Unfair Ruling for Janowicz

[berg]

Originally Posted by Rattler

These kind of meltdowns, I find very entertaining.

What was mildly hilarious was how australianopen.com was spinning it as The Janowicz Meltdown all over the front page. Before the end of the match was called. It's only a meaningful meltdown if you loose. The Stosur performance was a meltdown. This was a question. And the question was: "How many times?" How many times will questionable calls need to be made before hawk-eye gets installed? Loud and clear.

[SoCalJay]

It doesn't matter whether it was in or not at this point. In my opinion, if Indian Wells can put up the money to have Hawkeye on 8 courts then the Aussie open sure as hell should have it on court 8 (where Janowicz was playing) as well.

[beernutz]

Originally Posted by augustobt

I can see, there's a clear space between the ball and the line.

No there isn't, the ball is clearly at least overlapping the line in the picture if not outright touching it.

[augustobt]

Originally Posted by beernutz

No there isn't, the ball is clearly at least overlapping the line in the picture if not outright touching it.

I can clearly see, the ball is wide.

[TennisD]

Originally Posted by augustobt

I can clearly see, the ball is wide.

No, you can't, because that's not how perspective and video work. I'm not saying you don't have wonderful, hawk-like vision, but no matter how high-def the video is, the camera angle and proximity of the ball to the line make it impossible to see anything clearly, other than the fact that it was damn close.

Really though, the umpire did the right thing by not over-ruling; doing so on a ball that close on the far sideline would have been stupid and irresponsible on his part.

[berg]

Originally Posted by TennisD

No, you can't, because that's not how perspective and video work. I'm not saying you don't have wonderful, hawk-like vision, but no matter how high-def the video is, the camera angle and proximity of the ball to the line make it impossible to see anything clearly, other than the fact that it was damn close.

Really though, the umpire did the right thing by not over-ruling; doing so on a ball that close on the far sideline would have been stupid and irresponsible on his part.

Which is another way of saying the umpire was utterly useless in her role. Next time, though, give the guy some flowers to calm him down. Oh, they actually did that? How sweet.

[Vrad]

Originally Posted by berg

Which is another way of saying the umpire was utterly useless in her role. Next time, though, give the guy some flowers to calm him down. Oh, they actually did that? How sweet.

Because she went with the line judge, who has the best view's call, on a decision which was clearly too close to call?

[Steve0904]

Originally Posted by berg

Which is another way of saying the umpire was utterly useless in her role. Next time, though, give the guy some flowers to calm him down. Oh, they actually did that? How sweet.

No the umpire was right not to overrule because she was on the other side to where the ball landed.

[berg]

Originally Posted by Steve0904

No the umpire was right not to overrule because she was on the other side to where the ball landed.

No to which question exactly?

[berg]

No really. A bunch of girls showered Jerzy with flowers. And in the absence of hawk-eye, the umpire was utterly useless in he role.

[Max G.]

Originally Posted by berg

No really. A bunch of girls showered Jerzy with flowers. And in the absence of hawk-eye, the umpire was utterly useless in he role.

Useless? She made the right call.

[Steve0904]

Originally Posted by berg

No to which question exactly?

I'm saying no to the statement that the umpire was useless in her role when she actually did the right thing by doing nothing. You don't have to respond yes or no just to questions you know.

[berg]

Originally Posted by Steve0904

I'm saying no to the statement that the umpire was useless in her role when she actually did the right thing by doing nothing. You don't have to respond yes or no just to questions you know.

No problem. You are welcome to misinterpret what I say anytime you like. Moving on.

[berg]

Originally Posted by Max G.

Useless? She made the right call.

Useless. Sure. In the absence of hawk-eye, an umpire that far away from the ball is about as useful as no umpire. ie. useless.

Some girls gave Jerzy flowers to go home with. Useful. See the difference?

[hersito]

Originally Posted by augustobt

I can clearly see, the ball is wide.

You should consider getting glasses...

[berg]

Originally Posted by hersito

You should consider getting glasses...

Are you talking to augustobt, or imaginatively to the line judge? Surely not augustobt, right? Because I don't think augustobt is saying augustobt can actually see the ball as out, certainly not from the manner in which you've posted the blurry freeze frame. That would be absurd.

[woodrow1029]

I woke up this morning, and was thinking, "Please I hope this thread has died by now, because it's ridiculous for a bunch of people watching on TV think they are absolutely right by saying it was in or it was out when honestly nobody has any idea from watching it on TV as there was no hawkeye, and only a bad camera angle to make an honest determination."

I was disappointed when I signed in.

LOL

[hersito]

Originally Posted by berg

Are you talking to augustobt, or imaginatively to the line judge? Surely not augustobt, right? Because I don't think augustobt is saying augustobt can actually see the ball as out, certainly not from the manner in which you've posted the blurry freeze frame. That would be absurd.

Hurry, quick! If you go with agustobt you might get a discount!