When do you code (or not code) a ball hit over the fence? That's always a question that confronts a good official and one that we all struggle with... We have all been at a pro match when the player blasts the ball over the fence and nothing is done--but that isn't (and shouldn't) be the case in ITA tennis.
Here are some scenarios that you might want to consider:
1. Player deliberately hits the ball over the fence into the parking lot.
2. Player smashes the ball onto the court and then it bounces over the fence.
3. Player hits the ball into the ground--it bounces twice and then over the lower fence between the courts.
Which of these would you code or not code and why?
Just a little picture below of what awaits you if you ignore balls being hit over the fence...
10 comments:
Which of these would you code or not code and why?
For me, some of my decision to code or not is going to be based on the player's intention and what has just transpired in the point.
1. Player deliberately hits the ball over the fence into the parking lot.
I can't think of a situation that I would not code this, even if the player just won the match.
2. Player smashes the ball onto the court and then it bounces over the fence.
If the ball unintentionally bounces over, I most likely would not code this one. If the player was visibly upset after losing the point and hit this ball, it may justify a code penalty.
3. Player hits the ball into the ground--it bounces twice and then over the lower fence between the courts.
As with #2, if this is an unintentional result, I'm not likely to issue the code penalty. If there's a match in progress and the ball is going to possibly interrupt play, I'll code this as it's disturbing the other court and could have been avoided.
As with most things, I believe we are intended to use our judgment and common sense when administering the rules and regulations of our sport.
Depends on which ITA coordinator you talk to. One will tell you not to code a deliberate shot out of the ballpark unless it has been done in "anger and frustration", even though those words were edited out of the rule book years ago. He'll tell you that if a player launches a moon shot in joy, you should ignore it. Once again, there are a lot of interpretations that lead to confusion and angry players/coaches when one set of officials interprets the rules differently than another set.
My local head official is pretty adament that all three should be coded, so as they say, when in Rome..
My personal view is that the first two should always be coded and the third also coded if the ball was hit in apparent anger or frustration. If was just a freak bounce from clearing a ball off the court, I would not code it.
1. I would code.
2. I would code if the player was upset and hit the ball.
3. I would code if the player was upset or if it interferred with the match on the adjacient court.
Most of the time it all depends on the temperment on the court.
RonWhitson has got to be kidding. I would NEVER EVER code a player for hitting a ball over the fence after having just won the match.
Get a Life and use some good judgment - PLEASE!!!
#1 - Yes
#2 - Probably
#3 - Not likely
One has to consider everything that has gone on/is currently going on in the match for scenarios #2 & #3. I don't consider the player's intent because I have no way of knowing what his intent was. All I can look at is the end result.
I'm not coding the winning player who intentionally hits a ball up in the stands after the winning point.
So much of what we do comes down to judgment. The bottom line is that we must always be able to explain why we did or did not do something.
Yo! Cisco Kid! So you "would NEVER EVER code a player for hitting a ball over the fence after having just won the match." What's the difference if he's happy or angry? We'd appreciate an explanation. I'd also ask how you'd explain to a person struck by a ball off the court that you didn't code the moron who struck it because he was happy, not angry! Or that you didn't put a stop to this ball launching behavior at an earlier match because the player was "happy". Say a player you haven't coded for a "happy launch" does it again and causes some type of injury. Would you have any liability for not enforcing the rules of tennis? Yeah, yeah ,yeah I know hitting someone with a ball is a code but, in your book, is it? Or do you interpret happy strikes vs angry strikes?
If you are dumb enough as an official to code a player for acts of exuberance, then maybe you shouldn't be officiating.
Again common sense rules. Apparently I have more common sense than you do. I bet you don't even play tennis. Or if you do, then you are a Senior's 2.5 player.
Oh yeah, basic physics says it is almost impossible for someone to get injured from a falling tennis ball. As a test case, let's get together some evening outside the Empire State building. I'll drop a tennis ball on your head and I bet you won't get hurt. Besides, it sounds like you have a very hard head. Or is that hard headed?!?
Go play with your toys, yo yo.
YO! Cisco Kid! You'll have to forgive me. For a short moment I thought I was responding to an adult, not a child. You write, "If you are dumb enough as an official to code a player for acts of exuberance, then maybe you shouldn't be officiating." So tell me, what other "acts of exuberance" do you ignore: an exuberant fist shaken in the direction of an opponent? An exuberant, happy dance on the opponent's side of the court after a winning shot? Or perhaps an exuberant and loud "F**king A", when an opponent misses a shot?
Grow up child. Better yet, go sit in the hallway and leave the blog and the officiating to the grown ups.
Post a Comment