The howler in action.
New rule:
ITA Rule I.B.21 (page 247) Hindrance- loud outburst following a
perceived winning shot. A solo chair or roving umpire (only if standing at the net
post) should immediately call a “hindrance – loss of point” when a player(s)
makes a loud outburst following a perceived winning shot that the opponent(s)
has a play on. (current ITA Rules I.E.10-13 become I.E.11-14.)
ITA Rule I.P.(page 255).
Interpretation from the USTA:
Player A hits an overhead and yells “C’mon” or “Vamos” thinking he hit a great point ending shot. Meanwhile, his opponent, Player B, actually had a play on the ball. Player B immediately stops and claims a hindrance. Is this allowed?Yes. Player A's shout was deliberate and Player B stopped play immediately.
If Player B did not have a play on the ball, can he claim a hindrance? No
Who determines whether Player B had a play on the ball? If no official saw it, Player B.
If a Rover/Chair umpire believes Player B had a play on the ball, does the official stop play immediately awarding the point to player B Yes or call a let and warns Player A that if it happens again, he will lose the point. No
(Should the USTA adopt the language of the ITA in the new 2011 FAC 1B.21 pg. 245. Yes
This year's ITA season should be spirited to say the least when we begin enforcing this new rule!!!
13 comments:
Since the USTA is trying to distance themselves from ITA, I believe this is their way of throwing those working ITA matches under the bus.
If I understand this correctly, player B can claim the point if no official saw it.
I thought if we didn't see it happen, then it didn't happen...
I can foresee many creative young college gentlemen claiming a lot of free points this year.
How 'bout that language in the FAC that talks about the difference between "shall" and "should"? Is there not some wriggle room in this one because of the word "should"?. Based on the discussion of lateness penalties earlier this week, I can just imagine the on court interpretation of this one. And I can't wait for the first ITA rookie (or some vets, for that matter) to call this one and face the wrath of some of our ITA coaches.
Need definitions for "loud outburst" and "playable ball"
The rules have now changed. If someone tells an official they observed something bad happen, the official now has the authority to take corrective action. This came out of the College Station school. I guess Sara Lammerts will be happy, provided of course she was telling the truth about the alledged spitting incident.
Please explain about the alleged spitting incident, I have not heard about this.
If you 'enforce' this one, you have opened up a can of rattlesnakes.
I have dealt with this "shouting" in a huge match at a national collegiate tournament.
It is extremely dicey and there is no black and white. Here is what happened on match point:
In doubles the underdog team hits a screaming service return angle indoors and it looked like a sure winner. The underdogs started screaming in jubilation and then suddenly Team A server magically runs the shot down, and throws up a "weak" lob, and says (though not very audible) "let", because he claims he was hindered, thus the weak lob, The underdog team put the weak lob away for match point.
Here come both Coaches for Team A claiming their boy was "hindered' by the jubiliation and he could have returned the lob better had he not been distracted. Umpire ruled game, set, match, (player not hindered, he got to the ball and returned it). I believe it was the "correct" call.
Referee comes out and agrees, but then after more arguing with Coaches, the Referee changed his mind and said "replay the point". Team A ended up winning the match.
How can an umpire determine if someone was "hindered". I believe the player has to stop play, but who is going to do this on a huge match point?
I have seen this issue many times, but the above was the most dramatic.
Yoda, The Coach's Rules Committee
drafted this rule, not the USTA
With this new rule interpertation going into effect, it is going to be a very long year for those newly "seasoned officials" that are just chomping at the bit to get to work this season.
It would be great to have the ticket concession for the soon to be coming 'ass-chewing' events these SO's will get.
hmm my first trip to Oxford is no longer going to be as enjoyable as I thought thanks to this rule and SEC coaches
To 10:14am Anonymous: Under the new rules, there will be no let, but rather loss of point for deliberate hindrance. Remember, if no official is around, it is the responsibility of the player being hindered to make the call, and he has the final determination whether or not he was hindered. Therefore, the Referee will have no alternative other than to go along with the person "claiming" to have been hindered.
I foresee this rule being abused by a lot of smart players and it will be revised again next year.
Do you really think the USTA has no input into the ITA Rule changes. If you really beleive that, you are not the brightest light bulb in the room. You are probably one of those green people that drive one of those fancy hybrid cars, now aren't you.
Post a Comment