Do you overrule your doubles partner when he makes a bad call?

[Doubles]

If they have a better view of the ball, then I'll always defer to them.

[pvaudio]

I second what JT said about closest = clearest. Not so. Especially if you're both playing back, your partner has a MUCH clearer view of the ball vs. the baseline. If it's bouncing that near the line, you shouldn't have a super clear view if you're planning to hit the ball. Now, for wide calls on your side, that's where it gets tricky. That's when it's your call unless your partner calls it wide adamantly and you weren't positive. That last one happened to me yesterday.

[SystemicAnomaly]

^ Who is JT? Were you referring to this post...

Originally Posted by SystemicAnomaly

This is fallacious thinking and is a very common misconception. The person closest to the ball very often does not have the best view of the ball with respect to the line. If a player is very close to the bounce point, their ability to make an accurate call on a ball on the line or close to the line is very poor.

The problem in this situation is that the player in question is usually trying to track the ball rather than focusing on the line. Certified linesman are taught not to watch the ball when it approaches close to a line of interest. If it appears that a ball will bounce close to a line, they stop watching the ball and focus on the line instead -- keeping their head & eyes very still before and after the bounce event.

This is not the case with the player who is trying to to return a ball. They are tracking the ball and their head and/or eyes are usually moving. Studies have shown that our ability to make an accurate ball when the head/eyes are moving is extremely poor.

In addition, even when the head/eyes are still, the ball is usually traversing the field of vision much too quickly when it is in close proximity for the smooth pursuit (visual) system to track accurately. Quite often, the ball essentially becomes "invisible" for a short period of time when it is in close proximity. How often do you really seen the ball as it comes into contact with your strings? It is impossible most of the time. This is a similar situation for balls that bounce very close to us.

[martini1]

Originally Posted by SystemicAnomaly

This is fallacious thinking and is a very common misconception. The person closest to the ball very often does not have the best view of the ball with respect to the line. If a player is very close to the bounce point, their ability to make an accurate call on a ball on the line or close to the line is very poor.

The problem in this situation is that the player in question is usually trying to track the ball rather than focusing on the line. Certified linesman are taught not to watch the ball when it approaches close to a line of interest. If it appears that a ball will bounce close to a line, they stop watching the ball and focus on the line instead -- keeping their head & eyes very still before and after the bounce event.

This is not the case with the player who is trying to to return a ball. They are tracking the ball and their head and/or eyes are usually moving. Studies have shown that our ability to make an accurate ball when the head/eyes are moving is extremely poor.

In addition, even when the head/eyes are still, the ball is usually traversing the field of vision much too quickly when it is in close proximity for the smooth pursuit (visual) system to track accurately. Quite often, the ball essentially becomes "invisible" for a short period of time when it is in close proximity. How often do you really seen the ball as it comes into contact with your strings? It is impossible most of the time. This is a similar situation for balls that bounce very close to us.

SA, are you talking about having both players back (other than ROS)? Cuz, I am talking about having both players up 1/2 of the time or more, or one up one back.

If both players are up - balls that goes wide cannot be easily called by the partner further away. First you got the other partner in the way, second, it goes parallel to the line, which is harder to call. If you get a deep lob and that means only one guy is chasing it, turning 180 facing the fence, the net should be moving to cover, should not be 180 ball watching. Therefore the guy chasing the ball should have the best view of the bounce.

If playing one up one back - I can see the situation you described, but only when the baseline guy is standing very close to the baseline hitting a ball on the rise. perhaps? I play singles and have no problem calling a baseline ball out unless it is super fast going right at my feet, AND I am standing a couple inches from the baseline. I mean I have to stand my ground and not move back at all to let happen. IF the ball is bouncing on the far side, over the net guy wide, or long, the net guy should switch to the other side while the baseline guy goes after that ball. The net guy is going away from the ball, it would be difficult to call the baseline ball out.

Only a person who is in line with the baseline like a line judge can call it better. But the net person is never in line with the baseline at any given time. So this only works on calling a serve or when both guys are back. I am no expert doubles player but I never play both back. My coach pushes us to play both up. And when we play one up one back the net guy is too busy cover the net and doesn't look back long enough to make over rule calls.

[kiteboard]

Where I see the bad calls made is on the serves. I see the ball on the line and the partner does not. So I either overrule and bear the brunt of partner hatred of don't and cringe.

[treblings]

Originally Posted by kiteboard

Where I see the bad calls made is on the serves. I see the ball on the line and the partner does not. So I either overrule and bear the brunt of partner hatred of don't and cringe.

i see a lot of bad calls on the baseline as well, when my partner hits a ball that´s near him, or he has to turn sideways to reach it and loses track of the ball while turning.
my partners usually don´t hate me when i overrule them. i select them carefully for sportsmanship

[treblings]

question for woodrow in particular(since i understand you´re a professional umpire)
when i play on clay, do i need to be able to show a clear mark if i call a ball out?
problem 1, sometimes on wet courts it´s difficult to see a clear mark
problem 2, once i look away from the mark, i might not be able to find it again with certainty. in situations when i don´t expect the call to be challenged in the first place that can happen.

[boramiNYC]

really close calls are really pretty close and can go either way depending on the view. look at the partner and sense a quick decision as the team and move on and don't think back. same thing probably going on at the other side. these kinda calls should even out over time. And karma probably got the bad ones already, i hope.

[SystemicAnomaly]

Originally Posted by martini1

SA, are you talking about having both players back (other than ROS)? Cuz, I am talking about having both players up 1/2 of the time or more, or one up one back.

If both players are up - balls that goes wide cannot be easily called by the partner further away. First you got the other partner in the way, second, it goes parallel to the line, which is harder to call. If you get a deep lob and that means only one guy is chasing it, turning 180 facing the fence, the net should be moving to cover, should not be 180 ball watching. Therefore the guy chasing the ball should have the best view of the bounce.

If playing one up one back - I can see the situation you described, but only when the baseline guy is standing very close to the baseline hitting a ball on the rise. perhaps? I play singles and have no problem calling a baseline ball out unless it is super fast going right at my feet, AND I am standing a couple inches from the baseline. I mean I have to stand my ground and not move back at all to let happen. IF the ball is bouncing on the far side, over the net guy wide, or long, the net guy should switch to the other side while the baseline guy goes after that ball. The net guy is going away from the ball, it would be difficult to call the baseline ball out.

Only a person who is in line with the baseline like a line judge can call it better. But the net person is never in line with the baseline at any given time. So this only works on calling a serve or when both guys are back. I am no expert doubles player but I never play both back. My coach pushes us to play both up. And when we play one up one back the net guy is too busy cover the net and doesn't look back long enough to make over rule calls.

No, I was not specifically referring to the case where both players are back.

I agree that a line judge who is in line with the baseline usually has the best perspective on a ball encroaching that line. Quite often, however, we have seen where a chair umpire, who clearly is not in line with the baseline, will overrule a call made by a baseline judge.

As I mentioned previously, the baseline judge has several advantages over a player who is in very close proximity to ball that bounces near the baseline. The line judge is further from bounce location so the ball is not traveling across their field of vision as rapidly. The line judge is not moving their head & eyes during the bounce or just prior to it. The gaze of the line judge is on the line and not on the ball.

A partner in the forecourt (closer to the net) often also has these 3 advantages over a player that is very close to the bounce location. Of course, their vantage point is not as good the vantage point of the line judge. However, for the 3 reasons stated, they are often is a better position to make the line call than the player who is very close to the ball.

Over the 40 years that I have been playing the sport I have seen this situation hundreds, if not thousands, of times. The player who is very close to the ball will often be unable to make an accurate call even for balls that are 4 to 6 inches (10 to 15 cm) past or short of the line if they are focused on the ball (or if their gaze is fixated on their contact point rather than on the baseline). Quite often, the other 3 players on the court can clearly see if such a ball is in or out even tho' the closest player cannot. However, for bounces that are much closer to the line (say less than a few cm), it is much more difficult for any of the players to make the determination.

NOTE: If the net player is turning their head or moving their eyes as the ground contact is happening, their ability to make an accurate call is extremely poor. I have also seen this situation happen numerous times in both tennis and badminton.

[woodrow1029]

Originally Posted by treblings

question for woodrow in particular(since i understand you´re a professional umpire)
when i play on clay, do i need to be able to show a clear mark if i call a ball out?
problem 1, sometimes on wet courts it´s difficult to see a clear mark
problem 2, once i look away from the mark, i might not be able to find it again with certainty. in situations when i don´t expect the call to be challenged in the first place that can happen.

Well, the Code states that on any point ending shot or ball that you call out that is very close, that you should take an extra second to confirm you saw it correctly if you call it out. That being said, yes there are times when you don't see a clear mark; however, you know the ball is out. You are not required to show a ball mark, because it is still your call to make on your side of the net. But, if you start making a lot of out calls on balls that are very close, and every time you are asked to show a mark you say you don't have it or you don't know where it is, you are just going to lose credibility with opponents and officials.

[treblings]

Originally Posted by woodrow1029

Well, the Code states that on any point ending shot or ball that you call out that is very close, that you should take an extra second to confirm you saw it correctly if you call it out. That being said, yes there are times when you don't see a clear mark; however, you know the ball is out. You are not required to show a ball mark, because it is still your call to make on your side of the net. But, if you start making a lot of out calls on balls that are very close, and every time you are asked to show a mark you say you don't have it or you don't know where it is, you are just going to lose credibility with opponents and officials.

thanks for answering. sometimes a ball is clearly out and yet your opponent/s will still question your call and ask to see a mark.
in cases like that, it sometimes happens that you can´t show the mark because you´ve taken your eyes off it, not expecting any controversy

[JW10S]

I will absolutely overrule if my partner makes a bad call. The reason being is that in doubles people will not walk away saying 'that 1 guy cheats', they will say 'they cheat', I don't want to be included in the 'they' when I haven't made bad calls.

[NTRPolice]

I will overrule if:

1) I am 100% the ball was inside the line. For balls that appear to be on the line or catching the back of the line I will not overrule my partner if they have the "better" view. The reason why I stick to this is because balls inside of the line can be called from almost anywhere on the court with almost 100% accuracy as long as you're looking at the ball. For balls that are "close" (on the line; back of the line; side of the line, ect.) you can be "mistaken" if you're at a bad angle.

2) If there is a mark contrary to the out call and I see the ball actually make the mark. I do this even on hard courts, not just on clay. If the ball is on the opposite side of the court and I can see that it left a mark I will go and take a look. If the ball is called "out" but the mark shows "on the line" upon closer inspection I will reverse the call.

I have a tendency to play balls that most people would call out (which is why some people refuse to play with me, lol) and every once in a while our opponents will ask me if I agree with my partners call. I havnt had to overrule any of those yet, but I have had to confirm the call a handful of times even though I have no obligation to do so.

[5263]

Originally Posted by JW10S

I will absolutely overrule if my partner makes a bad call. The reason being is that in doubles people will not walk away saying 'that 1 guy cheats', they will say 'they cheat', I don't want to be included in the 'they' when I haven't made bad calls.

If you see your partner made a bad call and you don't correct it,
It IS "they cheat", as not correcting an improper call is just the same as making the call.

[JW10S]

^^^that's why I said I will overrule if my partner makes a bad call. Are you actually agreeing with me?

[5263]

Originally Posted by JW10S

^^^that's why I said I will overrule if my partner makes a bad call. Are you actually agreeing with me?

Since you cared enough to comment,

Actually, what you said is you would overrule so you wouldn't be seen as a cheat...
as though you thought it would be wrongful to group you in with the bad caller.
It would not be wrongful though,
as not correcting the call would rightfully group you in with the cheater.
Imo it would be better to correct the call because you don't want to cheat,
and not out of concern of being seen as one.
Maybe that is what you meant.

[JW10S]

Originally Posted by 5263

Since you cared enough to comment,

Actually, what you said is you would overrule so you wouldn't be seen as a cheat...
as though you thought it would be wrongful to group you in with the bad caller.
It would not be wrongful though,
as not correcting the call would rightfully group you in with the cheater.
Imo it would be better to correct the call because you don't want to cheat,
and not out of concern of being seen as one.
Maybe that is what you meant.

You just like to argue don't you? Why are going on about what would happen if I didn't overrule the bad call when I clearly said I would and I already made that point? I've wasted enough time with you...

[woodrow1029]

Originally Posted by 5263

Since you cared enough to comment,

Actually, what you said is you would overrule so you wouldn't be seen as a cheat...
as though you thought it would be wrongful to group you in with the bad caller.
It would not be wrongful though,
as not correcting the call would rightfully group you in with the cheater.
Imo it would be better to correct the call because you don't want to cheat,
and not out of concern of being seen as one.
Maybe that is what you meant.

Right, because it would be impossible for a player to make a bad call, and for that person's partner to not see it (either clearly or at all)? In that case, yes it would be wrongful to group you in with the cheater, and I would think that a reasonable person would understand that on the other side of the net. The unreasonable ones are the one that say "They cheat" instead of he cheats because they ASSUME that the partner had a good enough look to overrule the partner.

[5263]

Originally Posted by woodrow1029

Right, because it would be impossible for a player to make a bad call, and for that person's partner to not see it (either clearly or at all)? In that case, yes it would be wrongful to group you in with the cheater, and I would think that a reasonable person would understand that on the other side of the net. The unreasonable ones are the one that say "They cheat" instead of he cheats because they ASSUME that the partner had a good enough look to overrule the partner.

I think you miss the built in assumptions in this. It is a given that the one player
made a clear bad call that you clearly saw. If you didn't see it and know it's incorrect,
there is no reason to correct or overrule now, is there?
If you saw it and know it to be incorrect, then you are a cheater if you don't get it corrected.

Personally I like the approach of talking with your partner and letting him do the correction.
If he refused, then I would have to award the point to the opponents based on our disagreement,
without saying he was wrong. I'd just say I saw it differently, thus the point was theirs.
As SA has suggested many times....the eyes can lie to you.

[5263]

Originally Posted by JW10S

Why are going on about what would happen if I didn't overrule the bad call when I clearly said I would .

LoL, because you brought it up by saying what folks would say if you didn't overrule

Originally Posted by JW10S

they will say 'they cheat', I don't want to be included in the 'they' when I haven't made bad calls.

and how that was your motivation to act...opposed to
doing it because it is the rule and the right thing to do,
which imo would be a better reason.