Trouble Making Line Calls at the 5.0 level Indoors

JSZ said:

Surely if you can tell that the pros could too and if they could they would never make a failed challenge on a shot they hit - but they do don't they?

Click to expand...

I've never seen a pro challenge a call that was 3 inches or more off, except Safin at Wimby. I've also never seen an official be more than 3 inches off too. 3 inches inside the line and 3 inches out is easy to "feel". It's the area in between that you cant "feel".

JSZ said:

I think opponents who think they can tell if their ball will be 3 inches out the moment it leaves their racquet are a problem. You see it out, you call it out, they think you have cheated them because the moment it left their racquet they thought it was in.

Click to expand...

If I "feel" like I hit my ball 3 inches long and my opponent calls it long, why would I complain?

The only time I question a line call is if I hit it, it feels good off the racket, and it looks like it was inside the line when it lands. That's the point where I get a bit skeptical. If I hit a ball, it feels "close", it looks like it hit the line, but they call it out, I dont really complain. I know through experience that balls I see "on the line" can definitely be out.

JSZ said:

And partners too. One of my doubles partners thinks he can always tell if his serve is in. When an opponent calls it out straight away, no hesitation, and his partner agrees I want to move on to the next point but my partner wants to start an argument. It is painful, it puts me off my game. Last week on one serve I thought the opposition were correct to say out, but they were so nice that when my partner acted nasty the guy just gave us the point! It was awful.

Click to expand...

The last time I challenged someone on a line call was when it was absolutely obvious they were not making good calls. The final straw was the player calling a ball "out" when it looked like it was a FOOT inside the baseline. I actually said "WHAT??! No... no... no... that's like the 3rd one already". Set score was 4-2 in the first set. On the change over my partner asked me what we should do and I told her that if it happens one more time we have to call lines people because it's impossible to play like this. It turns out, after I said that, his partner started correcting his calls. It ended pretty peacefully.

Out of 1000's of sets, i've only had to complain about line calls once, and only twice has someone said something about my line calls. When I say "complain" I mean "coming to the net" or worse (involving an official, or getting captains, ect.). Everyone has those 1-2 *roll eyes* moments per match, but it's usually not worse than that.

kingcheetah said:

I honestly think men's 4.0 and 4.5 has the worst line calls from hooking, but I've seen some of the 3.5ish women make the worst in terms of slow balls that are 6"+ in (usually about 6" inside the line) and they call it out.

Click to expand...

Unintentional bad line calls seem to happen much more at the lower levels because they arnt even looking at the ball when it lands, cant read spin, ect. Intentionally bad line calls seem to happen at the same frequency regardless of level.

Yesterday in the NJ state high school singles quarterfinals (kids that are about 5.0 equivalent level), one of the kids called the other kid's shot out at 8-8 in a 3rd set tiebreaker. The ball was clearly out, but the call was overruled by the tournament official watching the court and given to the other kid, who won the match on the next point. So, even the officials officiating 5.0 matches sometimes have trouble with the line calls. The kid who won is quoted in the paper today saying even he thought the ball was out.

winchestervatennis said:

I think the rules are pretty clear you are only to call a ball out that you're sure is out.

Click to expand...

Yep I agree. If there is any doubt, it is IN

J_R_B said:

Yesterday in the NJ state high school singles quarterfinals (kids that are about 5.0 equivalent level), one of the kids called the other kid's shot out at 8-8 in a 3rd set tiebreaker. The ball was clearly out, but the call was overruled by the tournament official watching the court and given to the other kid, who won the match on the next point. So, even the officials officiating 5.0 matches sometimes have trouble with the line calls. The kid who won is quoted in the paper today saying even he thought the ball was out.

Click to expand...

That's interesting. I believe you, but in my experience high school state, even quarterfinals, isn't 5.0 level. Is NJ a very strong state for high school tennis? I'm not in the north east, so it may be different there.

Sorry to sidetrack the thread.

J_R_B said:

Yesterday in the NJ state high school singles quarterfinals (kids that are about 5.0 equivalent level), one of the kids called the other kid's shot out at 8-8 in a 3rd set tiebreaker. The ball was clearly out, but the call was overruled by the tournament official watching the court and given to the other kid, who won the match on the next point. So, even the officials officiating 5.0 matches sometimes have trouble with the line calls. The kid who won is quoted in the paper today saying even he thought the ball was out.

Click to expand...

I talked about these "hero" calls before. I've seen them myself. Roaming umps tend to occupy courts that are on tie breakers, which is one of the reasons why they are so anal-retentive about using the score cards. When they're "roaming" they usually arnt too bad. They're just watching for profanity, foot faults, ect. Once they see a tie breaker on a score card, "hero mode" activates, and they feel like they have to make hero calls. Not every ump is like that, but some of them definitely are.

Imagine calling lines when Milos, Groth, or Isner is serving.

newpball said:

What if God is in a quantum superposition?

Click to expand...

Ask Schroedinger. Or, more precisely, his cat.

LeeD said:

Imagine calling lines when Milos, Groth, or Isner is serving.

Click to expand...

Or even worse, when Raonic and Isner played doubles together recently. How'd they figure out who was going to serve first? Rock, paper, scissors?

S&V-not_dead_yet said:

Ask Schroedinger. Or, more precisely, his cat.

Click to expand...

I asked him (the cat) and he send me a picture with the question:

If this is not a super-position then what is?



Couldn't find a way to disagree with that!

Moveforwardalways said:

That's interesting. I believe you, but in my experience high school state, even quarterfinals, isn't 5.0 level. Is NJ a very strong state for high school tennis? I'm not in the north east, so it may be different there.

Sorry to sidetrack the thread.

Click to expand...

NJ is pretty strong, yes. Not like CA or FL, but otherwise, very strong. One of the kids in that match is a 4-star junior on tr.net and the other is a 5-star soph, so I'd say that they are both 5.0 equivalent players. The finals are today. One of the kids is a blue chip junior who was ranked top 50 nationally in 16s before he aged out and the other is a 4-star senior committed to Carnegie-Mellon.

v-verb said:

Yep I agree. If there is any doubt, it is IN

Click to expand...

So you'd bet your life on every line call you ever made?

If you're NOT SURE if the ball is in, or it's out, you call it IN.
That's how you'd want your opponent's to call your shots, right?
How did you deduce ..."so you'd bet your life on every line call you ever made?" from V-verb's post?

Dartagnan64 said:

So you'd bet your life on every line call you ever made?

Click to expand...

You're conflating 2 different scenarios, Dart.

The one the thread is addressing is the Code that says you have to be sure it's out to call it out.

What you're talking about is not someone playing by the Code but trying to make the most accurate call. Which, now that I think about it, doesn't align with the Code.

Case in point: 4 times during one match, after I got passed, I called it good, even though, if I had money [or my life] on the line, I would have said it was out because it looked out but was too close to be 100% sure. The difference is that in my role as a player, I play by the Code. If I were forced to switch to the role of a bettor, I'd go with the most likely call since I have no dog in the fight of whether the ball was actually in or out, only that I make the right call.

So if I was a linesman making the call, there is no "I have to be 100% sure it was out to call it out" rule; I would just call 'em like I see 'em.

Dartagnan64 said:

So you'd bet your life on every line call you ever made?

Click to expand...

Who cares. It's just a game

S&V-not_dead_yet said:

You're conflating 2 different scenarios, Dart.

The one the thread is addressing is the Code that says you have to be sure it's out to call it out.

What you're talking about is not someone playing by the Code but trying to make the most accurate call. Which, now that I think about it, doesn't align with the Code.

Case in point: 4 times during one match, after I got passed, I called it good, even though, if I had money [or my life] on the line, I would have said it was out because it looked out but was too close to be 100% sure. The difference is that in my role as a player, I play by the Code. If I were forced to switch to the role of a bettor, I'd go with the most likely call since I have no dog in the fight of whether the ball was actually in or out, only that I make the right call.

So if I was a linesman making the call, there is no "I have to be 100% sure it was out to call it out" rule; I would just call 'em like I see 'em.

Click to expand...

Sorry I didn't state my point clearly.

"So you are so sure of your out calls that you'd wager your life you have never called an "in" ball "out"?"

That's what I was trying to say.

v-verb said:

Who cares. It's just a game

Click to expand...

I agree. So why impress upon everyone the Codes necessity of requiring absolute certainty? Isn't it good enough to be very sure? Or sure enough within ones visual ability?

I've yet to play a game where the opponent was so generous there could be absolutely no doubt my ball was out. And I'm fine with that. If we're both very sure the ball was out, that's fine by me.