Two different calls on the same ball.
Rule I-B-3 (Page 242, FAC)
Disagreement between partners over a call. A doubles partner is obligated to disagree with his partner if an erroneous "out" call is made. When doubles partners disagree on a call, the point goes to the opposing team. The point is never replayed.
Scenario
In a women's ITA doubles match last weekend at Baylor, team A hit a passing shot past one of team B's players. As she missed the ball, the girl said "good shot" and put her hand out signaling good. When the ball landed outside the baseline, the other team B player said "out."
Team A said they deserved the point since the rule states that if partners disagree on a call, the point goes to the opposing team. Team B said the ball was out and the chair official agreed with the out call, disregarding the player's disagreement on the call.
How would you have ruled?
35 comments:
Looks like Gary T. was at his finest last weekend!!
Sorry but Gary T. was in Austin doing a fine job at their regionals.
Player on the B team called and signaled the ball good, prior to it hitting out. Assuming partner couldn't/didn't return the ball, wouldn't the point be over? And if her partner called out, signaling disagreement among B team, shouldn't it still be A's point? Or would "intentional hindrance" on B's part potentially come into play?
It sounds like the player who missed the shot simply called the ball good without turning to see where it landed. If that was true, then no real disagreement existed, and I would agree with the chair and rule the ball out, giving the point to Team B.
If the player who missed the shot turned to look at the ball and signaled it good, then a clear disagreement existed, awarding the point to Team A.
Another J. L. call and ruling. Always has his head down.
I was working that tournament, and we all discussed this at length. I think that since it was appealed and the umpire saw it out as well then the call should go in favor of team B.
If the call was appealed to the chair and the chair confirmed the ball was out, then the point should go to team B.
SOUNDS LIKE - Chair did a Good Job in this situation - that is sticky! Wish that MORE common since was used!
Do you just ignore the fact that the player on team B called the ball good and signaled good in the middle of the point?
This is the reason chair umpires must use good judgement and common sense. The player at the net signaled prematurely that the ball was going out, before it actually struck the ground. After realizing the ball was actually out, then I am assuming the player at the net, along with her partner, both correctly called the ball out. Since the players didn't make simultaneous good/out calls, there really was no disagreement and they should be awarded the point. This is no different than a player at the net indicating a good shot on a lob hit over their head before the ball lands, only to realize that it actually landed out.
The only exception to this ruling would be if the player at the net called the ball out before it bounced, and then changing her call to good after realizing the ball actually landed within the court.
Of course, I also understand that certain officials from Arkansas only see black and white and don't have a lot of common sense and would award the point to the other team. This must be an SEC rule.
After many years, I think I'm beginning to understand this umpire stuff better. From some of the discussions, it appears that even if a rule is black and white, but we don't like the rule, then we should find some way to change it, ignore it, or just do what we think is fair. If one person says good, and then later another says out, then they didn't really disagree, I guess because it wasn't simultaneous. I'm not exactly clear on the why the order of calling or the timing has to be a certain way to be a disagreement, but I don't have to understand it, I will be able to rule on what feels better at the time. We should use "good judgement" especially if something happens that we think should go the other way, no matter what the rules say. This will be fun. To take this to the logical conclusion, each official can just write their own rule book, or better yet, no rules, just make it up as we go along. That will really be fair, and make everyone happy. I'm sure there won't be any problems this way. All players and coaches will agree that we all are doing what is best. Forget about that part that says players are supposed to make calls, we'll decide. Of course, if they play an out ball, we should be consistent and stop play because we know it was out. Yea! Ignore the rule if it isn't to our liking. Obviously the situation described is "sticky" and even though the rule is clear, in this case it isn't fair, so let's ignore it. The rule states "out then good", this case was "good then out" so that can't be a disagreement, so let's use "common sense" find a way to justify our ignoring the rule.. To summarize, ignore the rules, use common sense and good judgement, ignore what the players say, and you make all the final decisions.
Dear February 2, 2012 11:55:00 AM CST Anonymous...
It appears you have problems using your brain to help solve difficult situations. Step outside of your cardboard box for the first time in your life and think about what you are attempting to say. Nobody is saying you shouldn't enforce the rule (excluding Gary and Herb Ts of course), but not every situation you will encounter in life is as simple as black and white, as is the case which transpired at the "elite" courts of that fine institution, Baylor.
I heard our most honorable official from Arkansas gave a good tongue-lashing to the chair umpire involved in the match. Is everybody aware that the USTA dropped the UA self-annointed king of officials from working professional chairs like a hot tater due to his incompetence? Now he's relegated to only working college matches. Be careful, if you piss him off, you won't be working at Arkansas matches. Now he's trying to expand his area of incompetence across all SEC schools.
To be honest, I'm not sure how I would have ruled. I'm just glad I wasn't the chair official on this match or the referee.
Instead, I was in Austin watching the Michigan team skip the national anthem--but I also enjoyed a great evening at County Line and all their great beef ribs!
Read the rule... "A doubles partner is obligated to disagree with his partner if an erroneous "out" call is made".
In this case, an erroneous GOOD call was made. NOT an erroneous OUT call.
That's what happens when you import something or someone from Arkansas. Surely there are enough good officials in Texas so we don't have to go looking somewhere else. Besides, shouldn't everyone be honored to work the elite program at Baylor?
Hey RM, you didn't give one of your left-over ribs to Bevo-Boy so now he's sad...
I gave my leftover rib bones to my two Labs and they both got the runs. I guess I'll learn.
I see where Baylor added karaoke boxes to each of their elite courts. Is that so all their foreign players can practice their English speaking skills during practice?
Everybody knows the only way to achieve elite status is to have something the other teams don't have, i.e., karaoke boxes. However, Baylor hasn't realized nobody else wants such trash on their courts. That goes for those large tennis court clipboards the coaches carry on court as well.
Maybe Baylor should feed the officials ribs before home matches. It would be hilarious to see the officials run for the bathrooms with "the squirts" - that would be priceless.
Did the officials at Baylor this weekend, sign new 3-year agreements with Haymuncher to assure they will have assignments for the next 3 years?
on 2nd thought, were all the officials at Waco even tendered with new 3-year agreements to sign?
Tennis God,
I'm sorry that you mis-understood. I am agreeing with you. This was an unusual situation, and I was saying that people "should use your brain" and ignore the rule book. I am saying tha every official should step outside their "cardboard box" and do what they feel is right.
I do have a question? What if the person Player B called the ball out, the Player A said the ball was good, but the chair saw the ball out. Would your ruling change? The situation is the same, but the partners calls have changed. Would you change your call? The rule about the partners disagreeing about the call still applys, but if we use commmon sense and think outside the cardboard box, then we have to ignore the fact that the one partner called the ball out and they disagree. In other words, not everything is black or white, even when it is.
If the doubles team disagrees on a call and it's obvious they were both in direct observation of where the ball landed (i.e., past tense) and made opposing calls at that time, then the rule would definitely apply and they would lose the point.
Again, this is a no-brainer situation.
I was the chair official. Team A hit a baseline shot that was clearly out. Team B players both made opposite hand signals simultaneously. Coaches from both schools were present and seen the shot as out also.
Whether the shot was in or out was not in question. Team A felt they deserved the point beacuse Team B gave different signals. It was an erroneous "in" call and I awarded the point to Team B because the ball was out.
I believe this secnario happens more often than we realize. The most common occurance happens on the serve. The receiver will play the serve and his partner will call the ball out (this actually happened the same day, different match). If you're in the chair, do you automatically say the receiving team disagreed so the server wins the point. We usually don't. The serve is usually appealed and we make a decision based on what we saw.
At least you don't have criminals working at BU and if you hate it so much then skip over the assignments and work elsewhere where you feel like they will treat you better.
Sounds like everyone agrees to disagree and loves to hate!! No wonder the coaches show little respect for us, we can't even respect each other.
D. Brandy...
If BOTH teammates made opposite calls simultaneously, then the point goes to the opposing team. PERIOD EXCLAMATION POINT!!!!! Whether or not the ball was actually out is irrelevant in this case. This is a classic case for applying the rule without question.
This is no different than if you see a player intentionally make a bad line call and their opponent doesn't question the call. Surely you wouldn't overrule without an appeal.
I stand corrected on my previous posts. You really need to learn the rules.
D.Brandy....
This scenario has nothing to do with playing out serves. Maybe you should take the time and read up on the rules. In most cases, honest players will play out serves since they are uncertain whether or not the ball was out.
I cannot argue with you. If I do, My intelligence will be diminished and you will dazzle me with your special brilliance!
D. Brandy...
If BOTH teammates made opposite calls simultaneously, then the point goes to the opposing team. PERIOD EXCLAMATION POINT!!!!! Whether or not the ball was actually out is irrelevant in this case. This is a classic case for applying the rule without question.
This is no different than if you see a player intentionally make a bad line call and their opponent doesn't question the call. Surely you wouldn't overrule without an appeal.
I stand corrected on my previous posts. You really need to learn the rules.
Tennis God: Who appointed you God anyway. Your judgement is apparently warped due to your supreme ego.
A player is "obligated" to correct his partner if his partner calls a good shot out. A player should be "allowed" to correct his partner if his partner calls an out shot good.
As a learned from a wise official sometime ago; anybody can call the score. A chair official is expected to use his experience, knowledge of the rules, and sound judgement when an instant decision has to be made.
You don't know me. You have no right to disrespect me in this manner. Name provided to protect the integrity.
FROM HAYMUNCHER:
I was the Referee during this event.I was not in direct observation.
This was a complicated situation
and there will be debate on end going forward.
The important thing here is that the Chair Umpire,Don Brandy,had to make a ruling and did.
Don is man(or "PC" version,person)
enough to sign his opinions and stand by his decision knowing full well it will always be questioned.
For these actions he has my continued respect.
Haymuncher
Like I said in my previous post. I won't be able to argue with you and win. You will drag me down to your level and beat me with your experience.
D Brandy
Thanks for putting your name and giving the actual facts to the story.
You're ruling makes to much common sense for some.
You have my respect.
Haymuncher,
I'm really surprised you stand up for an official who blatently doesn't follow the rules and makes poor decisions on rules he doesn't agree with.
We have one of those officials here in Oklahoma and yes, he's always the Referee. Fortunately, a lot of us have stopped working for him.
D Brandy,
The latest issue of Tennis magazine confirms my astute and celestial knowledge of the rules. Read the second question and answer from Court of Appeals found on page 12.
Boris Tynkov must be as mentally challenged as you appear to be. Go to your FAC and re-read Code 14 and Code 12 which will enlighten your misunderstanding of the rules of tennis.
Post a Comment