Huh?

Sports Illustrated posts this about that disputed call on Jelena Jankovic's serve in the semifinal:

In the most talked-about fault of the tournament, Jankovic was a point away from a 5-2 lead over No. 2 Justine Henin-Hardenne in the second set Friday. Jankovic had already won the first set, and was on the verge of a huge upset when her serve was ruled out.

The 19th-seeded Jankovic began questioning chair umpire Enric Molina, looking for an opinion. "Did you see it?" she asked him.

They bickered for a moment and Molina told her, "I'm not a machine."

Jankovic had one of her two instant-replay challenges remaining, but did not use it. Flustered, she then double-faulted, dropped the final 10 games and lost 4-6, 6-4, 6-0.

After the match, Jankovic seemed more upset that Molina did not give her guidance on whether to challenge the call, rather than the ruling itself.

"I'm telling him he has to be involved in the calls," she said. "He can see better. It was a tough point."

I can understand why she's upset -- but not at HIM. What is Jankovic thinking? That the Chair Umpire should ADVISE the players on this decision?

Let's get real. Maybe he'd love to. But what if he was wrong? He'd feel terrible, and you'd be madder yet at him. Plus, then what happens when he advises both players in a match and one later accuses him of helping you win by deliberately giving her bad advice and you good advice?

Sorry, it doesn't take an Einstein to forsee such problems with what Jankovic wanted.

Frankly, I bet she was really ticked off at the rule but afraid to knock it and just found the Chair to be a safe scapegoat.

The only part of a tennis match that is supposed to be a matter of pure luck/guesswork (like choosing Door Number One, Door Number Two, or Door Number Three) is the opening coin toss. The rest should depend on skilled perfomance. If you make the shots, you win the point.

It's the media that wants to inject all this artificial, storytelling chancy gambling for drama where it doesn't belong -- by forcing players to play Russian Roulette with their decisions of whether to challenge a call.

What if that serve had been in? Then this meddling-media imposed rule cheated Jankovic out of a big point and injected its influence heavily into the outcome of the match. That's not right. That's not fair play.

And THAT'S the problem. Dave Winship commented on this a while back in Hawkeye: Using the right technology in the wrong way.

Instead of ushering in a new era of fairness and accuracy, the fanfare ... has produced nothing but a half-cocked Hawk-Eye which isn't even under the control of the umpire. It's as if the window of opportunity has been opened only for officials to put up some eye-catching curtains. The powerlessness of the umpires has been compounded by the inhibition of players disposed to save their challenges for potentially critical moments late in each set. The arbitrariness of limited challenges produces intrigue and strategy, but players will soon feel short-changed when they realise that inconsistency and unfairness have merely been reconstructed when they could have been eradicated. ...Hawk-Eye should be a discretionary tool in the hands of chair umpires empowered to view an instant replay to resolve doubtful calls whenever they see fit. On clay courts, umpires already respond to limitless appeals by players. ... Instant replay technology is too good an opportunity for tennis to waste. The various authorities should be constantly reminded that the goal is the elimination of erroneous calls and there should be nothing else on the agenda.

I agree.

So, let's not blame the chair. It's the players' unions, the tournaments, and the media they cater to -- a media so jaded it needs to spice up sports with juicy extraneous controversy like this. They say it's necessary to keep us interested, but I suspect that they're the ones in need of this boosted stimulation.