Weeks 27 & 28 - The Championships, Wimbledon (grass) - main draw

Stircrazy · Tennis legend

Weeks 27 & 28 - The Championships, Wimbledon (grass) - main draw

Neil Gee · Club Coach

No, not expecting Carlos to come through that easily in straight sets, but ND will be a different matter, or should be.

christ · Futures level

Neil Gee wrote:
Coup Droit wrote:
Neil Gee wrote:
christ wrote:
Interesting to see (hear?) Mr Djokovic called for a hindrance against Mr Sinner. That doesn't happen often.
When I heard the umpire call it I thought JS had accidentally crashed into a lines-person off camera, couldn't believe it when they explained that it was for grunting.
It wasn't a grunt, IMO
I see what you mean on the replay the noise was a little late, but if it was a hindrance then it should have affected Sinner's return, but the return landed a foot inside the base line and this makes the 'hindrance' bit a little hard to buy.

It doesn't matter whether it affects the opponent or not. A hindrance (can be) is called for a deliberate distraction, and in this case it certainly seemed to be exactly that: a loud grunt long after he had hit the ball.

Jaffa · Challenger level

Just dont make a noise and you dont risk it.

indiana · Tennis legend

I would penalise Djokovic regularly for just being Djokovic.

His tennis though is different class. Sorry Carlos, you will have to be content with RU this year.

Stircrazy · Tennis legend

indiana wrote:
I would penalise Djokovic regularly for just being Djokovic.

At least the umpire in his semi-final had the guts to penalise him, sadly only once, for bouncing the ball for too long when he was serving ("infamy, infamy. they've all got it in for me"...).

JonH comes home · Tennis legend

I managed to watch some Djoko highlights today and what struck me was just how accurate he is - his serve is not the hardest although around 120-125 typically, it was on a pinpoint in terms of accuracy and consistently first serve was in when I watched - made him so hard to break as he is able to then be on the attack third shot; Agassi used to say third shot was the most important and it is so often true.

And then his movement and game is so precise and almost faultless.

I dont like the guy but he is playing now better than he did back in 2011; I will be amazed if he doesnt win this and the Grand Slam.

I would then be very interested to see if Jeff Sackman re runs his algorithm, would Djoko become the GOAT ahead of Laver. It would be hard to argue against if he did

Neil Gee · Club Coach

christ wrote:
Neil Gee wrote:
Coup Droit wrote:
Neil Gee wrote:
christ wrote:
Interesting to see (hear?) Mr Djokovic called for a hindrance against Mr Sinner. That doesn't happen often.
When I heard the umpire call it I thought JS had accidentally crashed into a lines-person off camera, couldn't believe it when they explained that it was for grunting.
It wasn't a grunt, IMO
I see what you mean on the replay the noise was a little late, but if it was a hindrance then it should have affected Sinner's return, but the return landed a foot inside the base line and this makes the 'hindrance' bit a little hard to buy.
It doesn't matter whether it affects the opponent or not. A hindrance (can be) is called for a deliberate distraction, and in this case it certainly seemed to be exactly that: a loud grunt long after he had hit the ball.

Looked at like that Carlos A could have had hindrance points deducted at least twice in his semi final, but nothing happened, which suggests the whole thing is down to one umpire with a bee in his bonnet.

SuperT · Futures level

Neil Gee wrote:
christ wrote:
Neil Gee wrote:
Coup Droit wrote:
Neil Gee wrote:
christ wrote:
Interesting to see (hear?) Mr Djokovic called for a hindrance against Mr Sinner. That doesn't happen often.
When I heard the umpire call it I thought JS had accidentally crashed into a lines-person off camera, couldn't believe it when they explained that it was for grunting.
It wasn't a grunt, IMO
I see what you mean on the replay the noise was a little late, but if it was a hindrance then it should have affected Sinner's return, but the return landed a foot inside the base line and this makes the 'hindrance' bit a little hard to buy.
It doesn't matter whether it affects the opponent or not. A hindrance (can be) is called for a deliberate distraction, and in this case it certainly seemed to be exactly that: a loud grunt long after he had hit the ball.
Looked at like that Carlos A could have had hindrance points deducted at least twice in his semi final, but nothing happened, which suggests the whole thing is down to one umpire with a bee in his bonnet.

I seem to remember Cam had a similar hindrance called not that long ago and he's not a habitual grunter. Apparently this is definitely a rule and the umpire was correct so shouldn't be criticised. The fact that lots of umpires ignore it shouldn't detract from those who are doing their job properly. It's a bit like those umpires who fail to penalise players (eg Nadal) who don't comply with the time rules.

Neil Gee · Club Coach

SuperT wrote:
Neil Gee wrote:
christ wrote:
Neil Gee wrote:
Coup Droit wrote:
Neil Gee wrote:
christ wrote:
Interesting to see (hear?) Mr Djokovic called for a hindrance against Mr Sinner. That doesn't happen often.
When I heard the umpire call it I thought JS had accidentally crashed into a lines-person off camera, couldn't believe it when they explained that it was for grunting.
It wasn't a grunt, IMO
I see what you mean on the replay the noise was a little late, but if it was a hindrance then it should have affected Sinner's return, but the return landed a foot inside the base line and this makes the 'hindrance' bit a little hard to buy.
It doesn't matter whether it affects the opponent or not. A hindrance (can be) is called for a deliberate distraction, and in this case it certainly seemed to be exactly that: a loud grunt long after he had hit the ball.
Looked at like that Carlos A could have had hindrance points deducted at least twice in his semi final, but nothing happened, which suggests the whole thing is down to one umpire with a bee in his bonnet.
I seem to remember Cam had a similar hindrance called not that long ago and he's not a habitual grunter. Apparently this is definitely a rule and the umpire was correct so shouldn't be criticised. The fact that lots of umpires ignore it shouldn't detract from those who are doing their job properly. It's a bit like those umpires who fail to penalise players (eg Nadal) who don't comply with the time rules.

I acknowledge the point that it is a rule but I don't think it's good sense to go down the route that just because there's a rule about something you have to apply it, common sense should be the bottom line here.

Neil Gee · Club Coach

As to tomorrow I have to give Novak the edge because he's been there so many times before whilst Carlos is still learning and I expect this final to be another part of the learning curve for him. There are things still to hammer out for Carlos like the stutter he had in the third set in the semi final when the finish line came in sight, but he will learn to cut that out as he gets better self-control. One thing nobody can argue with is that Carlos is a fast learner. He's gone from struggling on grass to the point of almost going out in the first round at Queens to being widely regarded as the only threat to ND's 24th Grand Slam win in a matter of a few weeks.

Coup Droit · Tennis legend

Neil Gee wrote:
SuperT wrote:
Neil Gee wrote:
christ wrote:
Neil Gee wrote:
Coup Droit wrote:
Neil Gee wrote:
christ wrote:
Interesting to see (hear?) Mr Djokovic called for a hindrance against Mr Sinner. That doesn't happen often.
When I heard the umpire call it I thought JS had accidentally crashed into a lines-person off camera, couldn't believe it when they explained that it was for grunting.
It wasn't a grunt, IMO
I see what you mean on the replay the noise was a little late, but if it was a hindrance then it should have affected Sinner's return, but the return landed a foot inside the base line and this makes the 'hindrance' bit a little hard to buy.
It doesn't matter whether it affects the opponent or not. A hindrance (can be) is called for a deliberate distraction, and in this case it certainly seemed to be exactly that: a loud grunt long after he had hit the ball.
Looked at like that Carlos A could have had hindrance points deducted at least twice in his semi final, but nothing happened, which suggests the whole thing is down to one umpire with a bee in his bonnet.
I seem to remember Cam had a similar hindrance called not that long ago and he's not a habitual grunter. Apparently this is definitely a rule and the umpire was correct so shouldn't be criticised. The fact that lots of umpires ignore it shouldn't detract from those who are doing their job properly. It's a bit like those umpires who fail to penalise players (eg Nadal) who don't comply with the time rules.
I acknowledge the point that it is a rule but I don't think it's good sense to go down the route that just because there's a rule about something you have to apply it, common sense should be the bottom line here.

But my common sense says the umpire was right. It's not common sense, to me, to allow someone to suddenly roar (it was not a grunt, IMO) just when the other guy is about to hit the ball.

But that's the problem with an understanding of common sense, it might be 'common' but it's not uniform.

And whether another umpire in another match didn't act identically is not really that relevant.

The rule is discretionary. Just like referees in football giving yellow and red cards. Two umpires may see the same foul differently. As long as it's within the range of the rule, then that's fine, it's human refereeing. And the ref in Djoko's match was certainly within the range of the rule.

Neil Gee · Club Coach

Coup Droit wrote:
Neil Gee wrote:
SuperT wrote:
Neil Gee wrote:
christ wrote:
Neil Gee wrote:
Coup Droit wrote:
Neil Gee wrote:
christ wrote:
Interesting to see (hear?) Mr Djokovic called for a hindrance against Mr Sinner. That doesn't happen often.
When I heard the umpire call it I thought JS had accidentally crashed into a lines-person off camera, couldn't believe it when they explained that it was for grunting.
It wasn't a grunt, IMO
I see what you mean on the replay the noise was a little late, but if it was a hindrance then it should have affected Sinner's return, but the return landed a foot inside the base line and this makes the 'hindrance' bit a little hard to buy.
It doesn't matter whether it affects the opponent or not. A hindrance (can be) is called for a deliberate distraction, and in this case it certainly seemed to be exactly that: a loud grunt long after he had hit the ball.
Looked at like that Carlos A could have had hindrance points deducted at least twice in his semi final, but nothing happened, which suggests the whole thing is down to one umpire with a bee in his bonnet.
I seem to remember Cam had a similar hindrance called not that long ago and he's not a habitual grunter. Apparently this is definitely a rule and the umpire was correct so shouldn't be criticised. The fact that lots of umpires ignore it shouldn't detract from those who are doing their job properly. It's a bit like those umpires who fail to penalise players (eg Nadal) who don't comply with the time rules.
I acknowledge the point that it is a rule but I don't think it's good sense to go down the route that just because there's a rule about something you have to apply it, common sense should be the bottom line here.
But my common sense says the umpire was right. It's not common sense, to me, to allow someone to suddenly roar (it was not a grunt, IMO) just when the other guy is about to hit the ball.
But that's the problem with an understanding of common sense, it might be 'common' but it's not uniform.
And whether another umpire in another match didn't act identically is not really that relevant.
The rule is discretionary. Just like referees in football giving yellow and red cards. Two umpires may see the same foul differently. As long as it's within the range of the rule, then that's fine, it's human refereeing. And the ref in Djoko's match was certainly within the range of the rule.

Being within the range of the rule does not foreclose my right to disagree. I thought it was a absurd decision when it happened and I still do think so. But there's no point in me rehashing points I've already made so we'll have to agree to disagree on this one.

Coup Droit · Tennis legend

Deal

Helen40 · Grand Slam Champion

I must admit to have lost interest since the Brits and Eubanks went out, but, hey it's the final, and although I'd love to see Djoko beaten I'm not holding my breath.