Discussion in 'Adult League & Tournament Talk' started by Cindysphinx, May 15, 2010.
They are to be available to help settle disputes whether it is about the score or a ruling.
And once you ask, it's too late for anything to be done about it.
Maybe until while leaving a playable ball on match point down, you make a call in good faith and a roving umpire hands the match to your opponent. I wonder how you or Serena would deal with it.
With a umpire on court can I not request confirmation, since according to some here the CODE allows you to do so with your opponent?
Just because the call is in good faith, doesn't mean that the player that hit the ball should have to live with a bad call.
You can request confirmation, but once you make an appeal, the umpire can't overrule the call.
Ripper, you have to keep in mind the whole purpose of line-calling: To get it right.
This is why players are allowed to ask their opponents for help on calls they didn't see well.
This is why roving umpires can overrule for something that happens right in front of their eyes, but not something based on a player's appeal.
Anyway, to answer your question . . . If I were down match point, a ball bounced near the baseline and I called it out and the roving umpire called it in, I would be hugely embarrassed. I would believe the roving umpire was more likely correct than I was, given that I was scrambling to play the ball and she was not.
I would then go to the net and shake hands and hope like heck that nobody who knew me saw that particular debacle!
My point is what if you are not scrambling... the ball lands right in front of you... you see the ball as being clearly OUT and you catch the ball with your racket. It is not likey you are going to make a bad call with a roving umpire on the court. Yet the point would be handed to your opponent along with the match... "are you kidding me on matchpoint?"
Hmmm... these words seem fimilar to me.
And I am pretty sure Serena would not take it as well as you.
Thanks for the clarification... so what would the purpose of the confirmation be?
What does Serena have to do with this?
Agreed but if the ball the player hit is returnable... you are punishing the person who made the call in good faith (who I would argue, still believes they made the correct call).
On an unplayable ball I totally agree with your ruling...
I just like to bring her into any conversation it aways seems to spice things up. I am going to let you have the last word... (we are now just going in circles, and you are not going to change my mind nor I yours) as long as it does not require a response from me. We are from different viewpoints on this topic... you have what you feel are the rules to validate your point (and probably correctly so). And I view it as what I feel is best for the game, there may be rules in place... but they are not aways best for the game and sometimes you need to do what is right and just not blindly following the rules.
Wow, you mean that the rules punish a player that calls a ball OUT that was really IN? Heaven forbid!!
We are talking about honest mistakes... and the third party could be wrong.
I just wanted to chime in with one last response... I was thinking how I handle instances where I make a call and realize I made a mistake.
On a return of serve when I call a playable ball OUT... I correct myself and offer my opponent 2 serves. If on the other hand... for a ball that is in play and I call a shot OUT that I realize is IN (playable or not)... I always give the point to my opponent because of my grievious error, and I always offer an apology along with it.
My issue is in this case... the player honestly believes they made the correct call and is punished for it. If the ball is unplayable take the point... but if not I believe it is fair to replay the point. And I am not a proponent of replaying points but in this case I think it is the fairest resolution.
Ok now I am done... I think.
Ripper, you indicated that you don't live in the US, and I gather that you've neither read the Code nor feel bound by it wherever it is you live.
Is there some equivalent of the Code where you live? I ask because the ITF rules seem to say very little about unofficiated line calling -- beyond adopting the provisions of the Code about unofficiated line calling.
The Friend at Court preamble says this:
The following Rules of Tennis and Cases and Decisions are the official
rules of the International Tennis Federation (ITF), of which the United
States Tennis Association (USTA) is a member. USTA Comments have
the same weight and force in USTA tournaments as do ITF Cases and
When a match is played without officials, The Code shall apply in any
situation not covered by the ITF Rules of Tennis.
Look your position is a nice one. Why not just play by the rules? They are fair and they work. If a cop pulls you over for speeding and gives you a warning do you pay the fine anyway?
If you are analogizing the cop is pulling me over for not speeding and giving me a ticket or at least according to my speedometer I was not speeding. Could there be something wrong with their radar gun or maybe they have the wrong car?
And I agree for the most point the rules are fair and work... I just have issue with this one. Like any sport let the players decide the game... officals should be present but invisible until needed, and in tennis I would suggest they are only needed when solicated.
Your argument presumes that the official overules a player's call without being absolutely sure that the player made the wrong call.
I would argue that the player, who is biased (if they admit it or not) and busy actually trying to play tennis is in a poorer position to make a call than an official. Since the rules for unofficiated matches make it clear that any doubt must be resolved in favor of your opponent, then you shouldn't be mistakenly calling "playable" balls out.
Think of it from the other player's standpoint. "Gee, every ball I hit near the lines this guy calls out. Wow - there's another one! Wait a second, the roving official overuled it! Finally a little justice! There's one point for me - too bad I can't get the other ones back too"
According to officials I've spoken to, when players make bad calls about 90% of the time they (the officials) believe players honestly believe the ball was out. That doesn't make it fair to the guy that hit the shot though.
I am not arguing about the call... indeed it might have been out... my argument is with how the point is resolved. I do agree with much of what you have expressed, but even you acknowledge that the majority of bad calls are honest mistakes.
I think it is totally fair to the guy that hit the shot, the point would not have been won outright if the opponent had truly believed the ball was in. So my question is what is to gain by handing the point to the other player, this was an honest error not a malicious act. Sort of a no harm no foul...
I am sure both players were probably guilty of missing a call during the match... it just happens a roving umpire caught this one. Again let me say that if the ball was unplayable... a winner... then YES of course you would give up the point. At the end of the day I would hope that the questionable calls would even up.
Sorry, I don't understand your response at all.
I am just saying that these rules apply to USTA tournaments.
USTA is a member of the ITF and thus follows their rules, the ITF is not a member of the USTA.
Answer is clear - you should have taken the point, and the match. No replay. If your opponents can't decide whether the ball was in or out, then they have to award you the point. Good lord, why was this even a discussion? Doesn't matter whether you thought the ball was in or out, not your choice. They owe you a fast, definitive call and if that is not forthcoming, you take the point.
Separate names with a comma.