THE HINDRANCE RULE PREQUEL: ROLAND GARROS 2003

The hindrance rule is almost always controversial for many reasons.  First: most people don't know the letter of the law, and as a result, interpretations of the rule, by players and commentators alike, are often based in ignorance.  Second, while the letter of the law is not generally well known, the objective of fairness is, thus when the proper application of the law is misinterpreted, an unfair result is incorrectly assumed.  And finally, when one is ignorant of the rule, unaware that it has been applied properly, and left with only the assumption of having been aggrieved, this tends to linger.

And like an unwelcome guest, controversy loves nothing more than to hang around...sometimes for years.

But these controversies are all based in the same underlying problem - ignorance of the rule.  And ignorance has definitely caused the controversy over the case of Serena Williams versus Justine Henin in the 2003 Roland Garros semi-final to linger.

In this match, Serena Williams was up a break 4-2 in the third, serving to put herself one game from the final.  Though there had been a lot of noise from the crowd in between points (and in particular a great deal of encouragement to the francophone Henin), Serena started her serve motion anyway, however Henin put her hand up to indicate that she wasn't ready.  After dumping the serve in the net, Serena then asked the umpire for a first serve because Henin had put her hand up.  

Oblivious to what Serena and millions of television viewers had plainly seen, the umpire (Stefan Fransson) didn't even bother to ask Henin if she had put her hand up, and with nothing offered from her, he called for a second serve.  Thus the narrative was that Henin cheated by not admitting she had put her hand up, and in doing so, had so discombobulated Serena that she proceeded to lose 5 out of the next six games, the set, the match and her shot at immortality.

But doesn't the hindrance rule apply here?  Well yes and no, because the issue is fairness - namely, would it have been fair to award a first serve, or by the letter of the law, the point directly, to Serena in this case?

For an explanation of the hindrance rule itself, I posted this three years ago.  The important thing to remember is that there are two parts of the rule:  (1) whether there was a hindrance in the first place (which is a subjective matter of opinion) and (2) whether to replay the point or award it to the hindered player (the other a matter of fact).  In this case, the real question is whether a hindrance occurred before we get to the question of the remedy.

Now, the only way Henin's hand could have hindered Serena was if she saw it before she hit her serve, otherwise how could it have been a hindrance if she didn't even see it until after the serve?  We can speculate as to whether she would have admitted to having seen the hand go up if she had burned one up the T for an ace, but if, as would have to be the case for any remedy, she saw Henin's hand up before she served, she should have stopped before the point began - namely she shouldn't have served.  But she did serve, therefore either she didn't see the hand up, or she saw it up, but served anyway!  Not exactly sporting of Serena, and in either case, falling short of a hindrance.

So actually Serena has got it wrong on multiple fronts:  first, she can't claim she saw the hand up before the serve, because if she did, she shouldn't have served.  Second, she can't claim she saw it after the serve, but it somehow hindered her before the serve - that's just illogical.  And finally, although it could be argued that it was a hindrance if Henin's hand went up after Serena started serving (in which case it's during the point and is a hindrance) the redress Serena should have been asking for was to be awarded the point directly, for an intentional hindrance, and not a let for an unintentional hindrance.

So even if Henin had admitted to raising her hand, in all likelihood the umpire would have incorrectly ruled the point be replayed, even though she intentionally put her hand up during the point - in which case she should have lost the point.  And, although Serena still would have been aggrieved by such a ruling, I guarantee nobody would have said boo, even though it's a clear error of law.  Then all of the bitterness and resentment Serena has since professed denied, would have been silenced even though she would still have been rooked on the call.

So in the end, I believe:

1. Henin raised her hand after the serve started, however
2. Serena didn't see it, therefore there was no hindrance, and 
3. The umpire, not having seen the "non-hindrance" himself was correct in ordering a second serve, and
4. Henin, despite not admitting to raising her hand, ultimately got the right decision.

But that doesn't stop Mary Carillo (and John McEnroe for that matter) from continually getting the call wrong from the commentator's box, when they really should know better.

AGAIN WITH THE HINDRANCE RULE?

Yes, all over again. Ironically, another American (Mardy Fish) with a penchant for petulance (like Serena), against another Australian (Matthew Ebden), long considered an under-achiever (like Sam Stosur)...okay, maybe not that second part. But incredible that both the hinderer and the hindered were from the same natinoalities...AGAIN...but I digress.

Mardy Fish (just like Serena) should review the rules before jumping to incorrect conclusions about whether a let should be played. The ATP rulebook (http://www.atpworldtour.com/Corporate/Rulebook.aspx) governs here, but it just so happens tha the ATP hindrance rule (unlike the WTA hindrance rule) says the same thing as the  ITF/USTA rules of tennis. And it is clearly stated in Chapter VII (Competition), Section 22 (On-Court Procedures and Requirements), Part F - "Hindrance", Line 2b "Inadvertant or Deliberate Act" that:

"Any distraction caused by a player may be ruled deliberate and result in the loss of a point (intentional or unintentional). Deliberate is defined as the player meant to do what it was that caused the hindrance or distraction."

Emphasis on meaning to do what caused the hindrance, not the hindrance itself - in other words, you don't have to be a poor sport to hinder your opponent. Here the umpire did not necessarily rule that the hindrance was deliberate, but the act CAUSING the hindrance was (i.e. the act of shouting, "Come on!" was deliberate, even though the hindrance caused by that shout was not), therefore the point was correctly awarded to the Ebden.

In fact, the exact situation that occurred with Fish, is referred to in the description of hindrance cases, "Opponent Makes Noise", where it states:

"Case: During play, a player thinking he has hit a winner, shouts “vamos”, “come on”, “yes”, etc. as his opponent is in the act of hitting the ball..

Decision: If the chair umpire rules that a hindrance has occurred then, as the sound or exclamation that caused the hindrance was deliberate, the point shall be awarded."

Therefore the only area of interpretation is if the umpire determines that the shout caused a hindrance. If the players is on the deuce court, and the shot before the shout lands on the ad court sideline, it would have to be interpreted that there was no hindrance, but anything in between is down to the determination of the umpire, and he can consider how close he is to the ball, how fast the player was moving towards it, how fast the ball was going, the angle, etc.

I'll update this post with any footage from the incident, but the point is that once it is determined that a deliberate hindrance has occurred, there is NO OPTION TO PLAY A LET.

UPDATE:

Here is the point in question, and Felix Torralba makes a ruling that is 100% correct - Fish attempts to create a couple of non-existent standards for a replay, for which there is nothing in the rules to support. First he claims the hindrance didn't cause him to miss, which is irrelevant, and secondly that because the hindrance wasn't really a hindrance, he should get a let, which not only doesn't make any sense (why would you play a let if there is no hindrance) and is also not supported, because once a deliberate hindrance is ruled (defined by whether the act that caused the hindrance was intentional), there is no option to play a let.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tcSv3oEcCJc&feature=player_detailpage#t=2858s

GRUNT MUCH?

A lot's been made of the issue of grunting, so here's a little something I found humorous in that vain.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=161g-HYTalo&feature=related

Enjoy it.

THE HINDRANCE RULE

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.