my questions and reasoning

At 9-6, the third set super tie break. (The super tie break is playing in lieu of a third set due to time constrain. The first party to win 10 points lead by two wins the set hence the match.) My team has the match point and my guy was serving and the point became contentious.

The opposing team wrote to the Coordinator:

During the tiebreak, the player from Great Neck hit a ball, which was audibly called wide by our male player.The Great Neck team countered that an “in signal” had been made by our female player, which both players from our team immediately said was not the case. Our female player had to jump out of the way of the ball and explained that she was unable to make any call because while in mid air was unable to see where the ball had landed and had deferred to the player that was watching the spot of the ball.

My guy wrote that I forwarded to the Coordinator:

This was the following rule and why I ended the game:

All line calls must be made clearly and immediately. If there is any doubt, the ball is good. (A ball that is 99% out, is  still 100% in). When an out call is corrected, the point is given to the opposing team. Unless invited by the opposing team,
players may not cross to their opponent’s side of the court to check a mark.

Giselle and I were at the net and Giselle hit a volley very wide. The ball takes a funny bounce on the line, the guy calls it out and the girl misses the ball. I was watching her and the line and she immediately gives a flat palm signalling good. The guy becomes very loud arguing that he called it out. Nobody was disputing him but the girl then changes her mind and said he called it out. If she had called it out immediately then I would have moved on to serve again for match point. I never made a call, I was just watching for her reaction for missing the ball. I ended the game on the principle that she was in doubt and changed her call because her partner became extremely loud about it. Keith kept yelling at me but I told him to question his partner. After a few minutes of this, we walked to the bench and I said the match is over. I was trying to enforce the rule above but if she was going to change her mind and change her story then she has no integrity.

1) We did not argue over any points in the game and I gave away 3 questionable calls in their favor
2) It was my serve for match point at 9-6, there was no pressure and no reason to cheat.

The rule by the 2011 Friend at Court:

  • 6. Opponent gets benefit of doubt. … any doubt must be resolved in favor of an opponent.
  • any doubt must be resolved in favor of an opponent.
  • 14. Partners’ disagreement on calls. If one partner calls the ball out and the other partner sees the ball good, they shall call it good.
  • 15. Audible or visible calls. No matter how obvious it is to a player that an opponent’s ball is out, the opponent is entitled to a prompt audible or visible out call.

My questions:

  1. Does the was unable to see where the ball had landed equals doubt?? If it is, then the following rulings are mote.
  2. Does the was unable to see where the ball had landed equals disagreement?
  3. which team gets the benefit of the doubt, my team who challenged or opposing team who made the call?

This is dispute happened at the match point, worthy arguing. If it were during the match, a disputed point would not have mean an out come of the match, not too obvious anyway.

The Coordinator’s rule (2012.12.27, file 22416):

Question is raised regarding the female player on the Blue Point team making a call of good. The Great Neck player is stating that the call was made with a hand gesture, not verbally. The Blue Point player claims she did not make any hand gestures. Opposing views that are hard to dispute as I was not there and this is being based on a gesture only. Had the Blue Point player said “good” or “nice shot”, we would have a decisive call. I dont feel that the movement of a persons hand which is being disputed by that person is enough of a call.
The one thing in the email from the Blue Point captain and from the Great Neck player that is in agreement by both, is that the Great Neck team refused to continue play at 9-6 in the super tie break. ..
It is my decision that the court be awarded to the Blue Point team.

The coordinator talked about walking off the court rather than addressing the disputed point?? The fact is, my player admitted that he has considered the match was over. There should not have been any ‘walking off the court’ situation. Correct?

Committee’s rule (2013.01.09, file 22408):

In response to your grievance submitted on December 27th, we have given careful consideration to the issues you raised and have decided your grievance will not be upheld.
Tennis comes with a bloodline of sportsmanship that few other sports can match. We are all entrusted to make our own line calls, even in championship matches. A fundamental principle of tennis calls for competitors to give the benefit of the doubt to their opponent when unsure about a close line call.
As your players stated, the line call was the only questionable call in the entire match. Rather than give their opponents the benefit of the doubt your players walked off the court ending the match and thereby resulting in a default.

Ok, the Committee addressing the disputed call. I agree on give the benefit of the doubt because I gave and received plenty. But in this case, which team should get the benefit of the doubt?

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.