jazzyg wrote: ↑Tue Jul 30, 2024 5:18 pm
Interesting that one line in the story reads the audio indicated the call came AFTER Gauff's shot, but that sentence was never referenced again. Pretty important sentence and needed a follow-up.
I did not see the match, but in general I have always felt players tend to incorrectly say late calls interfere with their shots when they don't. Clearly, though, Gauff believed she was right. Ultimately, I doubt it changed the outcome. Even if the call affected her shot, which the story says it apparently didn't, there's no guarantee she would have won the point. Then, after the five-minute delay, she won the first three points on Vekic's serve and had a terrific chance to break.
Still, the umpire saying he was wrong but could not change his call is infuriating. Of course he could change his call. He chose not to.
I'm shocked SI reported it that way. It was not at all clear that he meant "I know I screwed up here but I'm sticking to my guns." Here's the exchange:
Umpire: That's my judgment. That's how I'm ruling it.
Coco: He called it out before I hit it, so I went up on the ball (motioning that she abbreviated her follow-through).
Umpire: (unintelligible)
Coco: No, no, it didn't go fast. Because it was the shape she hit (gestures high with her hand to indicate the ball's topspin).
Umpire: That's how I see it, that's how she hit it.
Coco: This isn't fair, he called it out before I hit the ball.
Umpire: I'm not saying I"m right, I'm saying that's the way I saw it and the way I'm ruling it.
Coco: But you have to be 100% sure.
Umpire: I am 100% sure--
Coco: But it's not fair--
Umpire: -- and now you're telling me the opposite, and that's why, I know I'm wrong but I cannot change my decision after you hit it.
Coco: But he called it out before I hit the ball.
Umpire: That doesn't matter.
Coco: Yes, it does. It kind of does when the ball isn't that fast. If it's fast, OK, but the ball wasn't that fast. [Weird because Donna hit a heavy return, not a high and loopy one. It had a lot of topspin and bounced pretty high, but it wasn't super slow. Kind of moot, though.]
[more about whether the call affected her or not]
Coco: But you have to be sure.
Umpire: I am 100% sure.
Coco: But you're not, you just said "maybe I'm wrong."
Umpire: Well, based on your reaction I might be wrong, but I have to take my decision...
When the supervisor came out, Coco kept insisting the call came BEFORE she hit the ball. Like clearly before. She said "If it had happened at the same time (as my shot), okay, I can see that" and was arguing that it was so clearly before she hit it. That definitely wasn't the case. It was simultaneous at best, maybe a hair afterward. (At least on TV - is it possible it takes a half-second for the mic to pick up the sound and it was sooner in reality?)
I chalk up the umpire's words "I know I'm wrong" to his speaking a second language and trying to be diplomatic with a distraught player and acknowledge that of course he might be wrong because that's the nature of humans making split-second calls from so far away. I don't think he meant "I definitely screwed up, you're right." He explained that later. I also think he might have just made a slip of the tongue. He said a few words right before "I know I'm wrong" that are hard to hear, which could provide more context.
What the umpire might have meant is that he thought the ball didn't affect her, and now she's telling him it did, so he's saying, "Okay, you're the expert on that, I can't read your mind," but he has to go by what he sees anyway, and simply whether the call came before or after her swing. He's wrong about what SHE thought, but that's not a factor for the call.
I believe if the umpire truly thought he was wrong, he would reverse his decision. That wasn't the case here. He thought he made a tight but fair call. They're not going to reverse a call like that unless they know they messed up, and it would be immediate.
It was a tight call. I could see it either way. I've watched in on mute trying to see if Coco appears to hit a normal stroke or does indeed seem to pull off it. It's impossible to tell with the sound on - the call comes too quickly. On mute you can tell she hit off her back foot, not driving the ball, and honestly the shot looks pretty normal to me. But I could also see where someone would think she didn't finish the stroke like she normally would have.
If the umpire could have seen a replay, I bet he'd see the case for replaying it because it's just so hard to tell. But that was his impression in real time, and that's what they go by.
Also: Coco waged an unwinnable argument based on her emotions. Okay, she blew off some steam. She was super frustrated by then in the match. But do that quickly and refocus. You can't win that argument. Looking at the stats and the leads she let slip, I don't think this call - which was fair and also very possible correct - had much bearing on the match.
Everyone forgets about the other player in these situations. It's probable, and was the umpire's call, that Vekic hit a great shot, a heavy return right at Coco's feet, and IMO deserved the point and the break.
I wonder if Gauff is under a lot of strain, perhaps because she is about to defend a ton of points. And I wonder what's going on with BG. She's had a decent year, making two Slam semis and losing to Sabalenka and Iga - not bad losses. Also semi'd Indian Wells and Rome. Only one small title, but #5 in the race.
Maybe they are on their phones telling their friends they are next to Mick Jagger.