This one is hot off the press--and happened tonight in a major men's collegiate match here in Texas...
SCENARIO
In a men's singles match, deuce, deciding point, receiver's choice the receiver chooses to receive in the ad court. The point begins but in the middle of the point, a let is called (and rightfully so.)
After the let is called, the receiver wants to move over to the deuce court to receive the serve.
How would you rule????
15 comments:
This is a no brained for a seasoned ITA official. Since the point has already started, the player cant change his mind, u less of course he's at a home cooked match in Tulsa.
Better yet. This just in - Baylor Women lose in basketball, following the lead of their otherbsports teams thisnyear!
The original choice to receive in the ad court would continue for this let replay. This is still the same no-ad point that hasn't been completed yet.
My ruling would be that the original choice would still be in effect.
But, this raises another question: Would the chair umpire have to wave the 'game point' paddle again?
I would allow it. I would consider it a complete/clean reset of the deuce point once a let is called.
Appendix V of the ITF Rules states when a deciding No-Ad point is replayed, the receiver or receiving team may not change the choice of court to which the server must serve. I see no other rule or mention altering this rule in the ITA rulebook, so stay in the same court.
The point has been started even though there has been a situation to cause a replay of this point. Therefore the original choice of where they received must be the same for the replay as well.
Once side is chosen that pick must remain, regardless of a let being called or point replayed
I would think because you are replaying the point receiver can pick which side to receive from.
Yes, obviously the server will get a first service opportunity so the receiver deserves the opportunity to make a fresh election of service box as well. Fair is fair. -B
What did the chair decide and what is correct?
I think the point can be replayed but not the decision to change sides. Can you tell us what decision was made at the match in which this happened? And is the rule Brighton found the correct ruling?
The referee ruled that the player could not change courts--and I agree.
I guess we should ask our new ITA Committee - based on the sticky situations described in the first newsletter, it's anybody's guess how they will rule!
Has anybody read the latest ITAlics newsletter talking about lets? It is wrong on so many levels. For instance, it states the solo chair umpire shouldn't call service lets directly. That is a bunch of BS. If this is true, then the solo chair shouldn't call touches, invasions of the opponent's court, reaching over the net, double bounces, and hell, even the score in a game. All of these can then be assumed as appealable calls. Who's watching over these loons??????
Evidently, the ITA folks have made another unannounced change in medical timeout procedures. It seems that if a player needs assistance during a game from the trainer, then any unused time for that situation can be used later when a medical timeout 'is taken'. This per the ITA guru from California
Post a Comment