Hahaha

As a tennis umpire myself, From the audio you can hear a vague "out" call from the player. I didn't hear any "challenge!" or any sign from neither players to challenge the ball. If there was a "challenge" call, then it is a challenge. if it is was "Out" as far as i could hear, it's kind of a hindrance BUT it didn't affect neither players on the other side of the court and it didn't change anything. the "out" was WAY after the ball passed the player and he couldn't get it any way. Under the circumstances, there should be a challenge and at the end, after the supervisor came and reversed the chair umpire's decision. And people please understand this. Supervisors are there for a reason. As a chair umpire i also got overruled. In other cases my original call stood. NOT in every dispute the supervisor is allowed to interfere and sometimes it's the sole discretion of the chair umpire to decide. In the rules it states as "Question of fact vs Question of Law".

RonkoDDR I don’t buy this “question of fact and laws”. There are KZfaq channels that post literally HOURS worth of moments in tennis where the chair empires and supervisors literally ignore the facts just because they don’t want to appear weak and reverse calls. Their logic is “once a call had been made, it can’t be reversed” which is completely retarded

@@RoniRonkoKovatch my only question to you is....what takes the supervisor so long to get there? Is he not in the building, available?

@@romeredubost6971 I assume one of those things: 1. He replied lately to the chair umpire and came immediately. 2. He replied immediately but was on another incident and then they either waited for him or for another supervisor (the latter, unlike the first part, sounds very unlikely) 3. He replied immediately and during the time he came to court he got delayed for some reason. 3. Another unknown reason to me.

Different channel mate

@@Qynxc He's not saying there's supposed to be 2 minutes of highlights in this video. He's saying it's pathetic how singles matches highlights only go for 2 minutes while a point dispute gets a whole bloody 11 MINUTES. It's crazy.

@@Qynxc Yep, evidently you do find it hard. Keep at it.

@@Qynxc yeah mate, reading comprehension is sure hard, isn't it

Not sure why you clicked on this video if you were looking for highlights smart guy lol.

I know, the way Strycova sits down with a smug look on face whilst Mattek and Murray have to be put thru the grinder waiting for the supervisor, thinking she 's gonna get a cheap point, just get on with it.

Because of the interference call, Strycova and Melo would have won the point.

@@elijahs.1429 But an interference call never made any sense. If it's a challenge then you stop playing and see if it went out. If it had been IN then Strycova/Melo would have won the point, but it wasn't. She is complaining about it not going a way that it never should have gone and never should have been considered.

Completely agree with you, just saying that Melo/Strycova would have won the point if the interference call was allowed to stand which thankfully it wasn't.

Strycova is always an ass

Even Murray was wondering if it was a challenge or not though to begin with, because they wouldn't have won the point of his challenge was wrong

Not saying this isn't dumb but you haven't watched much tennis have you? lol

new to tennis?

Ron Morgan .

Murray didn't say challenge, he said "out". That's not a challenge, he shouldn't be awarded a challenge

Terse and accurate synopsis. I wish I read this before wasting 10 minutes of my life. Thank you!

Haha, nice one dude

Michael F what did the umpire do wrong?

Jye Taylor I think he should have had the common sense to understand that Mattek-Sands was mid swing when Murray said challenge and so she couldn't stop hitting the ball anymore. So he should have done the challenge right away.

shatterhand01 gotcha 👍 thanks

The male player with the white hat during the point called a challenge. When this takes place, the point must stop and the challenge is checked. For reasons unknown, the umpire did not stop the point to check the challenge. The point was continued and the team that challenged eventually won the point, which anyway should have been stopped earlier. And when the ghost point was over (won by the team that challenged), the umpire awarded the point to the other team with the excuse that the white hat male "obstructed" the other team by calling a challenge! And the umpire claims that the white hat male should have stopped the point after the challenge, even if the ball was away from him 😂😂 And in the end, the woman of the other team is whining for absolutely no reason!

I’m sure Strycova is great of you don’t count looks, brains and personality. Also, integrity.

Technically stating in full play would be a hindrance and I'm sure recklessly saying it during play would already be understood by players that you'll lose a challenge or the point (or both) trying that silly balking play. Which works fine for singles play rules. The dynamic has to change a little in doubles as one player can control their calls but not their partner's, so the umpire should assume a position of non-hindrance as a default and stop play to issue the challenge video. I'm guessing this umpire is fairly new and has little doubles umpiring experience.

Women!

Mike Kim he only called hinderance when Strycova complained that he led challenge. He was swayed by the players and was unable to dig himself out of the hole he dug. I'm pretty sure he didn't here the challenge call and that's why he called hinderance, but if he didn't hear the challenge call how can he be certain it happened and was a hinderance? In either instance this umpire screwed the pooch. And in both instances the challenge should have been granted as the only tea, that could possibly be disadvantaged from the challenge was the team that called it, hence why they simply celebrated after the winner.

In the end the chair umpire turned out to be the hindrance!

The C.O.D.Y. Project this explanation made the most sense. The application could be different in a doubles match.

and tourney...

But lost the final

Stupid umpire. He is a football referee actually. Murray u should be embarrased to, why u challenge after u lose point. Shame on you

@@anonymousdrift3765 They won the point both ways. They won the point at the end of the rally and with the challenge too.

@@anonymousdrift3765 if you lost the point thats the entire point of 'challenging' a shot

@@anonymousdrift3765 and you're as stupid as that umpire 😂

and the players also complicataed it further and beyond reasonable ethics by argueing with the umpire and trying to make him look bad

Nox NC the hawkeye would have to relay every single shot back to the ref, i guess its possible but a lot of work for a computer of some sort

Chris 777 Yeah, even with a fast computer there would be a delay. It could be jarring to watch, although, to be fair, there is a delay when players challenge. The delay with the computer would probably be less. There might be a lot more interruptions as there are probably a lot of out balls that are missed by both the players and the umpires, it would be interesting to know how often that is happening. Hey, maybe everyone already knows this and that’s why they aren’t pushing for real-time Hawkeye; but it’s probably cost and technical limitations.

@@noxnc i believe if pressure sensors or lasers or a combination of these are used, Hawkeye features can be implemented at near instant speeds. But expect cost of research and operation to be pretty high

@@harrissravan They actually have it now. They were using it last year due to the pandemic. It’s not on all courts yet. Weirdly, they were using mainly on the outer courts and saving the lines people for the show courts. Backwards logic in a way, but it does cut down on how many lines people you need.

we have automated line calling 4 years after :D

why

@@jacktokmaji927 BRUH just read🤬

So what did he do after he made a challenge?

@@rizvan1632 nothing, the point was over due to a winner from his partner.

I want to see you on Chair bro

And the other 'lie' about how they had stopped playing after Murray had called challenge It was all moving very quickly and no one stopped or turned off their attention. As we say in Australia: 'Yeah, Nah'...

@@TheC-O-D-Y-Project They immediately told the umpire they heard challenge, both at the same time. They weren't lying, they heard it. The dishonest one was Murray who tried to celebrate the point like nothing happened.

@@robertorolfo, deaf, dumb and blind, are you?

I agree. The signal should be hurling the racket in the general direction of the umpire and suggesting he/she can't be serious.

And how do u propose a universal signal in a high speed rally... to take the players off of their rhythm?

@@devonpaul203 If you're going to stop a rally to challenge, then you'll disrupt the opponent's rhythm in any case...

Just implement Live Hawk Eye, no need for challenges anymore.

@@alistairelias536 how is a chair umpire supposed to see a visual gesture (universal signal) when the rally is moving at such a pace? Challenges can be called in the middle of a rally. If u r wrong, u lose the point. Either way the challenging players rhythm is broken when he or she deems that there was a missed call

ozzyman reviews should do this

HOW DOES THIS COMMENT NOT HAVE MORE LIKES? That is a fantastic suggestion.

Actually no bad lip needed. The original dialogue is super retarded and funny in itself.

yeah, I'd like to know what strycova was arguing there

Yeah I didn't get what Strycova wanted out of that?? They had lost the point either way

They wanted to do it the right way. They didn’t cause it hinderance, they challenged it but umpire said something else i guessz

She was claiming that they only lost the point in the run of play because Melo stopped playing when he heard the challenge call and let Mattel-Sands' backhand go by him.

If Murray challenged the ball and it was IN then they would have won the point because the challenge was off.

Supervisor was wrong. Upon review he'd have to admit that unfortunately.

Dake Ras Why was he wrong?

@@chariwarrior4946 I've posted this elsewhere. A challenge is only valid if made immediately and the player ceases to play the point. By 'ignoring' his own challenge and celebrating Mattek-Sand's winner, he effectively lost his right to challenge. Players should really know this. Even if he did challenge, by "playing on" the umpire cannot give him the challenge. By subsequently admitting to 'hindering' his opponents by 'challenging' before Mattek-Sand's winner, they cannot win the point that way either. In tennis you cannot have two ways to win a point.

@@dakeras2410 He (Murray) didn't ignore, he simply went along with the moment. As soon as the controversy came up, he admitted to challenging the shot, which brings back to your point- he couldn't cease to play since the shot went to Mattek-Sands (which if you play the game, know to hit the ball and then make a call rather then letting it go and hoping it lands out).

@@danielyamamoto1996 and that is what happened when people like dake who is a tennis fan but does not play tennis competitive does not understand that u can not hope the ball land out.

never happens in tennis

Nothing wrong with ego. He shud feel the other way around it, in that sense.

Melo wasn't really pushing for it after he realised the situation but Strycova just doubled down on it and then went contrary to what she originally said

@@user-xn4ru6ex2v that's true,but if i was him i would calm her down

Read the explanation posted by Dake Ras. He will clear it up for you.

Murray admitted that he challenged the call. So, Murray called for a challenge, then continued to play the point. He was supposed to stop play immediately, but he didn't. It doesn't matter what Sands did. If a player says "challenge", but continues to play the point that is textbook hindrance. The ref made the right call.

@@djokovicsburneraccount2099 calling challenge is different than deliberate hinderance. if they're saying it's a challenge then run the challenge and let that decide. if it was in then they take the penalty

@@djokovicsburneraccount2099 "then continued to play the point." He didn't though - he never hit the ball after calling challenge.

@@djokovicsburneraccount2099 How did he continue playing?

@@obliviouz Sorry it took so long to reply guys. So Murray continued the point in two different ways actually. 1. If a player calls for a challenge, but gets back into their ready position to retrieve the next shot that is continuing the point. That player doesn't have to hit the ball, just by preparing for the next shot you're showing that you consider the point live. If you watch the video again Murray says challenge, but then he gets in ready position just in case Sands' shot comes back. 2. The SECOND way Murray continued playing is that When making a challenge you are supposed to stop play immediately, OR immediately tell the umpire about the challenge after your partner hits the next shot. Murray did neither. He fist bumped Sands after her "winning shot" , took the point & didn't tell the umpire about his challenge . But, by taking the point, that means by rule he continued play AFTER calling for a challenge. 3. In "Doubles" there are only a few terms a player can say during a point, and continue to play the point without it being considered hindrance. and Challenge is not one of those terms In "Singles" if a player says ANYTHING during a point, and tries to continue to play the point that is Hindrance.

Mart Mart Hahahaha

😂😂😂

Should have been "YOU HAVE GOT TO BE KIDDING ME!" Johnny Mac would have appeciated that.

@IAN G Are you british? 😂😂

Nico Polidis he's right. There's no such thing as a British accent. Murray is Scottish.

@Jimmy 83 Murray is British.

Not really. When a player challenges a call, it must be done immediately and he/she must cease the point immediately. For example, a player cannot hit a ball, see that it might be going out, and then mid ball-flight challenge the call. Regardless of what happens with the ball, if the challenge is too late, it qualifies as hindrance. The basic rule of a player cannot be given two chances to win the point applies. As Murray made a verbal call to 'challenge' the line-call, but continued playing and then watched Mattek-Sands hit the winner and subsequently walked back without competing the challenge, he in effect retracted his "verbal challenge" and by 'talking' during the point, it qualifies as hindrance. Murray SHOULD HAVE stopped playing immediately after making a verbal challenge loud enough to everyone to hear. The fact that he simply took the point and walked away was unsportsmanlike. Long and short, the umpire was actually (quite impressively) entirely correct in his judgement. As for all four players screaming at the umpire, really disrespectful, but that's tennis these days I guess.

@@dakeras2410 I would agree with you if it was a late challenge, but I've no reason to believe the challenge was late.

@@dakeras2410 u can challenge after u have the hit ball, as long as u dont not hit the next ball u are fine. how can u challenge a ball that has not landed yet? and u wouldnt want to just stop your swing just in case it goes in? L

@@dakeras2410 Players are allowed a reflex shot and Crowd noise can drown out calls....and Here, the Chair Umpire HEARD the Challenge call; and to be fair to both Teams he should have used COMMONSENSE and stopped the Play by using his advantage - the Microphone to sound out loudly - CHALLENGE, exactly as done with LET call.

@@dakeras2410 Crowd noise can drown out calls....and Here, the Chair Umpire HEARD the Challenge call; and to be fair to both Teams he should have used COMMONSENSE and stopped the Play by using his advantage - the Microphone to sound out loudly - CHALLENGE, exactly as done with LET call. FYI....Players are allowed a single reflex shot.

You would need to understand the rules of tennis for this to make sense. As Murray did not call his challenge loud enough for his partner to hear, and basically retracted his challenge after Mattek-Sands hit her winner by celebrating and walking back to the baseline with her, he effectively "retracted" his challenge, which both 1. negates his right to challenge and 2. counts as hindrance. Had Murray simply stopped playing, raised his racket and insisted that Mattek-Sand's winner should not count because he called a challenge, he would have received the challenge.

@@dakeras2410 that's a doozy

Dake Ras shouldn’t the umpire have stopped the game since he heard the challenge, regardless if the challenger stopped playing or not? Unless the umpire stops a rally, whether by awarding a point or admitting a challenge, shouldn’t the players continue playing? Innocent question here; I don’t know the exact rules. (In volleyball, that is the carnal rule: nobody stops playing unless the umpire blows the whistle.)

@@noski33 I don't think the umpire heard the call (nor did Mattek-Sands for that matter as she walked back) , which was why the umpire asked Murray to confirm that he said "Challenge". It was only after their opponents pointed our that Murray spoke during the point that that umpire addressed the issue. By speaking before that point had fully completed, Murray rendered the point null. By pretending not to have made the call and walking back with Mattek-Sands after she hit the winner, he rendered his challenge null (i.e. he played on after a challenge). The problem was not that Mattek-Sands hit the winner, the problem was that Murray did not stick with his challenge once he made it. This is basically the same as Nadal challenging a line call (which hinders his opponent) and then hitting a winner and claiming the winner and not insisting on actually challenging the line call. You can't have it both ways.

Dake Ras you’re making up tennis rules. If the challenge is made fast enough and clear enough, it’s a challenge. It doesn’t matter that Murray regretted the challenge the second he made it.

Rhys Plant lolllll

strycovas smile at the end was very telling...

Can't conclude that without knowing she knew the ball was out.

JWF I concluded that after the challenge showed the ball was out and Strycova continued to moan about it.

@@Aizouli she knew the ball was out and threw a tantrum when they wanted to show the replay

Wasn't the case though. Neither the umpire, nor Mattek-Sands heard it. Her and Murray claiming the point based on Mattek-Sand's winner and walking back to the baseline confirms it wasn't

@@dakeras2410 ?? at 0.46 one can clearly hear the umpire saying 'you ask for challenge'

@@dakeras2410 It doesn't matter. Either you accept the challenge by Murray and it that case if the ball is in, they lost the point because you consider they stop playing (even if Mattek-Sands didn't) and if the ball is out (which was the case) they won the point. Or you don't accept the challenge because nobody heard it and they still win the point because it was winning passing shot. Simple as that

@@RGollie03 The chair umpire states: "I've heard you ask for challenge". The other players brought the complaint to the chair umpire. Can you please explain to me (If Murray clearly asked for a challenge), why Mattek-Sands continued playing on? You have to ask yourself, why (if) the chair umpire thought Murray challenged, why didn't he award the challenge straight away? Why didn't Mattek-Sands also stop playing? Why didn't Murray in any way STOP playing? The only obvious answer is that Murray didn't clearly challenge. I'd recommend you review the footage (without any sound) and tell me at which moment Murray stopped playing?

@@Nicotine46 According to 2019 ATP rules, In order to initiate a valid challenge, a player either needs to make a verbal request to challenge and STOP PLAYING or raise their hand/racket and STOP PLAYING. It is then up to the chair umpire to acknowledge their request for a challenge (e.g. have they used up their challenges, has Hawk-eye been enabled etc) and then initiate the challenge. Shouting 'challenge/out/fault/' or any other verbal comment and continuing playing is considered hindrance and the player loses the point. Seeing as the 'challenge' was invalid, Murray cannot retrospectively claim it. As he made a noise before the completion of the point, he also loses the point.

Incorrect. The rule is not to replay due to lots of confusion. But correct that the ball was out.

Just that there is no confusion ar all !

@@qc1okay that seems like a pretty vague rule

Only if the umpire has to get down from his tower-seat thingy and run to farthest point on the court to view the replay on the smallest and least resolution screen technologically available for the time...

Asbury Park is there a timeout in tennis? I mean, outside of injury.

@@franqueworren7323 the way she dresses, the way she wears "eye black" under her eyes to fight the glare, her tattoos, her sometimes awesomely wild hairdos. You know, unique.

Nick Prehna in the middle of the point....

@@dropsht no as soon as a challenge is called it is the end of a point. The video review of the challenged play will then decide who gets the point. Thought tennis was straight forward lol, incompetent umpires.

Because as soon as a challenge is called by the player, the point immediately should stop.

If the opposing player stopped playing because he heard the opponent shout a challenge. In this case, none of them stopped.

They're saying the challenge call itself was the hindrance. Stupid ump really

2nd last hit, where it went to mattek sands on the very left and it looked out

Zachary Stone ahh right, thanks!

Zachary Stone and actually, the challenge is called AFTER the 2nd last ball hit the ground, which is almost the same time Mattek hit it last. So the umpire’s excuse that Murray did not stop playing when he called the challenge (thereby making it a hindrance) is, at best, flimsy. How on earth could he stupidly complicate that call!

...WITH EXTREME PREJUDICE!!! lol... if only, sometimes...

look at Dake, he did too.

vElecktrixz because, as you see on the scoreboard, the point was being taken from her

Seriously... what are you talking about?

Indeed. The situation looked more like it needed a social worker than a supervisor...

I think maybe because Bethanie just happened to be in the way when the ball bounced.

Nectere S but any good linesman would have been able to tell it was out

Nectere S Mattek couldn’t have hit that winner if she was in the way of the linesman’s sight.

CHOPSZOOKER I think we agree there was a lot of stupidity in calling the lines & umpiring in this sequence.

I agree. We need her to be nominated for the Jeff Tarango On-Court Conduct Award...

Wey Man He would have made toast of them in his heyday. 😂😂No one to beat him for tantrums but still an amazing player.