Here's an interesting question that came up this past weekend. Let us know how you would have ruled.
SCENARIO
Doubles match: Team A hit a lob over net man on Team B, as ball looked like it was sailing out he said to partner playing behind the baseline "out" before the ball landed. Well then the ball lands on the baseline & player hits ball back to team A who stopped playing because they heard the "out" call.
You are called to the court, what do you do?
HERE IS WHAT THE OFFICIAL DID WHEN CALLED TO THE COURT
I called it an involuntary hindrance, so I had them re play the point & told Team B not to use the word "out" unless they are actually making a line call after the ball lands.
18 comments:
The official was incorect. You cannot call a ball out until it lands. He was only giving advise to his partner. This was covered in schools a few years ago.
I agree itch Anonymous above. The partner was just letting him know he thought the ball would be out.
In the spirit of being fair and unbiased, I would agree with what the official did. Since the other team stopped play, I would call it a hindrance and instruct the players to re-play the point, especially if nothing controversial had transpired on court prior to this incident. I would then warn the team making an early call that subsequent infractions would result in hindrance - loss of point.
We, as officials, sometimes are overly dramatic and take unnecessary steps. Common sense goes a long way to ensuring a match is played fairly.
The first comment makes no sense. In one sentence, ANO states you cannot call a ball out until it lands. The next sentence states he was only giving advise (advice) to his partner. The first sentence states the official was incorect (incorrect).
If he was only giving advice to his partner, then he wasn't calling the ball out and they shouldn't lose the point.
I would call Lois Goodman to come to court with her coffee mug ready to bash heads of the idiot who called the ball out before it landed. Bet the players would all run and hide as quickly as they could.
This is always an interesting case.
First, despite what some people think, there is no rule that says you cannot say 'out' or other words of communication to your partner, especially when you are at the net and the ball is coming in your direction or the ball has not come close to landing on the court. And because such communication would invariably occur long before the ball has bounced, the claim that this could be mistaken for a line call is not really valid if everyone is paying attention. (Communicating by screaming or yelling is not permitted at any time and could be deemed a hindrance no matter when it occurs.)
The only time confusion can occur is in the case when a player says 'out' or another form of communication to his/her partner standing at the baseline at the time when the ball bounces. One player is in the position to make a return of the ball and did so. In that case, saying "leave it" or "NO" would be preferable to saying 'out'. However, any word used when the ball lands on the ground or close to the ground when your partner hits the ball could be construed as a call.
If a player yells "out” at the moment or close to the moment their partner played the ball, I think it can hinder the opponents. If this is the case, and the return was a weak return or the ball did not go into the opposing court, the returning team loses the point. If the return is strong and the best the opponents could have done was to keep the ball in play, then a let should be played. This is assuming that the players stopped play. If the players who may have been confused by the communication or call continue to play the point, they may not then claim the point due to hindrance after the entire point has been completed. If a player believes that they were truly hindered, they MUST stop.
You offer a number of scenarios and it does depend on when the communication came from the opponents. The best thing to do is keep playing the point if there is some question on whether there was a call or just communication. If the ball has not come very close to landing in or out and the players communicate, claiming hindrance is not really justified. Players should not be penalized for communicating when the ball still has a way to travel before landing on the court.
When partners disagree on a call the benefit of doubt must go to the opponents. If an out call was made (not communication) then play has stopped.
Again, if the return was a weak return or the ball did not go into the opposing court, the returning team loses the point. If the return is strong and the best the opponents could have done was to keep the ball in play, then a let should be played.
I'm just trying to figure out how in the world it could be an involuntary hindrance?
Since the official was called to court and did not see what happened, I think the answer depends on the information that is obtained from both doubles teams. If both teams agree that it was just one partner talking to another while the ball was heading towards them, then no involuntary hindrance. If, however, the teams do not agree whether is was an out call or just partner communication and the official did not witness, in my opinion involuntary hindrance is the correct call. In either event, I would instruct both teams not to say "out" when communicating with each other to avoid any other problems, which is why teams say "leave it" or 'bounce it" or whatever. Out means out, as in opponent, you lose the point.
I just searched through the FAC and can't find the term "involuntary hindrance" anywhere. Does anyone know where it is?
Correct verbiage I believe in unintentional and intentional hindrance instead of involuntary and voluntary
Is involuntary hindrance the same as inadvertent farting at an inopportune time?
I would go with the official's ruling, it would seem obvious the net man was telling partner to let it bounce. I prefer to say bounce or let it go, versus "Out" but it was not a malicious cheat and a replay of point would be best.
Of course if the opposing team/coach whines and complain one could also give to the point to the other team for a hindrance, but first instinct would be replay the point if the opposing team immediately stopped playing
Perfect example of 'duffus-itus"
the adult with the child's mind
trying to talk sense to actual adults.
Like hairy reed and nanci nonsense pelota,
deliberate liars, and confused
low brows, like the obamaoids,
mau mau m f ers.
RM, one of your blogers has been watching way way too much Fox News!
I would tell the players "I'll have to get back to you on that", leave the court and run like hell to my car so I can contact the 3 Stooges and ask for them to change the net strap.
I wonder if the ruling of "involuntary hindrance" was made by the same person who brought us the "do over" ruling?
just asking!!
I would ask Herb Taylor for the ruling. He always has creative ways to answer sticky on-court situations.
We should ask Mike Standrod. He's been demoted to watching back draw matches at the ITA tournament in Tulsa. HAHA
Post a Comment