How Would You Rule? A Ball Touching The Net...

Just heard this one and thought you might like it...

SCENARIO

In a doubles match with a chair umpire, Player A hurries to the net to get a short shot.  The extra ball was laying at the bottom of the net and obviously touching the net. 

Player A returned the shot and his foot touched the ball that was touching the net.  The chair umpire was watching closely and the player did not touch the net but did touch the ball. 

Is this a loss of point or nothing???

How Would You Rule? An overactive coach.

Over the years we have discovered that collegiate coaches come in many shapes and sizes--and also in many different personality types.  We have all encountered a hyperactive type A coach who simply can't sit still.  That makes this scenario even more interesting...

SCENARIO

In a Division I doubles match, Team A has served a first serve fault.  Just as they are bouncing the ball to serve their second serve, the coach from Team B runs across the court to meet with his players on the adjacent court and disrupts play in doing so.  The official was roving two courts and was not in observation of this incident.

What do you do?

1.  Caution the coach not to do it again.

2.  Give Team B a first serve.

3.  Give the coach a coach's warning for disrupting play.

4.  Award the point to Team B because of interference by the coach of Team A.

5.  Do nothing and hope he learns to be still. 

Be sure to send us your thoughts and comments on this one.

NOTE:  There was not a ruling made in this specific instance because Team A came to the official (who was observing another court) to tell him about the incident after the point had been completed.  The coach however was asked if he had done this and he vehemently denied it.  The coach of Team A said he did and was indignant that the official would not take her word for it.

LESSON TO BE LEARNED:  All officials should develop eyes in the back of their head so they can see two courts at the same time and never, ever, take anyone's word for something that happened on the court unless you personally witness it.

We Got Spoiled!

Now that the experimental match format for collegiate matches has disappeared we are discovering that we were truly spoiled with the new format!  Horror tales of long matches from across the country have been coming in and here are just a few Texas examples:

*  The Texas A&M vs Florida men's match took 4 hours and 16 minutes.

*  The SMU vs UTEP women's match took 4 hours and 31 minutes.

The match between TCU and Tulsa men last night took over 6 hours to complete but they were playing indoors on less than 6 courts.

Final conclusion:  If they wanted shortened matches, then the experimental format is the way to go.  If they want long matches, then stay with what we have.

The choice isn't our's but I hope someone makes some changes real soon...

The picture above reminds us of an average day for a collegiate tennis official in which they:

*  Called 21 footfaults.
*  Coded 2 misbehaving players.
*  Warned one disruptive coach.
*  Ate a cold Subway sandwich with no cheese or mayo.
*  Sat in the chair for a four hour women's singles match.
*  Drove for 5 hours getting home after a four hour match.
*  Had to put up with a mean referee.
*  Had to come home to an unhappy spouse.
*  Found out my refrigerator was broken when I got home.
*  Had to go to work on Monday at my real job.