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

[britbox]

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?

Nah, the moment he did it (touching the net) - the point was lost. If he'd overlooked it there would have been a far bigger uproar.

With the line call, I'd distinguish between a wrong call and a bad call. Humans aren't perfect. It was millimetres and the call was wrong. A bad call to me is when the ball is pretty clearly in or out. It was in but it was fractional and I think you have to allow for a degree of human error. Personally, I'd prefer Hawkeye at Roland Garros. It's not perfect either apparently but at least it's consistent.

 

[Mog]

I agree with you britbox. Human errors/judjements could not be more accurate than Hawk eye. Most of the times the ball marks on clay not perfectly visible.
Hey Brit I am in London now and getting ready for Wimbledon. I will keep you posted...

---

I agree with you britbox. Human errors/judjements could not be more accurate than Hawk eye. Most of the times the ball marks on clay not perfectly visible.
Hey Brit I am in London now and getting ready for Wimbledon..

 

[britbox]

Have a great vacation Mog and hope you get to see some good tennis.

 

[Ricardo]

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?

what are you failing to understand? the point was not over when he touched the net. There were so many instances in the past where a player clearly hits a winner yet touched the net, guess what? ALL of them lost the point so why should anyone question the rule now just because it went against Djokovic this time?

common sense dictates that a rule shouldn't be altered just because it went against your favorite player on this occasion. Rafa got a point penalty for time violation, perhaps his fans should protest it too?

 

[Johnsteinbeck]

^ i don't think you're doing coban justice here. while of course every fan will be more motivated to speak up when something goes against one of his/her favorites, coban, in what you quoted, very clearly stated a valid, polite question, and a number or posters chimed in to explain to him why this was the right call, even though the point was over by almost all definitions (except for the one that counts - the second bounce*) and even though it was just as clear that the touching of the net could have no effect whatsoever on the ball, rafa, the point, anything. of course, it was a good call, and the rules are 100% clear on that.
if i didn't know the exact definition of those rules, i'd probably have a hard time understanding that call, and i'd love for someone to point out to me why it's in place.

one last thing, sort of related to the topic: part of the reasoning behind the rules, the "ball always in play until the second bounce" is that getting into the argument of "had the opponent a play on the ball" is opening a can of worms - which actually happened with Hawk-Eye challenges - when an out call gets overturned into an ace or winner, how many times ( (C) JJ) have you seen returners argue over whether or not they had a chance to get to a ball, or about when and how much a linesperson's call affected them? that's why keeping any such discussions to an absolute minimum is necessary. so while the outcome of a ruling like that of Novak's smash is unfortunate, it makes sense in the greater context.

*that almost rhymed. accidentally. i like that.

 

[Ricardo]

^ i don't think you're doing coban justice here. while of course every fan will be more motivated to speak up when something goes against one of his/her favorites, coban, in what you quoted, very clearly stated a valid, polite question, and a number or posters chimed in to explain to him why this was the right call, even though the point was over by almost all definitions (except for the one that counts - the second bounce*) and even though it was just as clear that the touching of the net could have no effect whatsoever on the ball, rafa, the point, anything. of course, it was a good call, and the rules are 100% clear on that.
if i didn't know the exact definition of those rules, i'd probably have a hard time understanding that call, and i'd love for someone to point out to me why it's in place.

one last thing, sort of related to the topic: part of the reasoning behind the rules, the "ball always in play until the second bounce" is that getting into the argument of "had the opponent a play on the ball" is opening a can of worms - which actually happened with Hawk-Eye challenges - when an out call gets overturned into an ace or winner, how many times ( (C) JJ) have you seen returners argue over whether or not they had a chance to get to a ball, or about when and how much a linesperson's call affected them? that's why keeping any such discussions to an absolute minimum is necessary. so while the outcome of a ruling like that of Novak's smash is unfortunate, it makes sense in the greater context.

*that almost rhymed. accidentally. i like that.

I think your example is a bad one, it's almost odd - logically it's incompatible with the Novak case.

Secondly, the point is not 'almost over' by 'definition' - it is either over or isn't. No rule says 'almost' in describing anything, it's either true or false. Don't know what you are on about really. Whether or not a player has chance to get to a ball or how much a linesperson's call affected a player, that's subject to personal judgement, but not whether or not you touched the net, or point is over or isn't, or you hit the ball or not. There is no use in muddying up what's otherwise a clear case here.

 

[Mog]

The rule is good and in this case it is enforced right. The point is never finished until the second bounce. Practically the other player could have play or not is not the issue in this case.

 

[Moxie]

^ i don't think you're doing coban justice here. while of course every fan will be more motivated to speak up when something goes against one of his/her favorites, coban, in what you quoted, very clearly stated a valid, polite question, and a number or posters chimed in to explain to him why this was the right call, even though the point was over by almost all definitions (except for the one that counts - the second bounce*) and even though it was just as clear that the touching of the net could have no effect whatsoever on the ball, rafa, the point, anything. of course, it was a good call, and the rules are 100% clear on that.
if i didn't know the exact definition of those rules, i'd probably have a hard time understanding that call, and i'd love for someone to point out to me why it's in place.

one last thing, sort of related to the topic: part of the reasoning behind the rules, the "ball always in play until the second bounce" is that getting into the argument of "had the opponent a play on the ball" is opening a can of worms - which actually happened with Hawk-Eye challenges - when an out call gets overturned into an ace or winner, how many times ( (C) JJ) have you seen returners argue over whether or not they had a chance to get to a ball, or about when and how much a linesperson's call affected them? that's why keeping any such discussions to an absolute minimum is necessary. so while the outcome of a ruling like that of Novak's smash is unfortunate, it makes sense in the greater context.

*that almost rhymed. accidentally. i like that.

I think your example is a bad one, it's almost odd - logically it's incompatible with the Novak case.

Secondly, the point is not 'almost over' by 'definition' - it is either over or isn't. No rule says 'almost' in describing anything, it's either true or false. Don't know what you are on about really. Whether or not a player has chance to get to a ball or how much a linesperson's call affected a player, that's subject to personal judgement, but not whether or not you touched the net, or point is over or isn't, or you hit the ball or not. There is no use in muddying up what's otherwise a clear case here.

By breaking up Johnsteinbeck's quote you changed what he said. "Almost" qualifies "all definitions," not "over." I believe he means the reason coban asked the question is that it would seem to have been over to the casual observer, but not by the rules. Try reading that again, and it will make sense to you.

 

[Johnsteinbeck]

^ thanks for clearing that up.

as to my bad example - i don't know which one you're talking about, ricardo; if you're referring to the hawk-eye/serve part, it was not an example referring to the Novak case, it was a general observation (which is why i introduced it with "sort of related to the topic"). it was to explain why "point isn't over until the second bounce" is a good and necessary rule, and why any leeway (the kind of which coban would've hoped for/expected in the Novak case) would inevitably lead to problematic decisions.

ricardo, if you have, by now, taken the time to read my reply again, you'll see that i'm actually agreeing with you on the call. my point was that while coban's objection wasn't right, it was understandable that he would raise the question - a question he phrased very politely and to which he received informative answers.