LAWN TENNIS CHAMPIONSHIP.
TO THS EDITOH. Sir, —Mr H. Chapman’s letter calls for some notice. Jit Chapman says that he was (handingimmediately behind Wallace, and ho is positive, the ball passed between that player and M r Seay. Your reporter was between Mr Borrows and Mr Seay, nearer to the latter—only a few feet from him. Mr Seay 'was beside the fence, his back torvards the pavilion. To avoid tho ball Wallace moved slightly backwards toward Mr Seay—his face to the cast —and the ball passed his front. He bent himself slightly to make sure, and at the same, moment brought his racket round with a Aide against his right leg. Had the ball, going at a great pace, touched Wallace or his racket its course would have been deflected—it went straight through. I noticed Mr Goss, jun., seated almost directly in lino with the eastern side line. Mr Chapman believes that the ball struck Wallace’s racket, and he also heard Mr Goss say that he “thought” it did so. A “thought” does not count. But the position is this : The central umpire, who alono had jurisdiction, did not detect any breach. Had he done so ho would have given his decision. Not noticing anything, he was libt called to decide, as the opposing players did not appeal. -It was nof until Mr Seay illegally interfered that any doubt arose. That stood tip *vnd stated clearly that the ball struck Wallace, mid indicated the region of the front, waist-belt with his hand, so as Wallace’s face was turned away from Mr Seay the ball did not pass between Messrs Wallace and Seay —everyone know# that, except those who don’t want to. Messrs Chapman, Goss, and Seay di ffer as to what the ball struck —the player or his racket. "Mr Chapman characterises it as “sheer nonsense” fo accept the word of a good sportsman. Mr Wallace made no sign or fuss; he acted the sportsman. May I inform Mr Chapman that in big tennis it sometimes happens that where an umpire errs in giving the stroke to the wrong player the matter is rectified at the request or with tho consent of the player wrongly credited. When players mutually and pleasantly agree about any doubtful point the umpire who knows hia business gracefully falls into line. Under the laws of the game nothing arose to call for the central umpire’s verdict. If he saw no breach the score was 50-15. The interference of any line umpire should have been ignored. 1 am, etc.. Your Eei-orter. January 6.
Permanent link to this item
LAWN TENNIS CHAMPIONSHIP., Evening Star, Issue 15694, 7 January 1915
LAWN TENNIS CHAMPIONSHIP. Evening Star, Issue 15694, 7 January 1915
Using This Item
Allied Press Ltd is the copyright owner for the Evening Star. You can reproduce in-copyright material from this newspaper for non-commercial use under a Creative Commons New Zealand BY-NC-SA licence. This newspaper is not available for commercial use without the consent of Allied Press Ltd. For advice on reproduction of out-of-copyright material from this newspaper, please refer to the Copyright guide.