Calling woodrow about Raonic/Verdasco
- Thread starter sureshs
- Start date
No need to call Woodrow. The umpire did the right thing by not replaying the point. Use your head !
Disturbance that causes by noise coming from the fan aren’t a valid reason to replay the point. What if a baby start to cry during the point, should they replay the point too? No way. It’s part of the game.
STOP !
Had the umpire call for replay and Raonic end up losing the point and eventually losing the match, the umpire would be in hot water. You have to look at both side...the consequence of calling a replay would be more damaging.
JustBob
Hall of Fame
"A let serve occurs if the ball hits the net and bounces legally into the service box, or if a player serves before an opponent is ready to resume play. In both of these cases, no fault is charged to the server. In tournament play, a let may be called by the judges if crowd noise or thrown objects distract a player during a serve."
isabel-bikinitennis
Banned
dominikk1985
Legend
No replay.
I would also have no problem if fans could cheer during points. Baseball players also pitch and hit during noise. this requires just as much concentration and precision as tennis. basketball players have to shoot free throws while it's noisy.
Of course this would disturb a player, but only because they are used to play while fans are quiet.
If they would get accustomed to it they ould play just as good tennis with a loud crowd. players could learn to ignore that.
however if you are normally playing quiet and then someone shouts this is disturbing of course.
I would also have no problem if fans could cheer during points. Baseball players also pitch and hit during noise. this requires just as much concentration and precision as tennis. basketball players have to shoot free throws while it's noisy.
Of course this would disturb a player, but only because they are used to play while fans are quiet.
If they would get accustomed to it they ould play just as good tennis with a loud crowd. players could learn to ignore that.
however if you are normally playing quiet and then someone shouts this is disturbing of course.
isabel-bikinitennis
Banned
I like this idea, hope it starts soon.
Tennis sensation
Legend
Where is Woodrow?
isabel-bikinitennis
Banned
LOL HAHA LMAO !!
isabel-bikinitennis
Banned
Raonic better than Berdych?
jmverdugo
Hall of Fame
Comparing tennis and baseball is not a good idea, first you get 3 strikes to hit the ball properlly and you can hit as many fouls as you want. Second pitching doesnt required half of the eye - hand coordination required by hitting a serve or just regular groundstrokes.
I think people should remain quite during a tennis match, period, there is no need to yell or do anything else than watch the match, if you want to chat go somewhere else, IMO things are right the way they are.
Oh and Raonic hit an ace, no need to repeat the point.
1
1970CRBase
Guest
I sure hope woodrow doesn't fall for this one.
slice bh compliment
G.O.A.T.
Since woodrow has yet to chime in....I'll just mention that in my conversations with an ITF badged chair guy I've asked him about something like this in the past (heated match, close to the end...uncontrollable crowd noise).
He said that it is a judgement call, and in accordance w/ the rules, he'd want to go with a let, but that there are unwritten rules to keep the chair umpire from being too much a part of the match, ESPECIALLY in a breaker. So, officialdom is basically encouraged to lay off the overrules, foot-faults, lets and code violations at the very end of a close one. He cited the Echagaray meltdown a few yrs back as a time to have laid off the urge to make a call at match point.
My personal opinions...
I am hoping there's also an unwritten addendum saying that if the offending fans are in a player's entourage, it's a let no matter the score. But in this case, and I don't know if the chair knew it, it was just some random couple.
As much as I've always liked Nando, I think he was overreacting because he'd just lost to a kid...and that's got to hurt. Then the soccer/football comment made him look even more the churl.
NandoBasco teaches us that 'sense of entitlement' is directly proportional to fauxhawk epicness.
He said that it is a judgement call, and in accordance w/ the rules, he'd want to go with a let, but that there are unwritten rules to keep the chair umpire from being too much a part of the match, ESPECIALLY in a breaker. So, officialdom is basically encouraged to lay off the overrules, foot-faults, lets and code violations at the very end of a close one. He cited the Echagaray meltdown a few yrs back as a time to have laid off the urge to make a call at match point.
My personal opinions...
I am hoping there's also an unwritten addendum saying that if the offending fans are in a player's entourage, it's a let no matter the score. But in this case, and I don't know if the chair knew it, it was just some random couple.
As much as I've always liked Nando, I think he was overreacting because he'd just lost to a kid...and that's got to hurt. Then the soccer/football comment made him look even more the churl.
NandoBasco teaches us that 'sense of entitlement' is directly proportional to fauxhawk epicness.
slice bh compliment
G.O.A.T.
Nah, not an ace. Fernando hit is as a FH with the strings, and sent into the net.
Andres
G.O.A.T.
According to that logic, what would your friend feel about the Serena footfault incident?
jmverdugo
Hall of Fame
Oh sorry, I did not see the match, just what is on youtube...
Pidgeon
Semi-Pro
there are rules dealing with interference from the public and the umpire is allowed to respond to inappropriate behaviour from the audience!
but i don't know if he needs to discuss it with the tournament leader or not...
anyway would it matter here i don't know ?
if you ask verdasco he would say yes, if you would ask milos he would say no
but i don't know if he needs to discuss it with the tournament leader or not...
anyway would it matter here i don't know ?
if you ask verdasco he would say yes, if you would ask milos he would say no
Cindysphinx
G.O.A.T.
No let.
People in the crowd yell stuff all the time. They even shout out line calls, and I have seen pros stop playing or hesitate.
Pros know or should know to ignore crowd noise during points. You start calling lets every time some drunk yells out and you'll never get a match completed. Fernando just got beat.
People in the crowd yell stuff all the time. They even shout out line calls, and I have seen pros stop playing or hesitate.
Pros know or should know to ignore crowd noise during points. You start calling lets every time some drunk yells out and you'll never get a match completed. Fernando just got beat.
slice bh compliment
G.O.A.T.
He laughed and stayed away from that question. I asked about it during the conversation about the matchpoint footfault call in a 3rd set breaker in a challenger....he seemed to want to talk about that and Davis Cup ties more than women's tennis, and that Serena situation.
Friend of friend, so I did not push it.
I mean, you've got to enforce the rules consistently and without bias....but I do get the point about judgement calls and doing your best to not affect an outcome.
One of the greats once said that the best officials do the job well while going largely unnoticed.
Then you look at other sports like basketball and football, and yeah, calls have to be made judiciously.
You just hope and pray that even with all the conflicts of interest in tennis, that tennis remains cleaner than the other sports.
That is not the point (pun intended). As others have pointed out, umpires can use their dicretion to play a let because of crowd noise. Tennis is not like other uncivilized sports.
Last edited:
He is reading the rule book one last time before responding here.
Why are you people putting pressure on woodrow?????
I'm sure he has the same view....not calling a let.
JayChu
Hall of Fame
Whoever said that it is a judgment call was right on the money!
The Chair Umpire made the right choice to not call it a let because he saw Verdasco make the attempt to return the serve. Since Verdasco made the attempt to hit the ball, the point ended and it was award to Raonic since the point was played on the basis of good faith.
Similar example to the Verdasco-Raonic incident was the 2003 US Open SF between Roddick and Nalbandian in the 3rd set TB. Nalby hit a shot that was good and on the line, but someone from the crowd called it out, but play continued and it cost Nalby the point since he hit his next shot into the net.
Had Verdasco did not make the attempt to hit the ball (if he saw it), then perhaps he could have gotten a let, or he could have challenged the call.
I hoped this settled this debate here.
The Chair Umpire made the right choice to not call it a let because he saw Verdasco make the attempt to return the serve. Since Verdasco made the attempt to hit the ball, the point ended and it was award to Raonic since the point was played on the basis of good faith.
Similar example to the Verdasco-Raonic incident was the 2003 US Open SF between Roddick and Nalbandian in the 3rd set TB. Nalby hit a shot that was good and on the line, but someone from the crowd called it out, but play continued and it cost Nalby the point since he hit his next shot into the net.
Had Verdasco did not make the attempt to hit the ball (if he saw it), then perhaps he could have gotten a let, or he could have challenged the call.
I hoped this settled this debate here.
Last edited:
CDestroyer
Professional
It was really funny to because Fernando thought he had that tournament in the bag. Its fun to watch Verdasco's frequent meltdowns.
W
woodrow1029
Guest
Sorry for the late response. I haven't had much time for TT lately.
NO LET. You don't get to replay a point due to spectator noise (just ask Nalbandian after the 2003 U.S. Open semis vs. Roddick).
In this case, it wasn't that a spectator made an out call, but it's the same ruling.
NO LET. You don't get to replay a point due to spectator noise (just ask Nalbandian after the 2003 U.S. Open semis vs. Roddick).
In this case, it wasn't that a spectator made an out call, but it's the same ruling.
Don’t tell me that you believe the entire members were puzzled like you for not knowing what’s the right call. All it takes is a little common sense to see that NO LET is the right choice. I’m sure Woodrow is surprise to even have to address this.
Thanks Woodrow. You didn’t need to answer this question. Sometime an umpire can be in an awkward situation where he needs to make a decision when the rule isn’t clear as black and white. And that’s when you rely on good judgment. In Verdasco’s case, it wasn’t even that tough of a call(except for sureshs).
BreakPoint
Bionic Poster
roundiesee
Hall of Fame
I suppose rules are rules, but having watched that point again and again on Youtube, Fernando was hard done by.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hC47TEmagP0&feature=related
The sudden shout from the fan definitely distracted him; but full credit to Raonic who definitely deserved to win
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hC47TEmagP0&feature=related
The sudden shout from the fan definitely distracted him; but full credit to Raonic who definitely deserved to win
Tennis sensation
Legend
The match will be called off and No one will win the match. :wink:
equinox
Hall of Fame
What if someone farted really loud?
W
woodrow1029
Guest
How do you know from that angle it wasn't a foot fault though?
jackson vile
G.O.A.T.
jackson vile
G.O.A.T.
Where is the citation???
The players aren't affected more by a deliberate noise than a non-deliberate one.
jackson vile
G.O.A.T.
Wow, that stupid huh? One is to purposely change the outcome of a game.
That is the difference.
Do they allow people to use blow horns and bubuzelas?
W
woodrow1029
Guest
Where did you read that?
Leelord337
Hall of Fame
Where happened to woodrow1029?
Similar threads
