PDA

View Full Version : Rules of Tennis - Rule No.26: Hindrance


GoDominique
May 29th, 2009, 11:07 AM
If a player is hindered in playing the point by a deliberate act of the opponent(s), the player shall win the point.

-----------

They would need to determine that a player deliberately pumps up the volume of her grunts so that it hinders her opponent. In that case they could give point after point to her opponent until she quiets down again. :)

toxina90
May 29th, 2009, 11:15 AM
:o Its clear players like Michelle and Ana missed out on this rule, if it exists. And supervisors aren't strict enough.

volta
May 29th, 2009, 11:18 AM
today's umpire was a pussy it was like he was afraid to take charge of the match or something

anyway it's done

InsideOut.
May 29th, 2009, 11:20 AM
:o Its clear players like Michelle and Ana missed out on this rule, if it exists. And supervisors aren't strict enough.

:weirdo: Ana's celebrations take place AFTER a point. Not during it. No hindrance. :rolleyes:

Marty-Dom
May 29th, 2009, 11:57 AM
I agree hindrance should be called on excessive screaming.
On the other hand, when MLDB said, "there is no rule against it, so I can't do anything about it", Rezai should have said out loud to the umpire: "Is there a rule against me asking me you to tell her that she is a pitiful little **** and I hope she dies before she wins a tournament? If not, I can't do anything about it, so please tell her that.

Hurley
May 29th, 2009, 12:04 PM
McEnroe: "She's going to care when they start taking points away."

Russianboy
May 29th, 2009, 12:04 PM
:weirdo: Ana's celebrations take place AFTER a point. Not during it. No hindrance. :rolleyes:

during :lol: imagine, how funny would that be

sammy01
May 29th, 2009, 12:06 PM
i think the grunting thing has gotten out of hand. when seles came on the scene people were split on it but accepted it because seles only grunted on impact with the ball (not 5 seconds after like MLDB) and it was the same grunt everytime.

Volcana
May 29th, 2009, 12:07 PM
What exactly happened that even brings this up?

MyskinaManiac
May 29th, 2009, 12:07 PM
Finally a great thread, instead of all those stupid scoring threads that have flooded GM.

This point has been made a loooooong time ago with the whole Seles/Graf Wimbledon final in reference to grunting. However, if this were the case Maria and the belovered rule "maker/breakers" aka Williams sisters along with MLDB would have lost points throughout their matches long ago.

fnuf7
May 29th, 2009, 01:00 PM
On the BBC website one of the commentators said they'd watched MLDB practice & there was no noise when she hit the ball, he seems to think she only does it during matches. Personally I hate it but I hate any of the grunts players make, no matter how ridiculously loud or not they are.

GoDominique
Sep 11th, 2011, 09:36 PM
Bump

Nicolás89
Sep 11th, 2011, 10:18 PM
Grunting is not the same to as shouting "come on" before the ball even bounces at the other side of the net. End of the bump.

vixter
Sep 11th, 2011, 10:27 PM
The problem here is that Asderaki suffered from "big moment stress", judging her first grand slam final. She gave away the game to Stosur in such a delicate moment and by doing so she was totally creating this unneeded controvercy that was bound to happen. Yes, Serena make hindrance with her shout, this was obvious. But Asderaki should AT MOST have called a let, and then called Serena to the chair and tell her "dont shout before the point is over".

Instead she is asking for this moment of deja vu by making such a strict intervention when not necessary.

rimon
Sep 11th, 2011, 10:35 PM
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iNhQzDFQPtI

Justine didn't go on about it.

Martian Willow
Sep 11th, 2011, 10:36 PM
The problem here is that Asderaki suffered from "big moment stress", judging her first grand slam final. She gave away the game to Stosur in such a delicate moment and by doing so she was totally creating this unneeded controvercy that was bound to happen. Yes, Serena make hindrance with her shout, this was obvious. But Asderaki should AT MOST have called a let, and then called Serena to the chair and tell her "dont shout before the point is over".

Instead she is asking for this moment of deja vu by making such a strict intervention when not necessary.

Asderaki handled the situation very well. :)

fouc
Sep 11th, 2011, 10:43 PM
The problem here is that Asderaki suffered from "big moment stress", judging her first grand slam final. She gave away the game to Stosur in such a delicate moment and by doing so she was totally creating this unneeded controvercy that was bound to happen. Yes, Serena make hindrance with her shout, this was obvious. But Asderaki should AT MOST have called a let, and then called Serena to the chair and tell her "dont shout before the point is over".

Instead she is asking for this moment of deja vu by making such a strict intervention when not necessary.

:facepalm: dark sides of democratic access to the internet - everyone is so opinionated :sad:
It's not like the rules are flexible according to the situation, the rule is absolutely clear, and Eva did a terrific job, and I respect her with all my heart.

espntennis
Sep 11th, 2011, 10:45 PM
Neither did Serena last time.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0YmblrB_Ftc&feature=related

0YmblrB_Ftc

metamorpha
Sep 11th, 2011, 11:46 PM
Watch from 0:35 ---> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iNhQzDFQPtI

iNhQzDFQPtI

vixter
Sep 11th, 2011, 11:51 PM
:facepalm: dark sides of democratic access to the internet - everyone is so opinionated :sad:
It's not like the rules are flexible according to the situation, the rule is absolutely clear, and Eva did a terrific job, and I respect her with all my heart.

You think it is a sad and dark thing that people are opinionated? Okey thats funny.

Yes rules are flexible according to a situation and according to timing. You see examples of this everyday, everywhere and in all aspects of life.

Its nice that you respect Eva with all your heart. I have nothing against her either.

mboyle
Sep 12th, 2011, 12:00 AM
Yes, Serena make hindrance with her shout, this was obvious. But Asderaki should AT MOST have called a let, and then called Serena to the chair and tell her "dont shout before the point is over".

That isn't the chair's discretion. If the umpire determines player A deliberately hindered player B, then player B must win the point. You have agreed that Serena's shout was a hindrance, and I think we can agree that the shout was deliberate. Therefore, we should agree that, as the rule stands, the chair had no option but to penalize Serena. You may argue that the rule should be changed or the chair should have more discretion. Those are separate arguments.

metamorpha
Sep 12th, 2011, 12:14 AM
And why should the umpire tell her "dont shout before the point is over"?

Serena and Justine as you see, they know the consequence.

vixter
Sep 12th, 2011, 12:20 AM
That isn't the chair's discretion. If the umpire determines player A deliberately hindered player B, then player B must win the point. You have agreed that Serena's shout was a hindrance, and I think we can agree that the shout was deliberate. Therefore, we should agree that, as the rule stands, the chair had no option but to penalize Serena. You may argue that the rule should be changed or the chair should have more discretion. Those are separate arguments.

Yes, I agree it is hindrance but No, I dont agree that the shout was deliberate. Serena too just stated herself in her great post match press conference that she did not shout out in order to hindrance opponent. It was spontaneous, out of excitement. The shot was brilliantly hit and Stosur could not get it back, scream or no scream.

Yes, the chair upmire definetely has all the options in the world to do what he/she sees fit. This was a disturbance, but umpire MUST not call a hindrance and give away the point, understand? Otherwise we could ask ourselves how can all these umpires keep their job, who are not issuing time penalty everytime a player goes over time.

I do not argue for any changes in the rule book.

vixter
Sep 12th, 2011, 12:24 AM
And why should the umpire tell her "dont shout before the point is over"?

Serena and Justine as you see, they know the consequence.

To correct a faulty behaviour, and by doing so, it will most likely not happen again.

It would certainly have been better doing it that way, for everyone. Only for the drama factor, this way was better. :devil:

This is the same situation as where the player drops his cap or her piece of jewelry on the court during a point. First time it happens the umpire will stop the point and let the player know, if it happens again, you lose the point. Then the point will be replayed. That would have been a much more sensible way to call it.

IceSkaTennisFan
Sep 12th, 2011, 12:43 AM
I'm just curious, could the hindrance rule be used to penalize a loud screamer like Sharapova if an umpire doesn't like Sharapova's shriek and the opponent is losing? What's the difference?

vixter
Sep 12th, 2011, 12:49 AM
I'm just curious, could the hindrance rule be used to penalize a loud screamer like Sharapova if an umpire doesn't like Sharapova's shriek and the opponent is losing? What's the difference?

The difference is that grunting is in most cases constant and basically accepted by all players. A sudden shriek of "come on" when the point is not over is not. ;)

Serena did this once before in the YEC against Kuznetsova, it was a funny moment both players laughed, the umpire smiled too, and then the point was replayed.

hablo
Sep 12th, 2011, 12:51 AM
The problem here is that Asderaki suffered from "big moment stress", judging her first grand slam final. She gave away the game to Stosur in such a delicate moment and by doing so she was totally creating this unneeded controvercy that was bound to happen. Yes, Serena make hindrance with her shout, this was obvious. But Asderaki should AT MOST have called a let, and then called Serena to the chair and tell her "dont shout before the point is over".

Instead she is asking for this moment of deja vu by making such a strict intervention when not necessary.

To correct a faulty behaviour, and by doing so, it will most likely not happen again.

It would certainly have been better doing it that way, for everyone. Only for the drama factor, this way was better. :devil:

This is the same situation as where the player drops his cap or her piece of jewelry on the court during a point. First time it happens the umpire will stop the point and let the player know, if it happens again, you lose the point. Then the point will be replayed. That would have been a much more sensible way to call it.

Yeah, I think the decision was a bit harsh; maybe they should have just replayed the point? :shrug:

metamorpha
Sep 12th, 2011, 01:13 AM
To correct a faulty behaviour, and by doing so, it will most likely not happen again.

It would certainly have been better doing it that way, for everyone. Only for the drama factor, this way was better. :devil:



Wrong. To correct a faulty behavior and make sure it will most likely not happen again, is to punish it harshly, especially to someone like Serena Williams. You cannot be lenient to her, now that she's doing it again.


This is not the first time she yelled during a point. The umpire let her go before, not this time.

vixter
Sep 12th, 2011, 01:19 AM
Wrong. To correct a faulty behavior and make sure it will most likely not happen again, is to punish it harshly, especially to someone like Serena Williams. You cannot be lenient to her, now that she's doing it again.


This is not the first time she yelled during a point. The umpire let her go before, not this time.

If you think the umpire did the right thing, that is fine. Personally, I dont think it was a good desicion.

Vikapower
Sep 12th, 2011, 01:33 AM
Neither did Serena last time.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0YmblrB_Ftc&feature=related

0YmblrB_Ftc

All this just shows how conscious Rena is of her acts, here she smiles, today she aggresses - why didn't she just recognize the hindrance and move on like Justine ? I bet I know... :rolleyes:

It was US Open's final, she was outplayed to death and needed to change the outcome of the match to save her bold image e.g. cheat - it almost worked for a second but it didn't and thank God cheating is punished some way or the other - you don't always need fines and banishments.

Melly Flew Us
Sep 12th, 2011, 01:35 AM
All this just shows how conscious Rena is of her acts, here she smiles, today she aggresses - why didn't she just recognize the hindrance and move on like Justine ? I bet I know... :rolleyes:

It was US Open's final, she was outplayed to death and needed to change the outcome of the match to save her bold image e.g. cheat - it almost worked for a second but it didn't and thank God cheating is punished some way or the other - you don't always need fines and banishments.:rolleyes: your posts recently have been pretty desparate. i suggest you take some time away from the forum and digest vika's stagnation.

Melly Flew Us
Sep 12th, 2011, 01:38 AM
I'm just curious, could the hindrance rule be used to penalize a loud screamer like Sharapova if an umpire doesn't like Sharapova's shriek and the opponent is losing? What's the difference?
it could be done but it isn't.

vixter
Sep 12th, 2011, 01:39 AM
All this just shows how conscious Rena is of her acts, here she smiles, today she aggresses - why didn't she just recognize the hindrance and move on like Justine ? I bet I know... :rolleyes:

It was US Open's final, she was outplayed to death and needed to change the outcome of the match to save her bold image e.g. cheat - it almost worked for a second but it didn't and thank God cheating is punished some way or the other - you don't always need fines and banishments.



Yes she agressed, because instead of point being replayed, like the time she smiled, her point was now taken, hence no smile this time. I dont understand how it can be so hard for you to understand Serena.

I have never in my life had a problem understanding any tennis players reaction to anything that happened on court. And I have watched my share of matches. I think its because I have good EQ.

You are often so funny but just as often I am so tired of reading your lies and bullshit.

Vikapower
Sep 12th, 2011, 01:44 AM
:rolleyes: your posts recently have been pretty desparate. i suggest you take some time away from the forum and digest vika's stagnation.

No problem but I wish Vika never reaches that stage of desperation to cheat and try to rob an opponent's belonging because of her ego... I love Vika profoundly and I know she'll never say anything like how the american said today...

She has been outplayed by many girls including Serena but she has always taken it with respect and humbleness, Serena, needless to say anything than all what has been said already and it's not the first time.

effedcamel
Sep 12th, 2011, 01:46 AM
I'm just curious, could the hindrance rule be used to penalize a loud screamer like Sharapova if an umpire doesn't like Sharapova's shriek and the opponent is losing? What's the difference?

Different situations. Martha's shrieks come when the ball is on her racket, not when her opponent is making a play on the ball. If she decided to scream bloody murder when her opponent is getting ready to hit the ball or move for it, then yes they could definitely use it and dock her a point. And while Serena's come on wasn't a deliberate attempt to distract Sam, it was a deliberate action of hers that she could've controlled that hindered Sam, cause she knew the ball was still in play and she could've waited an extra 2 second for the point to actually be over before yelling.

Yes she agressed, because instead of point being replayed, like the time she smiled, her point was now taken, hence no smile this time. I dont understand how it can be so hard for you to understand Serena.

I have never in my life had a problem understanding any tennis players reaction to anything that happened on court. And I have watched my share of matches. I think its because I have good EQ.

You are often so funny but just as often I am so tired of reading your lies and bullshit.

My EQ is very good too...I like to keep it bass-heavy ;)

Vikapower
Sep 12th, 2011, 01:50 AM
Yes she agressed, because instead of point being replayed, like the time she smiled, her point was now taken, hence no smile this time. I dont understand how it can be so hard for you to understand Serena.

I have never in my life had a problem understanding any tennis players reaction to anything that happened on court. And I have watched my share of matches. I think its because I have good EQ.

You are often so funny but just as often I am so tired of reading your lies and bullshit.

The problem in itself is not point taken or not - rules from ITF changes from WTA ones (the YEC masters is a WTA tournament) - the problem is her reaction which is unacceptable, she didn't just not smile but she aggressed deliberately (for that matter she even recalled 2009).

Serena fans say she has great mental, control etc... where was it today ? I expect an attitude of that sort from Larcher de Brito for example when she was called out for her excessive shrieks in RG against Johansson (??) but like come on she was 17-18...

Are you accusing me of not understanding free and deliberate aggression to another person ? That's the worst valuable accusation someone has ever brought on me, I'm honored.

Serena should know the rules, educate herself and not act like the vile ignorant she displayed herself today... not just for herself but for women's tennis in general.

miffedmax
Sep 12th, 2011, 02:50 AM
The rules for a hindrance on a dropped hat or ball vs. a deliberate shout are different. A dropped hat or ball is a mandatory warning.

A hindrance for a shout is automatic forfeit of the point.

The call was the correct one. When officials can issue a warning vs. awarding a point is not always up to their discretion.

Believe or not, officials even get tested on this.

Lena's bangs.

Melly Flew Us
Sep 12th, 2011, 02:51 AM
No problem but I wish Vika never reaches that stage of desperation to cheat and try to rob an opponent's belonging because of her ego... I love Vika profoundly and I know she'll never say anything like how the american said today...

She has been outplayed by many girls including Serena but she has always taken it with respect and humbleness, Serena, needless to say anything than all what has been said already and it's not the first time.
:lol: looolz :lol:

Moveyourfeet
Sep 12th, 2011, 03:23 AM
The rules for a hindrance on a dropped hat or ball vs. a deliberate shout are different. A dropped hat or ball is a mandatory warning.

A hindrance for a shout is automatic forfeit of the point.

The call was the correct one. When officials can issue a warning vs. awarding a point is not always up to their discretion.

Believe or not, officials even get tested on this.

Lena's bangs.

This.

Jane Lane
Sep 12th, 2011, 03:31 AM
The rules for a hindrance on a dropped hat or ball vs. a deliberate shout are different. A dropped hat or ball is a mandatory warning.

A hindrance for a shout is automatic forfeit of the point.

The call was the correct one. When officials can issue a warning vs. awarding a point is not always up to their discretion.

Believe or not, officials even get tested on this.

Lena's bangs.

Max! :worship: Steppin' in.

valac222
Sep 12th, 2011, 07:10 AM
26. HINDRANCE

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).

valac222
Sep 12th, 2011, 07:12 AM
If we take this rule serious, then every single point in big grunters matches should go to the opponents.

skanky~skanketta
Sep 12th, 2011, 07:20 AM
Well I remember a match against Nicholas Kiefer and Sebastien Grosjean (ATP). Grosjean was at the net, about to put away a simple volley as Kiefer had fallen down (I think, either that or he was way off court). Kiefer threw his racket at Grosjean and wasn't penalized anything.

In Serena's case, in all honesty, the point should have been replayed.

Certinfy
Sep 12th, 2011, 07:24 AM
"Shouting" needs a rule of its own. It's something that can be controlled therefore I do think the point should be lost. However I do understand the rule considering lets say a ball drops out a tennis player's pocket undeliberately which would make sense in replaying it.

alfajeffster
Sep 12th, 2011, 08:37 AM
I think if they just announce at the beginning of the match whether it will be played using official rules, or Serena's rules, there really wouldn't be a problem. Stosur won the U.S. Open playing better than Serena on the day. The controversy is stupid IMO.

Cleffa
Sep 12th, 2011, 05:02 PM
The rules for a hindrance on a dropped hat or ball vs. a deliberate shout are different. A dropped hat or ball is a mandatory warning.

A hindrance for a shout is automatic forfeit of the point.

The call was the correct one. When officials can issue a warning vs. awarding a point is not always up to their discretion.

Believe or not, officials even get tested on this.

Lena's bangs.

But how come in the Serena-Kuznetsova match the point was replayed instead of giving the point to Kuznetsova?:confused:

Jane Lane
Sep 12th, 2011, 05:06 PM
But how come in the Serena-Kuznetsova match the point was replayed instead of giving the point to Kuznetsova?:confused:

It comes down to either: 1) WTA and ITF rules are different. or 2) Eva ruled incorrectly then, and has since been corrected, judging by the uniformity of all calls by all umpires since.

DOUBLEFIST
Sep 12th, 2011, 05:08 PM
It comes down to either: 1) WTA and ITF rules are different. or 2) Eva ruled incorrectly then, and has since been corrected, judging by the uniformity of all calls by all umpires since.
If that's the case (and that's a BIG "IF"), it certain helps explain Serena's confusion about the call and subsequent fury.

Hurley
Sep 12th, 2011, 05:10 PM
Well I remember a match against Nicholas Kiefer and Sebastien Grosjean (ATP). Grosjean was at the net, about to put away a simple volley as Kiefer had fallen down (I think, either that or he was way off court). Kiefer threw his racket at Grosjean and wasn't penalized anything.

In Serena's case, in all honesty, the point should have been replayed.

In Serena's case, in all literacy, no it shouldn't have. :shrug:

Moveyourfeet
Sep 12th, 2011, 05:12 PM
If that's the case (and that's a BIG "IF"), it certain helps explain Serena's confusion about the call and subsequent fury.

This. I only knew the rule wasn't a let but a point penalty because the same thing happened to Bartoli against an American player, I think McHale. In that match, Bartoli yelled 'Come on' but Mchale got to the ball. The umpire gave the point to McHale. I thought a let was going to be played but they explained the rule.

Explains her confusion, doesn't explain her embarassingly hilarious tirade.

Jane Lane
Sep 12th, 2011, 05:12 PM
If that's the case (and that's a BIG "IF"), it certain helps explain Serena's confusion about the call and subsequent fury.

I'm more inclined to believe the differences in rules though. Because both rule books are clear. And that's been confirmed.

Moveyourfeet
Sep 12th, 2011, 05:16 PM
Well I remember a match against Nicholas Kiefer and Sebastien Grosjean (ATP). Grosjean was at the net, about to put away a simple volley as Kiefer had fallen down (I think, either that or he was way off court). Kiefer threw his racket at Grosjean and wasn't penalized anything.

I remember that match. I believe it was at the Australian Open many years ago. There was a big deal made about it and about Kiefer cheating because he threw his racquet at the ball and that was supposed to be a penalty. In that case the Umpire was :weirdo: and wasn't paying attention.

Eva GOATderaki is above that.

SVK
Sep 12th, 2011, 05:19 PM
Neither did Serena last time.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0YmblrB_Ftc&feature=related

0YmblrB_Ftc

This point is the problem...Serena probably felt robbed because last time she did it, it ended like that. But did you saw replay the point in the same situation again after that? I didnīt, Eva is ALWAYS giving a point penalty for that right now and so does other umpires. If Eva was warned that she made a mistake here (what is possible), then she will never do it again. She must do her job without mistakes, it happened once, but never again, she canīt do whatever she wants and change it match to match...

manu32
Sep 12th, 2011, 05:44 PM
so the loud grunters should be disqualified....intentional or not...i remember players like Navratilova or Capriati complaining about Seles!
Big issue to come for Sharapova or Vika,Schiavone etc...

Jane Lane
Sep 12th, 2011, 05:44 PM
Grunting and intentional "Come on"- ing are completely different issues.

bobito
Sep 12th, 2011, 05:52 PM
Grunting and intentional "Come on"- ing are completely different issues.

Why? Both are shouting out while the ball is in play. Please don't tell me that screaming as you hit the ball is an involuntary act because nobody did for decades until Seles came along and the players don't scream on the practice courts.

Don't misunderstand me, as the rules are currently interpreted, Eva did the right thing. But screaming should also be deemed hindrance in my opinion.

DOUBLEFIST
Sep 12th, 2011, 05:54 PM
This. I only knew the rule wasn't a let but a point penalty because the same thing happened to Bartoli against an American player, I think McHale. In that match, Bartoli yelled 'Come on' but Mchale got to the ball. The umpire gave the point to McHale. I thought a let was going to be played but they explained the rule.

Explains her confusion, doesn't explain her embarassingly hilarious tirade. I think it does. It doesn't make it "right," but it makes it understandable. Let's face it, she thought, based on how the situation had been ruled before, that she had been wronged. Emotions and stakes are high at that time. If I felt sure I'd been wronged like that, believe me, you would have been reading about it in the morning news. :lol:

I'm more inclined to believe the differences in rules though. Because both rule books are clear. And that's been confirmed.
Either way, :shrug: Serena prior experience with it led to her confusion it seems.

My question about the rule is this; Don't both the ITF and WTA rule hinge on "intentional" versus "unintentional?" And isn't it left to the discretion of the official to determine which it is?

Jane Lane
Sep 12th, 2011, 05:59 PM
Why? Both are shouting out while the ball is in play. Please don't tell me that screaming as you hit the ball is an involuntary act because nobody did for decades until Seles came along and the players don't scream on the practice courts.

Don't misunderstand me, as the rules are currently interpreted, Eva did the right thing. But screaming should also be deemed hindrance in my opinion.

I'm saying whether it is or it isn't. It's always going to be a gray area because players will always argue that it's "natural" and "unintentional" There are players who hit huge winners and don't say anything and instead just fist pump at their camps or whatever. Look at Stosur.

manu32
Sep 12th, 2011, 06:01 PM
Mc Hale got the ball,Stosur not...i know rules are rules,but come on is unnatural for a french player...

manu32
Sep 12th, 2011, 06:02 PM
interesting to see problems in finale juniors with Garcia's behavior and Mens doubles with cheating..

bobito
Sep 12th, 2011, 06:15 PM
I'm saying whether it is or it isn't. It's always going to be a gray area because players will always argue that it's "natural" and "unintentional" There are players who hit huge winners and don't say anything and instead just fist pump at their camps or whatever. Look at Stosur.

I think the real problem is not with interpreting when it is or isn't intentional but determining at what volume grunting becomes hindrance. From the 3rd row of Wimbledon's court No 12 last year I could hear Justine Henin's breathy "Ah" each time she hit a ground stroke. It was very quiet, would certainly not be noticed by her opponent and no sane person would say it was hindrance. At the other extreme, I watched Azarenka a couple of days later on the same court and she was shrieking like an ambulance siren. Somewhere in between lies the point at which the umpire would have to make the call, but where?

Rex59
Sep 12th, 2011, 06:26 PM
This point is the problem...Serena probably felt robbed because last time she did it, it ended like that. But did you saw replay the point in the same situation again after that? I didnīt, Eva is ALWAYS giving a point penalty for that right now and so does other umpires. If Eva was warned that she made a mistake here (what is possible), then she will never do it again. She must do her job without mistakes, it happened once, but never again, she canīt do whatever she wants and change it match to match...


This is the gist of the whole issue. If the hindrance call is not a point penalty loss in DOHA 2009, why is it a point penalty loss at the 2011 USO under the same, exact circumstances ruled on by the same Chair? If Serena had made this argument to the Chair initially, then the subsequent circumstances would have been different in terms of Serena's reactions. Matter-of-fact, when Serena walked over to Eva after she made the hindrance call, Serena requested that the point be replayed. (Subsequent exchanges between her and Eva became unintelligible due to crowd noise, which drowned out the conversation). And why not, for Eva made the same judgment call after she called the hindrance violation in DOHA '09 in Serena's match with Svetlana. The uniformity issue here is that it's a hindrance if the player returns a shot and yells either "c'mon" or "allez" or some other shout out ere the point is won. Fine. However, the subsequent judgment as to whether to award the point to the opponent or replay the point isn't uniform, especially in this case where Eva is the Chair in both instances and has ruled differently.

The hindrance rule defines the point penalty loss if the hindrance is "deliberate". I gather that to mean that Serena's action of yelling "c'mon" when she thinks she nailed a clear and clean winner ere the play is concluded is a direct impediment to Samantha from returning the shot, for she's distracted by the yell. Pure BS. In DOHA Svetlana's reaction was to "laugh" it off, coupled with the chuckles from both Serena and Eva, replaying the point. At the USO Sam's reaction was to go to the other side of the court and play the next point, knowing that Serena had earned the point for the winner. Eva's judgment was to take a point away from Serena, which is inconsistent with her judgment rule in DOHA. That's the crux of it all.

Lastly, to your point about Eva being warned by tennis officials about her incorrect judgment after the hindrance call, I question that interpretation because the hindrance rule provides for discretionary judgment by the Chair as to whether the hindrance violation was a deliberate act or not. In both instances I don't believe Serena was in any way attempting to deliberately inhibit Svetlana, nor Samantha from returning her shot. Serena is only thinking that I have hit a clean winner and yelled support for her effort. If the hindrance violation was replayed in '09, it should have been replayed '11. Eva is inconsistent in her judgment and Serena was right to ask for the point to be replayed, in addition to discussing the inconsistent judgment by Eva for the exact same circumstance in the 2 matches. Instead, the conversation or discussion deteriorated into Serena going on a ridiculous, childish tangent.

Apoleb
Sep 12th, 2011, 06:39 PM
I think the real problem is not with interpreting when it is or isn't intentional but determining at what volume grunting becomes hindrance. From the 3rd row of Wimbledon's court No 12 last year I could hear Justine Henin's breathy "Ah" each time she hit a ground stroke. It was very quiet, would certainly not be noticed by her opponent and no sane person would say it was hindrance. At the other extreme, I watched Azarenka a couple of days later on the same court and she was shrieking like an ambulance siren. Somewhere in between lies the point at which the umpire would have to make the call, but where?

It doesn't seem that many players are bothered by grunting, which kind of baffles me. But I don't think shouting come on after the ball has been hit is the same. Players nowadays know to expect a grunt when the ball is being hit, and also it's not timed when they are trying to hit the ball.

spencercarlos
Sep 12th, 2011, 07:21 PM
I think it does. It doesn't make it "right," but it makes it understandable. Let's face it, she thought, based on how the situation had been ruled before, that she had been wronged. Emotions and stakes are high at that time. If I felt sure I'd been wronged like that, believe me, you would have been reading about it in the morning news. :lol:


Either way, :shrug: Serena prior experience with it led to her confusion it seems.

My question about the rule is this; Don't both the ITF and WTA rule hinge on "intentional" versus "unintentional?" And isn't it left to the discretion of the official to determine which it is?
I think the real word would be deliberate.

Serena deliberately screamed come on, pumping herself, not to hinder the point.

Now comes the case if your cap drops off, or even like Venus happened to suffer in 1999 Australian Open with her hair things coming out... Then comes a warning and then points taken off.

On Serenaīs case she must outright know that she canīt celebrate a point by screaming like she did before its over. And its not like she has 2 days playing this game IMO.

spencercarlos
Sep 12th, 2011, 07:24 PM
Mc Hale got the ball,Stosur not...i know rules are rules,but come on is unnatural for a french player...
Stosur pretty much got to strike the ball. And not barely. (Sure she did not have a chance to play it in). But Serena screamed her come on even before her ball had landed on Stosurīs side IMO..

DOUBLEFIST
Sep 12th, 2011, 07:30 PM
I think the real word would be deliberate.

Serena deliberately screamed come on, pumping herself, not to hinder the point.

Now comes the case if your cap drops off, or even like Venus happened to suffer in 1999 Australian Open with her hair things coming out... Then comes a warning and then points taken off.

On Serenaīs case she must outright know that she canīt celebrate a point by screaming like she did before its over. And its not like she has 2 days playing this game IMO.
Is the official term "intentional" or "deliberate?"

Either way, isn't the standard meant to assess the intent to hinder?

bobito
Sep 12th, 2011, 07:39 PM
Is the official term "intentional" or "deliberate?"

Either way, isn't the standard meant to assess the intent to hinder?

I think the interpretation is that the act was intentional even if the intent was not necessarily to hinder the opponent. If your hat falls off then that is an accident. If you yell "Come on!" then you intended to shout.

DOUBLEFIST
Sep 12th, 2011, 08:03 PM
I think the interpretation is that the act was intentional even if the intent was not necessarily to hinder the opponent. If your hat falls off then that is an accident. If you yell "Come on!" then you intended to shout.
Well, if that's the standard, the WTA and ITF need to get together and clarify a few things - grunting, shifting around during service return (ala Rad' v/s Maria in Miami a few years back).

In addition, if it was deemed intentional yesterday, why was the very same act deemed "unintentional" in Doha by the very same Umpire?

effedcamel
Sep 12th, 2011, 08:26 PM
Well, if that's the standard, the WTA and ITF need to get together and clarify a few things - grunting, shifting around during service return (ala Rad' v/s Maria in Miami a few years back).

In addition, if it was deemed intentional yesterday, why was the very same act deemed "unintentional" in Doha by the very same Umpire?

Grunting does not fall directly under this rule because it occurs when you have the ball on your racket. It's not a random utterance when your opponent is supposed to be playing the ball.

bobito
Sep 12th, 2011, 08:38 PM
Well, if that's the standard, the WTA and ITF need to get together and clarify a few things - grunting, shifting around during service return (ala Rad' v/s Maria in Miami a few years back).

In addition, if it was deemed intentional yesterday, why was the very same act deemed "unintentional" in Doha by the very same Umpire?

I agree with regards grunting (or more accurately screaming) and have said so earlier on this thread. It would be a difficult rule to enforce though because few players are silent when they strike the ball. Where do you draw the line?

On your second point, Azderaki ruled it deliberate hindrance in a match between Henin and Wozniacki in Miami a year later, even though Henin's call of "Allez" was so quiet that you could hardly hear it on TV. So I'm guessing that she was told after the Doha 2009 match that her interpretation had been wrong, hence the change.