What's the commentator talking about? The out call came as she hit it. I don't think it affected her strike on the ball. She also challenged, lost it, so she lost the point twice essentially. I don't see what's to complain about.
It was called out as she hit it, her shot went into the net and the referee said the ball was in and hawkeye proved it was in, end of match, no beef about that.
It is a problem, because ,refeere's in all sport's are given too much power, when player's are wrong they are punished what about when the refeere's are wrong are they punished ?
Garcia shouldn’t have challenged the call. If she didn’t challenge the call after the line person called it out, they would’ve had to replay the point. But she decided to challenge the call after the chair said it was good and that’s why she lost the point.
I do not think you are right. The chair said it was good. Rybakina wins the point. The replay just confirmed the chair was right, and therefore Rybakina won the match. The chair said the out call came after Garcia hit the ball. No hindrance. Now, we need Hawkeye replayed with audio simultaneously played to determine if there indeed was a potential hindrance. Jmho.
@@richardhargraves5788 You are the one who isn't right. The call clearly affected Garcia's shot and point should have been replayed regardless of Garcia challenging the call.
Maybe you are right. But Garcia was out of position even if she did somehow make that shot without the call, Rybakina would have put the ball away in the next shot for sure
❗The commentator had better invest in a new hearing aid and a new pair of glasses. The call did not affect García, the umpire's decision clearly was correct.
Wow, it’s funny how the commentators are absolutely clueless when it comes to a sport they should know pretty well, since they’re commentating on it. This is just like the Radwanska match in Doha, where Nouni told her after her failed challenge, ”you cannot have two chances to win the point.“
![KFF Singapore Badminton Open 2024 | Alfian/Ardianto (INA) [7] vs. Liang/Wang (CHN) | QF](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/g0QGafkoT2o/mqdefault.jpg)
What's the commentator talking about? The out call came as she hit it. I don't think it affected her strike on the ball. She also challenged, lost it, so she lost the point twice essentially. I don't see what's to complain about.
Umpires just like to screw Rybakina over.
❗I think, what every player should learn from this is to always hit the ball back and *assume* that it was good.
It was called out as she hit it, her shot went into the net and the referee said the ball was in and hawkeye proved it was in, end of match, no beef about that.
the problem is that garcia shouldnt have challenged the call.
It is a problem, because ,refeere's in all sport's are given too much power, when player's are wrong they are punished what about when the refeere's are wrong are they punished ?
years later and this rule hasnt changed for the better.
Why should it change?
So harsh on Garcia, how is that not hinderance.
No its not. The call was milliseconds AFTER she hit the ball into the net. Watch it again.
@@AnonYmous-ez4es its not abt timings. It about how it affected th shot.
@@aloof25 It's all about timing; since the call was after she hit the ball, it didn't affect the shot.
The call came when she hit it, no hinderance.
@@funglip It did affect her shot. You watch again. It was clear hindrance.
She has a point.
A lot of human errors. That's why they introduced line technology.
Who memba when Rybakina was Russian, I memba
She is still russian ahahahah and always be
Who remembers when Ukraine was Russian , I memba
Who remember the day ukraine support Israel to kill innocent Palestinian in their mosque.
What is memba .. is it for remember?
@@Straightforward786I think it's Russian ??
Garcia shouldn’t have challenged the call. If she didn’t challenge the call after the line person called it out, they would’ve had to replay the point. But she decided to challenge the call after the chair said it was good and that’s why she lost the point.
I do not think you are right. The chair said it was good. Rybakina wins the point. The replay just confirmed the chair was right, and therefore Rybakina won the match. The chair said the out call came after Garcia hit the ball. No hindrance. Now, we need Hawkeye replayed with audio simultaneously played to determine if there indeed was a potential hindrance. Jmho.
@@richardhargraves5788 You are the one who isn't right. The call clearly affected Garcia's shot and point should have been replayed regardless of Garcia challenging the call.
Maybe you are right. But Garcia was out of position even if she did somehow make that shot without the call, Rybakina would have put the ball away in the next shot for sure
@@Jitesh108 a miss is possible
@@black_nebula sure but Rybakina did have control of the point…
❗The commentator had better invest in a new hearing aid and a new pair of glasses. The call did not affect García, the umpire's decision clearly was correct.
Wow, it’s funny how the commentators are absolutely clueless when it comes to a sport they should know pretty well, since they’re commentating on it. This is just like the Radwanska match in Doha, where Nouni told her after her failed challenge, ”you cannot have two chances to win the point.“
Radwanska was correct then, it wasn’t her fault the line judge made a mistake
Claramente a atrapalhou.