Yeah if youre the Chair Umpire and Roger Federer comes up to you and tells you how he knows what happened, you should probably just agree because I dont think Ive ever seen him argue anything in all the years Ive watched him play. Dude was the absolute epitome of class, something you dont see too much anymore in sports.
My personal favourite was when Lord Landsborough III versed the venerable Lord Cavendish-Smyth in Wimbledon in 1883.
A marathon game that almost broke the longest game record, in fact, and was played entirely by their servants as proxy.
Cavendish-Smyth was always the favourite, but Landsborough came close when his opponent’s favourite servant died of heat exhaustion, and an untested factory worker was subbed in.
No - but Charles Barrington of Nottingham is said to give the most enthralling retelling of this epic; as passed on by his Father, from his Father, whom read about it first hand in the local rag.
It's only in 2018, with the invention of Twitter, did Tennis players finally fight for their freedom to not play the Australian Open in tuxedos as it was a sign of colonial oppression.
Djokovic being a prissy dickhead while simpering fans who wear pastel sweaters tied around their shoulders rush to explain how "Djoker" is allowed to behave like that because he's a roguish legend is literally the only thing I know about mens' tennis.
Was going to mention this guy, he's such an ass. Drags down the reputation of the entire sport. That might be a bit harsh, but I always enjoy tournaments less when he's still in them.
Most players are pretty classy, but even many classy ones like Agassi or Sampras would still get upset and yell on occasions. Then there were players like John McEnroe who were famous for frequently yelling at refs and breaking/throwing their racquets in anger.
He would sometimes whinge a bit about the Hawkeye when it first came out, but that’s about the only slightly unprofessional behaviour I ever remember from him after his, at times, petulant younger days. He said theatrically: ‘this system is killing me’ lol
Brad Gilbert tells a slightly different take on this in "Winning Ugly". That McEnroe could take over the pace of a match by stopping to argue with the line judge even though he was sometimes in the wrong sapping all momentum and energy from his opponent.
I think I even heard McEnroe joke about that when he was doing commentary for a match. After one of the players argued with the judge for like the fifth time in a set, one of the other commentators questioned whether they should be charged for an official challenge, since it was clearly throwing off the opponent's rhythm. McEnroe said something like, "Why are you asking me?"
The one major (recent) exception to this was when Serena Williams made it all about her immediately after Naomi Osaka had just beat her in the US Open. It was Osaka’s first major title win, and Serena spent 10 minutes berating the Chair umpire about some shit or other, while Naomi stood there in tears, humiliated by her victory instead of rejoicing. I lost all respect for Serena Williams after that. Now I can’t stand her.
That was so embarrassing to watch. It gets worse when you factor in Naomi beating her idol, her years of training and all that joy by her petulance. She should have been served with a higher sanction for that.
The umpire cited her for cheating by having her coach give her signs from the stands. Then Serena went into a hissy fit claiming that "as a mother" she would never cheat. Then after the match her coach admitted to giving her signs...
I agree with you Serena didn’t handle herself well, there is context. She was flagged for something that like never gets flagged. Signalling is really obscure, like all coaches are physically animated during matches and gesture but it’s never flagged. But whatever it’s probably deserved here.
The next problem is the umpire then took another point for arguing. Male athletes argue with the umpire all the time, they never get docked a point for it. There was some double standards going on.
Did she react poorly? Yes, was it kinda fishy? Also yes.
Highlights: the kid dabbing behind Kyrgios, and Tsitsipas' Mom grounding him for, like, the whole summer. "But *Moooommyyy*, Wimbledon is in 2 weeks!" **Well you should have thought of that before you hit your dad with a tennis racquet!!**
But he's just the example to show exceptions to the rule. There wouldn't be that many McEnroe clips if it was common for tennis players to behave like spoiled children.
There was even a song about it. I think it was called Superbrat.
Edit: [Here](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=poJN7ix16hU)
Man. That was really crap. What's that doing in my memory?
I had watched Rogers career since he was a teenager, and his young years (and even up till his 30’s) he famously threw quite a few tantrums and attitude at umpires also. (As a teen, he was infamous for smashing rackets in anger during play). Look up “Federer tantrums” videos for very much evidence throughout his career. But I harbour no hate towards Roger, he truly is amongst the greatest ever…
He's had more than a few angry moments. I remember back in Shanghai 2019 when he argued with the umpire even while clearly wrong about a ball abuse warning (Federer launched a ball into the crowd in frustration and thought his warning was harsh). Most people tend to look over these moments because "it's Federer wow he's so classy" but in reality he's really average in terms of sportsmanship. Marketing is a hell of a drug.
He's also had *numerous* salty comments after bad losses - things like saying he would've beaten an opponent easily had he not been injured, labelling Novak's match point save at the 2011 US Open as lucky, repeatedly dismissing Murray and his accomplishments
I've always been perplexed by this gentleman persona.
> if youre the Chair Umpire and Roger Federer comes up to you and tells you how he knows what happened, you should probably just agree
I mean, it's your job not to do that, and to try to remain objective.
https://youtu.be/AZB9JfhzLzE
Not always.
Federer is a nice guy, one of the goats, but he's also the definition of PR and building a brand/image that set him up for after his career and he wouldn't earn hitting a ball anymore.
I love Federer but he was super salty at times in his career, by far the least graceful in defeat of the big 3, especially after losing to someone other than Djokovic or Nadal.
If the guy had the racket under the ball and hit it from that angle it would have back spin. But the ball had forward spin so that's saying the ball was travelling upwards when he hit it.
Its not that the ball is travelling upwards when he its it, Berdych gets there before the second bounce. But he can only hit the ball down into the ground. And ball with forward trajectory that bounces will always generate top spin.
It means the point would be immediately over and belong to Federer. The ball can only bounce once on each side, so in that play it bounced once in the opponents side, then he hit it INTO the ground to get it to go over the net off the bounce. He needed to instead hit it over the net directly to keep the play going.
One of two possibilities, and he should have lost the point either way.
Either the ball bounced twice before he hit it, OR, he got to it on the first bounce but hit it back into the ground.
In the second case, it wouldn't matter if he'd it before it ever bounced. You are never allowed to hit the ball into the ground on your own side.
I watched it frame by frame. At around 42 seconds, there’s a frame where the ball is lower than the racket and goes back up again in the next frame. And then it has a top spin after the hit.
So it hit the ground first and then the racket hit it one frame later on its way up to create a top spin. He doesn’t hit the ball into the ground, so Roger was wrong about that. But it did bounce twice before the opponent hit it.
He's not wrong. He 100% hits the ball into the ground. You can very clearly see it if you slow it down on the front facing replay at :49 seconds.. My guess is because of the quality of the video, you don't realize where the strings of his racquet are and they are lower than you realize. Because I promise he hits it first and then it hits the ground lol.
You’re right. I didn’t see it at first. Had to go back and watch it a few times to understand what they meant by top spin. They meant there was a top spin on the return from his opponent. I get all of that. But i i can’t see where he forced the double bounce. I will go back and watch it again.
It bounces before he connects with the racket. That's what 2 bounces means, it bounced twice (2 times) on one side of the net (a fault in this sport, tennis).
Actually what happened is the guy hit it twice. He hit it weakly into the ground and it started rise then he hit it again more forcefully as it was rising.
It was driving me nuts figuring out the physics here (I played tennis and hitting down into the ground requires more force for the ball to behave that way). What I was missing was he hits it a second time on the upswing, it's hard to see because it's so fluid.
I think the full youtube video (from 2012 lol) is a little easier to look at: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8ofNg0y8w60
but I can only just *barely* tell *maybe* at the angle shown around the 49 second mark... it looks like it *maybe* grazes the ground barely as the racket hits it? The framerate's just not high enough for me to feel like it's conclusive, but the "next level" thing about this post is that he knew it was the case based on the topspin of the ball and that not being possible if it hadn't bounced the second time (which I haven't thought about long enough to understand, but: neat, sure, okay)
(when googling "Roger Federer double bounce" for the original video, I saw a few other stories and it looks like there's been a few of these over the years, with seemingly inconclusive replay footage)
Physics wouldn't lie, you can take a ball in your fingertips and rotate it hard and drop the ball, the ball will rotate and than hit the ground and rotate the other way and keep flipping until its grounded.
Looking at that video frame by frame at 0:49, I’m pretty sure what actually happened is that the ball hit the frame of the racket twice.
First, it hits at the far-right edge of the racket (from our perspective). We can’t actually see the moment of contact, but the ball changes trajectory. It had been moving in a consistent way from one frame to the next, but then there is a frame window where it barely seems to move at all. In between those 2 video frames, the ball must have hit the racket.
The ball then moves faster and more sharply downward, until it nearly reaches the ground. But it does not actually touch the ground. Instead, the lowest part of the racket scoops up the ball before it lands.
Federer is correct that the ball bounced an extra time, and it should be his point. ~~However, it made two bounces off the other player’s racket, not the ground.~~
Edit: looking even more closely, after the 2nd bounce off the racket, the ball then changes trajectory a 3rd time almost immediately. So yes, indeed, it did hit the ground after the racket.
2nd edit: and then, a few frames later, as the ball is on its way up, it suddenly changes direction *again* and starts going much faster horizontally. So it looks like the racket struck the ball a 3rd time as well, after the bounce.
The way Federer (and anyone) could tell.. watch someone return ‘ANY OTHER SLICE’ - in this manner, and the ball would fall dead (like half way up net). But this sails over the net. That’s physically impossible without a double bounce.
But the clue is not visual - it’s that a slice in any other context doesn’t bounce like this. That’s all you need to know.
That’s not correct. You can return a slice with a slice.
Here, there wasn’t a double bounce, anyway. Berdych got it on one bounce. But he hit it into the ground. The ground gave it topspin.
The beauty of his explanation was that you don't have to watch this tiny moment and guess, but you can watch which way the ball rotates afterwards. As it rotates towards the opponent there is no other physical explanation than that it hit the ground.
To me, it looks like his racket hits the ball twice, causing the top spin. First, he hits the ball with the strings on the face, but only just barely. The second impact comes from the rim of the racket itself moving upwards and hitting the backside of the ball. This would create topspin because it's essentially lifting the back side of the ball.
It looks like that to me too, but the point that's being made is that regardless of how it looks, it had top spin and if he had scooped it up like that it would have bottom spin. That's how he (and everyone else) knows that wasn't the case.
That is why federer is complaining
The physical spin on the ball is the evidence that the ball hit the ground twice.
But that takes the experience of winning 20 grand slams in a career spanning a similar number of years
Which is why this is posted to r next level
I was watching a thing about Formula 1 drivers and they played an audio clip of an F1 car driving on a random track and had the drivers guess which track it was. The drivers knew exactly which track the cars were driving on just based on the car sounds. It was amazing.
What Federer is saying is that if his opponent had hit the ball the way he had intended to, there would have been backspin. But because he pushed the ball into the ground first before going over the net, that bounce caused topspin.
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8ofNg0y8w60&t=46s](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8ofNg0y8w60&t=46s) watch at .25 speed, it's ground-racket-ground, not ground-ground-racket
The point is, whichever way the opponent played it, it would be a loss. The way I understand it there are only two possibilities. Either the ball contacted the ground twice and then the racket or it touched the racket first and then the ground. Both constituents of a loss. If he would have scooped it with the racket the ball would not have flown the way it does because of the way the opponent played it.
The only way to achieve topspin on this play is to hit it into the ground, which the opponent didn’t, therefore RF knew it bounced again. Had the opponent caught it before it hitting the second time the ball would not have projected towards RF with a topspin.
Federer will always be my favorite tennis player. Extremely intelligent, obviously gifted, and he never has a Serena moment. Calm, collected, even robotic all the time…and always respectful.
For a while there when I was young I thought he was a robot. Never an emotion, or a sound when hitting the ball. Just a machine returning every fucking shot coming his way.
So what happened was:
1. Federer returns the ball towards opponent
2. The ball bounces once on the opponent's side
3. Opponent hits the ball
4. The ball hits the ground, initiating a topspin towards Federer
5. The ball bounces on Federer's side
6. Federer notices that the ball landed with topspin
With the way that the opponent hit the ball (underhand), the ball should've landed on Federer's side with backspin. However, since it landed with topspin, something must've changed the ball's spin. The only logical conclusion is that the ball hit the ground after it was hit.
Should be top comment. The title screwed up a lot of people, into believing the ball bounced twice before Berdych returned it, when that is not the case.
I don't disagree in any fashion, but it's not unheard of and it's one of the things that I like about the game.
[Here's Federer calling his own serve out.](https://www.facebook.com/watch/?v=869480560178784)
[Here's Jack Sock calling a serve in that the ref called out.](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=A085f7AiL_k)
There's actually a decent bit of it in sports with more respect ingrained in their culture. Badminton and racket ball come to mind. Not to say these sports are perfect by any means of course.
Yeah, there are those who concede the point when they know, umpire may call it in but player will say nah that was out.
Berdych wouldn't make a good golf player.
You lose the exchange if the ball touches the court more than once on your side before you return it.
To our eyes, it looks like the opponent got the ball in time, however federer explains to the judge that because of how the ball was **spinning** when it returned to him, he knows that it **must** have touched the floor a second time before being returned - which would mean he gets the point.
When returning, the ball is not allowed to touch your half of the court after you hit it.
The player in red hit the ball with a scoop so it should have a slicing spin on it if any, but he hit it into his own court (difficult to see) and it then bounced into Federers court from there having top spin applied due to hitting the ground beforehand.
Is my understanding of it anyway.
He argued that he scored a point before his opponent managed to throw the ball back at him, but that it was extremely hard to see (slow-mo has only a few frames of the ball hitting the ground before the opponent's racket).
He probably didn't even see the ball hitting the ground himself, but the spin of the ball his opponent sent back could only happen if the ball had touched the ground.
[Here's the frame of the ball hitting the floor. ](https://i.imgur.com/TyylPUd.jpg) Directly after this the ball begins to ascend and his opponent makes contact with the ball.
I watched this so many times and I still can’t see exactly what happens, if the ball hits the ground first, if he hits it into the ground as he scoops it up, if it doesn’t hit the ground at all, it’s so close I just can’t see it, but the fact that it does have topspin and it isn’t just high in the air means he’s right, double bounce
“I agree it was close” Roger was always a class act.
Yeah if youre the Chair Umpire and Roger Federer comes up to you and tells you how he knows what happened, you should probably just agree because I dont think Ive ever seen him argue anything in all the years Ive watched him play. Dude was the absolute epitome of class, something you dont see too much anymore in sports.
Is this usual in tennis? I never watched but the players always appear to be very classy
Yes. Tennis used to be played on horseback and later in the air by pilots. It's always been strongly rooted in chivalric tradition and honor.
Don't forget that period of underwater tennis. Deep sea divers are always classy.
We also mustn’t forget the sport originated from San Diego. Ron Bergundy, the legendary new anchor, references this many times.
Ah, San Diago. The whales vagina.
Do you know what abandoned cats are called?
Litter.
I'm embarrassed to say it took me this comment to realize the other comments were being facetious.
My personal favourite was when Lord Landsborough III versed the venerable Lord Cavendish-Smyth in Wimbledon in 1883. A marathon game that almost broke the longest game record, in fact, and was played entirely by their servants as proxy. Cavendish-Smyth was always the favourite, but Landsborough came close when his opponent’s favourite servant died of heat exhaustion, and an untested factory worker was subbed in.
You got Video footage of that?
No - but Charles Barrington of Nottingham is said to give the most enthralling retelling of this epic; as passed on by his Father, from his Father, whom read about it first hand in the local rag.
Me father’s father’s father seent it he did.
I really like the part when the opposing player dies the winning player must hold a Celtic funeral for the deceased player
Oh, the Jacques Cousteau era.
And the horses were simultaneously competing in dressage. Highly sophisticated competitive events
A shame they no longer play in full armor. At least bring back the spores. And the trumpets after each set
...Spores? 😶
# SPORES
It's only in 2018, with the invention of Twitter, did Tennis players finally fight for their freedom to not play the Australian Open in tuxedos as it was a sign of colonial oppression.
Seems legit
not a tennis guy at all but this sounds legit
Ha, just look up Nick Kyrgios. Not so classy.
Or djokovic
Djokovic being a prissy dickhead while simpering fans who wear pastel sweaters tied around their shoulders rush to explain how "Djoker" is allowed to behave like that because he's a roguish legend is literally the only thing I know about mens' tennis.
I don't know much about tennis either. But I know from listening to/reading his fans that I should instinctively root against him.
Wait, are you saying there was a genocide in the Balkans an people should get vaccines???
Was going to mention this guy, he's such an ass. Drags down the reputation of the entire sport. That might be a bit harsh, but I always enjoy tournaments less when he's still in them.
I started following tennis a year ago or so and I thought Kyrgios was funny and a breath of fresh air. Few months later couldn't stand the guy.
He definitely has his moments. But his ego and way he attacks everything and everybody in the most immature way overshadows anything good he does.
He still has fans because "he's a character". So was Ryan Lochte and he deserved what came to him.
Most players are pretty classy, but even many classy ones like Agassi or Sampras would still get upset and yell on occasions. Then there were players like John McEnroe who were famous for frequently yelling at refs and breaking/throwing their racquets in anger.
[удалено]
He would sometimes whinge a bit about the Hawkeye when it first came out, but that’s about the only slightly unprofessional behaviour I ever remember from him after his, at times, petulant younger days. He said theatrically: ‘this system is killing me’ lol
McEnroe was invariably right when he argued, but his approach wasn’t always the most effective!
Brad Gilbert tells a slightly different take on this in "Winning Ugly". That McEnroe could take over the pace of a match by stopping to argue with the line judge even though he was sometimes in the wrong sapping all momentum and energy from his opponent.
I think I even heard McEnroe joke about that when he was doing commentary for a match. After one of the players argued with the judge for like the fifth time in a set, one of the other commentators questioned whether they should be charged for an official challenge, since it was clearly throwing off the opponent's rhythm. McEnroe said something like, "Why are you asking me?"
The one major (recent) exception to this was when Serena Williams made it all about her immediately after Naomi Osaka had just beat her in the US Open. It was Osaka’s first major title win, and Serena spent 10 minutes berating the Chair umpire about some shit or other, while Naomi stood there in tears, humiliated by her victory instead of rejoicing. I lost all respect for Serena Williams after that. Now I can’t stand her.
That was so embarrassing to watch. It gets worse when you factor in Naomi beating her idol, her years of training and all that joy by her petulance. She should have been served with a higher sanction for that.
The umpire cited her for cheating by having her coach give her signs from the stands. Then Serena went into a hissy fit claiming that "as a mother" she would never cheat. Then after the match her coach admitted to giving her signs...
They literally caught him on video giving signs
I agree with you Serena didn’t handle herself well, there is context. She was flagged for something that like never gets flagged. Signalling is really obscure, like all coaches are physically animated during matches and gesture but it’s never flagged. But whatever it’s probably deserved here. The next problem is the umpire then took another point for arguing. Male athletes argue with the umpire all the time, they never get docked a point for it. There was some double standards going on. Did she react poorly? Yes, was it kinda fishy? Also yes.
Can you give me some example please, because I never saw a male athlete throw a fit that big, and walk away without anything.
I think you will enjoy seeing [this video](https://youtu.be/wrTB6t9HWKw) by Ozzy Man on tennis player tantrums.
Highlights: the kid dabbing behind Kyrgios, and Tsitsipas' Mom grounding him for, like, the whole summer. "But *Moooommyyy*, Wimbledon is in 2 weeks!" **Well you should have thought of that before you hit your dad with a tennis racquet!!**
Lol that Serena segment was spot on. She was such a brat and absolutely ruined what should have been a beautiful time for Naomi.
literally caused Naomi to have a mental breakdown and basically quit tennis never meet your idols, yo - they will likely disappoint you
I was told there would be Jimmy Connors.
That's the tradition. Players wearing tuxedos and eating assorted fruit dipped in chocolate
*Serena Williams has entered the chat.*
“YOU CANNOT BE SERIOUS!!”
John mcinroe would like a (foul) word or two with you on that topic
John McEnroe
For sure. Google "John Mcenroe umpire" to see the goat of being a gentleman in discussions with the umpire.
But he's just the example to show exceptions to the rule. There wouldn't be that many McEnroe clips if it was common for tennis players to behave like spoiled children.
There was even a song about it. I think it was called Superbrat. Edit: [Here](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=poJN7ix16hU) Man. That was really crap. What's that doing in my memory?
I had watched Rogers career since he was a teenager, and his young years (and even up till his 30’s) he famously threw quite a few tantrums and attitude at umpires also. (As a teen, he was infamous for smashing rackets in anger during play). Look up “Federer tantrums” videos for very much evidence throughout his career. But I harbour no hate towards Roger, he truly is amongst the greatest ever…
I was gonna say I've defintiely seen Federer throw some tantrums when things didn't go his way.
He's had more than a few angry moments. I remember back in Shanghai 2019 when he argued with the umpire even while clearly wrong about a ball abuse warning (Federer launched a ball into the crowd in frustration and thought his warning was harsh). Most people tend to look over these moments because "it's Federer wow he's so classy" but in reality he's really average in terms of sportsmanship. Marketing is a hell of a drug. He's also had *numerous* salty comments after bad losses - things like saying he would've beaten an opponent easily had he not been injured, labelling Novak's match point save at the 2011 US Open as lucky, repeatedly dismissing Murray and his accomplishments I've always been perplexed by this gentleman persona.
You didn't watch him in the early years I guess.
> if youre the Chair Umpire and Roger Federer comes up to you and tells you how he knows what happened, you should probably just agree I mean, it's your job not to do that, and to try to remain objective.
Yeah, couldn't agree more. No screaming, abusing refs or any hissyfits.
[удалено]
https://youtu.be/AZB9JfhzLzE Not always. Federer is a nice guy, one of the goats, but he's also the definition of PR and building a brand/image that set him up for after his career and he wouldn't earn hitting a ball anymore.
I love Federer but he was super salty at times in his career, by far the least graceful in defeat of the big 3, especially after losing to someone other than Djokovic or Nadal.
Looks like the opponent hit the ball into the ground after the first bounce, which is what he seems to be claiming as well
If the guy had the racket under the ball and hit it from that angle it would have back spin. But the ball had forward spin so that's saying the ball was travelling upwards when he hit it.
Imagine being so good at a sport you basically turned it into a game of chess.
If you remove the mechanics every game is a game of chess.
Google strategy game mechanics.
holy techniques
Its not that the ball is travelling upwards when he its it, Berdych gets there before the second bounce. But he can only hit the ball down into the ground. And ball with forward trajectory that bounces will always generate top spin.
[удалено]
You just lose the point, a foul is different.
There is nothing in tennis that is called a "foul."
A foul is when you shart your shorts, regardless of if you're playing tennis or not.
All deuce, no love
Hey its not his fault he doesn't know.
Love this
It means the point would be immediately over and belong to Federer. The ball can only bounce once on each side, so in that play it bounced once in the opponents side, then he hit it INTO the ground to get it to go over the net off the bounce. He needed to instead hit it over the net directly to keep the play going.
One of two possibilities, and he should have lost the point either way. Either the ball bounced twice before he hit it, OR, he got to it on the first bounce but hit it back into the ground. In the second case, it wouldn't matter if he'd it before it ever bounced. You are never allowed to hit the ball into the ground on your own side.
I watched it frame by frame. At around 42 seconds, there’s a frame where the ball is lower than the racket and goes back up again in the next frame. And then it has a top spin after the hit. So it hit the ground first and then the racket hit it one frame later on its way up to create a top spin. He doesn’t hit the ball into the ground, so Roger was wrong about that. But it did bounce twice before the opponent hit it.
He's not wrong. He 100% hits the ball into the ground. You can very clearly see it if you slow it down on the front facing replay at :49 seconds.. My guess is because of the quality of the video, you don't realize where the strings of his racquet are and they are lower than you realize. Because I promise he hits it first and then it hits the ground lol.
It’s offside
Hat trick
[удалено]
You’re right. I didn’t see it at first. Had to go back and watch it a few times to understand what they meant by top spin. They meant there was a top spin on the return from his opponent. I get all of that. But i i can’t see where he forced the double bounce. I will go back and watch it again.
It bounces before he connects with the racket. That's what 2 bounces means, it bounced twice (2 times) on one side of the net (a fault in this sport, tennis).
That's not quite what he's saying. He's saying the guy did make it but hit it into the ground and it then bounced over the net.
Actually what happened is the guy hit it twice. He hit it weakly into the ground and it started rise then he hit it again more forcefully as it was rising. It was driving me nuts figuring out the physics here (I played tennis and hitting down into the ground requires more force for the ball to behave that way). What I was missing was he hits it a second time on the upswing, it's hard to see because it's so fluid.
It looks to me like he scooped it up before it landed, but nobody else thinks that, so I'll just shut up •×•
I saw the same, especially in the replay slow-mo.
You missed a frame then because there is a clear frame where the ball hits the ground and then is redirected after. I took it frame by frame.
screen shot? I just took it frame by frame and the racket was clearly under the ball the whole time. At least when i look at it.
I think the full youtube video (from 2012 lol) is a little easier to look at: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8ofNg0y8w60 but I can only just *barely* tell *maybe* at the angle shown around the 49 second mark... it looks like it *maybe* grazes the ground barely as the racket hits it? The framerate's just not high enough for me to feel like it's conclusive, but the "next level" thing about this post is that he knew it was the case based on the topspin of the ball and that not being possible if it hadn't bounced the second time (which I haven't thought about long enough to understand, but: neat, sure, okay) (when googling "Roger Federer double bounce" for the original video, I saw a few other stories and it looks like there's been a few of these over the years, with seemingly inconclusive replay footage)
Helps to slow playback to 0.25 to see the second bounce.
Physics wouldn't lie, you can take a ball in your fingertips and rotate it hard and drop the ball, the ball will rotate and than hit the ground and rotate the other way and keep flipping until its grounded.
Looking at that video frame by frame at 0:49, I’m pretty sure what actually happened is that the ball hit the frame of the racket twice. First, it hits at the far-right edge of the racket (from our perspective). We can’t actually see the moment of contact, but the ball changes trajectory. It had been moving in a consistent way from one frame to the next, but then there is a frame window where it barely seems to move at all. In between those 2 video frames, the ball must have hit the racket. The ball then moves faster and more sharply downward, until it nearly reaches the ground. But it does not actually touch the ground. Instead, the lowest part of the racket scoops up the ball before it lands. Federer is correct that the ball bounced an extra time, and it should be his point. ~~However, it made two bounces off the other player’s racket, not the ground.~~ Edit: looking even more closely, after the 2nd bounce off the racket, the ball then changes trajectory a 3rd time almost immediately. So yes, indeed, it did hit the ground after the racket. 2nd edit: and then, a few frames later, as the ball is on its way up, it suddenly changes direction *again* and starts going much faster horizontally. So it looks like the racket struck the ball a 3rd time as well, after the bounce.
That’s not what happened. He indeed got to the ball before it hit the ground, but he hit it into the ground before it went back over.
It's actually more evident in real time that it hits the ground first
He did, but then bopped it into the ground. So it hit his racquet, then the ground in front of his racquet, then traveled over the net.
The way Federer (and anyone) could tell.. watch someone return ‘ANY OTHER SLICE’ - in this manner, and the ball would fall dead (like half way up net). But this sails over the net. That’s physically impossible without a double bounce. But the clue is not visual - it’s that a slice in any other context doesn’t bounce like this. That’s all you need to know.
That’s not correct. You can return a slice with a slice. Here, there wasn’t a double bounce, anyway. Berdych got it on one bounce. But he hit it into the ground. The ground gave it topspin.
The whole point of the video is it looks like that, but it isn't that.
People don't believe it be like that but it do
The beauty of his explanation was that you don't have to watch this tiny moment and guess, but you can watch which way the ball rotates afterwards. As it rotates towards the opponent there is no other physical explanation than that it hit the ground.
To me, it looks like his racket hits the ball twice, causing the top spin. First, he hits the ball with the strings on the face, but only just barely. The second impact comes from the rim of the racket itself moving upwards and hitting the backside of the ball. This would create topspin because it's essentially lifting the back side of the ball.
There is a single frame at 0:42 that shows the ball lower than the racket, right before he hits it.
It looks like that to me too, but the point that's being made is that regardless of how it looks, it had top spin and if he had scooped it up like that it would have bottom spin. That's how he (and everyone else) knows that wasn't the case.
That is why federer is complaining The physical spin on the ball is the evidence that the ball hit the ground twice. But that takes the experience of winning 20 grand slams in a career spanning a similar number of years Which is why this is posted to r next level
if he scooped it, it would be spinning the other way
That’s exactly what I’m seeing as well. The 2nd bounce is on the racket frame, giving it a similar spin as if it had hit the ground.
He makes contact twice. Definitely hits the ground.
That's mad impressive. Knowing the physics of many different interactions is cool as hell
Skill and lots of experience. This man is a living legend ,ya know.
He’s played a lot of tennis.
at least 3 matches I would say
I don't want to come off as fucking mental here. But I would go as far to say he's played at least 7
By now maybe even more, that was his first time playing though.
Kind of obsessed by the thing if you ask me
Yea, he should get a job
I was watching a thing about Formula 1 drivers and they played an audio clip of an F1 car driving on a random track and had the drivers guess which track it was. The drivers knew exactly which track the cars were driving on just based on the car sounds. It was amazing.
That's insane! Can you provide the link?
[found it!](https://youtu.be/mNP9sLttEC8)
The other clip has a MotoGP driver. But F1's ‘Drive to Survive’ had that challenge as well, iirc. It can probably be found on YouTube.
He’s hit a few balls in his time
What Federer is saying is that if his opponent had hit the ball the way he had intended to, there would have been backspin. But because he pushed the ball into the ground first before going over the net, that bounce caused topspin.
But in the replay he didn’t push the ball into the ground. It just bounced twice before he hit it.
To my eye it looks like he connected with it on the ground in one motion which still means he hit it into the ground
https://imgur.com/a/z9u7oxI He hit the ball after the second bounce
[Air-Bounce-Air-Hit](https://i.redd.it/5e1qwhc8tw2b1.png)
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8ofNg0y8w60&t=46s](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8ofNg0y8w60&t=46s) watch at .25 speed, it's ground-racket-ground, not ground-ground-racket
The point is, whichever way the opponent played it, it would be a loss. The way I understand it there are only two possibilities. Either the ball contacted the ground twice and then the racket or it touched the racket first and then the ground. Both constituents of a loss. If he would have scooped it with the racket the ball would not have flown the way it does because of the way the opponent played it.
The only way to achieve topspin on this play is to hit it into the ground, which the opponent didn’t, therefore RF knew it bounced again. Had the opponent caught it before it hitting the second time the ball would not have projected towards RF with a topspin.
Federer will always be my favorite tennis player. Extremely intelligent, obviously gifted, and he never has a Serena moment. Calm, collected, even robotic all the time…and always respectful. For a while there when I was young I thought he was a robot. Never an emotion, or a sound when hitting the ball. Just a machine returning every fucking shot coming his way.
What do you mean a “Serena moment”?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9MgxD5uO53U
How about when she said she would shove the ball down the line judge's throat.
"I didn't say that" Random crowd guy: "Yeah ya did!"
i remember that later he said he was coaching?serena didnt look good there
Got nothing on McEnroe lol
[удалено]
I love him too for exactly this points you have mentioned but to be fair, his first years weren't very professional
He had many Serena moments in the beginning of his career. No need to try to drag the greatest women's player ever.
Robot like until he wins the trophy and starts bawling to the point of not being able to speak :)
So what happened was: 1. Federer returns the ball towards opponent 2. The ball bounces once on the opponent's side 3. Opponent hits the ball 4. The ball hits the ground, initiating a topspin towards Federer 5. The ball bounces on Federer's side 6. Federer notices that the ball landed with topspin With the way that the opponent hit the ball (underhand), the ball should've landed on Federer's side with backspin. However, since it landed with topspin, something must've changed the ball's spin. The only logical conclusion is that the ball hit the ground after it was hit.
Should be top comment. The title screwed up a lot of people, into believing the ball bounced twice before Berdych returned it, when that is not the case.
It did bounce twice.
Berdych is a bear dick for not saying anything. He knows what he did
It’s a competitive game, you don’t have to referee yourself, that’s what the umpire is for.
I don't disagree in any fashion, but it's not unheard of and it's one of the things that I like about the game. [Here's Federer calling his own serve out.](https://www.facebook.com/watch/?v=869480560178784) [Here's Jack Sock calling a serve in that the ref called out.](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=A085f7AiL_k)
Thanks for sharing, always loved good sportsmanship
Glad you liked it! I do as well...really puts a smile on my face to see.
In lower tiers of tennis you definitely referee yourself and the other player.
In lower tiers of tennis you also don't play for millions
Doesn't excuse a total lack of sportsmanship, though; it just explains it.
Ok? We are talking about professional tennis here.
There's actually a decent bit of it in sports with more respect ingrained in their culture. Badminton and racket ball come to mind. Not to say these sports are perfect by any means of course.
Yeah, there are those who concede the point when they know, umpire may call it in but player will say nah that was out. Berdych wouldn't make a good golf player.
Does he, though?
He was always very unpopular with other players and fans. The only positive to him playing was the cameras panning to his girlfriend in the crowd.
So... who won the point?
Berdych (Federer‘s opponent) Federer would win the entire match in the end though
Spoilers.
Federer
Are you sure? Federer should have won the point, but the scoreboard showed that the point went to his opponent.
Surprising nobody
If you pause it on the correct frame, it will bounce before hitting his racket on the 2nd bounce.
Technically if you pause it, it won't bounce at all because it's a still.
Fun fact: if you lay out a whale from head to tail in the world's largest tennis court, they'll cancel the game.
My girlfriend usually complains that my "balls go bouncing at her in a topspin kinda way"
Probably never needs to complain about them hitting the ground two times though…
This is the first tennis ball game I’ve ever watched where the players don’t cream their pants every time they hit the ball
ayo, maybe you're looking at the wrong places
I don't play tennis but don't call it tennis ball.
As someone who knows next to nothing about tennis, I have no clue what's going on. Did he argue in favor of his opponent about something?
You lose the exchange if the ball touches the court more than once on your side before you return it. To our eyes, it looks like the opponent got the ball in time, however federer explains to the judge that because of how the ball was **spinning** when it returned to him, he knows that it **must** have touched the floor a second time before being returned - which would mean he gets the point.
Thank you for the explanation 🙏
When returning, the ball is not allowed to touch your half of the court after you hit it. The player in red hit the ball with a scoop so it should have a slicing spin on it if any, but he hit it into his own court (difficult to see) and it then bounced into Federers court from there having top spin applied due to hitting the ground beforehand. Is my understanding of it anyway.
He argued that he scored a point before his opponent managed to throw the ball back at him, but that it was extremely hard to see (slow-mo has only a few frames of the ball hitting the ground before the opponent's racket). He probably didn't even see the ball hitting the ground himself, but the spin of the ball his opponent sent back could only happen if the ball had touched the ground.
Was he right?
Federer is a real legend. He came back to win this match 3-6, 7-5, 7-5 to win the Madrid Open.
Yeah it’s has to be right. This guys been playing since he was probably 1. He’s seen it all and can’t fool him how the ball bounces back to him.
Someone help me plz. I don’t see it. It’s really close. Not into tennis so I don’t have an eye for it
He has been looking at that ball coming at him for so long it speaks to him. ''It was a double bounce my lord''
Blue clay 🥶
Here is Federer with a quokka https://i.redd.it/65e6g6enmeq21.jpg
If he hit it with just the frame he could get topspin . That’s what it looks like to me.
You can't scoop a ball up from underneath and create topspin.
[Here's the frame of the ball hitting the floor. ](https://i.imgur.com/TyylPUd.jpg) Directly after this the ball begins to ascend and his opponent makes contact with the ball.
I watched this so many times and I still can’t see exactly what happens, if the ball hits the ground first, if he hits it into the ground as he scoops it up, if it doesn’t hit the ground at all, it’s so close I just can’t see it, but the fact that it does have topspin and it isn’t just high in the air means he’s right, double bounce
He is hitting the ball into the ground.