Unacknowledged Double bounce at match point costs FAA the match!

It is strange that FAA asked the ump, "Are you sure you have ZERO doubt in your mind that Draper did not half volley off the ground?"

That is not how it works.

Even if umpire is only 50% sure he must give the benefit of the doubt to Draper.
 
  • Like
Reactions: JMR
Terry Tibbs said:
Just cant see it
Click to expand...
No problem, but its pretty obvious and umpire should have seen it even in real time.
FAA managed the situation pretty good. Others would have been much more upset.
And i do believe Draper wasn't sure how he hit the ball over the net. He was the only one not looking at the ball in the moment of contact.
 
Honza said:
No problem, but its pretty obvious and umpire should have seen it even in real time.
FAA managed the situation pretty good. Others would have been much more upset.
And i do believe Draper wasn't sure how he hit the ball over the net. He was the only one not looking at the ball in the moment of contact.
Click to expand...
Yes, Draper also did offer to replay the point. So I wouldn't judge him too much.
 
Better_Call_Raul said:
5RVvPX.gif
Click to expand...
Priceless gif. Well done!
 
airchallenge2 said:
Priceless gif. Well done!
Click to expand...

Not really. People still disagree on the call.

(1) Ball hits ground. Ball hits racquet. Ball goes over the net. Legal shot. A half volley.
OR
(2) Ball hits ground. Ball hits racquet.Ball hits ground a second time. Illegal.

I lean #1. But it could be #2. So umpire must give benefit of the doubt to Draper.

OTOH, as FAA said, if it was a practice match with no ump, Draper must concede the point if he is not sure.
 
Last edited:
airchallenge2 said:
Seriously? Just check this gif.
Click to expand...

Looks like a fair play to me. The question is not if it’s a double bounce (the ball had not bounced once already, totally different situation), and it’s not an intentional double hit. The closest thing would be whether Draper’s racquet touched the ball before the ball hit the ground. To me it looks like ball hits ground first, or maybe almost at the same time, perhaps fractionally on ground before Draper’s racquet.
 
What is the rule if a player makes contact with the ball simultaneously with the ball hitting the ground as appears to be the case here. I'm assuming it's an illegal shot so the point goes to FAA, but I'm not sure how that rule is codified. I don't think Draper hit the ball into the ground, but that he made contact while the ball was on the ground.
 
I think its insane people are still debating this like its not clear cut. Draper CLEARLY knew, look at his immediate reaction after he hits it, you can't fake react that in the heat of the moment in tennis, he knew and he tried to save face by being like "Oh Ill replay it if you want" but let the umpire take the pressure instead of holding his hand up.

Then we move on to how the umpire didn't see it, No it's not hard to see that, he's like 2 meters away from the shot, I've seen "not up" calls from much further away than that and it clearly hits racquet then ground then racquet again, even if you debate the first hit, it's impossible to debate the 2nd and then we've got the fact this is supposed to be a hawk-eye related call system and they don't call that when it is CLEAR?

Draper/Umpire/Tournament are all to blame and robbed FAA.
 
Mr.Lob said:
Draper didn't CLEARLY know. He may have suspected, which is why he offered to replay the point. It's not his job to play AND officiate the match.
Click to expand...

Yes he did. Pick up a tennis racquet, hold it pointed downwards and get a friend/family member to throw 2 balls at your racquet really really gently back to back. You will feel it both times no matter how soft. You don't magically zone out feeling a second hit on your racquet.
 
If you look at the slow motion clip, at 0.25x speed, it doesn’t look like double bounce, it looks legit. The ball hits the ground a fraction of a second before hitting the frame, the continues the upwards trajectory.
 
Terry Tibbs said:
Just cant see it. Looks like a legitimate albeit miss hit half volley
Click to expand...

It's not a legitimate shot, and I suggest you watch the replay over and over again until you get it. Cause you are missing the obvious, and I don't get how.

Hell, you don't even need to see the slow mo replay. Just check the normal footage and you will even hear the bounce as he hits it onto his own court.
 
RF-18 said:
It's not a legitimate shot, and I suggest you watch the replay over and over again until you get it. Cause you are missing the obvious, and I don't get how.

Hell, you don't even need to see the slow mo replay. Just check the normal footage and you will even hear the bounce as he hits it onto his own court.
Click to expand...
Terry Tibbs is the umpire’s burner account.
 
smalahove said:
If you look at the slow motion clip, at 0.25x speed, it doesn’t look like double bounce, it looks legit. The ball hits the ground a fraction of a second before hitting the frame, the continues the upwards trajectory.
Click to expand...

Lets be clear on the terminology.. A "double bounce" usually refers to a ball that bounced twice before player strikes it.

That is clearly not the scenario here.

Draper almost certainly initially contacts the ball immediately after the first bounce, a few inches after the first bounce (a half volley).Or possibly contacts the ball simultaneously with the ground. But lets leave that scenario aside for now.

Assuming the half volley scenario, the only question is whether the half volley hit the ground on the return.
 
Terenigma said:
Yes he did. Pick up a tennis racquet, hold it pointed downwards and get a friend/family member to throw 2 balls at your racquet really really gently back to back. You will feel it both times no matter how soft. You don't magically zone out feeling a second hit on your racquet.
Click to expand...
FAA hit a hard low shot at Drapers feet. Looked like Drapers racquet hit the court as well. Difficult to know for sure, even for a pro. Umpires call...and he unfortunately got it wrong.
 
vokazu said:
I played the slow motion video frame by frame, and found this is the exact moment when the ball hit the top of Draper's racquet frame, and then hit the floor.

bb.jpg
Click to expand...

At that frame, if the ball had already bounced upon racquet contact, it is a legal half volley at that instant. But it looks impossible to get it over the net in the air from that position. Ball must have hit the ground a second time in order to clear the net. Illegal shot.

At that frame, if the ball had not bounced upon racquet contact, it is a legal volley at that instant. But it looks impossible to get it over the net from that position. Ball must have hit the ground a second time. Illegal shot.

At that frame, if the racquet contact occurs simultaneously with ball on the ground, I think it is likely an illegal shot.
 
Last edited:
It was a travesty. I still can't believe that happened. That umpire needs to go but Draper should have done the right thing. I agree with Felix. You're a pro and you know how it feels on your racket. Now people are going to remember this for years and say you're a terrible sport.
 
Better_Call_Raul said:
At that frame, if the ball had already bounced upon racquet contact, it is a legal half volley at that instant. But it looks impossible to get it over the net in the air from that position. Ball must have hit the ground a second time in order to clear the net. Illegal shot.

At that frame, if the ball had not bounced upon racquet contact, it is a legal volley at that instant. But it looks impossible to get it over the net from that position. Ball must have hit the ground a second time. Illegal shot.

At that frame, if the racquet contact occurs simultaneously with ball on the ground, I think it is likely an illegal shot.
Click to expand...

Ball is traveling faster than racquet. Comes up off bounce and ricochets, hence the odd trajectory.
 
Double contact rules:

"If it was one continuous motion, without a second intentional swing or push, then it is a legal shot even if it hit your racquet twice in the one swing.
 
That chair umpire is a travesty, he's gotten a bunch of calls wrong this summer.
I don't even blame Draper necessarily as it's not his call to make, it was close enough that one can believe he didn't know if it double bounced. I don't see what the big deal is in giving each player a replay, just one per match would suffice.

Also, I laugh at them bringing out the supervisors in these situations as if they ever solve anything. Player to supervisor "so what are you going to do about it"... supervisor "it's up to the chair ump". Oh ok, thanks for nothing.
 
Ref is correct. AA rude and disrespectful to call something he's 10 yards away from and call Jack a lier. Jack 'traps' the ball with frame, ball and ground at the same time, hence noise of frame and strange trajectory on ball. He may contact the ball twice through the stroke, which is completely legal. Good job ref, and Jack for being so honest to say he didn't know, which you wouldn't with such a split second event. Terrible that AA implies cheating.
 
Interestingly at 3 all, 15-15 in the first set, Jack thought Felix hit a double bounce to win the point. He questioned the chair ump who said "we don't have that (replay) at this tournament." Seems like it would be beneficial to integrate the widely available modern technology in these large tournaments.
 
From seeing the video and where the head of the racquet frame was when the ball was centimetres from the ground, it's impossible for him to have gotten underneath it in time. If it was a double hit, it's allowed as long as it happened as a result of one continuous motion, but that is not the bottom line here.
 
Seriously...
For those of you who are looking at this GIF, are you NOT seeing the ball go off the frame and into the ground?
I mean for real? :oops: I thought you were trying to troll.
5RVvPX.gif


Or are you honestly saying that after the ball impacts the frame, it stops its obvious flight downwards and just before it hits the ground it somehow gains reverse momentum and flies up and over the net?
 
Grafil Injection said:
Ref is correct. AA rude and disrespectful to call something he's 10 yards away from and call Jack a lier. Jack 'traps' the ball with frame, ball and ground at the same time, hence noise of frame and strange trajectory on ball. He may contact the ball twice through the stroke, which is completely legal. Good job ref, and Jack for being so honest to say he didn't know, which you wouldn't with such a split second event. Terrible that AA implies cheating.
Click to expand...

The ball did hit his racquet first, then hit the ground on Draper’s side before going over the net to the other side. It’s an illegal shot.

Draper knew and should have conceded the point. Now the world will know he’s a terrible sportsmanship forever.
 
How many threads are we going to have to endure because of this?

Let's just default Draper and award the match to FAA. Will that make everybody happy and free up space for some fresher, more interesting threads??
 
First of all, shame on the Umpire for not seeing the ball hitting his racquet, hitting the floor, hitting the racquet again and then went over the net.

Second, Jack knew the second he made that "winner" that it was not a legitimate winner.

Third, Tennis Directors/Supervisors are some of the most useless higher power position I've ever seen. They never over rule anything and say 95% of the time : "The Umpire has the last call".

I think it's about time that ATP/WTA should have a video replay like in other sports (NHL, Baseball, NFL, etc.) so that way they can review it and overturn their call instead of going with their gut feeling.
 
Last edited:
Mainad said:
How many threads are we going to have to endure because of this?

Let's just default Draper and award the match to FAA. Will that make everybody happy and free up space for some fresher, more interesting threads??
Click to expand...
You are missing the point.

This single point was a microcosm for life
 
Grafil Injection said:
Ref is correct. AA rude and disrespectful to call something he's 10 yards away from and call Jack a lier. Jack 'traps' the ball with frame, ball and ground at the same time, hence noise of frame and strange trajectory on ball. He may contact the ball twice through the stroke, which is completely legal. Good job ref, and Jack for being so honest to say he didn't know, which you wouldn't with such a split second event. Terrible that AA implies cheating.
Click to expand...
FAA said to the umpire: he shanked the ball into the ground.

That's exactly what the slow mo shows. I learned from this incident there are many people with bad eyes playing and watching tennis.
 
johnmccabe said:
Any pro would know that shot didn't feel right. Robbed a match point like that by the umpire and opponent, FAA remained calm and chose his words carefully. You decided to nitpick on this? I hate the woke crowd in 99.9% situations. Shifting the blame to the clear victim from two white dudes doesn't look good at all.
Joking about "this only happens to Serena and me" didn't help either
Click to expand...
I expecting replays to reveal another coco situation. But then when it showed that Felix was 100% correct, I gained a lot of respect for the way he handled it.

And lost a little respect for Draper. He knew, but just couldn’t bring himself to admit it.
 
Better_Call_Raul said:
I don't see it. It appears to hit the frame twice while ball was in the air. Almost a "double hit" volley violation but since it was a continuous swing a double hit does not apply. Hence the funky spin from hitting the frame twice. But the funky spin was not caused by the ball hitting the ground at any time during the volley .

In any case, don't see how FAA can be so damn sure in real time. It was very close and happened right under the umpire's nose.

Ump: "I saw it come off the frame".
Click to expand...
lol this thread really brings out the people who have never held a racket in their life Which was always obviou in your particular posts. In LIVE speed it seemed odd, but in replay it’s obvious, MOST OF ALL TO DRAPER.
 
Mainad said:
Life means you're never sure if you hit the ball too many times before it goes over the net?? :cool:
Click to expand...
You see…

This point had everything that is important in life.

It had high stakes.
It had an audience.
It had uncertainty.
It had conviction.
It had wavering.
It had validation.
It had agony.
It had embarrassment.
It had a conclusion.
It had polarized opinions.
It had temptation of reward.
It had judgment.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

placebo
Swiatek awarded point for double bounce
2 3
Replies
115
Views
3K
Sudacafan
Sudacafan
Y
What do umpires say for a double bounce?
Replies
3
Views
6K
Shaolin
Shaolin
P
Recent calls on two bounces - Alcaraz/Draper
Replies
3
Views
168
RSJfan
RSJfan
guanzishou
We should have video replay challenge for a double bounce
Replies
5
Views
310
Rattie
Rattie
Serve&Bash
Can the hawkeye/shotspot system detect double bounces?
Replies
3
Views
568
Thriller
Thriller
Back
Top