Jack Draper admit he hit an illegal shot vs FAA

[vokazu]

From BBC:

But Draper has now conceded in an interview with the BBC: "When we saw the replay, it was clearly an illegal shot.”

For Draper, who has revealed he struggled to sleep in the days after the match, it was his first major controversy and the fall-out was difficult to comprehend. He says he understands the criticism but maintains he was unsure if the ball had bounced before going over the net.

"It was difficult for four or five days afterwards," Draper added. "It's slowly moving on - it was the first time I've experienced criticism and [had] my integrity questioned as an athlete.

"It's freedom of speech at the end of the day, people can have their opinion and can say what they feel and think. It is difficult seeing that criticism but being a top athlete you are going to be subject to certain situations where you are going to receive criticism."

 

[mahatma]

It was illegal and he probably knew it the moment he hit it. Pls stop this post match PR management. You are a pro, who knows exactly which part of the racquet the ball hit and where it landed first. Us, newbies also sort of know this.

The only good thing here is - he eventually owned it up. I will give him that.

 

[Bill Lobsalot]

It was illegal and he probably knew it the moment he hit it. Pls stop this post match PR management. You are a pro, who knows exactly which part of the racquet the ball hit and where it landed first. Us, newbies also sort of know this.

The only good thing here is - he eventually owned it up. I will give him that.

And it wasn't his call to make. He left it up to the umpire, as he should, if he wasn't 100% sure at the moment.

 

[RF-18]

Moment of silence for those who really believed there was nothing wrong with that shot.

 

[mahatma]

And it wasn't his call to make. He left it up to the umpire, as he should, if he wasn't 100% sure at the moment.

Probably. But we have seen players letting go off points, if that was wrongly judged.

That's sportsmanship. One can argue that when umpires are there - it's upto them to decide. But doesn't bode well with some of the purists who believe in honesty, integrity and tie them to sports.

 

[Bill Lobsalot]

Probably. But we have seen players letting go off points, if that was wrongly judged.

That's sportsmanship. One can argue that when umpires are there - it's upto them to decide. But doesn't bode well with some of the purists who believe in honesty, integrity and tie them to sports.

I agree. It wasn't a normal double bounce so it probably felt very odd.

 

[jm1980]

And it wasn't his call to make. He left it up to the umpire, as he should, if he wasn't 100% sure at the moment.

The umpire has the lion's share of the blame here. But Draper could have conceded the point, as I'm sure players like Alcaraz or Ruud would have done

 

[Arak]

It was obvious from his face expression that he knew the shot was a fault, but I guess the desire to win was too strong and overwhelmed him. Maybe it was a solitary moment of weakness but probably not. Anyway rare are the players with integrity who will own up to a mistake on the spot. I have seen Djokovic, Alcaraz, Thiem, among others concede points to their opponents against the umpire’s call. Most players however will sneakily take the point.

 

[timmyy]

OP with the clickbait

 

[Nostradamus]

From BBC:

But Draper has now conceded in an interview with the BBC: "When we saw the replay, it was clearly an illegal shot.”

For Draper, who has revealed he struggled to sleep in the days after the match, it was his first major controversy and the fall-out was difficult to comprehend. He says he understands the criticism but maintains he was unsure if the ball had bounced before going over the net.

"It was difficult for four or five days afterwards," Draper added. "It's slowly moving on - it was the first time I've experienced criticism and [had] my integrity questioned as an athlete.

"It's freedom of speech at the end of the day, people can have their opinion and can say what they feel and think. It is difficult seeing that criticism but being a top athlete you are going to be subject to certain situations where you are going to receive criticism."

Good to see he finally admit it...LOL

 

[soldat]

It was obvious from his face expression that he knew the shot was a fault, but I guess the desire to win was too strong and overwhelmed him. Maybe it was a solitary moment of weakness but probably not. Anyway rare are the players with integrity who will own up to a mistake on the spot. I have seen Djokovic, Alcaraz, Thiem, among others concede points to their opponents against the umpire’s call. Most players however will sneakily take the point.

I agree it was obvious that he knew, he said he lost sleep but it’s because he knew and felt guilty himself. Nothing to do with what others think of him, as social media is full of garbage to begin with.

And yes players can feel what happened, especially the player who hit the ball.

 

[Tennfan123]

weird. I’d have thought by his age Draper would have learned that you get criticised when you do, er, things that are open to criticism.

 

[ibbi]

He didn't know that the ball touched his racquet twice?

 

[RaulRamirez]

It was obvious from his face expression that he knew the shot was a fault, but I guess the desire to win was too strong and overwhelmed him. Maybe it was a solitary moment of weakness but probably not. Anyway rare are the players with integrity who will own up to a mistake on the spot. I have seen Djokovic, Alcaraz, Thiem, among others concede points to their opponents against the umpire’s call. Most players however will sneakily take the point.

I agree, but on what would be a match-winning point?
It was a very unusual situation.

I don't know, for sure, that he knew it was an illegal hit, and the umpire (and the different protocols for replay) really let FAA down. If he knew, he needed to concede the point. Since Felix (who is a good sport) was adamant, strong sportsmanship would've also had him concede the point. And Draper would still be serving for the match, 5-4, at deuce.

 

[GodlessEndeavor]

He didn't know that the ball touched his racquet twice?

It's not illegal to touch the ball twice, so I don't think that's what he's saying.

 

[pirhaksar]

From BBC:

But Draper has now conceded in an interview with the BBC: "When we saw the replay, it was clearly an illegal shot.”

For Draper, who has revealed he struggled to sleep in the days after the match, it was his first major controversy and the fall-out was difficult to comprehend. He says he understands the criticism but maintains he was unsure if the ball had bounced before going over the net.

"It was difficult for four or five days afterwards," Draper added. "It's slowly moving on - it was the first time I've experienced criticism and [had] my integrity questioned as an athlete.

"It's freedom of speech at the end of the day, people can have their opinion and can say what they feel and think. It is difficult seeing that criticism but being a top athlete you are going to be subject to certain situations where you are going to receive criticism."

He clearly says he didn’t know at the moment. He was likely full of adrenaline and about to get a big win. He doesn’t have a history..could have asked for a replay I guess. Ultimately he does acknowledge it and accepts it without doubling down etc… so I’d like to give him the benefit of doubt here that he didn’t know at that moment.

 

[ibbi]

It's not illegal to touch the ball twice, so I don't think that's what he's saying.

It's illegal to hit the ball into the ground... So if he touched it once and then touched it a second time he is presumably aware it touched the court in between and wasn't just hovering in the air between his one continuous legal swing.

 

[TheSlicer]

Lol at everybody here saying It was a legal shot! It was ridiculous then and its even more so now

 

[BauerAlmeida]

He didn't do anything wrong, you are not gonna give away a point unless you are 100% sure it was not yours. He was hesitant that's why he looked at the umpire, it was a high-speed situation.

Then he looked at it and realized he shouldn't have won.

 

[MisterP]

That's sportsmanship.

That’s a $75,000 gift is what it is.

 

[NoleFam]

FAA wasn't buying it at the time and I'm not either. Sorry. You're a pro and knew exactly at the time, but at least you acknowledge it now after the fact. The umpire is the one who had to make the call though but this is more reason they need instant replay in tennis.

 

[legcramp]

Wait, we're giving Draper crap for a shot we have to slow motion to a stand-still to determine if it was good or bad?

 

[timmyy]

Wait, we're giving Draper crap for a shot we have to slow motion to a stand-still to determine if it was good or bad?

It's mostly people that have no notion of what it's like to actually play tennis.

 

[GodlessEndeavor]

It's illegal to hit the ball into the ground... So if he touched it once and then touched it a second time he is presumably aware it touched the court in between and wasn't just hovering in the air between his one continuous legal swing.

So there are two possibilities. Either he's saying he's not aware of hitting the ball twice, or he's saying he's aware of that but he's not aware that the ball hit his side of the court in between the two hits.

I don't know which one of those two possibilities he's claiming.

 

[socallefty]

He was unaware of what happened and yet he stopped playing the point instantly.

 

[timmyy]

He was unaware of what happened and yet he stopped playing the point instantly.

It's pretty obvious that the point is over just by where the ball landed.

 

[pirhaksar]

Wait, we're giving Draper crap for a shot we have to slow motion to a stand-still to determine if it was good or bad?

Exactly, sometimes I can’t tell if ppl are being serious.

 

[travlerajm]

Moment of silence for those who really believed there was nothing wrong with that shot.

 

[ballamaz]

That's why he went on to lose the next match.

Should have just owned up within a few hours of the match.

Maybe he went on this forum and saw he had some supporters.

 

[hoodjem]

The umpire has the lion's share of the blame here. But Draper could have conceded the point, as I'm sure players like Alcaraz or Ruud would have done

Edberg would have conceded the point.

 

[Mustard]

It's not the players' job to enforce the rules.

 

[Sudacafan]

From BBC:

But Draper has now conceded in an interview with the BBC: "When we saw the replay, it was clearly an illegal shot.”

For Draper, who has revealed he struggled to sleep in the days after the match, it was his first major controversy and the fall-out was difficult to comprehend. He says he understands the criticism but maintains he was unsure if the ball had bounced before going over the net.

"It was difficult for four or five days afterwards," Draper added. "It's slowly moving on - it was the first time I've experienced criticism and [had] my integrity questioned as an athlete.

"It's freedom of speech at the end of the day, people can have their opinion and can say what they feel and think. It is difficult seeing that criticism but being a top athlete you are going to be subject to certain situations where you are going to receive criticism."

Draper is wrong. I disagree with Draper admission. His shot was legal.

 

[RaulRamirez]

Old thread, but having viewed this again a bit earlier today, even if Draper didn't know in the moment that his shot wasn't legal (doubtful, but giving him the benefit of the doubt), here's where he lost me.

He "offered" to replay the point if a review showed his shot was illegal. No, he would need to concede the point. That was a not a good-faith offer.

By analogy, it would be as if A says B owes him $1,000, which B disputes. Then B says, "Okay, let's take it to a judge. If she says I owe you the money, I'll pay you $500."

 

[Better_Call_Raul]

It was illegal and he probably knew it the moment he hit it.

The only good thing here is - he eventually owned it up. I will give him that.

It is not at all clear that Gentleman Draper knew that in the heat of the moment. Only a dunderhead would claim this.
Draper reviewed the video afterwards and said it was a double bounce. Straight from the horse's mouth.

But let's play along with the Draper bashers and assume he knew the moment that he hit it.

What is Draper supposed to do? The chair ump made the ruling and announced, "Game Set Match Draper!".
It is now out of Draper's hands.

The whiny malcontent Felix needs to shut his yap and not publicly interrogate and impune Draper's integrity on court for a call that is out of Draper's hands.

In hindsight, Draper would have been wise to appease the bashers by proclaiming,"I will concede the point", knowing full well that it is a moot point.
The silver lining here is that the rule has since been changed to allow video review


In a professional ATP match, if the chair umpire announces "game, set, match" after a double bounce that they did not see, the match is officially over.
The player cannot concede the point at this stage, even if they know it was a double bounce.

Here's why:

1. The chair umpire has the final authority on all questions of tennis law and makes the final decision on every question of fact during the match.
2. Once the chair umpire has announced the match is over, their decision is final. Players cannot overrule the chair umpire's decisions, even if the player knows the call was incorrect.
3. In professional tennis, video review or player challenges are not used for double bounces. The chair umpire's real-time decision stands.
4. While players can concede points during a match for sportsmanship reasons, they cannot do so after the chair umpire has officially ended the match.

 

[Hitman]

I wonder how FAA is feeling that Draper got that first masters title before he has. FAA got screwed over that day and it was unfortunate what happened.

Having said that, I think Draper has a superior game.

 

[RaulRamirez]

I wonder how FAA is feeling that Draper got that first masters title before he has. FAA got screwed over that day and it was unfortunate what happened.

Having said that, I think Draper has a superior game.

Agree, and even if Draper came clean and conceded the point, he would still be serving at 5-4, 30-all (third set, of course). Odds were still with him. But he won with somewhat dirty hands.

 

[hoodjem]

It's not the players' job to enforce the rules.

Is it the players’ job to follow the rules?

 

[D-Lite]

FAA has far bigger problems than 1 point going against him in a match against Draper. In the heat and intensity of battle you can't rely on players to do the umpire's job for them unless the play is being played at tortoise pace perhaps?
Draper didn't need to comment or bring this up again if he wants the situation to be less controversial and forgotten.

 

[Jonesy]

Felix needs the Nadal in his team, not the fake expert but the real one.

 

[Mustard]

Is it the players’ job to follow the rules?

But not to enforce them. It's the job of rule enforcers, i.e. referee, umpires, linespeople etc. to enforce the rules.

 

[hoodjem]

But not to enforce them. It's the job of rule enforcers, i.e. referee, umpires, linespeople etc. to enforce the rules.

I wonder if “following” the rules is “forcing” them on yourself.