ASTONISHING Drama In Tiafoe vs Raonic Over Unusual Rule | Toronto 2023

[@costarica0305]

The fact that he acknowledged that he was wrong so quick is unbelievable, great umpiring

[@matthewginette6609]

unbelibabol* -Rafael Nadal

[@arvindkugan9667]

@@matthewginette6609 More like ombelibabol still it's a nice accent to hear.

[@hellodavey1902]

@@matthewginette6609😂😂😂

[@raoulhery]

fly emirates is clearly at fault here. Changing the essence of the game for sponsorship reasons.

[@Felixzyy]

what's the name of the umpire?

[@mnztr1]

Took the time to explain the ruling clearly, called out the referee to confirm. 100% PRO job by the ump.

[@giorgiozignani-ww8if]

No way

[@giorgiozignani-ww8if]

@rafaundisputedgoat4291he will probably be retired at that point

[@chrispybisscuit]

Not quite. Umpire says that he called “touch”. That ruling was in error, as he LATER “realised” and “changed his mind” to get to the correct call. The umpires first call always stands, unless overruled by a challenge. The point is always replayed if the umpire makes an error and is later corrected.

[@tylerfengler2884]

I think you meant terrible job

[@mnztr1]

@@tylerfengler2884 No I think he went by the book, its an obscure rule and he explained it.

[@hero0149]

Usually in videos like this, the referee makes a mistake, so I was surprised that he made a calm and accurate judgment.

[@vBerk]

​@rafaundisputedgoat4291 ​ rafaundisputedgoat4291 is making an unrelated reply to a comment. I dare ​rafaundisputedgoat4291 to make a reply related to a comment in 2024

[@vBerk]

@rafaundisputedgoat4291 no way you had 10 days to respond and this what you come back with 💀

[@vBerk]

@rafaundisputedgoat4291 come on rafaundisputedgoat4291 you have to do better than this, you're letting rafa down right now

[@Akash_Tyagi_93]

And then they exacerbate the situation by being stubborn and go hard by not admitting the error. They must realise that it's ok to make error. We are all human. But recognise and change it to correct call now when you still can.

[@johncharles2357]

Umpire and referee are two different things.

[@fatalexception_]

Huge respect to Fergus Murphy. I know we've seen some horrible umpiring, so it's actually refreshing to see somebody handle a situation like this so well.

[@noeldacosta7621]

No dude, he gets it wrong more often than right. Murphy's Law. My least favourite umpire.

[@ryoshusuke2108]

Fergus Murphy worst umpire ever

[@dannyskr-6889]

As kyrgios once said about him, he's a 'potato with legs and arms'.

[@tylerfengler2884]

This was some of the worst umpiring I have ever seen what are you smoking. Dude was horrific. He did so bad

[@michalrehacek3462]

​@@tylerfengler2884 where is the hate coming from? He explained his thought process, admitted his initial error in judgement after realising there is another relevant circumstance... What more do you want?

[@shivainsuroya2375]

As an umpire you cannot re correct yourself. The fact that he saw and realised and explained to tournament refree and to the players about the situation. That’s some next level concentration and calmness in the tense moment. That’s some guts and confidence right there to do that is next level.

[@javiert.592]

Anyway Raonic might have got distracted by the initial touch call by the umpire...

[@shivainsuroya2375]

@@javiert.592 i agree in that case of due to hindrance caused by the umpires call shouldn't that be a let you reckon?

[@jamesmpetrakis6019]

Knowledge! Fergus has knowledge which gives him the guts and confidence… loved how he kept smiling throughout! Never flustered.

[@BassByTheBay]

​@@shivainsuroya2375No, because Tiafoe didn't touch the net till after the ball passed Milos, and the call came after the ball landed. Milos was not hindered by the call.

[@ruthylopez]

Wrong! You WOULD be right if the "touch" call had been made during the point. But if you go back and watch the video carefully, you'll see that the umpire doesn't make the call, until AFTER the ball has bounced twice. At that point, the point is over and there is no hindrance. @@shivainsuroya2375

[@benneden2580]

Give the referee a raise. That requires a very cool and calm head.

[@danielfros]

@tomr6955 I was lucky enough to bump into Fergus Murphy at a bar in Indian Wells, and share conversation over a pint of beer. He's super friendly and well-spoken. He was initially studying to become a lawyer in Ireland, so he knows how to make an effective and clear argument.

[@danielfros]

@tomr6955 I was not aware of this rule either. I agree it seems a bit bizarre, but apparently it is the correct interpretation. Raonic has a right to be angry at such a consequential point. Dunno how anyone's gaining an advantage hanging onto the end of the net though. Maybe they should have a singles net like they did in that recent exhibition. More crowd pleasing ATPs and it would avoid this rule.

[@BassByTheBay]

​@tomr6955Agreed. It's silly to argue that it's a permanent fixture when it still clearly moves the rest of the net if you push it hard enough as evidenced by the slow-mo video showing what happened when Tiafoe pushed it. What a weird, unnecessarily complicated rule.

[@parkercrossland410]

This is how every ref should be able to explain every call. Concise, with explanation, and using the exact terminology to best clarify specifics. Part of why this type of explanation technique rarely happens is because of language barrier, but part of it as well is that certain umpires simply are not very good at breaking scenarios down and utilizing the key aspects of the details with their discussions with players.

[@HariHaran-sl1pg]

He is doing his job..why raise ??

[@pratheekk__]

1:02 "What the fuck a net is a net." - Milos Raonic 2023

[@kristiannelson1851]

🤣 This has to be put on t-shirts

[@UrbFoxFact]

yeah raonic was funny when he said that. hilarious to see the king of calm use an expletive.

[@mateusmotta1948]

Gotta agree with him.

[@ThePokeGod]

Legs crossed and so sassy with it 😭

[@minisurfbanana]

Sorry to hear Milos doesnt know this rule!! I have known this rule since junior days 🤷‍♂️🤷‍♂️🤷‍♂️ thats why they have Ads on it for singles n take it off for doubles!

[@yellowait_music]

I love this umpire, explaining things so well and clearly and able to come back on a call he has made.

[@m.myriel2182]

Accurate and quality umpiring, and surprising out of Raonic. After I heard the final clarification from the chair of, "This not a judgement call, this is the rules." I guessed that Raonic, a very cerebral and composed player, who had, up to that point in the match and the discussion, shown that, would've simply accepted it without scruple. I am happy to see that he won today, however, and I hope that he can find stride and form again on the tour after such a long time away.

[@jonbonesmahomes7472]

Yeah..didnt expect him to break a racquet after the situation..

[@raoulhery]

they should replay the point a remove the sponsors. This is a single match for god's sake.

[@TheMitchie21]

My problem with this ruling is that that part of the net is present. So either let them play on a true singles court or remove this rule cause it's bullshit

[@TheMitchie21]

@@zlmdragon. Wtf is that kind of a question. I just think the rule itself is weird and should be changed and here you go being an idiot

[@geitmetsik]

Yeah, but I do get the frustration and the pushback. You're coming back after a long time away, playing on a huge event in a tiebreak 12 - 13 down.... You don't want to give it away like that. So it's understandable in my opinion

[@c3vzn]

Damn that’s good umpiring. Great clarity of thought and player management.

[@zeljkocrljenica7135]

"I have the answers, I have the answers!" Brilliant, well done Fergus 👍

[@operation2096]

Best thing he could have said in that moment

[@TroyWilliamsYouTube]

And Raonic went on to win the match ... wow!

[@NakedEyes-lm3bj]

Congrats Raonic! 💥💥💥

[@zetristan4525]

Caused a raonic boom💥

[@blucat4]

@@zetristan4525 😄, but only because it's late and I'm drunk! 😄

[@zetristan4525]

@rafaundisputedgoat4291 Raonic will use his aces and crucial double-faults to Stop him

[@robmagu65]

I played D1 and some limited challenger events and I had no idea about this rule! I thought the net is the net. Wow, great umpire

[@my8osprive]

The net should be the net though because the net is there as an obstacle for the ball to reach the opponent's court from a wide shot. It's a dumb rule.

[@mbkincaid1]

and if a ball touches that part of the net then its out regardless of where it bounces

[@AinSoph73]

It’s incredible to me how few universities and tournaments have a supply of singles sticks for their matches. I had a coach who would always bring them and encouraged all of his students to get their own and always practice with them.

[@potzysk2]

@@my8osprive It's not a dumb rule, because on some courts there is no net outside the singles posts! So on those courts you can just keep running to the other side. Why should you lose if there's a net there on other courts? It actually makes logical sense, although I never knew this rule after 50 years of league and tournament tennis.

[@my8osprive]

@@potzysk2 But on those courts that you mention, one can hit a low ball from a wide position and manage to put the ball in the opponent's court. On this court though you can't because it's an obstacle for the ball, hence it should be an obstacle for the player as well. Otherwise should call a replay the point if the ball hits that part of the net...

[@shmtennis5212]

Great umpiring. Players should have really respected him enough to allow him to explain things when the supervisor came out without interruption. He was 100% correct and handled it very professionally.

[@MartinJohnZ]

An obscure rule like this playing a role in the first place is quite unusual, the rule being enforced at 13-12 in a tiebreak makes it really exceptional.

[@AinSoph73]

It’s not obscure. It’s literally Rule 1 of tennis.

[@TearTheRoof0ff]

@@AinSoph73 That you're allowed to touch specifically the short, straight section of net on either side in singles whilst a ball is in play? Rule 1? _Really?_

[@AinSoph73]

@@TearTheRoof0ff will take you 45 seconds to find it on google

[@echochamber1234]

@@TearTheRoof0ff rule one or rule 1001, doesn't matter. gotta enforce it.

[@TearTheRoof0ff]

@@echochamber1234 Well, yeah.

[@JokerCat9]

You learn something new every day. Great readjustment from Milos to win the match.

[@JokerCat9]

@rafaundisputedgoat4291 hi troll 👋

[@janko3758]

While this was a show of great umpiring and situational awareness, Milos brought up a rebuttal to the supervisor that should bring forth reevaluation of this rule. He points out that if he hits the doubles side of the net in question and the ball lands in, then it wouldn't be his point based on the rules that this very specific area of the net does not "exist." While a very unrealistic scenario, I think it goes to show that this rule may need to be reviewed, or simply put, the net posts for all tournaments just need to be adjusted to singles and doubles accordingly to avoid any controversies like this (especially in a Master's 1000).

[@AinSoph73]

Bruh, that makes no sense. On a singles net court the ball in your scenario would just continue traveling through empty space resulting in a loss of a point.

[@TheJayCoconut]

​@AinSoph73 There is the case where Tiafoe pushes the ball far wide which causes Riaonic to hit it back into court from far wide. In this case the ball could possibly snag the doubles side of the net and then go out.

[@AinSoph73]

@@TheJayCoconut what’s your point

[@TheJayCoconut]

@AinSoph73 It depends on where Riaonic is hitting the ball from. You aren't thinking outside the box.

[@nathanjen]

In situations where a doubles net with singles sticks is used for a singles match, the portion of the net beyond the singles sticks is considered a 'permanent fixture' which means a point ends as soon as the ball touches it (but that there is no penalty for the player himself touching it during play). That means if someone were to hit a ball into the 'doubles portion' of the net, they instantly lose the point, even if the ball lands in afterwards. I agree switching between singles/doubles nets as necessary is ideal, but I also don't think it's the end of the world to use singles sticks. To counter Milos's argument, another example of a permanent fixture are the walls surrounding the court. There are many scenarios, particularly on the return of serve, where a player could benefit from extra room to maneuver but loses the point because the ball hits the wall before they get a racquet on it. Should we look at removing walls from courts, or insisting they are a standardized distance away from the court so that players won't ever run into them? Different courts have slightly different permanent fixtures, including the net in some cases, and it's up to the players to accommodate for them.

[@BassByTheBay]

Yes, an uncharacteristic racquet throw from Milos, but I'd guess he threw it because of the frustration of losing a long, close tiebreak combined with the acknowledgement of a questionable rule.

[@Birdylockso]

He may have turned that negative energy into a fighting spirit, as he won the other two sets.

[@AinSoph73]

Absolutely nothing questionable about that rule; it appears in magazines written for public park players.

[@BassByTheBay]

@AinSoph73 I'm saying that the _value_ of the rule is questionable. You could see the rest of the net shake when Tiafoe hit the end section. If it's a "permanent fixture", the rest of the net shouldn't be affected by running into it.

[@tennnis498]

I didn’t know that rule and Milos has been a top player for many years. If he didn’t know it, that in itself is surprising.

[@AinSoph73]

@@BassByTheBay oh the VALUE of the rule is questionable 🤣 Well, when you play tennis just don’t use singles sticks and then whatever part of the net you touch, or your opponent touches, will be the singles net.

[@nelsonc6173]

OK never knew that rule! I always assumed that touching the entire width of the net was illegal during point play during doubles and singles! Live and learn!

[@DjokovicIsOurLordAndSaviour]

The thing I find very odd about this rule is the argument that because this is a singles match, we should ignore the doubles part of the net. Yet, if the ball hits the doubles part of the net, you will lose the point. I mean the net is there, it makes it more difficult to hit around the net post etc. It would have a fairly significant impact on matches if they removed that section of the net. It doesn't make much sense to act as if the net is not there when you think about it.

[@wakajawaka]

Totally. You can't implement rules about a "ghost" net sometimes and not other times. It's an absurd ruling. Seems like the ump made a noble rule by overruling himself but I think he shouldn't have actually. This might lead to rule adjustments for next season!

[@chefc3023]

yea they should def adjust the net/post based on singles or doubles

[@json_bourne3812]

@@wakajawaka made up a rule? 😂😂 you definitely can have rules that vary based on these nets, because one situation is east to judge and the other you can't determine a winner. A player touches the "ghost net" after hitting the ball: BALL is still live/in play and can be ruled upon. A ball is hit into the "ghost net": Even modern day with Hawkeye saying it would've gone in, the other player should have the opportunity to play the ball back so at MOST it would be a "replay the point" scenario. Though I don't think things will change from this one clip/instance, I do think all courts should be upgraded/updated to have nets+net pole slots for both singles and doubles (at least places that hold professional tournaments).

[@RigMaster_]

Also I've seen players hit a ball on the top of the net of the doubles part during the rally and the ball goes in and it was considered play on. By this logic it shouldn't have been allowed and the point ends.

[@JohnDoe-jy7sv]

That is correct. The play should have been over. There’s nothing inconsistent here.

[@Birdylockso]

It makes perfect sense once you realize that in a single match, the net shouldn't be that wide. Good call.

[@ethan.milavsky4516]

ya but if the ball hits that part of the nets and then goes in it still counts...

[@Birdylockso]

@@ethan.milavsky4516 If a ball can hit that part of the net and then goes in, the ball would have gone in without the net anyway. What is your point?

[@saccount8009]

@@Birdylockso lets say your shot is going out but the ball hit the doubles net post and bounced off a weird angle where it landed in the singles court for a winner then the umpire would give you the point

[@benjaminhackett9614]

@@saccount8009 you'd lose the point if your shot hits a permanent fixture before landing in your opponent's court. That extra part of the net and net post are considered permanent fixtures while singles sticks are in use.

[@saccount8009]

@@benjaminhackett9614 i have seen clips of that happening but i carnt quite remember if the doubles part of the net was there id have to go find the clips of those super rare shots

[@ad-rock603]

Milos touched the net with his foot against Del Potro during this same tournament about 7 years back. Raonic didn't own up and took the point, despite the jumbo tron showing him doing it. I think it was during a tie break & Del Potro didn't win another point

[@dramatish]

The rule makes sense because if they used a singles net that part of the net wouldn't exist and he would ran pass the singles post

[@randomboris]

I didn't realize that one section of the net has different rules than other sections of the net. I thought any touch to any part of the net would make them lose the point.

[@lilguycjd]

They explained since the court is also played for doubles they use a longer net that encompasses both lengths of play, on a singles only court there would have been no net where tiafoe landed

[@darrenjohn8524]

​So now players are allowed to touch the doubles area part of the net for balance? Clownish rules 🤣.

[@nguyenucnhan7935]

​​​@@darrenjohn8524It wouldn't have mattered since the "double" part of the net is so far out on both sides, it'll leave a huge court for the opponent to exploit. So no, don't think anyone will abuse that part of the net since it leaves them vulnerable.

[@bhuvanesh0115]

Some questionable rules are still there in tennis.Djokovic vs Nadal 2013 RG,at a crucial moment Djokovic hits a smash,but before the ball crossed the net and the point was awarded to Nadal.Though it was right within the rules,it rises the possibilities of "iffs" and "whats".I am not telling Djokovic would have won the match,but at the same time you can't say he wouldn't have won.These rules should be either removed or amended based on intentions (like the offside rule in football) of the player.

[@marcusbrsp]

I also did not know that. Weird rule. What if you cross the net with your racquet when you hit the ball of the "double section" of the net? I guess "that part of the net doesn't count (for singles)" holds true in that case, too.

[@minisurfbanana]

Cant believe these PRO guys didnt know this rule!!!! They told us this rule during junior tournys with singles sticks!!!!

[@arturoleonardo4707]

Both players didnt know.Some of them are not aware of tennis rules.

[@AinSoph73]

@@arturoleonardo4707it's ridiculous that pro players don't know the first rule of their sport don't you think?

[@YuJay]

They should add a rule where smashing your racket in anger or frustration is an instant disqualification for bad sportsmanship..

[@Cinfuhl]

Good to see Milos back

[@steven7846]

Take balls to do what this umpire did. Most judge would not have the courage to go back on their even if they realised they were completely wrong.

[@warrenguy76]

He’s absolutely my favorite umpire now. That was a great call under the circumstances.

[@matthewginette6609]

LMAO the classic Raonic "what the fuck?" 1:00

[@5karmatt]

Salute to the umpire for opening our eyes to a new rule position. Also respect to Milos for not loosing his cool. Totally professional

[@cwongyy]

milos smashed his racquet before he sat down lol

[@bartholomewlyons]

Camera didn’t show that. For all we know, he most probably smacked a girl’s bottom.

[@jaimodi640]

​@@bartholomewlyonsand that would be professional?

[@RickDuarte-wh8dn]

the supervisor looks like a supervisor

[@MinisterMindset369]

Ok after the fact I understand. It’s because they can’t change from a singles net to a doubles net for obvious reasons. BUT would it be a singles only court, there would be no net to impeded Tiafoe’s path. It’s a strange situation but it makes perfect sense. Glad Milos took the match 😂

[@andystojadinovich1492]

If there was no net in the doubles alley, then Tiafoe would have crossed over to the other side of the court because of his momentum and lack of balance in that run to get the short ball. Once he crosses, he loses the point. This is a strange call. I understand why the ump made that decision, but there are other factors to consider as well. The ump called out “touch” which stops the play. I know Raonic could never have gotten to the ball, but that is considered a hindrance call too. Upon further analysis of the situation, IMO the point should have gone to Raonic. However, in the heat of the moment, the chair ump needs to make a quick judgment call. I can’t fault him for this decision. He handled the situation in a very respectful and professional way.

[@viktor7401]

​@@andystojadinovich1492 Pretty sure you can actually cross over to the other side, just not touch any part of your opponent's court.

[@brucee6123]

That's really something - I best most players never realized this. But that the section does count in doubles because it extends to the doubles line. I was this old today ...

[@AinSoph73]

Hackers don’t know but pros like Milos should know better.

[@justinbouchard]

in a pure singles court the net only would be made to where the singles sticks are. in a pure singles court, tiafoe would have been able to run past the net post because the net wouldn't have been there.

[@wakajawaka]

Right. And don't you automatically lose the point if you end up on the other side of the net anyway?

[@json_bourne3812]

​@@wakajawaka as long as you stay off their actual court area, you're allowed to go past the net if you were in the process of making a shot.

[@justinbouchard]

yep ;) @@json_bourne3812

[@noeldacosta7621]

1:20 which rulebook? Someone please show it to me. I've been searching for it for years.

[@karipintakivi9153]

ATP tennis rules section VII part S, page 195.

[@PaullHutchh]

Mans said "I read the book" "I did the homework" 😂😂

[@a32tl]

I knew about this rule from watching a Monica Seles match years ago. However, she was robbed of the point because the umpire didn’t know the rule about touching the portion of the net that extends beyond the single’s post.

[@ZenkaiSage]

Raonic: “I want to see the manager of the net”

[@tele68]

I'm not sure I understand the rule, but it's good to see Raonic playing at a high level again.

[@JanitorIsBack]

easy. If this was court just set up for singles the part of the net that tiafoe touch would not have been there. So they are basically saying that between the singles stick and the outside net post is not part of the net and thus touching it is not a foul.

[@oxfordcollar-i4e]

@@JanitorIsBack which is fair enough, there's a giant ad in that section of the net so it wouldn't even physically behave like a net with any impacts

[@cmdrfun1]

You don't understand what was explained clearly several times over the course of the video? lol man, just listen

[@m.g.2244]

But without the ad in the section Tiafoe would have come on the side of his opponent. Is that allowed?

[@PretentiousStuff]

so if the ball goes into that part of the "net" they should replay the point by the logic, but they don't. This rule is stupid.

[@iansmirna5183]

I never saw such a rare thing: an umpire who admits being wrong, changes his mind and provides argumentation to support it. Amazing umpiring!

[@barbaragillett9904]

Totally agree with this umpire great job Fergus 👏👏👏👏🙏❤️🇬🇧

[@PatMetheny1980]

They say it's a permanent fixture, which should mean that it doesn't affect the other part of the net. And yet in the replay you can see at 3:30 that the singles part of the net is clearly affected by the hit.

[@JohnSmith-xx9th]

You’re getting too technical now. What are you, a mechanical engineer?

[@PatMetheny1980]

@@JohnSmith-xx9th this whole idea of this video is technical

[@pazo321]

​@@PatMetheny1980 your better question would have been if the net hit the ball when he ran into it...that is before the ball crossed over.

[@myungahn5183]

This reminds me of the Milos vs Delpo match long time ago where Milos got away with a net touch. He lost a lot of fans that day.

[@wanderlustwarrior]

Should've lost some fans here, too. He handled himself very immaturely even before the racket smash.

[@skeet0rz]

Well, TIL. Milos's best chance was to try and claim that the call from the umpire stopped him from making a play at the ball.... not that he could have possibly gotten it anyways.

[@lucasarmiento1629]

i ask .. what about when ball touch post and then drop into court... if that counts as a net why this doesn't count?

[@minisurfbanana]

Sorry to hear Milos doesnt know this rule!! I have known this rule since junior days 🤷‍♂️🤷‍♂️🤷‍♂️ thats why they have Ads on it for singles n take it off for doubles!

[@andyroo9381]

Interesting rules call. If that is the rule, then that is the rule. I never knew that stipulation.

[@MegsCarpentry-lovedogs]

Fergus Murphy was very polite and used some amazing conflict resolution skills as he dealt with the players...and the pressure....I am so impressed!👍🇨🇦

[@sdstewart87]

You knew it had to be a stupid thing for it to be drama where Tiafoe is concerned. He's always a sound guy. I just don't agree with the call because it may be outside the width of the singles court but it still makes the rest of the net move if you touch it. Also opens the door to, if a ball clips the net in that area and bounces in.... Should it automatically be called out, because it's not part of the singles court?

[@benjaminhackett9614]

I suppose if you move the net too much to gain some sort of advantage or distract your opponent it could be considered a hindrance. If your shot clips that part of the net, you lose the point since it's considered a permanent fixture.

[@AinSoph73]

That’s a really basic scenario, covered in this video as Milos asks it (🤦‍♂️) and the rule is that the ball is dead if it hits the net outside of the singles sticks.

[@davidwsw]

@@mehdiamrani7898 Why did Blake win this point then? kzbin.info/www/bejne/Zqmynol9j6-EbpI

[@Johnmili4565]

“So he wins” 😂😂😂😂

[@MoorishBrooklyn]

Well, the umpire did his job. The ability to know the rules, ability to correct himself and admit he was wrong on the first call.

[@JohnnySantoDomingo]

this is the most exciting thing I've seen all year.

[@eduardoissaodossantos1819]

It’s not brilliant umpiring. Milo’s could’ve said that because he called touch after the first bounce, Milos stopped playing the point and did not go for the ball before the second bounce. So the referee interfered with the point before it was officially over (second bounce). Therefore, a leg should’ve been called by the umpire because he talked in the middle of the point.

[@eduardoissaodossantos1819]

A let* should’ve been called.

[@bricecanon]

Perfect umpiring job. keep calm, explain. This guys deserve to umpire grand slam finals!

[@raviravindran5355]

At the end both players accepted the umpires decision. Both are classy players.

[@denbo1064]

I mean rules aside, what an incredible get!! Come on! Tiafoe DESERVES to win that point! Fantastic match and a hard-earned win for Raonic.

[@blucat4]

It was a hell of a good get, which was overlooked.

[@RamblinReggie]

What if the ball hits the net cord in that section past the singles sticks and lands in?! Would that be a playable ball? I would think that it shouldn’t be since it is considered a permanent fixture. But I am sure many singles matches have had a ball hit that area of the net cord and play continued.

[@karipintakivi9153]

Fault from hitting a permanent fixture. But you are right this must have happened many times and the play has continued.

[@unowen7591]

Umpire was like a teacher trying to calm down to kids fighting lol

[@yaqarm8822]

So if my opponent forces me out wide and she has a clear shot at an empty court I can grab the net outside the singles stick and pull it up as hard and as high as I can to increase the chance of her putting the ball into the net ?

[@Nicotine46]

Woaw that's something I never seen. Great call by the Umpire

[@UrbFoxFact]

if the net supposedly 'ends' at the single sticks then what's to stop a player catching hold of the net in the doubles section and yanking it up to raise its level in order to stymie the opponent? why singles is played on a doubles court has never made sense to me. get rid of the tramlines, bring the net in line with the singles court and there is no confusion. amazing job by raonic.....great to see him back in action and competing at the highest level. umpire explained everything very well so that was good.

[@quentincrisp6933]

Big Foe folded like he has been doing all season. Worse top ten player I've ever seen!

[@rockesh123]

Rules are complicated sometimes, can't blame the players here , but brilliant Umpiring though.

[@AinSoph73]

The height and width of the net are literally the first rule of tennis. It is beyond embarrassing that Milos asked for the supervisor, who correctly finished the scenario before Murphy even had to bother completing the story.

[@jkjkjk100]

milos is being too canadian. Can you imagine this kind of call with Kyrgios or Paire? I think as a master 1000 event, they should be able to move the post to a single position.

[@RavenThePlayer]

Its weird you can prop up that part if the net like that. Certainly affects shots with drastic angles.

[@MARA_Millionaire]

They kept live betting open during this whole discussion, and since I heard the umpire was adamant it was Tiafoes set I bet on it. Made $17,000 😃

[@mitsuhh]

Sure you did. You didn't make a cent

[@MARA_Millionaire]

@@mitsuhh I sure did and I’m glad I did! Just thought I’d share since it was a rush for me, makes no difference to me if you believe 🤷🏻‍♂️

[@Michael-kb3tt]

Amazing ! ❤

[@DesikanJayaram]

Umpiring is such a difficult job! This is a phenomenal piece of umpiring!!

[@Gauchothedog]

And this on a set point,I can understand the frustration of Milos

[@lilguycjd]

I understand singles courts play with smaller nets so technically that net shouldn’t be there, but how bizarre they treat that portion of net not net just for the sake of net touches, since it quite clearly affects the game having a literal obstacle on the court, weird, I wonder what the reasoning behind a net chord into winner would be like if it touched the same net portion, since this portion just doesn’t exist on a singles court

[@benjaminhackett9614]

If you hit a ball and it touches that portion of the net (or the end posts), then you lose the point, even if the ball subsequently lands in.

[@lilguycjd]

@@benjaminhackett9614 m.kzbin.info/www/bejne/iV6mYX6QeqxokJI&pp=ygUTQmFsbCBoaXRzIG5ldCBwb3N0IA%3D%3D this is where I first saw this scenario and it involves the post of the net, when I first saw this I thought it was a legal point since it’s part of the net but now I’m thinking it’s just a niche rule many umpires may not know so this was an illegal shot also it’s around 10 years old so that doesn’t help either

[@JiaxinYu]

If the section outside of the singles stick doesn't count and is considered permanent fixture, then if the ball hits the net post and bounces in, it would still count as out because it hits the permanent fixture, right?

[@andyrome6713]

Don't know for sure, but I think that if the ball touches that part of the net or the post and bounces back in...then is IN🤔 It is quite confusing..

[@AinSoph73]

@jiaxinyu correct

[@lars653]

Very well done by Fergus Murphy here. What i do think is pretty poor though is how many professional players don't know the rules of the game like both players here. How often you see players or analysts in football get the offside rule wrong is another example. I mean, it's their job so they should know the rules of the game, also details like this

[@TrishanthDiwate]

Raonic has a point though, what if the ball hits the doubles post and lands in?

[@lookatcurryman8793]

Yeah by the rules it should be out.

[@eFMe-fk1xh]

In theory the rule makes perfect sense, but practically the net is always the net, and touching it, even only the "double" part, can distract the players. So in the end the rule is more of a logical compromise.

[@johncharles2357]

No. It is just the dimensions of the court. For singles, the net ends 3 feet beyond the singles sideline. So, beyond 3 feet, it is not part of the singles court; and the net is considered a permanent fixture.

[@TimelyAdventure]

Raonic asked to speak with the manager

[@jesusmtz29]

I understand the frustration from roanic. But that was very cool headed from the umpire

[@Jimmy27404]

Very interesting call! And it is right!

[@Lucian86]

that's great umpiring ! that said, they should change this rule. I get it's not part of the singles game but it can impact the net eitherway when touched by someone.

[@KingCast65]

Yah because had there been singles netting there wouldn't even have been an issue. Milos on a come back??? I've always wondered w'happen to him but injuries were part of it.

[@kendaddi5857]

Fantastic umpiring👏. These are the kind of umpires that should be reserved for great finals. I have played tennis for many years. This rule is new to me. And for sure it’s also new to pros like Raonic and Tiafoe. Now I understand one of the reasons for the singles stick. But my question is, if in a singles match the ball bounces on the part of the net outside the singles stick and ends up a winner. Will the player of the shot be given the point?

[@karipintakivi9153]

No, because the player hit a "permanent fixture".

[@kendaddi5857]

Thanks for your reply@@karipintakivi9153

[@manjitkmohan]

Absolutely superb umpiring! Gold standard!

[@vamosdaniel22]

My question is, when the ball touches that piece of the so called doubles net and bounces to the opponents court, does it count as a point?

[@Michael-Boyer]

Nope. Anything outside of the singles sticks is a permanent fixture and not in play.

[@joeljoseph4518]

I don't want to hate on Milos because I wish him well on his comeback but remember he touched the net against del potro and didn't admit it lol.

[@kolajoabiola2790]

Yeah... I remember that moment. It was Montreal 2013, right?

[@bobbryan6743]

Shut your mouth Tiafoe, he trying to help you 😂

[@anseinueseima408]

Glad to see Raonic playing tiebreaks with Tiafoe, this proves that he's still competitive on the tour. Plus I have never seen him smashing racquet

[@anseinueseima408]

@@woibdoubs1011 yeah just saw that, this is stunning victory for someone who just made a comeback!

[@egekapsz2063]

@@anseinueseima408 fixed match nobody cares tiafoe and raonic

[@koolpikle999]

when did he smash his racket

[@BassByTheBay]

​@@koolpikle999after he walks away and the umpire says, "Ladies and gentlemen...". Listen for a loud thud.

[@anseinueseima408]

@@koolpikle999 the sound after umpire announces Tiafoe wins the first set

[@leonardobraynen1524]

Well i def learned something 2day i didnt before and am astonished! Way for chair umpire to hold composure on both players

[@squalidseal6126]

Great umpiring. Clear and not too full of ego that he won’t admit he’s wrong.

[@Bratin_Basu]

Hat's off to Fergus Murphy.👏🏿🙌🏿 Standing ovation for him.❤

[@maguslloretmunoz2354]

That point and discussion gave Milos an extra power to win the match

[@blucat4]

It got the crowd on his side, that's one thing.

[@paullevine7959]

Well done Mr Umpire, communication superb.

[@andrewdurst8455]

Raonic brought up a great point about what the point is of that section of the net, where it may impede a forehand for example whereas it wouldn’t otherwise be there in a singles match. Right call but tough draw to be fair

[@officiallywaz]

Usually it's all crappy umpire calls that get the limelight but this was absolutely spot on.

[@vadimzitsermusicianvlogcha3870]

Interesting, that even on courts, that specially build for single match's, net is "that wide"

[@reuvenwiener2093]

Sponsorship agreements. I wonder whether sponsorship agreements include a requirement that (in both the Canadian and U.S. Opens, for example) that doubles nets generally be used for singles matches -- so that the sponsor's advertising can be hung on the permanent fixture (doubles, outside the singles sticks) part of the net. (Apparently there is no rule against that, so anything not prohibited is permitted.) So even if singles nets and holes/sleeves for singles posts are available and personnel to swap them out to use singles nets for singles matches and doubles nets for doubles matches... tournaments may have chosen to use doubles nets (with singles sticks) for doubles matches. The signage may also be considered by some of us as a distraction, eyesore, and a barrier to seeing balls and the court (including lines). However, to make a rule against such signage might reduce the value of sponsorships and either reduce prize money... or increase ticket prices. Thoughts? (Perhaps more of us should become accustomed to playing singles with singles sticks, as apparently is more commonly done in other countries.)

[@holl01]

Permanent fixtures FTW!

[@anomie4477]

15 years of tennis and I never heard of that rule glad to know it now lol

[@maryanyone]

That umpire is amazing! Thorough and cool! I am concerned that the male commentator on the Tennis Channel, who seemed to forgot that he was there to comment on the match, and not just be a fan for Raonic, kept going on and on (even after the umpire explained clearly!) that the rule should be challenged! Firstly, it is a rule so, future challenge or not, it applies to this situation. Secondly, it makes sense. If anyone watches tennis without the doubles lines drawn in (e.g. the Ultimate Tennis showdown), they will see that there will not have been any impediment for Tiafoe to touch. The female commentator even explained that the part Tiafoe touched was even more extended for advertising. It's like playing different sports with lines drawn on a surface. One may have a basketball court and tennis court drawn in... and will only focus on the line for the sport being played!

[@Deepurplerain]

I always thaught this rule was so archaic, it should only count if the player touch it while and if the opponent hit the ball back cause he might lower the net or else.

[@reymui2023]

Legend has it that he was umpiring before the king of England invented tennis