Why Draper and Auger-Aliassime’s match point should change tennis’s view of video replays

First as a tragedy, then as a farce.

Same tournament; same referee. New players; new field; new call.

Same result: tennis shoots itself in the foot.

After midnight on Saturday morning in Cincinnati, Canadian Felix Auger-Aliassime trailed Britain’s Jack Draper with a match point in the deciding set of their round of 16 match. Draper served wide and went in to volley; Auger-Aliassime threw a return at Draper’s feet. The ball spun up, hit the net and rolled over.

Draper smiled and walked to the net to shake his hand. He believed he had hit a lucky winner. Auger-Aliassime walked to the deuce side of the court for 40-40. He believed the ball had hit Draper’s side of the court on its way to the other side.

There was silence. Greg Allensworth, the referee who also held the chair for Thursday’s electronic line calling (ELC) breakdown involving Brandon Nakashima and Taylor Fritz, spoke into his microphone.

“Ladies and gentlemen, I rule this was a fair shot. Game, set and match Draper, 5-7, 6-4, 6-4.”

Then it started.

“If there was a replay, I would replay it, but I’m not sure,” Draper said.

“Didn’t you see the ball bounce on the ground?” Auger-Aliassime asked Allensworth.

“Like after he hit him?” Allensworth asked Auger-Aliassime.

“You go out, and it’s going to be everywhere, and it’s going to look ridiculous,” Auger-Aliassime said.

There was no need to get out and wait for it to be everywhere. There was no need to wait for the four-minute discussion that inevitably ended in no reconsideration of the decision. It was already ridiculous — and not because of the refereeing.

Following the incident between Fritz and Nakashima on Thursday night, in which Allensworth was unable to intervene and overturn an incorrect non-call from the Hawk-Eye ELC system, the ATP Tour took swift action.

GALLING DEEPER

Why Taylor Fritz’s Electronic Line Calling Nightmare Shows the Need for Common Sense in Tennis

“Following recent technical issues with Live ELC in Montreal and Cincinnati, we have thoroughly revised our protocols. If the review official determines during a rally that a ball was out of bounds earlier in the point (but was not called by the system), that decision stands,” the tour said.

This incident should prompt a similar review of video footage in tennis. In the case of Draper and Auger-Aliassime’s match point, Allensworth must decide the following in a matter of milliseconds:

• Does Draper volley the ball or half volley it? This affects whether or not the ball can follow the path it ultimately takes.
• Does he hit the ball into the ground?
• Does he hit the ball twice with his racket? If so, Allensworth must judge whether he did so in the same motion.

Oh my!🫣 photo.twitter.com/FazKHlOKY9

— Stefanos Tsitsipas (@steftsitsipas) August 17, 2024

Replays appear to show Draper hitting the ball on his side of the court, before it spins off his racket and goes high into the air. If there is a double hit, it is in one continuous motion, so it would not be a point loss under the rules of tennis. However, the ball hitting Draper’s side of the court after his racket is used would mean Auger-Aliassime wins the point.

Instead, Draper wins the point and the match. But even with video, this decision is close; there is evidence that the ball hit the court after the racket was in its final trajectory, including arc and height, but no definitive frame. What finally unfolds? Another failure of tennis’s refereeing infrastructure to protect players and fans.

Draper, Auger-Aliassime and Allensworth all disappointed (Matthew Stockman/Getty Images)

Draper shouldn’t have to defend his integrity when he tries to pick up a ball, nor should he have to consider conceding a point. Auger-Aliassime shouldn’t have to explain to a referee that he could be wrong after his chance to win a game was blown. Allensworth shouldn’t have to be the sole arbiter of an incredibly close decision with only his eyes, while fans watching both live and on TV can watch replays that he can’t comment on — even if they’re not decisive.

Questions of sportsmanship and decency will inevitably arise — Andy Roddick memorably gave Fernando Verdasco a point at the 2005 Rome Masters when he was ahead by a set and triple match point after the umpire refused to check a ball mark. Roddick lost that match — but players shouldn’t have to dish out their versions of what’s fair in a sport that has rules and protocols to stop them from doing so. Even if Allensworth had watched the footage and not played it back, it would have given all three players more clarity on the situation than guessing at their immediate impressions of a moment.

“We can look at it after the game and if I’m wrong I’ll admit it,” he told Auger-Aliassime.

“That’s too late,” said the Canadian.

There are good reasons why the use of video replays sometimes encounters resistance — one is that it’s not available for all events. At this year’s US Open, which begins on Monday, Aug. 26, only three-quarters of the singles matches will have video replays. Situations could arise where the same decision is overturned because of video one time, but remains wrong another time because video isn’t available on a different court.

A wider introduction would allow tennis to deal with many of the growing pains that football has gone through, including a clearer understanding of how much of it is based on subjectivity that a camera can’t eradicate. But tennis that causes itself problems in this way is a tragedy. To continue to do so when there are simple ways to avoid it? A farce.

(Top photo: Frey/TPN via Getty Images)