Wimbledon, Day 6, 4 July, Order of Play

[Murat Baslamisli]

^ I agree it is not the easiest of things to detect and I am not even blaming Ivo because he might not even realize what he has done. But I saw it immediately. Because when you hit a volley, a traditional volley where your motion ends with an open racket face, you never ever close the racket face to go over a ball. The ump should have seen that I thought, with the angle he had.
Well , it is what it is and we move on.

 

[Kirijax]

[video=youtube]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KUIcZe6kz4w[/video]

 

[herios]

^ I agree it is not the easiest of things to detect and I am not even blaming Ivo because he might not even realize what he has done. But I saw it immediately. Because when you hit a volley, a traditional volley where your motion ends with an open racket face, you never ever close the racket face to go over a ball. The ump should have seen that I thought, with the angle he had.
Well , it is what it is and we move on.

I saw it too, but it was unintentional, that is the bottom line. He was completely stretched out to his right, and hit the ball. In that split second and position, all you intend is to hit the ball.
Here is what I found on the USTA web site:
"Sometimes, during the stroke the ball may hit the strings/racket two times. If the player did this in one motion and there is no attempt at an intentional second hit, then that is a legal shot. This rule was changed in the 1970s from no double hits, whether intentional or not, to the above procedure."

 

[GameSetAndMath]

It is amazing that Isner committed two double faults today and lost the match. We all know that his ground game, volleys and movement are not good. But, his serve is the primary weapon. What good is your weapon, when it does not work in time of need? This is not the first time this has happened. I have seen him losing matches (more than one) by double faulting in TBs. :cover

 

[GameSetAndMath]

^ I agree it is not the easiest of things to detect and I am not even blaming Ivo because he might not even realize what he has done. But I saw it immediately. Because when you hit a volley, a traditional volley where your motion ends with an open racket face, you never ever close the racket face to go over a ball. The ump should have seen that I thought, with the angle he had.
Well , it is what it is and we move on.

I saw it too, but it was unintentional, that is the bottom line. He was completely stretched out to his right, and hit the ball. In that split second and position, all you intend is to hit the ball.
Here is what I found on the USTA web site:
"Sometimes, during the stroke the ball may hit the strings/racket two times. If the player did this in one motion and there is no attempt at an intentional second hit, then that is a legal shot. This rule was changed in the 1970s from no double hits, whether intentional or not, to the above procedure."

You are saying different things in different threads. I am claiming that it is intentional second hit and yet a player might not realize that they did so in the heat of the moment and so Ivo did not cheat. It is difficult to detect for the naked eye in real time without aid to slow motion replays and so the umpire did do the right thing of letting it go. You want to overrule it only if you are sure.

It can be "intentional" and at the same time, a player "might not realize" it. These two are not contradictory.