Where Tennis Players Err

Horowhenua Chronicle, 19 February 1931, Page 7

Where Tennis Players Err

General Ignorance Of The Laws Is

Rather Remarkable

|ON SIDERING the enorI mous numbers of people I who play games, the I general ignorance of the | rules of those games is rather remarkable. In

by the server hits his partner it is a point to the other side or merely a fault. Rule 32 is perfectly explicit: it is a fault. The doubt has probably arisen from the fact that if, during a rally, one partner is by a' hall struck by the other, his side loses the point. The distinction is due to the ball then being “in play,” whereas in the case of the service it is not in play until it has either touched the net (a “let”) or crossed it and become a fault.

golf competitions, for example, the winners of a large number of “medals” every week would probably not have won them had they been accompanied round the links by a special marker conversant with the rules, instead of merely by their “opponent,” quite liable, like themselves, to err through ignorance. JMuch the same ignorance of the rules is observable among lawn tennis players — even among those who frequently play in tournaments, but perhaps with less excuse, comments a writer in the London “Observer.”

Players in handicap matches often suffer from playing their matches at a wrong handicap, owing to the umpire not being acquainted with the proper way of giving the points allotted by the handicapper—a common enough occurrence when umpires are drawn from the ranks of players. In these cases all depends on whether the score-book was correctly marked by the referee or other official who sends the match into court. If it was incorrectly marked (which may happen once in about five thousand times) the match must be replayed; if it was correctly marked, the match stands. It is up to the players to know what odds they ought to be receiving, and to sec that the umpire gives them those odds; if they have any doubt about it they should apply to the referee at once. Otherwise the calling of the score incorrectly, or giving less odds than are indicated on the score-book is just as much an umpire’s error as giving a ball in that was out, or viceversa, and the players must abide by it.

Not only are the rules of lawn tennis much'less complicated than the rules of golf, but in every match at lawn tennis an umpire is appointed, and if the umpire is unable himself to settle a disputed point of law, there is a referee, who is appointed for that express purpose. If a player doubts the correctness of an umpire’s decision on n point of law, or if the umpire is himself unable to give a decision, application should be made at once to the referee; but too often the players want to “get on with it,” and the point is on.lv mentioned to the referee after the match is over, not infrequently with the result that a point which should have been given to one party has irrevocably been scored to the other. A case which commonly arises is this. T'm server, having served a fault, serves again and a rally ensues. The final stroke in this rally is so near a line that the umpire cannot decide whether it was in or out. He accordingly orders n “lot.” Now, does the first fault stand or not? The answer is, “No; the server shall serve again and the previous fault shall be annulled.” It is sometimes contended, in opposition to this v'sw, that Rule 12 states that a “let” does not annul a previous fault, '’'is is quite true; it is the umpire who is wrong in ordering a “let’ to be played; he should have ordered the point to be replayed.

Misuse of Term

Players have accustomed themselves to n misuse of terms. “Have a let for that” is frequently heard when a player has been “hindered in making a stroke by anything not within his control” (?.g., a ball from another court being .' truck across his court). He does not have a “let”; he is entitled to have the point replayed. A “let” can occur only hv tb'* service (otherwise good) touching the net, or when the receiver has ••.hmified that he ,s “ n °t ready.” The misuse of the term has become so universal that confusion almost neces'•'irily arises between a “let” and a “replayed point”; it would be as well t’v correct decision, which is to be found in the Addenda to the Rules, "ere to be incorporated in the Rules i l i , nv>s''tvcs, either as an addition to l-,n 1 e 11 or to Rule 21. Another frequent point at issue is v-i-..' 1 —■■ ■ in a double, the ball struck

Linesman’s Duties,

Another point which sometimes arises is in connection with a linesman’s duties. If a linesman (or “lineumpire,” to use the correct designation) is taking a base-line, and no special footfault judge is officiating, is he to “call” all foot-faults, or only those concerned with his line, i.e., those caused by the server putting his foot on or touching the line, or “swinging over”? Most linesmen say that their duty is solely concerned with their line, and that jumping, walking, and other breaches of the foot-fault rule (not concerned solely with the line) should be called by ' the umpire. Others take it that they are in the position of foot-fault judges, and should call all foot-faults. _ Regulation 14 supports the former view, laying down that the duty of a line-umpire is “to call faults and decide points relating solely to the line for which he is appointed umnire”: but it would, I think, be much more satisfactory that a base-line umpire, in the absence of a. special foot-fault judge, should be empowered to act as such himself, and to call foot-faults for any breach of the rule.

A divided authority only confuses and irritates unnecessarily the player, who may be foot-faulted from # two places simultaneously. An addition to Regulation 14 giving full powers to the base-line umpire in this respect would clear up what is at present a cause of some dispute, and would therefore be beneficial to the game,