TENNIS

Gisborne Times, Volume LXXXIV, Issue 12804, 7 March 1936, Page 11

TENNIS

TENNIS UMPIRES DECISIONS AT WIMBLEDON MANY OF THEM DOUBTFUL Doubtful decisions by umpires and, linesmen at Wimbldon this year were, as over and as regrettably, a feature of the meeting, writs, J. E. Collett. Two o: them stood out on account of the publicity given to them, the muddle which -caused the'"collapse of Slcena E, Popkova,when she seemed in a winning position against Mrs. S. I-. Moody, ami ’the' “not up” call which woo alleged to have upset Miss H- Jacobs’ concentration when 'she was leading .Mr’,-. Moody. It is not germane to my present proposition to discuss the merits of these instance-', they are merely exhibits in the ease which are furor, liar and o; recent- mem-ory,-nor is it mv intention to disparage the general standard of the umpiring and lining, which was not only excellent. '(generally - .speaking, but better than any other national ..->r international champ'onship. One might poi'sibly except those Davis Cap or other matches which are eonduct eel. as far as tin's department is coneerned, by the officially recognised Umpires’ Association'. My concern is to consider liow far the -inconvenience can he remedied Or eradicated. There are two chic! causes; First, the Ineradicable factor of human liability to error; secondly, the hazy idea, and lax observance and application of existing ■ rules. Almost, anyone who is willing to give up the tune end take- the kicks and no ha’pence can become a regular umpire on the Wimbledon list. Of later years much lvr.s Torn done to weed out ineoinpotent-s, and the otherwise respectable pc. son who’ goes to sleep on a line on the centre court, during a long base-line rally is merely a- legend. Tt r; scarcely believable that he was once a fact. At the same time there -is. no recognised standard of .qualification. Admittedly this j s ■ difficult- to establish. • The Umpires’ A*, soeiaiion made a noble effort to persuade their members to obtain cc-iilist's certificates’ to assist grading, but it had. 1 believe, an indifferent .success. Thus a man with a -slight astigmat.’-m, of which lie was unaware, might decide a chaanpionslf |> nn a -‘not up”' decision, on which, on his angle of vision on the moment. ■ho was unable to give a reliable opinion. There* is no recognised method of taking a baseline or judging; a footfault. Some call before the ball drop®, others (the majoiit.v- wait for it to bounce.' Some hold up their hand or -a card, others depend on a general impression to catch the footfaulter. Details could be multiplied, hut the fact remains that- this most important adjunct to a match is handled on a basis whic-li is more personal and casual in theory and practice than impersonal.- and. as Tar ;v.s possible, scientific. The liability to error is given every chance of manifestation. Tn the circumstances it is not surprising* that, many players, in order to protect themselves to some extent, have developed the habit- of throwing points to 'adjust the balance of what one or both may think to have been a had decision. This is alleged to he a “sportsmanlike'' action. In strict, ness It is indefensible, being apt to create misunderstanding and misinterpretation of motive, and amounting to a refusal to play the rulet*.

During a key match -on the centre court at- Wimbledon (all parties concerned shall he nameless) the umpire recorded a doubtful decision, but was not called -upon' to proclaim a point, thrown after it; later and at si tenser stage- of the match, oatne another doubtful decision, which was followed by a thrown point. The crowd applauded and the broadcaster delivered an impromptu panegyric -on the -sportsmanship displayed. It is to be presumed that, 7,000,000 people were or could have been educated on what are the rules of the frame, and l that one ot the players concerned was-not equally sportsmanlike. But were they educated ? The regulations governing the conduct of championships state categorically: “The decision <> an umpire shall he final upon every que-tion of fact, and any player expressing disapproval renders himself liable to ho disqualified. ' This, therefore, is the law, “Thou shall, play to- the whistle,” The players the crowd, and the broadcaster seem to differ, saying: “The law ih an -ass,” and in effect barrack its officer, the umpire.

’Tho time has surely come when -subordination of discipline to something subtle which evades a name should cease. There can be no real respect :fo a- -game that is governed by compromise with the crowd, or of wliieh the ethics are a, matter of local and accidental .Mattel's or personal predilection. The L.T-A. should ' f-nk-cmeaemres to make'clear whether whistle-dodging is sport or—what it might ,be dubbed in other games,