it's the second time he's talked about that.
The first time was after his quarterfinal against Nadal in Miami :
he had complained about the linecalls, that he had to challenge a lot and he was right most of the time and that the umpire (Damian Steiner) never overruled, he said that having this permanent doubt about the bad calls and whether he had to challenge or not had disturbed his concentration.
He had said that except if the case was obvious, the umpire would never overrule against Nadal, contrary to what he would do against another player, because, and that's the important part, if Nadal didn't like the umpire, the umpire would never umpire big matches again
This time, it's about the decision in the tiebreak, at 3-3 I think, when there was a bad call on a Djokovic's first serve, Djokovic's challenge was good and Lahyani said that Tsonga could not have brought the ball back whereas he had touched it. Tsonga complained a lot about it to Lahyani saying that of course he had been disturbed by the call and he could have brought the ball back, and he hadn't really accepted Lahayni's decision even when he went back to play (Djokovic said that he understood Jo on that case by the way but he said rightly that it was hard to judge anyway and in the end it was the umpire's decision).
And once again, he says that if it had not been against a top-4, Lahyani would not have taken that decision.
But I have to say that I've already seen Lahyani take that kind of decision several times whereas it was not clear in my eyes.
I think, and that's my main concern, that there are clearly different judging ways from the umpires in such cases to judge "what would have happened without the bad call"
: most often on service points, the umpires judge that the player could not have brought the ball back anyway, while during rallies, they judge the opposite.
My personal main concern is rather that during the "rally points", the umpires usually have the point replayed rather than considering that the bad call didn't change the outcome of the point anyway.
That said, when Tsonga says that if a top-4 doesn't like an umpire, the umpire will be black-outed, I think there are good reasons to think this way and you can understand why he thinks that, when you consider how different are judged time wasting especially depending on whether it's Nadal on one case, lower-ranked players on the other case, and also when you consider how most important decisions in the ATP seem to be orientated by top-players. I think it's clearly a problem that the ATP and the umpires let this opinion emerge because of the obvious "double system" regarding time wasting.
I saw an article one day and nearly all players agreed that ythere was a double system on that rule, and they felt bad/angry about it.