You may remember how annoyed Daniella Hantuchova was after she lost her Australian Open semi final to Ana Ivanovic last week.

She barely managed to bring herself to shake the glamorous Serbian’s hand after losing in three sets.

The Slovakian was off the court in what seemed like about 5.7 seconds after creating a new world record for packing a tennis bag.

Hantuchova later tried to excuse her unpleasant demeanour by complaining that Ivanovic was shuffling her feet, and therefore causing her shoes to squeak, just before she was due to serve.

She may or may not have a point there, but I believe a roar, not just a squeak, should have been made of a far more controversial incident deep in the third set.

In fact, it’s unbelievable how more has not been written and said about this incident. Serving with the set on serve at 4-4, but Ivanovic enjoying a break point at 30-40, Hantuchova hit a forehand to the baseline that was called in.

Ivanovic then immediately stopped play and signalled to the umpire she wanted to ‘challenge’, believing the ball was out. Hawk-eye showed that the ball had grazed the outer edge of the baseline.

The umpire then ruled that the point be replayed. Ivanovic went on to win that point, hold her serve the next game and therefore win the match.

Hang on a second. Is it just me, or should you not forfeit the point when you challenge a call and are ultimately proven to be incorrect?

It takes the risk out of the whole equation if you can challenge a call, and still get a second crack at the point if you are wrong.

What makes me even more confused is a similar thing happened early in the second set of the men’s final between Jo-Wilfried Tsonga and Novak Djokovic last night. Djokovic hit a ball close to the baseline that Tsonga challenged. Like Ivanovic, he thought it was out. Also like Ivanovic, Tsonga was proven to be incorrect.

The ball had hit the baseline. However, unlike Ivanovic, Djokovic was awarded the point as a result.

Now, I am yet to received the my ‘Hawk-eye for Dummies’ manual in the mail as yet, so I’m not sure what the exact rule is in these circumstances. But there is absolutely no doubt in my mind that what unfolded in last night’s instance has got to be what the powers that be go with.

If you challenge and you’re wrong, tough luck. So in summary, during the women’s semi, the umpire made her decision based on a rule that, when looked at logically, is totally illogical. Or, she didn’t understand the rule at all and stuffed up big time by not awarding the point to Hantuchova.

If the latter is the case, then the umpire should never be allowed to officiate in a grand slam EVER again. And she should be made to publicly apologise to Hantuchova as well.

This wasn’t the Gin Gin Open where very little is on the line. This was the semi final of a grand slam. And on the ultimately result-defining point of the match.

Either way, something is wrong here. The umpire, or the rule.

Any tennis nuts out there who have a better understanding of the Hawk-eye rules, drop us a line. I’m confused.