Do you think that Nadal was robbed in his match against Murray at Toronto? [Archive] - MensTennisForums.com

Do you think that Nadal was robbed in his match against Murray at Toronto?

lleytonfan!
08-24-2010, 12:41 AM
Murray was serving at 3-3, 30-40, and footage confirmed he served a double fault. That should have given Nadal the game, but instead Murray saved the break point and won the game. Nadal would have been serving up a break, so I think that it made a big difference in the outcome of the set, maybe the entire match. Nadal could, and should have challenged, but ultimately, the umpire and lines people are responsible, because this is their job.

Luinir
08-24-2010, 12:46 AM
yeah

green25814
08-24-2010, 12:46 AM
Murray was serving at 3-3, 30-40, and footage confirmed he served a double fault. That should have given Nadal the game, but instead Murray saved the break point and won the game. Nadal would have been serving up a break, so I think that it made a big difference in the outcome of the set, maybe the entire match. Nadal could, and should have challenged, but ultimately, the umpire and lines people are responsible, because this is their job.

Not really, this is why we have the challenge system. Nadal should've challenged, and has noone to blame but himself.

Besides, its pointless speculating whether or not Nadal would've won had that happened. Murray was the better player on the day, and would probably have won anyway.

Sauletekis
08-24-2010, 12:48 AM
Murray was serving at 3-3, 30-40, and footage confirmed he served a double fault. That should have given Nadal the game, but instead Murray saved the break point and won the game. Nadal would have been serving up a break, so I think that it made a big difference in the outcome of the set, maybe the entire match. Nadal could, and should have challenged, but ultimately, the umpire and lines people are responsible, because this is their job.

I'm a Nadal fan, but like you say, Nadal could have challenge, so it's mainly his fault. the challenges are made for the players use them. If Nadal didn't challenge it's cause he didn't have a doubt that the umpire and lines people we're right...

emotion
08-24-2010, 12:53 AM
He shoulda challenged, he knew it was out and didn't question it

straitup
08-24-2010, 12:56 AM
He almost always seems to challenge anything that seems remotely close, even if it's a few inches out. Not sure why he didn't challenge that serve

Otherwise, no. It would be pathetic if someone was that affected by a missed call, they should be trained enough to reset after each set.

r2473
08-24-2010, 12:58 AM
Toronto, eh?

I'd like to go back to a match Nadal played when he was 2 years old and he got a bum call on a buggy whip forehand down the line winner.

He has never been the same since.

Mechlan
08-24-2010, 01:11 AM
I don't think it was Nadal's fault for not challenging. It's the linespeople's job to call that, not the players. That said, one point at that stage of the match is not a match-changing result ...so, get over it.

Filo V.
08-24-2010, 01:22 AM
Robbed isn't quite the correct phrase that describes it, he did get screwed over and he shouldn't be put in the position to call his own lines. The ball was clearly out by quite a bit and the linespeople should have called the ball out, and the umpire was there on that line, he should have seen it and called it out. He was screwed over, but he did have the opportunity to challenge and he didn't. Did it affect the match? Yes, it did, as it would have given Rafa a break and control. That game spurred Murray on to better things. So it did affect the match, but the final result? That is only one point of hundreds, and no true professional player allows one point to dictate the match as a whole.

peribsen
08-24-2010, 01:37 AM
It's absurd to suggest he was robbed. One bad call on the first set can have affected that set, probably did and you can't tell what role it would have had from them onwards (Nadal getting more confident or Murray nervous). However, one ball doesn't explain the whole match, not like if it was on the final games.

That said, I have my doubts on whether Nadal had a real chance to challenge the call: It was a serve, you return it, maybe you have doubts but the linemen don't call anything, Murray returns your ball... what do you do, stop the point? You have to be very sure it was out to do so, if you stop but are not right, you have thrown the point away. So you hit the ball back and forgo the chance to challenge anything. It sucks, but the rules are the same for everyone.

Roddickominator
08-24-2010, 02:08 AM
No tennis match is won or lost on one point, so no. If Nadal had played better than Murray, then he would have won. No robbery involved.

BigJohn
08-24-2010, 02:22 AM
It is indeed a conspiracy.

Sri
08-24-2010, 04:59 AM
http://www.scootermcgee.com/images/conspiracy_zc9u.jpg

osmonde
08-24-2010, 05:16 AM
It's absurd to suggest he was robbed. One bad call on the first set can have affected that set, probably did and you can't tell what role it would have had from them onwards (Nadal getting more confident or Murray nervous). However, one ball doesn't explain the whole match, not like if it was on the final games.

That said, I have my doubts on whether Nadal had a real chance to challenge the call: It was a serve, you return it, maybe you have doubts but the linemen don't call anything, Murray returns your ball... what do you do, stop the point? You have to be very sure it was out to do so, if you stop but are not right, you have thrown the point away. So you hit the ball back and forgo the chance to challenge anything. It sucks, but the rules are the same for everyone.

Exactly what the commentators said on tennistv. and that's what happened...to close to call on reaction point of view in that case.

HKz
08-24-2010, 08:03 AM
Nadal had a terrible call called on him at an extremely important moment in the second set at Wimbledon 2006 against Baghdatis who looked like he was going to at least take the set into a tie-breaker. But did it ruin him? No. He did complain about the call, and this was a year before Hawk Eye was installed at Wimbledon so he couldn't do anything at all except just accept that he lost a point. In the end, he still denied Marcos from taking the set to a breaker and won the match.

So no, Nadal wasn't robbed. Yes, the line judge and chair umpire handled that one pretty badly as the ball was clearly out, and Nadal should have challenged, but this stuff happens to all players regardless. I would think a worse situation is if Murray had game point rather than down a break point and this happened because the game would be totally over rather than just going to deuce giving Nadal still a shot.

dodo
08-24-2010, 08:08 AM
Players get robbed regularly. Nadal much less frequently than others (not because of some conspiracy bs, he is just better at hawk-eye). It is what it is.
Personally, I think we could do away with linespeople entirely and just have the umpire call all lines based on hawk-eye. Maybe soon.

HKz
08-24-2010, 08:12 AM
Players get robbed regularly. Nadal much less frequently than others (not because of some conspiracy bs, he is just better at hawk-eye). It is what it is.
Personally, I think we could do away with linespeople entirely and just have the umpire call all lines based on hawk-eye. Maybe soon.

Think it would remove some tradition to tennis :/ I don't know, personally I would miss seeing line judges. I don't know how fast Hawk-Eye works, but it would have to be pretty fast because you don't want players to be hitting 2, 3 more shots before the beep goes off saying it was out.

Goldenoldie
08-24-2010, 08:47 AM
Some players are better at using Hawkeye than others. Yes, the linesperson got it wrong, but on this occasion Nadal got it wrong by not challenging.

scoobs
08-24-2010, 08:50 AM
Well what goes around comes around anyway, when Murray was in the final set tiebreak against Fish in Cincy at 4-2 up Fish hit a shot long on Murray's baseline which wasn't called and ultimately lost the point - instead of being 5-2 up he was 4-3 up and Fish managed to win that tiebreak.

In conclusion, you win some, you lose some.

dudesenior
08-24-2010, 09:05 AM
No tennis match is won or lost on one point, so no. If Nadal had played better than Murray, then he would have won. No robbery involved.

i agree....if he was in that day in a better shape he would certainly won the match without making that lethal fault

The Magician
08-24-2010, 09:22 AM
Players get robbed regularly. Nadal much less frequently than others (not because of some conspiracy bs, he is just better at hawk-eye). It is what it is.
Personally, I think we could do away with linespeople entirely and just have the umpire call all lines based on hawk-eye. Maybe soon.

I used to think this but after seeing the let calling machine repeatedly malfunction at Cincy this week I've decided it would just be a disaster waiting to happen. I'm no luddite but the new technology is not nearly as foolproof as the ATP would have you believe, and sometimes hawkeye results seem way off the mark.

n8
08-24-2010, 09:32 AM
Well what goes around comes around anyway, when Murray was in the final set tiebreak against Fish in Cincy at 4-2 up Fish hit a shot long on Murray's baseline which wasn't called and ultimately lost the point - instead of being 5-2 up he was 4-3 up and Fish managed to win that tiebreak.

In conclusion, you win some, you lose some.

Yeah I remember that! Amazing that it has happened on two very big points in these last couple of weeks and Murray benefited on one and it cost him on the other.

Point and hawkeye review starting at 1:30:
fv1LDkOoe7g&feature=search

Nadal was very unlucky.

latso
08-24-2010, 09:38 AM
Win some/lose some indeed

Robbed still

When the ball is close, you can't challenge after a second serve.

The judges have no excuse.

100% robbed in this situation.

Not intentional ofc, though obviously a match turning mistake

dombrfc
08-24-2010, 09:46 AM
Murray was the better player by far.

Move on, Im sure Rafa has.

Infinity
08-24-2010, 10:51 AM
No
It's his fault not to challenge.

latso
08-24-2010, 10:53 AM
No
It's his fault not to challenge.
he's not there to chalenge but play tennis

the judges are there to say which ball is in, which one out

He is concentrated on playing the point and not on wether the ball was 1cm in or out.

The judges are there for that.

U never played tennis.

acionescu
08-24-2010, 11:21 AM
You are heavily underestimating Nadal's capacity to get broken right after he earned a break :lol:

latso
08-24-2010, 11:56 AM
You are heavily underestimating Nadal's capacity to get broken right after he earned a break :lol:
initially i thought it's been in second set, where it would have had more impact on the final result

ofc, rarely a decision in first set would be that much affecting the final result, so i guess Murray being the better player in this one would have won it anyway.

Still, it's a mistake from the lines judges and an important one.

The other thing - it's amazing how ppl come saying that it was Rafa's fault for not challenging (which means - stop the rallie after the return and ask for a hawk eye, for a ball that is 1cm next to the line...he needs hawk eye impanted in his head to do that..)

If you have ever played a tennis match, you would be 1000% certain you wouldn't do that ever, especially with line judges.

But even in amateur tournaments - you don't do that.

MacTheKnife
08-24-2010, 12:01 PM
The biggest issue I see right now consistently with calls is that stupid netcord machine. Seen several matches lately where it is so wrong both players and the umpire were laughing out loud. It has cost plenty of players extremely important 1st serves to be replayed. Time to look at bringing back the netcord judge. Technology in that area seems to leave something to be desired.

Ben.
08-24-2010, 12:10 PM
He was robbed of that point, and thus the game, for sure. Impossible to say about anything that would have happened after that. As for people saying it is the player's fault for not challenging, it isn't. It was a second serve, right infront of the umprie. No excuse for it being missed by the umpire and line judge. Tough for the player to stop the point on a break point when it is a close call unless he is 100% sure it was out.

leng jai
08-24-2010, 12:28 PM
Funny how people are blaming Nadull for not challenging. Its not his job to get the call right, its the linesman/umpire. To challenge mid rally is always risky which is probably why he chose not to.

iriraz
08-24-2010, 12:34 PM
Murray`s serve was out but by a small margin.It`s always tough for an umpire to be sure the ball is out especially on a serve and for the player is also tough to stop play because he may loose the point.
This mistakes happen in most matches but unfortunately the timing was not a good one.

NadalSharapova
08-24-2010, 12:52 PM
well nadal had the choice to challenge but didn't choose it. i mean if there was no hawk eye available then i would say yes he was robbed.

latso
08-24-2010, 01:58 PM
well nadal had the choice to challenge but didn't choose it. i mean if there was no hawk eye available then i would say yes he was robbed.
he didn't have that chance

He had to play the point

The umpire/judges should have called it.

Close/not close - what is close? they judge 99% of the first serves right and they can't see a 95mph second serve? That's their job. If they can't see this, better work in a factory or smth

dodo
08-24-2010, 02:34 PM
Nadal would laugh at you all if he saw this thread. Its just one point, even if it was a break point.
Luck comes in many forms - bad calls, crowd interference, weather, net cords, fluke frame shots. This was hardly noteworthy in the grand scheme of things, I'm sure he's seen plenty worse.

BigJohn
08-24-2010, 03:49 PM
he didn't have that chance

He had to play the point

The umpire/judges should have called it.

Close/not close - what is close? they judge 99% of the first serves right and they can't see a 95mph second serve? That's their job. If they can't see this, better work in a factory or smth

Not sure if line judge is a full time job.

Jagermeister
08-24-2010, 03:59 PM
It was a shitty call. Shitty calls happen all the time. Time to move on.