Seems that in the Baylor match with Stanford (with Stanford leading the dual 3-2), the Chair Official overruled the Baylor player in the 3rd set when the Stanford player was leading 15-0, 6-5, and serving. That gave the Stanford player a 30-0 lead, and he then served a first serve wide on the far sideline--the Baylor player called it out and was again overruled. Since it was the third overrule, a point penalty was assessed giving the game and match to Stanford.
Noone would question the authority of a chair official to make an overrule on an erroneous call, but its hard to believe that a chair official would overrule twice in a third set as close as this to determine the match. The even sadder part was that one of the overrules was down the T on a first serve and the second overrule was on the far sideline on a first serve. Now, what experienced official do you know that would overrule in a situation as questionable as that?
Sadly, this all could have been averted if the tournament had posted a LINESPERSON ON THE LONG LINES during a deciding match. This is common practice in the Big 12 and has gone a long way to stopping problems.
Sometimes lightning strikes twice--but in this case it didn't have to...
15 comments:
and some people just cheat... how about that?
I forget, where did we end up on the whole Serena thing? Are all lines the same or are we supposed adjust according to point in the match?
When you figure it out, let me know, b/c if you are not going to overrule late, then I am going to call every far line out in the third...
Unfortunately the Referees responsible for NCAA Nationals are prima donas and can't think outside the box to alleviate problems before they arise. Hopefully the ITA will pass new rules requiring far sideline officials on deciding matches. That's how the no-service let rule in Men's Division I came about.
Truly sad for the chair umpire to decide the outcome of a highly competitive match.
It must be the wrath of God for Baylor's obnoxious fans.
Randy might want to review his overall facts. It looks like the deciding match was @ no.1 and that score was 7-5 7-5; no 3rd set there.
other scores:
#3: stanford 63 62
#5: standord 61 16 64
#6: stanford 63 64
#4: baylor 64 64
baylor got the dbls. point.
team score: stanford 4-2.
I would hate to hear the howling if by chance Baylor had had a foot-fault called against them in the 3rd set too.
Looks like a straight up ass-whopping to me in the Stanford match. FYI: Baylor went 0-3 at this event.
Auburn won 4-1.
A&M won 4-0.
OUCH!!!!!!!!
Why would they put a far-sideline person out there at that event. The A-TEAM of officials was there. Hand picked cream of the crop. DIVERSITY at it's finest!!!
Hard to make a judgment on an over rule by another official unless you were actually there to see it and it shouldn't make a difference about the point in the match when the over rule occurred. I'd have to disagree with you regarding the use of lines people on far side lines. It treats the matches differently from the ones that didn't get the benefit of a linesman. If you're going to use people on the lines then they need to be on every match. If not, then they shouldn't be used on any match. This is a team event, basically a dual meet match, not the NCAA's. This is not something that is used on the west coast or in the PAC 12 for the very reasons I've mentioned above (among others).
Sorry but I stand by my account of the match. When the third overrule occurred, the score was 3-2 Stanford.
You can go to Zoo Tennis for a more in-depth write up.
if an official is available, there is no reason not to put them to
work. On a match with tight calls being made by both players, that help is immeasurable.
The Big 12 got this right!!
I like a match ending in a calm manner!
Maybe Haymuncher can enlighten us with his unbiased version of this situation. That should clear it up!!
Mike Standrod said he would rat out the chair umpires name after he left the site. Any word from Big Mike yet?
Officials are hired to work the matches. There is no sacred text that declares a chair umpire once finished with their match cannot become a linesman.
Especially necessary for far sideline and serve lines in big ITA matches.
No reason the players should be denied fairness,
to satisfy the egoism of the officials culture.
Are we just stupid? Of course we should have the far side - you cannot give me good reason not to? Surely the players would call the balls the same?! Or are you saying they wouldn't - I am not following the reason not to cover the line?
There is a lot more pressure on the deciding matches to win at any cost. Therefore, cheating is usually more prevalent. Having an official stationed on the long lines goes a long way in preventing blatant cheating. i'm still surprised some players still try to cheat. Guess they don't realize they have big brother watching their calls.
NO REFEREE out there can answer your question(s) ANON: 7:58....
They just do what the coaches tell them - they know who is paying their bill!!!!!!
That is sad - what a waste of officials - we get there an hour early and then if you are a "chosen one" you will sit there another hour while your friends call the doubles... HOW STUPID IS THAT?
Answer the question - YOU CAN'T!
Where's lunch? More reason not to call those side lines. Pizza is at the front desk.
Post a Comment