Robbery

Umpire Molina has denied Wawrinka the victory today.

In which way Mr.Josiah?

Oh now I've seen that.

Oh dear, oh dear, oh dear.

Heartbreak for Stan, that will make him feel even worse. Molina cost him big time.

That makes me sick, if only Stan hadn't listened to him.
Stan would have won.

What happened?

yeah what happened?

Did I miss something?My stream was lagging.

Is this a reference to Molina confirming a bad call, thus indicating to Stan that it would be a wasted challenge. But he was wrong .....??

Break point at 4-4 in the fifth. Stan hit a shot. It was called out. He asked Molina who confirmed it was out. Turns out it was bang on the line

Well, it sounds tough but it's really for the players to have the courage of their own convictions, they aren't supposed to seek advice from anyone else, nor should umpires volunteer it.

Born Slippy wrote:Break point at 4-4 in the fifth. Stan hit a shot. It was called out. He asked Molina who confirmed it was out. Turns out it was bang on the line

Ouch!!!!

That won't help Stan sleep tonight.

Correct on all counts barrystar. Umpire should simply ask player if he wishes to make a challenge or not.

But tough all the same on Stan given just how close he came today.

If Molina hasn't said anything Stan would have challenged probably.

All Molina had to say was 'I don't know.'

Stan will be kicking himself, for sure. I agree, but unfortunately that's because he only has himself to blame.

Wow, Novak really did get the luck today! Poor Stan.

Although barrystar is right. This whole thing of asking the umpire if it is worth a challenge is a bit of an anomaly. You can take the umpire's view or hawkeye's view. To ask the umpire his view on what the view of hawkeye might be is a bit self-defeating. It will still be the umpire's view!

It Must Be Love wrote:If Molina hasn't said anything Stan would have challenged probably.

Stan shouldn't have asked him then and had the belief in his own convictions. Sorry but you can't blame the umpire here who otherwise had an excellent match.

Players shouldn't rely on the umpire opinion, but they all do. Stan is extremely unlucky that on this occasion the umpires opinion was wrong.

He should have challenged anyway though. I mean, was he saving it for a bigger point? That was THE point of his career!!

Is there actually a ruling on what an umpire should and shouldn't say in this instance?

I noted that in yesterday's headline match between Fed and Tomic, Jake Garner told Bernard that it was "up to him" whether he challenged a close line call or not and didn't express his opinion as to the call one way or the other.

I can see both sides to this argument though. An umpire is there to be the final on court judge of line calls and other elements of play and so if a line judge makes a call and the umpire doesn't overrule it is probably right that he reiterates the call that line judge has made. This is why we have the challenge system, so that the player can test his own opinion against what (almost certainly) actually happened.

All in all I am a big fan on Molina anyway and thought that he had a great match (excluding this single poor call).

Stan had many other chances. More than likely, that specific point is long forgotten by the player, but fans and spectators remember it as does UTube.

Stan saved 2 MPs. He has a pretty good five-set record (better than Federer's 20/16).

http://tt.tennis-warehouse.com/showpost.php?p=5029040&postcount=297

IIRC, there are many similar incidents in other matches. Umpire overrules calls as well which can go in players' favour.

As Barry says, players must have their own courage and convictions. Eventually, they are responsible for winning or losing a match.

Wawrinka won 200 points in the match, while Djokovic won 209, so it was a pretty close affair anyway. Hats off to Wawrinka for playing a memorable match.

Did Djokovic miss after the shot? Would it have just been replayed? Or was the point over?

Terrible umpiring. The request is to ask if its clear or not. By affirming it was out he suggested it was clear cut. He should have said close and left it to Stan.

Lucky Djokovic, very lucky.

Has anyone got a link to the point?

Where has it been confirmed that the ball was in? I can't find any website talking about it.

Danny_1982 wrote:Has anyone got a link to the point?

Where has it been confirmed that the ball was in? I can't find any website talking about it.

They showed it.

Who is 'they' IMBL?

Danny_1982 wrote:Has anyone got a link to the point?

Where has it been confirmed that the ball was in? I can't find any website talking about it.

Seems like the OP is giving just opinions here without the hard evidence to back it up. Usually the commentary team would say something at the end of the game if the umpire was proved to be wrong from replays but nothing was said. File under conjecture until otherwise corrected.

If this is true. We should keep quiet about it OK? Please, please nobody tell Stan...

They showed it on the stream I was watching, they showed the Hawkeye.

Ok, I've found a reference to it... No footage though.

http://m.theaustralian.com.au/sport/tennis/novak-djokovic-survives-five-hour-fight-against-stanislas-wawrinka/story-fnbe6xeb-1226557843805

OK IMBL it appears that those of us watching on Eurosport didn't get that revelation but it still begs the question why not challenge anyway on such an important close call?

newballs wrote:OK IMBL it appears that those of us watching on Eurosport didn't get that revelation but it still begs the question why not challenge anyway on such an important close call?

Because the umpire said it was not even close.
He had one challenge left.

newballs wrote:OK IMBL it appears that those of us watching on Eurosport didn't get that revelation but it still begs the question why not challenge anyway on such an important close call?

Sounds like the Umpire confirmed to him it was clear.

IMBL can you be sure that's exactly what the umpire said? If he'd intimated that in his opinion the ball was out (which I believe is what he is more likely to have stated) then it's up to Stan to decide whether to challenge or not. The link posted by D1982 was that the umpire (Moina) "advised against challenging" which can mean anything you like.

It Must Be Love wrote:

newballs wrote:OK IMBL it appears that those of us watching on Eurosport didn't get that revelation but it still begs the question why not challenge anyway on such an important close call?

Because the umpire said it was not even close.
He had one challenge left.

He should still have challenged. Biggest point of his life.

It's still very harsh on him though. And a bit unlucky.

Found this "tweeted" at the time

Apparently the forehand return on the fourth break point was in. Bad calls all round, linesman, umpire and Stan for not challenging

https://twitter.com/neilharmantimes

What a shame. Of course this sort of thing happens all the time but it seems odd when everyone but the players knows the true result of a point (and are even discussing it) but instead the result is decided by how good a player is at using challenges. Technology is leading the way. The obvious direction would be to have all lines called electronically. But of course that would also cause problems as presumably it would only be available on courts with hawkeye.

It was an accident, but it looks like only a strange coincidence of officials errors have kept Djokovic in the tournament.

If he wins this it is officially asterisked.

Big time shame, I hate when such a match actually has a black mark involved in it.Really feel sorry for Stan, Nature is cruel yesterday, it should have awarded Stan the reprise for showing up such a courageous fight.

Lucky Nole, but I would take it if I would have been in his position.

Something for Wawrinka to learn, trust nobody just himself.

bogbrush wrote:It was an accident, but it looks like only a strange coincidence of officials errors have kept Djokovic in the tournament.

If he wins this it is officially asterisked.

No, not really. Officials have always made errors and always will. Difference is we know about this one and it was a big point.

For all we know in the "what if" scenario, Novak might have broken straight back.

Yes, I just think that this is bigger than an error; it's an error (by the linesman) compounded by the umpire effectively dissuading Stan from challenging. A different error from the first, two big errors compounding.

As for the next game, of course you're right but the probability was pretty high he'd have won.

The challenge with the logic of 'robbery' is that Wawrinka failed to capitalise on the 5-2 lead in the second set, due to no fault of Molina.

Who should be blamed for that, perhaps, some obscure linesman, whose shift was supposed to end after that set and he was in a hurry to go pee and made the wrong call?

In the end, the OP is an excuse for Wawrinka's loss, which he does not deserve. He played a wonderful match but lost, let us just leave it there and move on.

Jerzy Janowicz was very upset when he did not have recourse to hawkeye in his match against Devvarman, but he still played on and eventually won the match.

I watched the entire 5th set live on a large screen TV. Pretty high quality tennis, indeed. Both showed tremendous physical endurance as well.

Stan should have been more aggressive with his appeals. Not just the point about discussion is going on here, he should have appealed a few other close calls as well in situations when he still had his quota of appeals remaining.

alfred does umpiring as well as acting

sorry that was poor

i'll just be going now......

..... sorry forgot my keys....
.... and my dignity.....
.... oh and there it is a sense of humour..... so i guess that's it we will see you next sunday at 9

#revisionmakesyoucrazy

If we're talking 'shoulda' then Stan should have been more aggressive with his break points at 4-4 in the fifth. 3 second serves he had, and he gently sliced each one to the baseline. It's tough to be aggressive in those key moments (took Murray years to finally do it) but he was striking the ball so beautifully and I just wish he'd have gone for broke on one of those points.

I mean, they were really tentative second serves too.

That said, for 95% of the match Stan's approach was perfect. He played so so well. I hope it gives him confidence for future slams because I'd love to watch him play like that on the big stage more often.

It's harsh, but part of the game. Ultimately there's little reason for him not to challenge it if there was doubt in his mind, regardless of the indication that Molina gave. Tennis players often have decent intuition regarding close calls, probably because they've hit so many shots in their careers - Wawrinka should've backed himself!

Great match though. I'm disappointed because I've always enjoyed watching Stan play, would rather watch him in the next round than Novak. Such is life! Well played both.

Anyone think the celebration was OTT, incidentally? I haven't seen it, but a few people I know have muttered about it.

Silver wrote:It's harsh, but part of the game. Ultimately there's little reason for him not to challenge it if there was doubt in his mind, regardless of the indication that Molina gave. Tennis players often have decent intuition regarding close calls, probably because they've hit so many shots in their careers - Wawrinka should've backed himself!

Great match though. I'm disappointed because I've always enjoyed watching Stan play, would rather watch him in the next round than Novak. Such is life! Well played both.

Anyone think the celebration was OTT, incidentally? I haven't seen it, but a few people I know have muttered about it.

It was a little inconsiderate yeah. Stan was in tears, having played awesomely and just missed out on the result of his life... I mean, it's one thing to do that against multi slam winning Rafa, but this time it felt a bit out of place.

bogbrush wrote:Yes, I just think that this is bigger than an error; it's an error (by the linesman) compounded by the umpire effectively dissuading Stan from challenging. A different error from the first, two big errors compounding.

As for the next game, of course you're right but the probability was pretty high he'd have won.

It's an unusual scenario, certainly.

But it's a break point at 4-4 in the fifth. The call would give Stan the chance to serve for the match. What greater opportunity did he think he was saving his challenge for? The fact he thought the challenge was of greater value 'saved for later' than used at that juncture suggests that Stan didn't really have a strong opinion on the call.

Granted, the umpire may have influenced Stan's judgement. But, although I'm not without sympathy for Stan, I still think the buck ultimately stops with him.

Silver wrote:Anyone think the celebration was OTT, incidentally? I haven't seen it, but a few people I know have muttered about it.

Yes. I'm a fan of Novak and had no problem with the one a year ago but today's one was badly misjudged.

HM Murdoch wrote:But it's a break point at 4-4 in the fifth. The call would give Stan the chance to serve for the match.

The call would have had them replay the point, no? Or is this a different point than what I am thinking of?

It's done though, nobody wanted to do wrong.

Onward to the quarter.

summerblues wrote:

HM Murdoch wrote:But it's a break point at 4-4 in the fifth. The call would give Stan the chance to serve for the match.

The call would have had them replay the point, no? Or is this a different point than what I am thinking of?

I think if the ball is called good but is actually out, the point is lost. If it is called out but is actually good, then the point is replayed.

I think...?

Depends on whether it was a clean winner or not. If Novak was close to it and could get his racket on it then it would be replayed. I missed the point in question due to a stream lag so can't say which of the two scenarios it was.