Posts
There's been a lot of discussion about the hindrance rule, and how it was applied in the US Open final Sunday, between Sam Stosur and Serena Williams. Here is the rule as it is written in the USTA rules of tennis which govern this match:
"Rule 26. HINDRANCE
If a player is hindered in playing the point by a deliberate act of the opponent(s), the player shall win the point.
However, the point shall be replayed if a player is hindered in playing the point by either an unintentional act of the opponent(s), or something outside the player’s own control (not including a permanent fixture)."
Now let's take a look at the point in question:
So, there are two parts of the hindrance rule: (1) was it a hindrance? and (2) was the act that caused the hindrance deliberate?
In this case it's fair to say that Serena called out before Stosur got her racquet on the ball, so it was a hindrance. The second question is whether the act that caused the hindrance was intentional, and since Serena fully intended to shout, "Come on!", both parts of the rule apply, and the point was duly awarded to Stosur.
All other discussion about it is pontification, because the rule is clear and so too are the conditions of this point. The umpire had no choice but to call a hindrance, and she did her job. It would have been easier to ignore it and hide behind the crowd and the moment, but she did her job properly and should be commended.
But this has happened to Serena before - with the same umpire. No, not the incident from 2009, that was a different umpire (a young blonde European umpire, yes, but not the same one). Take a look at this.
Here too, Serena yells out, "Come on!" before the point is over, but the umpire calls a let. The same umpire! So what gives?
Well, first, we must read the rule that governs this match, which is the WTA year end championships, and is thus governed by the WTA rules. There, the hindrance rule is written slightly differently:
"H. HINDRANCE RULE
If a player hinders her opponent, it can be ruled as either involuntary or
deliberate.
1. Involuntary Hindrance
A let should be called the first time a player has created an involuntary
hindrance (e.g., ball falling out of pocket, hat falling off, etc.), and the
player should be told that any such hindrance thereafter will be ruled
deliberate.
2. Deliberate Hindrance
Any hindrance caused by a player that is ruled deliberate will result in
the loss of a point."
Here, the hindrance rule doesn't specify that the ACT causing the hindrance need be voluntary, but the hindrance itself. Unfortunately it cites an example of two hindrances that are clear-cut involuntary. But clearly Serena did not intend for the shout to hinder Kuznetsova (even though the shout itself was intentional) and thus the hindrance is involuntary and merits a let the first time it occurs.
I don't know why the WTA feels the need to have a different set of rules from the ITF - the USTA rules are exactly the same as the ITF with the exception of the 5th set tiebreak rule, but that's a different story.
5 comments:
Interesting and clear. I would think that both sets of rules are actually the same, with the WTA rules simply going into more detail. If questioned, I believe the majority of umpires would state that they would call voluntary and involuntary hindrances differently, under both systems. However, I would also want further clarification on what constitutes a hindrance, and the meaning of "deliberate". Players deliberately scream on every point, and are never called. Does this not "hinder" the opponent? If I hit a clear and unreturnable winner, yet scream before the opponent misses the return, was the opponent hindered? If so, from what? Rules and words are subject to interpretatin and clarification. They prove nothing in and of themselves.
The rules are not the same - they differ on where the intent lies. Umpires would rule differently for intentional or unintentional hindrances, because both rules make a distinction, but the definition of the intent varies between the two, hence the different rulings for the exact same situation.
Shouting ("Come on!" or "Miss it!"), while your opponent addresses the ball would be considered a hindrance, but grunting while you hit your shot would not - UNLESS that grunt is loud enough and long enough to continue while your opponent is addressing THEIR shot.
So a short, simple grunt is not against the rules, but a long, loud grunt that continues while your opponent is addressing the ball is.
A deliberate hindrance is defined as doing something with the intent of perturbing your opponent as they address the ball.
If you hit a winner that the opponent doesn't touch an umpire could determine that there was no hindrance, but if you should come one BEFORE the ball bounces twice (like Serena) AND they get their racquet on the ball (like Stosur), that's a clear hindrance.
2 years later, the same issue came up in the French Open where a player actually asked the umpire why she was being penalised for shouting out as she hit the ball, when Sharapova screamed on every ball... plus ca change..
I remember that - it was a match between Aravane Rezai (a french player) and Larcher de Brito (the girl who beat Sharapova at Wimbledon this year).
There was no let or penalty applied in that match, but the umpire did tell her that if she continued to scream for as long as she did between shots, she would apply penalties. And this is when Larcher de Brito asked if they tell the same thing to Sharapova. Pretty ballsy if you ask me for (what was) a 16 year old at the time.
I think that case is a little more murky than the "Come on!" Serena shouted against Stosur. I'm sure that if they changed the rule tomorrow to require silence between shots, you wouldn't hear a peep out of anyone, but they're afraid of modern players, and won't take the risk.
But they have started applying the hindrance rule to grunting in the juniors. That's also a good thing.
I am soooo against all the prolonged grunting & screaming that comes from some players. I played tennis a lot in my younger years & no-one ever did all this screaming then! It is TOTALLY unnecessary & is TOTAL gamesmanship.
It should be barred.
Post a Comment