Sport Today

> The officiating was lopsided. First... The chair umpire made a bad
> call. Apparently, Novak Djokovic made a good serve, the chair
> umpire overruled the noncall and called the serve out, Djokovic
> challenged the umpire and was proved right by the replay, and
> then, even though Roger Federer did not even touch Djokovic's
> serve, the chair umpire did not give Djokovic the ace. After all
> that... The linesmen made so many bad calls, Djokovic's challenges
> were right six out of seven times.

> The challenge system is working so well, maybe they should improve
> upon that by giving the players some sort of reward for being
> right so many times. Or maybe they should kick the offensive
> official off of the court after a certain number of bad calls.

> Of course they are going to make bad calls, given the error margin
> of the replay system, but a bad chair umpire call and six out of
> seven bad lines calls sounds like somebody did not like Djokovic.

>> The officiating was lopsided. First... The chair umpire made a bad
>> call. Apparently, Novak Djokovic made a good serve, the chair
>> umpire overruled the noncall and called the serve out, Djokovic
>> challenged the umpire and was proved right by the replay, and
>> then, even though Roger Federer did not even touch Djokovic's
>> serve, the chair umpire did not give Djokovic the ace. After all
>> that... The linesmen made so many bad calls, Djokovic's challenges
>> were right six out of seven times.

>> The challenge system is working so well, maybe they should improve
>> upon that by giving the players some sort of reward for being
>> right so many times. Or maybe they should kick the offensive
>> official off of the court after a certain number of bad calls.

>> Of course they are going to make bad calls, given the error margin
>> of the replay system, but a bad chair umpire call and six out of
>> seven bad lines calls sounds like somebody did not like Djokovic.
> your suggestion that it just means everyone hates him is
> intriguing. Insane, but oddly intriguing.

> Path: news.astraweb.com!border2.newsrouter.astraweb.com!npeer03.iad.highwinds-media.com!news.highwinds-media.com!feed-me.highwinds-media.com!postnews.google.com!x37g2000yqj.googlegroups.com!not-for-mail
> From: Pedro Dias <pedrodias snip.net>
> Newsgroups: rec.sport.tennis
> Subject: Re: The 2009 US Open officials intentionally made bad calls against  Djokovic?
> Date: Sun, 13 Sep 2009 18:39:32 -0700 (PDT)
> Organization: http://groups.google.com
> Lines: 24
> Message-ID: <bcfa5adf-c1b7-4850-8068-805c8bae8ca7 x37g2000yqj.googlegroups.com>
> References: <002969d4$0$1822$c3e8da3 news.astraweb.com>
> NNTP-Posting-Host: 165.123.99.42
> Mime-Version: 1.0
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
> Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
> X-Trace: posting.google.com 1252892372 12123 127.0.0.1 (14 Sep 2009 01:39:32 GMT)
> X-Complaints-To: groups-abuse google.com
> NNTP-Posting-Date: Mon, 14 Sep 2009 01:39:32 +0000 (UTC)
> Complaints-To: groups-abuse google.com
> Injection-Info: x37g2000yqj.googlegroups.com; posting-host=165.123.99.42;  posting-account=eymt8woAAAAO7H6smTVyko33K4kM_sBv
> User-Agent: G2/1.0
> X-HTTP-UserAgent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.1; en-US; rv:1.9.1.3)  Gecko/20090824 Firefox/3.5.3,gzip(gfe),gzip(gfe)

> The officiating was lopsided. First... The chair umpire made a bad
> call. Apparently, Novak Djokovic made a good serve, the chair
> umpire overruled the noncall and called the serve out, Djokovic
> challenged the umpire and was proved right by the replay, and
> then, even though Roger Federer did not even touch Djokovic's
> serve,

> the chair umpire did not give Djokovic the ace. After all
> that... The linesmen made so many bad calls, Djokovic's challenges
> were right six out of seven times.

> The challenge system is working so well, maybe they should improve
> upon that by giving the players some sort of reward for being
> right so many times. Or maybe they should kick the offensive
> official off of the court after a certain number of bad calls.

> Of course they are going to make bad calls, given the error margin
> of the replay system,

>> The officiating was lopsided. First... The chair umpire made a
>> bad call. Apparently, Novak Djokovic made a good serve, the
>> chair umpire overruled the noncall and called the serve out,
>> Djokovic challenged the umpire and was proved right by the
>> replay, and then, even though Roger Federer did not even touch
>> Djokovic's serve,

> He did touch it, barely, not that that makes any difference.

>> Of course they are going to make bad calls, given the error
>> margin of the replay system,

> So, you naively accept the error margin given by the
> manufacturer. When did you test it?

> Path: news.astraweb.com!border1.newsrouter.astraweb.com!npeer01.iad.highwinds-media.com!news.highwinds-media.com!feed-me.highwinds-media.com!post01.iad.highwinds-media.com!newsfe03.iad.POSTED!6cb31959!not-for-mail
> From: "DavidW" <no email.provided>
> Newsgroups: rec.sport.tennis
> References: <002969d4$0$1822$c3e8da3 news.astraweb.com>
> Subject: Re: The 2009 US Open officials intentionally made bad calls against Djokovic?
> Lines: 27
> X-Priority: 3
> X-MSMail-Priority: Normal
> X-Newsreader: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.50.4133.2400
> X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.50.4133.2400
> Message-ID: <1rirm.3656$yu3.2531 newsfe03.iad>
> X-Complaints-To: abuse WWWSpace.net
> NNTP-Posting-Date: Mon, 14 Sep 2009 03:06:37 UTC
> Date: Mon, 14 Sep 2009 13:07:09 +1000

>>> The officiating was lopsided. First... The chair umpire made a
>>> bad call. Apparently, Novak Djokovic made a good serve, the
>>> chair umpire overruled the noncall and called the serve out,
>>> Djokovic challenged the umpire and was proved right by the
>>> replay, and then, even though Roger Federer did not even touch
>>> Djokovic's serve,

>> He did touch it, barely, not that that makes any difference.

> The replay showed otherwise.

>>> Of course they are going to make bad calls, given the error
>>> margin of the replay system,

>> So, you naively accept the error margin given by the
>> manufacturer. When did you test it?

> And your point is...

>>>> The officiating was lopsided. First... The chair umpire made a
>>>> bad call. Apparently, Novak Djokovic made a good serve, the
>>>> chair umpire overruled the noncall and called the serve out,
>>>> Djokovic challenged the umpire and was proved right by the
>>>> replay, and then, even though Roger Federer did not even touch
>>>> Djokovic's serve,

>>> He did touch it, barely, not that that makes any difference.

>> The replay showed otherwise.

>>>> Of course they are going to make bad calls, given the error
>>>> margin of the replay system,

>>> So, you naively accept the error margin given by the
>>> manufacturer. When did you test it?

>> And your point is...

>It was a simple question.

>>>> Of course they are going to make bad calls, given the error
>>>> margin of the replay system,

>>> So, you naively accept the error margin given by the
>>> manufacturer. When did you test it?

>> And your point is...

> It was a simple question.

> >> The officiating was lopsided. First... The chair umpire made a bad
> >> call. Apparently, Novak Djokovic made a good serve, the chair
> >> umpire overruled the noncall and called the serve out, Djokovic
> >> challenged the umpire and was proved right by the replay, and
> >> then, even though Roger Federer did not even touch Djokovic's
> >> serve, the chair umpire did not give Djokovic the ace. After all
> >> that... The linesmen made so many bad calls, Djokovic's challenges
> >> were right six out of seven times.

> >> The challenge system is working so well, maybe they should improve
> >> upon that by giving the players some sort of reward for being
> >> right so many times. Or maybe they should kick the offensive
> >> official off of the court after a certain number of bad calls.

> >> Of course they are going to make bad calls, given the error margin
> >> of the replay system, but a bad chair umpire call and six out of
> >> seven bad lines calls sounds like somebody did not like Djokovic.

> > your suggestion that it just means everyone hates him is
> > intriguing. Insane, but oddly intriguing.

> Your idea that everyone hates him is insane, not intriguing,
> just a straw man.

>> >> The officiating was lopsided. First... The chair umpire made
>> >> a bad call. Apparently, Novak Djokovic made a good serve,
>> >> the chair umpire overruled the noncall and called the serve
>> >> out, Djokovic challenged the umpire and was proved right by
>> >> the replay, and then, even though Roger Federer did not even
>> >> touch Djokovic's serve, the chair umpire did not give
>> >> Djokovic the ace. After all that... The linesmen made so
>> >> many bad calls, Djokovic's challenges were right six out of
>> >> seven times.

>> >> The challenge system is working so well, maybe they should
>> >> improve upon that by giving the players some sort of reward
>> >> for being right so many times. Or maybe they should kick the
>> >> offensive official off of the court after a certain number
>> >> of bad calls.

>> >> Of course they are going to make bad calls, given the error
>> >> margin of the replay system, but a bad chair umpire call and
>> >> six out of seven bad lines calls sounds like somebody did
>> >> not like Djokovic.

>> > your suggestion that it just means everyone hates him is
>> > intriguing. Insane, but oddly intriguing.

>> Your idea that everyone hates him is insane, not intriguing,
>> just a straw man.

> No, not so much:

> you suggest that the fact that he had several reviews come out
> in his favor in this match means "somebody did not like
> Djokovic".

> The fact that he has the best record in the ATP as far as
> challenges go

> tells me that this happens in many matches, with many officials.

> So, if we apply your nutty reasoning,

> we are left with many officials "not liking" Djokovic.

> Stands to (un)reason, sonny. Do keep up. By which I mean the
> electroconvulsive therapy, obviously.

> Path: news.astraweb.com!border5.newsrouter.astraweb.com!npeer02.iad.highwinds-media.com!news.highwinds-media.com!feed-me.highwinds-media.com!postnews.google.com!j9g2000vbp.googlegroups.com!not-for-mail
> From: Pedro Dias <pedrodias snip.net>
> Newsgroups: rec.sport.tennis
> Subject: Re: The 2009 US Open officials intentionally made bad calls against  Djokovic?
> Date: Sun, 13 Sep 2009 21:31:01 -0700 (PDT)
> Organization: http://groups.google.com
> Lines: 39
> Message-ID: <d6fde98b-f4e2-4e58-a464-49685f03e91d j9g2000vbp.googlegroups.com>
> References: <002969d4$0$1822$c3e8da3 news.astraweb.com> <bcfa5adf-c1b7-4850-8068-805c8bae8ca7 x37g2000yqj.googlegroups.com>  <00a6a820$0$28942$c3e8da3 news.astraweb.com>
> NNTP-Posting-Host: 66.160.228.144
> Mime-Version: 1.0
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
> Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
> X-Trace: posting.google.com 1252902661 15354 127.0.0.1 (14 Sep 2009 04:31:01 GMT)
> X-Complaints-To: groups-abuse google.com
> NNTP-Posting-Date: Mon, 14 Sep 2009 04:31:01 +0000 (UTC)
> Complaints-To: groups-abuse google.com
> Injection-Info: j9g2000vbp.googlegroups.com; posting-host=66.160.228.144;  posting-account=eymt8woAAAAO7H6smTVyko33K4kM_sBv
> User-Agent: G2/1.0
> X-HTTP-UserAgent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 6.0; en-US; rv:1.9.1.3)  Gecko/20090824 Firefox/3.5.3 (.NET CLR 3.5.30729) AutoPager/0.5.2.2  (http://www.teesoft.info/),gzip(gfe),gzip(gfe)

> The officiating was lopsided. First... The chair umpire made a bad
> call. Apparently, Novak Djokovic made a good serve, the chair
> umpire overruled the noncall and called the serve out, Djokovic
> challenged the umpire and was proved right by the replay, and
> then, even though Roger Federer did not even touch Djokovic's
> serve, the chair umpire did not give Djokovic the ace. After all
> that... The linesmen made so many bad calls, Djokovic's challenges
> were right six out of seven times.

> The challenge system is working so well, maybe they should improve
> upon that by giving the players some sort of reward for being
> right so many times. Or maybe they should kick the offensive
> official off of the court after a certain number of bad calls.

> Of course they are going to make bad calls, given the error margin
> of the replay system, but a bad chair umpire call and six out of
> seven bad lines calls sounds like somebody did not like Djokovic.

>>>>> Of course they are going to make bad calls, given the error
>>>>> margin of the replay system,

>>>> So, you naively accept the error margin given by the
>>>> manufacturer. When did you test it?

>>> And your point is...

>> It was a simple question.

> No... What I am wondering about is the part before the simple
> question, about "na vely accepting the error margin". Or maybe that
> was just drunken gibberish. No problem, just curious.

>>>>>> Of course they are going to make bad calls, given the error
>>>>>> margin of the replay system,

>>>>> So, you naively accept the error margin given by the
>>>>> manufacturer. When did you test it?

>>>> And your point is...

>>> It was a simple question.

>> No... What I am wondering about is the part before the simple
>> question, about "na vely accepting the error margin". Or maybe
>> that was just drunken gibberish. No problem, just curious.

> Have you not accepted the manufacturer's error margin?

>>>>>>> Of course they are going to make bad calls, given the error
>>>>>>> margin of the replay system,

>>>>>> So, you naively accept the error margin given by the
>>>>>> manufacturer. When did you test it?

>>>>> And your point is...

>>>> It was a simple question.

>>> No... What I am wondering about is the part before the simple
>>> question, about "na vely accepting the error margin". Or maybe
>>> that was just drunken gibberish. No problem, just curious.

>> Have you not accepted the manufacturer's error margin?

> Why does it matter? Would it be too low? Too high?
> What is your point?

>>>>>>>> Of course they are going to make bad calls, given the
>>>>>>>> error margin of the replay system,

>>>>>>> So, you naively accept the error margin given by the
>>>>>>> manufacturer. When did you test it?

>>>>>> And your point is...

>>>>> It was a simple question.

>>>> No... What I am wondering about is the part before the simple
>>>> question, about "na vely accepting the error margin". Or
>>>> maybe that was just drunken gibberish. No problem, just
>>>> curious.

>>> Have you not accepted the manufacturer's error margin?

>> Why does it matter? Would it be too low? Too high? What is your
>> point?

> My point is that you have no ***ing idea what the error margin
> is, but you worship the system regardless.