Bagel Bites: No, the defense is RONG

Internet ephemera from the tennis world and beyond. Have something you want to include? Join the Discord  – we have a really nice and active community growing there – or hmu on Bluesky.

• COCO GAUFF ON THE PLAYER'S BOX COCO GAUFF ON THE PLAYER'S BOX:

• The Australian Open announced its prize money pool of $111.5 million Australian Dollars, which is a 16% total bump. This is a record for the Australian Open, but with how the AUD is trading, it's still less than the US Open, Wimbledon, and the French Open. This is why I don't love the "record prize money" headlines.
• Here is your Australian Open commentary line-up for ESPN and notably...no BG, Shriver or Cahill?
• This rule should absolutely exist and the only reason it doesn't is because four federations need a carrot (stick?) to keep their own in check:

• A not so minor frustration I have with the sport of professional tennis is how openly and brazenly wrong commentators are completely fine with being regarding the actual rules of tennis. You played the sport! You should know the rules! You commentate the sport. YOU SHOULD KNOW THE RULES. And if you don't, the network should always have a Rules Expert on the ready to jump in and explain. I have never watched another sport where the booth is speculating (at best) or just making up completely (at worst) the rules of the game as much as tennis. I'm not talking about arguing about judgment calls. I'm talking about just straight up black-and-white rules.

• Years of this has led to a complete breakdown in trust of the officiating system and weaponizes what is totally fine fan behavior – getting mad at refs and having your own interpretation of calls – mass stupidity, where everyone thinks they're an expert (bad), everyone thinks they are right (bad), and there's no accountability for anything (VERY BAD). Yet another entry for HOW SPORTS EXPLAINS THE WORLD.
• So to that end, let's – as Caroline Wozniacki would say – go to school: A few days ago, Flavio Cobolli and and Stan Wawrinka played in Perth and this happened:

• I looked into the rulebook and asked some actual umpiring experts and let's explain why this this was not a hindrance:
  • A key tenet to tennis is YOU CANNOT HINDER YOURSELF. This makes sense. Otherwise we'd be having players drop tennis balls all the time to get a do-over, right? That makes sense.
  • But also: YOU CANNOT HINDER YOUR OPPONENT. Duh, right? We're all on the same page here.
  • The issue here: The ball falls out of Flavio's pocket as he's preparing to return a shot that Stan already hit. Instead of hitting the ball back to Stan, FLAVIO STOPS THE POINT.
  • So who was hindered by the ball falling out of Flavio's pocket? Not Stan. He was waiting for Flavio to hit the ball back. There was nothing to hinder. But Flavio stopping play in response to the ball falling out? He's trying to say he hindered himself. Hence: No call. He let the ball go and Stan wins the point.
  • Now, IF Flavio had hit the ball back to Stan instead, THEN the dropped ball could have been a hindrance to STAN and a let would be called. It seems like a "technicality" but when you break it down, the rule makes sense, right?
  • I didn't know this was how the rules interacted! So I read the rulebook and asked some experts. And until I did those two things, I JUST SHUT UP.
  • If you want further illustration, here are some case examples from page 203 of the ATP Rulebook – if you'll notice, they seem to conflict. But if you read with an eye towards harmonizing them, the explanation above makes sense:
    • Case: Clothing or equipment (excluding the racquet) that is worn or carried by a player, including a ball from his pocket, falls to the court during play.
      Decision: The Chair Umpire shall call a let and replay the point. He shall also inform the player that if the Chair Umpire makes a second call of let, it will result in a loss of point.
    • Case: A player’s shoe comes off during play and is laying on the court.
      Decision: The default position of the Chair Umpire should be that the point continues, unless the Chair Umpire is convinced that the opponent is hindered and in that case, a let could be called.
    • Case: As a player is in the process of hitting a volley into the net, is hat falls off. He then claims a let for hindrance.
      Decision: No let. A player may not hinder himself. A let should only be called when the opponent could have been hindered.
  • TL;DR: Julie was right.
• No harm no foul, Flavio. You are 100% forgiven because this video has brightened up my week:

• I've been busy with life stuff for the last couple of days, so I didn't see a lick of tennis. Regardless, here are my quick thoughts on seeing the scores:
  • Nice to see United Cup get some shock upsets in group play, something I think it lacked in past years. Australia came through with a 2-1 win over the Czechs thanks to Alex de Minaur's 6-4, 6-1 win over Jakub Mensik. They win the Group, but the Czechs will also move to the QFs as the best runner-up in Sydney.

• Belgium also pulled off an upset to win their group, sweeping Canada behind Zizou Bergs' 6-4, 6-2 win over an ailing Felix Auger-Aliassime, and Elise Mertens beating Vicky Mboko in three sets.
• Perth wasn't immune to the upsets either: Team Competition Giants Italy will not advance to the QFs. Arthur Rinderknech saved MPs to beat Flavio Cobolli to spur on a 2-1 win for France. That result meant Argentina would finish as the Perth runner-up with the best record and advance to the QFs, which France and Italy are out.
• With that, the Perth Knockouts are set: USA vs. Greece and Switzerland vs. Argentina. Group A winners USA were supposed to play the best runner-up, but per the rules, since USA and Argentina already faced in group play, the match-ups were flipped. They play today.
• Over in Sydney, there's just one tie on Wednesday: Poland vs. Netherlands, with a chance to clinch advancement for the Poles.
• WELCOME BACK GRIGOR. (ATP)

• Genuinely: Can someone who gambles explain this to me – doesn't the fact that it's secretive information make it MORE problematic for betting as it inflates the market b/c of imperfect information? Like, if it was done out int he open, there wouldn't be an information advantage and the betting lines would basically be pointless. No?
• Sorry for the abbreviated Bagel but I gotta run! Enjoy the tennis!