Scenario: In a men's ITA dual match (singles), player A calls a baseline shot out that was obviously in--and witnessed by the head referee and player B's coach. The chair upholds the out call.
The coach of Player B is irate and wants the referee to overrule the non-overrule by the chair official since he witnessed the call.
What would you do if you were the referee?
1. Overrule the non-call by the chair and issue an overrule to player A.
2. Do nothing.
3. Assure the coach you would talk to the chair official at the next changeover.
4. Hope it never happens again.
5. Thank the chair official for bringing such grief into your life.
19 comments:
What is "obvious" to you - may not be that "obvious" to the chair. AND, what you failed to say in this scene is that Player B's coach was three courts away and AS USUAL saw his player and the chair official make a GREAT call - EVEN IF HE DIDN'T - he will say he did!!! Do not open a can worms...I'd talk to the official after the match.
Do nothing. It's the chair umpire's call and no one elses.
Unfortunately in this case, both the coach and the referee were standing looking right down the baseline and about 15 feet from the court.
Depends on which coach the ref was trying to butter up. So many written rules are "interpreted" in so many different ways that the door is, once again, left open for the whim of the referee. How about this scenario....since the referee was in direct observation of the line in question and definitely saw the hook take place, might he or she have the OPTION to make a ruling on the call thereby appeasing one coach, but possibly earning the enmity of the chair official?
Isn't the referee's role to rule on questions of law not on questions of fact?
I will give you all a little clue...
I was the referee and Myron was the chair umpire and the coach was the mad guy at the courts...
BTW, I did nothing but pray and hope the coach didn't kill me...
Another note: Lynn Welch told me that Myron never makes a mistake so I followed her evaluation and trusted his judgment (even though the ball was inside the line by 2.7 inches).
Isn't ITA officiating fun!!!
Page 32 FAC: In team events where the referee is sitting on-court, the referee is also the final authority on questions of fact. Also the referee is the final authority on all questions of tennis law and the referee"s decision is final. Therefore since this was a team event the referee, in direct observance, has the authority to overrule the chair as the player have a right to call for the referee if they disagree with how the chair ruled.
Oops... I stand corrected.
Why is the referee standing around during the singles? Doesn't he have a match to chair? I'm pretty sure Karl isn't going to spring for 7 officials!!
Carl did indeed spring for 6 officials--me included. One of the 6 on court officials was a trainee.
Then if you had an unpaid "trainee" at the match, why weren't you stationed by the 'trainees' court? That's where all the 'action' would probably be.
I guess you got the 'fee' for that match.....nice work when you can get it.
Of course I got the fee for that match since I had to oversee six courts at once. Thankfully I have perfect eyesight and can see all the lines on every court from my perch by court #1.
BTW, the trainee was in eyesight and did a fantastic job...
#2 - the referee does nothing. Referees rule on questions of law not questions of fact. Whether or not the ball was in is a question of fact for the chair to call. (In an unchaired match the referee in direct observance could make the call.) I´ll tell you this, if I ever work for a referee who comes on court and changes my call (which Randy did not do) I´ll be hesitant to work for that referee again. And I don´t care about that quote from FAC either!
I think Randy did exactly the right thing.
Hmm. Looks like I got thrown under the bus on this one. One fact that was left out is that the baselines at SMU are the same thickness as the other lines, so it makes seeing where the ball hit a lot more difficult.
Also, somehow I don't think the ball was 2.7" inside the line. I know I would have seen that.
Maybe I should be taken off all future SMU matches, if my overrule capabilities are lacking.
I view it as just a momentary lapse in your otherwise perfect judgment and eyesight...
So touchy Myron! Is someone in need of a hug?
RE: Page 32 FAC response. I don´t have my FAC in front of me, but I don´t think this section applies. As best I remember, and I may be wrong, this is the section about roles or duties of the referee. In an unchaired match, this would apply. In a match where there is a chair umpire, the referee DOES NOT rule on questions of fact.
This is how we get ourselves into trouble when we choose a small section of a rule and overapply it where it doesn´t belong.
Answer #2 is correct. The referee does nothing in this scenario.
Chances of me going on to the court as referee and overruling a call or non-call by a chair official are zilch.
We all miss calls from time to time but that would be a precedent that we don't want to establish.
Post a Comment