"Favoritism is why Fed hates hawkeye so much" Gasquet match controversy

#1
are commentators allowed to make statements like these?

the commie on the bulgarian Eurosport basically suggested in a not very subtle way that the reason Fed has always been vocal against the hawkeye system is because he knows that in a close call, the umpire will always take his side over his opponent and the point will always go his way

supposedly hawkeye is the great equaliser because Fed can't get any preferential treatment when the machine says a ball is out

this statement was made at 3-3 in the second set when an out call on the Fed serve by the linesman was overruled by the chair umpire in Fed's favor and apparently the hawkeye system was having technical issues at the time so Gasquet could not challenge

the bulgarian commentators felt like Gasquet had been cheated and felt that the hawkeye system malfunction was "too convenient" for Fed in such a tense part of the match

i've always thought Fed hated hawkeye because of the randomness element in it, the chance that the machine will make a mistake and basically

i'm honestly pretty shocked that a commentator can make such an assertion on national TV and pretty much turn the match into some journo controversy

what are your thoughts?
 
#3
Wow, I didnt know fed has been vocal about hawkeye. Makes him even less likable.
i thought this was common knowledge?

there is the famous Wimby 2007 incident where a call doesn't go his way in the final against Hafa and the camera basically films him having a mini-tirade during the changeover and part of his tirade is about the hawkeye system

he's never been a huge fan of it
 

Red Rick

Talk Tennis Guru
#5
Wow, I didnt know fed has been vocal about hawkeye. Makes him even less likable.
He's been super vocal about it for some reason. Used to complain a **** load when calls didn't go his way in a few Wimbledon and USO finals IIRC. This would be quite a logical explanation but nobody would ever admit it. I don't know how you could be against Hawkeye unless you like the controversy about line calls. Never thought about it this way.
 
#6
i thought this was common knowledge?

there is the famous Wimby 2007 incident where a call doesn't go his way in the final against Hafa and the camera basically films him having a mini-tirade during the changeover and part of his tirade is about the hawkeye system

he's never been a huge fan of it
Funny isn't it? For someone who claims to attend tournaments and acts like she's so knowledgeable about everything. Same way she didn't know how WTF scoring system works. Hilarious stuff!
 
Last edited:
#7
i thought this was common knowledge?

there is the famous Wimby 2007 incident where a call doesn't go his way in the final against Hafa and the camera basically films him having a mini-tirade during the changeover and part of his tirade is about the hawkeye system

he's never been a huge fan of it
It's common knowledge for those who actually watched tennis back in 2007. I was at that match in the box - the ball was clearly out by the way - and saw the entire thing first hand. He was getting screwed at least 4 or 5 times that day in particular.

All that said: Federer stated way back in 2009 that he was totally fine with having Hawkeye around as it had a positive net benefit on the game. The commentator you heard is a purveyor of fake, agenda-driven news I would think.
 
#8
He's been super vocal about it for some reason. Used to complain a **** load when calls didn't go his way in a few Wimbledon and USO finals IIRC. This would be quite a logical explanation but nobody would ever admit it. I don't know how you could be against Hawkeye unless you like the controversy about line calls. Never thought about it this way.
the commentator was basically sub-communicating "Fed has enormous privilege and hawkeye takes away his privilege" in the nicest, most run around subtle way you could possibly say that on national TV

i'm not sure what to make of it, i mean does Fed have a history of getting almost every close call go his way?
 
#11
are commentators allowed to make statements like these?

the commie on the bulgarian Eurosport basically suggested in a not very subtle way that the reason Fed has always been vocal against the hawkeye system is because he knows that in a close call, the umpire will always take his side over his opponent and the point will always go his way

supposedly hawkeye is the great equaliser because Fed can't get any preferential treatment when the machine says a ball is out

this statement was made at 3-3 in the second set when an out call on the Fed serve by the linesman was overruled by the chair umpire in Fed's favor and apparently the hawkeye system was having technical issues at the time so Gasquet could not challenge

the bulgarian commentators felt like Gasquet had been cheated and felt that the hawkeye system malfunction was "too convenient" for Fed in such a tense part of the match

i've always thought Fed hated hawkeye because of the randomness element in it, the chance that the machine will make a mistake and basically

i'm honestly pretty shocked that a commentator can make such an assertion on national TV and pretty much turn the match into some journo controversy

what are your thoughts?
I'm sure Federer has never saved a break point in his entire career without preferential treatment. Nothing to see here.
 

Red Rick

Talk Tennis Guru
#12
the commentator was basically sub-communicating "Fed has enormous privilege and hawkeye takes away his privilege" in the nicest, most run around subtle way you could possibly say that on national TV

i'm not sure what to make of it, i mean does Fed have a history of getting almost every close call go his way?
Hawkeye has been around since 2006. I don't remember any stuff like this, but I do think this can easily happen without too much controversy if it doesn't happen too often.
 
#14
the commentator was basically sub-communicating "Fed has enormous privilege and hawkeye takes away his privilege" in the nicest, most run around subtle way you could possibly say that on national TV

i'm not sure what to make of it, i mean does Fed have a history of getting almost every close call go his way?
Federer is one of the worse if not the worst challenger in the game. So the answer is no.
 
#16
It's common knowledge for those who actually watched tennis back in 2007. I was at that match in the box - the ball was clearly out by the way - and saw the entire thing first hand. He was getting screwed at least 4 or 5 times that day in particular.

All that said: Federer stated way back in 2009 that he was totally fine with having Hawkeye around as it had a positive net benefit on the game. The commentator you heard is a purveyor of fake, agenda-driven news I would think.
sounds like it

i know Fed's had a few bad run-ins with the hawkeye system but i didn't know there was some secret, conspiratorial agenda behind it (getting calls in his favor)

tinfoil hat stuff
 
#17
He's been super vocal about it for some reason. Used to complain a **** load when calls didn't go his way in a few Wimbledon and USO finals IIRC. This would be quite a logical explanation but nobody would ever admit it. I don't know how you could be against Hawkeye unless you like the controversy about line calls. Never thought about it this way.
I think its strange its still line judges when hawkeye can be used.

Very obscure to be against hawkeye:oops:
I wasnt aware feds view on this:eek:
 
#18
I think its strange its still line judges when hawkeye can be used.

Very obscure to be against hawkeye:oops:
I wasnt aware feds view on this:eek:
He was critical of it when it was introduced because a) it has an error margin, which it indeed does, and b) because he thought it'd make officials lazier. Which is a valid enough concern.

Haven't heard him voice any bad feelings about it a loong time at this point...
 
Last edited:
#22
are commentators allowed to make statements like these?

the commie on the bulgarian Eurosport basically suggested in a not very subtle way that the reason Fed has always been vocal against the hawkeye system is because he knows that in a close call, the umpire will always take his side over his opponent and the point will always go his way

supposedly hawkeye is the great equaliser because Fed can't get any preferential treatment when the machine says a ball is out

this statement was made at 3-3 in the second set when an out call on the Fed serve by the linesman was overruled by the chair umpire in Fed's favor and apparently the hawkeye system was having technical issues at the time so Gasquet could not challenge

the bulgarian commentators felt like Gasquet had been cheated and felt that the hawkeye system malfunction was "too convenient" for Fed in such a tense part of the match

i've always thought Fed hated hawkeye because of the randomness element in it, the chance that the machine will make a mistake and basically

i'm honestly pretty shocked that a commentator can make such an assertion on national TV and pretty much turn the match into some journo controversy

what are your thoughts?
Turing was a Fed hater.
 
#24
This basically implies the chair umpire is a cheat tool who intetionally makes incorrect calls in order to favour a certain player. What a disgusting attitude, such accusations must not be leveled without ample evidence.

I watched that point again now - it was a very close call, and the umpire was in a better position to see the ball than the linesperson, so her reversal makes sense if that's the way she saw it. To me it looked like the ball was more likely to clip the line than not.
 
#25
He was critical of it when it was introduced because a) it has an error margin, which it indeed does, and b) because he thought it'd make officials lazier. Which is a valid enough concern.

Haven't heard voice any bad feelings about it a loong time at this point...
If anything, I would think that officials, confronted with the possibility of being put on evidence by a machine, would actually try harder (as opposed to just make a call which couldn't be contested by a more reliable system.)
 

heninfan99

Talk Tennis Guru
#26
are commentators allowed to make statements like these?

the commie on the bulgarian Eurosport basically suggested in a not very subtle way that the reason Fed has always been vocal against the hawkeye system is because he knows that in a close call, the umpire will always take his side over his opponent and the point will always go his way

supposedly hawkeye is the great equaliser because Fed can't get any preferential treatment when the machine says a ball is out

this statement was made at 3-3 in the second set when an out call on the Fed serve by the linesman was overruled by the chair umpire in Fed's favor and apparently the hawkeye system was having technical issues at the time so Gasquet could not challenge

the bulgarian commentators felt like Gasquet had been cheated and felt that the hawkeye system malfunction was "too convenient" for Fed in such a tense part of the match

i've always thought Fed hated hawkeye because of the randomness element in it, the chance that the machine will make a mistake and basically

i'm honestly pretty shocked that a commentator can make such an assertion on national TV and pretty much turn the match into some journo controversy

what are your thoughts?
It makes for a better broadcast when they can speak freely. Jordan got special calls too. That's the business of sport.
 
#27
This basically implies the chair umpire is a cheat tool who intetionally makes incorrect calls in order to favour a certain player. What a disgusting attitude, such accusations must not be leveled without ample evidence.

I watched that point again now - it was a very close call, and the umpire was in a better position to see the ball than the linesperson, so her reversal makes sense if that's the way she saw it. To me it looked like the ball was more likely to clip the line than not.
Not really. It just implies that in case of doubt, you just favor the player vying to make history.
 
#28
If anything, I would think that officials, confronted with the possibility of being put on evidence by a machine, would actually try harder (as opposed to just make a call which couldn't be contested by a more reliable system.)
Could be true, at least for the line judges.

But I think umpires are far more cautious w/r/t overruling as it's even more embarrassing to intervene and overrule the line judges and then potentially get proven wrong by hawkeye. So they just leave that responsibility over to the player to challenge.
 
#31
I meant overall, as in what motivation could have Federer had to be averse to Hawkeye.
You're reaching. No need to look further than righteous butthurt over not being able to condemn wrong calls anymore, since the machine is supposed to be perfect, even though it's not. The quoted Wimbledon 07 example is the perfect illustration: gets a visibly wrong call, but can't even complain properly, since the machine has the last say and the players are supposed to take its decisions for granted and never question them, which was not the case with human judges.

Fred is still poor at challenging, but he's long since got over his personal annoyance and embraced the general improvement that electronic judgment brought.
 
#32
You're reaching. No need to look further than righteous butthurt over not being able to condemn wrong calls anymore, since the machine is supposed to be perfect, even though it's not. The quoted Wimbledon 07 example is the perfect illustration: gets a visibly wrong call, but can't even complain properly, since the machine has the last say and the players are supposed to take its decisions for granted and never question them, which was not the case with human judges.

Fred is still poor at challenging, but he's long since got over his personal annoyance and embraced the general improvement that electronic judgment brought.
You nailed it at the end. Fed has to be the worst judge of where a ball falls, for some reason. If anyone can challenge a call, that person definitely is not Federer.
 
#36
LOL. Haters gonna hate. I hate Federer more because he doesn't like hawkeye. Too funny.
Federer has also been open about why he hates (or hated) Hawkeye. He feels that chair umpires used to use judgment and overrule more, and now they leave it to the players to challenge. Federer has explicitly said it should not be the players' job to officiate, and that is what it becomes when chair umpires defer to Hawkeye.

He hates having to think about line calls, and he hates being responsible for when to challenge and not.
 
#38
He's been super vocal about it for some reason. Used to complain a **** load when calls didn't go his way in a few Wimbledon and USO finals IIRC. This would be quite a logical explanation but nobody would ever admit it. I don't know how you could be against Hawkeye unless you like the controversy about line calls. Never thought about it this way.
He didn’t like the challenges interrupting the rhythm of the match. Which I can somewhat understand. Hawkeye doesn’t exactly speed up a match.
 

Mainad

Bionic Poster
#39
Andy Murray has to be the worst challenger, right? He uses challenges when he wishes the result were different.
Here I must agree. Andy and Roger are probably the 2 worst challengers on the tour. Roger has never liked Hawkeye and always uses it kind of reluctantly and in a dismissive kind of way. Andy tends to use it as an expression of his frustration when it's close (sometimes not even then) and he thinks he should have got to a ball . Both probably waste more challenges than any other player!
 
#41
I am bulgarian and from my experience, the mentioned commentators are quite dull, constanly speaking the same lines and having such a high opinion of themselfs. I wouldnt weight what they say so much ...

Bottom line, hawk eye has such a positive effect over the game that is quite stupid to imply what they tried to imply. How often there would be a match with a high profile player which doesnt have a working hawk eye system?
 
#44
Not during the march, of course. But he could discuss that afterwards, if he is as fair as humbledal as you guys love to paint him. Why should such a beacon of sportsmanship silently accept unjust benefits?
How would saying something afterwards be good? It wouldn't benefit Goffin, and it would add even more embarrassment for Mourier. Besides, didn't already everyone see the ball was out on the TV? What would Nadal have to add to that?
 
#45
How would saying something afterwards be good? It wouldn't benefit Goffin, and it would add even more embarrassment for Mourier. Besides, didn't already everyone see the ball was out on the TV? What would Nadal have to add to that?
That's right, add more embarrassment for Mourier so he can't pretend it was a minor incident to be shrugged off. I don't think there were any repercussions for him, were there?
 

Sentinel

Bionic Poster
#48
Here I must agree. Andy and Roger are probably the 2 worst challengers on the tour. Roger has never liked Hawkeye and always uses it kind of reluctantly and in a dismissive kind of way. Andy tends to use it as an expression of his frustration when it's close (sometimes not even then) and he thinks he should have got to a ball . Both probably waste more challenges than any other player!
Fedr is Hawkeye challenged. Is that what you mean?
 
#50
I don't know about hawkeye but Fed does certainly get some favoritism if you watch the match at 2-1 Fed hits a backhand which looks long the chair umpire puts her hand out(don't know if that is for out) Gasquet asks about it but nothing happens and he loses the point.
 
Top