Changed Call: Let Or Loss Of Point?

Cindysphinx · May 15, 2010

I was playing a match last night that went to a 10-point tiebreak. We were down 7-9 with opponent serving to my partner.

Partner returns the ball from the deuce court high and sharply crosscourt with enough angle that the side curtains are making life difficult for the deep opponent. Ball bounces inside the doubles sideline. I was at net and shifted over to cover my alley. Opponent barely gets to the ball and gets it back deep.

And that's when I heard it: "Out!"

Opposing net player had called my partner's ball out when it was obviously in. She had a bad angle and was calling a ball while looking across a line, obviously, which is what caused her error. I am sure of this because I was looking down the line.

I walked up and said something like, "Are you calling that out? Seriously? On match point?"

Opponent said, "Hold on, hold on." She asked her partner, who said she didn't see it. There was some further discussion -- can't remember details. Then the opponent said, "Cindy, since you're sure the ball was in, you can have the point."

I said, "I appreciate that. But since your partner put the ball back in play and you're changing your out call to good, I think we should replay the point. That seems fair."

As I sit here, I am not sure I was correct. Maybe it was our point? I've never fully understood when you play a let when a player changes an out call to good and when it is loss of point. I know that when an official overrules a player's call in an officiated match, it is always loss of point, but how does this work when there is no official?

Regardless, I feel OK about not taking the point. I went way past "Are you sure?" in challenging her call, and I have to give this opponent credit for being willing to accept loss of point at such a critical time in the match. I also think it laudable that she didn't just say, "I saw it out" and stick her hand over the net to shake hands.

How should this have been handled?

Bud · May 15, 2010

Cindysphinx said:
I was playing a match last night that went to a 10-point tiebreak. We were down 7-9 with opponent serving to my partner.

Partner returns the ball from the deuce court high and sharply crosscourt with enough angle that the side curtains are making life difficult for the deep opponent. Ball bounces inside the doubles sideline. I was at net and shifted over to cover my alley. Opponent barely gets to the ball and gets it back deep.

And that's when I heard it: "Out!"

Opposing net player had called my partner's ball out when it was obviously in. She had a bad angle and was calling a ball while looking across a line, obviously, which is what caused her error. I am sure of this because I was looking down the line.

I walked up and said something like, "Are you calling that out? Seriously? On match point?"

Opponent said, "Hold on, hold on." She asked her partner, who said she didn't see it. There was some further discussion -- can't remember details. Then the opponent said, "Cindy, since you're sure the ball was in, you can have the point."

I said, "I appreciate that. But since your partner put the ball back in play and you're changing your out call to good, I think we should replay the point. That seems fair."

As I sit here, I am not sure I was correct. Maybe it was our point? I've never fully understood when you play a let when a player changes an out call to good and when it is loss of point. I know that when an official overrules a player's call in an officiated match, it is always loss of point, but how does this work when there is no official?

Regardless, I feel OK about not taking the point. I went way past "Are you sure?" in challenging her call, and I have to give this opponent credit for being willing to accept loss of point at such a critical time in the match. I also think it laudable that she didn't just say, "I saw it out" and stick her hand over the net to shake hands.

How should this have been handled?

I think you're correct if she did in fact return the serve inside the court. IMO, it should be replayed with your partner receiving a 1st serve.

Sometimes, I'll make a verbal call too quickly (i.e. comes down at the last second on the outside of the line). If I return the ball and it goes inside the court, I'll replay the point. If I don't have a play on it or I spray it wide... I give my opponent the point.

dizzlmcwizzl · May 15, 2010

Cindysphinx said:
As I sit here, I am not sure I was correct. Maybe it was our point? I've never fully understood when you play a let when a player changes an out call to good and when it is loss of point. I know that when an official overrules a player's call in an officiated match, it is always loss of point, but how does this work when there is no official?

How should this have been handled?

The code address this problem and the summary of it is this. "It depends". It seems from your description replaying the point was the right thing to do.

the code:

12. Out calls corrected. If a player mistakenly calls a ball “out” and then
realizes it was good, the point shall be replayed if the player returned the ball
within the proper court. Nonetheless, if the player’s return of the ball results
in a “weak sitter,” the player should give the opponent the point. If the player
failed to make the return, the opponent wins the point. If the mistake was
made on the second serve, the server is entitled to two serves

tennis tom · May 15, 2010

Cindysphinx said:
Opposing net player had called my partner's ball out when it was obviously in. She had a bad angle and was calling a ball while looking across a line, obviously, which is what caused her error. I am sure of this because I was looking down the line.

She had no business making that call, NOT her call, calls like that are always suspect.

OrangePower · May 15, 2010

Cindysphinx said:
Opponent barely gets to the ball and gets it back deep.

I assume the bolded part means the opponent got the ball back in, deep in the court. In this case it was correct to replay the point, since the opponent got the ball back into play, and it was not a 'sitter' that your team would expect to hit a winner off.

If you meant the bolded part to mean that the opponent hit the ball back out (behind your baseline), then it is your point and there is no let.

Cindysphinx · May 16, 2010

Here's the part of the Code that had me a bit hesitant:

Opponent’s calls questioned. When a player genuinely doubts an opponent’s call, the player may ask: “Are you sure of your call?” If the opponent reaffirms that the ball was out, the call shall be accepted. If the opponent acknowledges uncertainty, the opponent loses the point. There shall be no
further delay or discussion.

JavierLW · May 16, 2010

Cindysphinx said:
Here's the part of the Code that had me a bit hesitant:

You're partially taking out of context, but it's probably a case where that part was poorly written. (it assumes that if it's a "good" call that the team loses the point)

You dont win the point because you didnt do anything to win the point. The opponents made a honest mistake and there is no penalty anywhere in the Code for making honest mistakes. (it assumes that everyone is honest and fair, etc....)

andfor · May 16, 2010

tennis tom said:
She had no business making that call, NOT her call, calls like that are always suspect.

On the doubles court all line calls on each teams side of the net can be made be made by both players. The court is not divided in half.

tennis tom · May 16, 2010

andfor said:
On the doubles court all line calls on each teams side of the net can be made be made by both players. The court is not divided in half.

To play winning doubles the court should be divided in half, deuce and ad sides; yes either player can make the call but should they?Doing so leads to situations like the OP was involved in.

The player down the line has the best view and should make the call. If not sure they could ask for some help from partner to confirm. The opponent down that line would have a better view and if it's a "friendly" match, and, you wanted an accurate answer, ask your opponent (and have a lie-detector in your bag).

Cindysphinx · May 16, 2010

JavierLW said:
You're partially taking out of context, but it's probably a case where that part was poorly written. (it assumes that if it's a "good" call that the team loses the point)

You dont win the point because you didnt do anything to win the point. The opponents made a honest mistake and there is no penalty anywhere in the Code for making honest mistakes. (it assumes that everyone is honest and fair, etc....)

Yes, we did do something to win the point: My partner hit a ball that landed in the court.

I guess what's weird is that if our two opponents didn't get a good look at the ball, they have two choices: Call it good, or ask our opinion if they don't know. In either case, we would get the point.

And yes, there are plenty of penalties in the Code for "honest mistakes" (e.g. hitting a ball on wrong side of net, touching the net, double-hit, footfaults, hindrance . . . .).

Ripper014 · May 16, 2010

tennis tom said:
She had no business making that call, NOT her call, calls like that are always suspect.

Anyone who sees the ball out can call it out. But I agree that if you have not won the point outright that the point should be restarted. ie. first serve, replay the point.

What I disagree with is making a statement like "Are you calling that out? Seriously? On match point?"

The correct response should be... “Are you sure of your call?” and then accept your opponents answer. Most opponents that have made a mistake usually correct themselves immediately... or their partner will. Those that are intentionally cheating are not going to change their calls.

Cindysphinx · May 16, 2010

Ripper014 said:
Anyone who sees the ball out can call it out. But I agree that if you have not won the point outright that the point should be restarted. ie. first serve, replay the point.

What I disagree with is making a statement like "Are you calling that out? Seriously? On match point?"

The correct response should be... “Are you sure of your call?” and then accept your opponents answer. Most opponents that have made a mistake usually correct themselves immediately... or their partner will. Those that are intentionally cheating are not going to change their calls.

Yep, I should have stuck with the language of the Code.

But Seriously. On match point? She was calling that out?

DE19702 · May 16, 2010

I disagree that the person looking down the line always has the best view for a line call. If you place a ball a few millimeters outside the line, if you look down the line the ball will be obscuring the line and you will not see the gap. This is especially true the lower the trajectory of the ball. However, if you look at the ball from across the court you will see the ball is out. The closer the viewer is to the ball the easier it is to see it. But I agree with you that looking from the far side is probably too far to see it accurately.

JavierLW · May 16, 2010

Cindysphinx said:
Yes, we did do something to win the point: My partner hit a ball that landed in the court.

I guess what's weird is that if our two opponents didn't get a good look at the ball, they have two choices: Call it good, or ask our opinion if they don't know. In either case, we would get the point.

And yes, there are plenty of penalties in the Code for "honest mistakes" (e.g. hitting a ball on wrong side of net, touching the net, double-hit, footfaults, hindrance . . . .).

You did NOTHING to win the point because they were able to hit the ball back. You didnt force an error and you didnt hit a winner. Thus, you did not win the point....

I meant honest mistakes in the course of enforcing the rules, not actions that result in a loss of point.

Ripper014 · May 16, 2010

Cindysphinx said:
Yep, I should have stuck with the language of the Code.

But Seriously. On match point? She was calling that out?

OUT is OUT... stuff happens. Like when I am either playing or watching a hockey game and they put the whistle away the last 10 minutes of a game because they don't want a game lost because of an infraction late in a game. In my opinion an infraction in the first 10 minutes should be no different than any other time in a game. By not calling it you denying the team that was violated an opportunity.

All you can hope for is that they are sure of their call... and that their partner confirms it. Sometimes I see a ball IN that both my opponents see as OUT... I am not arrogant enough to believe I am right ALL the time... just most of the time.

chatt_town · May 16, 2010

Cindysphinx said:
I was playing a match last night that went to a 10-point tiebreak. We were down 7-9 with opponent serving to my partner.

Partner returns the ball from the deuce court high and sharply crosscourt with enough angle that the side curtains are making life difficult for the deep opponent. Ball bounces inside the doubles sideline. I was at net and shifted over to cover my alley. Opponent barely gets to the ball and gets it back deep.

And that's when I heard it: "Out!"

Opposing net player had called my partner's ball out when it was obviously in. She had a bad angle and was calling a ball while looking across a line, obviously, which is what caused her error. I am sure of this because I was looking down the line.

I walked up and said something like, "Are you calling that out? Seriously? On match point?"

Opponent said, "Hold on, hold on." She asked her partner, who said she didn't see it. There was some further discussion -- can't remember details. Then the opponent said, "Cindy, since you're sure the ball was in, you can have the point."

I said, "I appreciate that. But since your partner put the ball back in play and you're changing your out call to good, I think we should replay the point. That seems fair."

As I sit here, I am not sure I was correct. Maybe it was our point? I've never fully understood when you play a let when a player changes an out call to good and when it is loss of point. I know that when an official overrules a player's call in an officiated match, it is always loss of point, but how does this work when there is no official?

Regardless, I feel OK about not taking the point. I went way past "Are you sure?" in challenging her call, and I have to give this opponent credit for being willing to accept loss of point at such a critical time in the match. I also think it laudable that she didn't just say, "I saw it out" and stick her hand over the net to shake hands.

How should this have been handled?

I think you called that correctly...how does this though work with the "sitter" rule? I'm not sure how that goes but I think my partner got some guys with this in a championship match about 5 years ago.

We are serving 5-2 in the third for the match against a team that had just beat us in the finals in Gainesville. I had to tell you all that just so you could see the drama unfold. So we kick the hell out of them 6-0 in the first. They come back and take the second 6-4. We are serving 5-2, 30-0 and I serve a missle down the middle of the court, the guy leans and drifts it back and as my partner is getting ready to basically bounce this off the court for a winner the retuner called it out. The partner said it was in and for me to take two. My partner then walks to the net(walking USTA manual) and says that it was a sitter and that the point was ours. He explained that a sitter is a ball that "should have and in all likely hood would have been put away so the point was ours. We go on get the next point for the match but I still catch hell today from the other two guys about it.

My question is did he misinterpret the rule because it seems to contradict the what's going on here. He by no means was trying to screw them. he just plays everything by the rules straight up and down even if it's against us. That was just so happen to be in our favor. So what's the deal? Anyone here know?

dcdoorknob · May 17, 2010

Here's a related question: if someone is playing an officiated match, they call a ball out and a present official overrules them, do they get a let then? Or do they lose the point?

My first instinct before reading the responces was that in both cases, officiated or not, the player or team that called the ball out (which was later overturned) should lose the point. They stopped play when play should not have been stopped, due to no outside hindrance but only their own error. To me the natural result of that situation is the loss of the point.

Cindysphinx · May 17, 2010

dcdoorknob said:
Here's a related question: if someone is playing an officiated match, they call a ball out and a present official overrules them, do they get a let then? Or do they lose the point?

My first instinct before reading the responces was that in both cases, officiated or not, the player or team that called the ball out (which was later overturned) should lose the point. They stopped play when play should not have been stopped, due to no outside hindrance but only their own error. To me the natural result of that situation is the loss of the point.

It works differently when there are roving officials. If a roving official sees you make a bad line call that you don't correct (so they have to correct you), it's loss of point.

I know this because I once played a tournament where my opponent called my shot on her baseline long on match point. The roving official happened to be right there, overruled her, and awarded me the point and the match.

Cindysphinx · May 17, 2010

Chattown, I think your partner was right. It would have been better had your partner played the ball anyway for a winner, just to remove all doubt. JMHO.

dcdoorknob · May 17, 2010

Cindysphinx said:
It works differently when there are roving officials. If a roving official sees you make a bad line call that you don't correct (so they have to correct you), it's loss of point.

I know this because I once played a tournament where my opponent called my shot on her baseline long on match point. The roving official happened to be right there, overruled her, and awarded me the point and the match.

Why would it be different when an official overuled the player and when a player overrules himself? In both cases the player made an errant call that stopped play when it should have continued. For me the player that made the call is at fault, no one or nothing else, and they should forfeit the point.

Cindysphinx · May 17, 2010

I have no idea why it's different, but it is. Maybe Woodrow can clear it up?

Maybe the idea is to encourage you to correct yourself immediately?

BullDogTennis · May 17, 2010

if you say call it out, then changed to in...the point is theres.

Ripper014 · May 17, 2010

Cindysphinx said:
It works differently when there are roving officials. If a roving official sees you make a bad line call that you don't correct (so they have to correct you), it's loss of point.

I know this because I once played a tournament where my opponent called my shot on her baseline long on match point. The roving official happened to be right there, overruled her, and awarded me the point and the match.

Hard to say... perhaps the offical felt that the ball was unreturnable... thus awarding you the point.

hcelizondo · May 17, 2010

Cindysphinx said:
Chattown, I think your partner was right. It would have been better had your partner played the ball anyway for a winner, just to remove all doubt. JMHO.

You shouldn't put the ball away. If you do so and make a mistake then you loose the point. You continue playing the point and after hitting the ball you can not claim it anymore

hfmf · May 17, 2010

Whenever I'm playing, I always say that unless my doubles partner and I BOTH see the ball clean out, we play it in. I usually hold my opponents to the same standard.

Ripper014 · May 18, 2010

hfmf said:
Whenever I'm playing, I always say that unless my doubles partner and I BOTH see the ball clean out, we play it in. I usually hold my opponents to the same standard.

I agree with this... with one exception... I hope my opponents will play to the same standard, there will be a lot of disappointment in life if we expect things from people. In the end I do not have to lose sleep over me making a bad line call, and if I can overcome any additional challenges created by my opponent it just makes me a better player.

Ripper014 · May 18, 2010

hcelizondo said:
You shouldn't put the ball away. If you do so and make a mistake then you loose the point. You continue playing the point and after hitting the ball you can not claim it anymore

Absolutely... you cannot try and claim a point after trying to play a shot, which is why in the pros... if they feel a ball is OUT they stop play immediately.

woodrow1029 · May 18, 2010

Ripper014 said:
Hard to say... perhaps the offical felt that the ball was unreturnable... thus awarding you the point.

Cindy is right. Any time an official (roving or chair) overrules a player, it's a loss of point.

Ripper014 · May 18, 2010

woodrow1029 said:
Cindy is right. Any time an official (roving or chair) overrules a player, it's a loss of point.

If this is true it is a bad rule... there are honest mistakes and if the ball is playable it should be replayed. It is not like the player was unable to return the ball, just that in their option the ball was out. The bottomline is, who is to say the offical got it right... even in the pros most umpires are reluctant to reverse a call, and I believe only reward points on unplayable shots.

woodrow1029 · May 18, 2010

Ripper014 said:
If this is true it is a bad rule... there are honest mistakes and if the ball is playable it should be replayed. It is not like the player was unable to return the ball, just that in their option the ball was out. The bottomline is, who is to say the offical got it right... even in the pros most umpires are reluctant to reverse a call, and I believe only reward points on unplayable shots.

In the pros it's only replayed if the player had a play on the ball because it was the line umpire that called out and interfered with play. An outside hindrance would always be a let if the player had a play on the ball.

Ripper014 · May 18, 2010

woodrow1029 said:
In the pros it's only replayed if the player had a play on the ball because it was the line umpire that called out and interfered with play. An outside hindrance would always be a let if the player had a play on the ball.

Could you not argue that the player who made the call is acting in the capacity of the lines umpire being overruled by the offical acting as a chair umpire?

woodrow1029 · May 18, 2010

Ripper014 said:
Could you not argue that the player who made the call is acting in the capacity of the lines umpire being overruled by the offical acting as a chair umpire?

No.
10 char...

Ripper014 · May 18, 2010

woodrow1029 said:
No.
10 char...

lol............................... I still suggest it is a bad rule, and if the honesty of the player is in question put an umpire on the court to call lines. If this player is prone to cheating he will just continue to do so once the roving umpire moves on, until then let the players on the court make their own calls.

woodrow1029 · May 18, 2010

Ripper014 said:
lol...............................

i don't know what's so funny. It's not a valid argument.

fuzz nation · May 18, 2010

Not really disagreeing with woodrow, but I applaud Cindy for not taking the point after the opponents reversed themselves. What I generally gather from reading The Code that accompanies the rules of the game is that no player should take any point that has not been clearly earned. That spirit is reflected in the idea that unless a ball is clearly seen as landing out, it is considered to be in and play continues.

The ball came back in play when the hitter's partner made the "out" call, so without that incorrect call, the point would have continued. If Cindy's shot was un-returnable and not called out, she would have clearly earned the point, but this wasn't the case, right? All I'm saying is that aside from the corrected call, neither team earned the point, so I like that it was re-started.

tennis tom: I understand what you're asserting, but often times in a doubles match, the parter that is farther away from a ball or at a less advantageous angle with a line may often get the better look and make a more accurate call. If I'm scrambling to run down a ball, I sometimes can't tell if it lands even three or four inches out, since I'm doing the "bobble-head" and everything is a blur until I set up to swing. Also, if a partner is recovering from a tough shot and the opponents do the smart thing and hit at that player again, the ball can physically land behind that player, even though it's only a couple feet away. That's another case when the partner is the only one who can get a look at it.

Ripper014 · May 18, 2010

Roving umpire do not serve any real purpose in my mind, 99% of my matches have been completed without conflict. On occasion with a conflict we have been able to address the issue between us. The 1% of the time I need help with my opponent... I needed a lines person there for the duration of the match, not just for a few random instances. I find roving umpires disruptive to a match overall... what if... I felt the ball the umpire call OUT was IN. Like I said unless solicted let the players play.

woodrow1029 · May 18, 2010

Ripper014 said:
Roving umpire do not serve any real purpose in my mind, 99% of my matches have been completed without conflict. On occasion with a conflict we have been able to address the issue between us. The 1% of the time I need help with my opponent... I needed a lines person there for the duration of the match, not just for a few random instances. I find roving umpires disruptive to a match overall... what if... I felt the ball the umpire call OUT was IN. Like I said unless solicted let the players play.

Roving umpires won't call a ball OUT that was played as in.

Roving umpires are there to overrule clear mistakes when a player calls OUT.

Im not just saying this because I am an umpire, but also as a player. By you saying that roving umpires don't serve any real purpose, you just lost a lot of credibility with me.

Ripper014 · May 18, 2010

fuzz nation said:
Not really disagreeing with woodrow, but I applaud Cindy for not taking the point after the opponents reversed themselves. What I generally gather from reading The Code that accompanies the rules of the game is that no player should take any point that has not been clearly earned. That spirit is reflected in the idea that unless a ball is clearly seen as landing out, it is considered to be in and play continues.

The ball came back in play when the hitter's partner made the "out" call, so without that incorrect call, the point would have continued. If Cindy's shot was un-returnable and not called out, she would have clearly earned the point, but this wasn't the case, right? All I'm saying is that aside from the corrected call, neither team earned the point, so I like that it was re-started.

tennis tom: I understand what you're asserting, but often times in a doubles match, the parter that is farther away from a ball or at a less advantageous angle with a line may often get the better look and make a more accurate call. If I'm scrambling to run down a ball, I sometimes can't tell if it lands even three or four inches out, since I'm doing the "bobble-head" and everything is a blur until I set up to swing. Also, if a partner is recovering from a tough shot and the opponents do the smart thing and hit at that player again, the ball can physically land behind that player, even though it's only a couple feet away. That's another case when the partner is the only one who can get a look at it.

Thanks. fuzz nation... this is my argument... with a roving umpire granting the point to a player automatically. The point was not won... or may not have been won. Hence why I said... "perhaps the offical felt that the ball was unreturnable... thus awarding you the point."

And why I have issues with woodrow1029 contention that "Cindy is right. Any time an official (roving or chair) overrules a player, it's a loss of point."

woodrow1029 · May 18, 2010

Ripper014 said:
Thanks. fuzz nation... this is my argument... with a roving umpire granting the point to a player automatically. The point was not won... or may not have been won. Hence why I said... "perhaps the offical felt that the ball was unreturnable... thus awarding you the point."

And why I have issues with woodrow1029 contention that "Cindy is right. Any time an official (roving or chair) overrules a player, it's a loss of point."

But that's the ruling.

Ripper014 · May 18, 2010

woodrow1029 said:
Roving umpires won't call a ball OUT that was played as in.

Roving umpires are there to overrule clear mistakes when a player calls OUT.

Im not just saying this because I am an umpire, but also as a player. By you saying that roving umpires don't serve any real purpose, you just lost a lot of credibility with me.

Only because you are a roving umpire and criticism is something you do not seem to handle well, but that is ok with me...

My opinion is mine... and you may share it if you wish... and if you don't you are entitled to your own. Rules are in place to control the game... they are not always well thought out or good for the game... but they are what they are.

But maybe you could expand on the merit of a roving umpire and help me change my mind. Granted I believe they are helpful if they are readily available to be solicted for help... but not in the capacity to interrupt the flow of a match. If your help is needed we will ask for it.

woodrow1029 · May 18, 2010

The Roving Umpire shall:
1. Exercise discretion when calling foot faults or dealing with any
infractions so as not to disturb neighboring courts.
2. Install singles sticks when needed and when time permits, measure
the net.
3. Enforce the warm-up time limit by advising the players when they have
two minutes before the start of play.
4. Help resolve scoring disputes by using judgment. First attempt to get
the players to reconstruct the score so that they agree on it. Thereafter,
the following options are listed in order of preference:
• Counting all points and games agreed on by the players, with
only the disputed points or games being replayed;
• Playing from a score mutually agreeable to the players; and
• Deciding the score by a coin toss.
5. Control spectators.
6. Enforce the Point Penalty System (code and time violations).
7. Overrule a player’s line call only when in direct observation of that one
court. When a Roving Umpire overrules a player’s out call, that player
loses the point. The Roving Umpire may not overrule as a result of a

player appeal.

8. Avoid staying on one court and officiate all courts uniformly.
9. Be highly visible, but not spy on the players.
10. Help resolve on-court disputes according to

The Code.

11. Allow any player to call a let.

Ripper014 · May 18, 2010

woodrow1029 said:
But that's the ruling.

Only because there is no linesperson to make the call... as you said if a lines person was there to make the call... and it was incorrect the point would be replayed... as long as the ball was playable. This rule punishes the player who made the OUT call on a playable ball (hopefully in good faith) with the lost of a point, by a third party who may not have gotten the call right.

andfor · May 18, 2010

Ripper014 said:
Roving umpire do not serve any real purpose in my mind, 99% of my matches have been completed without conflict. On occasion with a conflict we have been able to address the issue between us. The 1% of the time I need help with my opponent... I needed a lines person there for the duration of the match, not just for a few random instances. I find roving umpires disruptive to a match overall... what if... I felt the ball the umpire call OUT was IN. Like I said unless solicted let the players play.

Roving Umpires are not even for 1% of the time there for players to have stay at one court for an entire match. If they are called to the court to line judge after a few games when the problems are over (not present) they then move on back to roving. When a tournament provides roving umpires there are usually not enough officials per site to be dedicated to one match. The purpose of the "Roving Umpire" is there as a resource designed to be available upon player request to all participants.

Thanks Woodrow. Ref. #8.

Cindysphinx · May 18, 2010

Roving umpires totally rock. If I could have them at every match I play, I would want them.

Their value isn't that they catch a lot of things or intervene much. Their value is that everyone knows that they could at any time get busted. No one wants to be overruled, so folks give benefit of doubt the way they should. People work harder not to footfault. They pick up the pace. They are on their best behavior.

When I was a 2.5 and didn't know anything about anything, I captained a team. At the captain's meeting, the league gave us the option of having roving umpires for regular league matches, and the captains consented. The way it would work would be the league would send a roving umpire to one match of each team, but the teams wouldn't know which match the umpire would attend. The cost to each team for the roving umpire was $14/each for the two hours. The thinking was that it was beneficial for all league players to experience playing under roving umpire supervision, not just those who advance to post-season.

Lucky me, the roving umpire showed up for one of the matches I played. She supervised the warm-up, keeping it to 10 minutes. She chided my opponent for clearing a ball that didn't need to be cleared. She mentioned to one player that she shouldn't put obvious faults into play. She may have done other things on the other courts -- I wouldn't know.

And she, um . . . . She boxed my ears for switching receiving sides in the middle of a Coman tiebreak. I just got confused, I swear!!

Cindysphinx · May 18, 2010

Ripper014 said:
Only because there is no linesperson to make the call... as you said if a lines person was there to make the call... and it was incorrect the point would be replayed... as long as the ball was playable. This rule punishes the player who made the OUT call on a playable ball (hopefully in good faith) with the lost of a point, by a third party who may not have gotten the call right.

Woodrow can correct me if I'm wrong, but my understanding is that if the player immediately reverses herself before the roving umpire gets involved, it is not loss of point if the ball was put back into play. But if the player is slow enough with the reversal and draws an overrule, then it is loss of point.

Seems perfectly reasonable to me.

Ripper014 · May 18, 2010

woodrow1029 said:
The Roving Umpire shall:
1. Exercise discretion when calling foot faults or dealing with any
infractions so as not to disturb neighboring courts.
2. Install singles sticks when needed and when time permits, measure
the net.
3. Enforce the warm-up time limit by advising the players when they have
two minutes before the start of play.
4. Help resolve scoring disputes by using judgment. First attempt to get
the players to reconstruct the score so that they agree on it. Thereafter,
the following options are listed in order of preference:
• Counting all points and games agreed on by the players, with
only the disputed points or games being replayed;
• Playing from a score mutually agreeable to the players; and
• Deciding the score by a coin toss.
5. Control spectators.
6. Enforce the Point Penalty System (code and time violations).
7. Overrule a player’s line call only when in direct observation of that one
court. When a Roving Umpire overrules a player’s out call, that player
loses the point. The Roving Umpire may not overrule as a result of a

player appeal.

8. Avoid staying on one court and officiate all courts uniformly.
9. Be highly visible, but not spy on the players.
10. Help resolve on-court disputes according to

The Code.

11. Allow any player to call a let.

Ok... am I reading this incorrectly... because the way I read this the rule you are quoting is telling me you have been requested to act in the capacity of a umpire.

7. Overrule a player’s line call only when in direct observation of that one
court. When a Roving Umpire overrules a player’s out call, that player
loses the point. The Roving Umpire may not overrule as a result of a
player appeal.

This statement leads me to believe there has been a question in the ability for an opponent to make correct line calls, and a roving umpire has been requested to act as an umpire. In this case I agree that the players opponent should not be penalized for poor calls. But do not believe roving umpires should be making random calls while roving the tournament.

Cindysphinx · May 18, 2010

Well, I can tell you that in the match I played where my opponent was overruled neither of us had requested the presence of the roving umpire.

She was *roving.*

[edit: Also, note this: "Avoid staying on one court and officiate all courts uniformly."

Doesn't this suggest the roving umpire is to rove, and when they are roving they are supposed to be watching?]

woodrow1029 · May 18, 2010

Ripper014 said:
Ok... am I reading this incorrectly... because the way I read this the rule you are quoting is telling me you have been requested to act in the capacity of a umpire.

7. Overrule a player’s line call only when in direct observation of that one
court. When a Roving Umpire overrules a player’s out call, that player
loses the point. The Roving Umpire may not overrule as a result of a
player appeal.

This statement leads me to believe there has been a question in the ability for an opponent to make correct line calls, and a roving umpire has been requested to act as an umpire. In this case I agree that the players opponent should not be penalized for poor calls. But do not believe roving umpires should be making random calls while roving the tournament.

If a roving official is standing at the net post, which is generally where they are supposed to be, going from court to court, and see a clear mistake on a line call on the court that they are on, they can overrule, and the player that made the erroneous line call loses the point.

I really don't understand what is so difficult to understand about that.

Ripper014 · May 18, 2010

andfor said:
Roving Umpires are not even for 1% of the time there for players to have stay at one court for an entire match. If they are called to the court to line judge after a few games when the problems are over (not present) they then move on back to roving. When a tournament provides roving umpires there are usually not enough officials per site to be dedicated to one match. The purpose of the "Roving Umpire" is there as a resource designed to be available upon player request to all participants.

Thanks Woodrow. Ref. #8.

Again this is my point... I am fine with having them as a resource, in fact I applaud that and their willingness to volunteering their time to do so. But be a resource only when solicated...

Ripper014 · May 18, 2010

woodrow1029 said:
If a roving official is standing at the net post, which is generally where they are supposed to be, going from court to court, and see a clear mistake on a line call on the court that they are on, they can overrule, and the player that made the erroneous line call loses the point.

I really don't understand what is so difficult to understand about that.

Nothing... but only if you are offering help when solicated, I am okay with my opponents line call, if I feel the ball may have been in I will ask for your help.

Changed Call: Let Or Loss Of Point?

G.O.A.T.

Bionic Poster

Hall of Fame

Legend

Legend

G.O.A.T.

Hall of Fame

Legend

Legend

G.O.A.T.

Hall of Fame

G.O.A.T.

Rookie

Hall of Fame

Hall of Fame

Hall of Fame

Hall of Fame

G.O.A.T.

G.O.A.T.

Hall of Fame

G.O.A.T.

Hall of Fame

Hall of Fame

New User

New User

Hall of Fame

Hall of Fame

woodrow1029

Guest

Hall of Fame

woodrow1029

Guest

Hall of Fame

woodrow1029

Guest

Hall of Fame

woodrow1029

Guest

G.O.A.T.

Hall of Fame

woodrow1029

Guest

Hall of Fame

woodrow1029

Guest

Hall of Fame

woodrow1029

Guest

Hall of Fame

Legend

G.O.A.T.

G.O.A.T.

Hall of Fame

G.O.A.T.

woodrow1029

Guest

Hall of Fame

Hall of Fame

Similar threads