Agree Agree:  24
Likes Likes:  29
Page 12 of 12 FirstFirst ... 289101112
Results 166 to 178 of 178
  1. #166

    Re: ATP M1000 WTA PM Madrid 5/4 - 5/12 2019

    Megan, you're remembering that better than it was. It wasn't just a swipe. And if you recall, he kept answering this way when the press was asking questions. It wasn't merely one mention.

    "I always say when the opponent played better, I'm probably one of the most honest guys on tour," Zverev said. "Today was an absolutely pathetic match. I don't think he played well."
    https://www.cbc.ca/sports/tennis/rog...iday-1.4781562


    And Megan, I have no idea how you've missed his brattiness. It's toned down in general in the last year as he's matured I assume, but still can come out. But it used to be out in full force on a fairly regular basis 18 months to 2 years ago when he was struggling in a match and after a loss. It is not a good look.

  2. #167
    cock of the clay
    Awards Showcase

    liam_valid's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2010
    Location
    Liverpool UK
    Posts
    2,691

    Re: ATP M1000 WTA PM Madrid 5/4 - 5/12 2019

    Venus had a 5-1 lead in the third against Mertens, has had a total of EIGHT match points on her serve-but it’s back to 5-5! She’s playing in a hoodie too, must be cold in Rome

  3. #168
    cock of the clay
    Awards Showcase

    liam_valid's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2010
    Location
    Liverpool UK
    Posts
    2,691

    Re: ATP M1000 WTA PM Madrid 5/4 - 5/12 2019

    So after losing 4 straight games she has managed the break and will serve for it at 6-5

  4. #169

    Re: ATP M1000 WTA PM Madrid 5/4 - 5/12 2019

    Quote Originally Posted by JazzNU View Post
    Megan, you're remembering that better than it was. It wasn't just a swipe. And if you recall, he kept answering this way when the press was asking questions. It wasn't merely one mention.



    https://www.cbc.ca/sports/tennis/rog...iday-1.4781562


    And Megan, I have no idea how you've missed his brattiness. It's toned down in general in the last year as he's matured I assume, but still can come out. But it used to be out in full force on a fairly regular basis 18 months to 2 years ago when he was struggling in a match and after a loss. It is not a good look.
    I actually watched the video yesterday. I didn't see it when it happened. I honestly haven't watched Zverev very much in the last couple of years. I wasn't that interested. I knew a lot of people (here) didn't like him but I hadn't judged for myself.
    Sometimes you're the windshield, sometimes you're the bug.

  5. #170

    Re: ATP M1000 WTA PM Madrid 5/4 - 5/12 2019

    [QUOTE=GlennHarman;998590]
    Quote Originally Posted by MeganFernandez View Post
    Bertens should have conceded that point. I don’t care what the rules are. Absolute BS that a player wins a point in that particular circumstance. Umpires could have discretion to distinguish between these scenarios and others that would have had an inkling of a prayer of going in (like if someone volleys from the alley and it hits the opponent but may have gone in otherwise).

    I dont expect anyone to agree with me, but I will never understand how Bertens can accept that point.

    I so rarely disagree with your points......But I do disagree with this one. Them's the rules...so I think the point was awarded as it should have been. Of course, you make a totally valid point that that shot that hit Halep was WAY out (it probably would have hit the back wall before hitting the ground). But my concern would be more: If you make an exception for this one, than would we not be at a point of seeing arguments over a ball that hits a player's foot that is located an inch behind the baseline. It could get to be really sticky in some weird situations. That rule is pretty clear-cut and has been in place for ages. So I vote for it being best to leave it alone...

    GH
    Yeah, I can see why the reaction would be that the rule is fine. I agree that the rule was enforced properly. I just think this incident laid bare that the rule is absurd. it doesn't happen that much, so it's not something that has come up as a problem to fix in tennis. And it probably won't, unless it happens in a higher-profile match.

    Humor me as I try to articulate this thought exercise I have been having. I start here: That set of circumstances should not result in a point for Bertens. Start with justice, then create rules that reflect and ensure that justice, as best as possible. When we see rules/laws in action, tested, that's often when we see their flaws, and we fix them. We refine, adjust, question, debate, etc.

    This one, to me, is broken and absurd. All of the "what ifs" and other scenarios are easy to deal with. My first draft of the rule would say basically that the air above the court, beyond the field of play, is out, if the ball is on a clear trajectory away from the field of play. The ball is dead once it travels past the field of play without bouncing and has no chance, within reasonable laws of physics, of returning to the field of play. The trajectory only matters to distinguish between balls out of the field of play that have no chance to re-enter it and those that do. Here's one example of the latter: A player tracks down an overhead waaaay beyond the baseline and out wide and returns it with an overhead - like a serve. We see those a lot, and they often have some wicked spin. The ball could be outside the court when it's struck and curve toward the court from the side. If it contacts the opponent in the alley before reaching the backcourt, the current rule would be applied - the person who hit it gets the point. That's because the ball was on a trajectory toward the field of play when it contacted the opponent outside the field of play. It woudn't matter if that ball might have been long - you can't tell for sure, and that's future event, not the present. You could also see this happening in doubles, when balls are way out past the sidelines and hit around the net post. Also groundstrokes with heavy spin that could bend the ball outside the singles sideline for a bit before it curves back into the court. Someone mentioned that Nadal hits that shot sometimes.

    However, when the ball has traveled outside the field of play and will continue on that trajectory, I think it could be ruled dead once it's out. it shoudln't have to bounce or hit something. It's out in the air. Therefore, if it hits a player, that player wouldn't unfairly lose the point. it's pretty easy to see the contact point. The umpire would have discretion to call this, just like they do with other shots. In fact, I think it would be easier to see where a player's body is upon contact than calling a line across the court, for example, which umpires currently do. So it's not a hard call for the umpire. Not a hard call to get right. Hawkeye could be used if necessary, so a player could challenge this call. Hawkeye has this capability. (Or something does - it's how we get those graphics of return-of-serve contact points and such.)

    The other exception would be if the player makes an attempt to hit the ball out of the air. That player would lose the point, even if the ball is outside the field of play. (Because the attempt would violate the stipulation that the ball had no chance of returning to the field of play.) So if Halep had tried to return that ball and it hit her racket, then she would have lost the point under my version of the rule. But the ball hitting her body wouldn't lose her the point. Again, it's the umpire's call, and not a hard one. This would be more problematic in recreational and club tennis, but it's no different than players calling their own double bounces.

    I've had this discussion on Twitter, and people brought up balls that are probably sailing out but hit a player in the court first. That's totally different to me. That hit player would still lose the point. Balls within the field of play are substantially different than those that have left the field of play.

    So that's my reasoning! To me, it's so obvious. I think we all agree that Bertens hit that ball out and didn't deserve the point, except for a weird rule that we can't explain. So the rule should reflect justice.
    Last edited by MeganFernandez; 05-13-2019 at 11:42 AM.
    Sometimes you're the windshield, sometimes you're the bug.

  6. #171

    Re: ATP M1000 WTA PM Madrid 5/4 - 5/12 2019

    Quote Originally Posted by liam_valid View Post
    Venus had a 5-1 lead in the third against Mertens, has had a total of EIGHT match points on her serve-but it’s back to 5-5! She’s playing in a hoodie too, must be cold in Rome
    Quote Originally Posted by liam_valid View Post
    So after losing 4 straight games she has managed the break and will serve for it at 6-5
    And wow, it happened AGAIN in Rome! They really play messy matches!
    (Just joking, Liam )
    Starry starry night

  7. #172
    cock of the clay
    Awards Showcase

    liam_valid's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2010
    Location
    Liverpool UK
    Posts
    2,691

    Re: ATP M1000 WTA PM Madrid 5/4 - 5/12 2019

    Quote Originally Posted by ponchi101 View Post
    And wow, it happened AGAIN in Rome! They really play messy matches!
    (Just joking, Liam )
    Haha it’s such a good horror show I wanted to watch it twice!

  8. #173
    cock of the clay
    Awards Showcase

    liam_valid's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2010
    Location
    Liverpool UK
    Posts
    2,691

    Re: ATP M1000 WTA PM Madrid 5/4 - 5/12 2019

    [QUOTE=MeganFernandez;998673]
    Quote Originally Posted by GlennHarman View Post

    Yeah, I can see why the reaction would be that the rule is fine. I agree that the rule was enforced properly. I just think this incident laid bare that the rule is absurd. it doesn't happen that much, so it's not something that has come up as a problem to fix in tennis. And it probably won't, unless it happens in a higher-profile match.

    Humor me as I try to articulate this thought exercise I have been having. I start here: That set of circumstances should not result in a point for Bertens. Start with justice, then create rules that reflect and ensure that justice, as best as possible. When we see rules/laws in action, tested, that's often when we see their flaws, and we fix them. We refine, adjust, question, debate, etc.

    This one, to me, is broken and absurd. All of the "what ifs" and other scenarios are easy to deal with. My first draft of the rule would say basically that the air above the court, beyond the field of play, is out, if the ball is on a clear trajectory away from the field of play. The ball is dead once it travels past the field of play without bouncing and has no chance, within reasonable laws of physics, of returning to the field of play. The trajectory only matters to distinguish between balls out of the field of play that have no chance to re-enter it and those that do. Here's one example of the latter: A player tracks down an overhead waaaay beyond the baseline and out wide and returns it with an overhead - like a serve. We see those a lot, and they often have some wicked spin. The ball could be outside the court when it's struck and curve toward the court from the side. If it contacts the opponent in the alley before reaching the backcourt, the current rule would be applied - the person who hit it gets the point. That's because the ball was on a trajectory toward the field of play when it contacted the opponent outside the field of play. It woudn't matter if that ball might have been long - you can't tell for sure, and that's future event, not the present. You could also see this happening in doubles, when balls are way out past the sidelines and hit around the net post. Also groundstrokes with heavy spin that could bend the ball outside the singles sideline for a bit before it curves back into the court. Someone mentioned that Nadal hits that shot sometimes.

    However, when the ball has traveled outside the field of play and will continue on that trajectory, I think it could be ruled dead once it's out. it shoudln't have to bounce or hit something. It's out in the air. Therefore, if it hits a player, that player wouldn't unfairly lose the point. it's pretty easy to see the contact point. The umpire would have discretion to call this, just like they do with other shots. In fact, I think it would be easier to see where a player's body is upon contact than calling a line across the court, for example, which umpires currently do. So it's not a hard call for the umpire. Not a hard call to get right. Hawkeye could be used if necessary, so a player could challenge this call. Hawkeye has this capability. (Or something does - it's how we get those graphics of return-of-serve contact points and such.)

    The other exception would be if the player makes an attempt to hit the ball out of the air. That player would lose the point, even if the ball is outside the field of play. So if Halep had tried to return that ball and it hit her racket, then she wold have lost the point under my version of the rule. But the ball hitting her body wouldn't lose her the point. Again, it's the umpire's call, and not a hard one. This would be more problematic in recreational and club tennis, but it's no different than players calling their own double bounces.

    I've had this discussion on Twitter, and people brought up balls that are probably sailing out but hit a player in the court first. That's totally different to me. That hit player would still lose the point. Balls within the field of play are substantially different than those that have left the field of play.

    So that's my reasoning! To me, it's so obvious. I think we all agree that Bertens hit that ball out and didn't deserve the point, except for a weird rule that we can't explain. So the rule should reflect justice.
    I guess your point is similar for when Djokovic touched the net against Nadal, and automatically lost the point, despite the fact Rafa was never near getting the ball back in play. Even though I was overjoyed at Rafa winning that point and tuning the match around, I did feel it was REALLY harsh on Nole, and it’s not like touching the net had any impact on the trajectory of the winner. But having a strict rule on these things makes it much easier to enforce for the umpires, so I’m on the fence!

  9. #174

    Re: ATP M1000 WTA PM Madrid 5/4 - 5/12 2019

    [QUOTE=liam_valid;998681]
    Quote Originally Posted by MeganFernandez View Post

    I guess your point is similar for when Djokovic touched the net against Nadal, and automatically lost the point, despite the fact Rafa was never near getting the ball back in play. Even though I was overjoyed at Rafa winning that point and tuning the match around, I did feel it was REALLY harsh on Nole, and it’s not like touching the net had any impact on the trajectory of the winner. But having a strict rule on these things makes it much easier to enforce for the umpires, so I’m on the fence!
    Hmmm... that's a good point. I'll have to roll this around in my head. My first thought is that a player who touches the net had some control over the circumstances, and those circumstances were connected to the play he or she was able to make on the ball. Being struck by a ball that's out of bounds has nothing to do with making a play on the ball. In Halep's case, I don't think she really had any reasonable control over it. Being hit with the ball past the baseline was 100% bad luck. (There's luck in sports, but rules should mitigate against it as much as possible.)

    Regarding losing the point for being in the net, are there situations that seem unfair and ones that seem fair? Like, why was that rule put in place to begin with? Is there a scenario in which the player hitting the net deserves to lose the point, or when hitting the net disrupts play?
    Last edited by MeganFernandez; 05-13-2019 at 12:08 PM.
    Sometimes you're the windshield, sometimes you're the bug.

  10. #175

    Re: ATP M1000 WTA PM Madrid 5/4 - 5/12 2019

    Megan, I really do understand your point. And I think everyone, including Bertens, was a bit taken aback that she won that point. I agree that no one could possibly question that the shot was out and stood not the slightest chance, unless hurricane-force winds starting blowing suddenly toward the court, of landing in.

    I would not have a problem with the rule you propose. I agree that the umpire makes closer calls (FAR closer calls) than that one would have been. So if the rule could be written in such a way that no ball that was over the court or had any chance of landing in would be affected by your rule change, I would not see that as a problem. This affects very few points, so I am also just fine with leaving it alone. I think you have at least convinced me to join Liam "on the fence."

    GH

  11. #176

    Re: ATP M1000 WTA PM Madrid 5/4 - 5/12 2019

    Quote Originally Posted by MeganFernandez View Post
    Hmmm... that's a good point. I'll have to roll this around in my head. My first thought is that a player who touches the net had some control over the circumstances, and those circumstances were connected to the play he or she was able to make on the ball. Being struck by a ball that's out of bounds has nothing to do with making a play on the ball. In Halep's case, I don't think she really had any reasonable control over it. Being hit with the ball past the baseline was 100% bad luck. (There's luck in sports, but rules should mitigate against it as much as possible.)
    I don't think it's quite that simple. Halep made the decision to haul ass towards the opposite side of the court. Even though she was in an almost hopeless position, that strategy can pay off. Your opponent sees you barreling in the direction she's aiming for, so maybe she goes for too much. It worked! The problem is that Halep didn't cross her 'T's and dot her 'I's. She have enough control to dodge.

    It's a wacky point, but we've seen points where a ball is going completely wide, then hits the net in a bizarre way and zags over.

  12. #177

    Re: ATP M1000 WTA PM Madrid 5/4 - 5/12 2019

    Quote Originally Posted by Charlie02123 View Post
    I don't think it's quite that simple. Halep made the decision to haul ass towards the opposite side of the court. Even though she was in an almost hopeless position, that strategy can pay off. Your opponent sees you barreling in the direction she's aiming for, so maybe she goes for too much. It worked! The problem is that Halep didn't cross her 'T's and dot her 'I's. She have enough control to dodge. (As far as the other thing, I'm still thinking about it. What if she hadn't ran and it still hit her? I don't think it changes the fact that Bertens screwed up and still got the point. I also don't think Haelp could have reasonably avoided the ball. Maybe Simone Biles could have contorted enough that quickly. But that's a good point that I'm now considering.)

    It's a wacky point, but we've seen points where a ball is going completely wide, then hits the net in a bizarre way and zags over.
    If the ball hits the net, it's not yet out of play. It's still on the hitter's side of the court. That's terrible luck, too, but at least the ball stayed in the field of play. I see your point, though. Maybe the net cord outside of the alley is out, too.

    Thanks for humoring me as I thought through this. It just seems so obvious that Halep deserved the point, and when there's obvious injustice, you fix it. (Well, if anyone cared. This doesn't happen enough for people to care.)

    So in the absence of a fix, I think players should consider conceding these points. If this happened in a league match, I would conceded the point, no question. It's easy to say, well, apples and oranges - there's a lot more on the line in a pro match. But shouldn't higher stakes call for an even higher level of sportsmanship? That's my thought process. Of course a player is entitled to any point earned within the rules. But I wish players would just do the right thing. To me, that's what sports is about. And if the rules can't get it right, I wish people would.

    Instead, Bertens laughed. I lost a lot of respect for her. Maybe that's too harsh - because people laugh in odd circumstances, out of stress relief, whatever - but it's true and that's that! I wish her first instinct had been, that's not my point. I didn't earn it.
    Last edited by MeganFernandez; 05-13-2019 at 12:42 PM.
    Sometimes you're the windshield, sometimes you're the bug.

  13. #178

    Re: ATP M1000 WTA PM Madrid 5/4 - 5/12 2019

    Quote Originally Posted by GlennHarman View Post
    Megan, I really do understand your point. And I think everyone, including Bertens, was a bit taken aback that she won that point. I agree that no one could possibly question that the shot was out and stood not the slightest chance, unless hurricane-force winds starting blowing suddenly toward the court, of landing in.

    I would not have a problem with the rule you propose. I agree that the umpire makes closer calls (FAR closer calls) than that one would have been. So if the rule could be written in such a way that no ball that was over the court or had any chance of landing in would be affected by your rule change, I would not see that as a problem. This affects very few points, so I am also just fine with leaving it alone. I think you have at least convinced me to join Liam "on the fence."

    GH
    thank you for humoring me! And challenging me.
    Sometimes you're the windshield, sometimes you're the bug.

Page 12 of 12 FirstFirst ... 289101112

Tags for this Thread

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •