Unacknowledged Double bounce at match point costs FAA the match!
- Thread starter JustMy2Cents
- Start date
FedForGOAT
Professional
I tend to give players, and people in general the benefit of the doubt. I also know that I haven’t played that much tennis, and I tend to be unsure about many things, so I’m positive that in a similar situation, I would not know exactly what happened.
That said, the slow Mo should make it obvious to everyone what happened.
The only way a ball could be shanked straight up like that legally, is if it hit the top corner of the bottom frame. In that case, it would not hit the ground at all. If a ball hit the ground and then hits the frame there is no way for it to shank straight up like that.
The replay and the GIFs clearly showed the ball hit the ground. This only leaves the possibility of the ball hitting the frame, then hitting the ground, then bouncing straight up and hitting the racket again.
Even if you can’t clearly see, that’s what happened, it’s the only physically possible scenario.
So regardless of how you think of drapers behavior, or what should be the outcome: there should not be any doubt as to what actually happened. Just because some people are saying there’s doubt doesn’t mean they’re actually should be.
Better_Call_Raul
Hall of Fame
I see the ball hitting the ground on the first bounce and Draper half volleying it an inch off the bounce.
FedForGOAT
Professional
It was a volley. The hit frame and then went straight to the ground and then back up into the racket again. If you freeze the replay at certain points, you can see it, if you still aren’t convinced. But even without seeing it yourself, note all the experts, including current pros and commentators, find it obvious. That should be a tell.
I’m not here to excoriate Draper. But it should be clear what physically happened.
FedForGOAT
Professional
The ball would not have stopped that way in the middle frame, if it hit the ground first. If it hits the ground first, it will be coming into the frame with significant forward momentum. But in the two frames where the ball is somewhere between the ground and the racket, you see that it’s hardly traveling at all.I see the ball hitting the ground on the first bounce and Draper half volleying it an inch off the bounce.
Yes. And the key question for umpires and players alike in situations like this is not what is the 100 percent accurate description of what occurred. Rather, the key question is, "What is the stipulated process for determining the final ruling on the question?" And the process here is tightly constrained, as in all sports.
If a player objected, "Hey, my cousin is in the CIA and he happens to be in the stands recording this match with super-powerful spy cam technology. We can see every seam of the ball in stunning 2,000 fps detail -- let's have him bring up the video," that would be irrelevant. The quest for "truth" about one stroke on one point can't be allowed to become more of a spectacle than the match itself.
I also find the denunciations of umpire laughable. How incompetent of him not to have imagined the results of scrutinizing a slo-mo GIF a dozen times before making his decision!
Fugazi
Professional
Interesring experiment that shows the exact opposite of what you're concluding. It's just much easier to see on the slomo replay (ball abruptly goes down after initial contact with racket, then touches racket once more before going to Felix's side of the court).I see the ball hitting the ground on the first bounce and Draper half volleying it an inch off the bounce.
Airspun
Hall of Fame
Cheater Draper more at fault than the inept Umpire. He could have been the sportsmanship hero and admit he lost the point, but he clammed up like a chump and took the match unfairly. All credit to Felix for having grace and glass even though he was literally robbed of the match, or at least going back to deuce.
soldat
Semi-Pro
Excuse me?
It’s like I call a ball out and you call it in. If the rules say so then we let the umpire make the call.
The umpire doesn’t give anyone the benefit of the doubt or favor anyone, in this case the umpire did not see what happened, and made a ruling which turned out to be completely wrong. If the umpire doesn’t know what happened, then he should admit it and refer it over to a video review.
If anything it should be Felix that’s given the benefit of the doubt. The last thing the umpire should do is make a ruling that determines the outcome of the match, especially since it’s match point.
It’s like even worse than the disallowed goal in the World Cup way back when, and made VAR standard in soccer. At least that match continued and you could try to turn the match around.
It’s like I call a ball out and you call it in. If the rules say so then we let the umpire make the call.
The umpire doesn’t give anyone the benefit of the doubt or favor anyone, in this case the umpire did not see what happened, and made a ruling which turned out to be completely wrong. If the umpire doesn’t know what happened, then he should admit it and refer it over to a video review.
If anything it should be Felix that’s given the benefit of the doubt. The last thing the umpire should do is make a ruling that determines the outcome of the match, especially since it’s match point.
It’s like even worse than the disallowed goal in the World Cup way back when, and made VAR standard in soccer. At least that match continued and you could try to turn the match around.
Mainad
Bionic Poster
Obviously I was being sarcastic but I feel this has been done to death and time to move on.
BTW what is Homerism??
bogdan101
Semi-Pro
You can clearly see in the slow motion replay that Draper knew right away he lost the point, as he started a motion with the racquet to hit the ball again, he just could not do it because the ball bounced too high.
It certainly looks obvious from here and maybe Draper did know & is being unsportsmanlike.
But if he thinks that there's a slim chance it could have been good, he has a responsibility to advocate for himself and his team.
That being said, I think the way he framed it should have caused him to feel his racquet being pushed up in a way that's very noticeable and unusual.
But if he thinks that there's a slim chance it could have been good, he has a responsibility to advocate for himself and his team.
That being said, I think the way he framed it should have caused him to feel his racquet being pushed up in a way that's very noticeable and unusual.
AndrewUtz
Professional
i see the racquet almost pinching the ball at the exact same time it makes contact with the ground and not being hit by the stringbed afterwards. if you can find a frame of the ball hitting the strngbed after i’d love to see it. the only frame i can see is one where it looks like the ball comes into contact with the frame and the ground at the exact same time.
"Homerism" is a concept that doesn't really apply here. It refers to the practice -- perhaps unconscious, perhaps deliberate -- of umpires, referees, etc., in any sport shading their calls to favor the home team. "Home" could mean the city in which the contest occurs, in the case of a league match, or the country from which one of the teams or players is from, in the case of an international encounter.
There is no home team or player in a tennis match between a Canadian and a Brit played in the United States with an American chair umpire. Hence, no homerism. Favoring oneself in an argument doesn't count as homerism. Players and teams are expected to have that outlook, and they aren't the enforcers of the rules anyway.
AndrewUtz
Professional
and the same umpire that made the Shapo call.
bogdan101
Semi-Pro
I think a year of duty on the Challenger Tour is in order.
Fugazi
Professional
Frames 8-12: clearly shows that the ball didn't have enough space to bounce on the court, then come up at an angle (similar as "arrival" angle), then hit the racket. Rather, what we see is an obvious change in trajectory because it touched the racket first, not the court. Also, you can see in later frames the effect on the racket of the initial impact with the ball.I see the ball hitting the ground on the first bounce and Draper half volleying it an inch off the bounce.
Ray Mercer
Hall of Fame
Anyone with an ounce of integrity would concede the point. There’s a lot of people who aren’t pieces of ****. Draper is a coward and is full of ****. I hope he gets torn apart next round. Felix should have called that ump a fat **** and walked away.
Ray Mercer
Hall of Fame
You concede the point, not offer to replay it. I don’t buy that he didn’t know. Just look at the way the ball bounces.
Bill Lobsalot
Hall of Fame
Draper wasn't even watching the ball at contact, he was looking at Felix. I'm not conceding a point if I'm not 100% sure. This isn't golf when you self police. There's an umpire to make the call.
Ray Mercer
Hall of Fame
If he’s not 100% sure then he’s an idiot. The guy plays tennis for a living and can’t tell if it hit his frame first and from the bounce of the ball? If hes in the process of volleying why would he be looking at Felix and not be 100% focused on the ball and his racquet making contact? Bottom line is he wanted that career win and didn’t give a **** if it wasn’t earned.
Bill Lobsalot
Hall of Fame
Watch the replay. Again, it's not Draper's call. He's not the umpire.
Ray Mercer
Hall of Fame
But he has the ability to do the right thing and overrule that call. It’s called integrity. You’re probably the guy at the local club who walks around “when in doubt call it out”
Bill Lobsalot
Hall of Fame
So you had to make a discussion a personal attack. I'm done with you.
In this thread I have learnt that a good fraction of the population don't have a pair of properly functioning eyes.
It was clear live (unless you have never played tennis), and it is indisputable when you watch it on slow motion:
Racket's frame, then ground, and then racket's stringbed.
It was clear live (unless you have never played tennis), and it is indisputable when you watch it on slow motion:
Racket's frame, then ground, and then racket's stringbed.
Last edited:
S'in-net
Semi-Pro
"Unacknowledged Double bounce at match point costs FAA the match!"
There wasn't a double bounce. You can see from the trajectory and angulation of the incoming ball that the ball clearly hit racket first and ground fractionally after. ( Point FAA)
Flight path of the ball after hitting racket is consistent with impact with racket first, then ground after' (Point FAA)
There was a fractional double-hit with the racket. That's allowed; as long as the racket goes along a continuous movement motion (which it does). This isn't the problem. The problem is WHERE the ball went immediately after first impact and before second impact. (Point FAA)
FAA very classy (and accurate in his assessment of all this)
FAA can't let this detract or distract him from the fact that he's looking very dangerous out there again, building form.
Last edited:
bogdan101
Semi-Pro
Last edited:
ChrisJR3264
Hall of Fame
Enter Brandon Nakashima into the same circle of terrible sports.
messiahrobins
Legend
Draper was going to win anyway so not sure why FAA is moaning like a cry baby. Draper is a far better player.
S'in-net
Semi-Pro
You can clearly see the racket PUSH the ball into the court. As a player you would know you haven't picked that ball up air first or after a legit bounce because the approaching open racket face of the racket upon impact instantly closes in a downwards motion, and the racket is lifted 3 inches from the ground. That can only happen if you have played the ball DOWN.
If you approached the exact same shot with the exact same open racket face, as shown on the footage, and made legit impact, the racket face would continue in an open racket face position, and the racket would be near to or touching the ground, after impact with the ball.
Also of note is the wish fulfillment long 'airshot' follow through.
If you approached the exact same shot with the exact same open racket face, as shown on the footage, and made legit impact, the racket face would continue in an open racket face position, and the racket would be near to or touching the ground, after impact with the ball.
Also of note is the wish fulfillment long 'airshot' follow through.
Last edited:
Baseline_Bungle
Legend
Wow... really??? I think you may need to move up your yearly eye exam...
Basically everyone in the world and their sister is pretty clear on what happened by this point.
As, of course, was Draper. Which is plainly obvious from his immediate reaction.
a10best
Legend
It cost FAA a deuce.... not the match. He may have lost the next two points if he was awarded the point.
Having said that, Draper knows it wasn't a clean hit from his strings to over the net. He should have played the point over or gave FAA the point.
The umpire should be fired. He made a bad call against Fritz a week earlier and Shapo before that. So, nope, no way is he doing what some suggest.
Where is Mohamed when you need him?
Having said that, Draper knows it wasn't a clean hit from his strings to over the net. He should have played the point over or gave FAA the point.
The umpire should be fired. He made a bad call against Fritz a week earlier and Shapo before that. So, nope, no way is he doing what some suggest.
Where is Mohamed when you need him?
Oval_Solid
Hall of Fame
is there even a rule against a double hit
when ever there is a framed shot most of the time a double hit occurred
first strings then frame
yet play continues if the ball lands in
when ever there is a framed shot most of the time a double hit occurred
first strings then frame
yet play continues if the ball lands in
Really
. Could you please quote some trajectory equation that would convince all of us that the only way the ball could have traveled over the net toward Felix was if Draper hit it into the ground?
Last edited:
Better_Call_Raul
Hall of Fame
Trajectory paths go out the window when there is a double hit on the strings.
A double hit is legal if it was not deliberate. All types of strange trajectory paths are possible with a double hit off of strings/frame. Think about it. Ball can hit the tip of the racquet and then hit the strings. The strings can be open at any angle at instant of contact. The trajectory possibilities are endless.
TheSlicer
Hall of Fame
now we will never know
Of course. I was being sarcastic. There's no way you can tell that based on understanding of physics and trajectories you can arrive at one and only one conclusion.
That's interesting. I showed the video and the still gifs to ~20 or so friends /coworkers, mix of tennis players and non tennis players, and the only thing I got is 'there's no definitive answer'. Some people see it one way, some the other way. So no, there's absolutely no concensus on what actually happened.Wow... really??? I think you may need to move up your yearly eye exam...
Basically everyone in the world and their sister is pretty clear on what happened by this point.
As, of course, was Draper. Which is plainly obvious from his immediate reaction.
Better_Call_Raul
Hall of Fame
The main question is whether he "trapped" the incoming ball against the ground with racquet tip at first contact. It is close but it appears there was no trap. But a trap on the incoming ball would be illegal because the outgoing ball would hit the ground before clearing the net; outgoing shot must clear the net without ever touching the ground
He appears to initially contact an inch of the first bounce. A very low half volley. And legal. After that initial half volley contact, the ball does not appear to strike the ground again. Legal.
Last edited:
iceman_dl6
Professional
But it was the Allenworthless umpire who officiated the match, not a legit competent one. Draper should have taken matters into his own hands and do the right and honest thing. Sportsmanship is the foundation of every athlete since they were thought at a young age.
Right now his reputational damage is worse on him than losing the match.
TheSlicer
Hall of Fame
lol, literally every pro player knows the ball was shanked into the floor, including Drapper, he just didnt want to give the point away if there wasnt any proof, also have you followed Auger Aliassimes career? do you think he would react like that if he wasnt completly sure of what happened? and the umpire should have seen it even better from there, umpires are getting lazy since the electronic calls
Yes, and we should all take it as proof because no pro player was ever wrong when judging. Like Fritz the other day when he said to the umpire 'Don’t tell me that we need to stop the point when we have electronic line calling' when in fact the very rules ATP goes by state exactly that, that he needed to stop the point.
ChrisJR3264
Hall of Fame
So - in matches where you see some players awarding the opponent the point in a bad call/stupid atp rule that originally cost them a point. However most of scenarios came in set 1 or within the first few games of the match or early set 2 and wondered “would they really do this when the match is tight or it’s in the final game closing a match”.
Jack draper only knows. I won’t lie I was having a hard time seeing the “illegal shot”. However I do have some observations/questions :
1. Listening and watching the video - it does Sound like the ball was “trapped” by the racket to the ground.
2. After Draper makes contact with the ball and it was up in the air , it seems like Draper leans towards the ball after the shot and at first attempts to swing at the ball and holds back. Did he do so bc he did not hear the call from the chair umpire?
3. Why offer to “replay the point?” If you don’t know or think it’s a legitimate shot - award the point to the opponent.
Jack draper only knows. I won’t lie I was having a hard time seeing the “illegal shot”. However I do have some observations/questions :
1. Listening and watching the video - it does Sound like the ball was “trapped” by the racket to the ground.
2. After Draper makes contact with the ball and it was up in the air , it seems like Draper leans towards the ball after the shot and at first attempts to swing at the ball and holds back. Did he do so bc he did not hear the call from the chair umpire?
3. Why offer to “replay the point?” If you don’t know or think it’s a legitimate shot - award the point to the opponent.
The fact that FAA felt he was completely sure what happened does not mean it did happen that way. It could have, sure. There's literally no way to tell, even from the replays and slow motion, and the umpire made the call he felt was right. Does not mean either that umpire was right, no one claims that. It was a judgment call, happens in sports every day.
TheSlicer
Hall of Fame
electronic calls are not suposed to be wrong, it rarely happens and players are not used to stop the point since it was implemented because normally you gonna get it wrong, in any case the umpire who also saw that ball out should have stoped it, since its also his fukn job, fritz is there to play
Last edited:
TheSlicer
Hall of Fame
theres no way to tell? lol, ok, i guess if you dont wanna see it you dont wanna see it, i played a lot of tennis and i see it clearly, and the reaction from both players and the trajectory of the ball gives no doubt in my mind, but of course youre entitled to think whatever you want
Similar threads
