Umpire just gifted Federer the 3rd set
TT
advantage Federer.
Cilic served double fault. Paid linesmen AND umpires.
RzR
if it takes that little, federer is really good!
TT
And he's really bad if he can't win it with that kind of help. Most
critical point of the match and Pascal did that. Lousy umpiring from
Pascal once again.
RzR
hopefully pascal will get more nadal and djokovic matches in the future
TT
Pascal tried same stunt last year at Wimbledon during equally, if not
more critical point - Nadal was truly pissed about it and completely
hammered Söderling after that.
Cilic lost the match because of that; Lost 3rd set and as consequence
poor play beginning of 4th getting broken.
RzR
> 3.9.2011 22:32, RzR kirjoitti:
>> On 3.9.2011. 21:31, TT wrote:
>>> 3.9.2011 22:22, RzR kirjoitti:
>>>> On 3.9.2011. 21:20, TT wrote:
>>>>> Outrageous timing for time violation warning, 4-4 Cilic serving,
>>>>> advantage Federer.
>>>>>
>>>>> Cilic served double fault. Paid linesmen AND umpires.
>>>>
>>>> if it takes that little, federer is really good!
>>>
>>> And he's really bad if he can't win it with that kind of help. Most
>>> critical point of the match and Pascal did that. Lousy umpiring from
>>> Pascal once again.
>>
>> hopefully pascal will get more nadal and djokovic matches in the future
>
> Pascal tried same stunt last year at Wimbledon during equally, if not
> more critical point - Nadal was truly pissed about it and completely
> hammered Söderling after that.
>
its called ENFORCING THE RULES
> Cilic lost the match because of that; Lost 3rd set and as consequence
> poor play beginning of 4th getting broken.
LOL
like i said...it doesnt take much for cilic to find a way to lose the match
TT
> On 3.9.2011. 21:45, TT wrote:
>> 3.9.2011 22:32, RzR kirjoitti:
>>> On 3.9.2011. 21:31, TT wrote:
>>>> 3.9.2011 22:22, RzR kirjoitti:
>>>>> On 3.9.2011. 21:20, TT wrote:
>>>>>> Outrageous timing for time violation warning, 4-4 Cilic serving,
>>>>>> advantage Federer.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Cilic served double fault. Paid linesmen AND umpires.
>>>>>
>>>>> if it takes that little, federer is really good!
>>>>
>>>> And he's really bad if he can't win it with that kind of help. Most
>>>> critical point of the match and Pascal did that. Lousy umpiring from
>>>> Pascal once again.
>>>
>>> hopefully pascal will get more nadal and djokovic matches in the future
>>
>> Pascal tried same stunt last year at Wimbledon during equally, if not
>> more critical point - Nadal was truly pissed about it and completely
>> hammered Söderling after that.
>>
>
> its called ENFORCING THE RULES
>
It's called unfair umpiring - using a warning as a penalty. First
warning, then point penalty according to rules.
This time the "warning" wasn't worth a point, it was worth a set, or two.
Pascal game, set, match.
>> Cilic lost the match because of that; Lost 3rd set and as consequence
>> poor play beginning of 4th getting broken.
>
> LOL
>
> like i said...it doesnt take much for cilic to find a way to lose the match
You may be right there.
RzR
> 3.9.2011 22:46, RzR kirjoitti:
>> On 3.9.2011. 21:45, TT wrote:
>>> 3.9.2011 22:32, RzR kirjoitti:
>>>> On 3.9.2011. 21:31, TT wrote:
>>>>> 3.9.2011 22:22, RzR kirjoitti:
>>>>>> On 3.9.2011. 21:20, TT wrote:
>>>>>>> Outrageous timing for time violation warning, 4-4 Cilic serving,
>>>>>>> advantage Federer.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Cilic served double fault. Paid linesmen AND umpires.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> if it takes that little, federer is really good!
>>>>>
>>>>> And he's really bad if he can't win it with that kind of help. Most
>>>>> critical point of the match and Pascal did that. Lousy umpiring from
>>>>> Pascal once again.
>>>>
>>>> hopefully pascal will get more nadal and djokovic matches in the future
>>>
>>> Pascal tried same stunt last year at Wimbledon during equally, if not
>>> more critical point - Nadal was truly pissed about it and completely
>>> hammered Söderling after that.
>>>
>>
>> its called ENFORCING THE RULES
>>
>
> It's called unfair umpiring - using a warning as a penalty. First
> warning, then point penalty according to rules.
> This time the "warning" wasn't worth a point, it was worth a set, or two.
>
> Pascal game, set, match.
>
did he warn him or did he take the point?
>
uly...@mscomm.com
seriously deflated by paying off every official on court. He violates
the time rule every single time he serves almost without exception.
He's called on it a handful of times every year, no more.
RzR
TT is actually frowning upon the referees that are paid to do their job
by enforcing the rules :D
no wonder he supports nadal
felangey
> Federer.
Outrageous timing of Cilic to try and garner advantage by breaking the
rules....on bp Fed! Finally Pascal enforces.
TT
You just lack understanding of the situation and I lack
language/patience to explain it to you so that even most feeble mind can
understand.
"Warning" should be only a warning and not a penalty in itself.
Now when the umpire uses the warning in most delicate situation
imaginable, he's using it as a PENALTY and not as a WARNING. Just look
what happened: Cilic served his only? double fault of the match because
of umpire's bullying - and thus lost the set.
If indeed Cilic was generally going overtime in this match, umpire
should have WARNED earlier...or even later. Not at this very moment...it
was against SPIRIT OF THE RULE.
It's common sense.
RzR
> 3.9.2011 23:00, RzR kirjoitti:
>> On 3.9.2011. 21:53, uly...@msomm.com wrote:
>>> If the linesmen are "paid off" by the players, Rafa's fortune must be
>>> seriously deflated by paying off every official on court. He violates
>>> the time rule every single time he serves almost without exception.
>>> He's called on it a handful of times every year, no more.
>>>
>>
>> TT is actually frowning upon the referees that are paid to do their job
>> by enforcing the rules :D
>>
>> no wonder he supports nadal
>
> You just lack understanding of the situation and I lack
> language/patience to explain it to you so that even most feeble mind can
> understand.
>
> "Warning" should be only a warning and not a penalty in itself.
>
> Now when the umpire uses the warning in most delicate situation
> imaginable, he's using it as a PENALTY and not as a WARNING. Just look
> what happened: Cilic served his only? double fault of the match because
> of umpire's bullying - and thus lost the set.
>
well, surely you understand why players take the longest to concentrate
before the most important point...i mean, look at nadal, he stalls the
shit out of it at break points against him...even on points when there
is only one point away from the break points against him
sadly, a player is not entitled to concentrate longer on those type of
the points, and therefore warnings...pretty simple
IT IS NOT BULLYING
> If indeed Cilic was generally going overtime in this match, umpire
> should have WARNED earlier...or even later. Not at this very moment...it
> was against SPIRIT OF THE RULE.
>
> It's common sense.
a rule is a rule is a rule..
TT
Expected reply. I specifically said that if the player does that during
the match. Because EVERY player goes overtime occasionally, EVERY MATCH.
Umpire DID NOT warn Cilic because he went overtime during that specific
point only, Cilic must have gone overtime many times during the
match...thus umpire's timing was unfair.
Now if umpire warned Cilic because he wen't overtime only during that
single point - then he was wrong as well, since everybody goes overtime
sometimes yet do not receive a warning on one single breach of the time
rule.
Hope this cleared things up.
RzR
Because it's the truth.
> I specifically said that if the player does that during
> the match. Because EVERY player goes overtime occasionally, EVERY MATCH.
> Umpire DID NOT warn Cilic because he went overtime during that specific
> point only, Cilic must have gone overtime many times during the
> match...thus umpire's timing was unfair.
>
Probably he overstretched it way too much at that time = warning!
The ref gave him a benefit of the doubt until then.
> Now if umpire warned Cilic because he wen't overtime only during that
> single point - then he was wrong as well, since everybody goes overtime
> sometimes yet do not receive a warning on one single breach of the time
> rule.
>
> Hope this cleared things up.
I cleared it up for you above. :)
Giovanna
TT
You saw with your own eyes that umpire's warning decided the match,
should be pretty obvious that this should not be the intended purpose of
a "warning".
felangey
I love this "you can't call that there" attitude. If you are dumb enough to
try pushing the boundaries of acceptable fair play at a crucial time of the
match in order to gain an advantage.....then be prepared to be called on it.
TT
> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DksSPZTZES0
Justin Timberlake, that's below the belt!
TT
It's natural to have longer preparation on biggest points, it's not a
tactic.
felangey
That's tough shit....it isn't allowed at any point.
RzR
amen
RzR
>
>
> should be pretty obvious that this should not be the intended purpose of
> a "warning".
actually i just saw cilic serve it wide, did he react at all before that?
and i agree with you
the rule should be enforced EVERY SINGLE TIME a player goes above 5
seconds over the limit...period
AliAsoag
Is this the reason why the people think Rafa considers every point the
biggest point and praise him for that? ;)
Superdave
>3.9.2011 22:46, RzR kirjoitti:
>> On 3.9.2011. 21:45, TT wrote:
>>> 3.9.2011 22:32, RzR kirjoitti:
>>>> On 3.9.2011. 21:31, TT wrote:
>>>>> 3.9.2011 22:22, RzR kirjoitti:
>>>>>> On 3.9.2011. 21:20, TT wrote:
>>>>>>> Outrageous timing for time violation warning, 4-4 Cilic serving,
>>>>>>> advantage Federer.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Cilic served double fault. Paid linesmen AND umpires.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> if it takes that little, federer is really good!
>>>>>
>>>>> And he's really bad if he can't win it with that kind of help. Most
>>>>> critical point of the match and Pascal did that. Lousy umpiring from
>>>>> Pascal once again.
>>>>
>>>> hopefully pascal will get more nadal and djokovic matches in the future
>>>
>>> Pascal tried same stunt last year at Wimbledon during equally, if not
>>> more critical point - Nadal was truly pissed about it and completely
>>> hammered S�derling after that.
>>>
>>
>> its called ENFORCING THE RULES
>>
>
>It's called unfair umpiring - using a warning as a penalty. First
>warning, then point penalty according to rules.
>This time the "warning" wasn't worth a point, it was worth a set, or two.
>
>Pascal game, set, match.
>
>
>>> Cilic lost the match because of that; Lost 3rd set and as consequence
>>> poor play beginning of 4th getting broken.
>>
>> LOL
>>
>> like i said...it doesnt take much for cilic to find a way to lose the match
>
>You may be right there.
It's called NO CHEATING when I am in the chair !
Bravo Pascal !!!
Superdave
CHEATERS love company.
Superdave
What is clear is that exceeding the 20 second rule for ANY reason is CHEATING.
Do you know what CHEATING even is or do you just play by your own rules because
that is the only way you can win like Rafa does?
Superdave
Agreed ! Otherwise the ATP/ITF are complicit in match fixing !
RzR
are you actually saying that all of rafa matches were fixed?