Unacknowledged Double bounce at match point costs FAA the match!

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
Are you implying that FAA got screwed over because he half black?
 
So if this happened to a player other than Draper, let’s guess who would have conceded the point voluntarily?

My attempt: Djokovic, Murray, Alcaraz, Sinner, Zverev, Ruud, Dimitrov
Would have cheated: Medvedev Tsitsipas, Rune, any Italian player other than Sinner
Sinner would have given FAA double points just for the inconvenience.
 

MisterP

Hall of Fame
I don’t blame Draper. This is a failure of the system.

But I do think his offer to hypothetically replay the point if Allenworth said it wasn’t up is hilarious. If the ref had said it was not up, replaying the point isn’t the remedy. It’s Felix’s point.

Replaying the point is what we do when neither player can agree on what happened. Which is pretty much what happened.
 

travlerajm

Talk Tennis Guru
I don’t blame Draper. This is a failure of the system.

But I do think his offer to hypothetically replay the point if Allenworth said it wasn’t up is hilarious. If the ref had said it was not up, replaying the point isn’t the remedy. It’s Felix’s point.
It’s like when you hit a clean winner down the line, inside the line, and you have clear view. Opponent calls your shot out. You protest that your shot was easily in with margin. Opponent (knowing your view was far better than his) says, “ok we can replay the point.”

Same situation.
 

MisterP

Hall of Fame
It’s like when you hit a clean winner down the line, inside the line, and you have clear view. Opponent calls your shot out. You protest that your shot was easily in with margin. Opponent (knowing your view was far better than his) says, “ok we can replay the point.”

Same situation.
Or the phantom let on an ace.

“I heard a net cord.”

“I didn’t.”

“Let’s just replay the point”
 

Rosstour

G.O.A.T.
So if this happened to a player other than Draper, let’s guess who would have conceded the point voluntarily?

My attempt: Djokovic, Murray, Alcaraz, Sinner, Zverev, Ruud, Dimitrov
Would have cheated: Medvedev Tsitsipas, Rune, any Italian player other than Sinner

Djoko: remember the Wawrinka incident at USO?

And I'm surprised you think Musetti would cheat. He's really not that kind of guy.
 

Rosstour

G.O.A.T.
It’s like when you hit a clean winner down the line, inside the line, and you have clear view. Opponent calls your shot out. You protest that your shot was easily in with margin. Opponent (knowing your view was far better than his) says, “ok we can replay the point.”

Same situation.

lol I have never had this happen

If my opponent questions a call, most of the time I'll just give him the point. Just to make a point.

I never question the opponent's calls because I think it's really poor sportsmanship to do so. In a tournament match I'll just ask for a ref rather than trying to bully the opponent about it
 

travlerajm

Talk Tennis Guru
lol I have never had this happen

If my opponent questions a call, most of the time I'll just give him the point. Just to make a point.

I never question the opponent's calls because I think it's really poor sportsmanship to do so. In a tournament match I'll just ask for a ref rather than trying to bully the opponent about it
Gotta stand up for your rights sometimes mate. Be Like Felix
 

Raiden

Hall of Fame
It's not a double bounce, dingbat. It bounced only once.

But that happened after ricocheting from the racket frame.

Then the bounce rolled over the racket string then up and over the net.
 
Last edited:

travlerajm

Talk Tennis Guru
It's not a double bounce, dingbat

It bounced once, but after hitting the racket frame.

Then it rolled over the racket string bedding up and over the net
The old shovel trick. Hence the sheepish look on Jack the Draper’s face immediately after it went over.
 

Raiden

Hall of Fame
It is a double hit but it is not a double hit violation because it is not deliberate.
Nobody is quick enough to deliberately pull off a double hit like that in a split second .

The double hit rule allows for a player to hit the ball more than once during a single stroke as long as the action is not deliberate. According to the rules, a player loses the point if they "deliberately carry or catch the ball in play on the racket or deliberately touch it with the racket more than once" .

This means that if the double hit occurs unintentionally during a continuous motion, it is considered legal.The key aspect of this rule is the intent behind the action. If a player unintentionally strikes the ball multiple times while executing a single stroke, such as during a mishit where the ball may contact different parts of the racket, it is permissible .

This principle is grounded in the "good faith" understanding of the rules, which emphasizes that unintentional actions do not count against a player .In summary, double hits are legal in tennis as long as they are not executed with the intent to gain an advantage through multiple contacts.
It is a double hit violation in this case.

Because the bounce happend between the dobule hits.

Double hit would not be a violation only if there was no deliberate action by the player AND the ball touches nothing else between it touching the racket twice.
 

Rosstour

G.O.A.T.
It is a double hit violation in this case.

Because the bounce happend between the dobule hits.

Double hit would not be a violation only if there was no deliberate action by the player AND the ball touches nothing else between it touching the racket twice.

I think the ball is dead when it hits the ground on Draper's side, no? Double hit is irrelevant after that
 

Raiden

Hall of Fame
I think the ball is dead when it hits the ground on Draper's side, no? Double hit is irrelevant after that
Nothing is "irrelevanet after" — everything counts.

Ball hits racket frame tip and bounces

Then Draper's hand and racket are pushed backwards by the kinetic energy (at best) otherwise the only alternative is you have to conclude Draper actively made a split-second adjustment to intercept the bounce for a dropshot.

Either way AFTER all that happaned, the bounce comes back to his racket, this time it directly rolls into the stringbed and up it goes.

Whichever way you look at it — regardless of whether you believe Draper deliberately adjusted or not (I actually suspect he did) it is wrong and he should have lost the point.
 

travlerajm

Talk Tennis Guru
In a tournament, sure. But not in a friendly match. if someone starts to bully me on calls I'll probably not ask for another friendly match.
It’s not about bullying. If my opponent gifts me a call on my DTL line shot, I’ll call it out on myself.
 

Paulo Slice

New User
Hi ! I did an analysis of the HQ video, 60fps, and in my opinion, Draper hits the ball at the same moment the ball hits the court. The frame of his racket deforms with the impact, the ball starts to leave the ground, THERE IS NOT A SECOND HIT ON THE RACKET, and the ball goes towards Aliassime's court. See:
Thanks for all !
 

ConnorH

Rookie
Hi ! I did an analysis of the HQ video, 60fps, and in my opinion, Draper hits the ball at the same moment the ball hits the court. The frame of his racket deforms with the impact, the ball starts to leave the ground, THERE IS NOT A SECOND HIT ON THE RACKET, and the ball goes towards Aliassime's court. See:
Thanks for all !

No, you are wrong. The ball flied straight towards the racket. It hit the racket FIRST, and then the ground AFTER. It bounced very hard from the ground to likely hit the string net again.

If the ball hit the racket and the ground at exactly the SAME time, it will most likely be JAMMED and would have never bounced upward that hard.
 

Fugazi

Professional
Draper was going to win anyway so not sure why FAA is moaning like a cry baby. Draper is a far better player.

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
It wasn't a standard double hit, the ball hit the court inbetween the two hits.
 

Fugazi

Professional
Hi ! I did an analysis of the HQ video, 60fps, and in my opinion, Draper hits the ball at the same moment the ball hits the court. The frame of his racket deforms with the impact, the ball starts to leave the ground, THERE IS NOT A SECOND HIT ON THE RACKET, and the ball goes towards Aliassime's court. See:
Thanks for all !
That's completely wrong though. Ball goes down after initial contact with racket. If your eyes don't see it now, you'll never see it (perhaps you would with a super slomo).
 

Fugazi

Professional
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.
It's very easy to see. No pro player has not seen it so far. When Djoko, Kyrgios, and Tsitsipas (and many many others I'm sure) all see the same thing, you should get a clue. Watch it again or not, but it's clear as day.
 
Last edited:

Arak

Legend
Djoko: remember the Wawrinka incident at USO?

And I'm surprised you think Musetti would cheat. He's really not that kind of guy.
Djokovic was maybe not the best example. He does show great sportsmanship sometimes but yes there are some incidents too.
Musetti, hmmm, I’m on the fence about him but I have seen some iffy stuff from Fognini and the rest.
 

ibbi

G.O.A.T.
Hi ! I did an analysis of the HQ video, 60fps, and in my opinion, Draper hits the ball at the same moment the ball hits the court. The frame of his racket deforms with the impact, the ball starts to leave the ground, THERE IS NOT A SECOND HIT ON THE RACKET, and the ball goes towards Aliassime's court. See:
Thanks for all !
I mean, the clip at 1:13 basically proves it beyond doubt (Impressively done :D ) . The ball hits his racquet and its trajectory changes. How does the ball stop from flying through midair and bounce without touching something first?

Even if your theory that contact was simultaneous is correct you clearly capture a moment at 1:33 where there is no contact after the initial one is made, after which he obviously touches it again to send it back the way from which it came.
 

Oval_Solid

Hall of Fame
there is no clear evidence where the ball only touches the racket without touching the floor
in the frame when the ball is in contact with the racket its also in contact with the floor
and also you cant use according to drapers body language it means the ball hits his racket first then the floor
 

ConnorH

Rookie
there is no clear evidence where the ball only touches the racket without touching the floor
in the frame when the ball is in contact with the racket its also in contact with the floor
and also you cant use according to drapers body language it means the ball hits his racket first then the floor

There is indisputable evidence showing that the ball hit the ground AFTER hitting the racket. Open your eyes to watch this:

https://x.com/steftsitsipas/status/1824629551143522443

If you still dispute my claim, you need an appointment with an optometrist.
 

ballamaz

Rookie
The key is that the ball hits the outside of the the tip i.e.. the ball is underneath the rim of the racket.

The only way it can go up from that position is if it hits the ground first (even if this distance is 1mm) and rebounds.

The ball might even have tried to oscillate for an instance, between the rim and the ground before buckling the racket and coming up.

Draper might not have seen it but he definitely would have felt it.

Nevertheless he continued with his volley "technique" and fooled a lot of people. Unfortunately the umpire fell for it as well.
 

jm1980

Talk Tennis Guru
there is no clear evidence where the ball only touches the racket without touching the floor
in the frame when the ball is in contact with the racket its also in contact with the floor
and also you cant use according to drapers body language it means the ball hits his racket first then the floor
The clearest evidence is the trajectory of the ball. It's coming in relatively fast and at a really shallow angle. Draper initially hits the top of the ball with the tip of his racquet. There's no way the ball bounces almost straight up from that position without hitting the court on his side first

You can also clearly see the ball has topspin on it after Draper hits it. This wouldn't have been possible unless it hit his side of the court

 
Last edited:

Oval_Solid

Hall of Fame
The clearest evidence ...
i think you are already certain of the result so youre just looking for the best evidence possible to support this result
but the video shows
ball hits ground and racket at the same time
ball has side spin (spin is rotating to the right side of the court ie towards draper)
 

Pass750

Professional
I don’t blame Draper. This is a failure of the system.

But I do think his offer to hypothetically replay the point if Allenworth said it wasn’t up is hilarious. If the ref had said it was not up, replaying the point isn’t the remedy. It’s Felix’s point.

Replaying the point is what we do when neither player can agree on what happened. Which is pretty much what happened.
Exactly! I have a friend who calls a ball on baseline out, then realizes it is in and offers to replay the point! Very magnanimous of him:)! As soon as someone makes wrong call they lose the point. Draper knew exactly what happened, he should have been sportsmanlike and conceded the point.
 

mavsman149

Hall of Fame
Draper knew exactly what happened, his body language after it went into the ground shows he knew he lost the point.

It's funny that he tried to save face by saying he was prepared to replay the point, the correct action would've been to concede the point
 

ConnorH

Rookie
i think you are already certain of the result so youre just looking for the best evidence possible to support this result
but the video shows
ball hits ground and racket at the same time
ball has side spin (spin is rotating to the right side of the court ie towards draper)

Why do you keep repeating your false statement? The ball hit the racket FIRST in the air. Open your eyes and watch this:

https://x.com/steftsitsipas/status/1824629551143522443
 

jm1980

Talk Tennis Guru
i think you are already certain of the result so youre just looking for the best evidence possible to support this result
but the video shows
ball hits ground and racket at the same time
ball has side spin (spin is rotating to the right side of the court ie towards draper)
At the angle his racquet was facing it's impossible for the ball to have that trajectory without being hit down into the court first

You can also pick out the sound of two hits in quick succession, the ball hitting the racquet and then the court
 

Better_Call_Raul

Hall of Fame
At the angle his racquet was facing it's impossible for the ball to have that trajectory without being hit down into the court first

You can also pick out the sound of two hits in quick succession, the ball hitting the racquet and then the court

Cannot hear it but have not listened closely... And there appears to be a double hit so you should hear three hits

The angle of the racquet and projected trajectory goes out the window if there is a double hit on the frames/strings. All types of trajectories are then possibble.
 

Wurm

Professional
From the video in the Tsitispas Tweet, in super slow motion by way of Shotcut - as in, these are the only frames in that video being played back at a 1/20th of the original speed.

 

jmnk

Hall of Fame
I'm not claiming I'm sure what happened. But I find the 'trajectory argument' very weak.
There's this fairly well known drill when you practice overhead against the wall. You hit overhead into the ground close to the wall, so the ball bounces off the ground, then if the wall and goes high up. Rinse and repeat. The closer you hit to the wall the more the ball will go straight up.
This is similar to this scenario - only in Draper's case his racket acts as a wall. It is absolutely possible for the ball to hit the ground and then the racket, and then go almost straight up.
I'm not saying it happened like that, just that it is possible it did.
 

Honza

Semi-Pro
I'm not claiming I'm sure what happened. But I find the 'trajectory argument' very weak.
There's this fairly well known drill when you practice overhead against the wall. You hit overhead into the ground close to the wall, so the ball bounces off the ground, then if the wall and goes high up. Rinse and repeat. The closer you hit to the wall the more the ball will go straight up.
This is similar to this scenario - only in Draper's case his racket acts as a wall. It is absolutely possible for the ball to hit the ground and then the racket, and then go almost straight up.
I'm not saying it happened like that, just that it is possible it did.

Lol, have you ever played that drill? Its not the distance between the ground contact and the wall but the angle you hit the ball into the ground, that makes the ball go straight up.
You made an argument for the trajectory theory by accident.
 

S'in-net

Semi-Pro
From the video in the Tsitispas Tweet, in super slow motion by way of Shotcut - as in, these are the only frames in that video being played back at a 1/20th of the original speed.

There is no double bounce
There is also no double-hit with the racket. Ball changes trajectory close to the racket face, not caused by second contact with the racket face, but by the topspin kicking in after an initial delay

Topspin is generated from the racket frame pushing the ball at force into the ground, which also closed the racket head

This is a pushing force (frame/ball to ground). Hence topspin.

NOT a SLIDING FORCE (ground/ball to frame). Hence no underspin, and racket face closing after impact instead of an open-slide through the ball.
 

Bill Lobsalot

Hall of Fame
Argue all you want. The match is over. Even with video review available, still a tough call for the officials. Draper offered to replay the point, that is what SHOULD have happened.
 

S'in-net

Semi-Pro

The trajectory of the ball clearly would have had an impact point with the ground in line with the white wristband on Draper's arm, had he not played the ball. That is an impact point 6-7 inches behind the actual impact point that occurred with the racket, clearly well in front of ground first/simultaneous impact points...
 

Better_Call_Raul

Hall of Fame
Argue all you want. The match is over. Even with video review available, still a tough call for the officials. Draper offered to replay the point, that is what SHOULD have happened.

Replay the point?
Nonsense. A replay NEVER happens under these type of circumstances. This is not a scenario where a ball was wrongly called out and a player hesitated. That would justify replaying a point.

Neither player was affected by the call. The umpire must make a call one way or the other. It is not up to Draper to offer to replay the point. That is absurd and unprecedented in the history of tennis. The umpire must do his job and make a ruling.

The good news is that rule will be changed allowing umpire to review the video.
 

merwy

G.O.A.T.
Why is everyone calling it a double bounce? Do you know what a double bounce is? Because it's literally in the name. Draper hit the ball right into the ground before it crossed the net. That is the issue here.
 

Bill Lobsalot

Hall of Fame
Replay the point?
Nonsense. A replay NEVER happens under these circumstances. This is not a scenario where a ball was wrongly called out and a player hesitated. That would justify replaying a point.

Neither player was affected by the call. The umpire must make a call one way or the other. It is not up to Draper to offer to replay the point. That is absurd and unprecedented in the history of tennis. The umpire must do his job and make a ruling.
And the umpire did and everybody is crying about it.

I know it's not in the rules, but if a call can't be made with 100% certainty, it SHOULD be replayed. They need video replay and to change rules when it's not certain. Sometimes a video is not clear.
 

Better_Call_Raul

Hall of Fame
And the umpire did and everybody is crying about it.

I know it's not in the rules, but if a call can't be made with 100% certainty, it SHOULD be replayed. They need video replay and to change rules when it's not certain. Sometimes a video is not clear.

In a practice match with no ump, Draper should offer to concede the point because he says he is not sure if he got it. No different than a line call where you have doubt.
Or offer to replay it. Let opponent choose option to replay or take the point...

In a real match, if the ump is not sure, the ump has to give the benefit of the doubt to Draper. In other words the ump should call it an illegal hit only if 100% sure.

And even if there was video review allowed in this match, video may not have been conclusive to the ump . If video is inconclusive Draper wins the point.
 
Last edited:

norcal

Legend
I missed this. Bad look for Draper, he knew it hit his racket then the court.

Tough call for the ump though, looking down on it. Fault lies with ATP for not allowing replay.

edit: not replay of the point, video replay so they can make an accurate call.
 
Top