Dein erstes Forum » rees rely on players to help them

PARIS - Hard-serving John Isner was broken a total of once through his first three French Open matches. His opponent Sunday, Tomas Berdych, needed all of one game Sunday to equal that total, breaking Isner at love to begin their fourth-round encounter. As omens go, it was telling. The 10th-seeded Isner failed in his bid to become the first American man in the quarter-finals at Roland Garros since Andre Agassi in 2003, losing serve once in each set of a 6-4, 6-4, 6-4 defeat against No. 6 Berdych of the Czech Republic. "It was big. I mean, it wasnt huge, but I started off a little slow," said Isner, best known for winning the longest match in tennis history, 70-68 in the fifth set, at Wimbledon in 2010. "Just wasnt as lively — everything really — at the very beginning of the match." The 6-foot-10 Isner, who lives in Florida, was the last of the eight U.S. men in the draw. No American man has made it to the quarterfinals at any Grand Slam tournament since 2011. There is one woman from the United States left in singles at the French Open: No. 15 Sloane Stephens, who faces No. 4 Simona Halep of Romania in the fourth round Monday. Isner recognizes this is a fallow period for a nation that produced the likes of Agassi, Pete Sampras and Jim Courier not too long ago, along with other past Grand Slam champions such as Bill Tilden, Don Budge, Arthur Ashe, John McEnroe and Jimmy Connors. Right now, there are no Americans in the top 10 of the ATP rankings; Isner, who is 11th, is his countrys only member of the top 60. "Im the No. 1 American now, which isnt as cool as being the No. 1 American in the 90s or something, or the 2000s," the 29-year-old Isner said. "Its pretty neat to say, but its nothing I would brag about or anything like that." Isner has lost seven consecutive matches against top-10 opponents and he never really got into the match against Berdych, the Wimbledon runner-up and a French Open semifinalist in 2010. Berdych broke again to open the second set, then waited until Isner was serving at 1-all in the third to get that sets lone break. "Quick breaks in each of the sets," said Berdych, who erased the two break points he faced. "Thats something which really helps through all the match, especially with a guy like John." By the end, Isner was muttering to himself between points. He slammed his racket against his leg, bending the frame, then folded the handle in half and chucked it behind his changeover bench at Court Suzanne Lenglen. He was outaced by Berdych, 11-7, and wound up with more than twice as many unforced errors, 29-13. "He was a lot better than me today, and thats really all it was to that match out there," Isner said. "He was just the better player." ___ Follow Howard Fendrich on Twitter at http://twitter.com/HowardFendrich Bennie Logan Jersey . -- Blake Griffin scored 32 points and grabbed eight rebounds, DeAndre Jordan had 14 points and 22 rebounds and the Los Angeles Clippers outlasted the Golden State Warriors 98-96 on Thursday night to take a 2-1 lead in their first-round series. Bennie Logan Titans Jersey . -- When the Los Angeles Kings are on top of their formidable defensive game, they revel in the silence they can create in a frustrated road arena. http://www.titansstoreonline.com/. -- Jose Bautista never worries about hitting homers during the regular season. Luke Stocker Jersey . And fellow Leaf, Jake Gardiner, hiking in Whistler. Harold Landry Jersey . -- Jonas Hiller is cautiously confident he has kicked his vertigo.The World Cup can be glorious for many reasons. On Sunday it stepped up to educate viewers. Arjen Robben was fouled in the box deep into added time in the match against Mexico. The key word in that sentence is fouled. Defender Rafa Marquez stepped in and stood on the foot of Robben in the penalty area. At no level of this sport, from youth football to the World Cup, is a defender allowed to step on an opponents foot. None. It was a clear penalty. 100 times out of 100 a referee should give it. However, there was a huge outrage on social media once the decision was made. Just after contact, Robben kicked his left foot into the air and threw his arms back, flopping to the floor. Robben cheat then was trending. But is he a cheat? Let us look at the facts from Sunday, ignoring what some people think he is like as a professional. Robben, who earlier in the game was fouled and didnt get a penalty for staying on his feet, falls to the ground theatrically. However, as he is falling to the ground the real incident has already happened. The defender, Marquez, has misjudged his duties; he is too late and has dived in late and connected with the foot of Robben. It is the referees duty at this time to decide if this is a foul. His decision should not be clouded by Robbens reaction. This, of course, is easier said than done. A football referees job is one of the hardest in professional sports yet, for some, there is an expectation for him to be judge and jury in cases such as this. Was it a foul? Did the player dive? Here is what you need to know about these questions. Referees are VERY good at deciding what is and what is not a foul. They are not, and should not be, VERY good at deciding if a player is diving. To come up with this verdict you have to measure intent. This is VERY dangerous territory. For some, Robben was cheating in this scenario. For some, his actions are worse than Marquez, even though the skipper of the Mexican national team rashly DIVED in and committed a foul in the final minutes of a monumental football match. The verdict is in on Marquez. It was a foul. So, what of Robben? Those throwing around the word cheat must be sure the player had intent and desire to cheat the referee or opponent. Whenever someone is guilty of something those accusing must always be clear of the rule itself and it is worth quoting the rules on simulation which comes under FIFAs Law 12 on fouls and misconduct. Unsporting Behaviour (Simulation) Directive: If blatant simulatiion, caution.dddddddddddd. If minimal contact, consider cautioning player. For the worst part of the crime - something they call blatant simulation - the guardians of the game instructs referees to give a yellow card; exactly the same card that players receive for a poor challenge or time wasting, for example. When such a moment happens, that directly impacts a match it is worth noting UEFAs stance explained in article 10 under 1C on suspensions applied to misconduct: Suspension for two competition matches or for a specified period for acting with the obvious intent to cause any match official to make an incorrect decision or supporting his error of judgement and thereby causing him to make an incorrect decision. That rule was applied in 2009 when UEFA banned Arsenals Eduardo for simulation against Celtic in the Champions League. However, as this case proved, it is very difficult to judge whether a player has obvious intent to dive. Arsenal rightly challenged the two game ban applied to their striker and it was overturned. We are now at a stage in 2014 where we are evaluating how every footballer goes down to the ground under a challenge with many rushing to the assumption that they are diving cheats. This is not helping anyone. As Arsenal proved when they overturned the Eduardo ban, accusing someone of intentionally trying to simulate is very dangerous. Asking a referee to do the same is even more moronic and the game is already at a crossroads with this as fouls are now being missed based on what happens directly afterwards. And this is the biggest concern. Fouls, seen by referees, are being missed because of the outrage over simulation. Fouls are already being missed as it is. Not through incompetence but because the game is so difficult to officiate. Referees rely on players to help them with this and if a player falls down theatrically under a legitimate foul, no ones attention should be turned to the latter. This, of course, is as likely as officials missing clear penalties and players simulating. The clear obsession with this area of the sport is growing and growing, particularly from a crowd who dont watch the game as often. Despite the obsession, the crime remains a difficult one to judge. Perhaps, then, energy is better used elsewhere? Dont count on it. For example, if Robben had been booked for diving, would there have been such an outrage when Netherlands would have been denied a clear penalty in the dying minutes? Not even close. ' ' '