The Double Bounce Controversy

[GameSetAndMath]

We all know that Tennis is a Gentlemen's game (you know what I mean, I am not
exclusing ladies here), but that does not mean we should not debate controversial topics.

I did not watch the first three sets between Fed and Murray. Apparently, there
is a major controversy in a game of third set. This is Murray's service game that was
broken by Fed. I have been reading conflicting accounts of this in different places.

Also, I have been hearing rumors that Murray is angry that Fed tried to
prevent that video from being shown publicly or something like that.

I have not visited that game thread and read every post. Let me know
if there is a discussion of this in the game thread that is worth wading through.

But, I am sure different people will have different opinions. So, I have created
a simple poll question here. Vote on this poll if you watched that point live and
have a direct opinion on the issue (as opposed to echoing some commentator's
view).

I am making this an anonymous poll for obvious reasons with just 1 day
time limit.

 

[britbox]

I watched live and they replayed it a few times and it looked pretty clear he made the shot. Quite astonished there is even a controversy at all.

I know US viewers get a different channel so possibly a different camera view, but from where I was sitting it was good.

 

[tented]

The ball did not bounce twice. End of story.

Even if it had, Federer is not the kind of person to have pretended it didn't.

 

[GameSetAndMath]

Here is a tabloid version of the story.

http://www.mirror.co.uk/sport/tennis/australian-open-andy-murray-fury-3052202#.UuDJWmAo6M8

 

[GameSetAndMath]

The ball did not bounce twice. End of story.

Even if it had, Federer is not the kind of person to have pretended it didn't.

I too feel that Fed would not cheat on that kind of thing. But, your response is
funny as end of story is followed by another sentence.

 

[Goldenboy]

Federer said he wasn't sure in his post match conference.

To be fair, it has nothing to do with him. Pascal is the one who should bear responsibility. But I don't see it as all that big an issue considering Murray won the set in question.

 

[GameSetAndMath]

I watched live and they replayed it a few times and it looked pretty clear he made the shot. Quite astonished there is even a controversy at all.

I know US viewers get a different channel so possibly a different camera view, but from where I was sitting it was good.

I heard that both Jim Courier and Lleyton Hewitt feel that the ball indeed bounce twice
and it is impossible for Federer or the umpire Pascal Maria to observe it as it is really
not very straight forward and quite technical and complicated.

Apparently, in Australia they showed the video to viewers and asked for viewer's
opinion and a majority of the viewers claim the ball did double bounce.

Most non-tabloid newspapers report the controversy, but then take the position
that the video evidence is inconclusive.

 

[GameSetAndMath]

Federer said he wasn't sure in his post match conference.

To be fair, it has nothing to do with him. Pascal is the one who should bear responsibility. But I don't see it as all that big an issue considering Murray won the set in question.

I don't think it played any role in deciding the match.

However, if a player knowingly scoops a ball after double bounce, the player has
the moral responsibility to acknowledge it whether or not the umpire catches it.
I believe that Fed would not indulge in such cheap tactics of not acknowledging
if he knows that it did double bounce.

Remember the Milos vs. JMDP net touching controversy in Montreal Masters last year.
Technically, it is the umpire who should bear responsibility. But, morally the player has
the responsibility too.

 

[tented]

The ball did not bounce twice. End of story.

Even if it had, Federer is not the kind of person to have pretended it didn't.

I too feel that Fed would not cheat on that kind of thing. But, your response is
funny as end of story is followed by another sentence.

:laydownlaughing Yeah, I should have edited that out when I edited the post to add that part.

 

[brokenshoelace]

My question is: Didn't this incident take place in the third set? Didn't Murray win that set anyway?

 

[tented]

My question is: Didn't this incident take place in the third set? Didn't Murray win that set anyway?

Yes, it was the third set. May have even been during the tiebreak, or the game leading up to it.

 

[GameSetAndMath]

My question is: Didn't this incident take place in the third set? Didn't Murray win that set anyway?

Yes it happened in the third set. It does not really affect the final outcome. It was a
service game by Murray and in that game Murray was broken.

Of course, when Fed tried to serve out the match in the third set, he could not hold
serve and then it went to tiebreak.

 

[tented]

[video=youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Kg9S0MFKhQ4[/video]

Begin around 3:35

 

[coban]

I watched live and they replayed it a few times and it looked pretty clear he made the shot. Quite astonished there is even a controversy at all.

I know US viewers get a different channel so possibly a different camera view, but from where I was sitting it was good.

Yea i agree, i was quite astonished to find this topic here - shouldn't be a discussion at all.

 

[Tennis Miller]

I can only assume that anyone who thought it was a double bounce doesn't know what a double bounce is. Or else they hadnt seen the replay. Perhaps they thought it double bounced when it happened live,.

But it's actually ridiculous to have this discussion. They showed it on TV a number of times and the only way you could think it bounced twice is if you a) hate Federer, b) can't see, or c) both a and b.

Cheers
TM

 

[isabelle]

I can only assume that anyone who thought it was a double bounce doesn't know what a double bounce is. Or else they hadnt seen the replay. Perhaps they thought it double bounced when it happened live,.

But it's actually ridiculous to have this discussion. They showed it on TV a number of times and the only way you could think it bounced twice is if you a) hate Federer, b) can't see, or c) both a and b.

Cheers
TM

I don't like Federer but he's not a cheater, let's be logical....I don't think double bounce could change the result of a match anyway...

 

[tennisville]

no way thats a double bounce

 

[House]

I'm confused. Who's making this a controversy exactly?

If anyone is at fault here it's the umpire. There are many obvious circumstances, in which a player can easily tell if a ball double bounces or not. This particular shot was as close as you could get in my opinion. I doubt Federer would have fought it if the call went against him. When a call is THAT close it's up to the people who's job it is to make those calls. Not Roger's. Or any player for that matter.

All that being said, I think he got his racket under the ball before it bounced again. Either way it wasn't a deciding point in the match. Plenty took place before and after this sequence that told a much greater story, on how/why the match ended the way it did.

 

[Moxie]

I'm confused. Who's making this a controversy exactly?

If anyone is at fault here it's the umpire. There are many obvious circumstances, in which a player can easily tell if a ball double bounces or not. This particular shot was as close as you could get in my opinion. I doubt Federer would have fought it if the call went against him. When a call is THAT close it's up to the people who's job it is to make those calls. Not Roger's. Or any player for that matter.

All that being said, I think he got his racket under the ball before it bounced again. Either way it wasn't a deciding point in the match. Plenty took place before and after this sequence that told a much greater story, on how/why the match ended the way it did.

I just watched the video that tented supplied. That was it?! As much as you can see on video, it seemed clearly that Roger scooped it up before it landed the 2nd time. Plus, Murray, beyond a long look, didn't complain. That seems to be a British tabloid attempting to stir a tempest in a Barbie doll teapot. Plus, as House said, didn't change the match.

 

[GameSetAndMath]

No, it is not just one british Tabloid trying to stir trouble. See the following article
and the video in it published by sydney morning herald.

http://www.smh.com.au/sport/tennis/roger-federer-knew-it-bounced-twice-says-andy-murray-20140123-31blq.html

1. I am not completely sure whether the ball indeed bounced twice from the video.
In the video posted by tented, it seem clear that it did not double bounce. But, the
video embedded in this article seems bit ambiguous.
But, I am more inclined to think it did not (as opposed to Jim Courier and Lleyton Hewitt).
This is primarily because of the ball's flight on the other side (as Roger mentions in his
interview) after the shot. If it was scopped up from that low level after the second bounce,
the chances that it took the flight as it did is very small.

2. However, I am completely sure that even if it did double bounce, it was so
close that Roger could not be held responsbile for not calling it on himself.

3. I personally believe that if it was double bounce and Roger knew it, he
would have called it on himself.

4. I am actually glad that Roger lost that set now as it mitigates the
controversy. Even assuming the ball did double bounce, it is very clear
that it did not affect the outcome of the match.

5. Finally, at the time of the incident Roger had a heavy lead (two sets to love
and 4-4) and so it does not seem rational for him to cheat at that point
(even assuming Roger can also cheat).