Le  Riyadh P1  was eventful from start to finish, between the rain which disrupted the program, the tensions between the players and Premier Padel, and now… a  controversial point  who marked the  semi-final between Lebrón / Stupaczuck and Augsburger / Cardona .

A crazy exchange… but regular or not?

The scene takes place at  6/4 2/3, 30-40  in favor of  Lebron and Stupa . Cardona is serving, the exchange begins and after a good exchange at the net,  Stupa goes off track  to save an opponent's smash with an almost impossible lob stuck to the wall, which makes any recovery impossible for  Cardona and Augsburger . Result:  Break for Lebrón and Stupa , who take the lead in the set.

But there was a problem: Augsburger, initially resigned, ended up asking for a  video review  explaining that  Stupa leaned on the outside glass of the opposing pitch  to do his thing… which, according to the rules, is forbidden.

The referee  Peter Claeys  first agrees to check the video… but  backtracked  after a few seconds of discussion with  Lebron and Stupa , who reminded him that the request had come much too late and that Cardona had tried to follow up after the fact.

“It’s been an hour! I celebrated the point for a minute and a half!” Stupa exclaims.

Finally, the referee  cancels the review  and the break is confirmed.

So, valid point or not?

To see more clearly,  Josep Azuaga , a renowned referee who also officiated at the tournament, was interviewed by Relief. And for him, there is no debate:

“The rules are clear: a player is not allowed to touch any part of the opponent's track, inside or outside. Stupa leaned on the wall, so Augsburger and Cardona should have won the point.”

Except that here it is,  refereeing in padel is complicated . Azuaga explains that the chair umpire was focused on the trajectory of the ball and could not see Stupa's contact with the glass.

Regarding the video review, he specifies:

“Players have 10 seconds to request a review after the end of the point. In this case, the referee considered that the claim was too late and overturned his decision.”

And he adds an interesting detail:

“The head referee can, at any time, request a review if he has any doubts. Here, he did not do so.”

A turning point in the match

This point was clearly a game changer.  Lebron and Stupa , after confirming their break, managed to  win the second set  and to get out of it at the end of the suspense in the third. On the other side,  Augsburger and Cardona  saw their chance to reach their first final pass by Premier Padel.

Finally,  Lebron and Stupa  almost surprised  Coello and Tapia  in the final, but the number 1s made their rank respected in  winning 6/3 5/7 6/3 .

A debate that revives the question of arbitration

This episode will further fuel the discussion on the refereeing in padel , which still relies heavily on the human eye despite the presence of video. Should Claeys have requested the review himself? Why is the rule of  10 seconds  is it applied with such rigor?

Benjamin Dupouy

I discovered padel directly during a tournament, and frankly, I didn't really like it at first. But the second time, it was love at first sight, and since then, I haven't missed a single match. I'm even ready to stay up until 3am to watch a final of Premier Padel !

On the same subject

Tags