Are we just going to ignore the two most important moments in this semi finals?

[coban]

1. Hawk-eye vs. umpire calls?
2. The smash point which lead to Djokovic being broken?

---

1. Either u use Hawk-eye 100%, or you don't. Initially when the umpire came down to make the call i thought it was good - but when the hawk-eye showed that it was in i felt i was a disaster.

2. Clearly this was a 100% point for Djokovic. What are the main reasons for this rule in the first place?

 

[the AntiPusher]

1. Hawk-eye vs. umpire calls?
2. The smash point which lead to Djokovic being broken?

---

1. Either u use Hawk-eye 100%, or you don't. Initially when the umpire came down to make the call i thought it was good - but when the hawk-eye showed that it was in i felt i was a disaster.

2. Clearly this was a 100% point for Djokovic. What are the main reasons for this rule in the first place?

Clearly this was a 100% point for Djokovic. What are the main reasons for this rule in the first place?

If you are referring to the in the Net rule before the ball bounces 2 times on the other side.. it is one of the 1st and severe rule in tennis that is in stated in the tennis rule book , you cant touch the net. Can you imagine how many times I have seen that rule enforced, 100 % of the time. It was the correct ruling, no doubt

 

[brokenshoelace]

1- Absolutely. Just use hawk-eye. It actually saves time, since the umpires would never need to leave their chairs. Moreover, on a hard court/grass match, you're allowed 3 incorrect challenges per set only. On clay, it seems like you're allowed 100 of them, since you can just ask the umpire to check a mark any time you want, without any consequences.

2- Rules are rules. What are you talking about? This shouldn't have been Djokovic's point because the rule says you can't touch the net. He clearly did before the ball bounced twice.

 

[coban]

1- Absolutely. Just use hawk-eye. It actually saves time, since the umpires would never need to leave their chairs. Moreover, on a hard court/grass match, you're allowed 3 incorrect challenges per set only. On clay, it seems like you're allowed 100 of them, since you can just ask the umpire to check a mark any time you want, without any consequences.

2- Rules are rules. What are you talking about? This shouldn't have been Djokovic's point because the rule says you can't touch the net. He clearly did before the ball bounced twice.

2. The ball was far up on the stadium when he touched the net - i think common sense dictates that this should have been a point for djokovic. Thats why my question is: Why are the rules the way they are? What were the main reasons for these rules... i understand why the umpire couldn't make the call any different because of the current rules - but what are the main reasons for what i feel is a bad/flawed rule?

 

[brokenshoelace]

1- Absolutely. Just use hawk-eye. It actually saves time, since the umpires would never need to leave their chairs. Moreover, on a hard court/grass match, you're allowed 3 incorrect challenges per set only. On clay, it seems like you're allowed 100 of them, since you can just ask the umpire to check a mark any time you want, without any consequences.

2- Rules are rules. What are you talking about? This shouldn't have been Djokovic's point because the rule says you can't touch the net. He clearly did before the ball bounced twice.

2. The ball was far up on the stadium when he touched the net - i think common sense dictates that this should have been a point for djokovic. Thats why my question is: Why are the rules the way they are? What were the main reasons for these rules... i understand why the umpire couldn't make the call any different because of the current rules - but what are the main reasons for what i feel is a bad/flawed rule?

It's a flawed rule, but it has to be that way otherwise it would be a bit arbitrary. For example, if both players are at the net (say there has been an exchange of drop shots), you don't want one of them literally sticking his body at the net and lean over, thus disrupting his opponent (I know this is an extreme example, but what happens if this takes place and there is no such rule)? Likewise, it prevents players from absolutely hugging the net to the point of literally touching it during volleys (obviously from a strategic sense this wouldn't be wise since you would be leaving yourself exposed for lobs and whatnot).

Additionally, during doubles play, the player at the net could actually press against the top of the net and lower it as his partner is lining up a shot from the baseline..

It's one of those rules that is there to prevent extreme situations. Naturally, every now and then something unfortunate happens, but it's not nearly frequent enough to change it. Djokovic has nobody to blame but himself for losing that point. He could have easily just let the ball bounce and put it away. He got a bit carried away and paid the price. There was no injustice, just a bit of recklessness on his part coupled with a lot of bad luck.

 

[Johnsteinbeck]

well, you have two parts:
1) the point isn't over before it doesn't bounce twice. that one is obvious. stands or not, you can still leap 8 ft in the air and return it. no second bounce means the ball is in play.

2) don't touch the net while the ball is in play? the net can not be tampered with. it's one of the foundations of the whole sport. touching the net can alter it's height etc. also, once you're touching the net, you're also by definition almost instantly on the other side of it - in your opponent's territory, and you got no reason to be there (this one actually isn't even allowed between points, that's how important it is).

simple rule. everyone knows it, everyone lives with it.

that said - two most important moments? don't think so. Novak bounced back from both.

 

[brokenshoelace]

The bad line call was obviously a big deal since it was on break point, but by his own admission, Novak was physically flat in that set. I don't think he would have won it really. It's pretty obvious by the way he tanked the rest of it right after getting broken in the second game.

Touching the net could have been a turning point in the match, no doubt about it. It took place with Novak up a break at 4-3 deuce. Instead of having a game point to go 5-3 in the decider, he went break point down. However, he did save it. He wasn't broken until later in the game (though you could say he would have won the game if he had won that point). Nevertheless, it was a 5 set match, it would be unfair to act as if it depended on two points. You could say the two most important points in the match took place when Nadal was up 6-5 30-15 and serving for the match in the 4th, and you'd have a case (just because they weren't controversial doesn't make them any less important). The point is, it was a long ass match, there were many important points.

 

[Johnsteinbeck]

^ well put. and noone was ignoring any of it, btw.

 

[JesuslookslikeBorg]

umpires scurrying around checking the right/wrong mark...yawnorama.

 

[huntingyou]

hawkeye doesn't wok on clay. The lines are RAISED a couple millimeters higher of the ground that the other surfaces, bringing the inaccuracy over the stated limits allowed by the ITF/ATP.

As a matter of fact, it's highly likely the umpire made the right call....Nadal believed the ball was out as well and he is not a cheater.

Actually, if hawkeye was allowed to be used in clay; it would collapse the system since the players will be able to show marks on or out the line that hawkeyes disagree with it. It's faith and they need to keep the faith going

 

[DarthFed]

hawkeye doesn't wok on clay. The lines are RAISED a couple millimeters higher of the ground that the other surfaces, bringing the inaccuracy over the stated limits allowed by the ITF/ATP.

As a matter of fact, it's highly likely the umpire made the right call....Nadal believed the ball was out as well and he is not a cheater.

Actually, if hawkeye was allowed to be used in clay; it would collapse the system since the players will be able to show marks on or out the line that hawkeyes disagree with it. It's faith and they need to keep the faith going

I heard it mentioned various times that Hawkeye is not accurate enough on clay yet and that is why they don't use it. Given that Hawkeye showed Djokovic's ball was in by the smallest of margins it is possible that it was actually out.

The problem with the current system is that the umpires are often relying on the opponent to show the mark in the clay. They are relying on the honesty of players who have an obvious incentive to show them the wrong mark. Not everyone has honor, in fact a hell of a lot of people don't in sports. Sharapova's opponent in the 2nd or 3rd round was blatantly cheating and getting away with it, pointing to marks that were a good 6 inches from the actual marks which were in. I guess the only solution is Hawkeye becomes more accurate and they start using it.

 

[huntingyou]

hawkeye doesn't wok on clay. The lines are RAISED a couple millimeters higher of the ground that the other surfaces, bringing the inaccuracy over the stated limits allowed by the ITF/ATP.

As a matter of fact, it's highly likely the umpire made the right call....Nadal believed the ball was out as well and he is not a cheater.

Actually, if hawkeye was allowed to be used in clay; it would collapse the system since the players will be able to show marks on or out the line that hawkeyes disagree with it. It's faith and they need to keep the faith going

I heard it mentioned various times that Hawkeye is not accurate enough on clay yet and that is why they don't use it. Given that Hawkeye showed Djokovic's ball was in by the smallest of margins it is possible that it was actually out.

The problem with the current system is that the umpires are often relying on the opponent to show the mark in the clay. They are relying on the honesty of players who have an obvious incentive to show them the wrong mark. Not everyone has honor, in fact a hell of a lot of people don't in sports. Sharapova's opponent in the 2nd or 3rd round was blatantly cheating and getting away with it, pointing to marks that were a good 6 inches from the actual marks which were in. I guess the only solution is Hawkeye becomes more accurate and they start using it.

Point taken on honesty. Umpires for the most part KNOW where the ball landed, it's their job.

Technology always improve, at some point it might become 99.9 accurate.

 

[DarthFed]

hawkeye doesn't wok on clay. The lines are RAISED a couple millimeters higher of the ground that the other surfaces, bringing the inaccuracy over the stated limits allowed by the ITF/ATP.

As a matter of fact, it's highly likely the umpire made the right call....Nadal believed the ball was out as well and he is not a cheater.

Actually, if hawkeye was allowed to be used in clay; it would collapse the system since the players will be able to show marks on or out the line that hawkeyes disagree with it. It's faith and they need to keep the faith going

I heard it mentioned various times that Hawkeye is not accurate enough on clay yet and that is why they don't use it. Given that Hawkeye showed Djokovic's ball was in by the smallest of margins it is possible that it was actually out.

The problem with the current system is that the umpires are often relying on the opponent to show the mark in the clay. They are relying on the honesty of players who have an obvious incentive to show them the wrong mark. Not everyone has honor, in fact a hell of a lot of people don't in sports. Sharapova's opponent in the 2nd or 3rd round was blatantly cheating and getting away with it, pointing to marks that were a good 6 inches from the actual marks which were in. I guess the only solution is Hawkeye becomes more accurate and they start using it.

Point taken on honesty. Umpires for the most part KNOW where the ball landed, it's their job.

Technology always improve, at some point it might become 99.9 accurate.

If it's the far end of the court and there are tons of marks next to each other it is understandable if they don't know which one it is or just simply make a mistake on their own. It seemed there were quite a few these past 2 weeks that they were going on the marks shown to them by the opponent.

 

[huntingyou]

If it's the far end of the court and there are tons of marks next to each other it is understandable if they don't know which one it is or just simply make a mistake on their own. It seemed there were quite a few these past 2 weeks that they were going on the marks shown to them by the opponent.

It makes for drama

 

[Johnsteinbeck]

I heard it mentioned various times that Hawkeye is not accurate enough on clay yet and that is why they don't use it. Given that Hawkeye showed Djokovic's ball was in by the smallest of margins it is possible that it was actually out.

The problem with the current system is that the umpires are often relying on the opponent to show the mark in the clay. They are relying on the honesty of players who have an obvious incentive to show them the wrong mark. Not everyone has honor, in fact a hell of a lot of people don't in sports. Sharapova's opponent in the 2nd or 3rd round was blatantly cheating and getting away with it, pointing to marks that were a good 6 inches from the actual marks which were in. I guess the only solution is Hawkeye becomes more accurate and they start using it.

Point taken on honesty. Umpires for the most part KNOW where the ball landed, it's their job.

Technology always improve, at some point it might become 99.9 accurate.

If it's the far end of the court and there are tons of marks next to each other it is understandable if they don't know which one it is or just simply make a mistake on their own. It seemed there were quite a few these past 2 weeks that they were going on the marks shown to them by the opponent.

actually, i think there'd be another option in the time of smartphones - the ump's little handheld thing gives a hawkeye indication of where the spot should be, and the ump knows where to look without having to rely on the opponent. i think this could be an ideal solution because the mark simply can be more accurate than Hawkeye would be (unless we get to the point of "areas where the ball met the surface but not with enough pressure to actually leave a mark"; in that case, we'd first need a panel of physicists, linguists and philosophers to define the meaning of "touch" or "land").

that said, i think it'd be kind of sad if you can't trust the players to indicate the right mark. it's bad enough in other sports (imagine players calling their own fouls in football/soccer?), i like that there's an amount of honesty still asked for in tennis, although it's a tough task given the insane pressure these guys and gals are under.

 

[tented]

that said, i think it'd be kind of sad if you can't trust the players to indicate the right mark. it's bad enough in other sports (imagine players calling their own fouls in football/soccer?), i like that there's an amount of honesty still asked for in tennis, although it's a tough task given the insane pressure these guys and gals are under.

I'll let this speak for itself:

[video=youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3CnX6k0snxA[/video]

 

[Johnsteinbeck]

^ haha... had to think of exactly this moment as i wrote my post, of course. but still, isn't it nice to have these pieces of history in tennis? in football/soccer, noone would remember something like this the next day. diving, faking etc., all forms of cheating, are almost integral parts of that sport and so many others. in tennis, it's not. stunts like Soderling's stand out, in contrast to all the good stuff like this (i even went to look for a Djokovic-one so you know i'm not just praising my guys):
[video=youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NIck-4fE3Vg[/video]
plus, fortunately, it's not like Rafa lost anything by Soderling cheating either. the damage is to the latter's reputation.

 

[Kieran]

1. There's no real reason not to use Hawkeye. It's on-site already being seen by TV. The purpose is to discover whether the ball was in or out. In the line-call in the 3rd between Rafa and Nole, it's possible there was no mark on the line, even though the ball might have skinned it. I say, might have, because Hawkeye isn't infallible either.

2. This isn't an issue. Ball hadn't bounced twice, therefore it was still in play, therefore Rafa wins the point.

Nole rushed that shot, kind of like Rafa's famous backhand in Oz. An anxiety to end the point quickly and a mistake was made. It's a pity, from his perspective, but also similarly to Rafa's backhand, it isn't what cost him the game. It just didn't help his cause, is all...

 

[Johnsteinbeck]

ad 1. i don't think you're doing the officials justice here. huntingyou points to very important, very real reasons not to use Hawkeye: 1) the raised lines actually increase the margin of error of the system and 2) the very real potential of a clear mark proving hawk-eye wrong could undermine the credibility of the system, even on other surfaces (problematic, given that decisions are actually very often closer even than the system's usualy margin of error).

ad 2. it was a whole lot like that (in)famous bh indeed. a simple mistake; just shows how big the pressure in such points is.



now, if we actually want debate - how about the (not) watering of the court? unlike the "two most important points", this seemed to actually be an issue for Novak.
i do think they were right on this one as well. tampering with the surface in the deciding set, when at each changeover someone's got a chance to end the match - just can't do it; of course, the issue might have become problematic if they'd gone to 10 all or something; strangely enough, it would almost make more sense to do it with an extra break at an even score - because it's the only way to guarantee at least two more games and a change of sides before it's over.
again - for this match, while i don't blame Novak, i don't think he was right either. it really didn't look unsafe, they moved pretty well up until the end. clay can get slippery - it's simple as that. if it's wet-ish, noone has the chance to ask for blow-driers either, so it's fair play as long as the health of the players isn't jeopardized. i think just like Madrid showed, people tend to easily call a surface "unplayable/health hazard" when really, they mean "not good for my game".

 

[Kieran]

Hey John Steinbeck!

1. That's a good point about the raised lines. But a mark on the ground wouldn't prove Hawkeye wrong, any more than Hawkeye 'proved' the umpire wrong in the contentious line call in set two. In fact, the umpire might have been right and Hawkeye could have been wrong. We all know it's not perfect. How often to those smidgen-linecalls really look farcical? But that's the system and we go with it. I don't think anyone expects there to be a perfect way of calling lines, but Hawkeye has helped improve things.

As for watering the court, I think Nole was getting desperate. His overhead was disassembling and Rafa was going nowhere. I wouldn't agree with watering the court in that match, either...