John Millman accused of cheating in the Federer match

jm1980

G.O.A.T.
You forgot to provide the specific ITF rule. But if you search I’m not sure you’ll find a specific rule prohibiting it but probably will find some general catch-all rule. The same one that would prohibit messing with the ball for the purpose of changing its performance, if that is what Milkman was doing. I didn’t see the match.
There are catch all rules for unsportsmanlike conduct. This is not unsportsmanlike conduct. Unless you are a Fed fan
 

Bartelby

Bionic Poster
There seems to be a reasonably specific rule against it which runs along the lines of prohibiting materially altering the ball using, for example, even perspiration.

The site where I saw it quoted has since evaporated and I have no idea of whether this was accurate in the first place.

You forgot to provide the specific ITF rule. But if you search I’m not sure you’ll find a specific rule prohibiting it but probably will find some general catch-all rule. The same one that would prohibit messing with the ball for the purpose of changing its performance, if that is what Milkman was doing. I didn’t see the match.
 
Last edited:

Tennis_Hands

Bionic Poster
You forgot to provide the specific ITF rule. But if you search I’m not sure you’ll find a specific rule prohibiting it but probably will find some general catch-all rule. The same one that would prohibit messing with the ball for the purpose of changing its performance, if that is what Milkman was doing. I didn’t see the match.
Don't worry. Soon there will be a specific rule and it will be known as the Millman rule, just like the on court clock is a Nadal/Djokovic clock.

 

Tennis_Hands

Bionic Poster
There are catch all rules for unsportsmanlike conduct. This is not unsportsmanlike conduct. Unless you are a Fed fan
There are general rules addressing the exact requirements for the material use in tennis and they all run along the general idea that the material should not be altered in any way or form beyond its natural alteration from being used (and even that is addressed by the regular change of balls), so, the general rules clearly address the issue of trying to alter the natural state of the ball. Unless you claim that Millman didn't do it on purpose it is clear that what he was doing was against the said rules that prohibit alterations.

 

jm1980

G.O.A.T.
Don't worry. Soon there will be a specific rule and it will be known as the Millman rule, just like the on court clock is a Nadal/Djokovic clock.

There was always a time limit in the rules, which those two regularly went over. Not much has really changed because they are seldom called out on it by the umpires
 

jm1980

G.O.A.T.
There are general rules addressing the exact requirements for the material use in tennis and they all run along the general idea that the material should not be altered in any way or form beyond its natural alteration from being used (and even that is addressed by the regular change of balls), so, the general rules clearly address the issue of trying to alter the natural state of the ball. Unless you claim that Millman didn't do it on purpose it is clear that what he was doing was against the said rules that prohibit alterations.

They don't automatically stop play when it rains, and that gets the ball way wetter than rubbing it on your sweaty clothes ever could
 

Bartelby

Bionic Poster
Apparently you could easily rub vaseline on your shirt to enhance the effect.

It would be fun to see them bag their shirts after a match!
 

Tennis_Hands

Bionic Poster
There was always a time limit in the rules, which those two regularly went over. Not much has really changed because they are seldom called out on it by the umpires
You are being your usual self by completely missing the point: the shot clock was introduced to guarantee the exact application of the rule and that happened because of serial offenders like Nadal and Djokovic. Whether it is/was effective is immaterial to the reason why it was introduced and that is what I said "the shot clock", not "the time rule".

 

Tshooter

Legend
There are catch all rules for unsportsmanlike conduct. This is not unsportsmanlike conduct. Unless you are a Fed fan
I like Fed. I like Milkman too. Other players I like: pretty much all of them.*** Mostly I like a good match.

I would think if there is no specific rule prohibiting the modification of the ball (other than by the normal course of play) it would be picked up by a catch-all else you could modify it to your liking.

***excludes Ryan Harrison.
 
Last edited:

Tennis_Hands

Bionic Poster
They don't automatically stop play when it rains, and that gets the ball way wetter than rubbing it on your sweaty clothes ever could
When it rains the ball gets automatically to whatever state it is (which is in line with the natural condition that the rules protect) and it is the same for both competitors, so your example is clearly useless.

 

jm1980

G.O.A.T.
You are being your usual self by completely missing the point: the shot clock was introduced to guarantee the exact application of the rule and that happened because of serial offenders like Nadal and Djokovic. Whether it is/was effective is immaterial to the reason why it was introduced and that is what I said "the shot clock", not "the time rule".

The key difference is the time limit rule existed before the shot clock was implemented, so the rules were already being broken.

Even if they eventually add the sweat thing as a rule, it won't retroactively make Millman a rulebreaker
 

AceSalvo

Legend
When it rains the ball gets automatically to whatever state it is (which is in line with the natural condition that the rules protect) and it is the same for both competitors, so your example is clearly useless.

I guess the difference between the terms “natural” vs “altered” is lost for some posters here.
 

jm1980

G.O.A.T.
When it rains the ball gets automatically to whatever state it is (which is in line with the natural condition that the rules protect) and it is the same for both competitors, so your example is clearly useless.

The example was to show that a ball being wet doesn't make it illegal

And last I checked Millman and Federer were playing the points with the same ball; it's not like the ball got wetter once it crossed onto Millman's side of the court
 

Tennis_Hands

Bionic Poster
The key difference is the time limit rule existed before the shot clock was implemented, so the rules were already being broken.

Even if they eventually add the sweat thing as a rule, it won't retroactively make Millman a rulebreaker
There is no "key difference". I am not making parallel between the reasons why both rules get notoriety. I am just saying that both get notoriety in their own right.

Millman is already breaking the general rules that prohibit the tennis material being removed from its natural state. Whether he could be found worthy of punishment we will never know, as the situation will never retroactively be reviewed as we well know. You know it, and that is the only reason why we will be reading another 10 pages of nonsense from you, if anyone is so stupid to continue to argue with your clearly uninformed position.

 

Tennis_Hands

Bionic Poster
The example was to show that a ball being wet doesn't make it illegal

And last I checked Millman and Federer were playing the points with the same ball; it's not like the ball got wetter once it crossed onto Millman's side of the court
The attempt at altering the natural state of the ball is the matter here, so you don't know what you are arguing about.

 

Tshooter

Legend
The example was to show that a ball being wet doesn't make it illegal

And last I checked Millman and Federer were playing the points with the same ball; it's not like the ball got wetter once it crossed onto Millman's side of the court
So you can put some gum on the ball before you serve because there is no rule specifically prohibiting it and both players will be playing points with the same ball ?
 

Tennis_Hands

Bionic Poster
I guess the difference between the terms “natural” vs “altered” is lost for some posters here.
Nothing is lost: it can be altered in a natural way which is what "natural"refers to here, or altered from external intentional actions which is what "altered" refers to here. Only for bureaucrats like himself such an additional explanation is needed. Pretty much every sensible person know that distinction already.

 

Bartelby

Bionic Poster
Someone else has suggested that the USTA has a rule against ball tampering, but not the ITF.

Apparently, it's an old-school method of affecting the ball's movement. It was probably seen as obsolete until yesterday.
 

Tshooter

Legend
Nothing is lost: it can be altered in a natural way which is what "natural"refers to here, or altered from external intentional actions which is what "altered" refers to here. Only for bureaucrats like himself such an additional explanation is needed. Pretty much every sensible person know that distinction already.

I don’t know what game is being played by defense counsel jm1980 but if they didn’t write a specific rule that “You Can’t F With The Ball” it can only be because it was deemed too obvious to have to put it to paper and maybe some vestige of the notion the game is played by Ladies and Gentlemen and not Scoundrels.

 
Last edited:

tennishabit

Hall of Fame
gee.....wata load of sht from an old dutch doushebag who might b irritated/annoyed by millman's brilliant performance. go chk the fkn fact or test w/ a ball machine by urself man, to see wata gonna happen to the pade/spin of the balls if they'r wet:-D:-D:-D:-D:-D:-D:-D.......................
 
I think Djokovic is very sporting, bouncing the ball 20 times before serving, so all dampness is removed for the receiver.

I had always thought he was just annoying before yesterday


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 

tonylg

Hall of Fame
I just got off the court and did an experiment while playing this afternoon. Rubbed the ball on my shirt for my first serve (which I've been doing for decades, it's nothing new) and compared it to the ball I pulled out of my pocket when I hit a second serve.

Second serve ball way dryer than the first serve ball.

It's not illegal and with the sh1t balls they are using at this tournament, it's almost necessary.
 
Is it Millman’s fault though? It’s not like he asked for Hewitt to do that, or atleast I highly doubt it.

Hewitt’s known to be a *****, that’s what I’ll say.
Players are responsible for their coach and player's box during a match despite it might not being fair.
 

Zoolander

Hall of Fame
What about all the poor ballkids who have to hold Millmans sweaty balls?

Surely thats unhygenic? Do they get danger money or a disinfectant shower afterwards? Because he was sweating like crazy.
 

dnguyen

Hall of Fame
I wanted Millman to win until I saw what he did...he lost my respect. That's cheap and cheating. Glad RF prevailed.
 

tonylg

Hall of Fame
What about all the poor ballkids who have to hold Millmans sweaty balls?

Surely thats unhygenic? Do they get danger money or a disinfectant shower afterwards? Because he was sweating like crazy.
Do any of your people actually play tennis? The ball is probably dry before it even hits the court. There'd definitely be no sweat left on it when it gets to a ball kid.

A player's towel, on the other hand .. that's a bit gross.
 

tennishabit

Hall of Fame
lololololol even a rec-er's 60km/h shot would shake off anything on the ball, man. btw no danger from the sweat of a healthy athlete. go worry abt those stinky/smelly/oily sick fatazz stuff:-D:-D:-D:-D:-D:-D:-D:-D.....................
 

jm1980

G.O.A.T.
Nothing is lost: it can be altered in a natural way which is what "natural"refers to here, or altered from external intentional actions which is what "altered" refers to here. Only for bureaucrats like himself such an additional explanation is needed. Pretty much every sensible person know that distinction already.

There is no "key difference". I am not making parallel between the reasons why both rules get notoriety. I am just saying that both get notoriety in their own right.

Millman is already breaking the general rules that prohibit the tennis material being removed from its natural state. Whether he could be found worthy of punishment we will never know, as the situation will never retroactively be reviewed as we well know. You know it, and that is the only reason why we will be reading another 10 pages of nonsense from you, if anyone is so stupid to continue to argue with your clearly uninformed position.

Except a general rule "prohibit[ing] the tennis material being removed from its natural state" doesn't exist either. This is yet another invention by you.

There is a very specific rule prohibiting players from "materially and deliberately" changing the shape of the racquet while the ball is in play. No reasonable interpretation of this rule would extend to rubbing balls on a sweaty shirt
 
Last edited:

Badasaplayer

New User
They don't automatically stop play when it rains, and that gets the ball way wetter than rubbing it on your sweaty clothes ever could
Players expect wet balls when it rains. And it's natural alteration. Making a ball wet before your serve on purpose hiding from the Umpire shows wrong intention. It can be called cheating. Also Millman was constantly being coached.
 

Tennis_Hands

Bionic Poster
Except a general rule "prohibit[ing] the tennis material being removed from its natural state" doesn't exist either. This is yet another invention by you.

There is a very specific rule prohibiting players from "materially and deliberately" changing the shape of the racquet while the ball is in play. No reasonable interpretation of this rule would extend to rubbing balls on a sweaty shirt
The tennis has lost its grace when people like you have to be put in their place with yet more rules addressing all sorts of foul practices. The rules about the tennis material are very specific as to what is allowed and with a good reason. Once upon a time even the spaghetti strings were banned as to not alter the fine margins within which the sport is played (they were considered cheating), and nowadays even direct rules are not imposed.

Every existing rule regarding the tennis material has the clear intention of keep it within tight tolerances and not allowing for anything outside of the natural deterioration as a result of playing with it. You may repeat till the cows come home that there is no specific rule, but the spirit of every existing rule regarding that is clear.

On a separate note, he does it with the clear intention to gain an advantage. The parallels with other sports clearly also indicate that he thinks that it does. It doesn't even matter if it really gives him advantage to condemn the practice on principle. Cheaters are going to cheat and people that indicate that they are ok with it are also cheaters.

 
Last edited:

sredna42

Hall of Fame
The last Australian I cheered for was Rafter. Hewitt and all Australian players since were all d|ckheads (I might make an exception and spare Groth).
What aggravates me is that it seems to be fine for the players of other countries to show fire, or fight, to not be meek and have a dash of mongrel, but if an aussie isnt some meek submissive shoegazer then they are considered unbearable.
 

Bartelby

Bionic Poster
The Australian cricket team was in the dog house for over a year because they decided to take some sandpaper to a cricket ball.

Is this a nation which can't stop playing around with its balls?
 

tennisaddict

Bionic Poster
The Australian cricket team was in the dog house for over a year because they decided to take some sandpaper to a cricket ball.

Is this a nation which can't stop playing around with its balls?
We cannot fault a nation for the sake of few individuals.

But nothing can beat Meldonium.
 

jm1980

G.O.A.T.
Players expect wet balls when it rains. And it's natural alteration. Making a ball wet before your serve on purpose hiding from the Umpire shows wrong intention. It can be called cheating. Also Millman was constantly being coached.
The tennis has lost its grace when people like you have to be put in their place with yet more rules addressing all sorts of foul practices. The rules about the tennis material are very specific as to what is allowed and with a good reason. Once upon a time even the spaghetti strings were banned as to not alter the fine margins within which the sport is played (they were considered cheating), and nowadays even direct rules are not imposed.

Every existing rule regarding the tennis material has the clear intention of keep it within tight tolerances and not allowing for anything outside of the natural deterioration as a result of playing with it. You may repeat till the cows come home that there is no specific rule, but the spirit of every existing rule regarding that is clear.

On a separate note, he does it with the clear intention to gain an advantage. The parallels with other sports clearly also indicate that he thinks that it does. It doesn't even matter if it really gives him advantage to condemn the practice on principle. Cheaters are going to cheat and people that indicate that they are ok with it are also cheaters.

Well, the rulebook specifically forbids spaghetti stringing to this day

It's also not clear if it was intentional at all. He's doing it on his own service games, and generally you want the balls as new and fast as possible to help you hold. Making them wet puts him at a disadvantage on serve
 

Fairhit

Semi-Pro
From his box they told him to imitate Rafa, he just didn't understand what they meant with fondling the balls...
 

Bartelby

Bionic Poster
Swiss Army pocket scissors with which to clip a bit of felt could be handy if the balls are that fluffy.
 

jm1980

G.O.A.T.
There is no specific rule against cheating in tennis. :cautious:
It's not cheating in the first place if it's not against the rules

It's not even about having a specific rule forbidding it. There's not even a general rule under which this could fall
 

tonylg

Hall of Fame
There is actually a rule about the size of the ball and how much it is allowed to change. To be certified these balls have passed a test to simulate 9 games of play, but I don't think the wear testing machines have been updated to allow for highly abrasive courts, poly strings and massive rpms on topspin groundstrokes.

Again, the ball rubbed on the shirt is not as wet as the one in the shorts pocket and the one in the shorts is completely dry by the time it gets to the other end, possibly before it even crosses the net.

So although Millman is not actually doing anything illegal, these balls if not actually illegal, certainly do not comply with the spirit of the rules of tennis.
 

Tshooter

Legend
It's not cheating in the first place if it's not against the rules

It's not even about having a specific rule forbidding it. There's not even a general rule under which this could fall
Next time I’m going out with a bike pump needle so I can puncture the ball and let air out of the ball when I desire. There is no specific rule forbidding it. I may also look into some substance to make the court super slick and apply it just before the changeover at key points. There is no specific rule forbidding it. There are countless possibilities. :cool:

There is no specific rule forbidding it ! My new tennis mantra. I may have to call you eventually when I run out of people that will play against me. :cry:
 

jm1980

G.O.A.T.
Next time I’m going out with a bike pump needle so I can puncture the ball and let air out of the ball when I desire. There is no specific rule forbidding it. I may also look into some substance to make the court super slick and apply it just before the changeover at key points. There is no specific rule forbidding it. There are countless possibilities. :cool:

There is no specific rule forbidding it ! My new tennis mantra. I may have to call you eventually when I run out of people that will play against me. :cry:
Puncturing the ball would break it. You can't play with a broken ball; that's in the rules. You are also not allowed to put any materials on the playing surface. Please try again
 
Top