Baylor player losing his shoe in a 3rd set tiebreak.
SCENARIO
I (Randy McDonald) was the referee for the match between Baylor and Oklahoma. The match was tied 3-3 and it came down to the #6 singles match. We were in a tie break in the third set.
During a point the Baylor player lost his shoe (see the above picture) and then made an effort to play the point. He did return the ball over the net and the Oklahoma player put the ball away.
RULING
After consulting with the chair official who told me that she did not see the shoe come off but that she did see the player continue to play the point, I ruled that the point was over at that point and awarded it to the Oklahoma player. The basis for my decision was that a referee cannot overrule in a question of fact (only in a question of law), so I stood with the decision of the chair official.
QUESTIONS, THOUGHTS, & OPTIONS
This scenario is filled with numerous questions, thoughts, and options and here are a few:
1. If the chair official had seen the shoe come off, what should she have done?
2. Since the chair official stated what she had seen, should the referee have overruled her decision and called a "hindrance--replay the point"?
3. Should the Baylor player immediately stopped play and called a let on himself?
4. Should the Oklahoma player have stopped play when he saw the shoe come off and called a let?
We would welcome you thoughts and opinions on this one. I'll give you a hint: there is no complete agreement among the highest ranking officials in the USTA.
44 comments:
The Baylor player can not call a let he has control of his shoes same as a hat. The Oklahoma player could have called a let, same as a hat, but not after the point is over.
I had same thing happen in a Baylor women's match. Shoe was not a hazzard as the point was over quickly. Opponent wanted to call a let after Baylor won the point, but admitted she didn't see the shoe on the court until after the point was played. I agree with your call.
I suppose Baylor needs to learn how to tie their shoes.
What was the umpire watching if she did not see the shoe?
In the Final Word, Kaufman's USTA column answering questions, he states that in a chaired match, the Chair shall call a let on a lost shoe because it is so unusual that it is like the bird getting hit with a ball and dropping dead on the court.
I guess the chair just made a mistake not seeing the shoe...we do all make mistakes or was she just protecting herself?
Can't call something you did not see?
Lesson learned..tie your shoes better!
There seems to be a strong consensus (except for Glen Whitaker)that if the chair official had seen the shoe fall off she should have called a "hindrance", given a warning, and then replayed the point.
Umpire was probably watching the cute and athletic players rather than
the missed shoe...
I am mystified why the Chair did not see the shoe come off..I am sure it
affectd the players' gate and it looks like he is down trying to hit the next ball?
La La land??? or what?
Standing over the back of the court (opposite the player losing the shoe) it was so obviously a hindrance call.
The player lost his shoe, looked up at the official, then swatted it over the net from the ground.
I would almost never have any sympathy for Baylor or a Baylor player, but in this instance I felt it was an obvious hindrance.
How the chair official did not see this is indefensible. She was the only person in the entire place watching the match that didn't see this. It was his right shoe, which was on her side of the court!
If said official is granted to work any NCAA match, it would be a travesty. You cannot call asleep at such a critical point.
We will never know if she saw the shoe or not or just zoned out so as not to make any ruling.
There is a big difference between having to make a split second decision and our having hours to think carefully through this situation.
If I had been in the chair, I hope I would have called a let, unintentional hindrance, and warned the player that if the shoe comes off again, it would be a hindrance and loss of point. I see this as being just like the hat blowing off, or ball dropping out of the pocket, etc.
But really, what it comes down to is judgment. Not everything is covered in the book . . . and it can't be! We not only need to know the rules, but, more importantly, need to understand the overall intent of the rules and be able to apply them on the spot - especially when something is not spelled out in black and white.
The chair umpire should have seen the errant shoe and immediately announced "LET - REPLY THE POINT" and then warn the player that if something like this happens again, it would be hindrance, loss of point. The chair umpire has exclusive authority in determining whether or not an act is a hindrance.
Remember the rule for Hindrance (pg. 18 in the FAC). If a player is hindered in playing the point by a deliberate act of the opponent(s), the player shall win the point. However, the point shall be replayed if a player is hindered in playing the point by either an unintentional act of the opponent(s), or something outside the player's own control (not including a permanent fixture).
A shoe falling off could be construed as an unintentional act since it will rarely occur.
Here is the excerpt from Rich Kaufman's USTA Final Word article:
From Bruce B. (Minneapolis, MN): During a long rally in a doubles match, a player loses his shoe. The rally continues, in spite of the fact that the shoe is in the middle of the court. Is the opposing team entitled to call a let when the shoe comes off? In an officiated match, should the chair umpire call a let?
KAUFMAN: Without an umpire, the opposing team may call a let for the misplaced shoe of their opponents if they do so immediately. The team that lost the shoe cannot call a let since they cannot create their own hindrance, even if it is accidental. With an umpire the chair would have stopped play and replayed the point.
OMG - Glen Whitaker is becoming more like Don Brandy each and every day.
I'm not disagreeing with how you handled this situation, but wanted to ask you about this statement:
"a referee cannot overrule in a question of fact (only in a question of law), so I stood with the decision of the chair official."
I understand what it means. But what if you were standing there and clearly heard a player say,
"P--- madre" and the chair said they did not hear it. Would you issue a code, or instruct the chair to issue a code?
Picture shows Player down on the court...how could a chair miss that unless she was asleep?
How could the umpire miss what the photographer captured so vividly?
Does the umpire think this is a usual stance to hit a ball from...on one knee?
Maybe they should get some umpires who actually play the game.
Crowd clearly saw this pose...
At the Big 12 tournament Cheryl Jones is the head referee. There is a referee appointed to do each individual match and that is why I was the referee on that match.
If I was referee and walked by a court and heard a player swear then I would instruct the chair official to issue an immediate code for profanity. That is not a question of fact or law, it is something that you heard and it needs to be coded.
What if --- the shoe comes off and the OU player hits a winner off the first shot - is that a let? If so, why take the point away from the player that did not create the problem? -
I guess I would not call a let on the first shot the OU player hit unless the BU got it back in play - and it sounds like he did - THEN you call the let - that seems like the fair thing to do.
REALLY! Do you get paid for that service while she is getting paid for that service - sounds like there should be MANY quailified people bidding for her job!!! I cannot believe that the B12 spends that kind of money!!!!
Tell us please what the FIRST referee's decision was - or did she leave that up to you?
So - I guess it is a good idea to have a referee plus six. Lets see - who does that - BAYLOR and the BIG12 Championships. Makes since.
The policy of having a referee plus six has been the policy of the Big 12 tournament for quite some time and it works well.
I made the ruling on the court and Cheryl confirmed and backed up the ruling.
What chair official keeps their eyes on a down player while the ball is still in play? Just when did the player loose the shoe, before or after striking the ball? As for the photographer getting the picture, maybe he was not watching the ball at all but only one player, Duh!
To Duh, you have to multitask and yes,you can watch the ball and the players at the same time duh, It is called peripheral vision or maybe duh does not have such vision.
I understand the basis of the shoe coming off and becoming a hindrance; like a hat, a ball, etc... But, let's analysis it a bit differently. A shoe is a necessary piece of equipment; like the racket. You basically can't play without shoes. A shoe coming off is diffently a hindrance; but to the player losing his shoe!! He is now at a disadvantage, not his opponent. Why penalize the opponent by calling a let? Play on!! What if a player looses his racket during the serve and it bounces on the court...everyone has seen this happen....do you now call a let; replay the point due to this hindrance and warn the player if it happens again he will lose the point next time. HE IS GOING TO LOSE THE POINT THIS TIME TOO AND EVERYTIME HE DROPS HIS RACKET LIKE THIS.
I probably would have let play continue due to the fact the player is now disadvantaged. His opponent will have the upper hand.
WOW! You made the ruling and then Cheryl Jones backed it up....job well done between the bunch of you. Lets see, she is the Queen Referee and you and the others are the Assistant Referees - yet - during the year when these sames teams play - we do it with a referee in the chair - so, why does the Big12 have two NOT IN A CHAIR at the championships? Why not put the designated referee in the chair for the Big12. Or is it possible that - and I really hate to say this - Baylor does it right throughout the year! Shame on the organizers of the Big12 money - what a waste!
ANON 1:11
I agree with you - why take the point away from the OU player. Sounds like she did the right thing.
With that many referees and incredible officials - how could anything go wrong?
I say leave the official alone unless you have not made fraction of second judgement that could be wrong... if you have not - then maybe you should retire and walk on water...
More important - what did you awesome officials have for lunch?
Those are good questions you posted... I guess the real question is was anyone in danger - I do not think so, the Baylor player continued playing and the person that could of called a let (besided the Chair official) did not- I say the point stands.
You can bet the losing player and coach (BU) would of not said a word if they had won the point... on the OTHER HAND I can see the other coach (OU) going crazy - if his player had lost the point when no let was called.
Either way - some are happy and some sad and in the end - you go home to your family and get ready for the regional events...!
Who's going to host anyway???
Would she of called a let if a ball came out of the pocket, what about a hat, how about a shoe, now the REAL question - what if BOTH shoes came off?
If all of these things came off or out at once - do you lose the match?
CAN'T YOU GUYS JUST LET THE PLAYERS PLAY and if they are STUPID enough not to tighten their shoes - that is THEIR FAULT not the other players.
COME ON PEOPLE - it is TENNIS not the end of the world -
If she was by herself on that tennis match - then she is my hero...
WHY do you guys usually have SEVEN OFFICIALS on a TENNIS COURT and only two players - don't tell me you don't - I see it on the Tennis Channel ALL THE TIME - are these players BAD athletes that cannot control themselves...
Heck, we have three officials for ten guys on a BB court and seven officials for 22 on a football field - I say let them play - you guys are tooooo involved - relax a little!
Once the point had been permitted to be played there was never a question of then allowing a let and thus taking the point away from the Oklahoma player. In spite of the posturing it was kind of "cut and dried" when it came to a decision. A let must be called when the shoe comes off and it is then termed a "hindrance-warning-play a let."
RM-did you really have to run up to Cheryl and get her approval? Did you also color pictures and you now have them on your refrigerator?
Everyone forgets that if the OU player's shot had gone "out" by the
distraction of the shoe, he would have called a "let and claim he was hindered.
Does the chair umpire allow it if she did not yet see the shoe on the court?
The only way to alleviate all of this what if's is for the Chair to call the let...and Kaufman, the King of Officials, already put the ruling in print in 2008.
I hardly ran up to Cheryl to get her approval. She actually came to the court where I was...
Some please explain the reason we have TWO referees NOT IN THE CHAIR for the Championships and for the regular season the designated Ref is in the Chair - sometimes on the other side of the facility! WHY
REGIONAL PROJECTIONS:
1. texas
2. oklahoma--host.
3. tulsa
4. drake
1. baylor--host
2. mississippi
3. rice
4.
1. tx am--host
2. tx tech
3. lsu
4.
1. ohio stste--host
2. michigan
3. nebraska
4.
1. kentucky--host
2. auburn
3. unc-wilmington
4.
I do not see the reasoning behind calling a let? This is no different than a ball rolling the back of the court, if the Baylor player had left a sitter on the court as his shoe came off and the Chair called a let, as a coach I would be beyond pissed off. The point should continue, as one of the anons said earlier we do not call a let when a racket slips out of the hand. Let the opponent call a let if they are distracted otherwise play the point out. It is not like the player purposely took the shoe off. Seems a little to quick to call lets.
How has the entire state of Texas gotten its panties in a bunch over this? It's cut and dry. When a player's shoe comes off it's a let....junior, college and pro. Yes, because you are tracking the ball and not a player's footwork you will not notice until you come back to that side of the court. If the point ends at that point then it stands (unless a player calls it), if Baylor can put it back in play YOU CALL A LET.
This discussion is over, next topic please.
Here is a topic - why are the officials on tv so FAT!
Here is a good topic - why don't we take the officials test on line and meet for tea and coffee every other year?
WHAT IN THE WORLD is Steve going to do next year? Everyone is GONE!!!
It is a HORRIBLE representation for everyone else.. Seems like there should be rules - BUT - it is the GOOD OLD BOYS circuit... Just watch out for the officials at the french - they will ten times smaller than the American's - it is SICK!
Here is a good poll - who is the BIGGEST official in TEXAS!
You could word it like - WHOS SHIRT FITS WORST?
<<<Here is a good poll - who is the BIGGEST official in TEXAS!!<<<
Would that be Men or Women??
Tennis Officials are WEIRD - how did you go from some college guy unable to tie his shoe to fat Officials?
I say do the poll Randy! It might wake up fat officials!
We have gone from when may a coach catch a live ball to fat officials in Texas and yes, the Texas officials are the fattest in the nation...must be lifestyle and eating habits.
What happens when they get too fat to fit in the umpire chairs and some are getting close?
Post a Comment