 100% same, but I would imagine it will be for ATP and WTA events as well.

In pertinent parts:

Medical Time-Out can only be taken at changeover or set-break, unless the trainer/doctor determine that the player has an acute medical condition requiring immediate attention (ankle or knee sprain, bloody nose, etc.). If the player requests the trainer during a game, and the trainer diagnoses a non-acute condition, then the player will be instructed to play until the changeover when he can receive the medical time-out.

Here's the biggest change

No more medical time-outs allowed for cramping. A player may have a medical time-out for heat illness (vomiting or similar), but not solely for cramping. A player may only receive changeover/set-break treatment for muscle cramping, and only on 2 changeovers (doesn't need to be consecutive changeovers). If a player has severe cramping and needs immediate treatment, he/she may forfeit the points or games needed to get to the changeover where he/she may receive treatment for cramping, assuming they have not used all 2 changeovers yet.

Bleeding
Bleeding is now officially in the rules that the chair umpire must stop play if a player is bleeding and request the trainer to the court. Blood must be stopped, and the court, balls, and anything else needs to be cleaned up or changed out before play is resumed.

General Suburbia
12-07-2009, 09:22 PM
About time.

Garson007
12-07-2009, 09:31 PM
Bleeding
Bleeding is now officially in the rules that the chair umpire must stop play if a player is bleeding and request the trainer to the court. Blood must be stopped, and the court, balls, and anything else needs to be cleaned up or changed out before play is resumed.
This is just asking for a self-induced blood drawing.

MalwareDie
12-07-2009, 09:32 PM
O noes! I'm bleeding. (Pinched myself really hard and dug my nails into my skin while I was using a towel to conceal my hand)

l_mac
12-07-2009, 09:35 PM
What will Nole do :tears:

Byrd
12-07-2009, 09:45 PM
Youzhny will be pulling out all the stops next year.

FlameOn
12-07-2009, 09:47 PM
What will Nole do :tears:
Keep kicking Rafa's ass. :angel:

KarlyM
12-07-2009, 09:53 PM
I like this new rule. Hopefully, it will stop the excessive time-out's for cramping. I like how it also leaves an opening for treatment for bad muscle cramping instead of a across-the-board ban. :)

Bleeding
Bleeding is now officially in the rules that the chair umpire must stop play if a player is bleeding and request the trainer to the court. Blood must be stopped, and the court, balls, and anything else needs to be cleaned up or changed out before play is resumed. A.K.A. - The Colonel's rule. :rocker2:

woodrow1029
12-07-2009, 10:00 PM
I just received confirmation that it will be the same for ITF, WTA and ATP.

Goldenoldie
12-07-2009, 10:01 PM
Pinch me somebody, this sounds like common sense at last.

gam_jonte
12-07-2009, 10:06 PM
Still think it's weird to be allowed a medical time out at any time for vomiting, but not for cramps. If i were to ranked thoose i can still see me continue playing my service game after i have vomited, but when it comes to cramps that'll make it alot harder to continue without treatment.

woodrow1029
12-07-2009, 10:11 PM
Cramping most of the time is due to lack of conditioning and poor preparation.

Vomiting can be because of sickness/illness, can also be because of the extreme heat. That is the main reason that vomiting is considered a treatable medical condition and cramping is not in regard to medical time outs.

blizzardtomato
12-07-2009, 10:23 PM
Yep, and vomiting is far less common than cramping on the tour, unless you are Safin with 2 liters of vodka in your stomach.

"A player may only receive changeover/set-break treatment for muscle cramping, and only on 2 changeovers"
A player dominated can lose points because of tiredness, seems only fair.

Next step might be to check a bit more seriously players taking too much time to serve. :p

Har-Tru
12-07-2009, 11:19 PM
Good.

abraxas21
12-08-2009, 01:04 AM
i don't recall to have ever seen a player bleeding...

Dini
12-08-2009, 01:05 AM
i don't recall to have ever seen a player bleeding...

fi-CgSO9Evw

blizzardtomato
12-08-2009, 01:50 AM
Wow! :eek:

BigJohn
12-08-2009, 01:54 AM
I do not see anyone complaining about this, except for Djokovic. Just before the AO and as he was playing better. He must be crushed.

tektonac
12-08-2009, 02:52 AM
What will Nole do :tears:

he is gonna take #1 spot, so you can hate him even more.

gulzhan
12-08-2009, 03:07 AM
Youzhny will be pulling out all the stops next year.

Cruel :eek: but funny :lol:

gulzhan
12-08-2009, 03:09 AM
i don't recall to have ever seen a player bleeding...

Delpo at WTF (first match against Verdasco I believe), Zvonareva at the championship in Doha, that was real awful :(

gulzhan
12-08-2009, 03:12 AM
Yep, and vomiting is far less common than cramping on the tour, unless you are Safin with 2 liters of vodka in your stomach.


You probably don't see a difference between smashing rackets and vomiting. It was poor Ancic at RG :sad:

Forehander
12-08-2009, 12:23 PM
I've love to see Djokovic bang his head on the ground

Henry Chinaski
12-08-2009, 01:10 PM
Medical Time-Out can only be taken at changeover or set-break, unless the trainer/doctor determine that the player has an acute medical condition requiring immediate attention (ankle or knee sprain, bloody nose, etc.). If the player requests the trainer during a game, and the trainer diagnoses a non-acute condition, then the player will be instructed to play until the changeover when he can receive the medical time-out.


so you can still take a tactical break any time you feel like it. it will still take several minutes for the trainer/doctor to get to the court and make a diagnosis. there should be a point penalty at least as a further deterrent in cases that the doctor labels the problem not acute.

still, at least they're heading in the right direction. we'll just have to wait and see how it pans out in practice

Action Jackson
12-08-2009, 01:11 PM
Better than nothing.

Start da Game
12-08-2009, 02:07 PM
Better than nothing.

yes, actually they are making it worse by going hard on cramps........no matter how much one conditions, sometimes cramps happen and it pains as hell when you cramp........idiotic to ask players to continue in such pain........

and no need to make fun of djokovic here.......he is prone to quick exhaustion, breathing problems under hot and humid conditions and it is a permanent case with him.......

abraxas21
12-08-2009, 08:00 PM
fi-CgSO9Evw

good grief. tough man this russian.

i remember there was this famous moroccan player in the second half of the nineties who used to do that as well. i think he bled too during a match vs marcelo rios...

pray-for-palestine-and-israel
12-08-2009, 08:33 PM
http://www.websmileys.com/sm/violent/sterb002.gif

a top pro shouldnt cramp ever- weeks of training should ensure that

Roddickominator
12-08-2009, 08:56 PM
Great for the game....at least a step in the right direction. Once players abuse some of these rules, a few more changes will need to be made. But improvement is improvement, and should be commended.

Paylu2007
06-27-2011, 11:33 PM
And still, Nadal does whatever he wants when he is about to lose... That cheater

woodrow1029
06-28-2011, 07:41 PM
And still, Nadal does whatever he wants when he is about to lose... That cheater

LOL. Ok, how did he cheat?

Read my comments on this thread from a different site and tell me if he cheated.

http://tt.tennis-warehouse.com/showthread.php?t=386306

Mungo
06-29-2011, 12:21 AM
LOL. Ok, how did he cheat?

Read my comments on this thread from a different site and tell me if he cheated.

http://tt.tennis-warehouse.com/showthread.php?t=386306

Haters don't think. If Nadal wins he cheated, if Nadal loses he was using the injury as an excuse for a possible loss. Either way he's not allowed to be injured and receive a MTO following the rules as he did.

FiBeR
06-29-2011, 03:05 PM
What will Nole do :tears:

oh the irony

FiBeR
06-29-2011, 03:12 PM
using more time than the rule allows is violating the rules.
requesting and stopping game when the rule does not allow medical time out is against the rules. he should have waited after the tie break not when he asked. it is as if a fan wanted to get inside center court during the 6/6. you cannot do it because it is the rule.

breaking the rules is not ok, bar moral appreciations and developments on the so called broken foot and movement. the timeouts are stained with bad faith as if he was in so called pain how come he competed for 4 tight sets running like a rabbit.. if he was going to run anyway then he should have at least waited for the right time and this is the n1, the one to follow...

it is not ok to complain against someone who is making the rules being followed as was the umpire when he penalized nadal for taking too long. it is as if shouting the police officer when he gives u a ticket for speeding.

On monday evening I got together with an ATP linejudge and she specifically cleared my doubts about this subject and she said more or less what the (ITF and ATP) rulebook expresses about this issue which is what i reproduced on the first paragraph.

woodrow1029
06-29-2011, 04:25 PM
using more time than the rule allows is violating the rules.
requesting and stopping game when the rule does not allow medical time out is against the rules. he should have waited after the tie break not when he asked. it is as if a fan wanted to get inside center court during the 6/6. you cannot do it because it is the rule.

breaking the rules is not ok, bar moral appreciations and developments on the so called broken foot and movement. the timeouts are stained with bad faith as if he was in so called pain how come he competed for 4 tight sets running like a rabbit.. if he was going to run anyway then he should have at least waited for the right time and this is the n1, the one to follow...


On monday evening I got together with an ATP linejudge and she specifically cleared my doubts about this subject and she said more or less what the (ITF and ATP) rulebook expresses about this issue which is what i reproduced on the first paragraph.

Comparing taking a medical time out at 6-6 to a spectator wanting to come into the court is a TERRIBLE comparison. Not even remotely close to the same thing. Furthermore, the rules do not forbid a player from taking a medical timeout at any time. It is preferable to wait until a changeover or set break, but if the trainer determines it's an acute medical condition which should be treated right away to avoid further injury or another reason, they can take the medical timeout at any time.

FiBeR
06-29-2011, 06:14 PM
Comparing taking a medical time out at 6-6 to a spectator wanting to come into the court is a TERRIBLE comparison. Not even remotely close to the same thing. Furthermore, the rules do not forbid a player from taking a medical timeout at any time. It is preferable to wait until a changeover or set break, but if the trainer determines it's an acute medical condition which should be treated right away to avoid further injury or another reason, they can take the medical timeout at any time.


IMO it is not terrible. Normal people have to follow rules as well and they dont do it oftenly. So do tennis players. It is ITF and ATP duty to make the rules being followed. I get really pissed off when they let people into court when they are not allowed to cos it bothers the tennis players.
To me it is the same when I hear people argue with the workers who do not let them get inside court until the changeover and when I see players like Nadal complaining they get a correct warning for violating the time set from point to point between serves. Or lets say Gaudio when he served foot faults and gets penalized.
Man if you step on the line and you are not suppossed to, dont step on the line! it is really dumb to blame the lineman for correctly calling foot fault. This is exactly the same.

The rules are for players and public to be followed, it is basic. You cannot cross the street on red light with your car just because "no one is there". Or do you? it is how society works. They make rules for everyone, not just because u think they are stupid you do not have to follow them. Are we on the same page?

from ITF rulebook

Medical Evaluation
During the warm-up or the match, the player may request through the Chair Umpire for the Physiotherapist/Athletic Trainer to evaluate him during the next change over or set break. Only in the case that a player develops an
acute medical condition that necessitates an immediate stop in play may the
player request through the Chair Umpire for the Physiotherapist/Athletic
Trainer to evaluate him immediately.
The purpose of the medical evaluation is to determine if the player has
developed a treatable medical condition and, if so, to determine when medical
treatment is warranted. Such evaluation should be performed within a
reasonable length of time, balancing player safety on the one hand, and
continuous play on the other. At the discretion of the Physiotherapist/Athletic
Trainer, such evaluation may be performed in conjunction with the
Tournament Doctor, and may be performed off-court. *
If the Physiotherapist/Athletic Trainer determines that the player has a nontreatable medical condition, then the player will be advised that no medical
treatment will be allowed.

Nadal requested the trainer during Del Potro's service game and could clearly play competitively. Therefore this was not a "necesarily inmediate need of evaluation". He should have waited for the set break or the changeover which was not the case. Sorry but this is a rule

woodrow1029
06-29-2011, 07:25 PM
IMO it is not terrible. Normal people have to follow rules as well and they dont do it oftenly. So do tennis players. It is ITF and ATP duty to make the rules being followed. I get really pissed off when they let people into court when they are not allowed to cos it bothers the tennis players.
To me it is the same when I hear people argue with the workers who do not let them get inside court until the changeover and when I see players like Nadal complaining they get a correct warning for violating the time set from point to point between serves. Or lets say Gaudio when he served foot faults and gets penalized.
Man if you step on the line and you are not suppossed to, dont step on the line! it is really dumb to blame the lineman for correctly calling foot fault. This is exactly the same.

The rules are for players and public to be followed, it is basic. You cannot cross the street on red light with your car just because "no one is there". Or do you? it is how society works. They make rules for everyone, not just because u think they are stupid you do not have to follow them. Are we on the same page?

from ITF rulebook



Nadal requested the trainer during Del Potro's service game and could clearly play competitively. Therefore this was not a "necesarily inmediate need of evaluation". He should have waited for the set break or the changeover which was not the case. Sorry but this is a rule

I will paste this here as well:

The thing is that he clearly did feel something tweak in his foot when he hit the running forehand. He actually called for the trainer during the game so that the trainer would be there at the end of the game. The trainer came out and definitely was concerned about the foot as he said he could feel something on the bone and it was an unusual place for an injury. And he called the tournament doctor. It definitely was concerning enough for the trainer to consider it an acute condition in which case the player can stop for the trainer.

The chair umpires can't be responsible for making medical decisions as they are not medically trained professionals. It's up to the trainer to decide if it eneds to be treated immediately or at the changeover.

I agree 100% about the foot faults and time violations. But to compare it to the ushers not letting spectators in as a courtesy to the players is not correct.

You may or may not agree with the way the rule is; however, the rule was correctly followed in this situation.

FiBeR
06-30-2011, 03:41 AM
One thing I dont understand is that when Nadal requested trainer he said to Ramos "you, trainer, now". He did not explain to anyone until he got treated. What players should do if they want inmediate treatment is to lie on the floor and get treatment there stating "I cant play" but to go and sit down and demand treatment when it is not the correct time, don't you think it is a bit of pushing the rule to the boundary? thinking of the Good Faith spirit in which rules are made.

I will say exactly what I told you on pm :p i will try and talk to Damian Steiner on monday about this issue in particular and the correct following of the rulebook and the interpretation of good faith as I have been stating. Of course there is not a violation but a pushing and an act of lack of good faith due to the momentum and sportmanship.

regarding the courtesy to the players and not letting people into the court, what i meant and this is clearer now to see, is that it is a rule intended not to bother the players as not to distract them.
This is exactly the same. cos Nadal should have waited for the changeover if he could still move in courtesy to Del Potro and to not distract him (good faith). In Nalbandian's match against Federer it wasn't until 2 changeovers until David got to be treated after he requested medical timeout... do you see the point?

Ill keep you all posted what he tells me. If anyone has an specific question for Steiner on this or a similar matter please do let me know and Ill just ask him straight ahead, record it and transcript

Sophocles
06-30-2011, 04:19 AM
Nadull is a pathetic cheat and anybody trying to defend that scum is a moron.

I mean, think about it? Does Nadal actually need to do all this cheating to win? I mean, isn't he good enough? After 10 fucking slams?

Of course he doesn't. That's what makes me sick.

bobbynorwich
09-11-2012, 05:44 AM
Just before Murray was to serve up 5-2 in the fifth set for the USO '12 Championship, Djokovic called for a 3 minute medical timeout to massage his cramped quad muscle.

Commentators suggested this might be gamesmanship to "ice the kicker" --- make the next up guy sit a few minutes to over-think or tighten on the next point. John McEnroe implied that the option for medical timeouts for cramping muscles should be re-evaluated.

Yes or no?

Topspindoctor
09-11-2012, 05:47 AM
MugEnroe talking about gamesmanship :superlol:

I'd so loved it if he played in the modern era and Djoker/Nadal took MTO before he served for the match in a slam, he would fly into one his classic rages and the umpire would disqualify him. Would be epic as hell.