I asked this a few days ago in another thread and got not response, so I thought I would address it here.

As most of you know, Kane recently had to withdraw from the final at Cactus, giving Rocky the victory:
http://www.irt-tour.com/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=255:the-cactus-salon-nyc-open-returns-&catid=3:newsflash

6-time #1-ranked World Racquetball Champion, Kane Waselenchuk ended his 137-match unbeaten streak spanning three years, one of the longest active winning streaks in professional sports history, when he forfeited due to injury during the first game of the Championship match against the #2 ranked player, Rocky Carson at the Cactus Salon NYC Pro/Am January 15, 2012 at Synergy Fitness North, Syosset, NY. . . .

Rocky Carson sprinted out of the gate to a 5-0 lead. Then, the unthinkable happened. Kane Waselenchuk stepped off of the court for an injury timeout. Waselenchuk later said that he had hurt his back last weekend at the Coast-to-Coast California Open, but had kept it under wraps. It's bothered him since, but he'd managed to loosen it up. Not today. To follow the proper timeout and injury timeout procedures, Waselenchuk was allowed one minute for a regular timeout plus a 15-minute injury timeout. Waselenchuk was off of the court for 16 minutes, which in reality felt like hours. Waselenchuk’s 136-match winning streak would be over if he didn’t step back on the court to play.

Waselenchuk should never be counted out, and he did not let himself go down with a score of zero. No donuts on Sundays. Waselenchuk got back into the clear-walled box and attempted his final stand. He managed to get on the board with 2 points before laying down his crown to Rocky Carson. No one wants to see a game end that way, but the most important thing is the health and well being of the players.

In the post-game interview, Carson said that he never wanted to win that way. Carson wanted to play through the tough times, referring to their numerous meetings for the championship title. However, unpredictability in life must be dealt with as best as possible. Waselenchuk was upset afterwards, but realistic. "Such is life." He'd felt a problem in the warm up when he "couldn'thit the ball with pace or do anything." He said he'd always try, but his back was telling him "no" while his mind said "yes." He was grateful for the people and support around him since without them, he'd "probably do something stupid and try to play." He was going to go home and get it fixed. He never got into racquetball to have a streak like he has; his overall goal is to be #1. If that means he'll have a winning streak, so be it. But, "losing once in awhile is okay, too."

He finished the interview by saying that he looks forwards to getting back in full swing at the next Tier 1, MonaVie Salt Lake City Pro-Am in Utah, February 1-4. "I don't have to tell anyone that I'll be back and 100%. I'll be ready for it. I have, like, three weeks off and will get it fixed. The old Kane will be back."

He will still remain the #1 player in the world and arguably the best player to ever play the game of racquetball.

He may have saved his streak if he had forfeited before stepping on the court. But a champion cannot give up. So it all ends, in a case of unfortunate events, at 137.

***************************************

I didn't see the match, and this story on the IRT website was all that I knew about what happened. It says that Kane had back trouble from a previous event, he got behind in a game in this final match again Rocky, and then he just walked off the court for an injury timeout with back trouble.

Here's the problem: As they are presently published, the rules of the IRT and the USAR specifically prohibit an injury timeout under such circumstances.

From the IRT rules:

Injury Timeouts
• If a player is injured during the course of a match as a result of contact, such as with the ball, racquet, wall or floor, an injury timeout will be awarded. While a player may call more than one timeout for the same injury or for additional injuries that occur during the match, a player has two seven and one half minute (7.5) timeouts per match for an injury during the entire match. If the injured player is not able to resume play after the two time outs are used, the match shall be awarded to his opponent.


From the USAR rules:

Rule 3.16 Timeouts
(b) Injury. If a player is injured during the course of a match because of contact, such as with the ball, racquet, wall, floor, or another player, an injury timeout will be awarded without regard to the player‟s use of regular timeouts. While a player may call more than one timeout for the same injury or for additional injuries that occur during the match, a player is not allowed more than a total of 15 minutes of rest for injury during the entire match. If the injured player is not able to resume play after total rest of 15 minutes, the match shall be awarded to the opponent.

1. Should any external bleeding occur, the referee must halt play as soon as the rally is over, charge an injury timeout to the person who is bleeding, and not allow the match to continue until the bleeding has stopped.

2. Muscle cramps and pulls, fatigue, and other ailments that are not caused by direct contact on the court will not be considered an injury. Injury time is also not allowed for pre-existing conditions.


So my questions are:

1. Is the story at the IRT website accurate? That is to say, is it true that Kane's injury at Cactus did not involve contact with the ball, the wall, the floor, a player, or a racquet?

2. If no such contact was involved, why was an injury timeout granted when the rules don't seem to allow for it?

3. What are the details of what happened and what factors were involved in allowing Kane to take those injury timeouts before he had to forfeit?

The rule still seems a little subjective to me. Exactly what does "contact with the floor" mean? Does stepping on a wet spot, slipping, and tweaking something count? Couldn't somebody say that happened and he/she tweaked his/her back? I don't know how you police that.

It explicitly states that muscle pulls, cramps, pre-existing injuries, and fatigue do not qualify for an injury timeout. What is so subjective about that?

Referee's can enforce the rule simply by asking a few penetrating questions e.g., what seems to be the problem? why are you requesting injury time? if the answers are not satisfactory then refuse to allow injury time.

Yes, Kane got special treatment. But I'm pretty sure other players have as well. I remember a match in 2001 between Jason and Jack at the U.S. Open and in the 5th game Jason called for an injury timeout because of a clear muscle pull. After a long injury timeout he got back on the court and closed out the match. Spidey will have this one on video.

The WPRO commissioner gave Paola a similar bit of favorable treatment against Christie Van Hees in (2009?) at the Dallas WPRO stop. Paola pulled her hamstring somewhere in the middle of the 5th game, Christie was up, and Paola was off the court for 15-ish minutes. When she came back, she closed out the match, but the long delay had clearly iced Christie's game.

Although I'm a huge Paola fan, it was not an injury that was allowed under the injury timeout rules, she should have been back on the court in 1 minute or forfeited.

It happens! Sometimes the refs and people in charge do NOT know the rules.

Seems like the players don't either. Why wouldn't Christie had just said something? No one wants to probably win that way, but a rule is a rule - like the 15 minute late for a match rule. It also shouldn't be the opposing player's call. It should just be automatic. If the opposing player makes that call it makes them look like a bad sport.

rballonline

Seems like the players don't either. Why wouldn't Christie had just said something? No one wants to probably win that way, but a rule is a rule - like the 15 minute late for a match rule. It also shouldn't be the opposing player's call. It should just be automatic. If the opposing player makes that call it makes them look like a bad sport.

Christie and Jack both brought it up as I recall, but Shannon was the one standing there tending to the situation, and nothing was done.

Mannino got an injury timeout for his calf pull in the 2009 Kentucky Pro Am also. Just for more data points.

Kane never actually touches the floor; he levitates above it.

So when Rocky rolled off 5 quick points, Kane's feet fell to the floor, making clear contact. Thus, two injury TO's.

-Jim

JCamasto

Kane never actually touches the floor; he levitates above it.

So when Rocky rolled off 5 quick points, Kane's feet fell to the floor, making clear contact. Thus, two injury TO's.

-Jim

Now I get it!!!.......thanks for the laugh this morning, I owe you one!!

Priceless....hahaha

Hilario

It explicitly states that muscle pulls, cramps, pre-existing injuries, and fatigue do not qualify for an injury timeout. What is so subjective about that?

I'm asking if slipping on a wet spot that causes an injury falls under the contact with the floor rule.

Bryan Shaw

Hilario

It explicitly states that muscle pulls, cramps, pre-existing injuries, and fatigue do not qualify for an injury timeout. What is so subjective about that?

I'm asking if slipping on a wet spot that causes an injury falls under the contact with the floor rule.

I think the rule is implying a contact injury e.g., a contusion. If the result of slipping is that you land on your hip, to me that would qualify as injury time. If you pull a muscle, then no.

[/quote] I think the rule is implying a contact injury e.g., a contusion. If the result of slipping is that you land on your hip, to me that would qualify as injury time. If you pull a muscle, then no.[/quote]

I think...to me...

This is why it seems subjective to me.

Bryan Shaw

I think the rule is implying a contact injury e.g., a contusion. If the result of slipping is that you land on your hip, to me that would qualify as injury time. If you pull a muscle, then no.[/quote]

I think...to me...

This is why it seems subjective to me.[/quote] I gave my interpretation to a well-defined rule. Why don't you explain your rationale, however subjective that is, for allowing injury time for slipping and straining something? Foot contact with the floor is what is supposed to happen. If you slip, that is because of a lack of friction and contact with the floor. so far you're the only one here claiming that slipping and pulling something involves contact with the floor. I gave an example of an injury that can happen because of contact with the floor. Sooooo....

My question is if it is an acceptable injury (for an injury time out) to slip on a wet spot and injure something, without crashing into the floor and drawing blood. If so, then it seems hard to enforce as somebody could slip on a wet spot at any time and tweak his/her back.

Only the person claiming injury can tell if he/she is actually injured. If the person is bleeding, then the person is bleeding. If the person has an injury beneath the skin that we can't see (back, joint pain, etc.), then how do we know? If the person needs to have contact with the wall they could simply take a regular time out, clip his/her shoulder against the door on the way out of the court and have an injury appears closing to satisfying the injury time out.

The rule is objective but the interpretation involves your subjective interpretation and perspective. Did you actually see the person get injured or were you following the ball during the rally and after it was over notice that the person never got off the floor? Do you think the person is really injured? Is he/she faking to just buy more time?

I think about this with the equipment time outs as well. My lanyard fell out. My grip started to unravel. My strings are too loose (not sure if that actually qualifies). I don't see the players abusing that rule, but it seems that there could be a good reason just about any time to get an equipment time out.

Bryan Shaw

I'm asking if slipping on a wet spot that causes an injury falls under the contact with the floor rule.

no, that's Kane walking on water

OK, before all the wit and banter gets carried away, a legitimate question was asked.
Could the ref give his interpretation of his decision or Jason clarify? If it was simply a blown situation so be it, we all can do is move forward with that ... but what happened?

tonyh

OK, before all the wit and banter gets carried away, a legitimate question was asked.
Could the ref give his interpretation of his decision or Jason clarify? If it was simply a blown situation so be it, we all can do is move forward with that ... but what happened?

Yeah, I was just making a play on words about the walk on water, it was just too good to pass up. I've got nothing at all against Kane, in fact he's my favorite contending player ahead of Rocky and Jose Rojas.

I know that the site has been funky and all and people are busy, but these questions have been floating here for nearly three weeks and nobody's ponying up on what really happened.

Lack of transparency doesn't bode well for any organization, and the IRT is no exception.

This isn't an idle query, this involved "the streak," something that a lot of players have been following so it has relevance. I've heard a lot of grumbling about this issue, it's not going to go away, in fact it seems to be festering.

If I were head of the IRT, I would address this, the good the bad or the ugly. It does matter what the rank-and-file think.

Can anybody remember an instance when the rule was enforced properly (injury time out denied due to pre-existing condition or lack of contact with the floor or wall?)? If so, then there is probably more of a claim that Kane received special treatment. If not, then maybe it is just one of those rules that isn't enforced like it should be.

Bryan Shaw

If not, then maybe it is just one of those rules that isn't enforced like it should be.

Bryan, wouldn't it be wiser to amend/remove the rule? It seems racquetball already has enough "rules" that are subject to everyones personal interpretation, yet alone desire to follow. Now we want to continue the tradition at the professional level? Then again maybe you're right, just add it to the "one of those rules that isn't enforced like it should be" of the sport of racquetball.