Jaggy1876 wrote:

---

Yes Jodie has won Buzernescu heavily taped and visibly upset as she leaves the court. Jodie looks a bit down about it as well to be fair. With Brengle out its a great opportunity for Jodie but Coco got to be heavy favourite for the title now.

---

 Well, I picked out Alison Van U earlier on this week (although I hadn't even seen Coco so it's not based on much) but I'll stick with her over Coco.

(Although I seriously hope Jodie causes a mega upset and puts her out) 

the addict wrote:

---

L16:- Alicia Barnett (GBR) / Samantha Murray Sharan (GBR) CR 201 (102+99) [1] def Alycia Parks (USA) / Alana Parnaby (AUS) 494 (203+291) 6-4 7-6(3)

Maybe one of our roving reporters saw the incident and can correct me if I am wrong - I was watching the livestream with the sound off.
It appears that, with the score at 30-40*, Sam and Lissey contested a point where their opponents serve appeared to be long. After an argument they replayed the point, and Parks/Parnaby took the point anyway and the game. Sam and Lissey contested that point as well, possibly because Parnaby may have touched the net on her follow-through to a smash (although I didn't see what happened). The referee was called, and after a while the point was awarded to Sam and Lissey, so now deuce. But Parks and Parnaby won the deciding point so all this was to no avail !

---

First post for a while but was there yesterday so thought I'd try and clear this up!

Parnaby serving at 40-30, her first served looked long but umpire claimed she couldn't see it due to Barnett blocking her view at the net.  Murray's return was out but the Brits stayed where they were, waiting for the 2nd serve.  Not sure why there were no service line judges, would have thought a $100K is a high enough level tournament to have them, but the call was down to the umpire and she decided the point was to be re-played since she couldn't see the ball clearly.  Probably the correct call, but Parnaby unhappy since the umpire just went off the reaction of the Brits who basically managed to convince her the serve was long which seems a dodgy precedent to set.  Anyway, no harm done, replay first serve.

On the replayed point Parnaby nails a smash at net which has no chance of being returned and let out a big 'come on', but the ball hadn't hit the back fence yet so the Brits immediately appealed for a hindrance call.  Umpire hesitant to agree, but British pair insistent and eventually supervisor called.  Once the situation is explained I suppose by the letter of the law the point wasn't officially dead, so supervisor sides with the Brits and gives them the point due to a hindrance penalty.

Parnaby/Parks stiffed over twice in a row really, since by the letter of the law they should have won the point the first time around, even if the serve was probably long if the umpire couldn't see it clearly enough. Then next point rules followed exactly at the detriment of common sense.  Fortunately they won the deciding deuce point, so it was 10 minutes of aggro for nothing.  A humorous moment followed in the tie break a few minutes later when Parnaby deliberately delayed her celebration after winning a point until the ball had finally hit the fence and come to a stop.

JonH comes home wrote:

---

My view - if there is prizeMoney and the players have entered and thus taken up a space, they have an obligation to see it through , tk the organisers , to other players and to the fans that might be interested in the event

They lift all be tenuous obligations (not many fans, organisers dont really care etc - I dont know) but there we go.

And it all helps propel us towards the view that doubles doesnt matter - self fulfilling prophecy.

I accept doubles will always be the poor cousin but I think overall it deserves more than being an event for old singles players who cant cut the mustard.

But I realise I am in a big minority !

---

 Slightly baffled by the snobbery by some against doubles given it is the form of the game played most recreationally.