They're not allowed to. Once you make a call you have to stick to it. They're told back their own calls. You can't have umpires changing their minds because of the players. It sets a dangerous precedent. I admit that this is far from perfect but I understand why it is the way it is.
Right, once you go back on your own call, it opens you up to doubt, and your credibility comes into question. Not to mention "fairness" might come into play in which one player could say "but you went back on your decision for this person/occasion, why not now"
I thought atrocious was an understatement for this decision actually the worst decision in the history of tennis. Then someone who watched it live pointed out that there is a Huge audio delay (I thought there was only a slight audio delay) Watch at .25 for proof if you are not good at audio. Your wrong (as was I) I couldn't understand why she stopped play on the ball when to me it look like she should have at least made a stab at it. I said she just stopped because she hoped it was going to be out Which I do at times but it seemed really stupid considering the point. Then I analyze the video in detail (That's how steamed I was at the umpire). The sound comes when the ball is almost crossing the net after it is hit. That is a considerable delay. It was definitely a Bang Bang play as people watched it live. That also explains why the commentators weren't saying Hey a call was way after she stopped and let it go by. The fact is she was near the ball and stood up right when he called out so it looked like she could be stopping due to the call. In reality I think she stopped because she knew she couldn't hit it back in and if she held up as it would hopefully be called out she would get the call or have it replayed. It was a smart move on her part because she got away with it. I agree she would not have been able to return the ball in but she could have made contact but that would have only proved it was unreturnable. Li Na was robbed but it was not an Agregious call by any means. It was a coin toss at best because of the way her opponent held up (that dirty dog). Na won so all is good. I do feel a little bad for the ump because this video makes it look like she should be banned for life
its no different to when we say "she was miles away", we dont really mean miles its overexaggeration to prove the point. she did the exact same thing just in her own broken english way
I don't understand what you mean by "even if she didn't correctly explain it", she did correctly explain it. Look at your own comment, it's not the most "correct" either dumbass.
Yes, it's crazy how often players mis-argue challenges. She didn't really have a play on it, but if Wozniack gave 100% effort, there'd be no debate, it's too close a call and you replay even if Na gets kind of screwed. But in this case, Wozniack clearly gives up on the ball, either assuming it's out or just being a quitter. Na decided to argue that it was a clean winner..she may have been right but it's a losing argument.
This video had me so mad until I noticed the audio had a huge delay. Watch and listen at 1/4 speed. I don't think she could have got the ball back in but she held up as he was calling OUT.
Not just that, she didn't even attempt to play the ball. With all the technology around these days, can't umpires get a quick little replay on a screen in their chair so they can be certain of whether a call came before or after the player hit the return shot (or if they attempted a shot at all) - how hard can that be?
I've said this in other replies, but agreed 100% jeanroucas19. I think the players should have to at least touch the ball with their racket to prove the "out" call made them distracted or give up on it. In my opinion, just touch the ball in any way and you can have a re-play if their shot was in fact in. Merciful Zeus, yeah agreed, and touching the ball should be considered the test for whether they attempted to return the shot.
What I especially didn't like was that her request for a supervisor was simply shut down and I'm really upset Li didn't pursue that and demand one. It's an extremely important point and she has the right to call a referee
Your wrong (as was I) I couldn't understand why she stopped play on the ball when to me it look like she should have at least made a stab at it. I said she just stopped because she hoped it was going to be out Which I do at times but it seemed really stupid considering the point. Then I analyze the video in detail (That's how steamed I was at the umpire). The sound comes when the ball is almost crossing the net after it is hit. That is a considerable delay. It was definitely a Bang Bang play as people watched it live. That also explains why the commentators weren't saying Hey a call was way after she stopped and let it go by. The fact is she was near the ball and stood up right when he called out so it looked like she could be stopping due to the call. In reality I think she stopped because she knew she couldn't hit it back in and if she held up as it would hopefully be called out she would get the call or have it replayed. It was a smart move on her part because she got away with it. I agree she would not have been able to return the ball in but she could have made contact but that would have only proved it was unreturnable. Li Na was robbed but it was not an Agregious call by any means. It was a coin toss at best because of the way her opponent held up (that dirty dog). Na won so all is good. I do feel a little bad for the ump because this video makes it look like she should be banned for life
Your wrong (as was I) I couldn't understand why she stopped play on the ball when to me it look like she should have at least made a stab at it. I said she just stopped because she hoped it was going to be out Which I do at times but it seemed really stupid considering the point. Then I analyze the video in detail (That's how steamed I was at the umpire). The sound comes when the ball is almost crossing the net after it is hit. That is a considerable delay. It was definitely a Bang Bang play as people watched it live. That also explains why the commentators weren't saying Hey a call was way after she stopped and let it go by. The fact is she was near the ball and stood up right when he called out so it looked like she could be stopping due to the call. In reality I think she stopped because she knew she couldn't hit it back in and if she held up as it would hopefully be called out she would get the call or have it replayed. It was a smart move on her part because she got away with it. I agree she would not have been able to return the ball in but she could have made contact but that would have only proved it was unreturnable. Li Na was robbed but it was not an Agregious call by any means. It was a coin toss at best because of the way her opponent held up (that dirty dog). Na won so all is good. I do feel a little bad for the ump because this video makes it look like she should be banned for life
@@andycouncil5470 You are dead wrong. The call was made when the ball was passing the player. She could have not play that ball. "The sound comes when the ball is almost crossing the net after it is hit" - are you serious ?
lifeinhex ... You are correct. Wozniak stops at the same time the ball hits the lines. The out call was later. If there is a sound delay, why does the sound of the rackets hitting the ball come instantly prior to the call? Played at .25 speed it is very clear that there is no sound delay and Wozniak stopped play before the call. The only thing that might be in play here is since the play was on the far side of the court from the chair umpire, she couldn't see the distance of the player from the ball and called for the replay on that basis.
Was I the only one that noticed that Wozniak actually stopped because it was far for her to get And then 2 secs later the call came out Stupid umpire Li na deserved that point
I think you were the only one in the whole world brah, I bet even the person who posted this video didn't notice that. Heck, I bet even Li Na herself did not notice that.
Yep, Wozniak slows down and even has time to turn her head to the line judge because she thought it was out. Wozniak wanted the call. Unless there's a delay between the audio and video it's pretty obvious that the call didn't stop Wozniak.
How nicely she was complaining. Imagine Azarenka or Williams at this situation. Although, I feel like why do they even argue, I have never seen any umpire correcting him/herself. They are very arrogant many times, except some.
KoivuTheHab yes I do know. But here's my question for you. Do you play tennis? Well I do, and I sure as hell know if I feel like I'm being robbing of a point from a bad call I'm pissed A), and B) I mumble a ton of threats out my mouth. And I'm not black. So you don't have to be black in order to get heated over a point.
+KoivuTheHab "Name a tennis player of any other race that has issued death threats during a game." Well, that sentence alone speaks volumes about your intelligence (or lack thereof). Racists go to such great lengths to justify their hatred, it's almost amusing.
+KoivuTheHab Sorry, I should have used shorter sentences... It must be hard for you to follow! Sorry :s (But it's okay, keep trying and you'll get there! Without falling asleep.)
cleanplasticchild Just before this video, I saw a video with similar situation occur involving Djokovic where his opponent hits the ball, everyone including Djokovic thinks it's going out into the tram line on the left side but he runs over to it just in case, he is right by the ball, he lets it bounce, it looks out, Djokovic lets it go past him, the linesman calls "OUT", the opponent challenges and it was just in but the Umpire doesn't replay the point and gives the point to the opponent. Djokovic cannot believe this because the Umpire acted as though Djokovic wouldn't have been able to return it. This however has the Umpire acting as though Wozniak COULD have returned it when clearly it was a winner. No consistency.
Voted Straw Do you actually think someone would even give the opponent a point when they were 2 point away from losing, i mean it's not like they were tied in the first set...
+Nicolas Pisoni Yes it's a hard job. You know what's harder? Admitting you're wrong. Which is what a lot if these umpires don't do. No matter how many corrections and proof you give some umpires, they still stick to their call because of their arrogance.
The real question is what was the ball thinking??? How dare that ball make a sound of bouncing well after the ball had bounced and gone by.......... The ump isn't stupid she was there live without a huge audio delay
Joshua Harrell if she had a chance to play it, but didn't because it was called "out" the point should be replayed, if she couldn't play it anyways the point should go to Li
Umpire was dead wrong here - the "out" didn't hinder Wozniak's ability to play the ball, and thus the point should have been awarded to Li Na. Just one clarification - how close Wozniak was to the ball is not NECESSARILY relevant. In THIS case, she was nowhere near it, and that should have informed the decision. But even if she had been right next to the ball, if she CHOSE not to play it (for example, EXPECTING an out call that came AFTER she has already let the ball go by) she STILL should have lost the point because the "out" call didn't hinder her. Professional players get this wrong all the time, BTW because they don't know the specifics of the rule.
MMT Sr 100% right. It doesn’t matter how close you are to the ball, if you decide not to hit it, and Li Na challenges it and it’s in and you didn’t touch the ball, it’s Li Na’s point everyday of the week. If Wozniak had just touched the ball a tiny bit it is a replay of the point, but she didn’t.
Your wrong (as was I) I couldn't understand why she stopped play on the ball when to me it look like she should have at least made a stab at it. I said she just stopped because she hoped it was going to be out Which I do at times but it seemed really stupid considering the point. Then I analyze the video in detail (That's how steamed I was at the umpire). The sound comes when the ball is almost crossing the net after it is hit. That is a considerable delay. It was definitely a Bang Bang play as people watched it live. That also explains why the commentators weren't saying Hey a call was way after she stopped and let it go by. The fact is she was near the ball and stood up right when he called out so it looked like she could be stopping due to the call. In reality I think she stopped because she knew she couldn't hit it back in and if she held up as it would hopefully be called out she would get the call or have it replayed. It was a smart move on her part because she got away with it. I agree she would not have been able to return the ball in but she could have made contact but that would have only proved it was unreturnable. Li Na was robbed but it was not an Agregious call by any means. It was a coin toss at best because of the way her opponent held up (that dirty dog). Na won so all is good. I do feel a little bad for the ump because this video makes it look like she should be banned for life
@@andycouncil5470 Are you serious? The call was made way after Wozniak stopped playing. There is no delay in the video, the call comes after the bounce. Everything is fine.
I keep rewatching the second half of this clip, it's really compelling. I guess the right thing to do is to bring in video evidence for this type of decision, however then we wouldn't have amazing clips like this.
No, she said that it _is_ a question of fact, meaning the dispute is over the facts of what happened rather than a dispute over the rules or how a rule is interpreted. This was in response to the request to get the tournament referee, because both Li and the umpire know that in a fact dispute ("she saw X and I saw Y") they will always side with the umpire, which is also why Li didn't push that issue.
If you tested all tennis line judges with shots/serves over 170kmh near the lines I'd say they will only get 50% correct. (same as guessing). Line judges are basically useless. Just use hawkeye to beep immediately when the ball is out.
Lina seldom argues with the umpire, but this time she was too upset. This is such clearly a winner, the umpire was completely wrong and didn’t admit her mistake.
3:12 The ref tried to claim the player stopped playing because of the call, but the ball was behind her before the OUT call was made. She stopped playing half a second before the ball even LANDED, thinking it was going out and/or that she couldn't get it, so the ref was utterly WRONG here. I'm tired of refs in sports having way too much control over a match with their inability to do their job.
That should've been Li Na's point. Wozniack was too far away for her to even try to touch the ball. Even though Li still didn't get that point, she was very professional and wasn't disrespectful to the chair umpire. I like that about Li :-)
If Wozniak had a chance to play the ball, but didn't because the ball was called out, the point would be replayed. If Wozniak did not have a chance to play it, and the ball was past her before the out call was made, it would have been Li's point. The latter is what should have happened, but the umpire said to replay the point instead.
That is a clear winner. Even IF wozniak could have reached the ball, she didn't. But look at the distance she had to cover, it was out of her reach. That is a 100% winner. The umpire should be fired. Even the crowd knew that was a winner.
That must be the most frustrating thing in the world... she KNOWS that she’s right, but the only way that she can attempt to communicate with the judge is in a second language and against someone who would not change their mind... like, that must have been so frustrating for her to try and deal with.
Chair umpires always be fucking up. This was such a bad call. I watched Safarova vs Pliskova recently and that match was one of the worst called matches I think I've ever seen as far as chair umpire and the line judges combined.
On replay, it is crystal clear that Woz was hoping that ball out and had no intention of playing it. The ball was well by her when the out call was made.
Gotta appreciate we now have technologies that call out automatically and can replay the point to see it clearly. Imagine only 8 years ago, some umpire made mistake but got away from it. Sometimes one bad call can change the outcome of a match, fortunately didn't affect Li Na. In early days, more popular or more favored players often got favorable calls, especially at crucial moments.
the title says that it's the final game, so i'm guessing that she DID win, considering the score. i think it did affect her game, as you can see from watching the video.
My god, what a crazy decision. Li Na is 100% right. The ball was completely out of reach! I don't get how such gross mistakes can be made at this level of umpiring.
Definitely agree it should have been Li Na's point, but umpires have a hard job. I needed to watch slow mo a few times to be convinced, umprirs don't have that luxury
It would have been honorable if Wozniak had conceded the point. Clearly she had lost that point and should have gracefully accepted that. She would have certainly won the hearts of millions.
I think Wozniak could have gotten a racquet on it if she hadn't stopped playing, but she stopped playing, and then the ball was called out, so effectively she gave up the point by doing that. The fact that she didn't touch it at all should have been enough for the umpire.
Did you even watch the video? Or do you even know how Tennis works? It matters because if Wozniak had a chance to play it then it's a replay of the point. If she didn't have a chance of playing it, then the point should go to Li automatically.
Same thing happened in the Men's Australian Open Final this year with Federer vs Nadal. The umpire made the right decision that time. Rules are if you don't get the racquet on the ball, you lose the point, plus Wozniak was no where near the ball.
Cant just say the point has to be replayed because Wozniaki slowed down because of the call. Every tennis player has to get the ball over the net in order for the point to be replayed. THAT IS THE RULE.
+ShootingStar Maniac No, it's not. If they're there to hit the shot, but the call disturbs them, the point is replayed even if the player didn't hit the shot over the net or inside the court, their racket doesn't even have to touch the ball.
Your wrong (as was I) I couldn't understand why she stopped play on the ball when to me it look like she should have at least made a stab at it. I said she just stopped because she hoped it was going to be out Which I do at times but it seemed really stupid considering the point. Then I analyze the video in detail (That's how steamed I was at the umpire). The sound comes when the ball is almost crossing the net after it is hit. That is a considerable delay. It was definitely a Bang Bang play as people watched it live. That also explains why the commentators weren't saying Hey a call was way after she stopped and let it go by. The fact is she was near the ball and stood up right when he called out so it looked like she could be stopping due to the call. In reality I think she stopped because she knew she couldn't hit it back in and if she held up as it would hopefully be called out she would get the call or have it replayed. It was a smart move on her part because she got away with it. I agree she would not have been able to return the ball in but she could have made contact but that would have only proved it was unreturnable. Li Na was robbed but it was not an Agregious call by any means. It was a coin toss at best because of the way her opponent held up (that dirty dog). Na won so all is good. I do feel a little bad for the ump because this video makes it look like she should be banned for life
I have no idea what you are talking about. "The sound comes when the ball is almost crossing the net after it is hit." Are you implying that the video is ahead of the audio? Because it is clear that is not the case. If instead you are saying that the call came when the ball was still in front of Wozniak, that too is not true. The call does not come until 3:13 when the ball is already past her or even with her at best. It is not possible to change an approach to a ball and hold up in response to a verbal signal when the ball is already past. It was an egregious call that should have been reversed.
@@RR-mp7hw I wish I had your inability to notice a significant audio delay. It would make amazon videos more enjoyable. You are always going to get a slight delay but this is 3x the delay of any other tennis video I could find. 3X!!! If you'd like to have an idea what I'm talking about you can do one of two thing: 1. Ask someone who was there in person if the call came as late as this video shows. All testify it was very close. (This is substantiated by the S O U N D of the ball bounce and call being VERY close together). You won't hear the ball bounce sound until after the ball bounces so it is difficult to hear unless you close your eyes and just listen. 2. Listen and watch the video at .25 speed. You will notice that the audio is significantly behind the video making it look like a ridiculously late call. If the call really came that late NO UMP on earth would have replayed the point. Bottom line: Li got robbed but it was pretty close. Trust me, I was furious at the ump until I paid attention to the HUGE delay and heard from people that were there at the time.
Li was hard done by. No two ways about it. But the way she stated her case so calmly is a lesson in class for many. Serena could learn a thing or two from watching this in my opinion...
I agree 100% That said the Ump was right about her stopping pretty close to the call in real time. Watch in .25 time. On this Your wrong (as was I) I couldn't understand why she stopped play on the ball when to me it look like she should have at least made a stab at it. I said she just stopped because she hoped it was going to be out Which I do at times but it seemed really stupid considering the point. Then I analyze the video in detail (That's how steamed I was at the umpire). The sound comes when the ball is almost crossing the net after it is hit. That is a considerable delay. It was definitely a Bang Bang play as people watched it live. That also explains why the commentators weren't saying Hey a call was way after she stopped and let it go by. The fact is she was near the ball and stood up right when he called out so it looked like she could be stopping due to the call. In reality I think she stopped because she knew she couldn't hit it back in and if she held up as it would hopefully be called out she would get the call or have it replayed. It was a smart move on her part because she got away with it. I agree she would not have been able to return the ball in but she could have made contact but that would have only proved it was unreturnable. Li Na was robbed but it was not an egregious call by any means. It was a coin toss at best because of the way her opponent held up (that dirty dog). Na won so all is good. I do feel a little bad for the ump because this video makes it look like she should be banned for life
The chair must judge whether or not the shot was a winner, or whether or not the out call hindered the player from playing the shot. In this case, Wozniak couldn't have gotten to the ball and wouldn't have played it even if there were no out call. The correct call should have been awarding the point to Li. However, as in all sports, umpires need to make split second decisions, and they get some wrong. This umpire is no different. Some of the comments on here are sickening. I'm sure all of you have made at least one mistake at your workplace. Luckily, nobody tapes you doing it and posts it on RU-vid, and nobody says you should be fired for making a mistake. It's a split second judgement call that on replay seems a lot more obvious, but the umpire had to make a call, and she did.
No shit everyone makes mistakes, but Li asks for a supervisor to correct the mistake and the umpire shuts the request down. That's either pure arrogance, or awareness she was wrong and too stubborn to admit it. Either way, disgusting behaviour.
It is a matter of the chair's discretion though, the supervisor wouldn't have been able to do anything. It's pointless to call the supervisor. Of course Li was right, but at least the chair umpire said that she just has to go with her judgement and she may be mistaken but that's she remembered it. The chair wasn't a jerk about it like they can sometimes be
Lmao you may be fuckin joking me? This wasn't just a simple mistake, it was incompetence and a purposeful attempt at hiding it and doing a doing a terrible job at the same time. That warrants getting fired and/or hung drawn and quartered.
Li na is so expressive. Her desperation and indignation against an unjust authority, yet with enough restraint to stay classy. Years of practise with the ccp.
It seems like the word was passed down that Wozniak was to win, and refs did ALL THEY COULD to make that happen! B.S. !!!!! Li Na was much nicer than most players would have been! I’m happy she won😁
