Seems that everywhere we go people are discussing the previous post about a let call. The incident occurred in a men's D1 doubles match this past weekend so that gives you a little background for the three answers to the question.
ALLOW A LET
The ruling was that "as long as the ball is in play, any player may call a let." Not sure what all kinds of trouble this invites, but it was/is the ruling in that arena.
DENY A LET
The other school of thought is "once the ball has left the player's racket they may not call a let." This means that a player cannot simply find a rolling ball to call a let and negate a bad shot or cannot call a let when the opponent has a "sitter." This also has a lot of ramifications that might seem to cause consternation among players and coaches.
LET THE CHAIR MAKE THE DECISION
This is a bit of a blend of the two previous options. As one referee said to his officials, "Do your job and use the tools you have." There seems to be much more comfort with letting the chair official decide if the let call is valid.
These options are valid primarily for chaired matches or one that has a roving official in viewing sight of a match. With all options there seems to be fertile ground for endless disputes at the USTA level but the one principle that seems to guide us through this quagmire is: players should be good sports and play accordingly.
We will welcome your thoughts and opinions on this matter.
15 comments:
I cannot believe that any referee that saw the events unfolding as described can allow a let.
Even though the rules indicate that "anyone" can call a let, they don't allow it for just "any" reason.
Taking what was written literally, it would be quite easy for a teammate of a college player to toss a ball onto the court any time it looked like his team was going to be unable to reach a ball, giving them an option to avoid losing a point.
It happened to me and I did not allow the let. The referee was called to the court and his ruling was that it was a let as long as the ball is in play.
Go figure...
It happened to me and I did not allow the let. The referee was called to the court and his ruling was that it was a let as long as the ball is in play.
Go figure...
If the precedent is set where anyone can call a let for any reason, then EVERYONE will.
What are the chances we could get "The Code" updated with this example, so this mess can be made right?
The truth is that if anyone can, then anyone will. Hopefully the rules committee will straighten this out in next year's FAC and we will have something in print to back up our preconceived notions.
Who was the referee?
The rule committee does not have to do anything. Anyone can call a let, but it is not automatically granted. Just like on hindrance calls -- you cannot be hindered if you have no play on the ball. The National schools for years have had scenario where the player hits a ball that is clearly going out and then calls a let because a ball roils on court. This is definitely a chair/rover decision and your referee made an incorrect ruling. (not the first or last that will be made)
I agree with the call Randy made no allowing the let, but I was told if ball is still in play then a let can be called, I guess once player is aware the ball rolled onto court, of course if the ball rolled behind at back and had stopped then not sure one should be able to call a let in that case.
Sorry to disappoint everyone (and I totally agree that the let should not have been granted) but the let could be called anytime the ball was still in play--at this tournament.
Right or wrong, that's the way it was.
"... at this tournament."? What the heck does that mean? Was this rule discussed in advance of the start of the tournament? Was this interpretation communicated to all officials and players prior to the start of play? And since it was you (Randy) who was overruled by the tournament referee, you surely must know the referee's name. Or is there a reason why you don't wish to identify the individual?
Baylor fan here and who was at the tournament. The referee was Anthony Montero.
You need to ask Jane Goodall the answer, since she knows it all. Unfortunately, what she thinks she knows isn't necessarily the correct answer in many of the situations.
History has proven that if you take the direct opposite of what Ms. Goodall says, you should be correct 99.8% of the time.
Who the is Jane Goodall? Her name is Jane Goodman. Perhaps if you do not wish to be thought of as someone barely a step above retarded, maybe you should get the name right.
By the way, I'd listen to her over most Texas College Officials anyway...she's got the bona fides and the experience to back up her up words of advice.
Being a College Coordinator, or working a tom of Blowout matches doesn't really match up against her CV, by any stretch.
And this would be the Miss Jane who didn't even know the collegiate rule about medical time outs? I think so.
Isn't Jane Goodall the same coordinator that has a stronghold on making assignments in Southern Cal and will staff her pro wannabees to work Women's tournaments at the expense of qualified officials for hugh rivals UCLA and USC. I remember watching one of their epic matches and only TWO officials were assigned to work it. That's beyond STUPID.
Post a Comment