A controversial overrule decided the second semifinal at the Monte-Carlo Rolex Masters. Nadal claimed that one single point can’t decide an entire match. Goffin should have regrouped despite a massive mistake that the chair umpire made in a key moment of the first set.
MONTE-CARLO – After two disappointing semifinals, hopes are that tomorrow’s final will be an entertaining match, even if Rafael Nadal is the overwhelming favorite to win the title. Ramos Vinolas could experience a letdown after knocking out world No. 1 Andy Murray, dispatching No. 8 ranked Marin Cilic and prevailing over crowd favorite Lucas Pouille in order to reach his first final in a Masters 1000 event. Rafa leads the head-to-head against Ramos Vinolas 2-0; both meetings took place in Barcelona in 2013 and 2014 with Nadal overpowering his countryman 6-3, 6-0 and 7-6, 6-4. Playing Nadal on clay is probably the most difficult task in today’s modern game, especially in a tournament that the Mallorca native won nine times. It is also important to mention that Ramos Vinolas is now a much better player than in 2013 and 2014, when he lost nine matches in a row to his nemesis Fabio Fognini of Italy. Since reaching the quarterfinals at the 2016 French Open, Ramos Vinolas has been edging closer to the top of the game and will crack the top 20 for the first time in his career next week. Rafa dominated his competition the last two times that he played a fellow Spaniard in the Monte-Carlo final: In 2010 he overwhelmed Fernando Verdasco 6-0, 6-1 and in 2011 he prevailed over David Ferrer 6-4, 7-5.
Today’s second semifinal was decided by a crucial overrule by the chair umpire Mourier. The infamous call occurred when Goffin was up a break in the first set and Nadal hit a forehand that was 5 inches long and was correctly called out by the linesman. Nadal thought that the ball was out too and seemed ready to start serving in the next game. Had the umpire not overruled the linesman’s call, Goffin would have been up 4-2. While making a shocking decision, the umpire told Goffin that he wasn’t sure where the actual mark was and the point should have been replayed. Mourier’s attitude definitely contributed to the anger of the Belgian player, who is usually a true gentleman on the tennis court. It is amazing how Mourier made his decision without asking the linesman where the ball had actually landed.
“I gave the point to my opponent many times in the past in case the ball landed on my side of the court, but since that ball was on my opponent’s side, I couldn’t be 100% sure. I had to trust the chair umpire’s decision,” said Nadal after the match. “Rafa is one of the most correct players on the tour, it wasn’t his mistake. It was the chair umpire’s mistake,” explained Goffin, who should have regrouped instead of throwing away the match. After all, the controversial overrule came in the middle of the first set and the Belgian had plenty of time to mentally find his balance again.
Goffin paid for his inexperience in big matches. He should have given Nadal a more competitive match, especially after the extraordinary wins that the Belgian put together throughout the week. After defeating fellow coutryman Steve Darcis in his opening round, Goffin went on to beat clay-court specialist Nicolas Almagro of Spain, top-ten star Dominik Thiem of Austria and, last but not least, world No. 2 and reigning French Open champion Novak Djokovic, whom he had never beaten in five previous matches.
Speaking of the Hawk-Eye system that has been officially in place since 2006 with the exception of the clay-court tournaments, Nadal said: “In my opinion Hawk-Eye would be in big trouble on clay!” In fact, while the system can offer an extremely accurate projection of where the ball lands, the mark left on the clay by the ball itself is probably more reliable.
If Nadal wins tomorrow’s final, he will conquer his 50th title on clay passing Guillermo Vilas for the all-time record. After Real Madrid won “La Decima” in the Champions League final three years ago, it is now Rafa’s turn to win his 10th title in the Principality.
(Article translation provided by T&L Global – Translation & Language Solutions – www.t-lglobal.com )
