2014 Miami Quarterfinal: Murray vs. Djokovic

[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.

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.

Bottom line is Novak broke the rules,@ that time it made a huge difference on the first set.Robredo situation was different,Novak knew who he was playing & it's the small things that change matches.

 

[Kieran]

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?

Here it is here, if he hasn't...

 

[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

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..."

Nadal structurally violates the rules. Djokovic was being careless. The ump should have given Murray the point. You guys are being ridiculous in requiring Novak to chair and play tennis too.

 

[Kieran]

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..."

Nadal structurally violates the rules. Djokovic was being careless. The ump should have given Murray the point. You guys are being ridiculous in requiring Novak to chair and play tennis too.

Well, Nole is no shrinking violet when it comes to taking his time, right?

Nobody is saying Nole should chair the match. But nor can anyone say he "earned" a point which he "structurally" lost....

 

[Riotbeard]

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

Andy should have gotten the point. The rules are the rules and if the situation was reversed I would be annoyed for Novak. I would not be mad at Murray though. I don't buy the idea that Novak intentionally, blatantly broke the rules and expected to get away with it. It would have to be about the dumbest scheme ever from an intelligent guy. It doesn't make any sense. He clearly concedes that he hit it on the other side of the net (10 feet from the ump talking to andy at the net), why the ump. did what he did is mind blowing?! I don't get how you can watch the tape though and think Novak is trying to pull something over on Murray.

[video=youtube]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=W7oIbh16aEM[/video]

The commentator says that Novak concedes he went over the net. I remember here novak saying it in the stream last night, but I honestly here well in this clip.

 

[Kieran]

Yeah, the ump seems oblivious to it all, which is the most incredible part. Nole is competing hard, so I don't throw the book at him. He seems to be wanting it cleared up. I don't even mind umps making mistakes, but this umpire seems merrily to be unaware of what's going on around him, which is bizarre...

 

[Front242]

If he waited a split second or let it bounce he was 100% gonna win that point anyway, despite his mostly terrible volleying. Either way it's the umpire's fault. Novak said his racquet was over the net and if the umpire doesn't know that's not allowed he shouldn't be an umpire but there's no reason to call Novak a cheat and all this bs 'cos the decision has to be made by the umpire.

Also it was only a point for 0-15. How can it be deemed so huge a point? Murray has a big serve and the tenacity to easily hold serve there and the way he folded like a cheap tent was his own fault. The absolute worst thing that occurred here was the point being replayed on the big screen right afterwards. Shoot the camera person (double knee capping should suffice) and never let them work on a tennis match ever again. Replays are not allowed to be done like this.

 

[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.

Bottom line is Novak broke the rules,@ that time it made a huge difference on the first set.Robredo situation was different,Novak knew who he was playing & it's the small things that change matches.

No, not really actually. Murray made it a huge difference. He demonstrated the mental resilience of a golden retriever after that point.

 

[Kieran]

Now, I don't know who called Novak a cheat, Front, but if anyone did, I agree with you: he didn't cheat.

I just took up the issue of him "earning" the point. It's kinda like the FO furore. The argument was, well, Rafa was never going to get the ball, so give the point to Nole. It doesn't work like that...

 

[Front242]

Sid called him a cheat, actually a "cheet" so maybe that's not as extreme

 

[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.

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.

Bottom line is Novak broke the rules,@ that time it made a huge difference on the first set.Robredo situation was different,Novak knew who he was playing & it's the small things that change matches.

No, not really actually. Murray made it a huge difference. He demonstrated the mental resilience of a golden retriever after that point.

To be fair Murray had the right to do that & say so.The small things are the difference when Murray & Novak play to who wins most times.With Mohamed Lahyani in the chair I don't see this happening.

 

[Kieran]

Sid called him a cheat, actually a "cheet" so maybe that's not as extreme

Well, nobody ever called Rafa a "cheetah" - he plays too slow to be called that!

 

[Denis]

Now, I don't know who called Novak a cheat, Front, but if anyone did, I agree with you: he didn't cheat.

I just took up the issue of him "earning" the point. It's kinda like the FO furore. The argument was, well, Rafa was never going to get the ball, so give the point to Nole. It doesn't work like that...

I agree with that. I mean, he should have lost the point, no doubt. But when we are talking about 'conceding' points, it is a different matter. I would concede a point on the basis of merit, not on the basis of legal technicalities. Again, not saying Novak should have gotten the point, just talking about when to concede and when not. And apparently Novak was ready to concede actually. So.

 

[Kieran]

To be fair Murray had the right to do that & say so.The small things are the difference when Murray & Novak play to who wins most times.With Mohamed Lahyani in the chair I don't see this happening.

He umpired the Wimbledon final? I think I remember him confusing the players once by forgetting or miscalling the score. He didn't have a great day there.

But this guy yesterday in Miami? He's like the referee who sent off the wrong player last weekend in the Arsenal match...

 

[Front242]

^ Yeah, he clearly said his racquet was over the net so when the umpire heard that he should've said, sorry I saw it differently from this angle but if you honestly say your racquet was on Andy's side of the net then by the rulebook I have to award the point to Andy. And that should've been it, done and dusted.

 

[Front242]

But clearly the umpire doesn't know the rules. Doesn't surprise me. I used to do my manager's job for 12 years 'cos he's a dumb POS.

 

[sid]

Sid called him a cheat, actually a "cheet" so maybe that's not as extreme

Nole had the chance to put this right when shown on the big screen,but he did not.

 

[Front242]

Sid called him a cheat, actually a "cheet" so maybe that's not as extreme

Nole had the chance to put this right when shown on the big screen,but he did not.

The replay should not be allowed and the umpire was 100% right when he said I can't make a decision based on the replay. They also showed a replay of Federer's possible double bounce at the AO against Murray and Federer quite rightly told the umpire that should not have been replayed. Whoever replayed both of those broke the rules.

 

[sid]

^ Yeah, he clearly said his racquet was over the net so when the umpire heard that he should've said, sorry I saw it differently from this angle but if you honestly say your racquet was on Andy's side of the net then by the rulebook I have to award the point to Andy. And that should've been it, done and dusted.

Lets say he award that point to Andy I bet Novak would have lost it maybe even broke his tennis racquet.

 

[Kieran]

But clearly the umpire doesn't know the rules. Doesn't surprise me. I used to do my manager's job for 12 years 'cos he's a dumb POS.

Brother, getting you to do his job for 12 years shows he maybe cleverer than you think. I had a manager like that and I schemed my way into his job after four years...