Rafael Nadal and the time violation issue: Is it time for another review of the rule?

Rafael Nadal speaking to the media at a press conference

One might as well admit it. If not for Rafael Nadal, who keeps bringing the issue to the forefront time and again, the debate surrounding the time violation rule in tennis would likely have died a respectful death by now. Each time the issue seems to have been resolved, there occurs a chance incident involving the Spaniard that invariably gives rise to newer bouts of the why’s and why not’s about the existence of the rule.

This time round it was the Monte Carlo Masters third round match between Rafa and Russian Teymuraz Gabashvili that set in motion another cycle of debates involving the time violation issue. Though Rafa won the match comfortably in straight sets, his irritation with umpire Pascal Maria continued long after the match ended as he ranted about how umpires needed to use discretion while deciding when to enforce the rule and when not to.

For the uninitiated, here’s a bit of background information. The time rule, after slight alterations introduced by the ATP in 2013, states that players have to resume play within 25 seconds between points, failing which they will be penalised. The penalty would be in the form of a warning the first time they fail to comply with the rule, and with a fault (for the player who’s serving) and a point penalty for the receiver for the second (and all following violations).

Basically, it means that the second (or any subsequent time) a player takes more than 25 seconds between points, his first serve will be taken away if he’s serving, while he will have to concede the point if he’s returning.

Looking strictly at the words alone, it stands to reason that umpires would need to employ discretion when deciding on penalising a player for time-violation. A longer rally would necessitate the players to take a longer time to regroup, which essentially would mean going over the 25-second time-frame. At the same time however, it is clear that the concept of discretionary enforcement would have to be used a lot more in matches involving players who have a style that involves prolonged shot-making – one of them being Rafa himself.

There is also this to consider: several leading players are able to adhere to the rule irrespective of the duration of the point.

Does that make the aspect of discretion a tad unjust? It certainly does seem that the discretionary power would benefit some players more than others – defensive/counterpunching players would, in essence, be allowed to get away with failing to comply with the regulations. That in turn casts doubt about calls for such discretion by Nadal and other players.

Janko Tipsarevic pointed out during the 2013 Chennai Open that for a player like him, who not only sweats a lot but also wears glasses, the 25-second rule becomes a bit difficult to adhere to. But while Tipsarevic may be a rarity as far as bespectacled tennis players are concerned, the point that he made (which he did almost immediately after the rule was introduced) about players who sweat more than others, does seem to have a fair bit of relevance.

Would it help to tweak the rule a little more to ensure that all parties are on equal footing? Right now, the players seem to be divided into two major camps – the players who feel aggrieved by the umpires penalising them, and the players who feel that they would be following the rule for no discernible reason if discretion was applied. For players who have a distinctly grinding style of play that involves mechanically breaking apart their opponents’ game, the 25-second rule seems unduly harsh; conversely, doing away with the rule would unfairly penalize those players who don’t predominantly engage in long and extended rallies.

So how do we reach a middle ground?

Rather than have a generic cataloguing of time violation regulations and penalising players based on that, it might be useful if factors like playing conditions and stage of match are also evaluated and taken into consideration.

One way of doing that could be to extend the 25-second limit in cases of rallies that extend beyond, say, 20 shots, or where the game duration has extended beyond, say, 10 minutes. The umpire in that case may allow a slightly longer time, say 30 seconds, between points. Further adjustments could also be made for the number of points played in the game and number of games played in the match.

The major benefit of such a change in the rules is that it would eliminate the ambiguity factor that invariably arises with the word ‘discretion’. There would be no doubt about the powers of the officials then; the umpires wouldn’t be able to exert any influence on the match based on their subjective opinion.

Most importantly, however, such a change would possibly mean a reduction in the number of complaints to the media made by players like Nadal. We really don’t need to debate this issue any more than we have already!