believe it or not, not every action you take in professional athletics(where officials, not players, are paid to make calls) reflects on how you lead your life.
Worst pre-challenge sytem line call - Serena v. Capriati 2004 USO?
- Thread starter bluetrain4
- Start date
believe it or not, not every action you take in professional athletics(where officials, not players, are paid to make calls) reflects on how you lead your life.
shazbot
Semi-Pro
The reason I said this in the first place is because tennis is different than other sports.
High school tennis, it's all a honesty system. You make the calls, and you hope the other player gives you the same respect. So all tennis players are raised knowing the rules, etc.
I just find it odd that players, on such obvious mistakes don't say ANYTHING. The ball was 4 inches in, the linesman saw it, capriati saw it and everyone watching saw it.
Yea bad calls happen, and one call doesn't decide a match. I'm just surprised nothing was said when the call was that bad. I can see if the ball was on the line or something, but 4-5 inches inside the lane...ehh
High school tennis, it's all a honesty system. You make the calls, and you hope the other player gives you the same respect. So all tennis players are raised knowing the rules, etc.
I just find it odd that players, on such obvious mistakes don't say ANYTHING. The ball was 4 inches in, the linesman saw it, capriati saw it and everyone watching saw it.
Yea bad calls happen, and one call doesn't decide a match. I'm just surprised nothing was said when the call was that bad. I can see if the ball was on the line or something, but 4-5 inches inside the lane...ehh
drwood
Professional
That's not true. Every action you take is a reflection of the kind of person you are. That's why you can tell a lot about people by how they act when times get tough, or when they think no one else is watching them. Everything matters.
How any athlete treats their profession is a reflection of the kind of person they are. Maradona was a great futbol player, but has always been a punk and a jerk; thus, you would expect that to manifest in his behavior on the field (i.e. the infamous hand in 86).
Like it or not, the truth is that there are CONSEQUENCES to ALL of our actions. You can look around you and observe the consequences all around the world of people in business who sacrificed ethical behavior for short-term profit -- the consequences are easy to see.
The same is true in tennis. If you have lots of talent and continue to work hard, you will make the most of that talent (Federer, Nadal). If you have the same amount of talent and choose to squander it, you will be an underachiever (Safin, Gasquet).
Not everyone has the same amount of talent, but everyone has the opportunity of making the most of whatever talent they have; whether they do or not reveals a lot about the true character of that person.
so now capriati is a bad person? that's quite an assumption you're making when you don't even know her. in that case, i guess every single NFL, NBA, MLB player that has benefited from a bad call is a bad person. b/c i have never seen a player stop a play and reverse the call to benefit the opposition.
W
woodrow1029
Guest
There's a big difference between an officiated match and an unofficiated match. When there is an umpire, you play by the umpire's calls. The player isn't obligated to correct it, and I don't understand why people can say here that if they were in the same situation, they would have gone up and say, excuse me you made a mistake. I actually lost that point. I don't believe that is true.
Someone above mentioned the Capriati vs. Dementieva match. The thing that upset me about that match was that I was the chair umpire for the mixed doubles finals that year. When the Capriati Dementieva match split sets, my match got moved to Armstrong Stadium. LOL
drwood
Professional
I didn't say she was a bad person. What I said is that her behavior in this match reveals a lot about her, which sadly has turned out to be true (childish, spoiled, arrogant) and has led to a self-destructive process since she retired from the game.
what exactly has she done since she "retired" (since she hasn't offically retired) in 2004? she was very self-destructive when she left the tour in the mid-90s. i haven't read anything negative about her in the last 5 years.
drwood
Professional
Her depression and constant battles with suicidal thoughts and loss of purpose since -- its been pretty sad, unfortunately. I hope she is able to turn it around. There was an article online with an interview of her around 2007 or 2008 -- its also mentioned in her Wikipedia profile.
No one is obligated to correct the Umpire's mistakes, but there are situations where sportsmanship should supersede even the Umpire's decisions, such as the Gonzalez/Blake situation, where the ball CLEARLY clipped Gonzalez's racquet (and I guarantee you, anyone who has played tennis knows if you clipped a ball even by a hair).
You can take the victory due to a blown call, etc. but I guarantee you it will forever be tainted.
jamesblakefan#1
G.O.A.T.
Very interesting stuff from both sides. I get what rod99 is saying about would you personally make the call if it went for you and against your opponent. It would have to be someone of great character to stand up and do something in that situation, and you really can't say for sure until you're faced with that situation in that moment. I'd like to think that I would tell the umpire something, but I can't know for sure
I also agree w/ drwood, these are the types of moments that show true character, and reveal what a person is really made of. The fact that Serena kept composed and didn't pull a McEnroe shows in the same way that Jen's not only not saying anything, but celebrating the tainted victory so gloriously shows her true character.
It's just one of those things where you can't say for sure what you would do until you are in that exact circumstance yourself.
I also agree w/ drwood, these are the types of moments that show true character, and reveal what a person is really made of. The fact that Serena kept composed and didn't pull a McEnroe shows in the same way that Jen's not only not saying anything, but celebrating the tainted victory so gloriously shows her true character.
It's just one of those things where you can't say for sure what you would do until you are in that exact circumstance yourself.
federerfanatic
Banned
I was glad to see Dementieva break Capriati's heart yet again in the U.S Open
semis. It was true karma.
Was Roddick that bad of a sportsman? I could of thought that he actually made some corrections to some umpire's calls that actually hurt him. I think a umpire once called his opponent's shots out and Roddick corrected the umpire. I think Roddick ended up losing that game.
W
woodrow1029
Guest
Think about it this way. How often do players argue that a ball called in was actually out? Quite a bit. And there are quite a few times when it is actually out as much as Serena's shot was in. Sometimes they are trying to pull a call, sometimes they genuinely see it wrong. Don't you think it's a possibility as well, that a player while running MAY see a ball clearly in that was actually out? Now, imagine that that had happened to Capriati. Say after the ball was called out, she said, "It was actually in." The umpire says to her, "Are you conceding the point?" (mandatory question when a player says the ball was the other way). Capriati says, "Yes." Umpire says, "Advantage Williams." Now the replay comes and shows it was out. At that time in a grand slam quarterfinal, do you really think it's a good idea for Capriati to give up the point?
ninman
Hall of Fame
I certainly think that as far as line calls go players should just accept the umpires descision and that's that, on both sides. The balls are moving at 90 miles an hour plus, anyone can see it wrong, players umpires, everybody. There just needs to be a final descision end of story, no arguing, nothing. As far as the Williams thing goes, I think in that instance both players should have questioned it. Who called the ball out? The umpire didn't say out, the linesman called it good, so why is it advantage Capriati. The umpire would have had to say "overrule the ball is out" or something like that, but it sounded like she just got a little bit mixed up with the score. I think players need to learn that sometimes a civil discussion about a descision is much more helpful than simply yelling at the umpire with the whole "I'm right, you're wrong" crap that they come away with.
However there are times when players should tell the umpire if things go against them. For example if the ball hits you, i.e. Blake, Gonzalez at the olympics is a great example of that. Gonzalez knew he had lost that point, there was no if's or but's or maybe's about it, the ball hit his raquet, he lost the point. I think in those situations, players should act like proffessionals and not try and cheat the opposition out of points.
Last edited:
W
woodrow1029
Guest
Sorry for the repeat post, but:
She did overrule it. I was in the umpires' lounge watching on the closed circuit tv. The only sound you can hear on the closed circuit is the umpire. In the press conferences and highlights as the week went on, they showed the closed circuit replay where you could hear her say out.
It depends when the bad call occurs, obviously. If its the 1st pt of the 1st game of the match, not so important.
If it's on break point, late in the 3rd set, potentially match changing.
Obviously, if its on match pt, definitely match changing, as in the case of one of the Gullickson twins, dont know which one, but the umpire overruled against him on match pt, on the far sideline, no less, in the last singles match of his career, I believe. Should he just shut his trap and soldier on????
drwood
Professional
That was my point...Roddick is a very good sportsman, and would be great if he learned to stop yapping with the referees.
JennyS
Hall of Fame
She was desperately trying to win her home country's Slam a year after a brutal loss to Justine. But post-match criticism of her behavior really upset her and she said she couldn't sleep before the semifinal.
Moose Malloy
G.O.A.T.
I'm not sure the bad call in the Serena match really made a difference in the outcome. It happened at deuce, 1st game of the 3rd set, Serena serving. she won the point right after the bad call to fight break point off (was eventually broken in that game, but then broke right back for 1-1)
Anyone remember the '95 Graf-Seles USO Final? Seles thought she hit an ace on set point & started running to the sideline but it was called a fault. CBS couldn't show a good replay angle, but the crowd seemed to think it was in.
She eventually lost that set 7-6, won the 2nd 6-0, lost the 3rd 6-3. I often wonder what hawkeye would have seen that day...
Another world class bad call was in the '98 Haas-Agassi Wimbledon match(Haas won the match, not sure what the score was when the call came - think it was tiebreak when it was a set all -but the replay on this shot was pretty funny - it was a slow ball that was like a foot out. Agassi was in the way of the linesman, so it was the job of the umpire to call it, which he didn't. Agassi lost a close 4 setter)
Did anyone notice capriati's reaction right after the umpire announced the score('advantage capriati')? she stepped back from the receiving position & gave a quizzical look at the umpire and waved her racquet in her direction. I took this to mean she thought the umpire got the score wrong(which I imagine everyone thought as first, Alves really needs to work on her speaking voice, I doubt anyone in the stadium heard her overrule). Then when Serena went up & argued she just stayed out of it. And in the post match news conference, she said she wasn't sure Serena's shot was in...right.
I remember this(it was in '93 - have the CBS highlight show for that day on tape)
It really was one of the all time freakouts(& totally warranted)
Oncins was cursing up a storm & looked like he was about to have a seizure after this point.
When he walked off the court, he made a throat slashing gesture to his coach.
No offense, but do you really remember much about a match after its over? esp years later? and details like bad calls?' I know I don't(unless I pop in the tape)
The reason this one is so famous is cause its pretty recent, ALL over youtube, & the commentators won't ever let us forget("this is the match that caused instant replay") And it involves 2 hall of famers(one who's still active)
I had never heard of the controversial overrule in the '86 W SF before, but watching it recently I was pretty apalled by the incompetent umpire. But Bobo Zivojinovic is not Serena, it was probably forgotten by anyone who saw it an hour after it was over(esp with no internet for fans to vent over)
There have always been the occasional absurd call/overrule, & probably always will be(no way to challenge lets, huh? or unfair code violations - remember Fish getting a code for tapping a ball after a game to the other side of the court at the AO - the ball 'hit' an official's foot at like 5 mph & Fish was given an unsportsmanlike code violation!)
Officials are human, they make mistakes.
If she was broken in that game, then it did matter. Instead of breaking back to 1 - all, she could have gone up a break 2-0 in the 3rd.
Theres no guarantee she would have held serve from ad in, but its obviously easier to hold serve serving at ad in, rather than ad out.
Deuce
Banned
The psychological element of overcoming bad calls is present in every refereed sport I can think of. That you refer to this as "the dumbest reason you've ever heard as to why ShotSpot is a bad thing" reveals you to be quite naive about sport.
I've been playing and watching tennis for three decades. I might know a thing or two about the game.
ShotSpot/HawkEye is nothing more than a marketing tool designed to get more fans interested in the game. The "advanced technology"; the "cool graphics", and the claim that it is more accurate than the human eye are all marketing.
Hell - when they first started using ShotSpot/HawkEye, the commentators in every televised match could not shut up about it - they were constantly praising it. If you don't think that was all scripted - part of the marketing - then I've got a buddy who's selling a bridge you might be interested in.
ShotSpot/HawkEye is a marketing tool far more than it is anything else - and they've got you hook, line, and sinker.
How on Earth is a bad call "unfair"?
As long as the decision - be it right or wrong - is made honestly, there is absolutely nothing unfair about it.
Sometimes the calls go in your favour, and sometimes they go against you. Either way, you have to deal with it - which is quite obviously an important element of the psychological and emotional components of a match.
... or at least it was so until this marketing cartoon was implemented.
Now, if you're claiming that the bad calls were deliberate... well, ShotSpot/HawkEye can be just as easily manipulated as can an umpire or linesperson - because it is ultimately operated by possibly corrupt human beings.
jamesblakefan#1
G.O.A.T.
Guys still have to overcome the mental affect of bad calls sometimes. For instance if a guy hits a ball that is close to being a winner, but it is called out when it was in, the point is replayed if his opponent gets the racquet on it. So instead of hitting a winning shot, the guy has to play the point all over again. Also, if a 2nd serve is called out when it was in, the guy challenges it and is correct, he gets 2 serves.
Your mental game aspect is ridiculous. I'm never going to see your rationale on this one. Bad calls are the worse things about sports. Anything to help overcome human error and help get calls right is generally praised in sports in this day and age. MLB has instituted instant replay. NFL has instant replay. NBA has instant replay. Why shouldn't tennis, when it's replay technology is more advanced than all of those sports.
Your hypothesis about the mental aspect of overcoming bad calls still makes no sense, and never will. And your claim that it's "all marketing" and bad for the game is only ignorance, studies have been done to show that shotspot is accurate and correct to within 3mm.
Your mental aspect of overcoming bad calls theory has proven to be a fallacy, your claim that shotspot is just an innacurate marketing tool is not supported by facts - overall, your idea and argument is just plain wrong.
D
Deleted member 21996
Guest
my point is debating if a certain bad call has or not influence on the outcome, or if that bad call would never happen, had that X player not double faulted 6 times before and made a dozen of unforced errors in critical points in the game.
academic ex: are you going to blame one bad call for your loss in the set if you did not capitalize 5 or 6 break points in the previous games of a given set?
that is my point (and Lumber Jim too)
Deuce
Banned
^ Obviously not anywhere near the same as pre-ShotSpot.
^ It really could not be more obvious that psychologically and emotionally dealing with what you perceive is a bad call is an important element of any sport.
The likelihood that you will see that it makes obvious sense will increase as you grow older.
Or... it should, at least...
^ It's called marketing. Anything to sell the game, man...
They introduce something new, market the hell out of it as being an "improvement", and the gullible masses follow.
It's the oldest ploy in the book.
Also, sport is all about human error. Has always been. The individual or team which makes the fewest errors wins the game.
And the human element always extended to the referees/umpires/officials, etc. Until someone decided that they could use this aspect for marketing purposes.
Personally, I don't like to see 'perfect' things. Because perfection doesn't exist in the real world. When I see claimed perfection, I see artifice.
Human error is part of life, and part of sport. As long as the errors are honest, I much prefer seeing that than some artificial 'perfection'.
^ Yes - for marketing purposes. To sell the game.
^ Baseball hasn't gone to an electronically called strike zone - yet. But I'm sure it's coming.
And guess what - it'll be marketed as an "improvement".
^ It makes absolute sense - because it is a very simple fact that dealing with what one perceives as 'bad calls' requires a degree of emotional and psychological fortitude.
As I said - you may understand this more as you grow older.
^ Studies done by whom? By the makers of ShotSpot?
Studies done by the ATP or WTA?
They've got you hook, line, and sinker, dude...
You probably believe that Aspirin is better than its competition - because a Bayer 'study' indicates so. (Bayer are the makers of Aspirin, by the way.)
^ Please show me how.
Please...
^ As with so many things in life, it all depends if one takes the 'opinion' of gullible and naive people, or the perspective of insightful and experienced people.
jamesblakefan#1
G.O.A.T.
You're just a conspiracy theorist...nothing I can say will make you change your way of thinking, so I won't even try to debate w/ your way of thinking. It makes no sense.
kanamit
Hall of Fame
I have watched this video several times and do feel sorry for Serena. What terrible calls! My take on the umpire's foul-up on the most obvious shot is that she misheard the line judge or wasn't paying attention. I'm not the best lip reader but Alves seems to be saying at about the 1:02 mark in the video that "The ball was called out." At no time did she say "Correction" either, which is a common practice when overruling. I think she later claimed it was an overrule to save face from an even more embarrassing revelation.
W
woodrow1029
Guest
She clearly said at 1:02, "I called the ball out." If she was calling it out, she would not say "Correction," she would just say "Out." Saying Correction is only a common practice when correcting an out call to good.
Also, she did not mishear the line umpire. The line umpire called it good, so there would have been no verbal call.
Watch it again, you can see the chair umpire move her arm to point out as the camera was panning away just after the ball hit the court..
It was definitely an overrule. As was shown on USA in the days following when they showed the closed circuit replay with no crowd noise. She said out immediately. Granted it was a bad overrule, but it was an overrule.
The only way a bad call doesnt affect the outcome, is if the person goes on to win the game. Otherwise it does. Even now with the challenges, you'll often hear commentators say on a correct challenge, 'thats's bad luck for so and so' if they were in control of the rally, maybe in a very advantageous position, say about to put away a sitter overhead. There's no guarantee once the point is played over that they will be back in an advantageous position.
Back to the Serena example, the correct score should have been ad in, instead, it went to ad out.
To win a game from ad in you only have to win 1 pt.
To win a game from ad out, you have to win 3 consecutive points.
I'm sure you'll agree it easier to win 1 pt, rather than 3 in a row.
Yeah that Serena Capriati match................... was difficult to watch for me i remember i couldn't believe that bad call worst case scenario she should have said nothing. but everything happen for a reason because of that infamous match we now have shot spot for the players. but man o man was that dramatic lol
Bloodshed
Professional
What I don't understand is the bad call where the Umpire overruled the Serena shot to give Advantage to Capriati, why didn't the linesman (or lineswoman in that case) didn't come up to the umpire and state that the ball was clearly inside the court and not outside since she was 100% sure that she saw it inside the line? I didn't get why she didn't discuss this with the dumb umpire...
W
woodrow1029
Guest
Because it doesn't work that way. The umpire has final decision on line calls.
Similar threads
