Over ruling an out call

Discussion in 'Odds & Ends' started by Cypo, Mar 22, 2004.

  1. Cypo

    Cypo Rookie

    Feb 11, 2004
    In a league match recently I called a ball out, then realized it was good and returned it. My team mates (including a linesman (woman) for ATP tournaments) told me it was my opponents point. I dug out the code on this, which clearly states that it should have been a let and the ITF (which govern us - no one here has heard of the code).

    Do these seem to be in contradiction ?

    The Code 18. Normally, asking for a replay of a point is a sign of weakness and of failure to exercise line calling responsibilities, and should occur only on rare occasions. One of these is as follows. Your opponent's ball -- a serve or otherwise -- appears out and you so call, but return the ball to his court. Inspection reveals that your out call, which stopped play, is in error. Since you actually returned the ball a let is authorized. Had you not returned the ball the point would have been your opponent's. (See last sentence in par. 19.) Another possible replay situation occurs when, just as C is returning A's good shot, A's overzealous partner, B calls A's shot out. If C hits a placement he wins the point; otherwise, the point should be replayed.

    ITF Rules Case 7: If a chair umpire or line umpire calls "out" and then corrects the call to good, what is the correct decision?

    Decision: The chair umpire must decide if the original "out" call was a hindrance to either player. If it was a hindrance, the point shall be replayed. If it was not a hindrance, the player who hit the ball wins the point.
  2. Camilio Pascual

    Camilio Pascual Hall of Fame

    Feb 11, 2004
    No, they are not in contradiction. The Code refers to where players are acting as the linesmen and officials. The ITF is referring to a situation in which there is a chair and linesmen, a completely different scenario in which they presumably have no interest in the outcome of a call.

Share This Page