Umpire Errors Can Change The Course Of A Match

In this years AO (so far) I have seen IMO 3 Umpire errors. they have had a very disruptive effect on players that have been on the recieving end of these poor judgements.

The first was Harrison who got a time violation warning after Murray chose a cruciial game in the match to repeatedly complain to the umpire about the time he was taking between points. Harrisons game unraveled after the warning.

The second was when an umpire overruled an out call when Isner was serving late in the 5th set in his match with Nalbandian. The umpire refused to let Nalbandian use Hawkeye saying he was too late to challenge. The ball was out and it was obvious to everyone watching that Nalbandian challenged as soon as he realised what had happened. Nalbandian never looked like he would win after the incident.

The third was today when Tomic stopped play during a ralley with Dolgopolov. He raised his hand and looked at the umpire as if to challenge then changed his mind and continued to play. Dolgopolov saw Tomic and he hit the ball out thinking that play has stopped. The umpire hadn't seen Tomic and despite protests gave the point to Tomic. Dolgopolov went from what looked like a winning position in the 5th set to lose.

Of course we can never be sure if these incidents did change the result of the match. However most watching would agree that the players on the recieving end of Umpire errors play less well afterwoods.

These are matches that are telivised and played in front of a huge crowd. Should a tournament referee be able to overrule an umpire by making use of video? As a viewer I like matches to be decided with forehands and backhands and not by umpires

Can you explain how your first example (obviously the one that motivated this article) is a mistake please?

This is the biggest bunch of handshuffle I have read.

So a time violation is a mistake?

So Harrison would've won the match?

As would Dolgopolov and Nalbandian?

Maybe you can explain what a mistake is instead of this crap heap thread!

djlovesyou wrote:Can you explain how your first example (obviously the one that motivated this article) is a mistake please?

I was going to ask the same question DJ. Seems like a clean decision to me unless I have missed something?

It is the Umpires job to give time warnings not the players.

Like the other examples video evidence exists so a third unbiased party could decide if it was a mistake.

Shall we enforce the rule against your 'rule-breaking' idol in Nadal? It seems to be a 'mistake' that he is allowed to get away with it.

It has always been the case.

But as a Nadal fan you shoudl be happy that referees are not enforcing the rule. He is the biggest breaker of teh rule of all.

Regarding Nalbandian, He took too much time. No excuse for that.

As Federer says, he shoudl not put the referee in such difficult situation. You can't go on like that and expect to have all the time in teh world especially as he was not serving and woudl disrupt the server.

Regarding the Tomic incident, well, that's Tomic not being honest. Yes he obvisouly wanted to challenge but pretended he was still playing as soon as he saw the ball flying. What can you do?

hawkeye wrote:It is the Umpires job to give time warnings not the players.

Like the other examples video evidence exists so a third unbiased party could decide if it was a mistake.

Did Murray 'warn' Harrison?

No.

Simples

hawkeye wrote:It is the Umpires job to give time warnings not the players.

Like the other examples video evidence exists so a third unbiased party could decide if it was a mistake.

The umpire did give the warning - presumably because he agreed that the rules were being violated. So, I ask once again, why was the decision as mistake?

Someone call the special needs police, their resident player basher escaped again!

hawkeye wrote:It is the Umpires job to give time warnings not the players..

If Murray gave the time warning then it didn't count. But I think it was the umpire that gave the warning. The umpire's mistake was to let Harrison get away with it for so long that Murray had to say something to get the rule enforced.
Nalbandian was a a bit hard done by.
Dolgo didn't play to the whistle. I didn't see it, but did Tomic actually challenge? If not, then play on.

Can we start an 'MTO's that change matches' thread? Would you like to discuss that Hawky?

Wonder how many players there would be??

legendkiller

I gave three examples. You may find it less emotional to look at the two examples that don't involve Murray.

carrieg4

Did you see the time violation incident? IMO it was something (like the other 2 examples) that maybe an unbiased third party should be able to overule if they saw the need. If the umpire was seen to have been correct they would do nothing.

JuliusHMarx

I don't think Harrison saw it that way. He may well have thought that the umpires mistake was to be overly influenced by a very influential Murray. Murray had warned before the match that he intended to get Harrison angry. Thats why the view of an unbiased third party might be useful. What do you think of the other examples?

Hawky,

You still didn't answer the question to the point you elluded to. Did Murray warn Harrison?

Answer that, and I may engage further.

hawkeye wrote:Thats why the view of an unbiased third party might be useful.

The umpire is the unbiased third party. You think there should be a fourth party?
You should have come to the first party - everyone who was anyone was there.

Right...

Harrison takes too long...umpire warns Harrison. (doesn't matter what Murray did)

On what grounds would this 'unbiased third party' be able to overrule the decision bearing in mind the infraction occured? (you don't seem to be arguing that).

Are you suggesting the umpire isn't 'unbiased'.

Did this time violation make you cry? Did you have enough tissues? Did you get more angry than Harrison and was your whole day ruined?

JHM is right - the umpire is the unbiased party. No time violation, no warning. End of story.

If you had read the entire Murray quote you would realise that, when asked how he intended to get Harrison angry, he responded that his game over the last five years with spin, variation of speed, angles etc. frustrated a lot of players. I know this is a much less juicy story but it is an accurate one

carrieg4

If you think that the umpire is always correct, unbiased and never influenced to make a wrong decision then obviously for you there is no problem.

I think many viewing this years AO might disagree though...

But why was the decision to warn Harrison a wrong decision?

Could you answer this please?

hawkeye wrote:carrieg4

If you think that the umpire is always correct, unbiased and never influenced to make a wrong decision then obviously for you there is no problem.

I think many viewing this years AO might disagree though...

I am curious as to why you are thinking the decision may be wrong? There is absolutely no evidence to suggest that it is unlike your other examples. By the way, you don't seem surprised that you missed the most important part of the Murray quote? I thought I should mention it as you have mentioned the partial, innacurate quote at least a couple of times.

djlovesyou wrote:But why was the decision to warn Harrison a wrong decision?

Could you answer this please?

I think HE cannot quite answer this but I can : Maybe because the referee once again puts pressure on a lower ranked player but woudl not dare doing it to a higher ranked player, especially Nadal.

hawkeye

You really are a naughty girl, you must lie in bed thinking what rubbish can I write about Andy next.

The Tomic example should have been picked up by the umpire, but it wasn't - now that one could have made a difference to the end result.

Stick with offering lessons on how his opponents can beat Andy, at least we can get a laugh there

Tenez wrote:

djlovesyou wrote:But why was the decision to warn Harrison a wrong decision?

Could you answer this please?

I think HE cannot quite answer this but I can : Maybe because the referee once again puts pressure on a lower ranked player but woudl not dare doing it to a higher ranked player, especially Nadal.

How does this affect the accuracy of the decision in this match? Do you think HE is concerned at a potential trend of enforcing the rule more tightly?

Players can still call for the referee can't they, if they feel an important injustice is being done?

hawkeye wrote:carrieg4

If you think that the umpire is always correct, unbiased and never influenced to make a wrong decision then obviously for you there is no problem.

I think many viewing this years AO might disagree though...

But Hawkeye you were the one who created a thread last year in which you went on about how difficult an umpires job is and how everyone should respect them. Now you are questioning their decisions and even worse whether some are biased.

carrieg4 wrote:How does this affect the accuracy of the decision in this match? Do you think HE is concerned at a potential trend of enforcing the rule more tightly?

That's why I am saying I can answer that question and HE can't quite.

As I am a "neutral" in that Harrison / Murray issue, I can just observe that referees are much quicker in warning a lower ranked player than a top player.

What would woudl be "the right decision" in normal circumstances becomes a doddgy one. (I said teh same when Cilic was warned v Fed at teh last USO).

BTW where was Cilic this year? Extending his Xmas Hols?

Tenez wrote:

carrieg4 wrote:How does this affect the accuracy of the decision in this match? Do you think HE is concerned at a potential trend of enforcing the rule more tightly?

That's why I am saying I can answer that question and HE can't quite.

As I am a "neutral" in that Harrison / Murray issue, I can just observe that referees are much quicker in warning a lower ranked player than a top player.

What would woudl be "the right decision" in normal circumstances becomes a doddgy one. (I said teh same when Cilic was warned v Fed at teh last USO).

BTW where was Cilic this year? Extending his Xmas Hols?

Knee injury apparently.

Calder106 wrote:

hawkeye wrote:carrieg4

If you think that the umpire is always correct, unbiased and never influenced to make a wrong decision then obviously for you there is no problem.

I think many viewing this years AO might disagree though...

But Hawkeye you were the one who created a thread last year in which you went on about how difficult an umpires job is and how everyone should respect them. Now you are questioning their decisions and even worse whether some are biased.

Hawkeye cannot be serious, man. HE CANNOT BE SERIOUS!

carrieg4

This is what Murray said

As Murray said on Sunday: “I’ll try and make him lose his temper early. It’s
something that helps if you know your opponent can get down on himself, and
it affects his game, and when you see them getting like that, you want to
try to hit the gas and keep going.”


http://www.telegraph.co.uk/sport/tennis/australianopen/9016849/Australian-Open-2012-Andy-Murray-to-turn-up-the-heat-on-Mr-Crankypants-Ryan-Harrison-in-first-round.html

It was the time warning that made Harrison angry and not Murrays shots. There has always been a lot of talk in the media about how Murray should disrupt his opponants.. including advice saying he should harass the umpire to give his opponant a time warning.

Did you watch the match? Murray was very insistant with the umpire about the time Harrison was taking. It came out of nowhere and was during one crucial sevice game. The commentators were surprised. Usually before a violation an umpire talks to a player at change of ends before. Harrison got no such talk.

To me it looked like a higher ranked player using his "muscles" to influence the umpire. Of course I could be wrong and Murray genuinely did believe that Harrison was deliberately taking more time between points in order to get an unfair advantage over him. Murray did look very angry.

Why not have a third party watching also. They would only interere if they thought it necessary.

when is this incident precisely? I'll check it up on Eurosport.

Would you need an unbiased 4th party to watch over the unbiased 3rd party just in case the unbiased 3rd party made a bad decision (or perhaps not the decision you liked)?

What about if the unbiased 4th party became biased, wouldn't you need....oh wait, this could go on a while.

Tenez wrote:

djlovesyou wrote:But why was the decision to warn Harrison a wrong decision?

Could you answer this please?

I think HE cannot quite answer this but I can : Maybe because the referee once again puts pressure on a lower ranked player but woudl not dare doing it to a higher ranked player, especially Nadal.

Of course its something a higher ranked player can use against a lower ranked player. Also only a higher ranked player could have such influence over an umpire. I can't even imagine Harrison harassing the umpire to give Murray a violation warning or even point penalty for mmm. swearing.

Actually now I've said it I can imagine it.... It would be very scary. It would be met by a disbelieving silence by all the media present and... thats probably enough imagining...

You need to go outside and speak to some real people.

You have a problem.

Just for the record, I can check that twice Murray at 5/3 down Set point down on his serve takes 35s to play a first serve.

Don't want to say but....It's not all B&W!

EDITed.

hawkeye wrote:It would be met by a disbelieving silence by all the media present ...

If they call him 'Mr Crankypants' I imagine they'd believe anything he does!

HE.
What
are
you
talking
about?

Murray was
well within
his rights
to complain.

Superb

decision

by

umpire.

amritia3ee wrote:HE.
What
are
you
talking
about?

Murray was
well within
his rights
to complain.

Superb

decision

by

umpire.

If you ever get fed up with Tennis forums I am sure you could also make a good Umpire

amritia3ee wrote:HE.
What
are
you
talking
about?

Murray was
well within
his rights
to complain.

Superb

decision

by

umpire.

Is that some form of haiku?

hawkeye wrote:carrieg4

This is what Murray said

As Murray said on Sunday: “I’ll try and make him lose his temper early. It’s
something that helps if you know your opponent can get down on himself, and
it affects his game, and when you see them getting like that, you want to
try to hit the gas and keep going.”


http://www.telegraph.co.uk/sport/tennis/australianopen/9016849/Australian-Open-2012-Andy-Murray-to-turn-up-the-heat-on-Mr-Crankypants-Ryan-Harrison-in-first-round.html

It was the time warning that made Harrison angry and not Murrays shots. There has always been a lot of talk in the media about how Murray should disrupt his opponants.. including advice saying he should harass the umpire to give his opponant a time warning.

Did you watch the match? Murray was very insistant with the umpire about the time Harrison was taking. It came out of nowhere and was during one crucial sevice game. The commentators were surprised. Usually before a violation an umpire talks to a player at change of ends before. Harrison got no such talk.

To me it looked like a higher ranked player using his "muscles" to influence the umpire. Of course I could be wrong and Murray genuinely did believe that Harrison was deliberately taking more time between points in order to get an unfair advantage over him. Murray did look very angry.

Why not have a third party watching also. They would only interere if they thought it necessary.

As for the "Quote" I really think Andy was being funny, taking the "mickey out of the Aussie Press, who were stupid enough to publish it in the the hope that SOME people would believe it! - They obviously succeeded!

No lol not a haiku.

It was an amusing article and that was the answer I though appropriate. The other two examples were fine, I can't figure out why the Murray example was included.

Tenez wrote: Maybe because the referee once again puts pressure on a lower ranked player but woudl not dare doing it to a higher ranked player, especially Nadal.

Do you also have the feeling this is a big conspiracy against Federer, organised by Uncle Toni
I also share your thoughts.

I am also hearing that ATP are going to ban anyone with arms from playing
Only Nadal will be left, and you'll have to spend the rest of your life watching Nadal hit the ball against the wall, and start swearing how the wall is more talented than Nadal

Hawky,

Why won't you address the comment made by YOU

It is the Umpires job to give time warnings not the players

Tell me, factually did Andy give the time warning? As you have stated with the above statement.

JuliusHMarx wrote:

hawkeye wrote:It would be met by a disbelieving silence by all the media present ...

If they call him 'Mr Crankypants' I imagine they'd believe anything he does!

I think you should read my coaching advice for Andy's opponents if you want to know why the British media called Harrison "Mr Crankypants". I hope Harrison didn't see the name calling.

sportslover wrote:

hawkeye wrote:carrieg4

This is what Murray said

As Murray said on Sunday: “I’ll try and make him lose his temper early. It’s
something that helps if you know your opponent can get down on himself, and
it affects his game, and when you see them getting like that, you want to
try to hit the gas and keep going.”


http://www.telegraph.co.uk/sport/tennis/australianopen/9016849/Australian-Open-2012-Andy-Murray-to-turn-up-the-heat-on-Mr-Crankypants-Ryan-Harrison-in-first-round.html

It was the time warning that made Harrison angry and not Murrays shots. There has always been a lot of talk in the media about how Murray should disrupt his opponants.. including advice saying he should harass the umpire to give his opponant a time warning.

Did you watch the match? Murray was very insistant with the umpire about the time Harrison was taking. It came out of nowhere and was during one crucial sevice game. The commentators were surprised. Usually before a violation an umpire talks to a player at change of ends before. Harrison got no such talk.

To me it looked like a higher ranked player using his "muscles" to influence the umpire. Of course I could be wrong and Murray genuinely did believe that Harrison was deliberately taking more time between points in order to get an unfair advantage over him. Murray did look very angry.

Why not have a third party watching also. They would only interere if they thought it necessary.

As for the "Quote" I really think Andy was being funny, taking the "mickey out of the Aussie Press, who were stupid enough to publish it in the the hope that SOME people would believe it! - They obviously succeeded!

I'm not sure Harrison would find it as amusing as you. The quote was from the British Telegraph not the "Aussie Press". So you think Andy said it to "take the micky" and the telegraph published it hoping some people would believe it? That sounds incredibly infantile way to behave! I certainly doubt that would be true.

hawkeye wrote:

sportslover wrote:

hawkeye wrote:carrieg4

This is what Murray said

As Murray said on Sunday: “I’ll try and make him lose his temper early. It’s
something that helps if you know your opponent can get down on himself, and
it affects his game, and when you see them getting like that, you want to
try to hit the gas and keep going.”


http://www.telegraph.co.uk/sport/tennis/australianopen/9016849/Australian-Open-2012-Andy-Murray-to-turn-up-the-heat-on-Mr-Crankypants-Ryan-Harrison-in-first-round.html

It was the time warning that made Harrison angry and not Murrays shots. There has always been a lot of talk in the media about how Murray should disrupt his opponants.. including advice saying he should harass the umpire to give his opponant a time warning.

Did you watch the match? Murray was very insistant with the umpire about the time Harrison was taking. It came out of nowhere and was during one crucial sevice game. The commentators were surprised. Usually before a violation an umpire talks to a player at change of ends before. Harrison got no such talk.

To me it looked like a higher ranked player using his "muscles" to influence the umpire. Of course I could be wrong and Murray genuinely did believe that Harrison was deliberately taking more time between points in order to get an unfair advantage over him. Murray did look very angry.

Why not have a third party watching also. They would only interere if they thought it necessary.

As for the "Quote" I really think Andy was being funny, taking the "mickey out of the Aussie Press, who were stupid enough to publish it in the the hope that SOME people would believe it! - They obviously succeeded!

I'm not sure Harrison would find it as amusing as you. The quote was from the British Telegraph not the "Aussie Press". So you think Andy said it to "take the micky" and the telegraph published it hoping some people would believe it? That sounds incredibly infantile way to behave! I certainly doubt that would be true.

Irrespective of what paper published it for sure it was a windup - I bet Neil Harman who knows everything about tennis and the players wouldn't have swallowed it

hawkeye wrote:carrieg4

This is what Murray said

As Murray said on Sunday: “I’ll try and make him lose his temper early. It’s
something that helps if you know your opponent can get down on himself, and
it affects his game, and when you see them getting like that, you want to
try to hit the gas and keep going.”

It was the time warning that made Harrison angry and not Murrays shots. There has always been a lot of talk in the media about how Murray should disrupt his opponants.. including advice saying he should harass the umpire to give his opponant a time warning.

Murray was very insistant with the umpire about the time Harrison was taking. It came out of nowhere and was during one crucial sevice game. The commentators were surprised. Usually before a violation an umpire talks to a player at change of ends before. Harrison got no such talk.

To me it looked like a higher ranked player using his "muscles" to influence the umpire. Of course I could be wrong and Murray genuinely did believe that Harrison was deliberately taking more time between points in order to get an unfair advantage over him. Murray did look very angry.

In Hawkeye's world 2 and 2 does make 5!! I've heard it all now, but I do hope you are correct, i.e. Andy has turned into the mean spirited Jimmy Connors of around 1982/3 - you know the one that abused Lendl on court, to such a degree we all thought that poor Ivan may as well pack up then

Do you think Ivan put him up to it? Knowing how influential such behaviour is. Wow! What a coach

[quote="sportslover] As for the "Quote" I really think Andy was being funny, taking the "mickey out of the Aussie Press, who were stupid enough to publish it in the the hope that SOME people would believe it! - They obviously succeeded! [/quote]

You're not suggesting that Hawkeye lacks the interllect to understand that Andy has a very dry sense of humour are you?

I hope not, as I was getting excited about the thought of this being a new tactic - that delivered 17 Grand Slams in the next 4 years ( )

I mean, as Bogbrush pointed out, what we need from Andy when he's playing his three rivals is either to complain about Nadal's timewasting, complain about Nole's irritating ball bouncing or scream across the net at Roger, "Swiss Shanky!!" the minute he makes an error

This is obviously the start

Believe me Hawkeye is right. We're all wrong

Regarding Nalbandian. If that had been Nadal , Djokovic or federer no way would the umpire have stuck to his strict interpretation like that.

This was actually the worst decision so far of the tournament for the following reasons:

1. He chose to overule the lines judge for a call down the centre of the court. he had to be 100% sure to do so and guess what? he got it wrong

2. Nalbandian was surprised by his intervention and went to look for the mark. Not to be given any leeway in doing so when the original call was out is just crass.

3. The referee had a chance to use common sense and let Nalbandian challenge the overuled call. The fact that he wouldn't just made the whole decision making process look flawed

4. When they use hawkeye then the umpire should stop overuling as the players (where they feel strongly enough) will challenge anyway.

djlovesyou wrote: hawkeye - you need to go outside and speak to some real people.

You have a problem.

Really what makes you think that

banbrotam wrote:... scream across the net at Roger, "Swiss Shanky!!" the minute he makes an error

Wish there was a :hatoff: smiley.

Yesterday, Dr Ivo did take out his 'pistol' to blow away the 'Swiss Shanky' and now he is 'Swiss cheese'.