Docalex007
Hall of Fame
Enjoy.
What stupid thoughts you have. We have enough with the world number two.
Hey maxi, these are not my thoughts, but that of certain characters around here who feel who need more "personalities" on tour and regret the days when certain players were ***** and hated eachother. I am neutral about Tomic, he is a good player, seems a bit bratty though.
Just found this gem on MTF
Very good!
This reminds me of one of the best threads ever on this forum. I don't know whether it still exists.
Tomic couldn't have done anything about what happened. Would the umpire have accepted Tomic's testimony after throwing out hotdog's testimony? No. The umpire would have had to witness the challenge appeal when it happened, which he did not. Tomic could do nothing to change what happened.
Ok I didnt see it, but basically what I am gathering is a Dolgo shot was called in( or rather, not called out).
Then, tomic hit the ball back, but raised his racket. Dolgo hit the following shot out, and then tomic tried to pretend that he didnt raise his racket before Dolgo's shot was out?
If thats the case, thats really low class.
that's it.
Funny how only *******s defend Tomic. It must inbred.
yeah, you and I disagree about many things, but this aint one of them.
Thats a bytch move, on Tomic's part.
Did the umpire not see his racket raised?
I have a feeling Serena consoled Dolgo in the locker room, lol.
Ok I didnt see it, but basically what I am gathering is a Dolgo shot was called in( or rather, not called out).
Then, tomic hit the ball back, but raised his racket. Dolgo hit the following shot out, and then tomic tried to pretend that he didnt raise his racket before Dolgo's shot was out?
If thats the case, thats really low class.
Dolgo claim he challenged which he did.
He lied to the umpire by denying that he challenged when he clearly did.
And by lying he won the point he otherwise would not have.
The umpire was watching the ball, at hotdog's end of the court, and Tomic stopped signalling. See, Tomic changed his mind about the challenge, even before hotdog hit the ball. And that is what Tomic was saying in reply to hotdog's protest. Tomic was saying "I was about to challenge but didn't". It's true, Tomic started to challenge but withdrew (before hotdog hit the ball). Bottom line is though, Umpire could do nothing about the umpire not seeing Tomic's semi-signal. And even if Tomic pleaded to the umpire to replay the point, the umpire would have to refuse. Why? Because the umpire already refused the testimony of hotdog. You can't accept one player's testimony and throw out another player's testimony.
Funny how only *******s defend Tomic. It must inbred.
rafa picks his backside so much, they are conditioned to like azzholes.
ok, but thats a hindrance, you cant raise your racket then rescind the challenge.
its distracting the other player who assumes that if u are challenging, play is stopped. The tragedy is
a) the ump didnt see the racket raised
b) tomic lied about it once he realized dolgo's shot was out and the ump didnt see his challenge.
Yes, exactly, its either a challenge or a hinderance.
How do you know what Tomic was saying? What if Tomic was saying "I didn't mean to challenge, I began to but stopped."
The umpire can't go by something he didn't see. If the umpire didn't see the hindrance then he can't call it, no matter what Tomic or hotdog say.
But it's only a challenge or hindrance if the umpire sees it. Tomic telling the umpire 'its a challenge' or 'its a hindrance' isn't enough.
Duh, obviously if he said I raised my racket to challenge but stopped, the ump would know that it was a hindrance and replay the point.
But he straight up said I did not challenge or have my racket up. therefore point tomic.
What part of its a hindrance to the player if the racket it is up do you not understand?
Again, the tragedy of it was
a) ump didnt see the racket up.
b) tomic lied about it.
And since tomic said I didnt have my racket up, the ump assumes dolgo was not hindered, thus point tomic.
How do you know what Tomic was saying? What if Tomic was saying "I didn't mean to challenge, I began to but stopped."
The umpire can't go by something he didn't see. If the umpire didn't see the hindrance then he can't call it, no matter what Tomic or hotdog say.
What does the rulebook say regarding this? Is the umpire allowed to go with a player's version of events? Or must he umpire go with exactly what is seen?
I read tomic's lips. He said: "I didn't say anything" when Dolgopolov complained. Go check the videos. He didn't "say" anything but his body language was asking for a challenge, he looked to the umpire and rised his racquet and that's the way that many pro's ask for a challenge.How do you know what Tomic was saying? What if Tomic was saying "I didn't mean to challenge, I began to but stopped."
The umpire can't go by something he didn't see. If the umpire didn't see the hindrance then he can't call it, no matter what Tomic or hotdog say.
I read tomic's lips. He said: "I didn't say anything" when Dolgopolov complained. Go check the videos. He didn't "say" anything but his body language was asking for a challenge, he looked to the umpire and rised his racquet and that's the way that many pro's ask for a challenge.
The hinderance was based on your account of a possible scenario.
The situation is clear - you challenge or you don't.
If Tomic says to the umpire that he started to challenge and rescinded, the umpire would have declared a hinderance and he would have lost the point because Tomic had admitted to breaking the rules.
Dolgo lost the point based on Tomic's testimony, not on what the umpire saw.
But where are you getting this from? Is it in the rule book that the umpire can go by the player's testimony of events? I am pretty sure the umpire can only call what he sees, not what a player admits to.
But where are you getting this from? Is it in the rule book that the umpire can go by the player's testimony of events? I am pretty sure the umpire can only call what he sees, not what a player admits to.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JMbLRHI5uowNeed a video of the incident.
I don't think the nadal-federer rivalry has anything to do with the Tomic issue, but its a nice try to divide the world into good and evil.
Some have no shame...
I think the umpires would have the respect of the general public if they were accountable. If we knew what his thoughts where when he made a certain decision we'd be more likely to forgive. Right now some moments just make the viewer angry, and the ump seem incompetent.