–

There’s a lot to unpack with the dramatic end of the match at the Cincinnati Open Friday night between Canadian Félix Auger-Aliassime and Jack Draper of Great Britain.

The final score was 5-7, 6-4, 6-4. But whether or not that’s how it SHOULD have ended, we’ll never know.

We do know that Auger-Aliassime handled this a LOT better than any of us. And without profanity.

Let’s start with the disputed shot on match point.

(Ignore the hyperbole from the TennisTV Twitterer)

THE MOST CONTROVERSIAL MATCH POINT EVER!!!

WHAT JUST HAPPENED…? 😱#CincyTennis pic.twitter.com/cxU4H2A4Af

— Tennis TV (@TennisTV) August 17, 2024

“Shank on the floor”

After being passed down the line by Auger-Aliassime when he serve-volleyed on his first match point, Draper came up again on the second one at 5-4, 40-30.

Auger-Aliassime hit a ball right at his feet. The replays seem fairly compellling (although nothing is ever 100 per cent) that the ball hit his frame and actually hit the ground – and, quite possibly, glanced off his racquet again on the way back up – only to go up in the air, hit the top of the net and drop over for the winner.

And the match.

Oh my! 🫣 pic.twitter.com/FazKHlOKY9

— Stefanos Tsitsipas (@steftsitsipas) August 17, 2024

Draper looked up at umpire Greg Allensworth (yes, we’ve gotten familiar with him lately, sometimes through no fault of his own by applying the rules as they were written). Allensworth believed the ball went off Draper’s frame, hit the net and went over, and called it a “fair shot” and “Game, set, match, Draper”.

Auger-Aliassime was incredulous. He saw it clearly.

Said Draper: “I would replay. If there was a replay I would replay it, but I don’t know. I was looking at you, though.”

Auger-Aliassime to Allensworth: “That’s horrendous what you just did. But did you not see the ball bounce on the floor (court)?

Allensworth: “Like, after he hit it?

FAA: “He shanked it on the floor. What do you mean?”

GA: “I did not see that. I saw it come off the frame and over.”

FAA: “Man, You’re going to get out now, and it’s going to be everywhere, and it’s going to look ridiculous. I’m serious. It’s going to be crazy. And I know it’s not his place to make that call. It’s match point for him, it’s the win for him. But it’s your place to make that call.”

Out comes the supervisor

It wasn’t long before Roland Herfel, the supervisor who was the ultimate arbiter on both the Andrey Rublev and Denis Shapovalov fracases earlier this year, came out.

He had been courtside. But he said he was looking from behind Draper, and couldn’t tell him.

Jack Draper: “Felix, If he said to me right now the ball hit the ground. And he saw it, I would play the point again.”

FAA: “I’m going to ask you one last time, if you’re 100 per cent sure, that you’re not going to leave here that you have no doubt, not an ounce of doubt in yourself that that was a clean volley winner. And if you tell me yes, I’ll shake his hand and the match will be over.”

GA: “This is how I saw it. If I had a doubt, I would tell you. If I go back and look at it after the match, and if I see I’m wrong , I’ll admit it to you.”

FAA: “It will be too late.”

GA: “I understand that, but this is how I saw it.”

JD: “I can’t replay the point, because I didn’t see it. I promise you.”

So that was that. Auger-Aliasime and Draper shook hands and hugged. Auger-Aliassime – not sure this has ever happened in his career – did a drive-by on the chair umpire, while Draper shook his hand.

The Draper situation

Here’s the thing about Draper, who insisted numerous times he “didn’t see it” because he was looking at Auger-Aliassime.

In no way, as Auger-Aliassime pointed out, is it incumbent upon Draper at all to replay the point. That’s not his job. Those social media folks who would criticize him for not doing it clearly don’t understand that the player’s job is to play. And in an officiated match, the chair umpire’s job is to officiate.

(It’s nice, of course, when they do. But while you give kudos to those players, there’s zero call to criticize those who don’t – match point, or not. And players aren’t always the best judge of what happens in the heat of battle, 2 1/2 hours in, on a humid night. This is why they don’t call their own lines).

Here’s what Draper said to the ATP Tour interviewer afterwards:

“To be honest, I serve-volleyed, he hit an amazing pass at my feet. I was shocked at the pass, I was too busy looking at him. I didn’t see what happened. I looked at the umpire straightaway to see if he called a double bounce or not,” Draper said. “As a player, I’m trying to focus on what I’m doing, I can’t make that call if I’m not 100 per cent.

“I said when the supervisor came on that if he said it was a double bounce and that he saw it clearly, I would have 100 per cent replayed the point,” Draoer added. “The amount of times in the last 12 months where I’ve had to do the right thing sometimes …. We’ve had a long battle out here, 2 1/2 hours; it would be ultra unfair on Felix if the match was won in that kind of way.”

Except … two things

Auger-Aliassime was polite. But he was not having this.

“I don’t expect you to make that call. (But) no matter where you were looking, you’ve played enough that when you hit it, you know where it went,” he told Draper. “If it was practice or any match. …You shanked it on the floor (court), it hit the net and went over.”

Truth bomb from Auger-Aliassime, right there. Players know. You don’t even have to be a pro.

Players aren’t buying it for a second, either.

The other thing is that if it DID happen the way it appeared, there’s no replaying of the point. It’s a point to Auger-Aliassime, and a match point saved.

That said, since there’s no obligation for Draper to do anything at all, a replay would still be a generous thing to do.

The other thing was Draper’s contention that he “didn’t see it” because he was looking at Auger-Aliassime the entire time.

First, that’s not what top-level players do; they look the ball into the strings on that type of shot. Second, the replay doesn’t appear to show him looking at the Canadian, who was outside the doubles alley on the other side of the court. His eyes looked to be following the ball.

That said, it all happened in a flash and that’s not something you can hold against someone – even if, in this case, he used it as a defence and will take plenty of heat for that.

What should happen now?

The unexpected consequences of electronic line-calling

Already this week, the ATP modified its rules on electronic line calling, after incidents this week involving Taylor Fritz and last week involving Frances Tiafoe.

No longer will a game-ending shot be the only shot that could be overturned by a malfunction.

Now – and it’s long overdue – they need to seriously consider having the supervisor be able to look at available replays of a contested situation, before he comes out to talk to the protagonists.

Because there is literally nothing he can do once he’s out there. He can’t change it. And, as we outlined in the piece linked to above, the chair umpire is now literally the ONLY pair of eyes left on the court. That is too much responsibility for one person.

Had Herfel looked at the replay before coming – which in this case, and that’s not true in all cases, was pretty clear-cut – he could have done the appropriate thing if he saw fit.

And that was award the point to Auger-Aliassime.

And while it was a fairly clear – and pretty crucial – mistake from Allensworth, the productive way to go at it is not to excoriate him – he’s human – but figure out the best way, when and if there are mistakes, to address them.

That said, it happened right in front of him, on the side (obviously) where the ball was. He shouldn’t have missed it. Even if that’s a very, very tough call to make at any time – never mind match point – and he would have had to be 100 per cent sure. Which is about impossible.

Until the last few weeks, it was fair to say that Allensworth was one of the better umpires. He’s calm, he knows the rules, he never makes it about himself and there have been numerous times when he’s done exactly the right thing.

(Djokovic weighs in).

It’s embarrassing that we don’t have video replay of these kind of situations on the court. What’s even more ridiculous is that we don’t have the rule in place that would allow chair umpires to change the original call based on the video review that happens off the court!… https://t.co/MQsmqpTmXK

— Novak Djokovic (@DjokerNole) August 17, 2024

And in the other recent incidents, Allensworth was only applying the rules as written. This time, he had to 100 per cent sure. And he felt he wasn’t.

So it’s been a rough stretch.

These things tend to come in bunches. And what’s occurred over the last few weeks during the North American hard-court season, hopefully, will be a catalyst towards making a change there.

If the technology is available, and it’s fully reliable, why not use it? Especially at the bigger tournaments that can afford it.

Could US Open technology have helped?

A year ago at the US Open, the tournament added video review for “double bounces”, after it had been tested out at some ATP tournaments. It’s unclear if this situation would have qualified for that. But it’s something fairly easily done – especially at bigger tournaments with bigger budgets.

🎪 🤡

— Denis Shapovalov (@denis_shapo) August 17, 2024

The system uses various camera angles to get the best view of an incident, and the video review official and operator then sent the footage to a screen on the umpire’s chair, and on the stadium screens. The chair umpire can then review it, and can overturn his own call if there is CLEAR evidence.

In this case, he might well have done that, and saved himself some embarrassment and not been on the hook for a big call at a big moment that might (although there’s no guarantee) have changed the outcome of the match.

The video review was used for other issues as well – including a player touching the net or the ball touching a player, and code violations that lead to defaults. That might have been quite helpful in the Shapovalov and Rublev cases, to name two.

Sleepless nights for Shapo in D.C. default drama

But the interesting thing was how rarely it was used last year.

And, ironically, the first time it was called up, the umpire’s tablet malfunctioned. And, according to the player on the other side of the net, Andy Murray, the original call was right anyway.

The video review was available on the five biggest show courts in 2023. This year, they will add Court 7, Court 11 and Court 12.

In the meantime, Allensworth and maybe even Herfel probably need a few weeks off.

About Post Author