Service Ace
Hall of Fame
You can tell which morons on this forum have never played tennis by who in this thread is making excuses for Draper 
Unacknowledged Double bounce at match point costs FAA the match!
- Thread starter JustMy2Cents
- Start date
bogdan101
Semi-Pro
You cannot be serious...
TheSlicer
Hall of Fame
he just doesnt want to see it, it was a legit half volley, nothing to see there, lol, i think he has only seen a tennis racquet on tv
Service Ace
Hall of Fame
Interesting how the usual suspects have managed to make this a race issue despite the fact that Draper is clearly in the wrong. Just goes to show who here understands tennis and who is here to push their politics and agendas.
You are 100% wrong. Please go and read ATP rules. Umpire should not have stopped the point. Not immediately, not ever in this scenario. Actually the fact that he did stop the point after few more hits was wrong - he should have left the point being played to completion.
again, it is perfectly fine if you see it one way. But this, and other threads on this very forum show that other people see it differently. Which, by definition, makes it 'no way to tell'.
Thank you though that you are allowing me to be entitled to my own opinion. Highly appreciated.
TheSlicer
Hall of Fame
so, if the umpire sees a ball out, he doesnt have to call it? and if he didnt have to stop it after 5 shots, why did they called him on the walkie to tell him to stop him? xD hard to think it was the athletes fault when he is running and playing and stoping can make him lose the point, ive seen before how the electronic call was wrong and player couldnt change the call because whatever the machines says, its what it stays
so are you implying here? that all those that do not see that sequence as 'a ball hit the frame and then the court' are somehow Draper's fans? (I had no idea he had any fans) What would be the reason some think it was a legal shot? I'm honestly interested.
Service Ace
Hall of Fame
Nah, they are either plain old idiots or have an agenda to push. You don't need eyes to understand a ball can't behave like that when hit legally from that position.
Mr.Lob
G.O.A.T.
Jim Courier just commented on the FAA incident on TC. Said the same thing I did. The ball hit the frame first, then the court. No double bounce or hit.
If a ball hits the frame first then the court, it will come off with topspin. The ball bounced forward after it cleared the net..Topspin. Don't call it on yourself unless you know clearly. Unfair to blame Draper. Both players shook hands and bro hugged after the incident. So FAA seemed to have accepted Drapers explanation.
It was a tough call that even slow motion wasn't clear on. So not fair to be too harsh on the chair umpire.
If a ball hits the frame first then the court, it will come off with topspin. The ball bounced forward after it cleared the net..Topspin. Don't call it on yourself unless you know clearly. Unfair to blame Draper. Both players shook hands and bro hugged after the incident. So FAA seemed to have accepted Drapers explanation.
It was a tough call that even slow motion wasn't clear on. So not fair to be too harsh on the chair umpire.
I'm not arguing that the rules as is is good. All I'm saying is that the rules as written today says that the umpire shall not stop the point when Electronic Line Calling is present.
TheSlicer
Hall of Fame
im not allowing you to do anything, i am just reminding you that you are free to say an absurdity like that was a legit volley, but its still an absurdity, just like if people start to say the sky is green, i dont care, its clearly not a legit half volley, dont even take my word, just check what the players say, they know what a racquet and a ball do better than anyone in this forum as they have spent the most time on court, i personally have spent a lot of time on court myself and you dont just put up a ball with the frame like that without it touching floor, not coming at that speed, its so obvious that the simple fact that i have to explain this is surreal to me, but yeah, i said my piece, you said yours, now i will just move on from this absurdity
sure, we can move on.
bogdan101
Semi-Pro
Could be a bad monitor screen, improperly prescribed eye-wear or simply an irresistible urge to troll...
Service Ace
Hall of Fame
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?
Service Ace
Hall of Fame
So many imbeciles on this forum smh
TheSlicer
Hall of Fame
I Will say something, It seems even more obvious live, or at real speed, than on the replay, live, the Bounce clearly gives no doubt It comes from the floor, in the slow mo replay its less obvious, must be the angle or something but you apreciate It much more at normal speed, because of the effect of the ball, but on the replay you have to capture exactly the frame, because the racquet was very Close from the floor, so i understand some peoples doubts after all, but if youre used to playing tennis and know how the ball behaves, you can see clearly how the ball goes in the air after rebounding on the floor, even the freaking comentator Saw it and thought the match wasnt over, and when the umpired said: Game, set and match... The comentator went: what? xD only ones to not see It were the umpire and draper lmao
Last edited:
Better_Call_Raul
Hall of Fame
If it is a match with no officials and Draper has any doubt whatsoever he must concede the point to opponent.
At a tournament with officials if Draper has any doubt he has no obligation to say anything. Let the officials decide. Only talk if you are 100% sure.
FAA alluded to this when he said, "In practice you know what the call would be". FAA is partially right. But this ain't no practice. Only talk if you are 100% sure.
Better_Call_Raul
Hall of Fame
One announcer called it a great shot. The other announcer said hold on, it may have hit the ground.
Two opposite reactions in real time. Don't know who the announcers were.
Better_Call_Raul
Hall of Fame
Draper needs to comment on this and clear his good name since many are saying he cheated. Tell everybody what you felt as you were playing the shot. Was it a volley? Was it a half volley? Not sure? Tell us that. But Drape cannot just sit quiet like a dunderhead.
Last edited:
tommyfr
Rookie
I am a certified tennis coach, have played tennis for 25 years, have watched the slomo and pictures of this matchpoint like 30 times. There are 3 alternatives
1. ball hit ground first, then legit halfvolley
2. ball hit racket first, then ball to ground and jumps over net. Draper loses point
3...see below
For me it looks like the racket hit the ball exact SAME TIME the ball hit the ground. (Look how close to the ground Draper had his tip of racket the last several feet before hitting the ball. Look again with open mind.)
A such collision, hit, can create any kind of trajectory of the ball as a consequence.
Therefore the umpire was not wrong. Neither Draper.
1. ball hit ground first, then legit halfvolley
2. ball hit racket first, then ball to ground and jumps over net. Draper loses point
3...see below
For me it looks like the racket hit the ball exact SAME TIME the ball hit the ground. (Look how close to the ground Draper had his tip of racket the last several feet before hitting the ball. Look again with open mind.)
A such collision, hit, can create any kind of trajectory of the ball as a consequence.
Therefore the umpire was not wrong. Neither Draper.
Baseline_Bungle
Legend
You seriously must be kidding. We must have entered The Twilight Zone. I have no idea what you mean by "tennis players" but I guarantee you that anyone who's played the game even half-competitively - say, 5.0 american/9.5 utr - would be laughing just as hard as I am right now. The "concensus" is about as clear-cut as the spelling of the English language.
Anyways, Draper's karma is sealed. Gonna take some SERIOUS work to wash this one away...
Better_Call_Raul
Hall of Fame
Correct. That is the more likely scenario for initial contact on the incoming ball.
The outgoing ball can either be legal or illegal.
If the outgoing ball hits the ground it is illegal.
If the outgoing ball clears the net without hitting the ground it is illegal.
Last edited:
If it's a half volley then it's a double bounce. Don't know what legit you're talking about.
Service Ace
Hall of Fame
I hope this is a troll post. Otherwise, after 25 years of tennis you should know how a ball is supposed to bounce on a volley/half volley, regardless of simultaneous contact with the ground or otherwise.
KingCarlitos
Hall of Fame
Absolutely embaressing, this is ridiculous and stupid refs need to be regulated.
FedForGOAT
Professional
I think you’remaking a straw-man argument: you’re not really arguing against what people are saying, rather you’re choosing a convenient, weaker argument to argue against.
I don’t think people are saying “oh the umpire should’ve been using slo-mo”.
I think people are saying “the umpire should’ve been able to tell from live view that Draper grounded the ball”.
I’m not sure I completely agree with that argument, but nice that Robbie Koenig, the commentator, immediately said “surely that was grounded”, or something to that effect.
I don’t know if that was an “easy” can to make. I do think it was a possible call to make - the umpire didn’t need to be 100% sure that the ball hit the ground after the racket, only look closely and call what he sees.
Secondly, I think people are saying “there should be slo mo replay available to use”. I don’t think that’s a criticism of the umpire - that’s a criticism of the system in pro tennis.
FedForGOAT
Professional
Firstly, I often disagree with the appeal to mass opinions.
To use an extreme example, If 30% of people suddenly said “2+2 = 5”, I still wouldn’t accept an argument that “there’s no way to know, because no consensus”.
There are more realistic examples from modern politics, but I don’t want to get this thread banned.
Secondly, if you look at former pros, current pros, and professional commentators, have any of them said anything other than “ball hit racket, then ground”? I’ve seen a complete consensus, which should tell you that it IS in fact quite possible to tell what happened.
FedForGOAT
Professional
This take completely ignores reality. In the gif and slomo, you can clearly see there is distance between the racket and ground, and that the ball moves between them.
Because if the low frame rate, it’s initially hard to tell which one it hit FIRST, but it’s absolutely clear to the naked eye that they were not hit TOGETHER.
*And with a bit of physics intuition it should be clear that it hit the racket first - if it had hit the ground first, it would not have bounced straight up, so it must be going straight down.
Lol, Fox Sports use the exact same screenshot for their news about this incident!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.
‘That is horrendous’: Tennis star left fuming over ‘most controversial match point ever’
‘That is horrendous’: Tennis star left fuming over ‘most controversial match point ever’
www.foxsports.com.au
Spin Diesel
Hall of Fame
This is not a matter of opinion - there‘s a clear right and wrong. It‘s like if a balls goes to the net and you say that you have seen it go to the other side.
The easiest way to explain it imo is you just need to look for how the ball touches the ground on Draper‘s side after his racket.
tommyfr
Rookie
It s not about double bounce. So many misunderstood. Its about the balls FIRST bounce. Draper did serve and volley, and picked up the ball inside service box at its first bounce.
jm1980
Talk Tennis Guru
Draper hit the ball onto the ground on his side of the court, and he clearly knew it based on his body language after the point. The double hit wasn't the issue here
Felix handled this as gracefully and respectfully as possible. Most other players would have blown up at the umpire
After hitting the frame of the racket, the ball changes drastically its trajectory, and goes straight (vertically) down for about 5 centimeters. Then it hits the ground and bounces upwards vertically, and then it hits again the racket (on the stringbed).
There is zero controversy about this.
The real discovery for me here is that (leaving trolls aside) there may be some people (that possibly have never played tennis) that genuinely can't see what's happening in reality.
It's kind of scary (if true).
There is zero controversy about this.
The real discovery for me here is that (leaving trolls aside) there may be some people (that possibly have never played tennis) that genuinely can't see what's happening in reality.
It's kind of scary (if true).
TearTheRoofOff
G.O.A.T.
Winning is all that matters, remember?
In post #153 there's a sequence of still frames. Could you please tell me on which frames (assuming the courts one posted is frame #1) you can 'clearly see' that the ball hit the frame first, and that the ball then moves between the racket and the ground?
The ball clearly hit the racket first, then the ground. It bounced from the ground very hard, and likely hit the string net again.
The umpire is incompetent, and Draper is a liar.
Last edited:
The still frames could be manipulated or in disorder. Watch the original slow motion video!!! Open your eyes and watch it!!! Draper used his racket frame to hit the ball straight down to the ground.
Open your eyes! Don't be a liar yourself.
https://x.com/steftsitsipas/status/1824629551143522443
Last edited:
Spin Diesel
Hall of Fame
Look at that frame. The ball is clearly underneath the racket. How can the ball take the trajectory it took without touching the floor after the racket?
In this video from 0:09 you can see the ball motion coming from what I just explained
And after it already bounced from his frame to the floor, the ball jumps up and then he hits it again with the strings.
The umpire DID call what he saw. He said so repeatedly during the discussion with the players. I have no idea what you mean by "look closely." Obviously, there was no on-court opportunity to view the point a second time. There is no evidence to suggest that the umpire was not watching the point as usual in real time. If he had been taking a nap on match point, then I could understand some of the hostility expressed in this thread. But the criticism here is largely the typical sports fan's angry intolerance of perceived fallibility.
travlerajm
Talk Tennis Guru
Someone on the Twitter thread posted this, with ball velocity vectors added to help out the physics-challenged and/or sight-challenged folks.
Last edited:
StefanosRespecter
Rookie
It is not Draper's job to officiate, nor is it his fault that there is no replay. And he is trying to win the match, of course he would be biased in favor of himself.
Inapposite analogy. This situation is not an exercise in mathematics, logic, or any form of pure reasoning. What we have instead is a set of conflicting eyewitness impressions of a brief, rapid event. Moreover, the existence of a dispute is important not because it will ultimately tell us who is "right," but because it indicates how unwarrantedly rabid some of the criticism of the umpire has been. Criticism of the system for not incorporating instant replay is another matter.
Similar threads
