Umpire Errors Can Change The Course Of A Match

First topic message reminder :

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

The Nalbandian call was a total "get me out of here, I dont want to look stupid on the big screen" decision from the umpire.

He overruled an "out" service ball and called it "in". Dave didn't hear him properly (prob totally surprised he over-ruled) and queried the call, the umpire didnt explain clearly this decision and Dave asked him again, "did you call that in ?"

Eventually, when he understood the umpires call, he looked again at the mark and asked for Hawkeye. The umpire then pointed to his watch and said "out of time mate!", which is probably because he knew that his call was duff, by the time he'd thought about it for a while.

Nalbandian had a good case to call the ref and ask for Hawkeye to replay the shot. The umpire did not make the call clearly enough and IMO was out of order.

He got demoted to a doubles match the next day anyway LOL.

Jubbahey

My sentiments entirely. The umpire looked an idiot and hopefully will never ruin another men's slam match.

If as Nalbandian suggested he's more used to "the speed of the ball on the WTA tour" then the girls there get my sympathies too if his decision making is merely half as bad there.

Jubbahey wrote:
Eventually, when he understood the umpires call, he looked again at the mark and asked for Hawkeye. The umpire then pointed to his watch and said "out of time mate!", which is probably because he knew that his call was duff, by the time he'd thought about it for a while.

That's not quite what happened. Nalby knows the benefit of making his opponent wait between 2 serves especially at such an important moment. If you look at the picture, as soon as the ball is called out, Isner calls for HE, when it;s Nalby's decision he walks calmly to the line, even though he knew he was going to take the decision anyway. He just tried to put time between the second serve.

It's a real shame it happened at such an important moment but I think that's why Nalby took his time, to put his opponent off. You don't get close to the mark shake your head one way or another and then require HE.

As a server I woudl have been peed off.



As I said I wanted him to win but there is a gamesmanship side in him that I don't like very much.

Tenez the whole debacle was caused by an incompetent umpire in the first place. He sat there grinning like some Cheshire Cat instead of having the balls to refer to hawkeye.

It's actually even worse....it'sonly when he hears the referee call teh score that he lifts his hand. You cannot do that between 2 serves. Utterly wrong.

The referee did the right thing actually on that occasion. Having HE is a good thing but why use it to play tricks on your opponent?

Tenez wrote:

that's why Nalby took his time, to put his opponent off. You don't get close to the mark shake your head one way or another and then require HE.

wtf

newballs wrote:Tenez the whole debacle was caused by an incompetent umpire in the first place. He sat there grinning like some Cheshire Cat instead of having the balls to refer to hawkeye.

Again disagree. He is known to have one of teh best eyesight andhad corrected rightly some calls before in that match if you remember.

You don;t want to see the nasty side of Nadlby but though he is one of my favourite player he can be annoying. Even if the referee is wrong, it doesn;t explain Nalby's behaviour to take as much time between his opponent's serves.

Have you watched the match Tenez.
Anyone can see that Nalbandian was simply going up to the line to see whether he should challenge; rather than it being some sort of malicious attempt to put off Isner as you are trying to portray.

I'm totally with Nalbandian on this.

It was a great match with a very noisy crowd. The ball was out. Nalbandian would have seen the ball out. An Umpire should only overule if sure there has been an error. I'm not even sure that Nalbandian heard the call from the umpire with all the crowd noise. IMO if an umpire overules a linespersons call at a crucial point they should expect a hawkeye challenge.

This is what The Times (PPV) had to say about it.

With several of the game’s leading umpires withdrawing their services from a
second grand-slam tournament in succession, the Australian Open was always
going to be vulnerable to the kind of controversy that devoured the sport
again yesterday.

David Nalbandian may not be everyone’s favourite player, but he was grievously
wronged deep into the fifth set of another marathon involving that master of
endurance, John Isner.

Kader Nouni, the French umpire known more for his gruff voice than his talent
at judging whether a ball is in or out, refused to allow the Argentinian a
Hawk-Eye challenge on a break point at 8-8 when he overruled a first serve
from Isner — average speed 198km/h (123mph) — that had been called out.



“Do they want their picture in the paper, to be on the news?” Nalbandian asked
of the incident that sullied a great match. “It doesn’t make any sense.
Every time we talk to the ATP, it’s like nothing [happens], so what is the
ATP for, the players or for somebody else?”

Asked if he would be happy to see Nouni in the chair for one of his matches
again, he said: “I don’t think he’s gonna be able to do this kind of match.”



Not only Nalbandian was wronged but so were all spectators. This was a great match to have the ending spoiled by an Umpire error left a bad taste...

These tennis players are sounding more like football players every day.

I blame Nadal.

That's a poor article I am afraid. Certainly Sun like more than The Times.

That's why Kader is a referee and we are not. He is actually known to have a very good eye sight. So that just shows how biased this article is to start with.

A referee is there to make the game fair for both players. Had he been given the HE after that much time, Isner coudl have double faulted and it woudl have been unfair to him. The referee could have been criticised for that too.

Whatever you may say, Nalbandian took too much time and this lazy walk to check the mark and hesitation about calling is simply not acceptable, all that while Isner wonders whether he will have to serve or not a second serve.

The ball was out, the linesperson called the ball out, Nalbandian knew that the ball was out, many in the crowd knew the ball was out, countless viewers at home knew the ball was out and the match was being played on a court with Hawkeye.

Izner should not have felt hard done by if he had to take a second serve!

hawkeye wrote:The ball was out, the linesperson called the ball out, Nalbandian knew that the ball was out, many in the crowd knew the ball was out, countless viewers at home knew the ball was out and the match was being played on a court with Hawkeye.

Right so that gives Nalby even less of an excuse to go and check the mark. If he saw it out and knew it was out why taking so much time before asking for HE?

You clearly don't want to see his share of responsibility in this. Always better to blame the referee than the player, isn't it?...well unless that player is Murray of course!

Tenez

Did you watch the Nalbandian match? Did you see the confusion after the Umpire overule? It was match point to Nalbandian and he had plenty of challengers. What player in that situation wouldn't ask to see a hawkey replay. As a viewer as soon as the umpire said the ball was in even I wanted to see hawkeye as it looked out to me.

As for the Murray incident. I blame the umpire.

hawkeye wrote:Tenez

As for the Murray incident. I blame the umpire.

What did the umpire do wrong?

Are you blaming the umpire for upholding the laws of tennis?

hawkeye wrote:Tenez

What player in that situation wouldn't ask to see a hawkey replay.

Exactly! So why wait and fake to check the mark?

I didn't see "faking". I saw confusion.

He pretends to be confused but from the moment he understands it's his call to actually call it he takes 8s! That's 20s after Isner's serve.

Not good.

laverfan wrote:

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'.

Good for Tomic then coz he loves cheesy sticks.

Any one remember the USO 2009 final and Del Potro's lazy HE challenges?

The match supervisor also ruled in the favour of Kader Nouni's call.

It is a shame that the fiasco occurred at crucial juncture. Perhaps a Let call may have been an option, which was never explored.

laverfan wrote:Any one remember the USO 2009 final and Del Potro's lazy HE challenges?

The match supervisor also ruled in the favour of Kader Nouni's call.

It is a shame that the fiasco occurred at crucial juncture. Perhaps a Let call may have been an option, which was never explored.

Federer was walking all over Del Potro with a 6-2 first set and 5-1 2nd set to lose the set and match, good point LF, umpire decisions do change the course of match.

The best I can remember is Serena Incident on Match Point, that for sure had the impact .

Regarding Federer, again, the match against Nadal in Madrid where ball landed on Federer's BH. IIRC, he had won the first set 7-5 and this was a BP against Federer. Lahyani was the umpire, I think.

IMVHO, clay should also start using HE challenges to be consistent with HC and Grass. Others may differ on this viewpoint.

laverfan wrote:IMVHO, clay should also start using HE challenges to be consistent with HC and Grass. Others may differ on this viewpoint.

Of course you cannot use HE on clay. PLayers would get mad to see the real mark being called differently by HE.

in fairness, it's not that the real mark would be called different. It's that you get a real mark full stop.

Tenez wrote:

Jubbahey wrote:
Eventually, when he understood the umpires call, he looked again at the mark and asked for Hawkeye. The umpire then pointed to his watch and said "out of time mate!", which is probably because he knew that his call was duff, by the time he'd thought about it for a while.

That's not quite what happened. Nalby knows the benefit of making his opponent wait between 2 serves especially at such an important moment. If you look at the picture, as soon as the ball is called out, Isner calls for HE, when it;s Nalby's decision he walks calmly to the line, even though he knew he was going to take the decision anyway. He just tried to put time between the second serve.

It's a real shame it happened at such an important moment but I think that's why Nalby took his time, to put his opponent off. You don't get close to the mark shake your head one way or another and then require HE.

As a server I woudl have been peed off.



As I said I wanted him to win but there is a gamesmanship side in him that I don't like very much.

That's not quite what happened.

I'm afraid that is what quite happened, I was watching the match as it happened and saw with both eyes how it happened, it happened that the umpire did not make it clear what he had called, and what happened next was a tragedy for Nalbandian. There is no set time limit to call for Hawkeye and it is up to the discretion of the umpire in these sort of situations. Here, he chickened out, simple as that and no amount of calling Nalbandian a cheat will change it. I'm not sure why you choose to change everything around to cheating or gamesmanship to any player apart from Federer, but I'm getting a bit bored of your constant sarcastic vitriol. And yes, it is constant and boring, and happens every day. <yawn>

Jubbahey wrote: I'm not sure why you choose to change everything around to cheating or gamesmanship to any player apart from Federer, but I'm getting a bit bored of your constant sarcastic vitriol. And yes, it is constant and boring, and happens every day.

And you were a mod here once!

Talking about a simple referee decision and you lose it once again. Pathetic!

Tenez wrote:

laverfan wrote:IMVHO, clay should also start using HE challenges to be consistent with HC and Grass. Others may differ on this viewpoint.

Of course you cannot use HE on clay. PLayers would get mad to see the real mark being called differently by HE.

IIRC, we have had similar ones on 606.

We should have a separate discussion on this subject, should not hijack this thread.

Tenez wrote:

laverfan wrote:IMVHO, clay should also start using HE challenges to be consistent with HC and Grass. Others may differ on this viewpoint.

Of course you cannot use HE on clay. PLayers would get mad to see the real mark being called differently by HE.

Ha ha! What did Federer say "can't you turn that machine off?"

laverfan wrote:Any one remember the USO 2009 final and Del Potro's lazy HE challenges?

The match supervisor also ruled in the favour of Kader Nouni's call.

It is a shame that the fiasco occurred at crucial juncture. Perhaps a Let call may have been an option, which was never explored.

It is a shame when these "fiascoes" happen. I have seen 3 so far at this AO. Options to help prevent them in the future should be explored.

Regarding the Nalbandian inncident. Reading around the general consensus of opinion appears to be that the umpire made an error and that Nalbandian was wronged. IMO not only was Nalbandian wronged but so were the spectators. It was a great match. It was a shame it ended as it did.

Not too tearful this morning hawkeye? Poor you.

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.

No, that is part of what he said. These links are more complete.

http://www.dailyrecord.co.uk/sport/tennis-news/2012/01/16/australian-open-andy-murray-vows-to-trigger-teen-us-rival-s-temper-in-opening-clash-86908-23701379/

http://bleacherreport.com/articles/1025561-australian-open-2012-andy-murrays-strategy-to-provoke-ryan-harrison-is-genius

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

This is what the Chief Umpire does if necessary isn't it?

carrieg4 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.

No, that is part of what he said. These links are more complete.

http://www.dailyrecord.co.uk/sport/tennis-news/2012/01/16/australian-open-andy-murray-vows-to-trigger-teen-us-rival-s-temper-in-opening-clash-86908-23701379/

http://bleacherreport.com/articles/1025561-australian-open-2012-andy-murrays-strategy-to-provoke-ryan-harrison-is-genius

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

This is what the Chief Umpire does if necessary isn't it?

How surprising yet again our hawkeye or not so hawkeye only provides some of the information.

You must stop this its a bad habit

I also see Llodra didn't follow her tips on how to beat Andy

sportslover wrote:I also see Llodra didn't follow here tips on how to beat Andy

Llodra was never that interested in this match, he's a doubles player with an appetite of moving to the net on easy returns.

Murray will struggle with Kukushkin

carrieg4

I had only read the telegraph report. From your links

“How do I annoy someone legally on court? That’s really how my game has
worked the last five or six years so I’ll just use a lot of variation,
make it difficult for him.

Maybe Murray will wink Harrison's way after an unforced error by the
teenager. Maybe he'll smile after a failed return by Harrison.
A little bit of gamesmanship can go a long way.
All is fair in love, war and tennis, after all.


Part of Murray's game is to annoy his opponant. He says it is. Anyone watching can see he does it. However many seem to think his on court behaviour is self destructive for some reason. Strange because it usually brings out errors from his opponents. When he doesn't win its often blamed on his "poor" on court behaviour instead of the good play of his opponant (and of course his opponents not being affected by it).
There is always much discussion in the media (and amongst some of Murrays fans) about what he should do to "unsettle" his opponents. As he says its not against the rules and of course he isn't the only one to use such "tactics".

The time warning incident was not Murrays fault. Umpires should be aware of how players might want to gain advantage by making their opponent angry or unsettling their play. They should be careful not to get caught up in such tactics.


In the Nalbandian incident another official was called but said that he couldn't overule the umpire. I'm not sure what the rules are at present but on hindsight IMO it would be better if the official could overule the umpire.

Better than annoying the opponent illegally.

Josiah Maiestas wrote:

sportslover wrote:I also see Llodra didn't follow here tips on how to beat Andy

Llodra was never that interested in this match, he's a doubles player with an appetite of moving to the net on easy returns.

Murray will struggle with Kukushkin

Ha ha! I didn't give Llodra any specific advice. These older players are difficult to coach. He insisted on talking to the press wanting his 5 minutes of fame with the obvious results (He was dismissed as a clown). He even said that he expected to lose and that he would just play his usual tactics (so no hitting to the forehand for him). It is a waste of time giving advice if you know a player has no intention of listening.

break_in_the_fifth wrote:Better than annoying the opponent illegally.

Well yes. Although sometimes its difficult to draw that fine line between what is and what isn't in the spirit of the rules.

hawkeye wrote:carrieg4

I had only read the telegraph report. From your links

“How do I annoy someone legally on court? That’s really how my game has
worked the last five or six years so I’ll just use a lot of variation,
make it difficult for him.

Maybe Murray will wink Harrison's way after an unforced error by the
teenager. Maybe he'll smile after a failed return by Harrison.
A little bit of gamesmanship can go a long way.
All is fair in love, war and tennis, after all.


Part of Murray's game is to annoy his opponant. He says it is. Anyone watching can see he does it. However many seem to think his on court behaviour is self destructive for some reason. Strange because it usually brings out errors from his opponents. When he doesn't win its often blamed on his "poor" on court behaviour instead of the good play of his opponant (and of course his opponents not being affected by it).
There is always much discussion in the media (and amongst some of Murrays fans) about what he should do to "unsettle" his opponents. As he says its not against the rules and of course he isn't the only one to use such "tactics".

The time warning incident was not Murrays fault. Umpires should be aware of how players might want to gain advantage by making their opponent angry or unsettling their play. They should be careful not to get caught up in such tactics.


In the Nalbandian incident another official was called but said that he couldn't overule the umpire. I'm not sure what the rules are at present but on hindsight IMO it would be better if the official could overule the umpire.

Re Murray, it is still a lot of conjecture. He clarified what he planned to do to induce a strop from Harrison and his variety does have that effect on many players . With regards to the "incident", if Harrison was consistently breaking the rules then the ruling made by the umpire was right. Tactics are not really relevant in that scenario. In general I believe the rules should be applied equally to all players so as to negate the use of them as tactics but I do not believe that it was a tactic in this case. The Nalbandian case seems pretty clear cut - a real shame for Nalbandian and very unfair.

I've not long come off a 16hr night shift and haven't slept in 30 hours so please excuse any typos / run on sentences. I think my point still comes across

Not in this case though.

carrieg4

Harrison wasn't consistantly breaking the rules. Murray complaining as far as I could make out came completely out of the blue. The commentators thought this too. He targeted a particular game. Evertime Harrison went to serve Murray had a go at the umpire. Murray looked scary angry... and the Umpire gave in. Scary, angry, media powerful players can frighten some of the boldest umpires. At least he didn't swear too...

Your making your point clearly and very impressively after a 16 hour shift... I think you deserve some vodka! (It was you that liked vodka wasn't it?)

Good thought provoking article.

To begin I think umpires do well and get most calls right when it comes to clean/cut in/out, certainly more than players. It is a shame they get so much stick for interpreting ambiguous rules and having to make snap decisions on subjective questions.

"Nalbandian challenged as soon as he realised what had happened" No way. He looked at it for ages and ages and ages. In my opinion the umpire did make the wrong call but it was a tough decision as you can understand his point of view. By the way, did they actually show the hawkeye result for that after the match?

Tomic - the umpire has made a clear mistake here. I assume he wasn't looking at Tomic and missed it which does raise the case that line judges should be allowed to signal to the referee that they want to give an opinion (as in football/soccer). [Appalling sportsmanship from Tomic by the way as well as surely a lack of intelligence to continue to deny his obvious trickery in the after match press conference, discerning fans everywhere have noted this and will not forget in a hurry.]

The Tomic one, called a "sh*tty decision" by Dolgopolov may have changed the match actually. Although I think this is only the case in a small minority of matches. There are more matches in football/soccer decided by poor decisions.

HH a major part of the problem with the Nalbandian overrule was that Nalbandian, Isner and everyone else other than the umpire knew it was out in the first place (Yes Hawkeye would have clearly shown that too).

In other words it wasn't a problem till the umpire made it one. he then added insult to injury with the referee also taking a rather blinkered view. IMHO it was not a surprise that Nalby lost the plot and was still seething during the press conference.

As I've read elsewhere Hawkeye was supposed to get rid of bad calls. It doesn't work though if you've got an umpire who refuses to use it when he's so obviously in the wrong.

hawkeye wrote:carrieg4

Harrison wasn't consistantly breaking the rules. Murray complaining as far as I could make out came completely out of the blue. The commentators thought this too. He targeted a particular game. Evertime Harrison went to serve Murray had a go at the umpire. Murray looked scary angry... and the Umpire gave in. Scary, angry, media powerful players can frighten some of the boldest umpires. At least he didn't swear too...

Your making your point clearly and very impressively after a 16 hour shift... I think you deserve some vodka! (It was you that liked vodka wasn't it?)

Was it out of the blue or was he fed up with it and couldn't hold back any longer? How long had Harrison been taking between points up to that point? I don't know the answers to these questions but it brings me back to my original point of, if there was frequent rule breaking then the ruling is right. If there wasn't then questions can be asked. We can't really say anything until we know for sure.

I do agree that the rules should and must apply equally to all, regardless of influence.

Great idea on the vodka (yes it was me). I may wait another five minutes - somehow I will feel less of a dipsomaniac if it is after midday .

The Tomic one, called a "sh*tty decision" by Dolgopolov may have changed the match actually. Although I think this is only the case in a small minority of matches. There are more matches in football/soccer decided by poor decisions.

Noticed that during the match. Haven't seen Hawkeye castigating Dolgo for swearing at the umpire and saying that he should have had a warning. Another umpiring mistake ?
By the way I think the point should have been replayed and I don't think he should have been warned but going by Hawkeye's previous criteria that's what should have happened.

Calder106 wrote:The Tomic one, called a "sh*tty decision" by Dolgopolov may have changed the match actually. Although I think this is only the case in a small minority of matches. There are more matches in football/soccer decided by poor decisions.

Noticed that during the match. Haven't seen Hawkeye castigating Dolgo for swearing at the umpire and saying that he should have had a warning. Another umpiring mistake ?
By the way I think the point should have been replayed and I don't think he should have been warned but going by Hawkeye's previous criteria that's what should have happened.

The swearing thing is interesting. It is against the rules and an Umpire can give violation warnings and ultimately start deducting points if it continues. Rarely does this happen unless a player swears at an official.

When playing an opponant who swears at himself or his coach, family or friends a player could complain to the umpire. Would the Umpire then have to issue a warning? This is something that could be used to make an opponant angry.

I don't approve of such tactics otherwise I would be tempted to include it in my "Advice For Andy's Opponents". Although the only players who perhaps have a similar leval of media clout as Murray (Nadal and Federer) and so would be able to get away with such a tactic would never use it. They would be way too proud.

Djokovic of course is ranked much higher than Murray but falls well short of him as far as media clout. It would be disastrous for him if he tried such a sneaky move...

Umpires should be aware that players may be using such tactics and strong enough not to get intimidated.

Just when I think you are mellowing hawkeye

AM could definitely do with improving his language - though I dread to think what a lot of players who's first languages are lesser known get away with.

I have noticed that Murray has got in trouble when yelling at himself to focus. Not sure if it's his accent but it sometimes gets misinterpreted ............

He uses enough real bad language without this being added to the mix

Are you a politician Hawkeye ? Get asked one question, gloss over it, then go on to seperate point which meets yor agenda.

carrieg4

Ha ha! Can you imagine Murray is serving at break point down in the 5th set against Kukushkin when Kukushkin takes my coaching advice (for the second time) and complains to the umpire about Murray swearing again.
The umpire gives Murray a point penalty and Kukushkin the match.

.... afterwoods much time is spent replaying the video to try and figure out what Murray said. Was it something else or was it just "focus". Everyone would have a theory!

Don't worry this is just an imaginary scene. I would never advise Kukushkin to use such a tactic. BTW I am always "mellow".

Saying that something is a sh*tty decision is not as bad as saying that you are a sh*t umpire. You are not actually swearing AT the umpire or at least not insulting him, it is just a colourful way of saying you disagree with the decision.

It was not particularly wise of Dolgo to use that language and it irked the umpire but he did right for me to swallow it up rather than inflame the situation further. The umpire may have realised by then that he may or may not have made the right call. Dolgo can be forgiven easily for this when we understood that he was right.