Umpire is 100% right. The only reason Roger even complained is because he hit the net. Had he won that point he would've kept his mouth shut about the out ball.
Well of course... its not Rogers job to correct the calls, the only reason he challanged the call is because if it was called right (as it should) he may have not lost the point. He was just playing to get as much benefit as he can
If Federer just left the ball and was wrong then he would have lost the point. Whether Federer had won by the opposition player hitting the ball out or by Federer returning a great volley would have been the same result - point Federer. It wouldn’t have changed the correct result if Federer had made that last shot. The umpire wasn’t thinking logically/rationally.
Federer is my favorite player of all time, but if his volley would've been a winner, he wouldnt have challenged it. I think he was just a bit frustrated losing easy points.
I think Roger is right. He expected the call to come its out hence the weak return. So he realises he lost the point bec the out call never came! Not fair he should be allowed to challenge and he was right it was out.
The truth of your comment does not mean Roger was incorrect here; if his shot had gone in then the burden would have been on Stan to challenge. Roger would have rightfully kept his mouth shut in that circumstance.
@@yousufkhan2309 you say “no” but you are corroborating exactly what I said; had Stan not been able to challenge we would just be watching the same video but with a goofier Swiss accent; Federer would have turned his back and it would still be the line umpire’s fault.
@@AinSoph73 not at all. You cannot hit the ball back and then decide if you want to challenge it or not. Imagine if Stan’s return was a winner, you think he’s going to challenge, even though he thought the ball was out?
The umpire handled that well imo. I understand Federer's argument but the umpire's job is to strictly follow the rules and it's not a subjective matter.
Both are right but if we follow the rules it is the umpire who is right. However everyone would have reacted like Roger, by the time he realized his serve was out Wawrinka's return was already in his racket. The problem in tennis is that in these moments the umpires are not "flexible" and follow the rules at all costs.
Roger is wrong. I understand that everything happened quickly but the challenge must be done as soon as possible, the chair umpire is just following the rules. Roger's attitude of asking if the umpire plays Tennis has nothing to do with the fact that he(umpire) is doing his job in a very correct way. It doens't matter if the chair umpire never touched a tennis racket in his life, bad attitude for Roger, very bad, but sometimes people make mistakes and it is ok, we are all humans and he is still my favourite tennis player since I was born.
Hmmm...iffy. what if the touch was not to be played? Or it went straight at him? There is no interpretation of "playing" the ball on touch. I'd say it was obvious he didn't have time to call it and not touch the ball. When at the baseline (as Roger said) things would be more understandable. Not now, with a serve and volley. (If he had had time, despite the speed, to just stop the ball, or hit it with no intention, one hypothetical situation where serve had been in a he gets an out call, but is "corrected" by empire, and he misses...does the play stand? i.e. the miss. OR if he makes the point, would Stan lose the point or a replay is in order?)
The problem is that he tried to play the volley , if he had challenged without going for the volley before doing anything else then maybe he would have had a point but he tried to volley missed it and then challenged which isn't allowed
Federer had aguments with this umpire so many times. Aus Open 2018 v Berdych, where he challenged but the challenge could not be shown. Indian Wells 2018 v Del Poto in the 2nd set tiebreak. Cincy 2018 v Wawrinka.
The reason this rule is in place is because if you were allowed to challenge a call several strokes afterwards, it could potentially open up a scenario where you want to challenge 2 shots or maybe your opponent even wants to challenge their shot. If you're going to challenge, you have to do it immediately or else too many bad scenarios can happen. Roger knows this rule... he was just unhappy with his dumped volley into the net.
I think the rule should be the amount of time elapsed after the shot, not the number of shots. You can't challenge after you continue the rally for another 30 seconds. The number of shots doesn't make sense. Federer challenged within just a few seconds. If he had made that shot, then Stan should be allowed to challenge. But neither should be allowed to challenge if they had waited another 10, 15 secs or more.
@@tomsd8656 I disagree. The number of shots does matter. Roger challenged after the ball went into the net. If, hypothetically, Roger hit the ball in and it led to Roger having an advantage in the rally, Roger would not have challenged. He would have let the point play out. When Roger hit the ball into the net, it's a lost point, so he has nothing to lose (except his challenge) by challenging the serve. Allowing Roger to challenge an earlier shot, after he had already hit the ball into the net, gives him a competitive advantage.
No problem here because if Roger had made that volley, then Stan would challenge. Players generally challenge only if they stand to gain advantage, so yours is a moot point. But, if Roger had made that volley then Stan could run for it and hit a winner then now it made sense not to allow the challenge because too much time had passed. even in amateur rec tennis, if you hit a serve that you saw was out, your body already prepared for the second serve, not for the volley, so when the opponent didn't call it out, you'd be caught a bit hesitant and more often than not, you'd mess up the second shot. And you could see from the way Roger hit that volley, he wasn't prepared because he thought his serve was out. From a pure logical reasoning then I agree with you.
@@tomsd8656 great you mention amateur rec tennis, where its actually a common practise to fire back a return on a close serve and then give it "good" or "out" depending on whether you make the return) - opponent will never protest like Federer did here.
@@beefjerky2372 what if Stan was to chase the half-volley Federer made? At what point in time would he lose the right to challenge? if he does not reach it, if he runs and stops cause he sees its out of reach? surely if Stan tries to hit back Federer hypothetical half-volley he loses his right to challenge.
The fact is, that serve was out and should have been called out regardless of any other action after the fact. Robot Umpires need to be in place and none of this will ever happen. If it's out, it's out, if it's in, it's in, period.
The second shot seemed half-hearted. He didn't make an effort to get lower to dig that out. He was just reacting to the ball moving toward him. The serve was out. It's clear, the letter of the law doesn't have to take place. So to me, it's easy enough to allow the challenge. Besides a lot of the other rules have been bent so badly that it doesn't make sense anymore. Like the serve clock is ridiculous, ump is supposed to announce the score and start the clock. But they do not do that at times, sometimes they don't penalize the player even though time expired. You don't see this with the NBA shot clock. They take it seriously, down a fraction of a second in replay. What tennis needs is an official time keeper who's job is just start the clock like the NBA does. This removes the ump's responsibility from starting the clock. So when it expires, the ump has to take notice. These tennis rules are just suggestions in today's game. They don't take much seriously except when they need to defend their poor decisions during matches. That they take very seriously.
The shot clock in basketball is different though. The entire game is limited in time. You can only score when you have possession. Forcing a turnover is quite difficult. The shot clock isn't necessary but it was introduced to force the players to shoot so that there would be a greater offensive focus. In any case, I think your suggestions are worthwhile. Rules need to be consistent in application.
All sportsman express themselves in different ways and I agree they can yell but can’t get disrespectful torwards the umpire cause they are human too. But in this case Federer is only arguing cause he knew he was gonna get broken in a important third set. Plus the umpire is right if you hit a shot( the one you wanna challenge for) and opponent hits it back. You cant reply with a shot back and then challenge after seeing it hit the net. If Federer raised his hand to challenge and then casually hit the shot back, which happens all the time maybe the umpire would have allowed it. But Federer is in the wrong here.
Personally I have to side with the umpire. That second shot was hit with emphasis and direction on winning the point, along with his full focus and follow through while hitting the ball. I do understand Roger's frustration on the other hand because he probably wasn't 100% focused after returning something that he originally thought would kill the action. He's a veteran though, he knows how it goes. He slipped up and didn't signal for a review when he needed to, that's part of the sport. Just the way it goes, going with the umpire on this one. I feel his pain though, and c'mon now that's hardly "losing his cool" IMO, just a quick debate and ruling over how to proceed. That was nothing lol
"along with his full focus and follow through" -No it wasn't, your judgement on that is a joke. He went to hit it and then very obviously purposely dropped the strike to not continue the play.
@@ZosAos Not to mention when you are playing you are going to prepare to hit the 2nd shot before the returner hits the ball. It takes time to realize they missed a call especially when it's waiting for an out call that never comes.
That is something that you learn in your early years : play the ball after return, don't assume that the ball was out unless the opponent shouts it clearly !!! That is the same here : he missed the volley because the return was awesome, he should not ask for a challenge on his own fault... Really disappointed
@@jeanghiena4489 He assumed it was out (and was right) and was waiting for a call that never came. Takes time to process and like you said playing the ball after the return is instinctual because it is something you learn in your early years. Even if he had gotten it back he would have probably risked giving up the point and tried to challenge anyway (assuming it wasn't a winner cause who would in that case?).
Based on how he's played in his career, Roger's earned that one rant, where he knows he doesn't have a case and is letting emotions get the better of him. Just proves that he's human, after all.
You can count very easily on one hand the number of times Roger lost his cool. He was (IMO) the classiest player with the most graceful etiquette on the tour, by FAR. His impact was such that a LOT of tennis fans have stopped watching the tour since his semi-retirement (at this point). I just have no desire to watch Rafa and Nolle (with all due respect to those champions). No one had the perfection, grace, movement, and precision of Roger in his prime. It was absolute magic to watch. I’m grateful to have been able to watch his entire career blossom.
Not sure if you are aware but Rafa and Roger both conducted themselves very well on tour… Rafa never even broke his racquet so saying he has the most graceful etiquette by far is a bit of a stretch there are a lot of other players too who conducted themselves well..
Roger was very unsportsmanlike even in his prime. Calling Djokovic's return in the 2011 USO a lucky shot and constantly badmouthing Murray's defensive style in press conferences. His classy reputation exists thanks to a combination of his style and grace on the court, his looks, and marketing.
@@sawgames8623…you have so little knowledge of what you’re talking about, you have no business even having an opinion on the matter. If Federer isn’t your favorite player…fine. But, saying something with that level of ignorance and dishonesty, makes the players you DO respect look like idiots, because their fan-base is full of idiots. Tennis and Federer are the least of your worries.
@@Prashyboby don't you ever underestimate the misconception of a fangirl towards his idol lol The fact that he said he stopped watching tennis because of Federer just proves of much of a fangirl he is.
The umpire is right to make the call based on the rules, but anyone who has ever played the game at that pace would agree with Roger that you instinctively move straight to the next shot and don't have time when volleying off of a return. This speaks more to the trickiness of the situation and how keeping to this rule is more difficult when up at the net than at the baseline where you have more time to process. Thank goodness the game is evolving to automatic line calls now as this won't happen in the future.
Rodger wanted an each way bet. If he made Warinka's return and won the point, he would of said nothing. He decides to play the return and hits it into the net, then challenges. I'm with the umpire on this one.
I disagree, you see him turning toward the umpire as he finishes the hit, and he doesn’t have a lot of time with that kind of pace on a return to evaluate his own shot. Go play a tennis match against a 4.5 USTA and higher, and you will know you don’t get enough time for both
When you are struggling physically you will loose cool even if you are the coolest person ever (like Roger). I think during that period he was suffering from some physical issues.
The umpire is definitely wrong. The time from the serve land outside of the line to roger hitting the second shot is less than 1 second and Roger immediately challenged there after. Time wise, Roger wasted no time trying to challenge. Also, he did serve and volley, the time from the return of serve to the net is so damn short, less than a second. How can you expect him to not react to the ball coming his way? That rule is flawed, what if the ball went straight to his face or body, and he tried to block the ball, does that count as a second shot and he can't challenge just because he is trying to protect himself? Seriously, i've seen players playing a slow shot that is returned from the baseline in a rally and still get to challenge after that. In this case of a serve and volley of super fast pace ball all within a second of reaction time should definitely allow that challenge.
The problem is that it’s a bit unusual to challenge your own shot. The umpire understands the split-second nature of the game, but I think he’s avoiding giving Federer too much leeway - he missed the volley and so now wants to bank on the Hawkeye challenge as a lifeline. I can definitely see arguments for both sides though.
If he was fair, he wouldn't challenge the shot after hitting in the net. This seems like an unfair way to play. Would he have challenged if his shot didn't go in the net ? I doubt it
Unfortunately 100% disagree Sir ... Federer challenged because he lost the point , had he had won the point , none of us would be here commenting. Simples👍 If his opponent hadn't been able to return the ball , ask yourself..would he have been a good sportman and said I want to challenge my own serve " the ball was out " ??? 110% guaranteed NO ... he challenged because he failed to get the ball over the net and lost the point .
I can see why this rule is in place, suppose Federer won the point, would he be honest enough to challenge or to tell the other player it was out? What they are likely trying to avoid is a conditional challenge based on who wins the point. The other problem is what if Federer thought it was out and stopped the volley but really it was in and he challenges it? I agree with Roger. Stupid rules like this and not allowing unlimited challenges would frustrate me too much to ever want to play competitive tennis (I don't play tennis at all actually).
Umpire is right on this one. BTW for whoever is wondering, Federer went on to win the match. Wawrinka has only beaten Federer in 3 matches in his career, and all 3 times it was on clay.
I can understand Federer's frustration because there can be times where you think a ball is out and thus don't really try for a follow up shot because you thought the first shot was out. In this case the ball was indeed out but Federer should know that if you think the first shot was out then you shouldn't attempt another one. Stop play and ask for replay. I'm with the ump on this one.
@@Jxavier410 I guess it's his 17 losses in that year that cause your blindness. That's OK, I try to pretend that 2017 didn't happen. Sure Nadal fans do the same with 2015.
So hold on a minute. If he didn't hit the second shot, factually it was out so he goes to the second serve. What if this serve was in? If he didn't try to hit the ball he automatically loses the point. You would expect he at least try to make a good second shot in case the serve is called in. How quickly would Stan have to challenge it was out? It does get tricky. If Federer hits a decent second shot, does he still challenge the serve? Can Stan challenge it even if he were to hit a second shot or does he have to quit on the play and take the chance it was in? I kinda don't like the concept that you have to completely quit on a shot to challenge a call. But at the same time I doubt Federer would challenge had he made the second shot and won the point.
If the serve was in, he still deserves to lose the point because he stopped the play and got the challenge wrong. Doesn't matter if he was challenging against himself. There has to be consequences for stopping the play then getting the challenge wrong, don't you think? Your last sentence is the basis of this rule, which would have shut down the argument if the umpire even mentioned it.
Let's not forget the entire play sequence happened in under 2.5 seconds, at what point was RF meant to stop and think "I better challenge" and let this ball go?! All tennis players would have swung at the return, and is instinct.
@@lf67hh28 Well maybe instead of letting the ball go, he should have returned the ball into the court then challenged. He only challenged cuz he missed, do you think if he returned it and got the point, he would have challenged? Do you think if the opponent missed the serve, Federer would have challenged? Impossible to know right, what I said might not be true either. Nobody knows for sure, that's why the umpire can't be subjective and go by belief that Federer had honest intentions to challenge. The umpire has to be objective and call it as he sees it, Federer hit the return, and that's one hit too many.
This is a tricky call but I agree with the umpire. Federer is kind of trying to give himself two bites of the cherry, he makes the half volley and wins the point or he doesn't make it , then issues a challenge , finds out the serve was out and gets to replay the point. I'm not saying he would have done that but its hard to imagine most competitors challenging after making the volley and winning the point. Every now and then a player does say that was in and they lose the point because of it but its pretty rare.
@@ajdoyle9559 It's different than other sports. Being in or out i doesn't mean quite as much in most sports, but for tennis (and volleyball and a few others) in/out is also how you win/lose points. Gets tricky if you want to challenge an "in" call as out. Not so tricky for challenging an "out" call as in.
The frustration, disappointment, etc. could have been easily avoided if the side judges have done their freaking job. Call false/out, etc. That’s your only job there!
A serve an volley play is different from any other shot due to the fact that it's pre determined by the server. By rule yes he should not be able to challenge. However if you played the game you know the serve and volley is basically in one motion and happens instinctively
Umpire was right here, Fed only challenged the call because he missed the volley after Wawrinka returned the serve, had that volley gone in he wouldn't have challenged.
There is a reason why rules are made in a game. I understand that all happened rather quickly, and that’s unfortunate for Roger. The umpire is right though.
Roger lost his composure here and therefore was not able to articulate his defense argument properly. Tough situation because both men's points are valid. Roger should not have attempted the half volley but in his defense, it takes a second at least for the server to decide that their serve didn't look in and in that time, he's already at the net making a half attempt at a volley while his mind is registering that the out call didn't come from the lines person and the thought of should I challenge, all tangling him up and making him play the next shot as a just incase shot. Solution, I don't know. Just don't make mistakes like that on lines calls. It was far enough out. And if humans can't do it, replace them with machines.
Anyone who says that Roger is right is just a biased Fed fan. Federer thought he had an easy shot and hit it into the net instead, that is the only reason why he challenged. If he didn't think he could make that shot he would've challenged without trying to take it.
@@miroslavjanecek9993 lol, of course you do. It's very normal for a player to challenge his own serve when it goes out, happens all the time... I'm sure Federer would have challenged the call if Stan hit it in the net... If Federer really wanted to challenge, he would have raised his hand as soon as he saw the ball go out, not try to hit it to the other side (where if it goes over the net he gets the point) but NO ONE challenges their own serve when it's NOT in their favor.
@@JoeV03 no one challenges anything when it's not in their favour. That's the point of challenge. When you return a serve and you miss a return, you can also challenge the serve after you miss the return? Why? Well, because it's so quick, you need time to realise the serve might have been out. The same logic applies here.
@@miroslavjanecek9993 No, you can only challenge immediately. If you return the serve and it just misses the line and goes out of bounds you can no longer challenge.
One of the few instances in his career where Fed was wrong... and he knew it here. He was just trying to cool off the game to avoid getting his serve broken (and it didn't work).
@@BikiG1 hahah the Serb breaks racquet, screams at his box, his wife and hits linepeople and fans. Has anger issues the list goes on. So what’s your points? We know you haven’t seen anything live as well stop lying.
@@geza1014 The arrogant Swiss did break the racquets long before than 'the Serb', who btw is the Greatest player of all time - and I love how you are butthurt because of it. Keep those tears pouring 😉😂
what about each player getting a certain amount of *wrong challenges. i.e. challenges only count if the camera shows you to be wrong. and one can make a challenge anytime between the play of the current ball in play? iow one could stop immediately and challenge, or one could play until they lose the point and then challenge the possible missed call.
When the players say 'have you ever played tennis' and they say that alot both in atp and wta the umpires should respond 'have you ever been an umpire'. That would shut them up pretty fast.
Point to the line (signaling a challenge) while you're hitting your half-hearted volley. He puts all his focus into that volley it looks like he's trying to win the point.
Feels like Federer knew it was out but he was hitting it to get it out of the way from reflex and then calling it out. Just muscle memory I supposed. Who's right or who's wrong is debatable.
he should have challenged the serve immediately and not even try to put his racquet on the return...but his reflexes took over and he half-heartedly played the half volley. Stan should have manned up and challenged the call...
I don't know the law. It turns out that the ball was out but how can you challenge in the middle of play? The line judge missed it. I'm not sure what Federer was supposed to do.
Federer is fast enough to stop himself if he thought his serve was out. He was trying to get his way in a situation where the chair umpire was clearly in the right. Furthermore, once an umpire has made a call, they don’t overrule it. I literally NEVER seen that happen in an ATP nor a WTA match and I watch A LOT A of tennis 🎾. So Federer was just taking out his frustration lol n the chair umpire in this instance because he was under a lot of pressure due to Stan having the momentum in the match and Federer just got broken by Stan. So that’s really why he was being antagonistic, rude, and a bit pissy. 🤷🏽♂️
@@Forever20young Fair enough. If the ball had been in, would the point have been replayed or would Fed have forfeited the point? (Sure he was frustrated and raggedy, no question there.)
What if the service had been out by 1m (just by assumption), and there was still no call? Any tennis player could hit the ball with hesitation. In that case, the rule would still punish the server.
i honestly don't even think you should be allowed to challenge your own serve when it's called in, you can only do that after seeing the opponents return, and in that case you would just challenge when the return is good, you should only be allowed to challenge when your own ball is called out, or when your opponent's ball is called in
It’s simple to understand the correct call if you think of it this way: Would Federer have challenged if he made the half volley winner? You can’t have challenge insurance
What if the ball came flying towards his face and he block the ball trying to protect himself? Does it mean he cannot challenge then cause he technically played the next shot? The rule doesn't make sense. From the ball missed to him playing the 2nd shot is less than a second. He immediately challenged it afterwards. He should be allowed the challenge. Also, if he does make the volley winner. Wawrinka CAN then challenge the serve for going out, just like how it would be normally. Nothing is lost. This situation just seems weird to you because its Roger challenging his own serve to be out. Federer's 2nd shot volley is actually the 1st shot from the time the serve missed. The first shot should be counted after the ball went out, NOT the serve. If not, it should be counted by the amount of time pass since the ball went out. If for some reason there are 5 shots made with insane reaction within 1 second after the ball went out, does that mean no one should be allowed to challenge? Makes no sense at all.
@@TonLars so your evidence is based on his "half hearted attempt" as to the nature of his thought process and or reactions? And we're the ones making assumptions . Your lack of self awareness of your own point of view is hysterical Doesn't change the fact that he actually hit it . I didn't t make the insurance comment but I agreed with the poster.. but it's more like insurance with no deductible..or no downside
@@skychaos87 Hahah, your “what if” situation isn’t what happened. That would be completely different, not attempting a play on the ball. The umpire is there for a reason to make the differentiation and decision. Now, I and most people can see that Roger legitimately saw the serve out and there was very little time for him. However, he technically made a play on the volley and challenged after missing it. It’s definitely a tricky situation, but unfortunately for Roger the umpire did the right and only thing he could based on what happened. What the umpire and linesman obviously messed up was not making the correct out call initially. As for your hypothetical second part, no, Stan would likely not have been allowed to challenge if Roger made the volley for the exact same reason as it needs to happen immediately i.e before Roger plays that volley. And for your other hypothetical regarding if they made a ruling 5 shots after the call in question? Please… that’s just a ridiculous train of thought. The insurance comparison is exactly what it is- to challenge after making a play on the next ball as there’s no need to challenge if you win the point so it would be risk free.
This is really a tough call. Fed, thinking the ball was out could either play the return or not. Either way, he's got a problem. Bottom line is that if he had then put the volley off the return away for a winner, he would not likely have disputed.
If you're a professional sports person you should have an encyclopedia knowledge of all the rules whatever the sport, if the sport is paying your salary and your entire income is based on that sport you would be stupid not to know every single rule off by heart. Roger Federer should need to have umpires explaining the fine details of particular rules to him.
In any sport with challenges, you’re taught to play until the point, down, whatever is over and then you challenge. He’s challenging a call that happened before he hits the ball in the net. A successful challenge means the second shot doesn’t even matter. He clearly was bothered by the lack of a call. If it was called in and Stan hit the ball in the net, what happens then?
A rare case of Federer knowing he fucked up by hitting the volley, argued and then knowing deep down he can't back out from winning the argument but still wanting to spiral down in hopes of somehow the umpire would trip himself over his own decision. Too bad, that didn't happen. Federer is human, after all.
I think the rule should be that you should only be able to challenge the opponent's call on your shots, not your own shots. Wawrinka hit the shot back. He did not call the serve out himself before hitting. This is why the serve is considered 'in' regardless. Not a matter of who is right here, the rule of this game is incorrect.
We are all wired up to hit the ball back...since the age of (?). He seemed to not really hit it and was already thinking that serve was out so we should hit the 2nd now. That is a weird decision and just a matter of policy which is set up to keep things moving really. Bottom line, like my wife: If they are upset...then somebody else messed up and badly. Their policy: Be cool.
Umpire is wrong here. The only thing he has to see is whether the call was immediate or not ? Whether roger played the follow up shot to net or not is invalid argument.
If Roger -- or any player -- were to catch or let the return pass and the challenge were to lose, would he lose the point, or would they replay the point? (I'm assuming, for the sake of understanding the rule, that a challenge loses.)
He would 100% lose the point. If the point had to be replayed, the players could cheat the system by challenging their serves when they lose a crucial point on a return.
I think not only was federer right but atp should change the rules so that a serve is the only time you can challenge after hitting ball back. Nobody will call their own shot as out if the point is still ongoing. It makes no sense to not hit the ball in that situation, literally no point. Unless you miss , theres no reason to challenge ur own serve. Dont think you can expect anyone to give up on the point, not hit it back, just to challenge it. Idk what the current hawkeye protocol is , pretty sure i heard its used for all points or maybe all serves
To roger's credit, not the line judge, NOR the umpire could read the play but it was ROGER who solely, and correctly questioned the play. What good is a human umpire/line person if the game is too quick for them to do their job.
Interview to become an umpire: Interviewer: Are you a sack of shit? And do you ALWAYS wear a cap even when it's not sunny? Future umpire: Yes Interviewer: HIRED!!!
The ball was out, there should have been a call. How is this Rogers fault? Umpire argues that the "the ball went too fast", line judge isn't even being asked but he obviously was sleeping and it's the player that needs to eat their incompetency and deal with the issuing frustration. Stan obviously could have asked to replay the serve as he surely had seen that the ball was out but that wouldn't have played in his favor. These players muscle memory is at work for every play. I'm not surprised by a player reacting instinctively and just played the ball. We're talking seconds here and it's scientifically proven that there is a delay between seeing something and being able to react to it. If the exchange happened to quick then the rule doesn't make sense. Equally when the umpire is clearly wrong by not seeing "things" and judging wrongly, there should be a replay option as I see them getting away with everything.
I think the fact he didnt challenge right away is based on the fact that he is challenging Against himself so he is hitting the volley half hearted surprised that no one called that out (by a mile it was out) then he realised he can challenge against himself but it was too late...hence the frustration. It a weird situation and you can't blame Roger for his reaction
Yeah I understand why people think it's a weird situation but when I saw how far out the ball was, I can imagine how that put off Roger. He probably thought it's going to be called out but approached the net out of instinct.
I run into this all the time at the Club level. For instance, I serve and think the ball is clearly out so I don't play my opponents return. Too bad, my opponent calls balls on his side and when he didn't call it out and hit it, I should have played it. I think that this is how pro tennis should be; you can't challenge your own shot. Simple solution.
Problem is Federer's eyesight is superior to chair umpire. Best decision would be for umpire to call it out, second best decision would be to allow the challenge, since there is no disadvantage to Wawrinka to make a correct call.
Tiene razón Roger. El saque fue out y le pega mal luego porque no entiende como nadie dijo nada, entonces pide la revisión. Un desastre los jueces que dieron el saque por bueno, y muy mal el árbitro que no aceptó el desafío. Que además debería ser obligación si el jugador lo pide, no debería negarse.
@@masters.1000 It looks pretty cunty to just throw it out in a walkway like that. He could've simply placed next to the chairs. Plus they're there to move balls around, not be a glorified laundry service.
Coming from the table tennis world I find this extremely odd. If you have a let service where the ball touches the net as it goes over on the other side, of course the other player is going to touch it back. Obviously, you get more than one try in tennis. It should be up to the ref to call the service out in time and the assumption should be it’s a dead ball so the touch shouldn’t count imo. I do see that everyone is saying the ref is right, but he didn’t do his job of calling it in the first place.
Definitely too late for a challenge. The rulebook states that a challenge may only be made after a point ending shot or when a player stops play and challenges AND that the player must show an immediate interest in the shot that they are challenging. This is very similar to clay court procedures. Wawrinka could have hit the "reflex return" of the serve then challenged the call if he wished. Federer however can't hit his second shot, watch where it goes, then after it goes into the net decide to challenge his own serve. Doesn't work that way. So, if Federer had stopped playing, or if the return was a winner and Federer didn't make an attempt to hit his second shot, he would be able to challenge his own serve.
Let’s be real guys. Who in the hell calls his OWN faults??!! Nobody in any sport will call “out!” or “nog goal!” On him/herself. In tennis the person who is receiving must call in or out(when playing with no umpire/linesmen. I don’t think that if Roger would’ve won that point, he would’ve said” my service was out, its your point”.
The problem was that the the "OUT" was never called by the umpire in the first place. Umpire ALLOWED the continuation of play, and only after Roger returned serve did he have time to think, "Wait. Did I hit an out and it not get called?" Basically, the umpires duties was left to Roger to determine if his own ball got out. If a player is counting on the umpire to do their job, Roger should not have had to even ask if the ball was out or not. But, because he had to, it was fair to call a challenge, not even on the player, but the Umpire not making the call when he should have. Roger made a great point. "Have you ever played hours and hours a day?" It's muscle memory. He lives, breaths and sleeps tennis. Of course he's going to return the ball because in that moment he's trained his body to reflex. To ask a professional player NOT to react when he shouldn't is unreasonable. But, those are the rules, and he took it on the chin better than I would have. I would have flipped the fuck out.
What's the right procedure here? Should he have dodged the ball then challenged? And if it had been called in, then what? This seems like a difficult situation
Just need to watertight the "hit the ball twice" rule so that if the serving player hits the return then he forfeits the right to call the 1st serve out. Otherwise the serving player can "go for it" and if he fails to play a winner can implement plan "B" and opt for the second chance. The umpire made the right call. Think about it Roger.
I wasn’t a fan of Federer back pre-2014 (as a person). He could be very rude and arrogant at times, especially when losing. I think him losing a lot in 2013 brought him back down to earth a bit
Time to settle this: Who was right, Federer or the umpire? I'm going with the umpire (don't kill me)
Raz who won that match ultimately
@@prathmeshmale If you still care, Rafa won the tourny.
@@prathmeshmale Federer won
@@ravi18tripathi Are you sure Federer won this particular tournament? Did he even win this match?.. 🤔🤷🏽♂️
Roger was silly here
RF "have you ever played tennis"
Umpire "no, Have you ever umpired ?"
Haha the best responses are never thought of until it's too late
that answer does not argue in favor... the action is the court , not on the chair....
🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣
@@johnmoumouris7342 -- Correct. I'd rather take a lifeguard who's swam before than one who's only sat in the chair and watched me swim.
If he won the point - would he challenge?
If he lost the point(which he did) - would he challenge?
So you can see the hypocrisy.
Umpire is 100% right. The only reason Roger even complained is because he hit the net. Had he won that point he would've kept his mouth shut about the out ball.
Well of course... its not Rogers job to correct the calls, the only reason he challanged the call is because if it was called right (as it should) he may have not lost the point. He was just playing to get as much benefit as he can
@@21albertodelgado the unspoken rule, always play to win.
Absolutely
I dont think so at all. Federer is a gentleman, always has been
If Federer just left the ball and was wrong then he would have lost the point. Whether Federer had won by the opposition player hitting the ball out or by Federer returning a great volley would have been the same result - point Federer. It wouldn’t have changed the correct result if Federer had made that last shot. The umpire wasn’t thinking logically/rationally.
Federer is my favorite player of all time, but if his volley would've been a winner, he wouldnt have challenged it. I think he was just a bit frustrated losing easy points.
I think Roger is right. He expected the call to come its out hence the weak return. So he realises he lost the point bec the out call never came! Not fair he should be allowed to challenge and he was right it was out.
The truth of your comment does not mean Roger was incorrect here; if his shot had gone in then the burden would have been on Stan to challenge. Roger would have rightfully kept his mouth shut in that circumstance.
@@AinSoph73 no because at that point Stan wouldn’t be able to challenge. He would’ve already hit the shot back.
@@yousufkhan2309 you say “no” but you are corroborating exactly what I said; had Stan not been able to challenge we would just be watching the same video but with a goofier Swiss accent; Federer would have turned his back and it would still be the line umpire’s fault.
@@AinSoph73 not at all. You cannot hit the ball back and then decide if you want to challenge it or not. Imagine if Stan’s return was a winner, you think he’s going to challenge, even though he thought the ball was out?
The umpire handled that well imo. I understand Federer's argument but the umpire's job is to strictly follow the rules and it's not a subjective matter.
Both are right but if we follow the rules it is the umpire who is right. However everyone would have reacted like Roger, by the time he realized his serve was out Wawrinka's return was already in his racket. The problem in tennis is that in these moments the umpires are not "flexible" and follow the rules at all costs.
Roger is wrong. I understand that everything happened quickly but the challenge must be done as soon as possible, the chair umpire is just following the rules.
Roger's attitude of asking if the umpire plays Tennis has nothing to do with the fact that he(umpire) is doing his job in a very correct way.
It doens't matter if the chair umpire never touched a tennis racket in his life, bad attitude for Roger, very bad, but sometimes people make mistakes and it is ok, we are all humans and he is still my favourite tennis player since I was born.
Hmmm...iffy. what if the touch was not to be played? Or it went straight at him? There is no interpretation of "playing" the ball on touch. I'd say it was obvious he didn't have time to call it and not touch the ball. When at the baseline (as Roger said) things would be more understandable. Not now, with a serve and volley. (If he had had time, despite the speed, to just stop the ball, or hit it with no intention, one hypothetical situation where serve had been in a he gets an out call, but is "corrected" by empire, and he misses...does the play stand? i.e. the miss. OR if he makes the point, would Stan lose the point or a replay is in order?)
Federer is wrong, if he made that volley, he wouldn´t be complaining.
Federer wouldn't have argued if the ball didn't hit the net
The problem is that he tried to play the volley , if he had challenged without going for the volley before doing anything else then maybe he would have had a point but he tried to volley missed it and then challenged which isn't allowed
Federer had aguments with this umpire so many times. Aus Open 2018 v Berdych, where he challenged but the challenge could not be shown. Indian Wells 2018 v Del Poto in the 2nd set tiebreak. Cincy 2018 v Wawrinka.
For anyone wondering Roger can't back and won this 7-5 in the last set
*came back
can't
For anyone wondering, Djokovic is the GOAT
🤮@@rkymtnchi503
@@rkymtnchi503for anyone wondering we don't give a damn.
If only some of the other players would argue calls with such restraint. Roger is human.
@@prempititantipool3075 you're right, they'd just blow their stacks.
he sounded like a petulant child
@@asdknjakljye i think you're confusing Roger with Novak. Now there's some heavy petulance.
@@pawshands9706 Lol Djokovic gets blame, rightly so, when he acts up. Roger shouldn't get a pass when he acts like a baby.
@@asdknjakljye if u call that infantile, I can only imagine what you think of all those real brats on tour.
The reason this rule is in place is because if you were allowed to challenge a call several strokes afterwards, it could potentially open up a scenario where you want to challenge 2 shots or maybe your opponent even wants to challenge their shot. If you're going to challenge, you have to do it immediately or else too many bad scenarios can happen. Roger knows this rule... he was just unhappy with his dumped volley into the net.
I think the rule should be the amount of time elapsed after the shot, not the number of shots. You can't challenge after you continue the rally for another 30 seconds. The number of shots doesn't make sense. Federer challenged within just a few seconds. If he had made that shot, then Stan should be allowed to challenge. But neither should be allowed to challenge if they had waited another 10, 15 secs or more.
@@tomsd8656 I disagree. The number of shots does matter. Roger challenged after the ball went into the net. If, hypothetically, Roger hit the ball in and it led to Roger having an advantage in the rally, Roger would not have challenged. He would have let the point play out. When Roger hit the ball into the net, it's a lost point, so he has nothing to lose (except his challenge) by challenging the serve. Allowing Roger to challenge an earlier shot, after he had already hit the ball into the net, gives him a competitive advantage.
No problem here because if Roger had made that volley, then Stan would challenge. Players generally challenge only if they stand to gain advantage, so yours is a moot point. But, if Roger had made that volley then Stan could run for it and hit a winner then now it made sense not to allow the challenge because too much time had passed.
even in amateur rec tennis, if you hit a serve that you saw was out, your body already prepared for the second serve, not for the volley, so when the opponent didn't call it out, you'd be caught a bit hesitant and more often than not, you'd mess up the second shot. And you could see from the way Roger hit that volley, he wasn't prepared because he thought his serve was out.
From a pure logical reasoning then I agree with you.
@@tomsd8656 great you mention amateur rec tennis, where its actually a common practise to fire back a return on a close serve and then give it "good" or "out" depending on whether you make the return) - opponent will never protest like Federer did here.
@@beefjerky2372 what if Stan was to chase the half-volley Federer made? At what point in time would he lose the right to challenge? if he does not reach it, if he runs and stops cause he sees its out of reach? surely if Stan tries to hit back Federer hypothetical half-volley he loses his right to challenge.
The fact is, that serve was out and should have been called out regardless of any other action after the fact. Robot Umpires need to be in place and none of this will ever happen. If it's out, it's out, if it's in, it's in, period.
This is the only answer.
I think you mean robot LINESPERSONS, not robot umpires.
The second shot seemed half-hearted. He didn't make an effort to get lower to dig that out. He was just reacting to the ball moving toward him. The serve was out. It's clear, the letter of the law doesn't have to take place. So to me, it's easy enough to allow the challenge. Besides a lot of the other rules have been bent so badly that it doesn't make sense anymore. Like the serve clock is ridiculous, ump is supposed to announce the score and start the clock. But they do not do that at times, sometimes they don't penalize the player even though time expired. You don't see this with the NBA shot clock. They take it seriously, down a fraction of a second in replay. What tennis needs is an official time keeper who's job is just start the clock like the NBA does. This removes the ump's responsibility from starting the clock. So when it expires, the ump has to take notice. These tennis rules are just suggestions in today's game. They don't take much seriously except when they need to defend their poor decisions during matches. That they take very seriously.
The shot clock in basketball is different though. The entire game is limited in time. You can only score when you have possession. Forcing a turnover is quite difficult. The shot clock isn't necessary but it was introduced to force the players to shoot so that there would be a greater offensive focus.
In any case, I think your suggestions are worthwhile. Rules need to be consistent in application.
Half hearted, but still a CLEAR attempt, not a toss to ballboy or even close. Umpire has hands tied on this one.
All sportsman express themselves in different ways and I agree they can yell but can’t get disrespectful torwards the umpire cause they are human too. But in this case Federer is only arguing cause he knew he was gonna get broken in a important third set. Plus the umpire is right if you hit a shot( the one you wanna challenge for) and opponent hits it back. You cant reply with a shot back and then challenge after seeing it hit the net. If Federer raised his hand to challenge and then casually hit the shot back, which happens all the time maybe the umpire would have allowed it. But Federer is in the wrong here.
It was half hearted because he suspected the serve was out
But there would be no way to match fix
Personally I have to side with the umpire. That second shot was hit with emphasis and direction on winning the point, along with his full focus and follow through while hitting the ball. I do understand Roger's frustration on the other hand because he probably wasn't 100% focused after returning something that he originally thought would kill the action. He's a veteran though, he knows how it goes. He slipped up and didn't signal for a review when he needed to, that's part of the sport. Just the way it goes, going with the umpire on this one. I feel his pain though, and c'mon now that's hardly "losing his cool" IMO, just a quick debate and ruling over how to proceed. That was nothing lol
"along with his full focus and follow through"
-No it wasn't, your judgement on that is a joke. He went to hit it and then very obviously purposely dropped the strike to not continue the play.
@@ZosAos Not to mention when you are playing you are going to prepare to hit the 2nd shot before the returner hits the ball. It takes time to realize they missed a call especially when it's waiting for an out call that never comes.
That is something that you learn in your early years : play the ball after return, don't assume that the ball was out unless the opponent shouts it clearly !!! That is the same here : he missed the volley because the return was awesome, he should not ask for a challenge on his own fault... Really disappointed
@@jeanghiena4489 He assumed it was out (and was right) and was waiting for a call that never came. Takes time to process and like you said playing the ball after the return is instinctual because it is something you learn in your early years. Even if he had gotten it back he would have probably risked giving up the point and tried to challenge anyway (assuming it wasn't a winner cause who would in that case?).
Based on how he's played in his career, Roger's earned that one rant, where he knows he doesn't have a case and is letting emotions get the better of him. Just proves that he's human, after all.
Best comment no likes surprise surprise.
Buahahahahahahahaha
He still didn’t smashed his rocket like we know who ;)))
Lesson of the day, don't hit the ball back if it's out.
You can count very easily on one hand the number of times Roger lost his cool. He was (IMO) the classiest player with the most graceful etiquette on the tour, by FAR. His impact was such that a LOT of tennis fans have stopped watching the tour since his semi-retirement (at this point). I just have no desire to watch Rafa and Nolle (with all due respect to those champions). No one had the perfection, grace, movement, and precision of Roger in his prime. It was absolute magic to watch. I’m grateful to have been able to watch his entire career blossom.
Not sure if you are aware but Rafa and Roger both conducted themselves very well on tour… Rafa never even broke his racquet so saying he has the most graceful etiquette by far is a bit of a stretch there are a lot of other players too who conducted themselves well..
Roger was very unsportsmanlike even in his prime. Calling Djokovic's return in the 2011 USO a lucky shot and constantly badmouthing Murray's defensive style in press conferences. His classy reputation exists thanks to a combination of his style and grace on the court, his looks, and marketing.
@@sawgames8623…you have so little knowledge of what you’re talking about, you have no business even having an opinion on the matter. If Federer isn’t your favorite player…fine. But, saying something with that level of ignorance and dishonesty, makes the players you DO respect look like idiots, because their fan-base is full of idiots. Tennis and Federer are the least of your worries.
@@Prashyboby don't you ever underestimate the misconception of a fangirl towards his idol lol The fact that he said he stopped watching tennis because of Federer just proves of much of a fangirl he is.
There are plenty players who kept their cool their entire career though… Kei Nishikori for example.
@RazOls Need subtitles, background noise is too high.
2013… a year I tried hard to forgot.
The umpire is right to make the call based on the rules, but anyone who has ever played the game at that pace would agree with Roger that you instinctively move straight to the next shot and don't have time when volleying off of a return. This speaks more to the trickiness of the situation and how keeping to this rule is more difficult when up at the net than at the baseline where you have more time to process. Thank goodness the game is evolving to automatic line calls now as this won't happen in the future.
Rodger wanted an each way bet.
If he made Warinka's return and won the point, he would of said nothing.
He decides to play the return and hits it into the net, then challenges.
I'm with the umpire on this one.
*Would HAVE
I disagree, you see him turning toward the umpire as he finishes the hit, and he doesn’t have a lot of time with that kind of pace on a return to evaluate his own shot. Go play a tennis match against a 4.5 USTA and higher, and you will know you don’t get enough time for both
Warinka could've challenged in that case
@@stevenhickman1388 there's a lot of it about...
so he's a cheater??
A rare occasion to see RF so tense. As he used to say, you can't feel the same every day...
When you are struggling physically you will loose cool even if you are the coolest person ever (like Roger). I think during that period he was suffering from some physical issues.
Agree 👍🏻
The umpire is definitely wrong. The time from the serve land outside of the line to roger hitting the second shot is less than 1 second and Roger immediately challenged there after. Time wise, Roger wasted no time trying to challenge. Also, he did serve and volley, the time from the return of serve to the net is so damn short, less than a second. How can you expect him to not react to the ball coming his way? That rule is flawed, what if the ball went straight to his face or body, and he tried to block the ball, does that count as a second shot and he can't challenge just because he is trying to protect himself? Seriously, i've seen players playing a slow shot that is returned from the baseline in a rally and still get to challenge after that. In this case of a serve and volley of super fast pace ball all within a second of reaction time should definitely allow that challenge.
The problem is that it’s a bit unusual to challenge your own shot. The umpire understands the split-second nature of the game, but I think he’s avoiding giving Federer too much leeway - he missed the volley and so now wants to bank on the Hawkeye challenge as a lifeline. I can definitely see arguments for both sides though.
If he was fair, he wouldn't challenge the shot after hitting in the net. This seems like an unfair way to play. Would he have challenged if his shot didn't go in the net ? I doubt it
@The Future is Unity .. Exactly .. well said; the same argument I would have made.
Unfortunately 100% disagree Sir ... Federer challenged because he lost the point , had he had won the point , none of us would be here commenting. Simples👍
If his opponent hadn't been able to return the ball , ask yourself..would he have been a good sportman and said I want to challenge my own serve " the ball was out " ??? 110% guaranteed NO ... he challenged because he failed to get the ball over the net and lost the point .
I can see why this rule is in place, suppose Federer won the point, would he be honest enough to challenge or to tell the other player it was out? What they are likely trying to avoid is a conditional challenge based on who wins the point. The other problem is what if Federer thought it was out and stopped the volley but really it was in and he challenges it? I agree with Roger. Stupid rules like this and not allowing unlimited challenges would frustrate me too much to ever want to play competitive tennis (I don't play tennis at all actually).
Hello. Please post more videos like these. Maybe post related to Novak and Rafa as well.
Umpire is right on this one. BTW for whoever is wondering, Federer went on to win the match. Wawrinka has only beaten Federer in 3 matches in his career, and all 3 times it was on clay.
I can understand Federer's frustration because there can be times where you think a ball is out and thus don't really try for a follow up shot because you thought the first shot was out. In this case the ball was indeed out but Federer should know that if you think the first shot was out then you shouldn't attempt another one. Stop play and ask for replay. I'm with the ump on this one.
I forgot Roger even played tennis in 2013 Lol
Because he didn't 😂😂🤐🤐
@수시로 바뀌는 닉네임 Yeah I'm very blind, because I clearly think he missed the entire year of 2013
@@Jxavier410 I guess it's his 17 losses in that year that cause your blindness. That's OK, I try to pretend that 2017 didn't happen. Sure Nadal fans do the same with 2015.
What? He played tennis even before the 2000's...
@@naysayer1238 he suffered a back injury in 2013. If you watched his matches he couldnt even move and stood still half of the time.
These are rare moments
In Squash we play the rally out and can appeal any shot afterward.
So hold on a minute. If he didn't hit the second shot, factually it was out so he goes to the second serve.
What if this serve was in? If he didn't try to hit the ball he automatically loses the point. You would expect he at least try to make a good second shot in case the serve is called in.
How quickly would Stan have to challenge it was out?
It does get tricky. If Federer hits a decent second shot, does he still challenge the serve? Can Stan challenge it even if he were to hit a second shot or does he have to quit on the play and take the chance it was in?
I kinda don't like the concept that you have to completely quit on a shot to challenge a call. But at the same time I doubt Federer would challenge had he made the second shot and won the point.
If the serve was in, he still deserves to lose the point because he stopped the play and got the challenge wrong. Doesn't matter if he was challenging against himself. There has to be consequences for stopping the play then getting the challenge wrong, don't you think?
Your last sentence is the basis of this rule, which would have shut down the argument if the umpire even mentioned it.
Let's not forget the entire play sequence happened in under 2.5 seconds, at what point was RF meant to stop and think "I better challenge" and let this ball go?!
All tennis players would have swung at the return, and is instinct.
@@lf67hh28 Well maybe instead of letting the ball go, he should have returned the ball into the court then challenged. He only challenged cuz he missed, do you think if he returned it and got the point, he would have challenged? Do you think if the opponent missed the serve, Federer would have challenged?
Impossible to know right, what I said might not be true either. Nobody knows for sure, that's why the umpire can't be subjective and go by belief that Federer had honest intentions to challenge. The umpire has to be objective and call it as he sees it, Federer hit the return, and that's one hit too many.
This is a tricky call but I agree with the umpire. Federer is kind of trying to give himself two bites of the cherry, he makes the half volley and wins the point or he doesn't make it , then issues a challenge , finds out the serve was out and gets to replay the point. I'm not saying he would have done that but its hard to imagine most competitors challenging after making the volley and winning the point. Every now and then a player does say that was in and they lose the point because of it but its pretty rare.
@@ajdoyle9559 It's different than other sports. Being in or out i doesn't mean quite as much in most sports, but for tennis (and volleyball and a few others) in/out is also how you win/lose points. Gets tricky if you want to challenge an "in" call as out. Not so tricky for challenging an "out" call as in.
Bro trying to kill the epileptics with that intro
The frustration, disappointment, etc. could have been easily avoided if the side judges have done their freaking job. Call false/out, etc. That’s your only job there!
The ball was out. Federer's return was half-hearted and instinctual. He should have been allowed to challenge.
Doesn't matter. The rule is the rule. No 2 shots.
For those saying the umpire is right, he missed calling a glaring out ball so I don't give him any credit for what followed.
A serve an volley play is different from any other shot due to the fact that it's pre determined by the server. By rule yes he should not be able to challenge. However if you played the game you know the serve and volley is basically in one motion and happens instinctively
Umpire was right here, Fed only challenged the call because he missed the volley after Wawrinka returned the serve, had that volley gone in he wouldn't have challenged.
And this year's sportsmanship award goes to...
Those sportsmanship awards he got are all fake. He was a bad sport...
There is a reason why rules are made in a game. I understand that all happened rather quickly, and that’s unfortunate for Roger. The umpire is right though.
Roger lost his composure here and therefore was not able to articulate his defense argument properly. Tough situation because both men's points are valid. Roger should not have attempted the half volley but in his defense, it takes a second at least for the server to decide that their serve didn't look in and in that time, he's already at the net making a half attempt at a volley while his mind is registering that the out call didn't come from the lines person and the thought of should I challenge, all tangling him up and making him play the next shot as a just incase shot.
Solution, I don't know. Just don't make mistakes like that on lines calls. It was far enough out. And if humans can't do it, replace them with machines.
Anyone who says that Roger is right is just a biased Fed fan. Federer thought he had an easy shot and hit it into the net instead, that is the only reason why he challenged. If he didn't think he could make that shot he would've challenged without trying to take it.
No. It doesn't matter, because if Federer had made the volley, Stan should have been allowed to challenge the serve himself.
I am Federer fan and I genuenly think he is correct.
@@miroslavjanecek9993 lol, of course you do. It's very normal for a player to challenge his own serve when it goes out, happens all the time... I'm sure Federer would have challenged the call if Stan hit it in the net... If Federer really wanted to challenge, he would have raised his hand as soon as he saw the ball go out, not try to hit it to the other side (where if it goes over the net he gets the point) but NO ONE challenges their own serve when it's NOT in their favor.
@@JoeV03 no one challenges anything when it's not in their favour. That's the point of challenge.
When you return a serve and you miss a return, you can also challenge the serve after you miss the return? Why? Well, because it's so quick, you need time to realise the serve might have been out. The same logic applies here.
@@miroslavjanecek9993 No, you can only challenge immediately. If you return the serve and it just misses the line and goes out of bounds you can no longer challenge.
One of the few instances in his career where Fed was wrong... and he knew it here. He was just trying to cool off the game to avoid getting his serve broken (and it didn't work).
I disagree that he knew he was wrong. I think to him the serve was so obviously out that it affected his focus on the next shot.
You never see Roger yell .
ua-cam.com/video/rxuGb0C0lY0/v-deo.html
BS! I saw him yelling at the crowd.
And I saw him using bad language and swearing at judges and umpires.
@@BikiG1 hahah the Serb breaks racquet, screams at his box, his wife and hits linepeople and fans. Has anger issues the list goes on. So what’s your points? We know you haven’t seen anything live as well stop lying.
@@geza1014 The arrogant Swiss did break the racquets long before than 'the Serb', who btw is the Greatest player of all time - and I love how you are butthurt because of it. Keep those tears pouring 😉😂
what about each player getting a certain amount of *wrong challenges. i.e. challenges only count if the camera shows you to be wrong. and one can make a challenge anytime between the play of the current ball in play? iow one could stop immediately and challenge, or one could play until they lose the point and then challenge the possible missed call.
When the players say 'have you ever played tennis' and they say that alot both in atp and wta the umpires should respond 'have you ever been an umpire'. That would shut them up pretty fast.
Point to the line (signaling a challenge) while you're hitting your half-hearted volley. He puts all his focus into that volley it looks like he's trying to win the point.
Feels like Federer knew it was out but he was hitting it to get it out of the way from reflex and then calling it out. Just muscle memory I supposed. Who's right or who's wrong is debatable.
it's not debatable. Federer is wrong. THE END
he should have challenged the serve immediately and not even try to put his racquet on the return...but his reflexes took over and he half-heartedly played the half volley. Stan should have manned up and challenged the call...
Umpire was right 100% 🤔
Mr fairplay 😂😂😂
I don't know the law. It turns out that the ball was out but how can you challenge in the middle of play? The line judge missed it. I'm not sure what Federer was supposed to do.
Federer is fast enough to stop himself if he thought his serve was out. He was trying to get his way in a situation where the chair umpire was clearly in the right. Furthermore, once an umpire has made a call, they don’t overrule it. I literally NEVER seen that happen in an ATP nor a WTA match and I watch A LOT A of tennis 🎾. So Federer was just taking out his frustration lol n the chair umpire in this instance because he was under a lot of pressure due to Stan having the momentum in the match and Federer just got broken by Stan. So that’s really why he was being antagonistic, rude, and a bit pissy. 🤷🏽♂️
@@Forever20young Fair enough. If the ball had been in, would the point have been replayed or would Fed have forfeited the point? (Sure he was frustrated and raggedy, no question there.)
This is from a 4R match at Indian Wells 2013. Roger won this set 7-5 eventually and the match
What if the service had been out by 1m (just by assumption), and there was still no call? Any tennis player could hit the ball with hesitation. In that case, the rule would still punish the server.
i honestly don't even think you should be allowed to challenge your own serve when it's called in, you can only do that after seeing the opponents return, and in that case you would just challenge when the return is good, you should only be allowed to challenge when your own ball is called out, or when your opponent's ball is called in
It’s simple to understand the correct call if you think of it this way: Would Federer have challenged if he made the half volley winner?
You can’t have challenge insurance
Right , you can't have it both ways
What if the ball came flying towards his face and he block the ball trying to protect himself? Does it mean he cannot challenge then cause he technically played the next shot? The rule doesn't make sense. From the ball missed to him playing the 2nd shot is less than a second. He immediately challenged it afterwards. He should be allowed the challenge.
Also, if he does make the volley winner. Wawrinka CAN then challenge the serve for going out, just like how it would be normally. Nothing is lost. This situation just seems weird to you because its Roger challenging his own serve to be out.
Federer's 2nd shot volley is actually the 1st shot from the time the serve missed. The first shot should be counted after the ball went out, NOT the serve. If not, it should be counted by the amount of time pass since the ball went out. If for some reason there are 5 shots made with insane reaction within 1 second after the ball went out, does that mean no one should be allowed to challenge? Makes no sense at all.
@@TonLars so your evidence is based on his "half hearted attempt" as to the nature of his thought process and or reactions? And we're the ones making assumptions . Your lack of self awareness of your own point of view is hysterical
Doesn't change the fact that he actually hit it . I didn't t make the insurance comment but I agreed with the poster.. but it's more like insurance with no deductible..or no downside
@@mattr8251 Exactly, well said
@@skychaos87 Hahah, your “what if” situation isn’t what happened. That would be completely different, not attempting a play on the ball. The umpire is there for a reason to make the differentiation and decision. Now, I and most people can see that Roger legitimately saw the serve out and there was very little time for him. However, he technically made a play on the volley and challenged after missing it. It’s definitely a tricky situation, but unfortunately for Roger the umpire did the right and only thing he could based on what happened. What the umpire and linesman obviously messed up was not making the correct out call initially.
As for your hypothetical second part, no, Stan would likely not have been allowed to challenge if Roger made the volley for the exact same reason as it needs to happen immediately i.e before Roger plays that volley. And for your other hypothetical regarding if they made a ruling 5 shots after the call in question? Please… that’s just a ridiculous train of thought. The insurance comparison is exactly what it is- to challenge after making a play on the next ball as there’s no need to challenge if you win the point so it would be risk free.
I don't watch Tennis but I thought there is an automatic system that tells the ump if the ball was in or out... ???
This is really a tough call. Fed, thinking the ball was out could either play the return or not. Either way, he's got a problem. Bottom line is that if he had then put the volley off the return away for a winner, he would not likely have disputed.
If you're a professional sports person you should have an encyclopedia knowledge of all the rules whatever the sport, if the sport is paying your salary and your entire income is based on that sport you would be stupid not to know every single rule off by heart.
Roger Federer should need to have umpires explaining the fine details of particular rules to him.
In any sport with challenges, you’re taught to play until the point, down, whatever is over and then you challenge. He’s challenging a call that happened before he hits the ball in the net. A successful challenge means the second shot doesn’t even matter. He clearly was bothered by the lack of a call. If it was called in and Stan hit the ball in the net, what happens then?
Federer was right. I typed this before watching the video because I know that when Federer is wrong, Federer is still right.
2:23 ...that's *the* ultimate price? 😆
Rules are rules even for Roger.
THAT WAS A POLISH SUPERVISOR. I REMEMBER THE GUY FROM THE TOURNAMENT IN WHICH I WAS A BALLBOY IN MY HOMECITY.
Once the umpire approved the challenge request the results of the challenge should be the end of it. No point in having challenges if otherwise.
What was the end Result of this Match?
I don’t remember this match distinctly, but I’m certain Federer won because I know that Stan never beat Federer off clay
A rare case of Federer knowing he fucked up by hitting the volley, argued and then knowing deep down he can't back out from winning the argument but still wanting to spiral down in hopes of somehow the umpire would trip himself over his own decision. Too bad, that didn't happen.
Federer is human, after all.
I think the rule should be that you should only be able to challenge the opponent's call on your shots, not your own shots.
Wawrinka hit the shot back. He did not call the serve out himself before hitting. This is why the serve is considered 'in' regardless.
Not a matter of who is right here, the rule of this game is incorrect.
What? Application of the rule to the a specific situation may be incorrect but rule is always correct. Everyone follows rules.
“Your shots, not your own shots.”. WHAT??? What is the difference between “your” and “your own”?
for anyone wondering...novak and rafa both passed him in the major count
I didn't know you could challenge against your own shots lol
We are all wired up to hit the ball back...since the age of (?). He seemed to not really hit it and was already thinking that serve was out so we should hit the 2nd now. That is a weird decision and just a matter of policy which is set up to keep things moving really. Bottom line, like my wife: If they are upset...then somebody else messed up and badly. Their policy: Be cool.
Umpire is wrong here. The only thing he has to see is whether the call was immediate or not ? Whether roger played the follow up shot to net or not is invalid argument.
If Roger -- or any player -- were to catch or let the return pass and the challenge were to lose, would he lose the point, or would they replay the point? (I'm assuming, for the sake of understanding the rule, that a challenge loses.)
He would 100% lose the point. If the point had to be replayed, the players could cheat the system by challenging their serves when they lose a crucial point on a return.
I think not only was federer right but atp should change the rules so that a serve is the only time you can challenge after hitting ball back. Nobody will call their own shot as out if the point is still ongoing. It makes no sense to not hit the ball in that situation, literally no point. Unless you miss , theres no reason to challenge ur own serve. Dont think you can expect anyone to give up on the point, not hit it back, just to challenge it.
Idk what the current hawkeye protocol is , pretty sure i heard its used for all points or maybe all serves
It has no sound
Sometimes the "rules" get in the way of the truth. Shit happens.
I used to umpire. Never had and argument with a player. Just ignored them. Umpire was correct but the ball was out. That's tennis.
To roger's credit, not the line judge, NOR the umpire could read the play but it was ROGER who solely, and correctly questioned the play. What good is a human umpire/line person if the game is too quick for them to do their job.
Interview to become an umpire:
Interviewer: Are you a sack of shit? And do you ALWAYS wear a cap even when it's not sunny?
Future umpire: Yes
Interviewer: HIRED!!!
The ball was out, there should have been a call. How is this Rogers fault?
Umpire argues that the "the ball went too fast", line judge isn't even being asked but he obviously was sleeping and it's the player that needs to eat their incompetency and deal with the issuing frustration. Stan obviously could have asked to replay the serve as he surely had seen that the ball was out but that wouldn't have played in his favor.
These players muscle memory is at work for every play. I'm not surprised by a player reacting instinctively and just played the ball. We're talking seconds here and it's scientifically proven that there is a delay between seeing something and being able to react to it. If the exchange happened to quick then the rule doesn't make sense.
Equally when the umpire is clearly wrong by not seeing "things" and judging wrongly, there should be a replay option as I see them getting away with everything.
Plaers association should be in charge of hiring and paying umpires
I think the fact he didnt challenge right away is based on the fact that he is challenging Against himself so he is hitting the volley half hearted surprised that no one called that out (by a mile it was out) then he realised he can challenge against himself but it was too late...hence the frustration. It a weird situation and you can't blame Roger for his reaction
Yeah I understand why people think it's a weird situation but when I saw how far out the ball was, I can imagine how that put off Roger. He probably thought it's going to be called out but approached the net out of instinct.
The return was played so the ball was still live, there was no call for out.
I run into this all the time at the Club level. For instance, I serve and think the ball is clearly out so I don't play my opponents return. Too bad, my opponent calls balls on his side and when he didn't call it out and hit it, I should have played it. I think that this is how pro tennis should be; you can't challenge your own shot. Simple solution.
Problem is Federer's eyesight is superior to chair umpire. Best decision would be for umpire to call it out, second best decision would be to allow the challenge, since there is no disadvantage to Wawrinka to make a correct call.
Tiene razón Roger. El saque fue out y le pega mal luego porque no entiende como nadie dijo nada, entonces pide la revisión. Un desastre los jueces que dieron el saque por bueno, y muy mal el árbitro que no aceptó el desafío. Que además debería ser obligación si el jugador lo pide, no debería negarse.
2:40 wawrinka throws the towel and the ball kid picks it up and takes it away. Thank goodness this have now changed.
¿Why? It was fine.
True. It looks disgraceful.
@@masters.1000 It looks pretty cunty to just throw it out in a walkway like that. He could've simply placed next to the chairs. Plus they're there to move balls around, not be a glorified laundry service.
That’s a kid in him talking , because mum took his Lollipop .
Being able to challenge your own shots is completely stupid and shouldn't be possible
Not even worth the argument, you cannot challenge a call after you decide to play the next ball.
Coming from the table tennis world I find this extremely odd. If you have a let service where the ball touches the net as it goes over on the other side, of course the other player is going to touch it back. Obviously, you get more than one try in tennis. It should be up to the ref to call the service out in time and the assumption should be it’s a dead ball so the touch shouldn’t count imo. I do see that everyone is saying the ref is right, but he didn’t do his job of calling it in the first place.
Definitely too late for a challenge. The rulebook states that a challenge may only be made after a point ending shot or when a player stops play and challenges AND that the player must show an immediate interest in the shot that they are challenging. This is very similar to clay court procedures. Wawrinka could have hit the "reflex return" of the serve then challenged the call if he wished. Federer however can't hit his second shot, watch where it goes, then after it goes into the net decide to challenge his own serve. Doesn't work that way. So, if Federer had stopped playing, or if the return was a winner and Federer didn't make an attempt to hit his second shot, he would be able to challenge his own serve.
i still remember in ao 2012 final where similar incident occured and nadal challenged his own fault..i think he should have agreed
Well that was because nadal didn’t play a second shot or touch the ball after the serve return
Umpire should be a player..
Let’s be real guys. Who in the hell calls his OWN faults??!! Nobody in any sport will call “out!” or “nog goal!” On him/herself. In tennis the person who is receiving must call in or out(when playing with no umpire/linesmen.
I don’t think that if Roger would’ve won that point, he would’ve said” my service was out, its your point”.
You have used a left parenthesis without a corresponding right one.
The problem was that the the "OUT" was never called by the umpire in the first place. Umpire ALLOWED the continuation of play, and only after Roger returned serve did he have time to think, "Wait. Did I hit an out and it not get called?" Basically, the umpires duties was left to Roger to determine if his own ball got out.
If a player is counting on the umpire to do their job, Roger should not have had to even ask if the ball was out or not. But, because he had to, it was fair to call a challenge, not even on the player, but the Umpire not making the call when he should have.
Roger made a great point. "Have you ever played hours and hours a day?" It's muscle memory. He lives, breaths and sleeps tennis. Of course he's going to return the ball because in that moment he's trained his body to reflex. To ask a professional player NOT to react when he shouldn't is unreasonable. But, those are the rules, and he took it on the chin better than I would have. I would have flipped the fuck out.
If Federer would have played a winner, Wawrinca would have challenged the service.
What's the right procedure here? Should he have dodged the ball then challenged? And if it had been called in, then what? This seems like a difficult situation
love Roger but he was wrong here, I also like how the umpire wasn't intimidated at all.
Roger wasn't exactly trying to be intimidating. Just the standard temperament of someone who's had their serve broken to love.
Just need to watertight the "hit the ball twice" rule so that if the serving player hits the return then he forfeits the right to call the 1st serve out. Otherwise the serving player can "go for it" and if he fails to play a winner can implement plan "B" and opt for the second chance. The umpire made the right call. Think about it Roger.
I wasn’t a fan of Federer back pre-2014 (as a person). He could be very rude and arrogant at times, especially when losing. I think him losing a lot in 2013 brought him back down to earth a bit
You don't know anything
Get electronic line calls on all courts, simple as.