Criticism Of Umpires Disservice To Tennis

Press, Volume XCVII, Issue 28700, 25 September 1958, Page 15

Criticism Of Umpires Disservice To Tennis

npHOSE who are prepared to give time for the sometimes thankless job of umpiring lawn tennis matches have usually been hard to find in New Zealand. Because of this fairly important matches frequently do not have the benefit of umpires. When members of the New Zealand Lawn Tennis Umpires’ Association expressed concern about this problem at the association’s annual meeting recently, it was suggested with some basis that umpires’ associations would not get enough members until players stopped criticising umpires so much. Umpires gave up a lot of time to attend and umpire for tournaments and other events with the aim of helping tennis, said a vice-president of th'e association (Mr V. Salek). If tennis players criticised umpires it would hinder the recruitment of new members.

Top Players Mr Salek was supported by Mr C. S. Plank, who said “the reluctance of people to come forward and qualify as umpires was due to ah extent to criticism to which umpires were subject on the courts —not so much from spectators. We know that tennis is a very individualistic game and over the years the tendency has developed to tolerate bad court manners, and bad sportsmanship, especially of senior players. There seems to be some reluctance' to apply the rules of lawn tennis when top ranking players are concerned. People with any pride are not going to put up with bad manners in full view of the public, with no redress.”

Few New Zealand tennis followers have not seen or do not know of examples of umpire criticism and many have been the reports from overseas of the antics of some of the world’s leading players. One of the worst incidents in New Zealand was in the Auckland international invitation in 1957 when an umpire left

the stand because of remarks by ’ a player, Who is now hailed as ' the world’s best amateur. A report of the incident said that “Cooper . . . advanced towards the chair and was heard to say: ‘ ‘Let’s have a new umpire.’ ” “Mr White said later: 'Cooper ! started picking on me about the [ second game. I heard him make 1 several comments during the ; match. I would be the last to claim that my umpiring was per- , feet. But it was very late.’ (The ' incident occurred at 6.55 p.m.).” • This year an incident was rei ported from Wimbledon which rei fleeted little credit on New Zeas landers. A Christchurch man r who was umpiring a match in . which a New Zealand 'player was playing was told by the player,, dissatisfied .with a .ruling, to “Take off that blazer”—a New Zealand representative blazer tor r another sport. • ' Such incidents support the sugj gestion made by Messrs Salek and , Plank about the reluctance to . umpire and if this essential part . of the sport is to progress there , is an obligation on players, specr tators and umpires themselves.

Obligation

There is no reason why a player with a will to win should indulge in unnecessary examples of sportsmanship which give the advantage to an opponent, or that he should not be disappointed or even angry (with himself) at the loss of points. But his obligation is to discipline himself to keep his feelings under control so that he does not detract froth the high ideals of the game or make it unpleasant for others. He is also obliged to know the rules. The obligation of the spectator is to accept that the umpire is almost certainly trained for and

experienced in his job, that he is often in a better position—and this applies to linesmen too—to ’judge errors, ( and that there is a human element by which a few umpiring mistakes occur, probably not all to the advantage of the one player. The umpire is obliged, above all, to know the rules.