The world of international tennis has been shaken by a new controversy that exploded a few days after the controversial match between Luciano Darderi and the Australian Rinky Hijikata. What initially seemed like just a questionable refereeing decision quickly turned into a media sensation that now involves coaches, officials and even the ATP.
It all started during the match point of the match played at Indian Wells 2026. At that crucial moment, Darderi suddenly stopped during the exchange, convinced he had heard external interference. However, the chair umpire judged the episode as a “self-provoked hindrance”, awarding the decisive point to Hijikata.
The decision immediately provoked furious reactions among fans and commentators. Many spectators present at the stadium expressed doubts about the dynamics of the episode, while the video of the match point began to circulate rapidly on social media, fueling suspicions and heated discussions among tennis fans.
For several days, Darderi’s team remained silent, allowing the controversy to develop without official comment. However, in the last few hours the historic coach of the Italian tennis player, Marco Gulisano, has decided to publicly break the silence with statements that have further inflamed the debate.
During an impromptu conference with some sports journalists, Gulisano made very serious accusations against the chair umpire of the match. According to him, the decision made on match point was not only wrong, but potentially influenced by external factors that deserve a thorough investigation.
The first element presented by the technician concerns a slow motion video recorded by a spectator in the stands. According to Gulisano, the clip clearly demonstrates that at the moment of Hijikata’s blow no significant noise can be heard coming from the audience or other external sources.
In the video, which went viral in a few hours, Darderi is seen interrupting the action and looking around with evident confusion. Despite this, the referee immediately interpreted the gesture as a self-generated distraction by the Italian player, without consulting the supervisor or reviewing the available images.
The second alleged clue presented by the coach concerns a possible previous professional relationship between the referee and members of Hijikata’s staff. Gulisano claims that the referee would have worked in the past in Australian challenger tournaments together with a collaborator of the tennis player.
According to what was stated, the two would have met during the Brisbane Challenger 2025. The coach even showed a blurry but recognizable photograph that would portray the referee and an Australian coach shaking hands during an event linked to that tournament.
“I’m not saying it’s definitive proof,” explained Gulisano, “but it’s an element that raises legitimate questions about the impartiality of the decision taken in such a delicate moment of the match.” His words immediately attracted the attention of sports media and analysts.
The third point of the accusation concerns the management of Hijikata’s box behavior during the match. According to Darderi’s team, on at least two occasions very loud screams could be heard coming from the Australian’s corner during the most intense exchanges of the match.
Gulisano claims that these shouts, including some particularly loud “come ons”, were not sanctioned in the slightest by the referee. On the contrary, the only situation considered as possible interference would have been the one that directly penalized the Italian tennis player in the decisive moment.
The accusations quickly reached the top of the professional circuit. The ATP and the organizers of the BNP Paribas Open have officially received the documentation presented by Darderi’s team, including videos, photographs and testimonies collected in the hours following the match.
After an urgent internal meeting, a decision came that surprised much of the tennis world. The organizers announced that the entire episode will be reviewed by an independent commission made up of senior supervisors and video analysis specialists.
The commission’s task will be to analyze every detail of the offending match point. Television footage, audience recordings, communications between referee and supervisor and any other useful material will be examined to clarify whether the decision was correct.
Meanwhile, a significant precautionary measure has also been taken. The referee involved in the case has been temporarily suspended from all remaining matches of the 2026 Indian Wells tournament until the official investigation is completed.
This decision immediately divided public opinion. Some believe the suspension is necessary to ensure transparency, while others say it may represent an overreaction based on allegations yet to be fully verified.
According to ATP rules, if the investigation demonstrates serious misconduct, the referee could face extremely severe sanctions. These would also include the possibility of a permanent ban on refereeing ATP Masters 1000 tournaments.
In the meantime, Luciano Darderi will also have the opportunity to present his version of events. The Italian tennis player has been officially invited to participate in an online hearing scheduled for March 9, where he will be able to provide further evidence and explanations.
Sources close to the player say that the team is preparing new video materials and testimonies that could strengthen the theory of external interference. The stated objective is not only to contest the decision, but to obtain greater transparency in arbitration procedures.
Whatever the outcome of the investigation, this episode has already opened a much wider debate on the role of technology, video review and interference management in modern tennis, especially in the most decisive moments of matches.
With the official proceedings now underway and the attention of the international media focused on the case, the Darderi-Hijikata affair could become one of the most discussed refereeing scandals of recent years on the professional circuit. The tennis world now awaits definitive answers.
