Unacknowledged Double bounce at match point costs FAA the match!

Bill Lobsalot

Hall of Fame
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.
I'm good with all that.
 

FedForGOAT

Professional
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.
Look, I don’t have a dog in this fight. As I said earlier, I don’t think I’d be able to easily tell how the ball was hit either in Draper’s or the umpire’s position.

But the position being pushed in this thread, which I have some sympathy for, is that an umpire in a M1000 SHOULD be able to tell in real time that the ball was hit into the ground. To wit, Robbie Koenig could do it.

This is similar to frustration of fans with baseball umpires. Yes, calling balls and strikes is hard. Yes, most fans could probably not do it as well as umps. But there are umps out there that are much better than some of the bad ones in MLB. And they should be working those games.

I don’t know if your position is born of frustration with people complaining too much. But in my opinion, some frustration is warranted, given that there are multiple ways in which the situation could be improved.
 

TennisBro

Hall of Fame
But the position being pushed in this thread, which I have some sympathy for, is that an umpire in a M1000 SHOULD be able to tell in real time that the ball was hit into the ground. To wit, Robbie Koenig could do it.
Aside Draper, the umpire was the closest to the play. When the Brit left the decision up to the umpire who replied to FAA that he was sure the play was within rules, I knew something was wrong. The sportsmanship and competence were doubtful right there. All in all, Felix handled the situation professionally when asking the umpire if the official was absolutely certain about the play but the answer lacked in honesty. I don't think anyone could've been 100% certain about that play which is why the ball should've been replayed.
 

jmnk

Hall of Fame
Replaying the point in the instance like this is not allowed per rules. Umpire is expected and required to make the call. And he did. It is certainly possible he made a wrong call.
 

TennisBro

Hall of Fame
Replaying the point in the instance like this is not allowed per rules. Umpire is expected and required to make the call. And he did. It is certainly possible he made a wrong call.
Show me the rule book that says "replaying the point" isn't allowed! Umpires are supposed to use discretion which this one has failed. But Draper apparently suggested to replay the point which makes the umpire and his supervisor a couple idiots in the pro tournament. Haven't you seen pro tennis where points were replayed based on the umpires and players discretion?
 
Last edited:

FedForGOAT

Professional
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.
I find your criticism “inapposite”.

Analogies, by their nature, are inexact comparisons. Of course my analogy was different, that’s how analogies are.

In this case, I was trying to make an ad absurdum argument. Are you familiar with these?

Your response, in my honest opinion, was rather snarky and condescending response.

And I agree that the criticism of the ump was a bit too rabid, but I disagree with you not holding a M1000 umpire to a (much!) higher standard than posters on TTW.

Just because people here are unsure,
 

Fugazi

Professional
because the video doent show the ball hitting the racket alone
it could be some people have visual problems because its harder too see the ground in the video but easier to see the racket ball contact
If you're trolling, you're quite good at it. If not, then you're simply wrong here, but no hard feelings, it's just a tennis match between two millionaires after all.
 
Last edited:

FedForGOAT

Professional
Replaying the point in the instance like this is not allowed per rules. Umpire is expected and required to make the call. And he did. It is certainly possible he made a wrong call.
“It’s certainly possible”? Give me a break.
He made the wrong call. Period.

I’m not here to rip the umpire or Draper. But we should all be able to agree on facts. And the fact is that Draper grounded the ball.
 

AndrewUtz

Semi-Pro
“It’s certainly possible”? Give me a break.
He made the wrong call. Period.

I’m not here to rip the umpire or Draper. But we should all be able to agree on facts. And the fact is that Draper grounded the ball.
the slo mo video to me looked like draper came into contact with the ball at the exact same time it came in to contact with the ground.
 
Last edited:

jm1980

Talk Tennis Guru

this guy convinced me it touched the racket FIRST, and then bounced back off the ground, which is a fault..
TL;DW summary:
  • Draper framed the ball, which bounced on his side and then went over the net, making this an illegal shot
  • Draper definitely knew, and should have called it on himself. While it's not technically cheating, it reflects poorly on his character
  • Players like Alcaraz, Sinner, and Nadal would have conceded the point
  • But it's the umpire's job to make these calls, and he failed. This umpire should face consequences for these mistakes
  • ATP should use replays to help make the correct call in these situations
  • FAA handled this with professionalism and class; other players would have blown up
I agree with all these points, except Nadal calling this on himself. Alcaraz definitely would have, Sinner probably. But Nadal? He would have 100% taken the point
 

stilian77

New User
Any tennis player who can do a half volley of the ground would have felt that there is something wrong with this shot. The ball had not much spin or speed and very upwards trajectory. It was almost like a double hit but with the help of the ground. Draper knew that and that is why he looked at the umpire and played along. Draper did not position his racquet properly for the shot. The racquet should have been back so he can hit the ball at the bounce point or after.
The ball first touched his racket frame, (not string) went straight down and bounced back from his racquet string with crazy curve and no spin or speed.
 

jmnk

Hall of Fame
Show me the rule book that says "replaying the point" isn't allowed! Umpires are supposed to use discretion which this one has failed. But Draper apparently suggested to replay the point which makes the umpire and his supervisor a couple idiots in the pro tournament. Haven't you seen pro tennis where points were replayed based on the umpires and players discretion?
to clarify since you somewhat mis-stated what I originally stated. Replaying the point in situation like the one discussed here is not allowed per rules. of course in general there are many cases where a 'let' is called, and when the point is replayed.
But here it is not a let scenario. Here, the job of the umpire is to make the call. There are many instances where an umpire is not 100% sure - but he still has to make a call. like to decide if the ball on clay (where no automated calls are used) is in or out. Or whether the late out call (when it turned out it was in) affected someone's return. An umpire needs to make the call based on what he saw/felt/whatever. But he can't say 'well, I cannot say based on the mark if it is in or out - let's replay the point'. Or 'I can't say if you touched the ball on that lob you were attempting to smash, it landed out, so let's replay it'. He _has_ to make the call.

And no, I have not seen
pro tennis where points were replayed based on the umpires and players discretion?
I would appreciate if you could provide an example of such replay.
 

TennisBro

Hall of Fame
@jmnk what are you on about? I asked you to bring in the rulebook with the rule you claim states the point cannot be replayed. Did you provide us with the rule that states the point cannot be replayed? So much for "clarifications", for "somewhat mis-stated" posts of others, and for all that gibberish TTW is exposed to.
 

Wurm

Professional
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...

The ball FAA hit has got topspin on it and frame 1 -> frame 2 is not a linear path so I disagree with where the ball should've bounced by about 4 or 5 inches - to me it looks like it's going to hit the ground around where his heel is planted and the ball does look slightly further in front and slightly lower than expected in the frame where there's contact which does suggest Draper did jam the ball into the ground with the frame of his racket.

I highly doubt Draper knew what actually happened other than he would've felt it wasn't a clean contact.
 
Last edited:

jmnk

Hall of Fame
@jmnk what are you on about? I asked you to bring in the rulebook with the rule you claim states the point cannot be replayed. Did you provide us with the rule that states the point cannot be replayed? So much for "clarifications", for "somewhat mis-stated" posts of others, and for all that gibberish TTW is exposed to.
@TennisBro - the way rules are written there's no direct quote in there where it states 'point cannot be replayed'. Just like there's no rule that tells you how to _win_ a point - only a definition of how you _lose_ a point is specified in the rulebook.

I have already clarified to you that in general of course points _are_ being replayed when a let scenario is called. But you have claimed that in that scenario with Draper's hit the point could have been replayed since no one can be 100% certain what happened
[...] I don't think anyone could've been 100% certain about that play which is why the ball should've been replayed.

And that is _not_ what the rules allow for. Please see https://www.itftennis.com/media/11553/2024-rulebook-atp.pdf section VII 7.22)E). There's an example given that is almost identical to what happened here:
"
Umpire Blocked on Question of Fact
Case: Player A stops play claiming that player B had played the ball after it had bounced twice. The Chair Umpire said that he was “blocked” and could not make the decision.
Decision: The point stands as played. When the Chair Umpire has the primary responsibility for a call (nets, throughs, not-ups and touches) as opposed to the secondary responsibility (line calls), an immediate decision must be made. If the Chair Umpire did not see a rules violation on something for which he has the primary responsibility then technically no violation can be called

"
It states that even if the umpire was obstructed and could not see what happened at all - he still would have to make the call. Meaning _even if the umpire has no way of knowing what happened_ there's no provision to play a let. An umpire may have ruled Draper's hit was not legal, or that it was legal - but he could not have ruled to replay the point.

I can readily admit you there's no rule stating 'a point must never be replayed'.

Now, once I admit that - can you provide an example of
[...] pro tennis where points were replayed based on the umpires and players discretion?
 

-NN-

G.O.A.T.
Not taking sides, but clearly as the video is actively being disputed in this very forum, this event is hardly "beyond dispute."
OK but I don't understand the point of this response because, even when I posted that, the point was already being fiercely disputed. So here's what was meant by it...

I never said that facts aren't disputed, just that the fact of what actually happened is beyond dispute, because it is fact. I can't help those who don't see the reality of the event and have come to the wrong conclusion, or those who lack the perceptual ability to make a conclusion in the first place and think it's inconclusive. The motion of the ball doesn't give room for interpretation and those who see it, see it. The reason I'm so sure is because it is the case, because the motion and trajectories cannot be explained in any other way in the circumstance. ( — That the ball hit the racket first, then the ground, therefore point to Aliassime based on the rules of tennis!)
 

beltsman

G.O.A.T.
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

This seals it. Point FAA.
 

Youngheart

Semi-Pro
Here's an idea in favor of Draper. 〰️ Usually when a ball hits a racquet, it forces the racquet BACK a few inches.
In all the videos, Draper's racquet doesn't make that movement until AFTER, or the same time, as the ball hits the ground.
It's like an extreme half-volley. (Is there a name for that?) Also, the ball only hits the ground once; before, or as it hits the racket.
I'll bet my jug of mountain moonshine on it!! :giggle: There's singing in the ol' Alpine hut tonight!
------So Be It ⚜ ------
 
Last edited:

Fugazi

Professional
This seals it. Point FAA.
Indeed, this still is absolute proof: from the kinetic "tails" that can clearly be seen here, the ball is going almost directly downwards (impossible without having struck the racket first), and the racket is going backwards (from the impact with the ball just prior to the still). It can't get much clearer than this.
 

cucio

Legend
Yup, while reading the thread before this post I was going to point to that downward ball trace in that frame as well, although I didn't need it to convince me: I think the slomo replay shows it's a clear shank, and I also find curious how people can make a different interpretation of the trajectory of the ball: the vertical downwards movement is extremely short but perceptible.

But these things happen fast in live action, I can see how the umpire can make a mistake from his chair: POV, lighting conditions, tiredness... Draper, I dunno, I think he should have felt it, but I've have to give him the benefit of the doubt, it was a very forced action after all.

Video review could indeed be a solution, but not sure whether it's worth it because these situations are extremely rare, even more during MP. And they make for excellent drama, as someone pointed earlier. :unsure:
 

Fugazi

Professional
Surely Darth Draper knows his shot was a fault, or at least that it was super shady (and shade being the first step towards the dark side, I think we all know what happened here).
 

Paulo Slice

New User
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.
Thanks for your opinion ! I'm wait for a professional analisys - with professional equipments - for a possible veredict.
 

Paulo Slice

New User
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.
Thanks for your reply ! Im looking for videos with professional equipments, for a possibel veredict ! Regards
 

ppma

Professional
After seeing it in slow motion, I am just 70% convinced that it was a frame -> floor kind of situation.
Also, I'm afraid that if the ball had bounced before touching the frame, the volley would have still gone past the net. It's just a matter of 2-3 mm being made on the replay of a frame. Too hard to tell.
Also, with such small margin of time and space between court and frame contacts, a framed half-volley after the bounce and what it's sopposed to have happened could feel pretty similar.
 

travlerajm

Talk Tennis Guru
After seeing it in slow motion, I am just 70% convinced that it was a frame -> floor kind of situation.
Also, I'm afraid that if the ball had bounced before touching the frame, the volley would have still gone past the net. It's just a matter of 2-3 mm being made on the replay of a frame. Too hard to tell.
Also, with such small margin of time and space between court and frame contacts, a framed half-volley after the bounce and what it's sopposed to have happened could feel pretty similar.
That’s the Draper defense.

Analogous to the Sinner defense. The closer you inspect it, the fishier it looks.
 

Youngheart

Semi-Pro
Do you guys think Jack Draper should be appointed as President of the ITiA (International Tennis integrity Agency) to improve their integrity?
What a coincidence of thoughts! Uhhh,...to answer your "question-of-the-moment," ...
No. We guys think that YOU would make the perfect President!!
And why not have FAA as Vice President? I see a perfect world coming!!
 
Top