First as tragedy, then as farce.
Same tournament; same umpire. New players; new court; new call.
Same outcome: tennis shooting itself in the foot.
After midnight on Saturday morning in Cincinnati, Canada’s Felix Auger-Aliassime was match point down to Britain’s Jack Draper in the deciding set of their round-of-16 match. Draper served out wide and moved in to volley; Auger-Aliassime dipped a return at Draper’s feet. The ball spun up, clipped the net tape, and rolled over.
Draper smiled and walked towards the net for a handshake, believing he had hit a fortuitous winner; Auger-Aliassime walked across to the deuce side of the court for 40-40, believing the ball had hit Draper’s side of the court on its way over.
There was a pause. Greg Allensworth, the umpire, who was also in the chair for the electronic line calling (ELC) malfunction with Brandon Nakashima and Taylor Fritz on Thursday, spoke into his microphone.
“Ladies and gentlemen, I am ruling that that was a fair shot. Game, set, and match Draper, 5-7, 6-4, 6-4.”
Then it began.
“If there was a replay then I’d replay it, but I don’t know,” Draper said.
“Did you not see the ball bounce on the floor?” Auger-Aliassime asked Allensworth.
“Like after he hit it?” Allensworth asked Auger-Aliassime.
“You’re going to get out, and it’s going to be everywhere, and it’s going to look ridiculous,” Auger-Aliassime said.
There was no need to get out and wait for it to be everywhere. There was no need to wait for the four-minute discussion that inevitably ended in no reconsideration of the decision. It was already ridiculous — and not because of the officiating.
After Thursday night’s incident between Fritz and Nakashima, in which Allensworth was unable to intervene and reverse an incorrect non-call from the Hawk-Eye ELC system, the ATP Tour took swift action.
GO DEEPER
Why Taylor Fritz’s electronic line call nightmare shows need for common sense in tennis
“After recent technical issues with Live ELC in Montreal and Cincinnati, we have conducted a thorough review of our protocols. Going forward, if the review official determines during a rally that a ball was out earlier in the point (but was not called by the system), that decision will stand,” the tour said.
This incident should occasion a similar review of video replay in tennis. In the case of Draper and Auger-Aliassime’s match point, Allensworth has to decide the following things in a matter of milliseconds:
- Does Draper volley the ball or half-volley it? This affects whether or not the ball can follow the trajectory it ends up taking.
- Does he hit the ball into the ground?
- Does he hit the ball with his racket twice? If yes, Allensworth has to rule whether or not he has done so in the same motion.
Oh my! 🫣 pic.com/FazKHlOKY9
— Stefanos Tsitsipas (@steftsitsipas) August 17, 2024
Replays appear to show Draper knocking the ball into the ground on his side, before it spins back off his racket and high into the air. If there is a double hit, it is in one continuous motion, so would not be ground for losing the point under tennis’s rules. The ball hitting Draper’s side of the court after his racket, however, would mean Auger-Aliassime winning the point.
Instead, Draper wins the point and the match. But even with video, this decision is close; there are clues to the ball having hit the court after the racket in its final trajectory, including its arc and height, but not a definitive frame. What definitely unfolds? Another failure of tennis’ refereeing infrastructure to protect players and fans.
Draper, Auger-Aliassime and Allensworth were all let down (Matthew Stockman/Getty Images)
Draper should not have to defend his integrity when trying to pick up a ball, nor should he have to consider conceding a point. Auger-Aliassime should not have to explain to an umpire that he can be proven wrong after his opportunity to win a match is lost. Allensworth should not have to be the sole arbiter of an incredibly tight call with just his eyes, while fans watching both live and on TV can see replays he cannot act on — even if they are not conclusive.
Questions of sportsmanship and decency will necessarily come up — Andy Roddick memorably gave a point to Fernando Verdasco at the 2005 Rome Masters when up a set and triple match point, after the umpire refused to check a ball mark. Roddick lost that match — but players should not have to mete out their versions of what is fair in a sport that has rules and protocols to prevent them from doing so. Even if Allensworth were to have reviewed the footage and not overturned it, it would have allowed all three people in question more closure on the situation than guessing about their instant impressions of a moment.
“We can look at it after the match and if I see it wrong, I’ll admit it to you,” he told Auger-Aliassime.
“That’s too late,” the Canadian said.
There are good reasons the use of video replays sometimes meets resistance — one is that it cannot be in place for all events. At this year’s U.S. Open, which starts on Monday, August 26, only three-quarters of the singles matches will have video replay covering them. Situations may unfold when the same call gets overturned on one occasion because of video, but gets left in error on another because it is not available on a different court.
A wider introduction would see tennis reckon with many of the growing pains football has gone through, including a clearer realisation of how much is predicated on subjectivity that a camera can’t eradicate. But tennis creating problems for itself like this is a tragedy. To continue to do so when there are simple ways to avoid it? A farce.
(Top photo: Frey/TPN via Getty Images)