The additional elements you allude too would make any serious competitor more determined, rather than conceding the match by default. Well done to Toth for securing her most famous (well, only famous) victory.
Shuai Zhang vs Amarissa Kiara Toth Incident - Unedited Video
- Thread starter cg.tennis
- Start date
A child playing t-ball falls and starts crying. You're the adult who yells at the child and tells them to continue on. Callous and abusive.
Only if the child has decided that t-ball will be their profession.
Everyone on the internet could see that the ball was in. So how do we explain the umpires decision?
- Everyone on the internet is wrong and the umpire made the correct call (the ball was out)
- The umpire is corrupt. She saw it in, but called it out
I can't think of any other plausible explanation. Unless you believe the umpire is so bad at her job that it was in, but the umpire didn't see what everyone on the internet saw. But that doesn't seem possible.
I'd be inclined to go with the first explanation. But then we have to explain why Zhang was so adamant that the ball was in. She obviously saw the mark from across the net and saw it in. And we don't see Zhang having a history of doing this sort of thing and she's been on the tour for years.
I'm really not sure what to believe here. In truth, she behaved pretty much like McEnroe used to, and he became famous for his antics.
jm1980
Talk Tennis Guru
The ball was almost halfway in, it wasn't by a "few millimeters". It was a shockingly bad call
But this was more likely to have been sheer incompetence than corruption. This umpire needs to be banned from officiating Tour level matches and sent to ITF
You're saying that even though everyone on the internet can see the ball is in, the umpire was unable to see it when she was standing next to the mark? How do you explain this?
Her "competence" is simply looking at a mark that you say is halfway in. How does she miss that?
Thus the reaction that many people here are saying was an overreaction.
But I don't understand. If everyone on the internet could see it, how do we explain that she couldn't see it? How's it possible? Incompetence doesn't explain that she can't see what's (seemingly) right in front of her. Competence has nothing to do with seeing.
As I said, my best guess is, if we look at the video, even the commentator is saying that "it might have just caught the outside of the line".
So how do we reconcile our belief that the ball was halfway in, with what we see in the video? And what the umpire seems to see (and calls it out)?
We seem to believe the evidence we want to believe and disregard the parts we don't
That's why everyone, including you, is incredulous.
What is the "that's why"?
The video? The mark? The umpire? Zhang?
They all seem to give us different information. Which one do you believe and why?
Why do you believe one set of facts that supports a certain narrative and disregard the facts that support a different narrative?
The video shows pretty plainly that the ball wasn't "halfway in". But the mark we see at the start of the video looks halfway in. How do we reconcile this? They can't both be true.
jm1980
Talk Tennis Guru
Exactly, how does she miss that?
Did you watch the slow motion video, it even pauses right at the line. You combine that with the mark that clearly shows it in. If that's not enough for you, then stay confused. I don't care.
OK, so you see in the video that the ball was "halfway in". In other words, it hit the middle of the line. I guess that explains it. That's not what I see. And not what the commentator saw. So I guess we see the video differently.
But if the mark was in the middle of the line, how do you explain a professional umpire not seeing that? Or are you saying she did see it, but is cheating Zhang?
What makes it confusing, is nobody commits to what is going on. If the umpire is cheating, say it. Then I'll know what your position is.
If you think the umpire made a mistake, explain how that's possible if the ball is halfway in.
Here we have it. Clearly stated. The umpire is corrupt.
So why isn't the WTA investigating this? If it's obvious to you, don't you think it's obvious to them? Are they in on it too? How wide does the conspiracy go?
Last edited:
Snipe
Rookie
Life isn't fair. Everyone gets dealt some bad hands. The folks who can't accept that and make a massive stink over any minor imperfection are part of the problem.
What we had here was three women behaving poorly. Not one of them is completely in the right. All three could have behaved in a far more professional manner.
There's plenty of blame to go around.
What we had here was three women behaving poorly. Not one of them is completely in the right. All three could have behaved in a far more professional manner.
There's plenty of blame to go around.
jm1980
Talk Tennis Guru
The blame lies almost entirely on the umpire. It's her job to call the lines and she completely failed at doing that
Zhang and Toth both could have behaved better too. But none of that would have happened without an egregious mistake from the umpire
So it was a mistake? The ball is halfway in and the umpire made a mistake and called it out? Even after inspecting the mark? A mark everyone on the internet can see as halfway in?
Interesting.
jm1980
Talk Tennis Guru
Yes, a pretty bad mistake too. As anyone with functioning eyes can clearly see
Then how does a professional umpire not see it? Was she looking at a different mark? Because if she was looking at that mark (as we see it on the video), how could she mistakenly call it out? The mark looks halfway in.
To me, your explanation is hard to understand
Don't worry, I'm in the process of suing the ump. I'll get her financial records and do forensic accounting. And get her phone records. And search her house. And interview all associates. Just wait.
Dunlop300g
Rookie
It's pretty sad when they can show the ball hitting the line on TV or video replay and the umpire has no access to this or is unwilling to watch the replay. With electronic line calling and / or video replay it's pretty clear that this sort of incident demonstrates that tennis in many ways is still in the "dark ages". Example ... why in the world (besides pride and arrogance) would Wimbeldon even allow lines people to be used; certainly they have enough money to implement electronic line judging on all their courts.
This smallish tournament here on clay ... well ... the umpire clearly picked the wrong ball mark on the far side of the court; didn't hear the click of the ball on the line and either didn't have access to the video (how come football has this in the world cup and elsewhere and tennis doesn't) or she didn't both to watch the video on her tablet. It's a sad statement for tennis in general ... no over-arching commissioner to set a standard for play and now we have this idiotic situation to deal with.
Some governing body needs to have oversight of the WTA and ATP to get this resolved one can for all.
The players deserve better. The game deserves better. And lastly, the umpires deserve better ...
Last edited:
I guess this sort of response must be interesting to the audiences you are familiar with. You've learned some very bad habits.
Dartagnan64
G.O.A.T.
How do you know the WTA isn't looking into this, just behind closed doors? I would think they did have a debrief with the chair umpire and reviewed the video.
I don't know. I'm just saying that if there is corruption, wouldn't you expect the WTA to look into this? This would be one of the most serious things and would be dealt with harshly. The WTA can't afford to be thought to condone corruption, can they?
Looking at the video at 1:20 and 5:50, if it caught the line, it caught the very outside edge (that's what I'm seeing).
Not sure this would be grounds for corruption. But as I said, I don't know if there is or isn't an active investigation for corruption relating to this.
I didn't see another mark. So you're seeing a mark that is out on the video? This is the first I've heard of "wrong mark".
You want to know so badly whether or not the umpire was corrupt. And you have gone on and on about it. I thought that you believe things so easily that you might believe me and then finally shut your **** mouth.
I don't really care about the incident itself.
It's just one of those interesting cases where you can ask people why they believe what they believe, ask them to consider the implications and see how they respond.
It's been very entertaining and I thank everyone for their responses.
Wurm
Professional
This is the from the Prime footage. There's only one mark around where it landed and you'd have to say it looks to have caught a good chunk of the line The only possible way the Umpire could interpret it as out is if she's trying to claim the line sweeping is confusing the issue.
Like someone else mentioned, you can hear the click of the line as it bounced. If you cant understand that it was in, you have problems. There's slow motion with pauses from 2 different angles. There's a mark. And there's the sound. If you still think it could have possibly been out, you need to check in to a hospital.
"The WTA has zero tolerance for racism in any form or context,” a statement read.
“The unfortunate incident that took place yesterday at the Hungarian Grand Prix and subsequent posts are being reviewed and will be addressed.”
Umps get demoted for bad calls. Sounds like wta investigated and are handling her out of the public eye.
This is obviously a horrible call (to everyone but you and a few others). Why are you trying to defend it?
100%.
but @tennis3 is _not_ arguing at all that the ball was out. He is simply asking what the reason could be for the umpire to make the out call. Why do you think the umpire made an out call?
I don't know, maybe she doesn't like Zhang for some reason, maybe she's blind, maybe she had a friend bet on the match, maybe someone threatened her...
There are many possible reasons. Only the umpire knows, or maybe a few other people if there's a conspiracy.
She called it out, for whatever reason, the reason doesn't matter because that's something that will probably never be answered so why waste time trying to figure it out?
The questions being answered are: 1. Did Zhang overreact? Is Toth not conceding the point considered cheating?
Dunlop300g
Rookie
Thanks, I went back and looked and paused on the shot showing the ball mark; and you are completely correct there isn't another ball mark even close to it and this one is clearly 1/2 on the line at least so it's clearly good. So I was giving the umpire the benefit of the doubt thinking that she picked the wrong mark which can and does happen occasionally, but definitely not in this case because she pointed directly to the mark in question; she need to be removed from WTA officiating. Appreciate your correction on my post. It's also sad IMHO that Toth did not concede the point or even taken some effort to get to the truth about it ... so even if it isn't technically her "job" to make the call; it is in the best interest of the game to be a good sport and clearly she didn't care about the truth enough to even take a look at the ball mark until after it was all over and then she went to erase it seeing that it was clearly in. So she'll have to live with that one.
The ironic and truly sad part in all of this is how the WTA is trying to underscore the mental strain that many of these women face on the tour, the pressure they have to deal with etc. Look at what Zhang had to deal with here ... she must have felt the whole world was against her ... that she was living in an alternate reality ... and everyone was against her and she was standing up against these idiots and then she broke down ... it's so cruel and sad. Nice job, WTA. This definitely needs to be investigated and corrected. Players are at risk.
Snipe
Rookie
"Overconfidence bias is the tendency people have to be more confident in their own abilities, such as driving, teaching, or spelling, than is objectively reasonable."
I appreciate your points, tone, and perspective. I'd offer a counterpoint which is the NBA.
The NBA used to be about brute strength basketball. Strong men, strong moves.
Then they changed the rules and the game became more about finesse and quickness. High skill players were able to move unimpeded by hand-checks and career endangering flagrant fouls.
Now the NBA is defined by horrendous calls, bizarre rule interpretations, and players flopping. It's often difficult to watch.
To me, it was a long, slippery decline that led the NBA to this place of absolute absurdity - and it started with players whining.
At first they whined, then they embellished, then they acted, and now rarely does a play pass without someone on the floor acting injured - only to jump up, miraculously cured to complain about how they didn't get the call.
Giving in to player protests can lead to some horrible consequences down the road. It's like the hen pecked husbands you see and go "how the heck did it get to the point where his wife is able to be such a horrible human being with absolute impunity?"
Both stories often start with a few well placed tantrums.
I appreciate your points, tone, and perspective. I'd offer a counterpoint which is the NBA.
The NBA used to be about brute strength basketball. Strong men, strong moves.
Then they changed the rules and the game became more about finesse and quickness. High skill players were able to move unimpeded by hand-checks and career endangering flagrant fouls.
Now the NBA is defined by horrendous calls, bizarre rule interpretations, and players flopping. It's often difficult to watch.
To me, it was a long, slippery decline that led the NBA to this place of absolute absurdity - and it started with players whining.
At first they whined, then they embellished, then they acted, and now rarely does a play pass without someone on the floor acting injured - only to jump up, miraculously cured to complain about how they didn't get the call.
Giving in to player protests can lead to some horrible consequences down the road. It's like the hen pecked husbands you see and go "how the heck did it get to the point where his wife is able to be such a horrible human being with absolute impunity?"
Both stories often start with a few well placed tantrums.
I don't think they are investigating the umpire for racism or corruption. I don't think they are investigating the umpire period.
The racism is referring to posts / comments made in social media I believe.
The "unfortunate incident" isn't referring to the umpire, but the entire spectacle and the bad press.
If you hear of the umpire being reprimanded for the call or how she handled the situation, let me know.
Have you ever played an officiated match before?
Yes
Do you expect your opponent to overrule an umpire decision if you complain long enough?
I would never expect my opponent to overrule an umpires "out" call and give me the point. I don't think I've ever seen it happen.
Now, I know "you" would do it. That just goes without saying. As would every person on social media.
I'm just saying I've never seen it in real life
It's even worse than that. If you watch any of the sports talk shows, this behavior is lauded as being great. Players that can fool officials and get fouls are celebrated and the guy that gets called for the foul (though he did nothing) is made fun of. This is true in all sports where officials have to make judgement calls (I'm thinking mainly of football here).
The behavior isn't only tolerated, it's become an integral part of sport. And like you, I've lost all interest in watching sports that are dependent on officials making judgement calls on fouls / penalties. The NFL and NBA are absolutely unwatchable and have been for many, many years. And yet, they've never been more popular and profitable. So most people love this sort of stuff. Which is fine. In the end, it's just entertainment. If people like it, so be it.
Last edited:
Here you go, here's one:
May 5 2005: The day Roddick’s sportsmanship cost him a win
On May 5, 2005, Roddick lost a match he had almost won after he overturned a call on match point that would have given him victory over Verdasco
www.tennismajors.com
I'm saying that based on the video, it looks very close. Even the commentator looking at the video says that, if it was in, it "might have just caught the outside edge of the line"
I see the mark in the video. It looks in to me. But the mark looks "way in". And the video shows that the ball was "barely in" (at least to me and the commentator doing the match).
So I'm just wondering if the mark we see in the video gives a bad perspective. It doesn't seem to match what I see in the video. And then we have the umpire calling it out. If it were as far in as what the mark seems to indicate, there's no way she'd call that out.
Something is off in the perspective we are given somewhere. The evidence doesn't "syn up" to me.
I knew you'd pull that one up. It's famous. I just wanted to make you do it.Here you go, here's one:
May 5 2005: The day Roddick’s sportsmanship cost him a win
On May 5, 2005, Roddick lost a match he had almost won after he overturned a call on match point that would have given him victory over Verdasco
So you lied. Shame on you.
