The Double Bounce Controversy

[GameSetAndMath]

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.

The video posted by tented is not continous stuff. It was edited collection of highlights.
So, you did not see the aftermath of the point. See the video embedded in the sydney herald
paper as in it you can clearly see Murray arguing with Pascal

 

[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.

The video posted by tented is not continous stuff. It was edited collection of highlights.
So, you did not see the aftermath of the point. See the video embedded in the sydney herald
paper as in it you can clearly see Murray arguing with Pascal

Well, I could look at it, but does Murray arguing make it any less likely that that ball bounced only once?

 

[GameSetAndMath]

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.

The video posted by tented is not continous stuff. It was edited collection of highlights.
So, you did not see the aftermath of the point. See the video embedded in the sydney herald
paper as in it you can clearly see Murray arguing with Pascal

Well, I could look at it, but does Murray arguing make it any less likely that that ball bounced only once?

It looks like, we are talking at cross purposes. Obviously Murray arguing or not arguing
does not make the ball bounce only once or twice. That has happened before (either way)
the argument began.

Both you and house, seems to think there is no controversy here and just one
british Tabloid is trying to create some trouble. As all of you can see Murray is quoted
in all these articles. Even a tabloid would not misquote a statement to a player.
They may selectively quote something and put their own spin though.

Further you said from the video, it looked to you that Murray is not agitated at all
over the call and he just took one long look. That is why I said, that is not a continuous
video and if you see the full happeneings after the point you would see that Murray indeed
got agitated and took objection.

 

[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.

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.

The video posted by tented is not continous stuff. It was edited collection of highlights.
So, you did not see the aftermath of the point. See the video embedded in the sydney herald
paper as in it you can clearly see Murray arguing with Pascal

Well, I could look at it, but does Murray arguing make it any less likely that that ball bounced only once?

It looks like, we are talking at cross purposes. Obviously Murray arguing or not arguing
does not make the ball bounce only once or twice. That has happened before (either way)
the argument began.

Both you and house, seems to think there is no controversy here and just one
british Tabloid is trying to create some trouble. As all of you can see Murray is quoted
in all these articles. Even a tabloid would not misquote a statement to a player.
They may selectively quote something and put their own spin though.

Further you said from the video, it looked to you that Murray is not agitated at all
over the call and he just took one long look. That is why I said, that is not a continuous
video and if you see the full happeneings after the point you would see that Murray indeed
got agitated and took objection.

I'm not asserting that no one took notice of that point. But to act like it was a conspiracy, or bad gamesmanship on the part of Federer is insane. Just begging to find anything to talk about in that match other then Fed dominating Andy.

Even with all the images and video we have of that point, it still isn't conclusively a double bounce. How on Earth could Roger possibly called it one while rushing to the ball to hit his next shot? Not so much a question at you. But to those who would fault Fed in any way on this issue.

Either way. Murray's agitation doesn't away me in any way. He's agitated 95% of the time he plays.

Mountain out of a mole hill in my opinion.

 

[brokenshoelace]

OK, having watched the video provided by GSM, which included a super slow motion replay, I'm less convinced (I previously thought it was clearly a legitimate shot). On the slow mo, the ball looked like it MIGHT have bounced twice.

Regardless, it was way too close to call. And to be honest, even if Federer thought it bounced twice, it's not his job to call that. The umpire is there for a reason, though in fairness, he can't be blamed since even in slow motion, we're unable to fully determine.

Regardless, this is much ado about nothing. It didn't end up impacting the match. Hell, the break of serve that occurred in this game (and the call) pissed Murray enough to where he got out aggressive for the next game, broke back, took the set to a tie-break, and won. If anything, the call fired him up.

EDIT: Upon FURTHER viewing, I'm convinced it DID bounce twice. http://www.smh.com.au/sport/tennis/roger-federer-knew-it-bounced-twice-says-andy-murray-20140123-31blq.html

 

[GameSetAndMath]

OK, having watched the video provided by GSM, which included a super slow motion replay, I'm less convinced (I previously thought it was clearly a legitimate shot). On the slow mo, the ball looked like it MIGHT have bounced twice.

Regardless, it was way too close to call. And to be honest, even if Federer thought it bounced twice, it's not his job to call that. The umpire is there for a reason, though in fairness, he can't be blamed since even in slow motion, we're unable to fully determine.

Regardless, this is much ado about nothing. It didn't end up impacting the match. Hell, the break of serve that occurred in this game (and the call) pissed Murray enough to where he got out aggressive for the next game, broke back, took the set to a tie-break, and won. If anything, the call fired him up.

EDIT: Upon FURTHER viewing, I'm convinced it DID bounce twice. http://www.smh.com.au/sport/tennis/roger-federer-knew-it-bounced-twice-says-andy-murray-20140123-31blq.html

The link in your above posting is the same as what I gave in mine. Did you mean to
post a different link and made a mistake accidentally?

 

[House]

OK, having watched the video provided by GSM, which included a super slow motion replay, I'm less convinced (I previously thought it was clearly a legitimate shot). On the slow mo, the ball looked like it MIGHT have bounced twice.

Regardless, it was way too close to call. And to be honest, even if Federer thought it bounced twice, it's not his job to call that. The umpire is there for a reason, though in fairness, he can't be blamed since even in slow motion, we're unable to fully determine.

Regardless, this is much ado about nothing. It didn't end up impacting the match. Hell, the break of serve that occurred in this game (and the call) pissed Murray enough to where he got out aggressive for the next game, broke back, took the set to a tie-break, and won. If anything, the call fired him up.

EDIT: Upon FURTHER viewing, I'm convinced it DID bounce twice. http://www.smh.com.au/sport/tennis/roger-federer-knew-it-bounced-twice-says-andy-murray-20140123-31blq.html

Even if it did, which has taken multiple angles and slomo video to even somewhat show, I doubt Roger walked away from that shot, as Andy implied, knowing it bounced twice.

I mean if he's unsure what is he suppose to say/do? I'm asking in general, not you specifically Broken.

"I don't know if it bounced twice or not, but Andy I will give you this point even though the guy sitting LITERALLY right on top of court couldn't tell."

I know it's a totally different sport, but in the NFL a replay/review it has to have conclusive evidence to overturn the "ruling on the field." Nothing in the replays I've seen, including the one you provided, seems conclusive without a shadow of a doubt. Some angles I think he got there in time. Some angles it looks like he scooped it up.

Either way. Something out of nothing in my mind.

 

[brokenshoelace]

OK, having watched the video provided by GSM, which included a super slow motion replay, I'm less convinced (I previously thought it was clearly a legitimate shot). On the slow mo, the ball looked like it MIGHT have bounced twice.

Regardless, it was way too close to call. And to be honest, even if Federer thought it bounced twice, it's not his job to call that. The umpire is there for a reason, though in fairness, he can't be blamed since even in slow motion, we're unable to fully determine.

Regardless, this is much ado about nothing. It didn't end up impacting the match. Hell, the break of serve that occurred in this game (and the call) pissed Murray enough to where he got out aggressive for the next game, broke back, took the set to a tie-break, and won. If anything, the call fired him up.

EDIT: Upon FURTHER viewing, I'm convinced it DID bounce twice. http://www.smh.com.au/sport/tennis/roger-federer-knew-it-bounced-twice-says-andy-murray-20140123-31blq.html

The link in your above posting is the same as what I gave in mine. Did you mean to
post a different link and made a mistake accidentally?

No. I was making sure people knew which link I'm talking about.

 

[brokenshoelace]

OK, having watched the video provided by GSM, which included a super slow motion replay, I'm less convinced (I previously thought it was clearly a legitimate shot). On the slow mo, the ball looked like it MIGHT have bounced twice.

Regardless, it was way too close to call. And to be honest, even if Federer thought it bounced twice, it's not his job to call that. The umpire is there for a reason, though in fairness, he can't be blamed since even in slow motion, we're unable to fully determine.

Regardless, this is much ado about nothing. It didn't end up impacting the match. Hell, the break of serve that occurred in this game (and the call) pissed Murray enough to where he got out aggressive for the next game, broke back, took the set to a tie-break, and won. If anything, the call fired him up.

EDIT: Upon FURTHER viewing, I'm convinced it DID bounce twice. http://www.smh.com.au/sport/tennis/roger-federer-knew-it-bounced-twice-says-andy-murray-20140123-31blq.html

Even if it did, which has taken multiple angles and slomo video to even somewhat show, I doubt Roger walked away from that shot, as Andy implied, knowing it bounced twice.

I mean if he's unsure what is he suppose to say/do? I'm asking in general, not you specifically Broken.

"I don't know if it bounced twice or not, but Andy I will give you this point even though the guy sitting LITERALLY right on top of court couldn't tell."

I know it's a totally different sport, but in the NFL a replay/review it has to have conclusive evidence to overturn the "ruling on the field." Nothing in the replays I've seen, including the one you provided, seems conclusive without a shadow of a doubt. Some angles I think he got there in time. Some angles it looks like he scooped it up.

Either way. Something out of nothing in my mind.

Yeah, said it was no big deal from the get-go. But out of curiosity I watched many videos about it just to determine if it did bounce twice, though not because I think it actually matters.

As far as Roger goes, I took it a step further and said that even if he thought it probably bounced twice, it's not his job to say anything. Maybe if it was a super obvious call it would be a different issue. I think from his perspective, it's tough to know for sure if it bounced twice. He probably "felt" whether it did or didn't, without actually "knowing."

 

[House]

OK, having watched the video provided by GSM, which included a super slow motion replay, I'm less convinced (I previously thought it was clearly a legitimate shot). On the slow mo, the ball looked like it MIGHT have bounced twice.

Regardless, it was way too close to call. And to be honest, even if Federer thought it bounced twice, it's not his job to call that. The umpire is there for a reason, though in fairness, he can't be blamed since even in slow motion, we're unable to fully determine.

Regardless, this is much ado about nothing. It didn't end up impacting the match. Hell, the break of serve that occurred in this game (and the call) pissed Murray enough to where he got out aggressive for the next game, broke back, took the set to a tie-break, and won. If anything, the call fired him up.

EDIT: Upon FURTHER viewing, I'm convinced it DID bounce twice. http://www.smh.com.au/sport/tennis/roger-federer-knew-it-bounced-twice-says-andy-murray-20140123-31blq.html

Even if it did, which has taken multiple angles and slomo video to even somewhat show, I doubt Roger walked away from that shot, as Andy implied, knowing it bounced twice.

I mean if he's unsure what is he suppose to say/do? I'm asking in general, not you specifically Broken.

"I don't know if it bounced twice or not, but Andy I will give you this point even though the guy sitting LITERALLY right on top of court couldn't tell."

I know it's a totally different sport, but in the NFL a replay/review it has to have conclusive evidence to overturn the "ruling on the field." Nothing in the replays I've seen, including the one you provided, seems conclusive without a shadow of a doubt. Some angles I think he got there in time. Some angles it looks like he scooped it up.

Either way. Something out of nothing in my mind.

Yeah, said it was no big deal from the get-go. But out of curiosity I watched many videos about it just to determine if it did bounce twice, though not because I think it actually matters.

As far as Roger goes, I took it a step further and said that even if he thought it probably bounced twice, it's not his job to say anything. Maybe if it was a super obvious call it would be a different issue. I think from his perspective, it's tough to know for sure if it bounced twice. He probably "felt" whether it did or didn't, without actually "knowing."

Oh I know. I saw you say it wasn't a big deal. I was more replying to a lot of what the article was saying. Just happened to be quoting you.

I could see this being a much bigger issue if, the point was in itself important, I.E break point, set point, match point, or if it was really, REALLY, obvious. Since it was neither of those things I'm not too bothered by what took place.

 

[GameSetAndMath]

I read through the post match presser by Andy. No question was asked and no answer
was given by Andy about this "double bounce" stuff.

Is it possible that he decided not to talk about it on record? But, what are the
journalists doing. How is it possible that they did not ask a single question on it to
Murray? Even if Murray did not answer there should be a question on it
with Murray saying "I have no comments on it" or something like that. Even that is
missing in the interview transcript.

 

[GameSetAndMath]

Apparentley, Murray claims if not for this incident, third set would have been over
quickly and he would have served fresher in the fourth set. See the report from this
Irish paper.


http://www.independent.ie/sport/other-sports/murray-unhappy-with-double-bounce-call-as-federer-drives-on-29942601.html

 

[brokenshoelace]

Apparentley, Murray claims if not for this incident, third set would have been over
quickly and he would have served fresher in the fourth set. See the report from this
Irish paper.


http://www.independent.ie/sport/other-sports/murray-unhappy-with-double-bounce-call-as-federer-drives-on-29942601.html

In fairness, he said "could" have been over quickly as opposed to "would" have been. Sounds like I'm nit-picking, but the latter may come off as arrogant, while the former is a fair assessment on his part. Regardless, I think ultimately it's the people asking him about this making a bigger deal about it than it really is. I doubt Murray called a press conference specifically to complain. The reason I bring this up is because I'm sure he's going to catch a lot of flack for these comments.

Anyway, he got outplayed. I don't think he was going to win that match. At no point was he the better player. He was able to match Roger in the tail end of the 3rd but you could always feel hew as playing catch-up, which is kind of how I felt about Roger in their match at the AO last year, despite him being able to push it to 5.

 

[GameSetAndMath]

Good point. I should have used "could have" instead of "would have" (this is the first
time I used "should have", "could have" and "would have" all in the same sentence). :clap

 

[Tennis Miller]

Are there any squash players on this board? If so, they're probably familiar with seeing this kind of get much more often, as they happen all the time in squash.. The ball comes off the frame and a bit of the strings. There's no angle I've looked at where Murrays's ball hits the ground. The edge of the racket always gets under the ball. This one's actually an easy call. ( My brother is a sanctioned squash referee, looked at the videos and said the same thing.)

The big question in cases like these is actually whether the ball was " carried" or double hit. That's what I also looked for in the video, and Federer hits the ball with one jab or swing every time.

If Murray has suggested the ball did hit the ground twice, I think he's really just being kind of a d#ck.

CHEERS

TM