Would you call this cheating by Tommy Haas ?

[BluBarry]

WIMBLEDON, England (AP) -- Angry at the officiating and hurt by double faults, Andre Agassi is gone from 1998 Wimbledon.

Agassi, the 1992 champion and No. 13 seed, became the eighth men's seed eliminated Thursday when he lost in four sets today to Germany's Tommy Haas.

Agassi trailed two sets to one when the second-round match was suspended because of darkness Wednesday. Haas won the fourth set Thursday to win 4-6, 6-1, 7-6 (7-4), 6-4.

Haas, 20, has been billed as Germany's successor to Boris Becker. He is a product of the Nick Bollettieri academy in Florida, where Agassi also got his start.

"I used to see him practice there," Haas said. "I used to sit on the sideline when he was playing. ... This is a very special win for me. I can say I beat Andre Agassi, a former No. 1 who won a couple of Grand Slams."

Agassi broke in the first game of the fourth set and held for a 2-0 lead. But he double faulted on break point in the sixth game to let Haas even the set at 3-3.

The two remained on serve until the 10th game when another double fault by Agassi gave Haas a match point. Agassi saved that one, but Haas converted his second match point with a forehand return.

In the final game, leading 40-30, Agassi was upset when at least one groundstroke by Haas appeared long but drew no call. He approached chair umpire John Frame, who refused to overrule.

Agassi had been furious with Frame over another line call Wednesday that helped Haas win the third set.

A forehand by Haas was ruled good, even though replays showed it was clearly out.

"It was nearly six inches [out]," Agassi protested. "It was out both ways. It was wide and it was long."

Frame shook his head and the call stood, giving Haas a 6-3 lead in the tiebreaker. Agassi saved one set point, but succumbed on the next.

Play was then suspended, and Agassi resumed his protest.

"In 12 years, I've never seen it miss that much," Mr. Agassi said to Chair Umpire Frame.

The Centre Court crowd jeered the umpire and linesmen as they left the court. Today, Haas acknowledged the ball had been out.

 

[Moose Malloy]

No, you play the calls in the pros, unless you are a fool or James Blake. And you certainly don't overrule a call that's not on your side of the court.

Its funny, when Agassi was asked about instant replay this summer, he was asked if there was any past match in which he wished he had it. He mentioned this match.

 

[FiveO]

WIMBLEDON, England (AP) -- Angry at the officiating and hurt by double faults, Andre Agassi is gone from 1998 Wimbledon.

Agassi, the 1992 champion and No. 13 seed, became the eighth men's seed eliminated Thursday when he lost in four sets today to Germany's Tommy Haas.

Agassi trailed two sets to one when the second-round match was suspended because of darkness Wednesday. Haas won the fourth set Thursday to win 4-6, 6-1, 7-6 (7-4), 6-4.

Haas, 20, has been billed as Germany's successor to Boris Becker. He is a product of the Nick Bollettieri academy in Florida, where Agassi also got his start.

"I used to see him practice there," Haas said. "I used to sit on the sideline when he was playing. ... This is a very special win for me. I can say I beat Andre Agassi, a former No. 1 who won a couple of Grand Slams."

Agassi broke in the first game of the fourth set and held for a 2-0 lead. But he double faulted on break point in the sixth game to let Haas even the set at 3-3.

The two remained on serve until the 10th game when another double fault by Agassi gave Haas a match point. Agassi saved that one, but Haas converted his second match point with a forehand return.

In the final game, leading 40-30, Agassi was upset when at least one groundstroke by Haas appeared long but drew no call. He approached chair umpire John Frame, who refused to overrule.

Agassi had been furious with Frame over another line call Wednesday that helped Haas win the third set.

A forehand by Haas was ruled good, even though replays showed it was clearly out.

"It was nearly six inches [out]," Agassi protested. "It was out both ways. It was wide and it was long."

Frame shook his head and the call stood, giving Haas a 6-3 lead in the tiebreaker. Agassi saved one set point, but succumbed on the next.

Play was then suspended, and Agassi resumed his protest.

"In 12 years, I've never seen it miss that much," Mr. Agassi said to Chair Umpire Frame.

The Centre Court crowd jeered the umpire and linesmen as they left the court. Today, Haas acknowledged the ball had been out.

I'm very much of the mind that tennis should be played with the utmost sportsmanship but no that's not cheating. It wasn't up to Haas to overrule the umpire in that instance and one can't put the onus on him for it. The very next call could be blown in Agassi's favor and against Haas and both competitors know it. It's just unfortunate that the officiating crew got it wrong. It happens.

I have in the past witnessed some top level guys believing their opponent to have gotten a bad call, intentionally not play the next point or "correct the score" verbally, ostensibly ignoring the umpire's ruling but while that is admirable it is WAY above and beyond in the way of sportsmanship.

Haas shouldn't be maligned for not taking action there, and being as frank as he was in the aftermath is actually admirable in that he acknowledged his opponent got hooked.

 

[edberg505]

WIMBLEDON, England (AP) -- Angry at the officiating and hurt by double faults, Andre Agassi is gone from 1998 Wimbledon.

Agassi, the 1992 champion and No. 13 seed, became the eighth men's seed eliminated Thursday when he lost in four sets today to Germany's Tommy Haas.

Agassi trailed two sets to one when the second-round match was suspended because of darkness Wednesday. Haas won the fourth set Thursday to win 4-6, 6-1, 7-6 (7-4), 6-4.

Haas, 20, has been billed as Germany's successor to Boris Becker. He is a product of the Nick Bollettieri academy in Florida, where Agassi also got his start.

"I used to see him practice there," Haas said. "I used to sit on the sideline when he was playing. ... This is a very special win for me. I can say I beat Andre Agassi, a former No. 1 who won a couple of Grand Slams."

Agassi broke in the first game of the fourth set and held for a 2-0 lead. But he double faulted on break point in the sixth game to let Haas even the set at 3-3.

The two remained on serve until the 10th game when another double fault by Agassi gave Haas a match point. Agassi saved that one, but Haas converted his second match point with a forehand return.

In the final game, leading 40-30, Agassi was upset when at least one groundstroke by Haas appeared long but drew no call. He approached chair umpire John Frame, who refused to overrule.

Agassi had been furious with Frame over another line call Wednesday that helped Haas win the third set.

A forehand by Haas was ruled good, even though replays showed it was clearly out.

"It was nearly six inches [out]," Agassi protested. "It was out both ways. It was wide and it was long."

Frame shook his head and the call stood, giving Haas a 6-3 lead in the tiebreaker. Agassi saved one set point, but succumbed on the next.

Play was then suspended, and Agassi resumed his protest.

"In 12 years, I've never seen it miss that much," Mr. Agassi said to Chair Umpire Frame.

The Centre Court crowd jeered the umpire and linesmen as they left the court. Today, Haas acknowledged the ball had been out.

Hahaha, holy crap I remeber that match. It was clearly out.

 

[edberg505]

No, you play the calls in the pros, unless you are a fool or James Blake.

Or Andy Roddick

 

[Voltron]

Yup, cheating indeed.

Voltron

 

[hoosierbr]

Or Andy Roddick

If you're referring to his match in Rome against Verdasco you're giving him way too much credit, as does everyone else that brings this up.

Verdasco's second serve on match point was called out and he protested. The umpire was on his way down to check the mark when Roddick stopped him showing that the ball was indeed in. He then went on to lose the match. Good for him for saving time but what exactly is heroic about that?

 

[Watcher]

Wasn't there an instance in 2000 or 2001 at the Australian Open where Magnus Norman, on court, told a chair umpire that the ball his opponent hit had been in, and went on to lose the match probably as a result of that?

 

[BluBarry]

You all remember the Women's Finals French Open 99 Graf vs Hingis ?

Do you recall a service point where martina's ball was called out and she got so upset that she went around the Net to show the mark ? Apparently, that's a no no in Sportsmanship. The ball looked very much in to me and was shown on replay and each time it was clearly on the line but Steffi didn't make a play at the ball and when she looked at the Officials, they called it out.

I've often wondered if there was some sort of Grand Plan to aide and assist Steffi Graf in that match ? The crowd was clearly against Hingis throughout the match and very much for Steffi to win

 

[maverick66]

Wasn't there an instance in 2000 or 2001 at the Australian Open where Magnus Norman, on court, told a chair umpire that the ball his opponent hit had been in, and went on to lose the match probably as a result of that?

i remember that. it was on match point. good guy to overrule himself i wouldnt have.

 

[Nostalgia]

No, you play the calls in the pros, unless you are a fool or James Blake. And you certainly don't overrule a call that's not on your side of the court.

Its funny, when Agassi was asked about instant replay this summer, he was asked if there was any past match in which he wished he had it. He mentioned this match.

or Paradorn Srichaphan, David Nalbandian, or Carlos Moya.

 

[Watcher]

You all remember the Women's Finals French Open 99 Graf vs Hingis ?

Do you recall a service point where martina's ball was called out and she got so upset that she went around the Net to show the mark ? Apparently, that's a no no in Sportsmanship. The ball looked very much in to me and was shown on replay and each time it was clearly on the line but Steffi didn't make a play at the ball and when she looked at the Officials, they called it out.

I've often wondered if there was some sort of Grand Plan to aide and assist Steffi Graf in that match ? The crowd was clearly against Hingis throughout the match and very much for Steffi to win

It's not like the crowd at Roland Garros has never clearly backed a player besides that, though. They were clearly in Justine Henin-Hardenne's corner in her 2003 semi against Serena Williams. I know that Justine not conceding that she had motioned to Serena she wasn't ready is seen in a bad light around here, but besides that. As I recall, the crowd was cheering when Serena double faulted on points.

And then Grosjean subtley working the crowd into a frenzy in his 2005 R16 loss to Nadal.

 

[BluBarry]

It's not like the crowd at Roland Garros has never clearly backed a player besides that, though. They were clearly in Justine Henin-Hardenne's corner in her 2003 semi against Serena Williams. I know that Justine not conceding that she had motioned to Serena she wasn't ready is seen in a bad light around here, but besides that. As I recall, the crowd was cheering when Serena double faulted on points.

And then Grosjean subtley working the crowd into a frenzy in his 2005 R16 loss to Nadal.

Well Justine is paying dearly for it now because alomost every interview she does, someone brings up the issue of Crowd Support, which is diminishing as of late. I find that I don't care for her like I use to anymore. But I don't want to get started on the JHH issue here. nuff said about that

 

[dh003i]

the thing about correcing a ref on a bad call in your favor is that during the same game, or set, a critical call could go against you; so you might be putting the nails in your own coffin. On the other hand, if pros regularly did this, it would become expected, and then it wouldn't be such a dilemma.

 

[BluBarry]

the thing about correcing a ref on a bad call in your favor is that during the same game, or set, a critical call could go against you; so you might be putting the nails in your own coffin. On the other hand, if pros regularly did this, it would become expected, and then it wouldn't be such a dilemma.

That's what made this US Open so interesting with the Instant Replay. Everybody loved it and they discovered that the Pros were wrong most of the time, especially Sharapova, who I think got the highest amount of incorrect challenges.

 

[arosen]

Chair emp was there to officiate, not Haas. He did right by keeping his trap shut (which is really unusual in his case, the man is certifiably nuts). Now that the instant replay is in, someone needs to explain why the empires are still getting paid, they obviously refuse to do anything anymore besides flipping a damn coin and punching the scorecards. Monkeys can do that for food.

 

[onkystomper]

not cheating. they employ officials to make those calls and you have to go by thrm.

 

[BluBarry]

Well in all the years I've watched Tennis and witnessed someone getting what they thought was a bad call against them, continuing arguments has never once changed an Umpires mind. So the fact that these Players take the grip all the way to their Change-Over Break, is rediculous. All it does is keep them Amped Up instead of taking that time to relax and think about the next game at hand.

Right or Wrong, these Officials think their calls are from God and no way could they be wrong. I especially hate the Over-Rules when the shot was on the opposite side of the Court from the Chair. I've sometimes been directly inline with a ball and couldn't exactly tell with certainty if the ball was good or not. We've always played with the understanding that if you aren't 100% certain then you give the benefit of doubt to your opponent.

I suppose my original question should have been :

Is this Cheating or Bad Sportsmanship ?

Maybe the whole purpose of a Professional Match is to win matches and acquire points along with the increased money you get for going deeper in a Tourney. So where's the divide ? Do you play to the ends of who's better on that day, meaning if your opponent beats you, you accept that by playing fairly. Or you win by any means possible ? Even if that includes, going along with calls that you know is ripping your opponent off.

Perfect World: Very important point and your opponent hits a shot close to the line which is called out. Maybe this is break point for you to win a Set.
You are absolutely certain that the ball was good but when they called it out, you just won the Set, which let's say was in a Tie-Breaker just to illustrate that we're not talking about a 5-1 led you already had. No, this Set was down to the wire and every point was critical.

Earlier in another Thread, Roger Federer addressed the concept of Respect for your Fellow Players and Respect for the Fans, etc. If you indeed have respect for your opponent(s) and you know he/she got ripped off, do you say, "No, the Ball was good", and concede the point? Because to me, that's demonstarting true respect for your opponent and the Game. Or do you relay upon the Official Ruling as was stated in this Thread previously and proceed knowing a bunch of idiots are determining your fate ?

I'd like to think you as a PROFESSIONAL PLAYER would want to beat your opponent because your game was better not because he/she was the recipient of bad calls.

 

[Shabazza]

No cheating and no bad sportsmanship either - bad calls are part of the game and happen to everyone.

 

[Max G.]

Very important point and your opponent hits a shot close to the line which is called out.
...
You are absolutely certain that the ball was good but when they called it out.

But that's the thing. I find it hard to believe that that's ever going to happen.

Remember, it's a call so close that both the linesman and the chair umpire got it wrong. Do you really think that the player is going to be that certain that it was actually good? Sure, he might think that "I think it might have been good", but I can't see a player being more "certain" than the linesmen.

Especially given the current statistics about how often players are right on challenges, I would say that if challenges are not available you play whatever calls the umpires give you whether you agree with them or not, because they have a higher chance of being right than the player is, regardless.

 

[West Coast Ace]

They were clearly in Justine Henin-Hardenne's corner in her 2003 semi against Serena Williams. As I recall, the crowd was cheering when Serena double faulted on points.

Serena's game completely fell apart in the 3rd. And in her frustration at not being able to hit the ball anymore, she started questioning a ridiculous number of calls - the crowd was not amused to say the least.

No way you can call what Haas did cheating.

 

[BluBarry]

No way you can call what Haas did cheating.

No and you're absolutely right in that if anything my question should have been more about Sportsmanship and/or doing the right thing if given the opportunity.

Someone earlier stated if the ball was close to the line then you can't be certain. Well there are situation where you are certain and it was clearly in. Not for nothing but I've witnessed Andre Agassi reverse line calls that went against his opponent.

And guess what ?? Believe this or not but John McEnroe vs Andre Agassi 1992 Wimbledon Semis, Andre got a bad call and John knew it was good and over-ruled the Umps call. Can you believe that ?? JMac did the right thing for his boy Andre. I suppose it was solely because it was Agassi cuz I'm sure he wouldn't have done it for anybody else including his brother. Haha ha

So when you are CERTAIN the call was bad and for that split second you have the ability to set things right in the Universe, is it proper to make the call or just ride with what the official ruling was ?

I say, if you have a level of integrity that defines a Win as you actually beating a person because your game was better, then you stand up.

If Winning Is Everything as they say, you shut the Puck up and laugh about it later. Or up until your opponent kicks your ass in the Locker Room.

 

[Phil]

No and you're absolutely right in that if anything my question should have been more about Sportsmanship and/or doing the right thing if given the opportunity.

Someone earlier stated if the ball was close to the line then you can't be certain. Well there are situation where you are certain and it was clearly in. Not for nothing but I've witnessed Andre Agassi reverse line calls that went against his opponent.

And guess what ?? Believe this or not but John McEnroe vs Andre Agassi 1992 Wimbledon Semis, Andre got a bad call and John knew it was good and over-ruled the Umps call. Can you believe that ?? JMac did the right thing for his boy Andre. I suppose it was solely because it was Agassi cuz I'm sure he wouldn't have done it for anybody else including his brother. Haha ha

So when you are CERTAIN the call was bad and for that split second you have the ability to set things right in the Universe, is it proper to make the call or just ride with what the official ruling was ?

I say, if you have a level of integrity that defines a Win as you actually beating a person because your game was better, then you stand up.

If Winning Is Everything as they say, you shut the Puck up and laugh about it later. Or up until your opponent kicks your ass in the Locker Room.

Not only didn't he "cheat", but Hass didn't even display "bad sportsmanship" in not overruling. It's not up to players to do this. The game is officiated by professionals-there is no NEED to overrule them. I'm sure that Haas has gotten some bad calls in his career, too. Overruling a call in a professional match goes well beyond the realm of simple good sportsmanship.

I admire any player that does this, but at the same time, I question it, especially, in the case of Larssen, who overruled a call that gave his opponent the match. These are professionals; they play to win, and any breaks they get along the way, within the rules, they should take, if it will help them. I'm sure MANY, MANY players can see that a call against their opponent was wrong...the only difference here, is that Haas actually ADMITTED it after the match, and for THAT I give him credit. I don't recall any other player doing that.

 

[BluBarry]

Not only didn't he "cheat", but Hass didn't even display "bad sportsmanship" in not overruling. It's not up to players to do this. The game is officiated by professionals-there is no NEED to overrule them. I'm sure that Haas has gotten some bad calls in his career, too. Overruling a call in a professional match goes well beyond the realm of simple good sportsmanship.

I admire any player that does this, but at the same time, I question it, especially, in the case of Larssen, who overruled a call that gave his opponent the match. These are professionals; they play to win, and any breaks they get along the way, within the rules, they should take, if it will help them. I'm sure MANY, MANY players can see that a call against their opponent was wrong...the only difference here, is that Haas actually ADMITTED it after the match, and for THAT I give him credit. I don't recall any other player doing that.

Granted mistakes are made and often times in real life corrected. John McEnroe, while arguing with a Chair Official asked the question once, "Is there a possibility that you could be wrong about that call?" The Chair Ump replied, "No". You say these are Professionals and I agree obviously but so are the Officials given the responsibility to make what they hope are good assessments of the game being played and that each Player is on equal terms and advantages, using a structure ruling to guide them. By asking if there is a possibility that the observation may be wrong is extremely valid.

We are Humans prone to making mistakes and the only factual answer this guy could have given was, "Yes ". But in this game or any other game ruled by Officials, face saving seems to pre-empt ones better judgement. NOW we have ' Instant Replay ' and I find it interesting that the findings of Instant Replay are not being challenged. Have we collectively decided that this mechanical device is 100% accurate ? If this machine indicates a line call to be In or Out then that's all there is to it ? The only way we can know for certain is at the French Open where a visual mark is left behind. So what happens the day that Istant Replay is employed at the French and a video accounting of a line call is later found to be wrong ? If the machine indicates to the contrary and all concerned witnesses that the mark left behind proves otherwise, will the call be reversed?

Lots of words to only say the game is tough enough and to also have to battle against bad calls is nothing more than a distraction. It can take you out of a game or match depending on how important that point was. If I'm positioned directly over a shot and witness that the opponents ball was good but ruled out. I would think it my duty to object because I'm not good with giving control over my fate or my opponents fate when they've just illustrated bad judgement. As you say, allowing that can at some point go against me in the future. If my opponent verbally reverses a bad call, I will do the same for him. We are the combatants biding for a win and opposite of your sentiments, NOT at any cost. Integrity and honesty are more important than winning. At least in my book they are.

 

[FiveO]

Granted mistakes are made and often times in real life corrected. John McEnroe, while arguing with a Chair Official asked the question once, "Is there a possibility that you could be wrong about that call?" The Chair Ump replied, "No". You say these are Professionals and I agree obviously but so are the Officials given the responsibility to make what they hope are good assessments of the game being played and that each Player is on equal terms and advantages, using a structure ruling to guide them. By asking if there is a possibility that the observation may be wrong is extremely valid.

We are Humans prone to making mistakes and the only factual answer this guy could have given was, "Yes ". But in this game or any other game ruled by Officials, face saving seems to pre-empt ones better judgement. NOW we have ' Instant Replay ' and I find it interesting that the findings of Instant Replay are not being challenged. Have we collectively decided that this mechanical device is 100% accurate ? If this machine indicates a line call to be In or Out then that's all there is to it ? The only way we can know for certain is at the French Open where a visual mark is left behind. So what happens the day that Istant Replay is employed at the French and a video accounting of a line call is later found to be wrong ? If the machine indicates to the contrary and all concerned witnesses that the mark left behind proves otherwise, will the call be reversed?

Lots of words to only say the game is tough enough and to also have to battle against bad calls is nothing more than a distraction. It can take you out of a game or match depending on how important that point was. If I'm positioned directly over a shot and witness that the opponents ball was good but ruled out. I would think it my duty to object because I'm not good with giving control over my fate or my opponents fate when they've just illustrated bad judgement. As you say, allowing that can at some point go against me in the future. If my opponent verbally reverses a bad call, I will do the same for him. We are the combatants biding for a win and opposite of your sentiments, NOT at any cost. Integrity and honesty are more important than winning. At least in my book they are.

Officials are fallible. What makes you conclude that the participants are any less fallible? The use of Hawk-Eye shows that the players get it right about 30% of the time. The rules are written with a mind for the officials to get it right as best they can and with awareness that mistakes will be made.

Using any interaction between Mc and any chair cannot be used as evidence of the chair's arrogance (although some come across as being so) it is about limiting the argument which is sure to ensue. The chair won't be the chair if the perception develops that he/she approaches his job with bias or malice or that he/she proves themselves completely incompetent. Are calls blown? Sure. Do the players get it right more than the linespeople and umpires? It's not even close.

You want to believe that it's bad sportsmanship go ahead. The majority here seems to disagree with you. The players themselves disagree. It is written out of the rules and the code that a player calls anything on the opposite side of the net. In an unofficiated match one can ask an opponent for "help" on a call and must live with it if he does. In an officiated match players are not charged with that responsibility at all. They have enough on their plates as it is. In fact it is written into the rules that the chair is not to overrule UNLESS he perceives a clearerror on the part of a linesperson in his/her crew and overrules and the margins which one chair vs. another chair deems "clear" have led to more arguments between players and officials than anything else.

It's not the players' responsibility, nor their expectation of the opponent. It's simply not bad sportsmanship let alone cheating. Sorry.

I also found your statement "If my opponent verbally reverses a bad call, I will do the same for him." rings a little hollow. Your level of "sportsmanship" you seem to want to project as an unspoken responsibilty of competitors in officiated matches, seems remarkably conditional. So I take it that if you conclude that the opponent may have hooked you on an earlier call then you WON'T make a call against yourself later in the match. You can't see the rub here?

 

[Steve Huff]

Remember when Clisters had Henenne-Hardin down--a match point at Wimbledon I think. Justine hit a ball out. It was called out, but the chair overruled. Replays showed it was clearly out. Chair umpires are supposed to overrule ONLY when an error IS CLEARLY MADE. Obviously, an error couldn't have been CLEARLY MADE since replays showed that the call was correct. Justine came back to win that match, partially because Kim was so upset about the call. Did Justine cheat? No. Did the chair umpire cheat? I'd say she must have had some money riding on Justine to make that bad of an error. I did hear that she later, after seeing the replays, apologized to Kim.

 

[BluBarry]

You want to believe that it's bad sportsmanship go ahead. The majority here seems to disagree with you. The players themselves disagree. It is written out of the rules and the code that a player calls anything on the opposite side of the net. In an unofficiated match one can ask an opponent for "help" on a call and must live with it if he does. In an officiated match players are not charged with that responsibility at all. They have enough on their plates as it is. In fact it is written into the rules that the chair is not to overrule UNLESS he perceives a clearerror on the part of a linesperson in his/her crew and overrules and the margins which one chair vs. another chair deems "clear" have led to more arguments between players and officials than anything else.

It's not the players' responsibility, nor their expectation of the opponent. It's simply not bad sportsmanship let alone cheating. Sorry.

I also found your statement "If my opponent verbally reverses a bad call, I will do the same for him." rings a little hollow. Your level of "sportsmanship" you seem to want to project as an unspoken responsibilty of competitors in officiated matches, seems remarkably conditional. So I take it that if you conclude that the opponent may have hooked you on an earlier call then you WON'T make a call against yourself later in the match. You can't see the rub here?

Actually you got it wrong Human. I am convinced that neither Cheating nor Bad Sportsmanship apply here. In my latter Post I was simply attempting to illustrate that in my circumstances which is merely Public Park playing these days, for me solely, is about winning or losing based upon who's game was better on that day. I'm not in the ATP and I assume if I were, things would be different. And NO you got it incorrect again because my integrity is my banner. If you give me the benefit of doubt, that speaks volumes of the type of person your are and you can count on me doing the same for you. And if you cheat me or call something out that I was certain in and stick to it. I will simply understand that our means to an end are different. I'm not going to jump off bridge because you do and I'm not going to rob you because you do.

On a lighter note : During the USO, I was amazed at how often the Players got it wrong. And they watch many more shots than I do, referring to the trained eye thing. according to the USOpen.org official site, as you said, there were 141 Challenges and of that only 43 were successful. And of that only 4 Players were 100% in correct challenges, Benjamin Becker being the most accurate getting 3-3.

I'm a Tommy Haas Fan and he is an Andre Agassi Fan. There was no malice here. But I was curious if this scenario could be considered Sportsmanship or to a lesser arguable degree Cheating. Simply playing the Devil's Advocate to see who thought what in this case.

 

[BluBarry]

Remember when Clisters had Henenne-Hardin down--a match point at Wimbledon I think. Justine hit a ball out. It was called out, but the chair overruled. Replays showed it was clearly out. Chair umpires are supposed to overrule ONLY when an error IS CLEARLY MADE. Obviously, an error couldn't have been CLEARLY MADE since replays showed that the call was correct. Justine came back to win that match, partially because Kim was so upset about the call. Did Justine cheat? No. Did the chair umpire cheat? I'd say she must have had some money riding on Justine to make that bad of an error. I did hear that she later, after seeing the replays, apologized to Kim.

Hmmm, I wonder if she also advanced her the difference between the Winners' Check and the Runner Up's Check ?

Well we've all seen Chair Officials not recalled in future Tournaments as a result of their judgment.

 

[Hot Sauce]

I could see how someone could classify it as cheating, but personally I don't.

 

[baseliner87]

i'm lost.....

 

[Chadwixx]

Thats why you dont play in the dark

 

[ElSuegro]

This thread shows how bad the pros need to use shot spot or whatever for their matches. That way a player can't really feel cheated by the only human linesmen and umpires. I'm glad they use it some now, but I would like to go the next step and let the chair ump use it on every close ball. Let's do away with the silly "challenges". The players shouldn't have to ask for bad calls to be reversed. The ump can and should do it automatically.

 

[Chadwixx]

Yep, letting the players decide which to choose is cool for the drama, but taking a look at all shots would be better for the game. It is the umpires jobs to get the call right, how they do it is up to them.

 

[TheTruth]

Tommy Haas doesn't cheat, and as many calls as Andre got he should shut up!

 

[caulcano]

not cheating. they employ officials to make those calls and you have to go by thrm.

You don't have to go by the officials.

Some players actually do own up to say the ball was in. That's sportsmanship. They just replay the point.

 

[pound cat]

Or Andy Roddick

Or Nadal at Roland Garros.

 

[origmarm]

Just from a rules point of view, can a player overrule the umpire in this case? I couldn't find anything about it in the rules/code

Edit: Clearly its been accepted in the past but is this on the basis that no one disputed it as such

 

[diggler]

If it's on the other side of the court, it is definately not cheating. How can you really see it.

If it is on your side and clearly a mistake, as a professonal, you don't have to reverse the call. As a good guy, you could.

 

[Vision84]

It's different on clay. The players can check the line to save the umpire the trouble from getting down on his chair. i saw that occur a fair bit in Roland Garros this year. I wouldn't compare the Haas, Aggasi match to clay court matches.

 

[crazylevity]

If it's on the other side of the court, it is definately not cheating. How can you really see it.

If it is on your side and clearly a mistake, as a professonal, you don't have to reverse the call. As a good guy, you could.

It's easy for me to say that I'd reverse the incorrect call...but if between that call and $500,000 in a Grand Slam final? I wouldn't be so sure...I'd like to say that I would still call it as it is...but I wouldn't know for sure.

 

[anchorsteamer]

You see it a lot more in the challengers and futures, as you sometimes have as few as one (though usually more like 3-5) calling every single ball on the court. Having been on both sides of it, If you are 100% certain it was in I say you gotta over-rule the call...regardless of the situation or timing as that is bad sportsmanship. It's the same as a ball touching your racket on its way out and you not saying anything. Again this is only if you are certain...absolutely certain. I had it happen in the quarterfinals of a futures on set point, but I knew if I didn't change it I'd feel bad about the match as it wasn't my point. In my mind it truly is the same thing as the umpire calling the score wrong...it's dishonest and should not be encouraged.

 

[dukemunson]

I agree, if you know it's in you gotta make the over-rule...

 

[Eviscerator]

i remember that. it was on match point. good guy to overrule himself i wouldnt have.

Well he was doing what any NBA player would have done. You see them admitting they fouled an opponent or admitting when they touched the ball last rather then pretending it didn't happen. :mrgreen:

 

[princess bossass]

What I don't understand about the Haas-Agassi situation from that article is whether Haas actually SAW that the ball was out while they were playing, or just "acknowledged" that it was out the day after the match, having seen replays?

I know it's irrelevant in the whole philosophical dispute, but it's relevant to my personal relationship with Tommy Haas .

 

[anchorsteamer]

Well he was doing what any NBA player would have done. You see them admitting they fouled an opponent or admitting when they touched the ball last rather then pretending it didn't happen. :mrgreen:

Does that make it any better? Does Ginoblis flopping really make you appreciate him or his game more? I think the flopping in basketball and soccer is a joke...

 

[Eviscerator]

Does that make it any better? Does Ginoblis flopping really make you appreciate him or his game more? I think the flopping in basketball and soccer is a joke...

So do I that is why I posted the sarcastic post.
:mrgreen: