Draper half volley call was correct

leodevlin

Professional
Looking at this slow mo clip, it looks to me.that the ball does not hit the ground after touching his racket.


Am I the only one who perceives it this way ?

I admit that it's a very close call which makes it even stranger that Felix believes that he can see things accurately from the other side of the court asserting that Draper must have known it was a double bounce .
 
Looking at this slow mo clip, it looks to me.that the ball does not hit the ground after touching his racket.


Am I the only one who perceives it this way ?

I admit that it's a very close call which makes it even stranger that Felix believes that he can see things accurately from the other side of the court asserting that Draper must have known it was a double bounce .
Looks like legit shot.
 

Spin Diesel

Hall of Fame
Looking at this slow mo clip, it looks to me.that the ball does not hit the ground after touching his racket.


Am I the only one who perceives it this way ?

I admit that it's a very close call which makes it even stranger that Felix believes that he can see things accurately from the other side of the court asserting that Draper must have known it was a double bounce .
Good video, not so good conclusion.
You see the moment where the ball is between the outside of the racket hoop and the floor - from there it can only go up, if it hits the ground after the racket.
 

Spin Diesel

Hall of Fame
I can't see that .
IMG-7730.png

How can the ball go upwards after that from the racket?
 

leodevlin

Professional
After that frame the ball bounced up and then made contact with the racket
I see what you are saying , but that's very very hard to notice in a slow mo replay so i still have to question how Felix was able to see that.

Plus I think he was arguing that the ball hit the racket and the ground afterwards which is clearly not the case here.
 

jm1980

Talk Tennis Guru
Looking at this slow mo clip, it looks to me.that the ball does not hit the ground after touching his racket.


Am I the only one who perceives it this way ?

I admit that it's a very close call which makes it even stranger that Felix believes that he can see things accurately from the other side of the court asserting that Draper must have known it was a double bounce .
Look at the trajectory of the ball. It's coming in relatively fast and at a really shallow angle. Draper initially hits the top of the ball with the tip of his racquet. There's no way the ball bounces almost straight up from that position without hitting the court on his side first

You can also clearly see the ball has topspin on it after Draper hits it. This wouldn't have been possible unless it hit his side of the court

 
Last edited:

Service Ace

Hall of Fame
dont worry
many people here are physics experts
and know all the forces being applied to the ball in each frame
they will be happy to explain it to you

You don’t need to be a physics expert to understand a basic tennis shot. Funny how everyone who actually plays the sport understands you can’t get that resulting shot off a volley/half volley :unsure:. Only the moron contrarian brigade that feels everyone is entitled to an opinion no matter how dumb or objectively false it may be is arguing that somehow a shot that defies the basic laws of physics is possible in this circumstance because “they can’t see it” :rolleyes:. I guess that’s a product of the age we live in.
 
D

Deleted member 806402

Guest
Sometimes the clip makes Draper's shot look legit, sometimes it doesn't.
The ball must be in some kind of superposition state.
 

Service Ace

Hall of Fame
I see what you are saying , but that's very very hard to notice in a slow mo replay so i still have to question how Felix was able to see that.

Plus I think he was arguing that the ball hit the racket and the ground afterwards which is clearly not the case here.

For you and the people denying it at this point, listen. It’s okay to admit that you don’t know everything and that sometimes people more educated than you are qualified to weigh in on a situation and you are not. Not every wrong perspective needs to be voiced and just because you can’t understand something doesn’t mean it requires a deeper explanation than it being beyond your current comprehension. We need to get away from this culture of everyone voicing outlandish and/or factually incorrect ideas under the guise of “iM EnTiTleD tO MaH oPiNiOn!!” and get back closer to where we were pre-2016 were right was right and wrong was wrong.
 

ballamaz

Rookie
It's neither a half-volley nor a volley.

Contact is too early and with the frame for the former. Contact too late for a volley.

It's not even legal as a table tennis serve.

It's a foul shank between racket, ball and ground.
 

Better_Call_Raul

Hall of Fame
We need to get away from this culture of everyone voicing outlandish and/or factually incorrect ideas under the guise of “iM EnTiTleD tO MaH oPiNiOn!!” and get back closer to where we were pre-2016 were right was right and wrong was wrong.

Things were far better in 2016.
Enjoy your inflation and $5 gas.
:rolleyes:
 

soldat

Semi-Pro
Your clip shows that the ball hit Drapers racquet first, then hit the ground on his own side of the court. It’s a 100% illegal shot and Draper knew it.

Even the commentator from the box could tell immediately there was something wrong.

There’s money and atp points at stake and Draper would rather have a free win for a little bit of extra prize money and points, instead of being a proper sportsman.

That kind of mentality to me is completely wrong.

It’s also very revealing to me who here on this forum tries to defend Draper.
 

leodevlin

Professional
For you and the people denying it at this point, listen. It’s okay to admit that you don’t know everything and that sometimes people more educated than you are qualified to weigh in on a situation and you are not. Not every wrong perspective needs to be voiced and just because you can’t understand something doesn’t mean it requires a deeper explanation than it being beyond your current comprehension. We need to get away from this culture of everyone voicing outlandish and/or factually incorrect ideas under the guise of “iM EnTiTleD tO MaH oPiNiOn!!” and get back closer to where we were pre-2016 were right was right and wrong was wrong.
Wow , so you are the educated one here ? People seem to be devided on the issue and the arrogance to deride others who have a different opinion and interpret the replay differently is remarkable.

Have some humility man, your haughty tone is only a reflection of your insecurities.
 
  • Like
Reactions: JMR

norcal

Legend
These guys hit hundreds of thousands, probably millions of tennis balls, they know how the ball reacts in every situation. That's how Felix knew, that's how Jack knew also.

They get rid of linespeople but they don't have video replay?
 

McGradey

Hall of Fame
Looks like a hot mess containing the sequence of ball onto racquet > ground > racquet including some dribbling around on the racquet face, to my eyes. Legit shot? No deal.
 

TennisBro

Hall of Fame
Looking at this slow mo clip, it looks to me.that the ball does not hit the ground after touching his racket.


Am I the only one who perceives it this way ?

I admit that it's a very close call which makes it even stranger that Felix believes that he can see things accurately from the other side of the court asserting that Draper must have known it was a double bounce .
You surely aren't the only one who trolls opinions. FAA was professional by raising doubts about that shot, asking Draper and the umpire about it. Draper mostly passed on the decision to the umpire who dishonestly replied to Felix that he was so certain the shot was 100% legal. Both, the British player and official raised red flags with their behaviors for the play was not clear at all.
 

leodevlin

Professional
You surely aren't the only one who trolls opinions. FAA was professional by raising doubts about that shot, asking Draper and the umpire about it. Draper mostly passed on the decision to the umpire who dishonestly replied to Felix that he was so certain the shot was 100% legal. Both, the British player and official raised red flags with their behaviors for the play was not clear at all.
The only people who are trolling are the ones claiming that anyone could have assessed the validity of such a peculiar shot like this in milliseconds.

Have you never chased a ball only to frame it over the net in a hail-Mary attempt not exactly knowing if double bounced or not? I certainly have.

To say the FAA is the Hero and Draper is such a villain is so cartoonish.
 

tudwell

G.O.A.T.
IMG-7730.png

How can the ball go upwards after that from the racket?
Yeah, I don't think there's ANY possible incoming trajectory where that results in the ball rolling up off the frame/into the stringbed as might happen with a "normal" half volley. The ball may have hit the ground before Draper's frame hit the ball, but in either case he clearly pressed the ball into the ground with his racquet before it popped back up and bounced off his strings.
 

Rosstour

G.O.A.T.
Your clip shows that the ball hit Drapers racquet first, then hit the ground on his own side of the court. It’s a 100% illegal shot and Draper knew it.

Even the commentator from the box could tell immediately there was something wrong.

There’s money and atp points at stake and Draper would rather have a free win for a little bit of extra prize money and points, instead of being a proper sportsman.

That kind of mentality to me is completely wrong.

It’s also very revealing to me who here on this forum tries to defend Draper.

He said "let's replay" which is as much as you can expect from a professional player with money and ranking points on the line. It was match point. You want him to just concede the point when the stakes are that high? That's part of being mentally tough.

I'm sure Grigor Dimitrov would have done something different, but we mock him relentlessly for being a mug, too nice, etc.
 

AO13

Hall of Fame
Weak trolling. You can clearly see on this and every other video that the guy first hit the ball with the frame, then on the floor, then with the strings of the racket. That way, the ball got that slow lob like shot that just went over the net. It's clearly seen and it's logic.

This thread is made from OP just he can troll and read the discussions between other forum members. Find some hobby dude, and that being said, I'm off to basketball.​
 

eric42

Semi-Pro
Wow, one in a million shot there. Slow down the playback speed to min and you see the ball first hit the frame, then bounce straight down into the court, but the contact w/ frame caused the racquet to twist forward so that the ball bounced straight back up off the court and right into the stringbed, then over the net. Double hit, but moot point since the ball hit the ground after the first contact. Would have been near impossible for the ump to call w/ 100% certainty w/o video replay. NOT a correct call though.
 

Youngheart

Semi-Pro
It's neither a half-volley nor a volley.

Contact is too early and with the frame for the former. Contact too late for a volley.

It's not even legal as a table tennis serve.

It's a foul shank between racket, ball and ground.
A shank between racquet and ball is okay, if you can't see the ball skip off of the ground after the racquet hits it.
Who in this world saw an illegal skip? Not me.
 

T&M Returns

Rookie
I see what you are saying , but that's very very hard to notice in a slow mo replay so i still have to question how Felix was able to see that.

Plus I think he was arguing that the ball hit the racket and the ground afterwards which is clearly not the case here.
That's exactly what it does. It hits the frame, then hits the ground and bounces straight up. If you can't clearly see that ...

Feix was also able to see it for a few reasons. First off, he was right there on the court. Secondly a ball cannot move the way the umpire was saying it did. That's just not how it works, and anyone who has played tennis would understand. That's yet another reason Felix knew. Also, Jack completely knew what he did. Look at his face immediately after hitting the ball. He puts his head back like he knew he screwed up. And any tennis player, amateur or otherwise, that has been playing even a little bit of time would know 100% if they hit a ball and it goes into the ground and bounces up. It's obvious because of how its feels.

Find a higher frame rate version of this if its out there, it absolutely hit Draper's racquet first.

Federer had a similar type of incident happen against Berdych. Not exactly the same because this one was a double bounce but it was the same thing about the ball not being able to move vertically after the hit.

 

T&M Returns

Rookie
Wow, one in a million shot there. Slow down the playback speed to min and you see the ball first hit the frame, then bounce straight down into the court, but the contact w/ frame caused the racquet to twist forward so that the ball bounced straight back up off the court and right into the stringbed, then over the net. Double hit, but moot point since the ball hit the ground after the first contact. Would have been near impossible for the ump to call w/ 100% certainty w/o video replay. NOT a correct call though.
I dunno to me it's obvious at full speed. :unsure:
 

TennisBro

Hall of Fame
The only people who are trolling are the ones claiming that anyone could have assessed the validity of such a peculiar shot like this in milliseconds.

Have you never chased a ball only to frame it over the net in a hail-Mary attempt not exactly knowing if double bounced or not? I certainly have.

To say the FAA is the Hero and Draper is such a villain is so cartoonish.
This ain't bout assessing the "peculiar shot in milliseconds" but bout integrity of the British player and an umpire who claims he's 100% certain the shot was legal. This may not just be the double-bounce but double-touch too. You're putting words into the mouths, or shall I say keyboards, of others; I didn't say FAA was a hero but that he was professional bout the situation. Felix proved that the umpire was an ass when he asked the official how certain he was bout that play. So much for misleading principles you are trying, perhaps purposely for trolling, here.
 

Youngheart

Semi-Pro
In the words of possibly the last fair-minded person on Earth, Rodney King, "Can't we all just get along???"
Who cares about scientific replays? The dude in the kids high chair gets to decide. That's enough for me.
 

austintennis2005

Professional
Look at the trajectory of the ball. It's coming in relatively fast and at a really shallow angle. Draper initially hits the top of the ball with the tip of his racquet. There's no way the ball bounces almost straight up from that position without hitting the court on his side first

You can also clearly see the ball has topspin on it after Draper hits it. This wouldn't have been possible unless it hit his side of the court

Are you saying the ball hit drapers racquet 2x?
 

Court-craft

New User
Most sports go with a video overrule of the in play decision if an error is clear and obvious. I watched the video a few times and nothing about it seems clear and obvious. Certainly in comparison to the howlers of decisions you seen in other sports. If I had to pick a decision I’d say ball to frame-court-up in the air but I think the numerous posts here suggest it’s not clear and it’s not obvious.
 

jm1980

Talk Tennis Guru
Are you saying the ball hit drapers racquet 2x?
It's hard to tell. The ball initially hits his frame, and bounces up. From there it looks like it may have hit his strings.

But that's not really important. The double hit would have been legal because it's one continuous motion. The problem is the ball bouncing on the his side of the court after he frames it
 

_phantom

Hall of Fame
He said "let's replay" which is as much as you can expect from a professional player with money and ranking points on the line. It was match point. You want him to just concede the point when the stakes are that high? That's part of being mentally tough.

I'm sure Grigor Dimitrov would have done something different, but we mock him relentlessly for being a mug, too nice, etc.
Once the chair umpire entered the final score and called game-set-match, I guess bets worth hundreds of millions were finalized, right?

It was not the typical undecided situation where betting sites could temporarily suspend updates.

So I think there was no way the umpire could have reversed the decision or allowed a replay of the point, whether both players agreed on it or not.
 
Top