overrule question [Archive] - MensTennisForums.com

overrule question

08-24-2005, 04:28 AM
i read this on yahoo earlier today about something that happend in the blake vs. llodra match:

With a chance to go up 4-2, Blake delivered a strong forehand and shouted, ``Come on!'' Llodra appeared to return the ball just long, but the chair umpire called the outburst a hindrance and gave Llodra the point. He went on to win the game, tying the set at 3-3.

``I've never seen that called in my career,'' Blake said.

i was just wondering if anyone saw the match and could explain what happened, or if you've ever seen that happen before. thanks. :)

08-24-2005, 09:53 AM
Sorry, I have no answer, but it's a good question and I didn't want the thread to disappear on page 2.
I've never heard of something like this before.

ae wowww
08-24-2005, 10:44 AM
So Blake should not have shouted as the point was still in duration?? Unless Llodra really had no way of playing it back in e.g. it was a scramble shot, behind him or something..

But then, I'm surprised the point was awarded to Llodra??? I would've thought at most it would've been played again as a let or something. Otherwise, give it to James.


Action Jackson
08-24-2005, 10:58 AM
If Blake screamed loud enough before Llodra had a chance to hit the ball, then I'd understand it, but it doesn't seem the case here.

08-24-2005, 11:20 AM
I'm sure Hewitt has been dealt the same punishment in the past.

08-24-2005, 06:00 PM
Interesting....I had a quite similar thing. I played some guy the other week and about 3 or 4 times he shanked a ball and let out a big groan, and the ball landed in. It was very offputting and I had to ask him to stop doing it until he knew the ball was out. I'd be interested to know the ruling.

08-24-2005, 06:07 PM
Don't they should play the point again :scratch: ?

08-24-2005, 06:29 PM
i thought it was pretty odd, i can't remember seeing anything like that happen in a match. if james celebrated the point before a call was made which i've hardly ever seen a player do i figured the most that would happen is having the point be replayed. the only time i can remember anything similar is a player yelling because they think they've missed a shot and having it fall in like adee-gee talked about, but i don't think i've ever seen that resulting in a point being replayed or awarded to the other player. :shrug:

David Kenzie
08-24-2005, 07:24 PM
I didn't see the match but I believe the umpire deceided that it was a hindrance.

This is the official rule about hindrances :

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 playerís own control (not including a permanent fixture).

Case 1: Is an unintentional double hit a hindrance?
Decision: No. See also Rule 24 (e).
Case 2: A player claims to have stopped play because the player thought that the opponent(s)
was being hindered. Is this a hindrance?
Decision: No, the player loses the point.
Case 3: A ball in play hits a bird flying over the court. Is this a hindrance?
Decision: Yes, the point shall be replayed.
Case 4: During a point, a ball or other object that was lying on the playerís
side of the net when the point started hinders the player. Is this a hindrance?
Decision: No.
Case 5: In doubles, where are the serverís partner and receiverís partner
allowed to stand?
Decision: The serverís partner and the receiverís partner may take any position
on their own side of the net, inside or outside the court. However, if a player
is creating a hindrance to the opponent(s), the hindrance rule should be used.

USTA Comment 26.1: What is the difference between a deliberate
and an unintentional act? Deliberate means a player did what the
player intended to do, even if the result was unintended. An example
is a player who advises the playerís partner in such a loud voice that
their opponents are hindered. Unintentional refers to an act over which
a player has no control, such as a hat blowing off or a scream after a
wasp sting.

USTA Comment 26.2: Can a playerís own action be the basis for
that player claiming a let or a hindrance? No. Nothing a player does
entitles that player to call a let. For example, a player is not entitled to a
Let because the player breaks a string, the playerís hat falls off, or a ball
in the playerís pocket falls out.

USTA Comment 26.3: What happens if a playerís cell phone
rings while the ball is in play? Because the player created the disturbance
by bringing the phone to the court and not turning it off, the
player is not entitled to a let. If the referee did not notify the players
that cell phones should be turned off and if this is the first time that
the phone has rung, then the opponent is entitled to a let. If the referee
notified the players or if the player receives more than one call
that rings, the opponent wins the point based on a hindrance.

USTA Comment 26.4: Can the serverís discarding of a second
ball constitute a hindrance? Yes. If the receiver asks the server to
stop discarding the ball, then the server shall stop. Any continued
discarding of the ball constitutes a deliberate hindrance, and the
server loses the point.

USTA Comment 26.5: Is an out call or other noise from a spectator
a hindrance that allows a point to be replayed? No. The actions
of a spectator in an area designated for spectators is not the
basis for replaying a point.

08-24-2005, 07:38 PM
thanks for that info Gouzo. i guess if the umpire decided that it was a hinderance then according to that he'd have to give the point to llodra instead of replay it because it was deliberate by their definition. i guess i've just never seen that be considered a hinderance by umpires in any of the matches i've seen.

The Pro
08-25-2005, 03:49 PM
I despise it when someone shouts during play. Not grunt, mind you, I grunt quite often, but when they say something.

My brother likes to go "YES" or "COME ON" when he hits a good winner on an important point.

I can only describe it as 'bloody off-putting'. When someone shouts in joy when they hit a ball, it puts alarm bells off in your head. Since you're already trying to get the ball anyway it can only be a distraction. As is someone waving their arms like they're trying to take off when they're stadning over you at the net.

Anyone know what the rule is on that too?

So yeah, I think Blake should have been penalised, you can save your celebrations til the ball's bounced twice.

David Kenzie
08-25-2005, 04:38 PM
As is someone waving their arms like they're trying to take off when they're stadning over you at the net.

Anyone know what the rule is on that too?

I think Kiefer did that against Federer at Wimby this year, but I think Federer won the point anyway. Maybe if Roger had lost the point then the umpire would have called it a hindrance ? It's a matter of opinion really.

The Pro
08-25-2005, 04:48 PM
What a spud. No wonder his popularity is very 'mixed'.

08-25-2005, 05:40 PM
I think Kiefer did that against Federer at Wimby this year, but I think Federer won the point anyway. Maybe if Roger had lost the point then the umpire would have called it a hindrance ? It's a matter of opinion really.

Yeah he did. I think it just wound Federer up to be honest, and made him raise his game :rolleyes: