What is hindrance?

[joeri888]

I was wondering this because of the Delpo-Karlovic incident. What are the rules with regard to hindrance? What does the rulebook say on this? I mean, Acting like you are moving in and then staying back, that isn't hindrance right? Yet it will distract and confuse your opponent, but is somehow legal, while waving your arms would be unlegal (or is it?) what are the exact rules i wonder

[Bobby Jr]

The commentator said it was fine to do what Karlovic did but I think he might be mistaken.

[Andres]

Delpo missed because he's a moron. In this cases, sometimes it's a subjective matter.
Karlovic did it in goofy mode, just like Tsonga. Both Karlovic and Delpo laughed after he missed the overhead.

He was also 50 feet away from him, away from Delpo's line of view, and his positioning wasn't even relevant during the play. In fact, I doubt Delpo even saw him doing it, as he was focused on the ball.

While I don't think you're allowed to do that, it was just a little crowd-pleasing and not hinderance. Delpo missed it because he missed it. Karlovic had nothing to do with DP missing that shot.

[Manus Domini]

Pretending to go one direction but not going that direction is called "faking your opponent out." You're not distracting him into missing his shot; just making him probably place it really poorly for the situation.

[Andres]

Originally Posted by Manus Domini

Pretending to go one direction but not going that direction is called "faking your opponent out." You're not distracting him into missing his shot; just making him probably place it really poorly for the situation.

That's true. But that's not what Karlovic did. Karlovic stood in the baseline and started waving his arm, like Tsonga did a couple years ago (against Fed?)

Delpo missed the overhead because he brainfarted, tho'

[joeri888]

Originally Posted by Andres

That's true. But that's not what Karlovic did. Karlovic stood in the baseline and started waving his arm, like Tsonga did a couple years ago (against Fed?)

Delpo missed the overhead because he brainfarted, tho'

My question wasn't about this incident in particular, but more: What is allowed and what's not? What does the rulebook say exactly and how is this normally interpreted?

[Nostradamus]

If you throw your racket during follow thru and it hits your opponent between the eyes then i think that qualifies as hindrance. I am not sure but someone chime in on this one?

[soyizgood]

Hindrance exhibit A:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=C_3yLZTCBaE

Loud shrieking is definitely hindrance, but WTA is gutless to take it up with Sharapova and Azarenka.

[SStrikerR]

Originally Posted by joeri888

My question wasn't about this incident in particular, but more: What is allowed and what's not? What does the rulebook say exactly and how is this normally interpreted?

If you do something purposefully to distract your opponent, it is illegal. If it is accidental, it isn't (such as yelling in pain if you fall). Grunting, obviously, is allowed.

Basically common sense should tell you if something is allowed or not, you don't have to ask us.

[Fee]

Sucks that the ATP and the ITF don't put their rulebooks online anywhere.

[Tim Tennis]

Originally Posted by SStrikerR

If you do something purposefully to distract your opponent, it is illegal. If it is accidental, it isn't (such as yelling in pain if you fall). Grunting, obviously, is allowed.

Basically common sense should tell you if something is allowed or not, you don't have to ask us.

I could not believe a hindrance was not called. I think it is poor sportsmanship and stupid. Logic says, if it is not intended to distract and hinder your opponent, why do it?

Interesting, if it is accidental, it is ok? So why don't I give out a loud sneeze right before my opponent hits the ball. I can really sneeze loud. Yikes!

[Tim Tennis]

Originally Posted by Nostradamus

If you throw your racket during follow thru and it hits your opponent between the eyes then i think that qualifies as hindrance. I am not sure but someone chime in on this one?

It all depends on if the ball bounced twice before it hit your opponent.

[Big G]

Let's keep the comparison fairly simple. Too much emphasis is played on particular tournaments of the past. Certainly the grand slams of today's era are the yardstick. In the past, it was who was No. 1. Using that, Gonzalez surpasses almost all with at least 8 years at the top. If you add '52 and '53 that makes 10. Laver on top for 5 years and Rosewall 3. Rosewall was never a dominant champion during that time. We can also look at a few other facts. On the 1960 tour mid way through Gonzalez was 31-1 and Rosewall 2nd at 11-13. That's the tour they changed the rules on since Gonzalez was dominating so badly. After two retirements, at age of 36, he had winning record against Laver in 1964. When he first came back that year he beat Laver, Hoad and Rosewall on consecutive days to win US Indoor Pro. Rosewall had him down 2 sets to love in the final. Also beat Laver twice at age 42. When he was 38 at Wembly he beat Rosewall and then took a 10 minute break and beat Laver in 3 sets 10-8 in the 3rd. He beat Connors to win LA Open when he was 43 and then on his 44th Bday. Who else could do that? Tennis Channel list is an insult to the sport.

[Andres]

Originally Posted by Big G

Let's keep the comparison fairly simple. Too much emphasis is played on particular tournaments of the past. Certainly the grand slams of today's era are the yardstick. In the past, it was who was No. 1. Using that, Gonzalez surpasses almost all with at least 8 years at the top. If you add '52 and '53 that makes 10. Laver on top for 5 years and Rosewall 3. Rosewall was never a dominant champion during that time. We can also look at a few other facts. On the 1960 tour mid way through Gonzalez was 31-1 and Rosewall 2nd at 11-13. That's the tour they changed the rules on since Gonzalez was dominating so badly. After two retirements, at age of 36, he had winning record against Laver in 1964. When he first came back that year he beat Laver, Hoad and Rosewall on consecutive days to win US Indoor Pro. Rosewall had him down 2 sets to love in the final. Also beat Laver twice at age 42. When he was 38 at Wembly he beat Rosewall and then took a 10 minute break and beat Laver in 3 sets 10-8 in the 3rd. He beat Connors to win LA Open when he was 43 and then on his 44th Bday. Who else could do that? Tennis Channel list is an insult to the sport.

Huh? I think you clicked on the wrong thread, my good friend

[Emet74]

Originally Posted by Fee

Sucks that the ATP and the ITF don't put their rulebooks online anywhere.

http://www.atpworldtour.com/Corporate/Rulebook.aspx

http://www.wtatennis.com/SEWTATour-A...Tour/rules.pdf

[sureshs]

Fish hindered someone by shouting C'Mon.

[Fee]

Originally Posted by Emet74

http://www.atpworldtour.com/Corporate/Rulebook.aspx

http://www.wtatennis.com/SEWTATour-A...Tour/rules.pdf

Glad you were willing to do it, because I sure wasn't. Done it enough in the past.

[woodrow1029]

Well, it clearly should have been a hindrance, but there's no way that the umpire saw it happen. That's why it wasn't called. The umpire is watching the ball on Del Potro's side, and had no chance to see what Karlovic was doing.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WWMfLTMdUnE

[cknobman]

If I loose the point whatever my opponent was doing is a hindrance, no exceptions.

[Moose Malloy]

Well, it clearly should have been a hindrance, but there's no way that the umpire saw it happen.

should these have been called as hindrances as well(I know Fed won the 2nd point any way, but the umpire could have called it his point before he even hit that smash)? do you think the umpires didn't see it in either situation?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=poea9425vsw

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VSZvItWSRt4

have seen this happen more than a few times over the years, it seems like the umpires never call it(usually the right player wins the point anyway & then everyone giggles afterwards)

Fed didn't look pleased when Kiefer did that at Wimbledon('05 I think) though.