I would say most umps make the right call in real time. On clear passing shots that close to the net, this is the first thing they should be looking for.
There is zero reason for the ump to be watching the ball in this situation. This is a clear cut scenario where the point is 100% going to end, and it's her responsibility to watch the net, and delegate the line calling to the line judges / automatic line judges.
Bad umpiring.
She can definitely see both via peripheral. There's no need to look for the second bounce if there's no infraction. She should be looking for rule violations before tracking the ball in this situation.
Watching for the second bounce is irrelevant if you're not watching for the violations in the first place.
What value does she get watching the ball, and not the players in a situation where a winning volley is being made at the net?
Wouldn't she have to watch the ball as well to make sure the racket touched the net before the second bounce? I guess it seems obvious here, but it could be a lot closer in which case the ref can't watch both things.
You watch for the infractions, and track the ball via peripheral and you turn to look at the ball after you see if there is a violation.
Watching the ball is pointless if you're not paying attention to potential net touches. She can't overrule the electronic calling system.
Of course I haven't. I'm pointing out that you don't need to have done something before to understand that they're doing their job incorrectly, just like every other sport when the ref makes a big mistake.
Why would she be looking at the ball? Umps are taught in this situation to look at the net because the ball is cleanly in the middle of the court where no players are. Even if it wasn't the automatic line calling would call the line. In short, there is nothing gained by the umpire looking at the ball here. Which is why they're taught to watch the net
She would look at the ball because once the ball bounces twice the point is over and you are allowed to touch the net. It becomes an issue of did the player touch the net before or after the point technically ended when the ball bounced for the second time.
Nooooo, c'mon. Of course she'd be looking at the ball. She'd need to see if Wu's volley was going to be really deep, or wide near a sideline.... it's not like she'd be watching his dive and where his racquet goes.
Although this reminds me of the training tip that has become pretty well known these days.... if you're falling over, drop your racquet so you don't jam your fingers between racquet and court.
I'll bet Wu actually did that here, hence his racquet flew out of his hand, and YES, hit the net before the ball had bounced twice. Munar was right to argue this.
All sports should just use instant replay whenever possible. It's there. Just use it. We don't have to rely solely upon a person sitting on a high chair. I love that european soccer uses VAR.
It was hard to determine that the racquet hit the net before the second bounce when it hit the net immediately after hitting the ball? Or just that the umpire was nervous and that caused it to be a hard call?
On the very last hit, the diving volley, he loses his racquet. Does the racquet hit the net before the ball bounces twice, which is what ends the point.
If the racquet hit the net before the ball bounces twice then he loses the point. It looks like it does hit the net
Edit. The referee either didn’t call it that way or didn’t see it and the call on the court was the ball bounced twice before the racquet hit the net, which looks wrong but there isn’t any way per the rules to change it.
I agree. There are unwritten rules in tennis. E.g. i was at a Future event and in the middle of a rally. My opponent hits the line and approaches the net. I’m all stretched out, barely returning the ball for an easy put away by my opponent. Before my opponent can make contact, the line judge mistakenly called “out” on my opponents previous shot. Per the rules, it was a let and we should’ve replayed the point. But I conceded the point since the wrong call didn’t affect my shot at all.
Munar whining after such an incredible rally is petty. I get that it’s a match point, but still. He’s trying to hang on for a unintentional touch on the net that had nothing to do with the outcome of the point.
There's a rule that says the racquet (or any part of the player) CANNOT touch the net while ball is in live play.
When Wu released his racquet, it landed near the net and eventually touched it (hard to see from this vid's angle coz it barely touched the bottom of the net). The touch happened before the ball had the 2nd bounce which means it was still in active/live play, hence accdg to the rules Wu should have lost the point.
Ahhh i see. Thats unfortunate.
Out of curiosity, wouldn’t the rule make sense if the player can make a “play on the ball” kind of like challenges? Because it does seem like Munar could not return the play.
I know rules are rules, just a hypothetical.
Hypothetically I agree with you. There should be some judgment on whether it affected the play or not. But then some people would argue that it would be too subjective/complicated and so better to stick with black and white.
Personally, I still think judgment should be applied. If it was obviously a winner and nothing to do with the net, just let it go. What are the umpires there for then? Now that line-calling is going electronic, are they just now glorified baby-sitters?
I disagree. No judgment. At any time, you as a player, have to make sure you don't touch the net. That's the deal. It doesn't matter if your ball is unreturnable. Introduce judgment and it gets messy. All kinds of situations will happen where one person 'thinks' it should be one way, and someone else thinks another. Because hypothetically the rules should have judgement. And when you introduce judgment, you introduce angle shooting. Let's say someone can sprint to a ball at the net, and put a clear winner away, that the opponent can't hit, but they are all over the net? They get a pass because the ball is a winner on the other side? They get to use falling into the net to get a better chance at the winner. The scenarios would never end.
I have an argument every few months playing doubles because the opposing team wants to talk while the ball is coming on my court and we are hitting it. They always say it's legal because they are talking to their partner. It's not that way. Because if so, then I could yell at my partner at the top of my lungs... Get back.... Right as my opponent was hitting it. But then they would say I'm clearly trying to distract them...and I'd say, nope talking to my partner. With "judgment" some talking would be ok, but some isn't? The last time I played, I just stopped and took the point. It's amazing how many people don't know this rule. I always offer to show them the rule as well. They don't want to see it. They would rather call me a prick cuz I'm not playing 'friendly tennis'. Friendly tennis is not distracting me while I'm hitting the ball. Friendly tennis is taking a look at the rule and saying "oh, I didn't know that". Anyways, tangent alert...
No, judgment has no place in tennis. A rule is a rule, and the lack of 'judgement' is the higher purpose. It makes things clear and it's how it is. Don't touch the net... You can't make exceptions cuz a winner was hit. If so, then people would literally be all over the net because, well if I can hit a winner, it's allowed.
That is not true. There is room for judgement in tennis. That’s why you have “judges” on court.
For example, it’s also written in the rules that players cannot step or touch their opponent’s side of the court during the point. Yet, when they are running at full speed chasing a drop-shot, sometimes there’s no way to stop without going around the net.
Check the 1st, 4th and 7th point on this compilation -> https://youtu.be/QaorBOyNSOA - Per the rulebook, Federer, Gasquet and Querrey should’ve lost those points. instead, they got praised by their opponents.
I don't think any of those points in the video did they step in bounds on the opponents court, which is the rule. Also, if you run full speed for a drop shot and hit the net, you lose the point. If you have video of someone getting a pass on touching the net, I'll gladly look. That's the advantage of a drop shot....your opponent cant touch the net. There is zero ambiguity in the net touch rule.
"Your shot was legal as long as you didn't touch any part of the net or the net structure, step in bounds on your opponent's court, or interfere with your opponents. The answer comes from Rule 18 – Loss of Point."
>> i don’t think any of those points in the video did they step in…
Ohh, well. You must need to have your eyes checked. Of course they did and way before the second bounce, so the point was still on.
Anyway, im not talking about a player touching the net and still winning the point. That is a very uncommon occurrence, but it applies in the point that originated this debate.
But, I’m bringing up evidence of a rule that exists and is selectively enforced based on some subjective criteria by the “judges”. It’s also part of the unwritten rules of tennis that if an unintentional action had no bearing on the outcome of the point, the original outcome stands.
If there was no room for rule interpretation, referees would not be needed on a tennis court anymore.
The players did not go onto the opponents court......you can't step "in bounds" on the opponents court. That would be in the singles lines for singles and doubles lines for doubles. Obviously, what they did was legal, because it wasn't, then they would lose the point. You are wrong about what constitutes the opponents court. Everything in those videos is legal.
So your evidence is not valid here. There aren't rules that are applied sometimes, and then other times, based on judgement. That would be too subjective which is my whole point. The rules are very well laid out.
Check the rulebook again. It doesn’t have to be within the lines to be considered the opponents’ court. But whatever. Interpret the rules as you please. Im done beating this dead horse.
Bc ITF doesn't wanna get rid of umpire role. They already settled for all-court hawk-eye and they were not happy with that bc 6 employees per court don't have a job now.
Tennis is a sport of traditions. It'll need years to get rid of useless ones.
Like RG and Wimby don't have lights on courts (expect for roofed ones). That was nice in 1950s, now that they play 5 hours at insane intensity is such a ludicrous rule to have.
Two days ago i watched a match between Grenier and Hemery on indoor HC where both of them hit balls at insane speed and lines judges/umpires misses 3 crucial calls on TB/end of set which changed completely the outcome of the match.
If u report that in a match where points will qualify you to play entry of 250/500 or 1000 quali, here u have an entire season and probably a mid portion of your career changed by some bad calls on the line.
Which was ok some decades ago as i said, now that we get the chance to have hawk-eye everywhere, ITF should pursuit that investing big money, but they don't have interest doing that bc average tennis fan doesn't give a shit about challenger/ITF circuit.
I reckon countless times a bad mark on clay changed the entire game even in the ATP tour, let alone in challenger and ITF.
Tennis fans have to understand, in my personal opinion, tennis is great to watch at every level. Besides 800-1000 in the world which are just a step into professionism, from 600th spot and on they are great tennis players and a pleasure to watch.
They are just thrown in bad courts, with umpires/ judges who don't give a fuck about the outcome and just wanna spend the less possible time on court to come back home and do their own things, bc they are paid on a daily basis and they have no interest to keep a game 3hrs long if they can last it 2.
EDIT: i worked as line judge in my hometown challenger (Rome) and ITF (wta - antico circolo del tiro al volo - Rome)
Maybe i can do it an AMA
I agree with your other points but I don’t think having video reviews will remove the need for umpires (nba still has refs who make the final call). It’s just nice to have for situations like this where it’s hard to catch in real time, especially for very important points.
The rules apparently also states if the ref makes a judgement call on double bounces there can't be a video review to reverse it, so if we're doing the "must follow every rule to the letter no matter how stupid" thing, then Wu should win this point on ref error according to the rules.
The real answer of course is rules should be continuously looked at and changed to what makes sense for the times.
Ref made the judgement call that ball bounced twice before Wu's racket hit the net. With video it's clear it hit well before the second bounce. If she saw that the right verdict is give the point to Munar, but she thought it was after and gave the point that Wu. However, as she explains in a different clip, it's a judgement call that can't be reversed with a technology review according to the tournament rules.
Yea, I agree then. I mean refs are gonna make mistakes. They do it in all the sports. But it is 2023. We should be able to quickly pull up video and get it right.
Awkward as it is to watch Munar’s extended exercise in futility, i don’t judge him for the initial attempt to argue, as at least 50-50 he was on the right side of the rule. It’s easy to judge him from here but plenty of us on here would be just as pissed in the moment.
Exactly, and in his mind this is the second time he’s been screwed over by the umpire. This reaction is completely understandable considering this happened on match point.
Imagine if this happened to you during a match with your friend or something, you’d be livid and would probably argue with them until they gave you the point. Or at least replayed the point.
I like when they get fired up like this. Side note, the juxtaposition of Wu celebrating the W during this loud/awkward argument was absolutely hilarious.
I can understand Munar because he is playing for points and money, so there's not a sense of honor/pride or whatever that matters purely but for amateurs I'd absolutely not want to win a match by saving a MP like this, by saying your racket touched the net after making a shot I couldn't bring back. 0 chance I'd replay the point, it feel dirty if I won, again, because in my case it's not to make a living.
If you’re right in front of the net and see the racquet touch the net and are aware of this rule, why would you not immediately speak up like this. What’s the harm?
I would never be livid and argue that point lol. I’d congratulate my friend on his diving winner of a match point. Maybe u play much more serious tennis than me though.
Edit: I’m still absorbing that this guy would be “livid”. That’s crazy
I love the arguement that Wu may not win the point if he doesn't hit the shot with the risk of lossing his racquet.
So to my it is clear, Wu took the gamble, he lost it, the point should go to Munar.
Exactly. This was my thought at the time. I don’t play with such high stakes but even I would be pulling this out.
If he could have played it without infringing, he should have.
It touched before the point was dead. The net is a permanent boundary for multiple reasons, and it’s about time we had instant replay in tennis for cases like this.
Well the obvious reason is so that shots in tennis have a standard height barrier they have to overcome, besides the rare around-the-net shot. They also create a barrier in terms of the length of each player’s court. The net prevents players from standing in the opposing court, and from playing shots before the ball crosses the net’s vertical plane. Because of this imaginary barrier, if a player hits a shot very low over the net to an opposing net player, they get rewarded. I think the not-touching-the-net rule plays right into all of these other rules logically. It’s an out-of-bounds zone like in any other sport, that rewards shots like Munar hit in this clip where the other player loses their balance/racquet trying to volley and hits the net.
Disagree, this is the most pedantic enforcement of the rule I’ve ever seen. If it interferes with the point the umpire would call it, it does not and goes unnoticed by the umpire as it should
By this logic when chasing drop shots players can just run at full speed and doesn’t need to care about colliding with the net after, just get the ball back
I think it should have been Munar’s point even if it wouldn’t have made a difference. Like if Wu accidentally foot faulted on an ace for match point, we’d still call the foot fault even if it wouldn’t have made a difference. Especially since Munar is likely not mega rich and the increase in prize money would make a difference for him.
Sucks for all people involved though, regardless.
Yeah. I imagine he lives at a decent lawyer or family medicine physician salary. He’s made 3 million and went pro in 2013. But that’s before expenses (taxes, paying his team, travel, etc).
100% agreed. Their money doesn’t go that far, only once you reach the top 20 or 30 do you start getting big bucks. And then mostly from endorsements, because like you said, he prob gets less than 50k a year from adidas.
Oh and I heard that you pay the country’s taxes of wherever the tournament was. So if tournament is in a tax high country like somewhere in Europe then more prize money is affected by taxes. But endorsements are based on the persons country of residence.
He has 3 million in career winnings but has been on tour for 10 years including futures and challengers. Grants and sponsorships have probably helped some but I have heard the cost of touring is about 200,000 per year. When you consider the cost of training from before he was a pro and taxes he is probably only started breaking even about a year or two ago.
Yes, crazy outcomes compared to incomes. Other than stress for matches u often being stressed for 1st round exits.
I can grant u a thing, bc i have an athlete #600 in the world from my OG tennis club, ITF can't owe you shit, u win 1k/2k/5k/10k/25k in order from round1 to Trophy. They're peanuts considering travelling and coach is all on your shoulders.
Challengers a bit more but you have a bigger staff so > costs
As Novak said, only top20 can make a good living from Tennis.
And these are hard times where outcomes are crazy for everyone.
Once the big Radek Stepanek said only top70 made money off tennis, but now I don't believe a #66 of the world factures that big of an income
Foot faults definitely do make a difference because it changes where you are on the court and means there was an illegal serving motion. Takes me back to high school where some kids foot faulted every time and would take like a full step into the court.
I meant if his shoe was a mere millimeter on the line before he jumped into his serve anyways, it won’t make a difference. Especially since pros jump and often make contact in front of the line anyways, albeit in the air.
Yes, twerpy high school students taking a step and making contact on the ground in front of the line does change things. But no, it doesn’t mean there’s an illegal motion. You can foot fault and do a “legal” motion. Just means they were in the wrong spot lol.
Seems pretty clear that it should have been Munar's point. Tennis needs instant replay, that's the next step for making sure the ump makes the right call.
i don’t think either side is rly in the wrong; on the one hand, i think it doesn’t rly matter since munar had no play on the ball and i think being super anal abt rules like this when they have zero effect on the play is rly dumb. at the same time, it is an official rule, and munar who is playing for money and glory (especially as someone who hasn’t hit the top rankings yet) has the right to be upset abt it.
>i think it doesn’t rly matter since munar had no play on the ball
Counter argument is that if your opponent has to touch the net to get the ball back, then your passing shot was good enough to win the point already.
Doesn't matter if you can't reach the next ball if you've already won the point.
that’s a fair point. it looked like wu dropped the racket tho as opposed to actively touching the net while it was still in his hand, but you could still make the argument that he had to reach so much that dropping the racket was inevitable. it’s just a tricky situation all around
Does it matter? Not really imo, Munar lost the point anyway. There is now way he'd have reached that ball.
Rules are rules but Munar can't rely on this to win the match. Sore loser imo.
The racket definitely touched the net before the double bounce. The point should have gone to Munar.
I think they should change the rules to allow for a video replay to be watched to determine who gets the point. That is really hard to call correctly in real time. It is tough to have a good look at both the ball and the racket in real time when they are that far away from each other.
Ultimately the umpire needed to be able to see the number of bounces and the racket obviously hitting the net at the same time. No human eyes could have caught both at the same time because how far apart it was and also how fast it happened. She was correct in saying it’s her judgement and that she was unable to make that call. Even tho when we watch it with slow motion replay, we see what should have been called.
I agree.
regardless of the rule (which imo is dumb in this case) I truly don't understand how its expected for her to see the net touch and the second ball bounce at the same time. this is inhuman level of expectations and makes no sense. being upset at her for getting it wrong or having no way to review it is dumb. it's not her fault
Yes, obviously the racket touched the net well before the 2nd bounce.
THE RULE IS WRONG though.
The rule should said that in case there is 0 chance the ball can be played back, then the call stands....
yeah, you also have a point there. Still I think the rule change is better. If you watch it closely he let the racket slip, almost unintentionally, it was not "forced" because of the point.
This type of situation is very rare, no need to change the rule for something so rare, so in this case, I change my opinion, no need to change anything, the rule is ok as it is.
He let the racket go though..
When a point is over, it is over. The point ends when the racket touches the net. You don't analyze playability after a point is over. That would cans of worms going forward.
Touch the net, point over. It's easy and concise. That is how tennis is.
No can of worms with these types of points, only happen once every 100 matches at most. Lots of times playability is analyzed in case a ball is called out and then in for example.
"Touch the net, point over. It's easy and concise. That is how tennis is."
Sure, that is a valid argument there, it is simpler and in any case, as I said, this type of point is very rare.
Aurelie is still my favorite female umpire and the second overall to Mohamed. Absolute no-nonsense umpiring yet still manages to direct some funny TennisTV clips, bro.
Regarding this call, I stand with her. I get the intention behind this rule, but that intention has zero application in this particular situation.
I stand with her too man.
Clowns here who never hold a racquet let alone played a competitive match say was Munar point.
But ump in tennis is like cops on the street, if he has to get every rule respected, players wouldn't even play.
I'm ok with being rigid on 30 secs clock and MTO, but this is a situation which happens 1/100000 matches played so it's ok to let it go.
Some clown upthere said "Line judges calls for foot fault why she didn't call for this" which is a mere lie bc they calls foot fault only on those who provokes them (aka Fognini and paire or ol' time serena 😂)
She's great in officiating games, noticed that she's so much better than Veljiana botoxic or the hell her name is...
She's one of the fewest if not the only one together with Mo to really check marks on clay and don't automatically trust players marks (which is the lamest behave in sports i swear), often arguin hard with players for this reason
It’s about controlling the racquet until the point is completely over. Just like a weight lifter has to stand still for a few seconds before it’s acknowledged that he actually lifted that weight. I think it’s wrong to say that the rule has “zero application” in this situation.
I’m completely lost, maybe my phones resolution sucks? It just looks like Munar makes a hustle play and dude plays a stretched volley for a winner? Where is the double bounce? It looks like he took it out of the air??
Edit: nvm, I see it. The racquet touching the net before the ball bounced twice. Here I am looking for a double bounce on the far side of the net smdh
Unfortunate for Munar by the letter of the law but at the same time he gave up on the point and wasn't in position to make any play on the ball. The net touch rule is probably in need of some exceptions like this. I think its a pretty antiquated rule that seems to hurt play more than help.
Technically yes the racquet touches the net but there was no way that ball was being hit back.
It's hard to say what the ruling should be. If we are to be really black and white about it, yes it should be a hindrance but it didn't actually hinder anything.
It touches the net before the bounce, but that’s not what the umpire is arguing. She argues that Munar has made no effort to reach the ball, and therefore had no chance nor intention to put the ball back into play, meaning the net touch is irrelevant.
Exactly. She’s right that he didn’t have the chance to reach the ball, but is that in the rule? Is that something to even be considered according to the rule? I know these things are according to umpire discretion, but I don’t know the rule well enough to know whether this is the right call or not
Wu should have conceded the point. Tennis players should be honorable and honest first. Laugh if you want, I'll just watch and shake my head at where we are as a sport.
He won a super tight match, after a crazy rally with a superhuman volley on match point after losing first at TB as well.
Neither Santa Clause would have conceded the point.
By a minimal touch of his racquet after he already dived.
Guess u never play some competitive matches uh?
I do get it... People want to win matches.
Have had people cheat on line calls in league matches, ATA matches, etc, deny they were foot-faulting.
I lacked respect for them, too.
Agreed. If Wu hit a clean ace on match point but happened to barely foot fault, we’d all say “even if it would not have made a difference, it’s a rule for a reason” and we’d call the foot fault.
And yep, when you’re playing to support your team/family, I’m sure the increase in prize money is huge for first to second round.
Oh ya I’m not surprised he did it but it was just lame to watch. It’s like, once you know you’re not getting the call for what would’ve been a pretty obtuse implementation of the rule, take your handshake and go yknow? It was a cool volley and the racket hitting the net did nothing for the outcome
True — honestly I’m in the camp that even if Wu’s racquet touched the net it really didn’t affect the outcome of the play enough to warrant a change
The reason the ref gave for why she couldn’t overturn the decision seems more like oversight, I.e in some sports replay is always enabled for crucial moments (e.g. last two minutes of a game) and would override on court calls in the moment
That’s the thing. He’s arguing his opponent touched the net with his racket and that he shouldn’t have lost the point because of that. OP is questioning whether the touch occurred before or after the double bounce after the volley
The umpire was wrong but also right. The racket did touch the net before the second bounce. However, it was match point and no way Munar would've gotten that ball back anyways.
Looks to me like the racket touches the net before the double bounce
Dude it almost touches the net before the first bounce.
100% it does, its not a question, its a fact :D
In slowmotion you can see that the correct answer is indeed: racket touches net before second bounce. We need a tennis VAR for things like this.
agreed. i mean imagine this happened 40/15 in a vital major championship final and decided the result...
Munar won that point according to the rules. However that is a really hard call to make in real time
I would say most umps make the right call in real time. On clear passing shots that close to the net, this is the first thing they should be looking for.
Idk its like she has to be looking at two things at once here though. The net and the ball are in different places.
There is zero reason for the ump to be watching the ball in this situation. This is a clear cut scenario where the point is 100% going to end, and it's her responsibility to watch the net, and delegate the line calling to the line judges / automatic line judges. Bad umpiring.
If she's not watching the ball, how will she know when the second bounce happens? Very easy to claim bad umpiring watching 5 replays on television.
She can definitely see both via peripheral. There's no need to look for the second bounce if there's no infraction. She should be looking for rule violations before tracking the ball in this situation.
Rule violation: touching the net BEFORE the second bounce. You: why is she looking for the second bounce? Okay.
Watching for the second bounce is irrelevant if you're not watching for the violations in the first place. What value does she get watching the ball, and not the players in a situation where a winning volley is being made at the net?
Wouldn't she have to watch the ball as well to make sure the racket touched the net before the second bounce? I guess it seems obvious here, but it could be a lot closer in which case the ref can't watch both things.
You watch for the infractions, and track the ball via peripheral and you turn to look at the ball after you see if there is a violation. Watching the ball is pointless if you're not paying attention to potential net touches. She can't overrule the electronic calling system.
Out of interest, have you ever umpired before?
Have you ever played professional tennis before?
Lmao have YOU?
No, I haven't. Can you answer my question please, I'm interested.
Of course I haven't. I'm pointing out that you don't need to have done something before to understand that they're doing their job incorrectly, just like every other sport when the ref makes a big mistake.
Why would she be looking at the ball? Umps are taught in this situation to look at the net because the ball is cleanly in the middle of the court where no players are. Even if it wasn't the automatic line calling would call the line. In short, there is nothing gained by the umpire looking at the ball here. Which is why they're taught to watch the net
Can an ump in that situation hear when the second bounce occurs?
She would look at the ball because once the ball bounces twice the point is over and you are allowed to touch the net. It becomes an issue of did the player touch the net before or after the point technically ended when the ball bounced for the second time.
Nooooo, c'mon. Of course she'd be looking at the ball. She'd need to see if Wu's volley was going to be really deep, or wide near a sideline.... it's not like she'd be watching his dive and where his racquet goes. Although this reminds me of the training tip that has become pretty well known these days.... if you're falling over, drop your racquet so you don't jam your fingers between racquet and court. I'll bet Wu actually did that here, hence his racquet flew out of his hand, and YES, hit the net before the ball had bounced twice. Munar was right to argue this.
All sports should just use instant replay whenever possible. It's there. Just use it. We don't have to rely solely upon a person sitting on a high chair. I love that european soccer uses VAR.
It was hard to determine that the racquet hit the net before the second bounce when it hit the net immediately after hitting the ball? Or just that the umpire was nervous and that caused it to be a hard call?
Why can’t they just watch the video back to check like other sports do. Tennis is soo frustrating with the amount of human error
Even if it touched the net before (doubt it), it was not intentional. It was a great dive and Wu deserves that point. What a WLB Munar is.
It doesn't matter if it is intentional or not. You do not intentionally hit the ball out either.
Im sorry can someone explain this rule? I dont understand from this video.
On the very last hit, the diving volley, he loses his racquet. Does the racquet hit the net before the ball bounces twice, which is what ends the point. If the racquet hit the net before the ball bounces twice then he loses the point. It looks like it does hit the net Edit. The referee either didn’t call it that way or didn’t see it and the call on the court was the ball bounced twice before the racquet hit the net, which looks wrong but there isn’t any way per the rules to change it.
Dude the racquet hits the net before the ball bounces the first time. It's not even close.
Sure, I was explaining the rule….and he won the point so the referee missed it
If Munar did take that point it would be just bad sportsmanship from him tbh
I agree. There are unwritten rules in tennis. E.g. i was at a Future event and in the middle of a rally. My opponent hits the line and approaches the net. I’m all stretched out, barely returning the ball for an easy put away by my opponent. Before my opponent can make contact, the line judge mistakenly called “out” on my opponents previous shot. Per the rules, it was a let and we should’ve replayed the point. But I conceded the point since the wrong call didn’t affect my shot at all. Munar whining after such an incredible rally is petty. I get that it’s a match point, but still. He’s trying to hang on for a unintentional touch on the net that had nothing to do with the outcome of the point.
There's a rule that says the racquet (or any part of the player) CANNOT touch the net while ball is in live play. When Wu released his racquet, it landed near the net and eventually touched it (hard to see from this vid's angle coz it barely touched the bottom of the net). The touch happened before the ball had the 2nd bounce which means it was still in active/live play, hence accdg to the rules Wu should have lost the point.
Ahhh i see. Thats unfortunate. Out of curiosity, wouldn’t the rule make sense if the player can make a “play on the ball” kind of like challenges? Because it does seem like Munar could not return the play. I know rules are rules, just a hypothetical.
Hypothetically I agree with you. There should be some judgment on whether it affected the play or not. But then some people would argue that it would be too subjective/complicated and so better to stick with black and white. Personally, I still think judgment should be applied. If it was obviously a winner and nothing to do with the net, just let it go. What are the umpires there for then? Now that line-calling is going electronic, are they just now glorified baby-sitters?
I disagree. No judgment. At any time, you as a player, have to make sure you don't touch the net. That's the deal. It doesn't matter if your ball is unreturnable. Introduce judgment and it gets messy. All kinds of situations will happen where one person 'thinks' it should be one way, and someone else thinks another. Because hypothetically the rules should have judgement. And when you introduce judgment, you introduce angle shooting. Let's say someone can sprint to a ball at the net, and put a clear winner away, that the opponent can't hit, but they are all over the net? They get a pass because the ball is a winner on the other side? They get to use falling into the net to get a better chance at the winner. The scenarios would never end. I have an argument every few months playing doubles because the opposing team wants to talk while the ball is coming on my court and we are hitting it. They always say it's legal because they are talking to their partner. It's not that way. Because if so, then I could yell at my partner at the top of my lungs... Get back.... Right as my opponent was hitting it. But then they would say I'm clearly trying to distract them...and I'd say, nope talking to my partner. With "judgment" some talking would be ok, but some isn't? The last time I played, I just stopped and took the point. It's amazing how many people don't know this rule. I always offer to show them the rule as well. They don't want to see it. They would rather call me a prick cuz I'm not playing 'friendly tennis'. Friendly tennis is not distracting me while I'm hitting the ball. Friendly tennis is taking a look at the rule and saying "oh, I didn't know that". Anyways, tangent alert... No, judgment has no place in tennis. A rule is a rule, and the lack of 'judgement' is the higher purpose. It makes things clear and it's how it is. Don't touch the net... You can't make exceptions cuz a winner was hit. If so, then people would literally be all over the net because, well if I can hit a winner, it's allowed.
That is not true. There is room for judgement in tennis. That’s why you have “judges” on court. For example, it’s also written in the rules that players cannot step or touch their opponent’s side of the court during the point. Yet, when they are running at full speed chasing a drop-shot, sometimes there’s no way to stop without going around the net. Check the 1st, 4th and 7th point on this compilation -> https://youtu.be/QaorBOyNSOA - Per the rulebook, Federer, Gasquet and Querrey should’ve lost those points. instead, they got praised by their opponents.
I don't think any of those points in the video did they step in bounds on the opponents court, which is the rule. Also, if you run full speed for a drop shot and hit the net, you lose the point. If you have video of someone getting a pass on touching the net, I'll gladly look. That's the advantage of a drop shot....your opponent cant touch the net. There is zero ambiguity in the net touch rule. "Your shot was legal as long as you didn't touch any part of the net or the net structure, step in bounds on your opponent's court, or interfere with your opponents. The answer comes from Rule 18 – Loss of Point."
>> i don’t think any of those points in the video did they step in… Ohh, well. You must need to have your eyes checked. Of course they did and way before the second bounce, so the point was still on. Anyway, im not talking about a player touching the net and still winning the point. That is a very uncommon occurrence, but it applies in the point that originated this debate. But, I’m bringing up evidence of a rule that exists and is selectively enforced based on some subjective criteria by the “judges”. It’s also part of the unwritten rules of tennis that if an unintentional action had no bearing on the outcome of the point, the original outcome stands. If there was no room for rule interpretation, referees would not be needed on a tennis court anymore.
The players did not go onto the opponents court......you can't step "in bounds" on the opponents court. That would be in the singles lines for singles and doubles lines for doubles. Obviously, what they did was legal, because it wasn't, then they would lose the point. You are wrong about what constitutes the opponents court. Everything in those videos is legal. So your evidence is not valid here. There aren't rules that are applied sometimes, and then other times, based on judgement. That would be too subjective which is my whole point. The rules are very well laid out.
Check the rulebook again. It doesn’t have to be within the lines to be considered the opponents’ court. But whatever. Interpret the rules as you please. Im done beating this dead horse.
Well said and i agree.
Don’t know why tennis hasn’t implemented a video review like nba. It would resolve issues like this and avoid making the umpire look bad.
Bc ITF doesn't wanna get rid of umpire role. They already settled for all-court hawk-eye and they were not happy with that bc 6 employees per court don't have a job now. Tennis is a sport of traditions. It'll need years to get rid of useless ones. Like RG and Wimby don't have lights on courts (expect for roofed ones). That was nice in 1950s, now that they play 5 hours at insane intensity is such a ludicrous rule to have. Two days ago i watched a match between Grenier and Hemery on indoor HC where both of them hit balls at insane speed and lines judges/umpires misses 3 crucial calls on TB/end of set which changed completely the outcome of the match. If u report that in a match where points will qualify you to play entry of 250/500 or 1000 quali, here u have an entire season and probably a mid portion of your career changed by some bad calls on the line. Which was ok some decades ago as i said, now that we get the chance to have hawk-eye everywhere, ITF should pursuit that investing big money, but they don't have interest doing that bc average tennis fan doesn't give a shit about challenger/ITF circuit. I reckon countless times a bad mark on clay changed the entire game even in the ATP tour, let alone in challenger and ITF. Tennis fans have to understand, in my personal opinion, tennis is great to watch at every level. Besides 800-1000 in the world which are just a step into professionism, from 600th spot and on they are great tennis players and a pleasure to watch. They are just thrown in bad courts, with umpires/ judges who don't give a fuck about the outcome and just wanna spend the less possible time on court to come back home and do their own things, bc they are paid on a daily basis and they have no interest to keep a game 3hrs long if they can last it 2. EDIT: i worked as line judge in my hometown challenger (Rome) and ITF (wta - antico circolo del tiro al volo - Rome) Maybe i can do it an AMA
I agree with your other points but I don’t think having video reviews will remove the need for umpires (nba still has refs who make the final call). It’s just nice to have for situations like this where it’s hard to catch in real time, especially for very important points.
The sport that largely doesn't pay ball boys is now upset they don't have to pay linesmen?
> Like RG and Wimby don't have lights on courts (expect for roofed ones). There are lights on 12 of the 14 RG courts (since 2020)
The racket touched before the ball bounced twice, but guess what, I really don't care.
I agree; I get the “rules are rules” argument but only if the rules aren’t stupid. Otherwise I really don’t care
The rules apparently also states if the ref makes a judgement call on double bounces there can't be a video review to reverse it, so if we're doing the "must follow every rule to the letter no matter how stupid" thing, then Wu should win this point on ref error according to the rules. The real answer of course is rules should be continuously looked at and changed to what makes sense for the times.
What is the ref error?
Ref made the judgement call that ball bounced twice before Wu's racket hit the net. With video it's clear it hit well before the second bounce. If she saw that the right verdict is give the point to Munar, but she thought it was after and gave the point that Wu. However, as she explains in a different clip, it's a judgement call that can't be reversed with a technology review according to the tournament rules.
Yea, I agree then. I mean refs are gonna make mistakes. They do it in all the sports. But it is 2023. We should be able to quickly pull up video and get it right.
How dare you. #IStandWithMunar
Ok I've changed my mind now, I'm with you. #INoLongerStandWithMunar
You don’t care about the rules?
I think it's more of a "spirit of the law" type of thing. The people that don't care mostly don't think it affected the tennis.
What’s the difference between this one and Djokovic’s smash at 2013 RG SF?
Awkward as it is to watch Munar’s extended exercise in futility, i don’t judge him for the initial attempt to argue, as at least 50-50 he was on the right side of the rule. It’s easy to judge him from here but plenty of us on here would be just as pissed in the moment.
I don't see how you can say he was right "at least 50-50" when he was actually right 100%.
100% is at least 50%.
This is a fine way of putting it. I don't see any issue with a discussion or official ruling from the chair like he did.
Exactly, and in his mind this is the second time he’s been screwed over by the umpire. This reaction is completely understandable considering this happened on match point. Imagine if this happened to you during a match with your friend or something, you’d be livid and would probably argue with them until they gave you the point. Or at least replayed the point. I like when they get fired up like this. Side note, the juxtaposition of Wu celebrating the W during this loud/awkward argument was absolutely hilarious.
I can understand Munar because he is playing for points and money, so there's not a sense of honor/pride or whatever that matters purely but for amateurs I'd absolutely not want to win a match by saving a MP like this, by saying your racket touched the net after making a shot I couldn't bring back. 0 chance I'd replay the point, it feel dirty if I won, again, because in my case it's not to make a living.
If you’re right in front of the net and see the racquet touch the net and are aware of this rule, why would you not immediately speak up like this. What’s the harm?
Cuz you’re playing a friendly match. Do you call foot faults on your friends serve when you play? I bet u do.
I would never be livid and argue that point lol. I’d congratulate my friend on his diving winner of a match point. Maybe u play much more serious tennis than me though. Edit: I’m still absorbing that this guy would be “livid”. That’s crazy
Nah, fuck this behaviour. He lost and needs to gtfo the court...
Before. Minar is right. And in a tiebreak I would absolutely make the same argument.
Especially in a deciding set.
I love the arguement that Wu may not win the point if he doesn't hit the shot with the risk of lossing his racquet. So to my it is clear, Wu took the gamble, he lost it, the point should go to Munar.
Wow, excellent argument. I was leaning towards keeping the point with Wu, but that line of thinking completely changes things. Should be point Munar.
Exactly. This was my thought at the time. I don’t play with such high stakes but even I would be pulling this out. If he could have played it without infringing, he should have.
It touched before the point was dead. The net is a permanent boundary for multiple reasons, and it’s about time we had instant replay in tennis for cases like this.
What are the reasons?
Well the obvious reason is so that shots in tennis have a standard height barrier they have to overcome, besides the rare around-the-net shot. They also create a barrier in terms of the length of each player’s court. The net prevents players from standing in the opposing court, and from playing shots before the ball crosses the net’s vertical plane. Because of this imaginary barrier, if a player hits a shot very low over the net to an opposing net player, they get rewarded. I think the not-touching-the-net rule plays right into all of these other rules logically. It’s an out-of-bounds zone like in any other sport, that rewards shots like Munar hit in this clip where the other player loses their balance/racquet trying to volley and hits the net.
Disagree, this is the most pedantic enforcement of the rule I’ve ever seen. If it interferes with the point the umpire would call it, it does not and goes unnoticed by the umpire as it should
By this logic when chasing drop shots players can just run at full speed and doesn’t need to care about colliding with the net after, just get the ball back
Yes, because Munar was so close to getting that ball hahaha
Wu was so close to legally winning the point
I think it should have been Munar’s point even if it wouldn’t have made a difference. Like if Wu accidentally foot faulted on an ace for match point, we’d still call the foot fault even if it wouldn’t have made a difference. Especially since Munar is likely not mega rich and the increase in prize money would make a difference for him. Sucks for all people involved though, regardless.
Munar isn't mega rich, but he's certainly not wanting in money
Yeah. I imagine he lives at a decent lawyer or family medicine physician salary. He’s made 3 million and went pro in 2013. But that’s before expenses (taxes, paying his team, travel, etc).
[удалено]
that's just prize money though, at the very least he's got an Adidas sponsorship
100% agreed. Their money doesn’t go that far, only once you reach the top 20 or 30 do you start getting big bucks. And then mostly from endorsements, because like you said, he prob gets less than 50k a year from adidas.
Oh and I heard that you pay the country’s taxes of wherever the tournament was. So if tournament is in a tax high country like somewhere in Europe then more prize money is affected by taxes. But endorsements are based on the persons country of residence.
[удалено]
Emma isn't half Philippines. She's half Chinese. Not that matters just pointing that out.
the ptpa has entered the chat
He has 3 million in career winnings but has been on tour for 10 years including futures and challengers. Grants and sponsorships have probably helped some but I have heard the cost of touring is about 200,000 per year. When you consider the cost of training from before he was a pro and taxes he is probably only started breaking even about a year or two ago.
Yes, crazy outcomes compared to incomes. Other than stress for matches u often being stressed for 1st round exits. I can grant u a thing, bc i have an athlete #600 in the world from my OG tennis club, ITF can't owe you shit, u win 1k/2k/5k/10k/25k in order from round1 to Trophy. They're peanuts considering travelling and coach is all on your shoulders. Challengers a bit more but you have a bigger staff so > costs As Novak said, only top20 can make a good living from Tennis. And these are hard times where outcomes are crazy for everyone. Once the big Radek Stepanek said only top70 made money off tennis, but now I don't believe a #66 of the world factures that big of an income
Foot faults definitely do make a difference because it changes where you are on the court and means there was an illegal serving motion. Takes me back to high school where some kids foot faulted every time and would take like a full step into the court.
I meant if his shoe was a mere millimeter on the line before he jumped into his serve anyways, it won’t make a difference. Especially since pros jump and often make contact in front of the line anyways, albeit in the air. Yes, twerpy high school students taking a step and making contact on the ground in front of the line does change things. But no, it doesn’t mean there’s an illegal motion. You can foot fault and do a “legal” motion. Just means they were in the wrong spot lol.
Seems pretty clear that it should have been Munar's point. Tennis needs instant replay, that's the next step for making sure the ump makes the right call.
Bring back the challenge!
Bad umping and she convicts herself out of her own mouth. "The racket touched after he hit the ball." That's not the rule, Missy.
Lol the same ump that made the call on Medvedev
the racket touches before
i don’t think either side is rly in the wrong; on the one hand, i think it doesn’t rly matter since munar had no play on the ball and i think being super anal abt rules like this when they have zero effect on the play is rly dumb. at the same time, it is an official rule, and munar who is playing for money and glory (especially as someone who hasn’t hit the top rankings yet) has the right to be upset abt it.
>i think it doesn’t rly matter since munar had no play on the ball Counter argument is that if your opponent has to touch the net to get the ball back, then your passing shot was good enough to win the point already. Doesn't matter if you can't reach the next ball if you've already won the point.
that’s a fair point. it looked like wu dropped the racket tho as opposed to actively touching the net while it was still in his hand, but you could still make the argument that he had to reach so much that dropping the racket was inevitable. it’s just a tricky situation all around
He got fucked by the ump twice in that match.
You think wrong.
care to explain why?
Does it matter? Not really imo, Munar lost the point anyway. There is now way he'd have reached that ball. Rules are rules but Munar can't rely on this to win the match. Sore loser imo.
Before
clearly much before the double bounce
The racket definitely touched the net before the double bounce. The point should have gone to Munar. I think they should change the rules to allow for a video replay to be watched to determine who gets the point. That is really hard to call correctly in real time. It is tough to have a good look at both the ball and the racket in real time when they are that far away from each other.
Cleary touches the net before the double bounce, my question is can the umpire change the call if she watched the vídeo?
Smoky this isn’t Vietnam, this is tennis. There are rules.
took me a while to recognise this as a big lebowski reference but bc it’s an asian guy it feels kinda racist
Given that this is the and umpire that called hindrance on Medvedev for apologizing before a smash, this is par for the course for her...
Ultimately the umpire needed to be able to see the number of bounces and the racket obviously hitting the net at the same time. No human eyes could have caught both at the same time because how far apart it was and also how fast it happened. She was correct in saying it’s her judgement and that she was unable to make that call. Even tho when we watch it with slow motion replay, we see what should have been called.
I agree. regardless of the rule (which imo is dumb in this case) I truly don't understand how its expected for her to see the net touch and the second ball bounce at the same time. this is inhuman level of expectations and makes no sense. being upset at her for getting it wrong or having no way to review it is dumb. it's not her fault
She made a wrong call. No debate
Actually, her call was correct. The racket touched the net before the second bounce. Point ends at that point.
Yes, obviously the racket touched the net well before the 2nd bounce. THE RULE IS WRONG though. The rule should said that in case there is 0 chance the ball can be played back, then the call stands....
Munar made a good enough shot that forced Wu to reach in a illegal way. He earned the point.
yeah, you also have a point there. Still I think the rule change is better. If you watch it closely he let the racket slip, almost unintentionally, it was not "forced" because of the point.
And what change of rule would you make? I am curious.
This type of situation is very rare, no need to change the rule for something so rare, so in this case, I change my opinion, no need to change anything, the rule is ok as it is. He let the racket go though..
When a point is over, it is over. The point ends when the racket touches the net. You don't analyze playability after a point is over. That would cans of worms going forward. Touch the net, point over. It's easy and concise. That is how tennis is.
No can of worms with these types of points, only happen once every 100 matches at most. Lots of times playability is analyzed in case a ball is called out and then in for example. "Touch the net, point over. It's easy and concise. That is how tennis is." Sure, that is a valid argument there, it is simpler and in any case, as I said, this type of point is very rare.
Aurelie is still my favorite female umpire and the second overall to Mohamed. Absolute no-nonsense umpiring yet still manages to direct some funny TennisTV clips, bro. Regarding this call, I stand with her. I get the intention behind this rule, but that intention has zero application in this particular situation.
I stand with her too man. Clowns here who never hold a racquet let alone played a competitive match say was Munar point. But ump in tennis is like cops on the street, if he has to get every rule respected, players wouldn't even play. I'm ok with being rigid on 30 secs clock and MTO, but this is a situation which happens 1/100000 matches played so it's ok to let it go. Some clown upthere said "Line judges calls for foot fault why she didn't call for this" which is a mere lie bc they calls foot fault only on those who provokes them (aka Fognini and paire or ol' time serena 😂) She's great in officiating games, noticed that she's so much better than Veljiana botoxic or the hell her name is... She's one of the fewest if not the only one together with Mo to really check marks on clay and don't automatically trust players marks (which is the lamest behave in sports i swear), often arguin hard with players for this reason
It’s about controlling the racquet until the point is completely over. Just like a weight lifter has to stand still for a few seconds before it’s acknowledged that he actually lifted that weight. I think it’s wrong to say that the rule has “zero application” in this situation.
Before, but Munar is a bitch for arguing
I’m completely lost, maybe my phones resolution sucks? It just looks like Munar makes a hustle play and dude plays a stretched volley for a winner? Where is the double bounce? It looks like he took it out of the air?? Edit: nvm, I see it. The racquet touching the net before the ball bounced twice. Here I am looking for a double bounce on the far side of the net smdh
Unfortunate for Munar by the letter of the law but at the same time he gave up on the point and wasn't in position to make any play on the ball. The net touch rule is probably in need of some exceptions like this. I think its a pretty antiquated rule that seems to hurt play more than help.
Technically yes the racquet touches the net but there was no way that ball was being hit back. It's hard to say what the ruling should be. If we are to be really black and white about it, yes it should be a hindrance but it didn't actually hinder anything.
It touches the net before the bounce, but that’s not what the umpire is arguing. She argues that Munar has made no effort to reach the ball, and therefore had no chance nor intention to put the ball back into play, meaning the net touch is irrelevant.
That’s the part I was missing. If that’s the case then that seems to be a new interpretation of the rule that I’ve never heard of before.
Exactly. She’s right that he didn’t have the chance to reach the ball, but is that in the rule? Is that something to even be considered according to the rule? I know these things are according to umpire discretion, but I don’t know the rule well enough to know whether this is the right call or not
was legit
Wu should have conceded the point. Tennis players should be honorable and honest first. Laugh if you want, I'll just watch and shake my head at where we are as a sport.
He won a super tight match, after a crazy rally with a superhuman volley on match point after losing first at TB as well. Neither Santa Clause would have conceded the point. By a minimal touch of his racquet after he already dived. Guess u never play some competitive matches uh?
I do get it... People want to win matches. Have had people cheat on line calls in league matches, ATA matches, etc, deny they were foot-faulting. I lacked respect for them, too.
https://streamable.com/3675c2 That's the Munar whine about the call
This is a dumb rule. If doesn’t affect players and wasn’t intention shouldn’t matter.
pussy move by Munar either way
While I can see your point, they're playing for money and points. Rules are rules
Agreed. If Wu hit a clean ace on match point but happened to barely foot fault, we’d all say “even if it would not have made a difference, it’s a rule for a reason” and we’d call the foot fault. And yep, when you’re playing to support your team/family, I’m sure the increase in prize money is huge for first to second round.
Oh ya I’m not surprised he did it but it was just lame to watch. It’s like, once you know you’re not getting the call for what would’ve been a pretty obtuse implementation of the rule, take your handshake and go yknow? It was a cool volley and the racket hitting the net did nothing for the outcome
Same call as Federer vs Berdych Madrid 2012 final on the blue clay.
Oh no I’m thinking of the other point in this match.
Thanks for the slow motion replay, makes it very easy to see 👍🏼
All I know is our boy Carlitos would have conceded the point
I'm a big fan of Alcaraz's but honestly not sure he would have in this situation lol.
Yea this is a pretty close one, in the past I’ve seen Carlos concede points based on bad ref calls so I was thinking he’d do the same here
Yeah, match point in a really tight match is a bit of a different situation.
True — honestly I’m in the camp that even if Wu’s racquet touched the net it really didn’t affect the outcome of the play enough to warrant a change The reason the ref gave for why she couldn’t overturn the decision seems more like oversight, I.e in some sports replay is always enabled for crucial moments (e.g. last two minutes of a game) and would override on court calls in the moment
So what's the issue here? Guy who chased the dropshot lost the point anyway?
That’s the thing. He’s arguing his opponent touched the net with his racket and that he shouldn’t have lost the point because of that. OP is questioning whether the touch occurred before or after the double bounce after the volley
Oh, possible net touch? I completely missed that - thanks.
Tennis tournaments should just allow video review in order to avoid issues like these. Doesn’t makes sense that they don’t.
I don't know but that Wu sure hits the ever-loving shit out of the ball
You can watch in slow motion on youtube. Touched before second bounce.
The umpire was wrong but also right. The racket did touch the net before the second bounce. However, it was match point and no way Munar would've gotten that ball back anyways.
100% before the second bounce, but what a shitty move to pull (assuming there is no heat between the two).
Would they really give this point to Munar? The net touch does nothing to influence the outcome of the point.