The match point for Draper and Auger-Aliassime in Cincinnati is that tennis is shooting itself in the foot

First as a tragedy, then as a farce.

The same tournament; the same referee. New players; new court; new call.

Same result: tennis shoots itself in the foot.

After midnight on Saturday morning in Cincinnati, Canadian Felix Auger-Aliassime was match point down against Britain’s Jack Draper in the deciding set of their round of 16. Draper served wide and advanced to a volley; Auger-Aliassime laid a return at the feet of Draper. The ball spun, cut the net tape and rolled over.

Draper smiled and walked to the net for a handshake, believing he had hit an accidental winner; Auger-Aliassime walked to the deuce side of the field for 40-40, believing the ball had hit the side of the field on its way to Draper.

There was a pause. Greg Allensworth, the referee, who was also in the chair Thursday due to the electronic line call (ELC) glitch with Brandon Nakashima and Taylor Fritz, spoke into his microphone.

‘Ladies and gentlemen, I believe this was a fair opportunity. Game, set and match Draper, 5-7, 6-4, 6-4.”

Then it started.

“If there was a replay, I would play it again, but I don’t know,” Draper said.

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

“Like after he hit it?” 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 get 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 officiant.

Following Thursday night’s incident between Fritz and Nakashima, 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.

“Following recent technical issues with Live ELC in Montreal and Cincinnati, we have thoroughly reviewed our protocols. In the future, if the review official determines during a rally that a ball was previously out in the point (but not called by the system), that decision will remain in effect,” the tour said.

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

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

Oh my! 🫣 pic.twitter.com/FazKHlOKY9

— Stefanos Tsitsipas (@steftsitsipas) August 17, 2024

Replays appear to show Draper hitting the ball on his side into the ground before it spins back off his racket and high into the air. If there is a double hit, it is done in one continuous motion, so this would not be a reason to lose the point under the rules of tennis. However, the ball hitting Draper’s side of the court after his racket would mean Auger-Aliassime would win 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 in its final trajectory, including the arc and height, but no definitive frame. What finally unfolds? Another failure of tennis’s umpiring infrastructure to protect players and fans.

Draper, Auger-Aliassime and Allensworth were all let down (Matthew Stockman/Getty Images)

Draper should not have to defend his integrity when trying 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 can be proven wrong after losing his chance to win a match. Allensworth shouldn’t be the sole referee on an incredibly close call with just his eyes, while fans watching both live and on TV can see replays where he can’t take action — even if they’re inconclusive.

Questions of sportsmanship and decency will necessarily come up. Andy Roddick memorably conceded a point to Fernando Verdasco at the 2005 Rome Masters when he scored a set and a triple match point after the referee refused to check a ball mark. Roddick lost that match – but players shouldn’t have to hand out their version of what’s fair in a sport that has rules and protocols to prevent them from doing so. Even if Allensworth had viewed the footage and not reversed it, it would have given all three people in question more insight into the situation than guessing at their immediate impressions of a moment.

“We can look at it after the game and if I see it wrong, I will admit it to you,” he told Auger-Aliassime.

“That’s too late,” the Canadian said.

There are good reasons why the use of video replays is sometimes met with resistance. One of them is that it is not possible for all events. At this year’s US Open, which starts on Monday, August 26, only three-quarters of the singles matches will be played on video. There may be situations where the same call is discarded due to video on one occasion, but is incorrectly abandoned on another occasion because it is not available on another track.

A wider rollout would see tennis take into account many of the growing pains that football has gone through, including a clearer sense of how much is based on subjectivity that a camera can’t eradicate. But tennis creating problems for itself in this way is a tragedy. To keep doing this when there are easy ways to avoid it? A farce.

(Top photo: Frey/TPN via Getty Images)