Tennis Hard Court Drama 2024 | Part 02 | I Didn't Say Anything | The System is Glitched 

“Finally achieved my mission” 🙏🏽🙏🏽🙏🏽 this umpire has been cold to her before and now I see why (Linz incident)

i would feel the same as the umpire lol

Both you and the judge are broke Karen’s in shoebox apartments 😂🤣

@@PaukkuLaukkunobody cares about you Karen 😂

Absolutely agree. Making bad overrules and other errors is unavoidable but he FREQUENTLY manages to do things I thought were impossible 😭😭

You two freaks over me: if you both would have become a umpire, 100% you would do a worse worse worse job. So do us a favor and stfu. Thank you

You two freaks over me: if you both would have become a umpire, 100% you would do a worse worse worse job. So do us a favor and $tfu Thank you

You two lowlifes over me: if you both would have become a umpire, 100% you would do a worse worse worse job. So do us a favor and $tfu. Thank you

You two ***** over me: if you both would have become a umpire, 100% you would do a worse worse worse job. So do us a favor and st**. Thank you

I’m up babe

I love how players cry like a little toddler and turn out to be totally wrong, like the double bounce earlier in the video.

That's not the point. A referee or supervisor (head ref) can only overrule a decision on a question of law (the rules). The chair umpire is in charge of all questions of fact (ball in or out, player returning the ball). Coco was trying to get around that by bsing with the rules, which was clever but kind of silly. While Bacci was clearly wrong here, there's nothing the supervisor can do and we would just be wasting everyone's time.

In this case though, he is right. I mean, his decision was wrong (twice, misjudgment of the ball, and misjudgment of the fact that his call was late) but he is right when saying it’s a question of fact, in the sense that Both of them actually agree on the rule, they only disagree on facts. So calling the supervisor is irrelevant, as almost always

Exactly. If you, as the chair umpire, felt the ball was out and there is a glitch in the system, at least replay the point. Or take a stance and call the ball like you see it. That was a blown call. He can and should have asked the supervisor how to proceed at the very least.

Oh they would still have very important tasks, like dishing out warnings for ball abuse and audible obscenities.

The commentators said the other day an umpire overruled a system call, so it was 100% possible, but that umpire just didn't want to do it. I agree at least it should have been a replay

Yeah, I wonder if because it was so far out, it was out of the detection range. That was way out.

These line judges and chair umpires need to be retrained. Inconsistent interpretation of the rules throughout the tournaments.ATP and wta need to do something.

umpire was right in that moment too, Ostapenko never takes accountability and always blames others

Both calls against Ostapenko were the correct

​@@murgatroidspBoth calls were completely wrong. First was clear double bounce and second was call that hindered Ostapenko's shot. In second Ostapenko's clip call came bit before Ostapenko's shot and according to official tennis rules that's replay of the point. You clearly have zero clue how tennis rules works. Stop embarrassing yourself. Ostapenko was correct both times.

​@@user-bj4ni3vx6rNope. Umpire was wrong both times. In first case ball wasn't up when Azarenka returned it back. It was clear as a day that it's double bounce and in second case Ostapenko missed after line umpire made a line call. Then Ostapenko challenged the call and umpire wrongly awarded the point to Gauff although in this case it should have been replay of the point, because according to official tennis rules it's replay of the point. You are blind and delusional. Stop embarrassing yourself with your bullshit.

​@@user-bj4ni3vx6rWhat bs is that? Do you even watch tennis? Because by reading your bs comment, you don't watch tennis. In first case ball clearly wasn't up when Azarenka returned it back. It was obvious double bounce. I don't understand how you can be this blind. Also in second case Ostapenko missed her shots after line umpire called out and according to official tennis rules it's replay of the point. You embarrassed yourself.

🙏💚

That ball seemed a foot in.

Yeah the ball wasn't even on the line, it was clearly well inside the court

not nearly as bad as some others, like the 1 with Volynets was waaaay worse

Nothing beats the umpire overruling a ball 1 meter inside the baseline in the match with Khachanov and Evans.

Frl looked like it was at least half a metre inside

1st world problems…

🙏💚

Love that this channel always upload 2 videos at the same time 🙌🏽

Well, Pliskova's return was on the net when the umpire called out, so it was a shi**y call and a terrible decision to replay the point. But Coco was trying to force a question of rule, when it was a question of fact. Nevertheless, her frustation is totally understandable, the umpire messed up really bad.

He denied her right to see a supervisor. That’s wrong. He was in no position to do that!

Did he apologize to Coco as he promise?

while yes he was wrong I never understand why the players want a supervisor on the court. It achieves nothing, the call won't change.

@@juha1428 good point. But maybe it's just a mix of feeling helpless and not wanting to let the umpire get away with it. "If he's gonna ignore me and stick to his wrong decision, at least let everyone see it" kind of thing? Talking to the umpire must often feel like talking to a wall. And I'm sure in the heat of the moment, you are mad at the umpire but can still talk a little more politely to an outsider who didn't wrong you (the supervisor). Plus: this way, the umpire has to explain his point to a third person and summarize the whole situation once more. Come to think of it, I would also call the supervisor if I were her 😅

You can tell Penko haters were shoved into lockers and bullied 😂😂

You should be checked, because you don't have good eyesight. Azarenka got it in 2 bounces. It was obvious double bounce. Stop arguing with the reality. You only embarrass yourself.

A lot of players "squeak" their shoes. There's nothing unsportsmanlike about it. And for your information ball touching the ground twice is double bounce. And the ball did touch the ground twice before Azarenka returned it back which means that umpire was blind and wrong and it was obvious double bounce and Ostapenko's point according to official tennis rules. You can deny it all you want, but it won't change anything. I am still correct and you are wrong.

A lot of players "squeak" their shoes. There's nothing unsportsmanlike about it. And for your information ball touching the ground twice is double bounce. And the ball did touch the ground twice before Azarenka returned it back which means that umpire was blind and wrong and it was obvious double bounce and Ostapenko's point according to official tennis rules. You can deny it all you want, but it won't change anything. I am still correct and you are wrong.

@einarsd4 Watch the replay, it did not bounce twice. And yes, people's shoes squeak, but not INTENTIONALLY during their opponent's serve. Most shoes squeak because the player is changing position or moving around. Ostapenko stayed in the same place. She did that to throw off the serve.

Azarenka does an unsportsmanlike shriek every single time she hits the ball, who cares about some little squeak.

🙏💚

🙏💚

💯

You can also see her from far away

But she's _our_ clown 🥰

@@Zamzummin ayoo pause

Penko haters are so boring 🥱

Ostapenko es unica...

You can tell Penko haters were shoved into lockers and bullied 😂😂

lol its probably because the umpire wasn't understanding or didn't care about what she had to say.

I mean to be fair. If he did just let her talk, and say her piece without chiming in, he probably would’ve understood what she wanted. Playing tennis, or any sport when someone saying their piece to a ref in a respectful manner initially, and they cut them off because they think they already know what’ll come out my their mouth would send someone over the edge

THANK YOU. I was waiting for this. She was correct in the argument, but the way she argued about it was wrong. Also, the constant interrupting of him and then yelling "can you not interrupt me for 2 seconds?" I know she's in the right for the call, but to act like that much of a brat over it is just a bad look.

no, they are allowed to ask for a clarification of a rule

@@jbond119 But this wasn't a rule she was asking, it was point of fact. "If he calls early, replay point, and if late, it's her point" is the rule, but she's mad because he didn't agree with her that he called late. The timing of a call is point of fact, not a rule.

​@@TheLouzer_ no matter what the ump was wrong about the call. Coco wanted to "clarify" that with the supervisor so she can argue about what happened here. Ump just didn't care and stuck to his stupid "that's how I remember" argument. If it's supposed to be a fact you can't be saying that.

@GdNYa The question she wanted to ask because "she didn't know the rule" was not a rule question. It was an opinion-based question, and wouldn't have changed anything. She wanted to ask "can he call it before or after the play", which is an opinion, not a rule.

Si no ves tenis que vas entender, si vieras las payasadas que hace ostapenko jajaajajj son unica y criticable por sus fans..

You can tell Penko haters were shoved into lockers and bullied 😂😂 Incel 😂

Crybaby Karen 😂😂 Did Penko hurt your feelings 😩😂

I don’t know the rule but I would say most umpires I’ve seen have acted like this umpire did. Right or wrong it’s consistent and not deserving of penalty. That said, had the player challenged when she saw the ball hit, like most others do, then she would have been correct as the ball was out.

It's pretty easy Umpire was in the right, because you can challenge shortly after the ball landed out, and if that was the end of a point, you have few seconds to call a challenge. But in that case that ball was not the end of play, so you have to challenge in an instant, meaning you interrupt the point and call challenge before your shot lands anywhere. In this situation she waited to see if her ball was going out, and when it did she called the challenge. That is not allowed, you cannot decide whether to challenge or not after seeing that you missed the ball, if the ball would be in she would gladly take the point and not challenge it. If you are certain oponent ball was out, you interrupt the point regardless of your shot, she simply didn't and wanted to abuse the system.

It’s literally a contradiction… if your ball doesn’t land it can’t be called out, and if it’s not called out there’s no need to challenge. The umpire was out of her mind trying to use that logic

The thing is the serve was out. Not the shot. If she challenged without following her own ball til it landed out and looked at the serve instead it would've been a challenge 100%. She was too late here

If a ball is out and you want to challenge it, you should raise your hand and stop everything and challenge. What you cannot do is wait for your shot to land to decide if you challenge or not. This was a perfect example: the player waited for her shot to land to challenge. And we all know that if the shot was in, she would not have challenged. So that's perfect logical umpiring.

Haha

🙏💚

it's not her fault her opponent had a dumb moment

Lmao you’re judging her entire being on a short window of time during a high stakes moment. at least she isn’t leaving troll comments online.

@@Conradcoffee be serious. there are hours of footage of her acting like this

@@Conradcoffee and of course Elizabeth Holmes is your avi

@@ilovetati91 lmao Elizabeth Holmes is a horrible person but that has nothing to do with this

You can tell Penko haters were shoved into lockers and bullied 😂😂

I was sitting courtside on Azarenkas side, it was clear from my angle that Azarenka got there in time

@@goughmi5430 Well, i agree it looks like she got there in time, but i think there should be a challenge possible, or sth alike…

Melichar-Martinez was challenging the serve, not her shot. Waiting long enough for her next shot, the return, to land and be called out means she's waited too long to challenge the serve.

So if she’s challenging the serve, I can understand the judgement the chair umpire is having. She waited for to see if her return goes out and then made a challenge call. The umpire essentially is saying if your return goes in, you wouldn’t have challenged the serve. She’s thinking that the challenge is being used as a bailout to a poorly hit return

Um she was right but she also diminished her message by the way she delivered it (repeating the same sentence, constantly interrupting, hyperfixating on what ifs, getting rules about calling supervisor wrong)

@@ilovetati91 actually it's you who is wrong about calling a supervisor in that situation there is a reason why Crissie, Andy, and Rennae Stubbs all backed her reaction here.

@@jbond119 first of all, those three are constantly wrong - as are you. you're misunderstanding the rules regardng question of law versus question of fact. you are not owed a referee visit for a question of fact as in this instance. regardless of whether or not the umpire's judgment was correct.

@@ilovetati91 Hey, Chris Evert, Andy Roddick, and Rennae Stubbs (7 doubles) (with 26 Grand Slam titles among them) are often wrong, but you're right, huh? That's quite something!

@@joelmvdqp Directly from the player handbook: "In matches where a chair umpire is assigned, the chair umpire is the final authority on all questions of fact during the match. The players have the right to call the referee to court if they disagree with a chair umpire’s interpretation of tennis law." This was a question of fact, for which the umpire is the final authority. As I said, those commentators are constantly wrong despite their on-court credentials.

And yet electronic line calling caused issue in this very video.

Sounds like you need a therapist then