Umpire makes questionable hindrance call in the match between Draper and Meddy

smalahove

smalahove

Hall of Fame
The point in question starts at 1:28

A few shots after the serve, Draper makes an unorthodox movement, which seems to be in disbelief of the ball not being called out. That movement could be viewed as hindrance.
The problem is that that call is not made by either the umpire or Meddy, at that moment. Meddy makes 4 shots after that, and the last one he dumps in the net, losing the point.
Then he adresses the umpire, and she grants him a video review.

Are we now entering the VAR of tennis, opening up examination of any sequence of a point?


 
It was a borderline hinderance call, but you can see that Meddy clearly let up on his forehand after the gesture, and Meddy confirmed this in the post-match presser.
Meddy says his only mistake was not calling the hindrance immediately.
The far greater offense is the clueless Draper hesitating on his shot. How does Draper not know that Hawkeye cannot be overturned?
 
Whilst not as ridiculous as the Iga move, it is definitely some sort of unusual motion. But the spirit of the law likely wasn't broken. He was simply astounded the ball wasn't called out. You see it all the time. I wouldn't have allowed a replay. It wasn't a very close match, though. Draper obviously exhausted in handing Joker his defeat the day previous. So I am not sure it is any news, really.
 
WYK said:
Whilst not as ridiculous as the Iga move, it is definitely some sort of unusual motion. But the spirit of the law likely wasn't broken. He was simply astounded the ball wasn't called out. You see it all the time. I wouldn't have allowed a replay. It wasn't a very close match, though. Draper obviously exhausted in handing Joker his defeat the day previous. So I am not sure it is any news, really.
Click to expand...
Agree. I don't understand why this isn't allowed anyway. Even what Iga does is just movement in a sport that is about movement.

But here, how could anything else than an out call be a signal for Medvedev that a ball was out? If Draper has SILENT doubts shouldn't be Medvedev's concern at all.
 
ADuck said:
I just find it weird because
1. It’s not like it was a pretending to challenge thing where you trick your opponent that you’re stopping the point, and that makes them stop too, and
2. Challenges don’t exist anymore and line calls are automatic too, so there’s no situation where you need to worry or focus on the gestures or reactions of your opponent

The only thing that would matter is if your opponent INTENTIONALLY made gestures to distract you like waving their arms and racket in your direction, but what Draper did clearly wasn’t that…

Ultimately it should just be on the opponent to remain focused on the point instead of policing every random or unusual motion you might make during a point
Click to expand...
 
ChrisRF said:
Agree. I don't understand why this isn't allowed anyway. Even what Iga does is just movement in a sport that is about movement.

But here, how could anything else than an out call be a signal for Medvedev that a ball was out?
Click to expand...
Both players failed:
Draper failed to kindly focus on the rally until he hears an "out" call from the robot. Draper failed to understand that he couldn't argue with and whine to a robot.
Meddy failed to focus on the rally and allowed the Draper gesture to cause him to let up on his forehand (video clearly shows this and Meddy confirmed this in interview).

ChrisRF said:
If Draper has SILENT doubts shouldn't be Medvedev's concern at all.
Click to expand...
Don't know what this means. If you're saying that had Draper made no gesture and simply had doubts, there would be no issue. That is obviously true.
The issue here is that Draper foolishly made a gesture which could be deemed a hindrance. Totally unnecessary. Draper should know better.
 
Better_Call_Raul said:
Draper: Did it distract you?

Meddy: A little bit...But if the umpire says it does not rise to the level of hindrance, I am ok with it.

The Russian handled the matter very fairly.
Click to expand...
Post match interview with Prakash, he said it definitely hindered his FH shot after Draper raised his right arm. He said that FH would have been hit harder or better.
Video review is allowed long afterwards.
Odd thing is after the replay, the ball to Draper did look like it was clearly out. I'd call it out if it was in my rec. match.
 
a10best said:
Odd thing is after the replay, the ball to Draper did look like it was clearly out. I'd call it out if it was in my rec. match.
Click to expand...
The ball did look ~4 inches out. it is extremerly rare for Hawkeye to be off, especially on hard court.
But unless it is a foot or more out, there is no reason for Draper to hesitate and make drama about it.
These are the types of mental failures that are holding the whiny Draper back from joining The Big Two.
 
Better_Call_Raul said:
The ball did look ~4 inches out. it is extremerly rare for Hawkeye to be off, especially on hard court.
But unless it is a foot or more out, there is no reason for Draper to hesitate and make drama about it.
These are the types of mental failures that are holding the whiny Draper back from joining The Big Two.
Click to expand...
whichever live play monitoring system they're using it's not 100% accurate as "some" non-out calls in other tournaments (mostly on the baseline) have been reviewed by chair and gave the point to the player complaining. I've seen this happen maybe 3 times in 2 years and I don't watch all the tournaments. The last one was with Mannarino who had won the game. After review it was taken away and back to deuce for the opposing player.
I understand it's more reliable than humans. Video call challenges need to be brought back, at least one challenge a set and one in a tb.
 
Last edited:
What comes around goes around. Draper screwed Felix on an important point last year when he had the option to be a good sport and didn't. The call itself is borderline but clearly it caught the attention of Medvedev and Draper is a pro who should know better so than raising an arm to complain during a point. The fact that this doesn't happen often goes to show that what Draper did was not typical in a match.
 
I’m not all that invested in the hindrance call itself – seems a pretty minor one that most of the time would go overlooked (as it was initially here), but also within the letter of the law to call it such.

The problem is Medvedev being allowed to play out the point and only then asking for video review. That shouldn’t be allowed. It should be like the old HawkEye system where you have to stop play to initiate a challenge – otherwise they’re essentially giving players two opportunities to win the same point. (A player could also ask for video review of some trivial thing earlier in a point merely to stall and create a delay, with no downside to themselves since they don’t have to stop playing a live point to do so.)

I know video review is still pretty new. I assume these kinks will be ironed out before too long.
 
tudwell said:
I’m not all that invested in the hindrance call itself – seems a pretty minor one that most of the time would go overlooked (as it was initially here), but also within the letter of the law to call it such.

The problem is Medvedev being allowed to play out the point and only then asking for video review. That shouldn’t be allowed. It should be like the old HawkEye system where you have to stop play to initiate a challenge – otherwise they’re essentially giving players two opportunities to win the same point. (A player could also ask for video review of some trivial thing earlier in a point merely to stall and create a delay, with no downside to themselves since they don’t have to stop playing a live point to do so.)

I know video review is still pretty new. I assume these kinks will be ironed out before too long.
Click to expand...
Very good point.
I've been whining about this in volleyball for two years.
We literally wait 20 shots, and if we lose the point, we get to challenge any one of the touches throughout the rally.
It's insane.
 
Because the rules recognise that a player may still react to the other player, even if it contradicts a robot call, and hence it constitutes a hindrance.

There are two players against each other on the court. They are not playing against the line call system.

ChrisRF said:
Agree. I don't understand why this isn't allowed anyway. Even what Iga does is just movement in a sport that is about movement.

But here, how could anything else than an out call be a signal for Medvedev that a ball was out? If Draper has SILENT doubts shouldn't be Medvedev's concern at all.
Click to expand...
 
Better_Call_Raul said:
It was a borderline hinderance call, but you can see that Meddy clearly let up on his forehand after the gesture, and Meddy confirmed this in the post-match presser.
Meddy says his only mistake was not calling the hindrance immediately.
The far greater offense is the clueless Draper hesitating on his shot. How does Draper not know that Hawkeye cannot be overturned?
Click to expand...
Medvedev was not distracted. He cheated, he knows it, the crowd knew it, and hopefully Alcaraz takes him to the woodshed now.
 
To Draper's defence, I thought such calls as hindrace during a rally should be called during the rally rather than after in ends. Meddy went on playing and then hit the net.
 
As someone who doesn't know every hindrance rule, this one ranks WAY BELOW grunts. by a wide margin. The opposing player can argue a questionable call after the fact and there's tools to get the correct call . They dont need to get emotionally bent out of shape and lose their train of thought and concentration because the other guy made a gesture based on them thinking the ball was out. If anything, Draper thinking it was out ( as shown by the gesture ) would probably be more of a personal mental hindrance than his gesture, than medvedev's perception of it. this is an outsiders POV vs the rules.
 
Making a gesture of concession, whether intentional or not, is enough to constitute a hindrance. It seems a good rule.

Despite complaints about grunting, it has been called a hindrance when it begins as the the other player hits the ball.

There is consistency here.
 
Medvedev cheated Draper by continuing the point then asking for the review. I see it no other way. His "accepting if it doesnt go his way" is such a save face attitude to it. Medvedev knew what he was doing, knew he'd likely get away with it and tried his best to cover the hate he should rightly have gotten for it.

Draper did do a hinderance worthy movement with his arms but Medvedev only challanged it AFTER he lost the point and it wasn't even like 2-3 shots after, it was like 7 (4 of his own) shots later. I also saw what he said in the post-match interview about how he changed how he hit the immediate shot after and implied he wouldn't have hit the same shot, get out with that, it was a clear wind-up down the line shot with topspin. No dude, you cheated Draper out of a point and got away with it from a dumb umpire decision.
 
I can't see that there is a time limit on calling hindrance. It either is or is not. He ultimately called it and the umpire agreed.

In rugby, for example, if a side is awarded a penalty the side can keep playing advantage but if they lose the ball then it goes back to where the penalty occurred.

This is roughly the rule and it seems rather strange for someone who doesn't follow the sport when this goes on very long, but it seems fair enough and even speeds up the game.

Terenigma said:
Medvedev cheated Draper by continuing the point then asking for the review. I see it no other way. His "accepting if it doesnt go his way" is such a save face attitude to it. Medvedev knew what he was doing, knew he'd likely get away with it and tried his best to cover the hate he should rightly have gotten for it.

Draper did do a hinderance worthy movement with his arms but Medvedev only challanged it AFTER he lost the point and it wasn't even like 2-3 shots after, it was like 7 (4 of his own) shots later. I also saw what he said in the post-match interview about how he changed how he hit the immediate shot after and implied he wouldn't have hit the same shot, get out with that, it was a clear wind-up down the line shot with topspin. No dude, you cheated Draper out of a point and got away with it from a dumb umpire decision.
Click to expand...
 
Last edited:
Bartelby said:
I can't see that there is a time limit on calling hindrance. It either is or is not. He ultimately called it and the umpire agreed.
Click to expand...

Yes but like @tudwell mentioned earlia in their post, hinderances just like challenges should be immediate and players should stop play to point it out. If it's true, video review is there and will confirm it. Allowing the point to carry on and then challenge it is a joke and I doubt Medvedev would've been like "Oh sorry, we should replay the point because I was distracted 7 shots ago" if he had won the point.
 
Challenges to line calls are different. Hindrances are an infraction of a rule. Challenges are not.

If anything, Draper should have conceded the point immediately as he was relying on the umpire making the wrong call.

As I continued above:

In rugby, for example, if a side is awarded a penalty the side can keep playing advantage but if they lose the ball then it goes back to where the penalty occurred.

This is roughly the rule and it seems rather strange for someone who doesn't follow the sport when this goes on very long, but it seems fair enough and even speeds up the game.

Terenigma said:
Yes but like @tudwell mentioned earlia in their post, hinderances just like challenges should be immediate and players should stop play to point it out. If it's true, video review is there and will confirm it. Allowing the point to carry on and then challenge it is a joke and I doubt Medvedev would've been like "Oh sorry, we should replay the point because I was distracted 7 shots ago" if he had won the point.
Click to expand...
 
No rules were broken by Meddy, but I've seen 100s, possibly 1000s of cases where a player semi-stops and points at the line, or in the old days line judge, then continues the point when no call is given, and never has hindrance been asked for. Murray used to do it all the time on close calls and no one said anything, probably because the etiquette is only to call hindrance if you are actually hindered.
 
Last edited:
Wait. The hindrance was because your opponent made it look like the ball was out? When we live in a world where AI makes all of the line calls? If you're too stupid and react to what your opponent does in terms of line calls instead of just listening or reacting to the computer that is calling the lines, you're just an idiot.
 
draper is silly here
He admits it is hindrance but not a big one
But the rule book shall have not stated that at what level would be allowed
 
Last edited:
tudwell said:
The problem is Medvedev being allowed to play out the point and only then asking for video review. That shouldn’t be allowed. It should be like the old HawkEye system where you have to stop play to initiate a challenge – otherwise they’re essentially giving players two opportunities to win the same point.
Click to expand...

There is precedent for "two bites at the apple" in other sports.
If the defense commits an offsides penalty in the NFL, the offensive team gets a "free play".
Requiring Meddy to stop play in the heat of the rally is asking too much. The burden should not be on Meddy to immediately stop and initiate a hindrance challenge.
 
Devilito said:
Wait. The hindrance was because your opponent made it look like the ball was out? When we live in a world where AI makes all of the line calls? If you're too stupid and react to what your opponent does in terms of line calls instead of just listening or reacting to the computer that is calling the lines, you're just an idiot.
Click to expand...

That is a two-way street. The robot has the final word on "out" calls and "non-out" calls. The robot is 99.9% accurate. Better than any human!
The only exception is system failures/power outages, which are extremely rare and do not apply here.

Why the hell is Draper making drama and waving hands on a ball that may have been inches out?
It is very simple: Draper just needs to play on until he hears an "Out!" call from the robot.

As for Meddy, he is not necessarily reacting to an out call from the opponent (which is impossible, since only the robot has the authority to call it out), he is reacting to the hand-waving hindrance.
It is not much different than Iga waving like a monkey at the net while the opponent tries to pass.

It is a distraction. It is a hindrance. And the gentle veteran Chair wisely ruled it as such.
 
Last edited:
There is no way that slight throw of arms was enough to distract Medvedev and he knows it. His post match interviews read like admissions of guilt. Draper handled the situation with extreme grace and class, I don't think many would have taken that so well. Confirms his reputation as one of the good guys on tour. Medvedev is a good dude, too, but he lets himself down at times.
 
Also, Medvedev saying "I understand if your angry with me" to Draper could be interpreted as knowing he messed up. They were both pretty amicable about it all anyway. Just a shame Draper got broken that game, or I'd just say it was a storm in a teacup.
 
Better_Call_Raul said:
That is a two-way street. The robot has the final word on "out" calls and "non-out" calls. The robot is 99.9% accurate. Better than any human!
The only exception is system failures/power outages, which are extremely rare and do not apply here.

Why the hell is Draper making drama and waving hands on a ball that may have been inches out?
It is very simple: Draper just needs to play on until he hears an "Out!" call from the robot.

As for Meddy, he is not necessarily reacting to an out call from the opponent (which is impossible, since only the robot has the authority to call it out), he is reacting to the hand-waving hindrance.
It is not much different than Iga waving like a monkey at the net while the opponent tries to pass.

It is a distraction. It is a hindrance. And the gentle veteran Chair wisely ruled it as such.
Click to expand...
Because Draper is a human and made a mistake and reacted instinctively. This is why we use computers to make line calls now and not humans who are constantly prone to mistakes. The problem is that Draper instinctively reacted to a shot without the intent to hinder, and Med was hindered because he interpreted a line call based on Draper's reaction instead of listening to the actual line call. Not to mention, this didn't even effect the point at all as they played a few shots after without issue.
 
Once Draper starts instinctively raising his arms it's a hindrance. This is a very simple decision even if you don't agree with the rule.

Devilito said:
Because Draper is a human and made a mistake and reacted instinctively. This is why we use computers to make line calls now and not humans who are constantly prone to mistakes. The problem is that Draper instinctively reacted to a shot without the intent to hinder, and Med was hindered because he interpreted a line call based on Draper's reaction instead of listening to the actual line call.
Click to expand...
 
newyorkstadium said:
There is no way that slight throw of arms was enough to distract Medvedev and he knows it. His post match interviews read like admissions of guilt. Draper handled the situation with extreme grace and class, I don't think many would have taken that so well. Confirms his reputation as one of the good guys on tour. Medvedev is a good dude, too, but he lets himself down at times.
Click to expand...


Meddy clearly lets up on the forehand; his shot goes over but it is weak and tentative.
It is obvious on the video replay. And Meddy confirmed it in the post match interview; said he could have hit it much harder.
 
Rafa4LifeEver said:
Its a massive hypocrisy on authorities' part to punish Draper for such a mild action while Swiatek & Sabalenka get away with way worse.
Click to expand...
Well with what happened with Draper/Meddy. Could players play a full point against Sabalenka then ask for video review to see if her screaming was too loud and then get awarded a hindrance? It would be interesting to see how this works out.

Rules might need to be clarified when video reviews can be called--immediate or after point is concluded.
On the one hand playing out the point might eliminate video calls if the one who wins the point was the one who was hindered. So if Med won the point he woudln't have called for the hindrance/video review. But it could also open the door as others have noted to calling for video reviews to change momentum/slow things down. Maybe asking for foot fault review after being aced to ice the server.

Having to immediately call the video review creates some jeopardy because if you are wrong you are now losing the point for sure since you stopped it mid point and maybe it wasn't a foul/hindrance. The other issue becomes how immediate, if I was Meddy I might have returned Draper's ball before figuring out something was weird then ask for the review--but I hit the ball back already.

I think all of our sense of needs to be called immediately comes from rec tennis which doesn't have the luxury of refs/shotspot/video reviews. If playing dubs in a 10 ball rally, where I got a drop shot on the 3rd ball, and then shot 10 put an oh away, it would be more argumentative for my opponent to call for a double bounce at that point.
 
Bartelby said:
Once Draper starts instinctively raising his arms it's a hindrance. This is a very simple decision even if you don't agree with the rule.
Click to expand...
Also a rule that the opponent didn't have to feel hindered by it.

Oddly I remember Djoker stopped play once when his opponent almost gave up on a ball then at the last minute got it back. Djoker thought his opponent stopped so he did too. But this wasn't considered a hindrance. But could it be?
Also a lot of the faking in dubs if extreme starts to get to hindrance zone.
 
I think in that case almost giving up on a ball would have to be accompanied by a gesture of defeat.

Robert F said:
Also a rule that the opponent didn't have to feel hindered by it.

Oddly I remember Djoker stopped play once when his opponent almost gave up on a ball then at the last minute got it back. Djoker thought his opponent stopped so he did too. But this wasn't considered a hindrance. But could it be?
Also a lot of the faking in dubs if extreme starts to get to hindrance zone.
Click to expand...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

L
Draper half volley call was correct
2 3
Replies
119
Views
6K
Airspun
Airspun
W
Match Stats/Report - Draper vs Rune, Indian Wells final, 2025
Replies
1
Views
587
Waspsting
W
W
Match Stats/Report - Ruud vs Draper, Madrid final, 2025
Replies
6
Views
717
Waspsting
W
T
Dzumhur attacked the umpire verbally and he was right
Replies
36
Views
619
McLovin
McLovin
T
Umpire Calls the Play and Then Allows A Replay in Moutet vs Diallo Monte Carlo Quallies
Replies
11
Views
699
TennisBro
T
Back
Top