Mens Tennis Forums banner

Is Courier right?

  • Yes - umpires shouldn't influence outcome of the match

    Votes: 30 46.2%
  • No - rather give penalties on big points

    Votes: 35 53.8%
1 - 20 of 125 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,639 Posts
Discussion Starter #1
Courier on Rafa’s Time Violations: Umpires Have to Stop Doing This

Rafael Nadal was once again hit with two time violations, this time by French umpire Damien Dumusois, during his round of 16 victory over Jack Sock in Paris, one of which cost him a first serve and ended up leading to a crucial break of serve.

This is not the first time Nadal has been hit for time violations and it won’t be the last (he’s notoriously slow, and it’s well-documented), but Tennis Channel commentator and two-time Roland Garros champion Jim Courier thinks umpires need to “chillax.”

Courier noted that Sock had failed to serve before the mandatory 20-second deadline between points 67 percent of the time, but had not been docked.

He also said that umpires need to be consistent. If Nadal is late on every point they should hit him early rather than wait until a critical juncture, which is how they normally deal with it.

“They have to stop doing this,” said Courier. “They have to stop hitting him with warnings on big points, because he’s consistently over 20 seconds virtually every point he serves. Either he needs to speed up or they need to get him earlier in the match on meaningless points, but to do it on break points is maddening to me.”

The ITF, which mandates the Grand Slams, allows for 20 seconds between points, rather than the 25 that the ATP uses.

“There’s nothing that Nadal is doing that is gamesmanship,” said Courier. “He’s just getting ready for a huge point. He takes too much time, we know this.”

As Tennis Channel put up a graphic that showed Nadal had not served a single time without taking more than 20 seconds (Sock had gone over on 66 percent of his serve points, according to the graphic), Courier said: “Every single point that he’s served he’s been over the time, but the umpire has chosen the most challenging points for Nadal on serve to hit him with the warnings—that’s the part that has to come to an end. It has to stop.”

Courier’s argument was that umpires should be hitting Nadal with violations from the start. He believes if they did, Nadal would adjust. “If you just start hitting him one after another, he would eventually start playing faster. If you hit him every single point, he would eventually say ‘Okay, this umpire’s serious.”
http://www.tennisnow.com/Blogs/NET-POSTS/June-2015/Courier-on-Rafa’s-Time-Violations-Umpires-Have-to.aspx

I personally feel that Courier is spot on.

If Jack Sock went over 20 seconds 67% of the time and Nadal 100%... then why punish Nadal on most crucial points only?

Imo doing it that way is trying to influence the outcome of the match rather than to reduce the time used between points.

So... is Jim right?
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
13,904 Posts
No. Give the penalty when the rule's broken. If you know you can bend the rule to distract your opponent on a big point, why would you not do it?

Nadal did it constantly against Federer and it just should not be allowed.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
645 Posts
So... is Jim right?
yes.
Nadal needs to be penalized from the start, on every single point.
after 2 games top he would either adjust or kill the umpire. either way, tennis wins.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,639 Posts
Discussion Starter #5
So, he actually never served on time, yet Courier doesn't see that as a problem, the problem is something else? :)
Well obviously the problem is 20 second rule which is insane...

But read the article first before commenting... Courier has valid point: give the penalties when someone exceeds the time instead of waiting until he faces a break point.. That's just wrong.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
5,060 Posts
The problem is that Nadal has been notorious for this behavior for years and mostly got away with it. His constant complaining and having an umpire removed from his matches, may have caused a backlash among other umpires. The tennis channel announcers are basically Federer and Nadal ass lickers, and mostly ignorant of tennis history. The only ones I have respect for are Navratilova and Gimbleslob. Courier is a Nadal type crybaby and an annoying arrogant know it all.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
4,281 Posts
So a player is allowed to cheat on critical points? Sounds like a great idea.

Regarding your last comment. Obviously it would be better if they got instant warning. The umpires are lenient. But on critical points the time wasting by some players unnamed here becomes deliberately ridiculous and they are forced to react. Plus - if certain players truly got warnings whenever they violated the rules - they would be defaulted on the match repeatedly. Nadal and his fans should count themselves lucky the rules weren't enforced to this point.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,807 Posts
Giving the penalties on big points helps drive home the point.

STOP WASTING TIME

But on the other hand, giving a time warning violation from the beginning might be the better option since it will help speed things for the whole match.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
13,564 Posts
Give them constantly. When they lose a game once or twice for time wasting, we'll find out very soon everyone can serve within time after all.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Tennis4Lyf

·
Registered
Joined
·
27,241 Posts
Stupid thread title as usual.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
4,944 Posts
They should make it a 5 or 10-second rule IMO. Only Kyrgios and Tomic would win matches.

Or back-injured Nadal (did you see how little time he took between points against Wawrinka at the AO?).
For every confirmed time violation (using a clock on the court) they should give the other player additional serve in the next game so that he can serve three times whenever he chooses.

Grinders wouldn't mind, I guess.
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
21,324 Posts
Well obviously the problem is 20 second rule which is insane...

But read the article first before commenting... Courier has valid point: give the penalties when someone exceeds the time instead of waiting until he faces a break point.. That's just wrong.
If the rule is the problem, then they should change the rule (scrap it, shot clock, whatever), breaking it routinely is not the solution. I've read the article already and Courier is just fanboying. Umpires usually give verbal warning once or several times before the actual warning.
 

·
The Last Mohican
Joined
·
24,521 Posts
Cheaters will always be punished under an honourable game. The way you said it, Nadull gets off lightly. Of course Sock should also be punished. All cheats should, as they disgrace the game.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
10,559 Posts
“They have to stop doing this,” said Courier. “They have to stop hitting him with warnings on big points, because he’s consistently over 20 seconds virtually every point he serves. Either he needs to speed up or they need to get him earlier in the match on meaningless points, but to do it on break points is maddening to me.”
Why do people rush to hate and bash players before reading and understanding anything. Courier did not say what Nadal did was right. He is just asking them to be consistent and do it from the beginning. Is it that difficult to comprehend.

A few peoples' lives will be peaceful only if Rafa retires. I hope he retires for the good of a few souls.

Rafa was over the time limit almost the entire match and receives warnings. How is the consistent? That umpire is failing to do his job. Give him a warning in the first service game if he is late. Why wait until 6-1 5-3 30-40*. And co-incidentally he got only 2 warning during the entire match where he served for at least 80 points. ONLY 2!! ONLY 2!!! And that too on BPs. Absolutely funny and ridiculous. If the umpires can be so selective in applying the rules, there is something seriously wrong in debating this topic at all.

I know very well that Rafa was over the time limit and should speed up. He is completely wrong. I would be glad if he received penalties too. But not selectively. Sock was over the time. In Tsonga-Berdych match, Tsonga was constantly over the 20 sec in the third set. And Sharapova does not receive warnings at all. This debate will go on for a long time.

My point: RULE IS GOOD FOR THE GAME. USE IT CONSISTENTLY OR STOP FOOLING AROUND.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
4,064 Posts
Jim Courier said:
Courier’s argument was that umpires should be hitting Nadal with violations from the start. He believes if they did, Nadal would adjust. “If you just start hitting him one after another, he would eventually start playing faster. If you hit him every single point, he would eventually say ‘Okay, this umpire’s serious.”
Wrong. If an umpire did this he would never call a Nadal match ever again! Or worse even lose his job.

1st of all the rule should be the same for ITF and ATP events. 20 sec for slams and 25 for ATP events is bullshit. It should be 25 sec for everything.

2nd Nadal does this on breakpoints intentionally, to stop the opponents momentum. He takes more time than on normal points. So in fairness to the opponent a good umpire has to call the time violation warning especially at breakpoint.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,639 Posts
Discussion Starter #17
Giving the penalties on big points helps drive home the point.
The problem is that it actually does not.

It doesn't speed up the game more than giving a warning on any other point... it just influences outcome of the match. For example Nadal got one warning and one penalty - both on breakpoints. I don't think that sped up his game more than doing so on other points.

Furthermore, everyone goes regularly over the time limit on break points, even the fast servers. Making an example on match deciding points is incorrect and inconsistent way of influencing the pace of the game. It's influencing the match result rather than the pace it's played.

For example on tomorrow's Nada-Djokovic match my prediction is that BOTH will go over the 20s time every break point, and on most if not all of the break points over 25s as well. So should the umpire suddenly on critical point dock first serve for other player and thus decide the match? I don't think so.

...The intention of the rule is not to favour the faster server but to keep time in check which can be done on regular points as well. Also I understand that the rule was designed to disallow tactical time wasting, which Courier correctly argues Nadal isn't guilty of.

Actually, umpire Damien Dumusois may have already decided the winner of RG 2015; as Nadal's confidence my have taken a hit yesterday after losing the set after serving for the match.
Could've been different with a first serve, straights sets win with impeccable performance resulting to high confidence. I hope it isn't so.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,639 Posts
Discussion Starter #18
2nd Nadal does this on breakpoints intentionally, to stop the opponents momentum. He takes more time than on normal points. So in fairness to the opponent a good umpire has to call the time violation warning especially at breakpoint.
That is incorrect. EVERYONE takes more time on breakpoints. I have stats on that...
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
8,327 Posts
Well obviously the problem is 20 second rule which is insane...

But read the article first before commenting... Courier has valid point: give the penalties when someone exceeds the time instead of waiting until he faces a break point.. That's just wrong.
The thing is come break point Nadal takes even longer. The umpire might be giving Nadal the benefit of the doubt up till then, or he is only going over by a couple of seconds, then comes a BP and he goes over by 10-15 secs, so he is clearly doing it for an advantage or to disrupt the returner.

If umpires aren't going to enforce the 20 sec rule strictly, I'm at least in favour of them enforcing it when a player is obviously taking extra time before a big point.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
13,564 Posts
That is incorrect. EVERYONE takes more time on breakpoints. I have stats on that...
No, they don't. You have shit, not stats. The majority of players still do not exceed time limit on BPs, even if they take a few seconds longer, but since they serve well within time otherwise, they are still within rules. Fanboy agenda, pfft. Sickening.
 
1 - 20 of 125 Posts
Top