LAWN TENNIS DECISIONS

Evening Post, Volume CV, Issue 17, 21 January 1928, Page 8

LAWN TENNIS DECISIONS

(To the Editor.) Sir,—ln your report of yesterday's match Borotra v. Ollivier, you mention the fact that Borotra drove a ball into the net in order to lose a point and thereby to equalise what appeared to him to be a wrong decision on the part of the lineumpire. The action was applauded by* the spectators. Judged simply as the expression of Borotra's desire to do justice to his opponent, it was a fine, sporty action, but was, I consider, a very hasty and ill-advised action, calculated to result in the very serious undermining of the honoured authority vested by the laws of tennis in the umpire and by him in big matches delegated to the line-umpires as the sole judges of the facts concerning the game as regards their particular line. Borotra's action, if taken seriously, would mean that he constituted himself a court of honour for adjudicating upon the decisions of tlio umpire and his delegates as far as those decisions adversely affected his opponent. He assumes the right to give his adversary a penalty point in direct defiance ot'_the umpire. Surely the law of averages or chance could be allowed to overrule for good the umpire's allegedly bad decisions. Seven years ago, when Tilden and Brookes were playing in Auckland for the

Davis Cup, each drove a ball out of court in order to lose a point, and thereby equalise what appeared to the players a* wrong decisions on the part o£ the lineumpires. The law worked out fairly in that case, as there was one reputed error on each side. But if a player really feels that he must assume a position of superiority over the umpire, then why not wait for the service of a few balls and then put a ball out quietly, so that neither the umpire, opponent, nor spectators could see that it was done purposely. There could then be no offence taken by the umpireor his linesmen, and the player would have satisfied any genuine feeling of justice and further would have had the secret gritification of having done his self-imposed duty to his opponent. Unwritten tennis law demands that players loyally support the umpire in all questions of fact. The reasons for this attitude are obvious. The umpire is in the best position for seeing the happenings, and is chosen because of proved reliability, and when he has linesmen he places thetn so that the centre of sight is on the production of the line each one is watching. In most cases the linesman, if not always the umpire, is in such direct line with hig work that he must have a better view .than the player, who at times without number is out of position for seeing. It does not matter whether the decision complained of be right or wrong. The question raised is simply whether the players have any right to interfere in the scoring of the points when questions of facts only are in dispute. Of course, if the case were one of law, such as an alleged right of a player to touch the net whilst the ball be in play, the player aggrieved certainly would have the right of appeal to the referee, but where the case be one in which it is alleged that the player did actually touch the net, then there is, I am sure your readers will agree, no appeal from the umpire. But if an appeal were possible, to whom should it be made? To the player who alleges the error? No. Had the Jine-umpire immediately have protested against M. Borotra's action his protest would have been upheld by the umpire, and I am sure that M. Borotra would have been the first up to the umpire's chair with a generous apology. He is a sport, and quite captures the sporty New Zealanders who love the man who would rather lose than win a match or a point on an error made by an umpire. I think that, under all circumstances, true loyalty to the game requires that the properly-appointed umpires should be honoured with the support of players and public alike. —I am, etc., . G. A. HURLEY. 29th January.