PDA

View Full Version : I have a question about chair umpire over rules


kosmikgroove
Mar 29th, 2012, 07:58 PM
In the Sharapova vs Wozniacki match, Maria hit a 2nd serve that was called out and then over ruled.

The chair then over ruled the out-call so Sharapova was given a 1st serve. Why did they give her a first serve, instead of replaying the 2nd serve? I understand this is the probably in the rule book, but is there a reason behind this?

RenaSlam.
Mar 29th, 2012, 07:59 PM
There was never a challenge because Wozniacki was out of challenges. #herfault

kosmikgroove
Mar 29th, 2012, 08:04 PM
There was never a challenge because Wozniacki was out of challenges. #herfault

True, but that's not what I was discussing. The chair (not Caroline) over ruled the initial out-call. So they played a first serve again, despite the fact that it was a second serve that was in question. I do not quite understand why a player is give the ability to have 2 serves when they already hit a first serve out that had no over rule.

gc-spurs
Mar 29th, 2012, 08:04 PM
In the Sharapova vs Wozniacki match, Maria hit a 2nd serve that was called out and then over ruled.

The chair then over ruled the challenge so Sharapova was given a 1st serve. Why did they give her a first serve, instead of replaying the 2nd serve? I understand this is the probably in the rule book, but is there a reason behind this?

I'm assuming its a rhythm thing. Definitely an odd rule and I think there's a stronger case for it to be another 2nd.

Tennis Observer
Mar 29th, 2012, 08:06 PM
[...] The chair then over ruled the challenge so Sharapova was given a 1st serve. [...]
No!

Kader Nouni (FRA) overruled a Line Umpire and he was spot on as Maria's 2nd serve was on the line. Ms. Sunshine had no challenge left.

Mary Cherry.
Mar 29th, 2012, 08:06 PM
I was wondering this too, seems like a strange rule to me.

spiritedenergy
Mar 29th, 2012, 08:08 PM
very wrong rule, wtf is that? i mean, i have never seen it used

John.
Mar 29th, 2012, 08:08 PM
I think it's mainly because it disrupts the rhythm of the server (delay while waiting for hawkeye etc. DSo rather than have them serve a 2nd serve after a delay, they clean the slate

Critique
Mar 29th, 2012, 08:10 PM
Pretty sure it's because you officially "replay the point", which means starting with a new 1st serve.

kosmikgroove
Mar 29th, 2012, 08:12 PM
I think it's mainly because it disrupts the rhythm of the server (delay while waiting for hawkeye etc. DSo rather than have them serve a 2nd serve after a delay, they clean the slate

Thanks, I guess there's a strong case for them to restart the point altogether. As a player, I know that I would be pissed if they got a chance for an ace, if they first hit their first serve out. It seems like an over rule in this instance gives the advantage to the server.

pov
Mar 29th, 2012, 08:13 PM
Are you sure she was given a first serve? Did you hear the umpire say "first service"?

gulzhan
Mar 29th, 2012, 08:17 PM
Yes I did. And I heard umpires saying 1st service thousand of times if there was an error call on 2nd serve corrected either by umpire OR by a player using hawkeye.

Tenis Srbija
Mar 29th, 2012, 08:17 PM
Pretty sure it's because you officially "replay the point", which means starting with a new 1st serve.

Right on the spot!

spiritedenergy
Mar 29th, 2012, 08:18 PM
Yes I did. And I heard umpires saying 1st service thousand of times if there was an error call on 2nd serve corrected either by umpire OR by a player using hawkeye.

really? so even if sharapova had challenged, she would have had a 1st serve... strange rule indeed

TheBoiledEgg
Mar 29th, 2012, 08:19 PM
Pretty sure it's because you officially "replay the point", which means starting with a new 1st serve.

This is correct :wavey:

FleetSeb
Mar 29th, 2012, 08:20 PM
Pretty sure it's because you officially "replay the point", which means starting with a new 1st serve.

This.

Also I think the rhtyhm thing, whilst not a factor in the rules I'm sure, is important. Players have such a flow between 1st and 2nd serves, asking them to 2nd serve out of nothing is just wrong - why do you think so many 2nd serves are missed when the player has had to rethrow their toss.

gulzhan
Mar 29th, 2012, 08:21 PM
Thanks, I guess there's a strong case for them to restart the point altogether. As a player, I know that I would be pissed if they got a chance for an ace, if they first hit their first serve out. It seems like an over rule in this instance gives the advantage to the server.

You would be more pissed if you hit your 2nd serve in and linesman made a wrong call maybe even corrected himself (that also happens you know) and you would be given 2nd serve good 20-30 seconds after.

This rule always existed and it's a rule no tennis player EVER questioned! The only case when the player gets 2nd serve is when there were no mistake and yet the player initiates hawkeye. I guess the confusion about the rule comes from there.

miffedmax
Mar 29th, 2012, 08:21 PM
^^^This.

The timely play rule goes both ways, and if there is an inordinate delay between serves the receiver should get a first serve.

(Yes, that means if you're playing at your local club and you have to chase a ball that rolled 5 courts away, you should actually offer your opponent a first serve).

pov
Mar 29th, 2012, 08:21 PM
Yes I did. And I heard umpires saying 1st service thousand of times if there was an error call on 2nd serve corrected either by umpire OR by a player using hawkeye.
Okay. Well thanks. I always thought that an over-rule on 2nd serve resulted in another 2nd serve but I guess not.

John.
Mar 29th, 2012, 08:23 PM
I think the only time they are stuck on a 2nd serve, is if they challenge the 1st serve and it's wrong

miffedmax
Mar 29th, 2012, 08:25 PM
really? so even if sharapova had challenged, she would have had a 1st serve... strange rule indeed

No, because you are choosing to delay your own serve. It's kind of like a hindrance--you can't hinder yourself.

If you challenge on your own serve and lose, you take a second serve. The idea is that the receiver or an errant official is not allowed to take you out of your rythm. If you choose to do it, it's on you.

Tenis Srbija
Mar 29th, 2012, 08:25 PM
^^^This.

The timely play rule goes both ways, and if there is an inordinate delay between serves the receiver should get a first serve.

(Yes, that means if you're playing at your local club and you have to chase a ball that rolled 5 courts away, you should actually offer your opponent a first serve).

Yes, that happens... NOT :lol:

spiritedenergy
Mar 29th, 2012, 08:27 PM
No, because you are choosing to delay your own serve. It's kind of like a hindrance--you can't hinder yourself.

If you challenge on your own serve and lose, you take a second serve. The idea is that the receiver or an errant official is not allowed to take you out of your rythm. If you choose to do it, it's on you.

but since the ball was in, she would have got a 1st serve i guess

Young 8
Mar 29th, 2012, 08:30 PM
It looks like this was the first tennis match for a lot of peple here

Adrian.
Mar 29th, 2012, 08:32 PM
It looks like this was the first tennis match for a lot of peple here

This :haha::haha::haha:

pov
Mar 29th, 2012, 08:33 PM
So I went through the rules again and it seems that there is a gray area about this.

Case 1: The chair umpire awards the server a first service after an overrule, but the
receiver argues that it should be a second service, since the server had already
served a fault. Should the referee be called to court to give a decision?
Decision: Yes. The chair umpire makes the first decision about questions of tennis
law (issues relating to the application of specific facts). However, if a player
appeals the chair umpire’s decision, then the referee shall be called to make the
final decision.

The rules do seem to suggest that a first serve is correct but since they use it as the basis for this example . . . ???

gc-spurs
Mar 29th, 2012, 08:33 PM
You would be more pissed if you hit your 2nd serve in and linesman made a wrong call maybe even corrected himself (that also happens you know) and you would be given 2nd serve good 20-30 seconds after.

This rule always existed and it's a rule no tennis player EVER questioned! The only case when the player gets 2nd serve is when there were no mistake and yet the player initiates hawkeye. I guess the confusion about the rule comes from there.

I suppose its one of those things you can't really get from the spectator seat.

Tennis Observer
Mar 29th, 2012, 08:39 PM
From 2012 WTA Rulebook, p. 463f (= ITF, p 24 (http://beta.itftennis.com/media/107013/107013.pdf) - bolding is mine):

The chair umpire or referee shall make decisions regarding continuous play […] in respect of any Code of Conduct that is approved and in operation.

Case 1: The chair umpire awards the server a first service after an overrule, but the receiver argues that it should be a second service, since the server had already served a fault. Should the referee be called to court to give a decision?

Decision: Yes. The chair umpire makes the first decision about questions of tennis law (issues relating to the application of specific facts). However, if a player appeals the chair umpire’s decision, then the referee shall be called to make the final decision.

theFutureisNow
Mar 29th, 2012, 08:49 PM
I think there is a tactical reason to have this rule as well.

A serve on the line is usually a serve that will give the server a moderate to strong advantage. It would seem unfair for a bad call to take this away.

Also, by serving in, the server avoided a double fault. It would also be unfair for a bad call to make them risk a double fault again.

Geertvg
Mar 29th, 2012, 08:50 PM
It looks like this was the first tennis match for a lot of peple here

:D Yes!

Mary Cherry.
Mar 29th, 2012, 09:01 PM
Ask a simple question, get a bitchy response.

Welcome to TF :rolleyes:

miffedmax
Mar 29th, 2012, 09:02 PM
So I went through the rules again and it seems that there is a gray area about this.



The rules do seem to suggest that a first serve is correct but since they use it as the basis for this example . . . ???

I'd have to check my rulebook because I don't work chairs, but I believe the ruling being discussed here is whether or not the receiver has the right to request the referee come to court.

The example is that the question is one of Law (does the server get a first serve).

In that case, yes, the ref can be called to court. The referee would still enforce the rules as written, not by fiat.

Usually, another case would be given (which I'll look up later), but just for arguments sake, Player A is given a hindrance for shouting "C'mon during a point." The umpire, seething at her internal ugliness, awards a the point to Player B.

Player A argues that Player B was hopelessly out of position and couldn't have gotten to the ball anyway and demands that the referee come to court.

Decision: No. Player A is arguing a point of fact, not of law and the referee is not summoned to the court.


The rules really are pretty cut and dried, contrary to what some TF members seem to think. Sometimes, at a junior tournament they'll tell us to go easy on the footfaults, but that's about it. (Mainly because with the 10s and 12s, you could footfault every point).

RG Freak
Mar 29th, 2012, 09:08 PM
Pretty sure it's because you officially "replay the point", which means starting with a new 1st serve.

this

+

The server already performed a legal 2nd serve that got called out, it would be unfair to the server to make another 2nd serve, risking a double fault.

pov
Mar 29th, 2012, 09:31 PM
According to Tignor at tennis.com:

on Sharapova’s second match point, chair umpire Kader Nouni overruled an out call on a second serve by the Russian. Wozniacki disagreed, and tried, preposterously, to get Nouni to have Sharapova challenge her own in call. Nouni instead called for a let to be played, and Sharapova won the point with a good serve and a swing volley (she was 12 of 13 at the net for the day).

pov
Mar 29th, 2012, 09:44 PM
I'd have to check my rulebook because I don't work chairs, but I believe the ruling being discussed here is whether or not the receiver has the right to request the referee come to court.

The example is that the question is one of Law (does the server get a first serve).

In that case, yes, the ref can be called to court. The referee would still enforce the rules as written, not by fiat.

Usually, another case would be given (which I'll look up later), but just for arguments sake, Player A is given a hindrance for shouting "C'mon during a point." The umpire, seething at her internal ugliness, awards a the point to Player B.

Player A argues that Player B was hopelessly out of position and couldn't have gotten to the ball anyway and demands that the referee come to court.

Decision: No. Player A is arguing a point of fact, not of law and the referee is not summoned to the court.


The rules really are pretty cut and dried, contrary to what some TF members seem to think. Sometimes, at a junior tournament they'll tell us to go easy on the footfaults, but that's about it. (Mainly because with the 10s and 12s, you could footfault every point).
I'd just been through the 2012 rules before posting that. And the rules around it may be clear cut but it didn't seem that way to me. I didn't see any explanation about what to do when a second serve is overruled. What it says is basically that any let on a second serve - other than a service let - results in replaying the point. Meaning a first serve. Since Nouni called it a let that about does it. Is an overrule always a let? If so that clears up my confusion. (About this anyway. :lol:)

About the referee. It states that in an example that is exactly what happened, the referee should be called. Nouni didn't do that.

Tennis Observer
Mar 29th, 2012, 09:55 PM
[...] About the referee. It states that in an example that is exactly what happened, the referee should be called. Nouni didn't do that.
No, because Ms. Sunshine didn't appeal: The referee shall only be called to make the final decision if a player appeals the chair umpire’s decision.

Independently, the replay showed that Nouni's call would stand if Wozniacki had a challenge left.

Steff_forever
Mar 29th, 2012, 10:03 PM
No, because Ms. Sunshine didn't appeal: The referee shall only be called to make the final decision if a player appeals the chair umpire’s decision.

Independently, the replay showed that Nouni's call would stand if Wozniacki had a challenge left.
when was the call of the linesman, before, within or after Caro hit the ball ?
She could have argued the call has affected her return...

C. Drone
Mar 29th, 2012, 10:25 PM
when was the call of the linesman, before, within or after Caro hit the ball ?
She could have argued the call has affected her return...

she could have argued if Nouni would have given the point to Maria, but he choose to replay the point, which favours Caro big time.
IMO it was a late call by linesman, but its hard to judge from TV.

Tennis Observer
Mar 29th, 2012, 11:08 PM
she could have argued if Nouni would have given the point to Maria, but he choose to replay the point, which favours Caro big time.
Are you sure that Kadar Nouni said "replay the points"?

I was under the impression that Nouni said "Correction, the ball was in". I also didn't hear "1st serve. (TENNIS Magazine's Executive Editor Steve Tignor (http://blogs.tennis.com/racquet_reaction/2012/03/miami-sharapova-d-wozniacki.html): Nouni [...] called for a let to be played; AP (http://espn.go.com/tennis/story/_/id/7752580/maria-sharapova-edges-caroline-wozniacki-key-biscayne-semis): Umpire Kader Nouni immediately reversed the ruling and ordered the point replayed).

IMO it was a late call by linesman, but its hard to judge from TV.
+ 1, but Maria - as always - didn't argue about awarding the MP to her.

killerqueen
Mar 29th, 2012, 11:15 PM
Thanks, I guess there's a strong case for them to restart the point altogether. As a player, I know that I would be pissed if they got a chance for an ace, if they first hit their first serve out. It seems like an over rule in this instance gives the advantage to the server.

I guess so, but then on the other hand, it would be frustrating if you were the server too. If my second serve had gone in and my opponent had missed the return, I'd be pretty annoyed if an overule cost me the point, but then a DF on the second serve gave it to my opponent.

Cajka
Mar 29th, 2012, 11:18 PM
Are you sure that Kadar Nouni said "replay the points"?

I was under the impression that Nouni said "Correction, the ball was in". I also didn't hear "1st serve. (TENNIS Magazine's Executive Editor Steve Tignor (http://blogs.tennis.com/racquet_reaction/2012/03/miami-sharapova-d-wozniacki.html): Nouni [...] called for a let to be played; AP (http://espn.go.com/tennis/story/_/id/7752580/maria-sharapova-edges-caroline-wozniacki-key-biscayne-semis): Umpire Kader Nouni immediately reversed the ruling and ordered the point replayed).


Yes, the replay of the point means 1st serve. It always does. Only if a player challenges the first serve and the hawk-eye shows that the serve was out, the player gets a second serve. It's irrelevant if the point was played on 1st or 2nd serve. If they have to replay it, the player always gets a first serve.

Steff_forever
Mar 29th, 2012, 11:30 PM
now I watched the replay. Cajka and my compatriot are right. "First serve" after the correct overrule. Caro should have known about her challenges and should have focused on the last serve. It was bitchy from both, but with her exaggerated outbreak and the denied handshake Caro lost all of Kader's sympathy I guess. Sorry, Caro...

miffedmax
Mar 30th, 2012, 12:40 AM
No, because Ms. Sunshine didn't appeal: The referee shall only be called to make the final decision if a player appeals the chair umpire’s decision.

Independently, the replay showed that Nouni's call would stand if Wozniacki had a challenge left.

This.

I do have to be certified every year.

(I know most of you think I'm certifiable, but that's another story). ;)

Utterchaos
Mar 30th, 2012, 01:19 AM
I think it's mainly because it disrupts the rhythm of the server (delay while waiting for hawkeye etc. DSo rather than have them serve a 2nd serve after a delay, they clean the slate

This.

It's a rhythm thing. I remember some ATP match where a guy missed his first serve,then the reciever went and changed his racquet. The umpire awarded the server first serve because of disruption.

Barktra
Mar 30th, 2012, 01:20 AM
Ask a simple question, get a bitchy response.

Welcome to TF :rolleyes:


This should be in dentine's rules if it hasn't already been.

longtin23
Mar 30th, 2012, 03:14 PM
Seems to be strange, because it is and should be a second serve, no matter what time is that (after 10s/10mins)
As a player, you just need to know that;s a second serve and serve a safer one...

miffedmax
Mar 30th, 2012, 03:23 PM
Seems to be strange, because it is and should be a second serve, no matter what time is that (after 10s/10mins)
As a player, you just need to know that;s a second serve and serve a safer one...

Consider the possibilities for gamesmanship if this was the case, which is why it isn't.