Stakhovsky gets a $2,000 penalty for proving the umpire was wrong

[Denis]

http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/tennis/news/20130530/sergiy-stakhovsky-iphone-french-open-twitter-fine.ap/

Isn’t this a bit out of proportion? And does it make sense in the first place? The ATP seems to be covering up mistakes by its umpires, or at least punishing players for standing up against unjust calls? The ump was clearly wrong:

https://twitter.com/Stako_tennis/status/339047050463281157/photo/1

 

[Johnsteinbeck]

^ looking at how often we now get to see the pic of him snapping the photo, i wonder if Lotto (whose logo is featured four times on that pic) might re-imburse him.

also - do you see the ball as that clearly in? tbh, i don't. i think it's a real close call, and one that might be better seen in person than on a twitter pic.

either way, i do think that Stakhovsky knows that this is not how you settle a dispute, and 7% of the price money is not actually that much, considering it's a real publicity stunt on his side. if he had just taken the pic and submitted it to ITF/RG officials afterwards, instead of making it go viral, the penalty might have been even less, i reckon. (also, do we know who was issuing the penalty? because i'd be somewhat surprised if it's the ATP doing it at an ITF event.)

 

[tented]

http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/tennis/news/20130530/sergiy-stakhovsky-iphone-french-open-twitter-fine.ap/

Isn’t this a bit out of proportion? And does it make sense in the first place? The ATP seems to be covering up mistakes by its umpires, or at least punishing players for standing up against unjust calls? The ump was clearly wrong:

https://twitter.com/Stako_tennis/status/339047050463281157/photo/1

First I'm hearing of this incident. Did the umpire call it in, but Stakhovsky thought it was out, or vice versa? I agree with johnsteinbeck: it's not exactly crystal-clear, 100% proof of anything.

Did anyone watch this match? Was it on a court with Hawk-Eye? Broadcasters in the US often show that graphic, even though it isn't official.

 

[Johnsteinbeck]

^ ump called it out, Stakhovsky thought it was in. (the fact that you still have to ask after seeing the pic, and assumed Stakhovsky might have seen this as proof that it was out shows just how close it really was).
it was on Lenglen. btw, i've always wondered whether the Hawkeye graphic they use on non-Hawkeye tournaments is actually the real, fully licensed and calibrated deal, or just an approximation based on TV cameras. either way, i'd assume that this ball might have been within the margin of error.

also, unlike the call, the match was far from being close - in straights, 1, 4 and 3.. so much ado about nothing, really.

 

[tented]

it was on Lenglen. btw, i've always wondered whether the Hawkeye graphic they use on non-Hawkeye tournaments is actually the real, fully licensed and calibrated deal, or just an approximation based on TV cameras.

Good question. They call it "Hawk-Eye" and with trademark laws in the US, they wouldn't be using that name unless they're actually using it. And if they're using it, they're using it, right? It wouldn't be good for their reputation if someone disclosed that they're using an inadequate version.

also, unlike the call, the match was far from being close - in straights, 1, 4 and 3.. so much ado about nothing, really.

There is that ...

 

[Denis]

^ looking at how often we now get to see the pic of him snapping the photo, i wonder if Lotto (whose logo is featured four times on that pic) might re-imburse him.

also - do you see the ball as that clearly in? tbh, i don't. i think it's a real close call, and one that might be better seen in person than on a twitter pic.

either way, i do think that Stakhovsky knows that this is not how you settle a dispute, and 7% of the price money is not actually that much, considering it's a real publicity stunt on his side. if he had just taken the pic and submitted it to ITF/RG officials afterwards, instead of making it go viral, the penalty might have been even less, i reckon. (also, do we know who was issuing the penalty? because i'd be somewhat surprised if it's the ATP doing it at an ITF event.)

Well, why should he not be allowed to do this? He should be allowed to voice his opinion on public on the matter and not be shut down by the authorities. Even if he is wrong on the call itself. I don't get why they are punishing someone for expressing his opinion. It's not that he is being racist or trashtalking anyone. He just published a pic of a ball mark.

The outcome of the match has absolutely nothing to do with this.

 

[Johnsteinbeck]

he's allowed to voice his opinion. but getting out your phone during the match, and snapping pictures? do you really think that this is in line with how a professional sports match should be played? imagine NFL players on the sideline using their smartphones to tape the action and dispute calls on that base?
the fact that he published it isn't another infringement as such, but it's a question of attitude. to me, it's adding insult to injury, honestly.

i think it's just bad form. not a major thing, mind you. but it's also not the first time he's done something like it, and i doubt ITF/ATP would want this to catch on.

btw, Stakhovsky himself recognized he broke the rules and that a penalty was in order, and wouldn't complain about it.

The 101st-ranked Ukrainian said he would pay a fine which tournament organisers are now set to levy at the end of the fortnight and recognised he had overstepped the mark.
(...)
"But it was wrong. The rule book says you can't do it. Some media have made a big thing of it. But that's pathetic - I was quite calm, I had a nice chat with the umpire. It was more a joke than anything and I hope people won't judge me that badly. It was near the beginning of the match."

via News.com.au

 

[Denis]

Ok if they have a rule that says you cannot make pictures during a match I guess a warning is in order, but a fine? It seems a bit disproportionate to me.

 

[Johnsteinbeck]

^ again - it's not the first time he's done it, he did pretty much the same thing at Munich just a couple of weeks ago. so that might explain why they went with the fine.

"Munich was a very close call which could go both ways, so I didn't really bother going to the supervisor and asking. But this one is in a Grand Slam, so first of all, the fine is actually there, possibly, (and) I don't want to get it. So I'll try to explain myself. I don't know if it's going to work."

"I hope my clean Grand Slam record will count - I've never been fined. I made a mistake. The question now is the size of it (the fine)."

given that he also is the guy who gave a great interview on the life of someone higher up in the ranks (explaining how he's on a net loss after IW and Miami, with all the expenses), i actually do feel for him. he seems like a clever and funny guy - Gasquet said so himself. so, some sort of a formal slap on the wrist would've been nice, maybe a lesser penalty, idk (a 'warning' as such probably doesn't work off-court). then again, i still think that he didn't make things better by publishing the pic. or maybe he did, as the twit-pic media attention might actually help him in regards to sponsors and such, and might off-set the 2,000 loss.

 

[isabelle]

Hawk eye system should be installed IMO

 

[the AntiPusher]

Well, this idiot surely got his $ worth:laydownlaughing

 

[tented]

Hawk eye system should be installed IMO

Exactly. No excuse not to use it. Traditions can be quaint, but this is the 21st century.

 

[brokenshoelace]

Just use the challenge system. Everyone would be happy, especially the umpires who won't have to come down from their chairs every other point.

 

[Denis]

I fourth that. Although you would be preferring technology over physical evidence, but I trust hawkeye.

 

[Johnsteinbeck]

Hawk eye system should be installed IMO

Exactly. No excuse not to use it. Traditions can be quaint, but this is the 21st century.

dunno where i read it/heard it... but one potential issue is actually very much like the Stakhovsky case: imagine a player disagreeing with HawkEye on the base of a ball mark. the margin of error for HawkEye is 3mm. that can make a big difference; and if a mark were to actually prove HawkEye Wrong - wouldn't that jeopardize the system's credibility and acceptance elsewhere?

 

[Front242]

Well, this idiot surely got his $ worth:laydownlaughing

Can't see why he's an idiot tbh. If you don't stand up for yourself in life people will just walk all over you. He tried to get some justice but in fairness the punishment was too harsh. A warning would've sufficed for the "idiot".

 

[JesuslookslikeBorg]

taking a pic of an inconclusive mark ??..what a gimp, serves him right.