ASTOUNDING CRITICISM OF TENNIS UMPIRES

Press, Volume CI, Issue 29783, 28 March 1962, Page 11

ASTOUNDING CRITICISM OF TENNIS UMPIRES

'ALL people connected with the sport of lawn tennis in Canterbury players, officials and regular spectators—have been amazed at the recent reports of criticism of the standard of umpiring of matches at the New Zealand championships held at Wilding Park in January.

Criticism

This criticism, which has caused the Canterbury Lawn Tennis Umpires' Association to disaffiliate from its national body, was levelled by the New Zealand Lawn Tennis Association and by the New Zealand Lawn Tennis Umpires' Association. The charges appeared to be mainly levelled at the inexperience of umpires who were allocated to important matches at the championship meeting and to mistaken decisions made by both umpires and linesmen.

The charges have come as a particular shock to Canterbury tennis umpires as during the championship meeting there were many words of praise from visiting players and officials. Of course, there were the occasions when a player complained of a bad call, but this will happen at any tournament, local or national.

The Canterbury Lawn Tennis Umpires’ Association is a very strong body, strong both in quantity and in quality. There are in Christ church at least 40 umpires who have the experience and

confidence to officiate at an important match, and most of these were used to the utmost at the national meeting. It is strange that Christchurch umpires should be singled out for this criticism, especially when the circumstances in Christchurch are compared with those in Auckland and Wellington. In Auckland there are virtually no qualified umpires, and no organisation of umpires, and at the national lawn tennis championships in Wellington last season, of the four contenders for the Kramer Trophy for the best umpire, not one was from Wellington.

When the national championships were held in Auckland in 1960, there was no official in charge of umpiring. The only umpires who officiated full-time at this tournament were two from Christchurch, who had to arrange for their own linesmen even for the finals.

Those who criticise tennis umpires, whether they be players, spectators, or officials, should remember that to undertake umpiring of a top-class lawn tennis match can mean up to three hours of unfailing concentration. If the match is tense, and there are several difficult calls, the task becomes so much harder. In no case is tennis umpiring a job for the nervous, or for those lacking confidence in themselves.

It remains to be seen what will be the national body’s reaction to Canterbury’s message of disaffiliation. It is to be hoped that some steps will be made to tender an apology, or at least to clear up some obvious misunderstanding?. Canterbury has by far the greatest strength in qualified tennis umpires in the Dominion, and these umpires must not be lost to the sport.