The Rusedski Rant and its aftermath...

Greg Rusedski called him a “wanker”, and after reading his version of events, I’m afraid that I’m inclined to agree.

I mean, what was he thinking???

Good Grief!!

Grim
[sup]The SDMB’s mildest ranter[/sup]

The person at fault here is the pusboil in the crowd.

Rusedski should have continued to play the point until the actual umpire had said something. He was done over by the prick in the grandstand, not by the ref.

Do they usually, at the end of a point? I thought that it was only the line judges who called the points (if the ball was out).

Manchester Ushited, eh? That alone is worthy of calling the guy a “wanker.”

As for Rudeski, I can sympathize to a point. In the heat of battle, I’m sure it’s not easy to tell if it’s the umpire or some guy in the stands making the call, especially if it’s coming from the same direction. He should have tried to keep some semblence of control, though.

At the end of every point they reprise (vocally) the score.

That fan was a fucking idiot. Furthermore, that can’t-replay-the-point-if-a-fan-distracts-you rule is ridiculous. I empathise with Greg, but at the same time, that particular point wasn’t that important to Rusedski, being 5-3 up in the third.

But Rusedski did make John McEnroe look like the Dalai Lama out there… :wink:

Right, but it’s quite possible Rusedski thought the umpire just hadn’t gotten to it yet (y’know, he was busy doing his high chair stuff).

But how do you know it’s the end of the point?
Because a line-judge calls it out.

You can see that both players played half-hearted shots after the call. They both believed the point was over.

So the spectator should have been thrown out (and possibly charged with a breach of the peace), the umpire should have ordered the point replayed and Rusedski should have used more self-control.

Go on Tim :wink:

I whole heartedly agree on points 1 and two, but as for the replay, you’ll never please everyone. Whoever loses out on the point will end up arguing.

Maybe they should be able to vent their frustration on the cocksucker who thought he was entitled to make the call…

I second the ‘wanker in the crowd’ sentiment. Doesn’t “I didn’t understand the rules and I thought the point would be replayed” sound a little too convenient after the event? Note from the second link in the OP, that he’d already been to the French Open and made a prick of himself at a Venus Williams match too.

The reason why Rusedski thought it was an official call was because it was a single, loud voice, not the general noise you normally get from a crowd. He still played the ball because the call came in the middle of his swing, but he’d turned his back before the ball came back over the net. There’s no rule telling the umpire he had to replay the point for crowd disturbance (in contrast to the power he has to overrule a bad call from a line judge). Players routinely stop when they hear an “out” call from a line judge, they don’t always wait for the umpire to confirm that the point has ended, but there is often argument if the umpire disagrees with the line call and replaying the point is often (but not always) the solution.

Lots of players have boiled over far worse than Rusedski did (including John McEnroe IMHO) and I don’t think the fine was too little, but still he had time to compose himself before the start of the next game and was serving for the set. That’s where he went wrong. As he said himself, we all have bad days at the office and most are not shown on TV.

I think he’d be able to get over this incident easily enough except that people are going to keep remind him of it over and over.

I think if Roddick had decided not to hit the ball back after the call (the point therefore going to Rusedski) he probably would’ve ranted more than Rusedski did and go absolutely nuts whilst shaking Lars Graf outta his chair.

You are an evil man.

The tirade was cut off by adverts. Anybody has a link to it?

(yes, I know… excuse my dark side)

LAM Online

Sorry, haven’t found a audio clip yet, but this has the quotes and background.