Stan Wants a Rematch

[Murat B.]

That's why I'm going to feel a little bit bad when Rafa beats him.


Thanks for the intel!

Nah.. I liked Stan's game but the way he carried on when Rafa had the injury timeout and all that Noise afterwards of that final, I could care less for him.

The way I remember it, Stan was trying to find out what the injury time-out was for, and the Ump was just not telling him. He was saying he had a right to know, since you cannot call time outs for the same injury...I thought he had a point.

 

[Moxie]

That's why I'm going to feel a little bit bad when Rafa beats him.


Thanks for the intel!

Nah.. I liked Stan's game but the way he carried on when Rafa had the injury timeout and all that Noise afterwards of that final, I could care less for him.

The way I remember it, Stan was trying to find out what the injury time-out was for, and the Ump was just not telling him. He was saying he had a right to know, since you cannot call time outs for the same injury...I thought he had a point.

I sort of remember that, too, but you have to think that the chair wasn't in a position to opine, at that point. But had Nadal called for an ITO at that point? I don't remember any in the first. I think we're talking about the ITO early in the 2nd. That's when Stan was complaining, right?

 

[Murat B.]

That's why I'm going to feel a little bit bad when Rafa beats him.


Thanks for the intel!

Nah.. I liked Stan's game but the way he carried on when Rafa had the injury timeout and all that Noise afterwards of that final, I could care less for him.

The way I remember it, Stan was trying to find out what the injury time-out was for, and the Ump was just not telling him. He was saying he had a right to know, since you cannot call time outs for the same injury...I thought he had a point.

I sort of remember that, too, but you have to think that the chair wasn't in a position to opine, at that point. But had Nadal called for an ITO at that point? I don't remember any in the first. I think we're talking about the ITO early in the 2nd. That's when Stan was complaining, right?

I honestly do not remember the order of events, but I remember Stan demanding to know what the time out was for. The whole thing was surreal so some details escape me.

 

[Kieran]

He's not entitled to know what the time-out is for, that was why he got even more ratty. The umpire doesn't have to tell him...

 

[Murat B.]

He's not entitled to know what the time-out is for, that was why he got even more ratty. The umpire doesn't have to tell him...

If that is the official rule, that has to change, like, right now. How are you ever going to convince any player that their opponent is NOT calling time outs for the same injury????

 

[Kieran]

He's not entitled to know what the time-out is for, that was why he got even more ratty. The umpire doesn't have to tell him...

If that is the official rule, that has to change, like, right now. How are you ever going to convince any player that their opponent is NOT calling time outs for the same injury????

It's simple: the umpire won't give the time-out for the same injury. No need to let the opponent know anything, it all should be sorted by the chair...

 

[Murat B.]

He's not entitled to know what the time-out is for, that was why he got even more ratty. The umpire doesn't have to tell him...

If that is the official rule, that has to change, like, right now. How are you ever going to convince any player that their opponent is NOT calling time outs for the same injury????

It's simple: the umpire won't give the time-out for the same injury. No need to let the opponent know anything, it all should be sorted by the chair...

I am not happy with that arrangement Kieran, not happy at all:nono

 

[Moxie]

He's not entitled to know what the time-out is for, that was why he got even more ratty. The umpire doesn't have to tell him...

If that is the official rule, that has to change, like, right now. How are you ever going to convince any player that their opponent is NOT calling time outs for the same injury????

Calm down. If they are seen for the same injury, that's against rules, but I'm fairly certain we're talking about the first ITO. On the first one, he doesn't necessarily tell the chair why he needs one. And the chair should not be obligated to speculate for the satisfaction of the other player. When/if it comes up again, then they do have to declare.

 

[Kieran]

He's not entitled to know what the time-out is for, that was why he got even more ratty. The umpire doesn't have to tell him...

If that is the official rule, that has to change, like, right now. How are you ever going to convince any player that their opponent is NOT calling time outs for the same injury????

It's simple: the umpire won't give the time-out for the same injury. No need to let the opponent know anything, it all should be sorted by the chair...

I am not happy with that arrangement Kieran, not happy at all:nono

Why not? You think there's a conspiracy theory somewhere in it?

 

[Luxilon Borg]

He's not entitled to know what the time-out is for, that was why he got even more ratty. The umpire doesn't have to tell him...

If that is the official rule, that has to change, like, right now. How are you ever going to convince any player that their opponent is NOT calling time outs for the same injury????

Calm down. If they are seen for the same injury, that's against rules, but I'm fairly certain we're talking about the first ITO. On the first one, he doesn't necessarily tell the chair why he needs one. And the chair should not be obligated to speculate for the satisfaction of the other player. When/if it comes up again, then they do have to declare.

FYI, I just spent an hour reading the ITF/ATP rule book. There is no rule FOR informing the opponent about the details of an ITO, and there is no rule AGAINST giving details. So Stan had absolutely EVERY right to ask, but there was no obligation for him to be told what was going on. As a courtesy players are ALWAYS told from my experience. Even if a player is just going for a bathroom break the opponent is usually informed.

 

[Murat B.]

^Hehe...nooooooo. No conspiracies. I just need to know what is wrong with my opponent so I can exploit it better:snigger

 

[Moxie]

He's not entitled to know what the time-out is for, that was why he got even more ratty. The umpire doesn't have to tell him...

If that is the official rule, that has to change, like, right now. How are you ever going to convince any player that their opponent is NOT calling time outs for the same injury????

Calm down. If they are seen for the same injury, that's against rules, but I'm fairly certain we're talking about the first ITO. On the first one, he doesn't necessarily tell the chair why he needs one. And the chair should not be obligated to speculate for the satisfaction of the other player. When/if it comes up again, then they do have to declare.

FYI, I just spent an hour reading the ITF/ATP rule book. There is no rule FOR informing the opponent about the details of an ITO, and there is no rule AGAINST giving details. So Stan had absolutely EVERY right to ask, but there was no obligation for him to be told what was going on. As a courtesy players are ALWAYS told from my experience. Even if a player is just going for a bathroom break the opponent is usually informed.

Great research, LB. I appreciate the notion of a courtesy, when it's obvious, like a rolled ankle or a bent back knee, but I don't see why the chair should speculate unless they've been specifically told, on a first MTO. They'll know after, since they have to.

 

[Luxilon Borg]

He's not entitled to know what the time-out is for, that was why he got even more ratty. The umpire doesn't have to tell him...

If that is the official rule, that has to change, like, right now. How are you ever going to convince any player that their opponent is NOT calling time outs for the same injury????

Calm down. If they are seen for the same injury, that's against rules, but I'm fairly certain we're talking about the first ITO. On the first one, he doesn't necessarily tell the chair why he needs one. And the chair should not be obligated to speculate for the satisfaction of the other player. When/if it comes up again, then they do have to declare.

FYI, I just spent an hour reading the ITF/ATP rule book. There is no rule FOR informing the opponent about the details of an ITO, and there is no rule AGAINST giving details. So Stan had absolutely EVERY right to ask, but there was no obligation for him to be told what was going on. As a courtesy players are ALWAYS told from my experience. Even if a player is just going for a bathroom break the opponent is usually informed.

Great research, LB. I appreciate the notion of a courtesy, when it's obvious, like a rolled ankle or a bent back knee, but I don't see why the chair should speculate unless they've been specifically told, on a first MTO. They'll know after, since they have to.

I agree completely Mox..there is NO reason for the ump to guess. But...if he does know...that may be a different story.

I also think we need to establish the fact that Nadal broke NO rules, and everything was done exactly as the rule book outlines. It is on the atp website, and is pretty cool to browse through..

http://www.atpworldtour.com/Corporate/Rulebook.aspx

 

[Kieran]

^Hehe...nooooooo. No conspiracies. I just need to know what is wrong with my opponent so I can exploit it better:snigger

Well, the way I see this, it's all very simple. The umpire can look after all the warnings and prohibitions, so that all Rafa's opponent need do is hope that Rafa's really injured so he has a chance of beating him... :snigger

 

[Murat B.]

I agree completely Mox..there is NO reason for the ump to guess. But...if he does know...that may be a different story.

I also think we need to establish the fact that Nadal broke NO rules, and everything was done exactly as the rule book outlines. It is on the atp website, and is pretty cool to browse through..

http://www.atpworldtour.com/Corporate/Rulebook.aspx

What I am confused about is, the ump does not have to guess anything anyways. I mean, when the trainer is called, doesn't he have a chat with the ump regarding what he is doing on the court? He doesn't just walk on the court out of nowhere and start treating people. So, when he tells the ump something like " So and so's leg is hurting, that's why I am here" , that's all the ump has to relay to the other player...nobody is asking for details ...The ump does not have to say to the other player "He has a 4mm stress fracture on the left tibia..."

 

[Luxilon Borg]

I agree completely Mox..there is NO reason for the ump to guess. But...if he does know...that may be a different story.

I also think we need to establish the fact that Nadal broke NO rules, and everything was done exactly as the rule book outlines. It is on the atp website, and is pretty cool to browse through..

http://www.atpworldtour.com/Corporate/Rulebook.aspx

What I am confused about is, the ump does not have to guess anything anyways. I mean, when the trainer is called, doesn't he have a chat with the ump regarding what he is doing on the court? He doesn't just walk on the court out of nowhere and start treating people. So, when he tells the ump something like " So and so's leg is hurting, that's why I am here" , that's all the ump has to relay to the other player...nobody is asking for details ...The ump does not have to say to the other player "He has a 4mm stress fracture on the left tibia..."

No, i don't believe the trainer has to give the ump specifics. He can just tell him they are in the evaluation period, then progressing to the medical time out for treatment, or if they need to leave th court. Most of the time it is not a mystery if the treatment is on court.

 

[Moxie]

I agree completely Mox..there is NO reason for the ump to guess. But...if he does know...that may be a different story.

I also think we need to establish the fact that Nadal broke NO rules, and everything was done exactly as the rule book outlines. It is on the atp website, and is pretty cool to browse through..

http://www.atpworldtour.com/Corporate/Rulebook.aspx

What I am confused about is, the ump does not have to guess anything anyways. I mean, when the trainer is called, doesn't he have a chat with the ump regarding what he is doing on the court? He doesn't just walk on the court out of nowhere and start treating people. So, when he tells the ump something like " So and so's leg is hurting, that's why I am here" , that's all the ump has to relay to the other player...nobody is asking for details ...The ump does not have to say to the other player "He has a 4mm stress fracture on the left tibia..."

But I think Nadal was taken off court. How is the chair to know until the assessment is made?

 

[Luxilon Borg]

I agree completely Mox..there is NO reason for the ump to guess. But...if he does know...that may be a different story.

I also think we need to establish the fact that Nadal broke NO rules, and everything was done exactly as the rule book outlines. It is on the atp website, and is pretty cool to browse through..

http://www.atpworldtour.com/Corporate/Rulebook.aspx

What I am confused about is, the ump does not have to guess anything anyways. I mean, when the trainer is called, doesn't he have a chat with the ump regarding what he is doing on the court? He doesn't just walk on the court out of nowhere and start treating people. So, when he tells the ump something like " So and so's leg is hurting, that's why I am here" , that's all the ump has to relay to the other player...nobody is asking for details ...The ump does not have to say to the other player "He has a 4mm stress fracture on the left tibia..."

But I think Nadal was taken off court. How is the chair to know until the assessment is made?

Meanwhile Stan is pummeling his way through the draw, Rog is playing So So and Rafa is struggling.

 

[Murat B.]

I agree completely Mox..there is NO reason for the ump to guess. But...if he does know...that may be a different story.

I also think we need to establish the fact that Nadal broke NO rules, and everything was done exactly as the rule book outlines. It is on the atp website, and is pretty cool to browse through..

http://www.atpworldtour.com/Corporate/Rulebook.aspx

What I am confused about is, the ump does not have to guess anything anyways. I mean, when the trainer is called, doesn't he have a chat with the ump regarding what he is doing on the court? He doesn't just walk on the court out of nowhere and start treating people. So, when he tells the ump something like " So and so's leg is hurting, that's why I am here" , that's all the ump has to relay to the other player...nobody is asking for details ...The ump does not have to say to the other player "He has a 4mm stress fracture on the left tibia..."

But I think Nadal was taken off court. How is the chair to know until the assessment is made?

Moxie, I am not talking about details or any specifics as I mentioned before. But does not the ump have ANY idea why the trainer is on his court??? Somebody walks in your court mid match and takes a player of the court, the ump probably has to ask why , no? And the answer can be very vague, I am OK with that. Whatever that answer is, relay it to the other player, that's all I am saying.

 

[Kieran]

I still don't see why the other player should be told. The umpire, yes. But the opponent? None of his business, if the MTO is okay with the ump...