In an ITA match, when a player commits a codeable offense and then either simultaneously or very quickly commits another one, then the official must wait at least 30 seconds before giving the second code violation.
Personally, I had never heard of this ridiculous thought but it appeared in Oklahoma and I thought it would be good to hear your thoughts on the issue...
The question was addressed at the Dallas school and here was Jane Goodman's response:
The official should wait until he/she has gotten the verbiage out of their mouth for the first code violation before assessing the second.
Hopefully you can get the verbiage for a code violation out of your mouth in less than 30 seconds.
I agree with Jane... What are your thoughts???
8 comments:
This makes no sense.What a surprise!
I am unable to find this in any written ITA postings(??)
I think it must be some form of remedial training for USTA officials who should not be on ITA matches.I'm sure that we have all experienced multiple code violations in sequence.It doesn't seem complicated to me.
(signed),
Haymuncher
You cannot go wrong in listening to Jane. I would be interested in hearing of any T/E s that were teaching the 30 second rule.
A new rule: never heard of it. What a joke. A lots has been made about multiple codes after a doubles match. If you listen to all the different opinions, one would never get a correct answer.
Yes, the 30 seconds rule was brought up during the Oklahoma Certification Training, but only one individual had even heard anything such rule. If it's a codeable offense, then code it and if it's a carry-over, by all means apply it to the correct match.
I have never met Jane Goodman. I"m sure she is a wonderful person and she and I would be great friends. As a result, I have no idea what age person she is. However, some day she will no longer be with us. Who will everyone call then when they have a question? Do you think that at some point folks need to move toward more independent thinking and not rely on "making a phone call to the west coast"?
Jane is indeed a wonderful person but is certainly not the final voice of the ITA. That would be David Benjamin...
Also, we are all adults and quite capable of reading and interpreting a rule book.
I'm now confused on what the proper response should be. In this case, if no code was given for the first offense before the second infraction occurred, wouldn't it ONLY be a single code for everything that has taken place? I have never seen two code violations be given after the fact. In my opinion, a code should be given, and then if another infraction occurs afterward, a follow-up code would be warranted. Am I missing something?
I have a question about coding loud outbursts in a foreign language. If you caution a player for an outburst in a foreign tongue during his/her doubles match, and then they are playing singles when they utter another foreign outburst, would that be a code violation, point penalty; or do you have to caution them again since its a new match? This could get complicated, especially since some of your officials from certain towns with dogs as mascots don't communicate very well with her fellow officials.
This entire "30 second rule" is based on one of the scenarios in the school's training video. After the doubles match, player A commits a code. The video shows a stopwatch ticking past 30 seconds. Then player A's partner commits a code. But it could have been 25 seconds, 18 seconds, 27 seconds, etc. There is nothing magical about 30 seconds.
Post a Comment