2014 Miami Quarterfinal: Murray vs. Djokovic

[calitennis127]

I was shocked to see that Murray lost to Djokovic. He has so many weapons. It's astonishing that he came up short.

 

[GameSetAndMath]

I was shocked to see that Murray lost to Djokovic. He has so many weapons. It's astonishing that he came up short.

Poor Cali, No one falls for these troll traps these days. :nono

 

[brokenshoelace]

http://www.tennis.com/pro-game/2014/03/djokovic-acknowledging-possible-mistake-controversial-call-against-murray/51017/#.UzNnP3_FIv4

Novak Djokovic was caught up in a controversy after reaching over the net to hit a ball in his Miami quarterfinal against Andy Murray. With Murray serving at 5-6 in the first set, Djokovic hit a volley to win the first point of the game. Replays clearly showed that Djokovic had reached over the net to hit the ball, which is against the rules.

Murray argued with the umpire after no call was made, and also questioned Djokovic, who said little. After losing the point, Murray dropped his serve at love to give Djokovic the first set. Murray would go on to lose the match, 7-5, 6-3.

The umpire told Murray that in his view, Djokovic had been in line with the net, but did not reach over it.

Djokovic later said he had reached over the net, but indicated that he thought he had been within the rules.

"It might be my mistake as well," Djokovic said afterwards in an ESPN interview with Brad Gilbert.

''I think I cross the net with the racquet, I didn't touch the net," he said, referring to last year's French Open semifinal against Rafael Nadal, when touching the net appeared to turn the match the Spaniard's favor in the fifth set.

''Maybe the rule is you [can] not hit on his side with the racquet. I'm not sure. You tell me."

Djokovic acknowledged that Murray seemed to be affected by the call. "Obviously that distracted him," he said.

I like Novak's displays of sportsmanship. I think he displays the most sportsmanship out of the top 4. But the moment I read Riotbeard's post about Novak giving the point to Robredo in the previous match, my first reaction was: That's cool, but he'd never do that on a crucial point or close game.

The reason I bring that up is because I think he got more credit than he should have. Case in point: Arguing with Pascal Maria after he touched the net against Nadal. I mean the rules were clear in that case.

My point: It's easier to show sportsmanship when you know you're going to win.

My point #2: He still shows more sportsmanship than most, so I'm not calling him out or anything. But it's important not to mistake him for a saint, which that post and the amount of "likes" it received seemed to suggest.

As far as the rules: You're only allowed to touch the ball on your opponent's side of the court if his ball has actually bounced on your side and rolled backwards over the net (think of a shot with extreme backspin, like a volley or something, that bounces on your side but jumps backwards over the net. In that case, you're actually allowed to lean over and hit it before it bounces again).

 

[brokenshoelace]

I just watched... the point. I think If you watch the whole chain of events from Novak hit the volley like he had just routinely won the point and nonchalantly walking back to his side of the court, you will see that , while it is amazing novak messed up that rule, it's pretty clear to me, that, at the time, he thinks what he did was legal. I don't think he was trying to get away with anything. Maybe it was just a brain lapse on his part, but I think he thought he had performed a perfectly legal shot.

The ump on the other hand was totally in the wrong. Clearly the point should have gone to Andy.

I honestly prefer to think that Novak knew he messed up and chose not to say anything over believing that a 6 time GS champion doesn't understand one of the most basic rules of tennis.

 

[brokenshoelace]

Also Novak said to Andy during the discussion, he hit the ball on Andy's side of the net, and he clearly saw that as legal. The ump is an idiot, as it is his job to know the rules in these moments.

I'm not 100% sure as I didn't rewind it but I read that the umpire made the point to Andy that Novak had said nothing to him. Not sure why the umpire expected Novak to do his job for him. Ultimately it was the fault of the umpire but it's not the first silly call made at this tournament and it won't be the last.

I watched the replay with incident in mind, and audibly says he went over the net, but argues (incorrectly) that he was within the rules, that is why I believe Andy cited Novak's words as evidence that Novak's racket passed the plane. The ref is just nuts...

If Novak truly thought this was legal, I doubt he would have waited till he's been on tour for 10 years before trying it for the first time. Let's not be naive.

 

[Kieran]

Crikey. Imagine the uproar if the ump had called against Nole. I know there's still Djokolites who think he was hard done by in Paris. In this case, he should have fessed up louder and made clear to the dope in the chair, I leaned over, so you call it.

As Broken said, it's easy to be a gracious sportsman when you're facing Tommy Robredo...

 

[TsarMatt]

I was shocked to see that Murray lost to Djokovic. He has so many weapons. It's astonishing that he came up short.

 

[sid]

Djoker stated afterwards that he told Murray at the net during their brief exchange that he thought he was allowed to proceed with the progression of the racket over the net.. he said, " I am unsure of the Rule" .. Djoker is Full of yesterday's Lunch!:laydownlaughing

Ah I see you are also not looking forward to Novak potentially playing your guy.

It's the ump's mistake. I thought too that you could proceed with the racket over the net as long as you hit it before. It should have been the ump's job to verify it, not Novak's.

Could you point me to all these posts saying Novak did something wrong? Because I saw one person call him a "cheet" and everyone else rightfully blaming the ref.

I'm honestly quite confused lol.

Cheating is the getting of reward for ability by dishonest means,Novak should know he was over the net.Oh house please don't single me out,what if the ump had taken that point away from Novak,i bet all hell would have broke lose.

 

[brokenshoelace]

For the record, I'm always hesitant to blame players for not pointing something out to the umpire. Hell, I thought people were too harsh on Raonic in the net debacle last year. It's an umpire's job to do his job (shocking, I know). If he doesn't, then we should be blaming him. Now if Novak indeed knew what he did was illegal and didn't say anything, then that's unfortunate but ultimately, I honestly might have done the same in that scenario.

 

[sid]

Nole saw the replay as well as Andy and he could see what he'd done and must have understood the argument (even if he HAD been unaware of the rule - a likely story). He should have conceded the point.

 

[Riotbeard]

I just watched... the point. I think If you watch the whole chain of events from Novak hit the volley like he had just routinely won the point and nonchalantly walking back to his side of the court, you will see that , while it is amazing novak messed up that rule, it's pretty clear to me, that, at the time, he thinks what he did was legal. I don't think he was trying to get away with anything. Maybe it was just a brain lapse on his part, but I think he thought he had performed a perfectly legal shot.

The ump on the other hand was totally in the wrong. Clearly the point should have gone to Andy.

I honestly prefer to think that Novak knew he messed up and chose not to say anything over believing that a 6 time GS champion doesn't understand one of the most basic rules of tennis.

Novak is not a saint, and i think you sum him up pretty well in the previous post. I don't get how Novak messed up this rule, but based on how he behaved throughout the incident, he either had a brain fart or is an incredibly, diabolical actor, because he completely cops to passing over the net and in front of a PROFESSIONAL RULE ENFORCER explains to Andy that passing over the net is legal (it's not). So either Novak is much slyer than a fox and played a deep con or he just messed up at doing the ump's job.

As evidence that Novak will be a great sportsman in crucial matches, I cite the case of wimbledon 2013 sf vs delpo. He and delpo (if I remember correctly) continued to advise each other on challenges as they do every time they play. If that is not evidence of being a good sportsman against real threats in big moments, then I don't know what is.

 

[Denis]

For the record, I'm always hesitant to blame players for not pointing something out to the umpire. Hell, I thought people were too harsh on Raonic in the net debacle last year. It's an umpire's job to do his job (shocking, I know). If he doesn't, then we should be blaming him. Now if Novak indeed knew what he did was illegal and didn't say anything, then that's unfortunate but ultimately, I honestly might have done the same in that scenario.

I highly doubt Novak knew. Otherwise he would have let the ball just go into the net.

 

[Denis]

I just watched... the point. I think If you watch the whole chain of events from Novak hit the volley like he had just routinely won the point and nonchalantly walking back to his side of the court, you will see that , while it is amazing novak messed up that rule, it's pretty clear to me, that, at the time, he thinks what he did was legal. I don't think he was trying to get away with anything. Maybe it was just a brain lapse on his part, but I think he thought he had performed a perfectly legal shot.

The ump on the other hand was totally in the wrong. Clearly the point should have gone to Andy.

I honestly prefer to think that Novak knew he messed up and chose not to say anything over believing that a 6 time GS champion doesn't understand one of the most basic rules of tennis.

Novak is not a saint, and i think you sum him up pretty well in the previous post. I don't get how Novak messed up this rule, but based on how he behaved throughout the incident, he either had a brain fart or is an incredibly, diabolical actor, because he completely cops to passing over the net and in front of a PROFESSIONAL RULE ENFORCER explains to Andy that passing over the net is legal (it's not). So either Novak is much slyer than a fox and played a deep con or he just messed up at doing the ump's job.

As evidence that Novak will be a great sportsman in crucial matches, I cite the case of wimbledon 2013 sf vs delpo. He and delpo (if I remember correctly) continued to advise each other on challenges as they do every time they play. If that is not evidence of being a good sportsman against real threats in big moments, then I don't know what is.

Amen. He's more sports than the majority and certainly more than the other top players, although the Fedster seems pretty okay too.

 

[Denis]

Crikey. Imagine the uproar if the ump had called against Nole. I know there's still Djokolites who think he was hard done by in Paris. In this case, he should have fessed up louder and made clear to the dope in the chair, I leaned over, so you call it.

As Broken said, it's easy to be a gracious sportsman when you're facing Tommy Robredo...

Maybe you should watch the point before commenting.

 

[Denis]

Nole saw the replay as well as Andy and he could see what he'd done and must have understood the argument (even if he HAD been unaware of the rule - a likely story). He should have conceded the point.

I don't think Novak should have conceded the point, he earned it. This makes it different from the Robredo situation. Just wasn't being a lawyer at the net. If anything, imagine the ump had given the point to Murray, it would have been sportsmanlike for Andy to concede it actually.

 

[Kieran]

Nole saw the replay as well as Andy and he could see what he'd done and must have understood the argument (even if he HAD been unaware of the rule - a likely story). He should have conceded the point.

I don't think Novak should have conceded the point, he earned it. This makes it different from the Robredo situation. Just wasn't being a lawyer at the net. If anything, imagine the ump had given the point to Murray, it would have been sportsmanlike for Andy to concede it actually.

How? Novak broke the rules, and therefore didn't earn the point. It should have been given against him.

By the way, I don't blame him for the furore, mini though it is...

 

[Denis]

Nole saw the replay as well as Andy and he could see what he'd done and must have understood the argument (even if he HAD been unaware of the rule - a likely story). He should have conceded the point.

I don't think Novak should have conceded the point, he earned it. This makes it different from the Robredo situation. Just wasn't being a lawyer at the net. If anything, imagine the ump had given the point to Murray, it would have been sportsmanlike for Andy to concede it actually.

How? Novak broke the rules, and therefore didn't earn the point. It should have been given against him.

By the way, I don't blame him for the furore, mini though it is...

A Nadal fan talking about breaking the rules... :s

 

[britbox]

Players are used to calling points long before they hit the big time and have the pleasure of umpires and line judges. An 8 year old junior knows if you touch the net you're conceding the point. The same junior will know if you're playing the ball on the wrong side of the net then you concede the point. Sure, some are border-line in the latter case but this particular instance appeared to be as obvious as you can get. I don't buy the "playing dumb" get out clause.

 

[Denis]

Players are used to calling points long before they hit the big time and have the pleasure of umpires and line judges. An 8 year old junior knows if you touch the net you're conceding the point. The same junior will know if you're playing the ball on the wrong side of the net then you concede the point. Sure, some are border-line in the latter case but this particular instance appeared to be as obvious as you can get. I don't buy the "playing dumb" get out clause.

If he knew it, why did he do it then? Did you even see the point?

 

[Kieran]

Nole saw the replay as well as Andy and he could see what he'd done and must have understood the argument (even if he HAD been unaware of the rule - a likely story). He should have conceded the point.

I don't think Novak should have conceded the point, he earned it. This makes it different from the Robredo situation. Just wasn't being a lawyer at the net. If anything, imagine the ump had given the point to Murray, it would have been sportsmanlike for Andy to concede it actually.

How? Novak broke the rules, and therefore didn't earn the point. It should have been given against him.

By the way, I don't blame him for the furore, mini though it is...

A Nadal fan talking about breaking the rules... :s

Rafa takes too long. Throw the rulebook at him. I never defend it. It's up to umps. And I applaud players who get in his face about it, and I always say this.

Nor should you defend Nole taking a point he lost. The point isn't over til it's over. That point was Murray's and there's no justification for giving it to Nole - or even saying he "earned it..."