Raz who won that match ultimately

@@prathmeshmale If you still care, Rafa won the tourny.

@@prathmeshmale Federer won

@@ravi18tripathi Are you sure Federer won this particular tournament? Did he even win this match?.. 🤔🤷🏽‍♂️

Roger was silly here

Haha the best responses are never thought of until it's too late

that answer does not argue in favor... the action is the court , not on the chair....

🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣

@@johnmoumouris7342 -- Correct. I'd rather take a lifeguard who's swam before than one who's only sat in the chair and watched me swim.

Well of course... its not Rogers job to correct the calls, the only reason he challanged the call is because if it was called right (as it should) he may have not lost the point. He was just playing to get as much benefit as he can

@@21albertodelgado the unspoken rule, always play to win.

Absolutely

I dont think so at all. Federer is a gentleman, always has been

If Federer just left the ball and was wrong then he would have lost the point. Whether Federer had won by the opposition player hitting the ball out or by Federer returning a great volley would have been the same result - point Federer. It wouldn’t have changed the correct result if Federer had made that last shot. The umpire wasn’t thinking logically/rationally.

I think Roger is right. He expected the call to come its out hence the weak return. So he realises he lost the point bec the out call never came! Not fair he should be allowed to challenge and he was right it was out.

The truth of your comment does not mean Roger was incorrect here; if his shot had gone in then the burden would have been on Stan to challenge. Roger would have rightfully kept his mouth shut in that circumstance.

@@AinSoph73 no because at that point Stan wouldn’t be able to challenge. He would’ve already hit the shot back.

@@yousufkhan2309 ​you say “no” but you are corroborating exactly what I said; had Stan not been able to challenge we would just be watching the same video but with a goofier Swiss accent; Federer would have turned his back and it would still be the line umpire’s fault.

@@AinSoph73 not at all. You cannot hit the ball back and then decide if you want to challenge it or not. Imagine if Stan’s return was a winner, you think he’s going to challenge, even though he thought the ball was out?

*came back

can't

For anyone wondering, Djokovic is the GOAT

🤮@@rkymtnchi503

​@@rkymtnchi503for anyone wondering we don't give a damn.

I think the rule should be the amount of time elapsed after the shot, not the number of shots. You can't challenge after you continue the rally for another 30 seconds. The number of shots doesn't make sense. Federer challenged within just a few seconds. If he had made that shot, then Stan should be allowed to challenge. But neither should be allowed to challenge if they had waited another 10, 15 secs or more.

@@prempititantipool3075 you're right, they'd just blow their stacks.

he sounded like a petulant child

@@asdknjakljye i think you're confusing Roger with Novak. Now there's some heavy petulance.

@@pawshands9706 Lol Djokovic gets blame, rightly so, when he acts up. Roger shouldn't get a pass when he acts like a baby.

@@asdknjakljye if u call that infantile, I can only imagine what you think of all those real brats on tour.

Roger is wrong. I understand that everything happened quickly but the challenge must be done as soon as possible, the chair umpire is just following the rules. Roger's attitude of asking if the umpire plays Tennis has nothing to do with the fact that he(umpire) is doing his job in a very correct way. It doens't matter if the chair umpire never touched a tennis racket in his life, bad attitude for Roger, very bad, but sometimes people make mistakes and it is ok, we are all humans and he is still my favourite tennis player since I was born.

Hmmm...iffy. what if the touch was not to be played? Or it went straight at him? There is no interpretation of "playing" the ball on touch. I'd say it was obvious he didn't have time to call it and not touch the ball. When at the baseline (as Roger said) things would be more understandable. Not now, with a serve and volley. (If he had had time, despite the speed, to just stop the ball, or hit it with no intention, one hypothetical situation where serve had been in a he gets an out call, but is "corrected" by empire, and he misses...does the play stand? i.e. the miss. OR if he makes the point, would Stan lose the point or a replay is in order?)

Federer is wrong, if he made that volley, he wouldn´t be complaining.

Federer wouldn't have argued if the ball didn't hit the net

The problem is that he tried to play the volley , if he had challenged without going for the volley before doing anything else then maybe he would have had a point but he tried to volley missed it and then challenged which isn't allowed

The shot clock in basketball is different though. The entire game is limited in time. You can only score when you have possession. Forcing a turnover is quite difficult. The shot clock isn't necessary but it was introduced to force the players to shoot so that there would be a greater offensive focus. In any case, I think your suggestions are worthwhile. Rules need to be consistent in application.

Half hearted, but still a CLEAR attempt, not a toss to ballboy or even close. Umpire has hands tied on this one.

All sportsman express themselves in different ways and I agree they can yell but can’t get disrespectful torwards the umpire cause they are human too. But in this case Federer is only arguing cause he knew he was gonna get broken in a important third set. Plus the umpire is right if you hit a shot( the one you wanna challenge for) and opponent hits it back. You cant reply with a shot back and then challenge after seeing it hit the net. If Federer raised his hand to challenge and then casually hit the shot back, which happens all the time maybe the umpire would have allowed it. But Federer is in the wrong here.

It was half hearted because he suspected the serve was out

But there would be no way to match fix

Yes, because big part of the crowd are classless Fedal fans. Nasty bunch of losers...

"along with his full focus and follow through" -No it wasn't, your judgement on that is a joke. He went to hit it and then very obviously purposely dropped the strike to not continue the play.

@@ZosAos Not to mention when you are playing you are going to prepare to hit the 2nd shot before the returner hits the ball. It takes time to realize they missed a call especially when it's waiting for an out call that never comes.

That is something that you learn in your early years : play the ball after return, don't assume that the ball was out unless the opponent shouts it clearly !!! That is the same here : he missed the volley because the return was awesome, he should not ask for a challenge on his own fault... Really disappointed

@@jeanghiena4489 He assumed it was out (and was right) and was waiting for a call that never came. Takes time to process and like you said playing the ball after the return is instinctual because it is something you learn in your early years. Even if he had gotten it back he would have probably risked giving up the point and tried to challenge anyway (assuming it wasn't a winner cause who would in that case?).

Best comment no likes surprise surprise.

Buahahahahahahahaha

He still didn’t smashed his rocket like we know who ;)))

*Would HAVE

I disagree, you see him turning toward the umpire as he finishes the hit, and he doesn’t have a lot of time with that kind of pace on a return to evaluate his own shot. Go play a tennis match against a 4.5 USTA and higher, and you will know you don’t get enough time for both

Warinka could've challenged in that case

@@stevenhickman1388 there's a lot of it about...

so he's a cheater??

Not sure if you are aware but Rafa and Roger both conducted themselves very well on tour… Rafa never even broke his racquet so saying he has the most graceful etiquette by far is a bit of a stretch there are a lot of other players too who conducted themselves well..

Roger was very unsportsmanlike even in his prime. Calling Djokovic's return in the 2011 USO a lucky shot and constantly badmouthing Murray's defensive style in press conferences. His classy reputation exists thanks to a combination of his style and grace on the court, his looks, and marketing.

@@sawgames8623…you have so little knowledge of what you’re talking about, you have no business even having an opinion on the matter. If Federer isn’t your favorite player…fine. But, saying something with that level of ignorance and dishonesty, makes the players you DO respect look like idiots, because their fan-base is full of idiots. Tennis and Federer are the least of your worries.

@@Prashyboby don't you ever underestimate the misconception of a fangirl towards his idol lol The fact that he said he stopped watching tennis because of Federer just proves of much of a fangirl he is.

There are plenty players who kept their cool their entire career though… Kei Nishikori for example.

Those sportsmanship awards he got are all fake. He was a bad sport...

Because he didn't 😂😂🤐🤐

@수시로 바뀌는 닉네임 Yeah I'm very blind, because I clearly think he missed the entire year of 2013

@@Jxavier410 I guess it's his 17 losses in that year that cause your blindness. That's OK, I try to pretend that 2017 didn't happen. Sure Nadal fans do the same with 2015.

What? He played tennis even before the 2000's...

@@naysayer1238 he suffered a back injury in 2013. If you watched his matches he couldnt even move and stood still half of the time.

The problem is that it’s a bit unusual to challenge your own shot. The umpire understands the split-second nature of the game, but I think he’s avoiding giving Federer too much leeway - he missed the volley and so now wants to bank on the Hawkeye challenge as a lifeline. I can definitely see arguments for both sides though.

If he was fair, he wouldn't challenge the shot after hitting in the net. This seems like an unfair way to play. Would he have challenged if his shot didn't go in the net ? I doubt it

@The Future is Unity .. Exactly .. well said; the same argument I would have made.

Unfortunately 100% disagree Sir ... Federer challenged because he lost the point , had he had won the point , none of us would be here commenting. Simples👍 If his opponent hadn't been able to return the ball , ask yourself..would he have been a good sportman and said I want to challenge my own serve " the ball was out " ??? 110% guaranteed NO ... he challenged because he failed to get the ball over the net and lost the point .

Agree 👍🏻

ukposts.info/have/v-deo/qqime5hnemadumQ.html

BS! I saw him yelling at the crowd. And I saw him using bad language and swearing at judges and umpires.

Doesn't matter. The rule is the rule. No 2 shots.

If the serve was in, he still deserves to lose the point because he stopped the play and got the challenge wrong. Doesn't matter if he was challenging against himself. There has to be consequences for stopping the play then getting the challenge wrong, don't you think? Your last sentence is the basis of this rule, which would have shut down the argument if the umpire even mentioned it.

Let's not forget the entire play sequence happened in under 2.5 seconds, at what point was RF meant to stop and think "I better challenge" and let this ball go?! All tennis players would have swung at the return, and is instinct.

@@lf67hh28 Well maybe instead of letting the ball go, he should have returned the ball into the court then challenged. He only challenged cuz he missed, do you think if he returned it and got the point, he would have challenged? Do you think if the opponent missed the serve, Federer would have challenged? Impossible to know right, what I said might not be true either. Nobody knows for sure, that's why the umpire can't be subjective and go by belief that Federer had honest intentions to challenge. The umpire has to be objective and call it as he sees it, Federer hit the return, and that's one hit too many.

This is a tricky call but I agree with the umpire. Federer is kind of trying to give himself two bites of the cherry, he makes the half volley and wins the point or he doesn't make it , then issues a challenge , finds out the serve was out and gets to replay the point. I'm not saying he would have done that but its hard to imagine most competitors challenging after making the volley and winning the point. Every now and then a player does say that was in and they lose the point because of it but its pretty rare.

@@ajdoyle9559 It's different than other sports. Being in or out i doesn't mean quite as much in most sports, but for tennis (and volleyball and a few others) in/out is also how you win/lose points. Gets tricky if you want to challenge an "in" call as out. Not so tricky for challenging an "out" call as in.

I disagree that he knew he was wrong. I think to him the serve was so obviously out that it affected his focus on the next shot.

Federer is fast enough to stop himself if he thought his serve was out. He was trying to get his way in a situation where the chair umpire was clearly in the right. Furthermore, once an umpire has made a call, they don’t overrule it. I literally NEVER seen that happen in an ATP nor a WTA match and I watch A LOT A of tennis 🎾. So Federer was just taking out his frustration lol n the chair umpire in this instance because he was under a lot of pressure due to Stan having the momentum in the match and Federer just got broken by Stan. So that’s really why he was being antagonistic, rude, and a bit pissy. 🤷🏽‍♂️

@@Forever20young Fair enough. If the ball had been in, would the point have been replayed or would Fed have forfeited the point? (Sure he was frustrated and raggedy, no question there.)

it's not debatable. Federer is wrong. THE END

What? Application of the rule to the a specific situation may be incorrect but rule is always correct. Everyone follows rules.

Right , you can't have it both ways

What if the ball came flying towards his face and he block the ball trying to protect himself? Does it mean he cannot challenge then cause he technically played the next shot? The rule doesn't make sense. From the ball missed to him playing the 2nd shot is less than a second. He immediately challenged it afterwards. He should be allowed the challenge. Also, if he does make the volley winner. Wawrinka CAN then challenge the serve for going out, just like how it would be normally. Nothing is lost. This situation just seems weird to you because its Roger challenging his own serve to be out. Federer's 2nd shot volley is actually the 1st shot from the time the serve missed. The first shot should be counted after the ball went out, NOT the serve. If not, it should be counted by the amount of time pass since the ball went out. If for some reason there are 5 shots made with insane reaction within 1 second after the ball went out, does that mean no one should be allowed to challenge? Makes no sense at all.

@@TonLars so your evidence is based on his "half hearted attempt" as to the nature of his thought process and or reactions? And we're the ones making assumptions . Your lack of self awareness of your own point of view is hysterical Doesn't change the fact that he actually hit it . I didn't t make the insurance comment but I agreed with the poster.. but it's more like insurance with no deductible..or no downside

@@mattr8251 Exactly, well said

@@skychaos87 Hahah, your “what if” situation isn’t what happened. That would be completely different, not attempting a play on the ball. The umpire is there for a reason to make the differentiation and decision. Now, I and most people can see that Roger legitimately saw the serve out and there was very little time for him. However, he technically made a play on the volley and challenged after missing it. It’s definitely a tricky situation, but unfortunately for Roger the umpire did the right and only thing he could based on what happened. What the umpire and linesman obviously messed up was not making the correct out call initially. As for your hypothetical second part, no, Stan would likely not have been allowed to challenge if Roger made the volley for the exact same reason as it needs to happen immediately i.e before Roger plays that volley. And for your other hypothetical regarding if they made a ruling 5 shots after the call in question? Please… that’s just a ridiculous train of thought. The insurance comparison is exactly what it is- to challenge after making a play on the next ball as there’s no need to challenge if you win the point so it would be risk free.

No. It doesn't matter, because if Federer had made the volley, Stan should have been allowed to challenge the serve himself.

I am Federer fan and I genuenly think he is correct.

@@miroslavjanecek9993 lol, of course you do. It's very normal for a player to challenge his own serve when it goes out, happens all the time... I'm sure Federer would have challenged the call if Stan hit it in the net... If Federer really wanted to challenge, he would have raised his hand as soon as he saw the ball go out, not try to hit it to the other side (where if it goes over the net he gets the point) but NO ONE challenges their own serve when it's NOT in their favor.

@@JoeV03 no one challenges anything when it's not in their favour. That's the point of challenge. When you return a serve and you miss a return, you can also challenge the serve after you miss the return? Why? Well, because it's so quick, you need time to realise the serve might have been out. The same logic applies here.

@@miroslavjanecek9993 No, you can only challenge immediately. If you return the serve and it just misses the line and goes out of bounds you can no longer challenge.

It doesn’t matter. The ball is clearly out and he is entitled to challenge it. Reaction to the return doesn’t take away fact

@@benb7111 yeah fact is he didnt challenge before he returned it

I don’t remember this match distinctly, but I’m certain Federer won because I know that Stan never beat Federer off clay

He would 100% lose the point. If the point had to be replayed, the players could cheat the system by challenging their serves when they lose a crucial point on a return.

Yeah I understand why people think it's a weird situation but when I saw how far out the ball was, I can imagine how that put off Roger. He probably thought it's going to be called out but approached the net out of instinct.