So apparently this happened over at a tournament I was umpiring over the weekend and there were player complaints to the front desk about the following situation, I was not there at the time as I was out on the court umpiring. What would you do as the referee in this situation? After hearing some responses, I will tell you what Charlotte Ackerman has relayed back regarding this. (If you do not know, she is a US referee who was the deputy referee at the Olympics in 2008, as well as the referee at this year's All England; you can find her coming onto the court as LCW calls over the tournament doctor in his match against Lin Dan in the finals). The situation: We will call one side team A and the other side team B in this case. It is a doubles match, and the players have set down their equipment and clothing to the side, but there is not much room in between the courts as this is not a big gym. There is no umpire in this match. Going unnoticed, one of the player's clothing set on the side of the court is sticking onto the court. Team A hits a shot towards team B's side, and the shuttle lands onto the clothing. Team B claims that the shuttle would have landed out, however team A disagrees saying the shuttle would have been in. So, in this situation, what would you rule? Would you penalize team B for having part of their clothing sticking onto the court? Even if it you are 100% sure it is done unintentionally, does your decision stay the same? Or would you play a let, seeing that it was unintentional and went unnoticed? If you play a let, what is it to hold back that this team doesn't try it again at another tournament with a different set of people in charge to possibly save a point?
That's a tough situation. The only thing I can really say is that for that specific situation is that I would play a let because there was no umpire on court at the time. It's the least damaging call you can make in that situation due to the difficulty of the situation. I would only say that from now on that you have to let players know in the case of courts close to each other that if anything protrudes onto the court and this happens, that the team owning the clothes would lose the point if there was no umpire present. If there is an umpire present I think they should also be responsible for checking that the court is clear of any potential obstacles.
Its a fault.... 13.3.5. touches the person or dress of a player; Sorry,end of a work day for me, trying to tickle my own a$$ I guess this could be enforced as: 13.3.6. touches any other object or person outside the court; My 2cts
A let seems to be the most straightforward answer: A foreign object is within the court space affecting a player's ability to react to a shot. It seems highly unlikely that this could be a useful "ploy" for a team to use for their advantage, so there is no need to get one's knickers in a knot trying to make a ruling that will somehow prevent future hijinx.
I'd be unimpressed with both teams for interrupting the match and fetching the referee. If there's no umpire on the court, then it can't be a high stakes event. If they can't reach agreement, they should call a let, tidy up the clothing, and get on with the match without making such a fuss. (Just the same as if there's a disputed line call--if there are no officials watching then there's no way to resolve it, so you just have to call a let.) If I were the referee in this situation, I'd call it a let (rule 14.2.7, an "unforeseen or accidental situation", no doubt about the fact that it was unforeseen) and caution all the players that if they don't act in a mature way then I'll disqualify both teams. Then again, maybe it's best that I shouldn't be a referee ;-) More seriously, I can't see anything in the rules that justifies penalising team B. (In rule 13.3.5, "...the person or dress of a player...", I'm sure that "dress" refers to the clothes that the player is actually wearing at the time. 13.3.6 doesn't apply because the clothing was inside the court, not outside, right?) Both teams should check at the start of the match that the court is free of obstacles; teams A and B are equally responsible here.
imo, intentional or not should come into play when making a ruling decision. afterall, if i run a stop sign or a red light unintentionally, the police will still give me a ticket. having said that, to me the clothing entering the boundary of the court should be consider the same as a shuttle from the neighboring court entering the boundary of the court. it should be called a let. however, if umpire is present, it is the umpire's fault for not noticing the foreign object invasion and calling a let. if umpire not present, however, it gets more tricky and also should be called a let. if a team uses this as a way to interfere with the rally, the referee should have the power to eject the team from the vinicity of the court. not any different than ejecting a coach when they interfere with the rally.
Was the obstruction there all along? During warming up and end selection?! Shame on the other team for not noticing the obstruction on the court. Its not like they are playing in an unfamiliar setting or likely to have bad eye sight. Can anyone be sure it was 100% unintentional? Some players are convincing actors. The fact that it got taken to the referee means that the players didnt amicably agree on a let which would be the case if it was unintentional. Not sure if it is the referee's job to settle disputes. I think rather they are there to provide judgements on rules - They should hold the owner of the obstruction at fault and warn them for obstruction and wasting time.
the person who owns the towel (or any other object) that came onto the court is at fault. at the beginning of each rally you're suppose to make sure your side of the court is in good playing condition, whether removing birdie feathers or wiping up sweats off the floor, because once the rally begins it should only be stopped when the point has been won or there is a let. so in this case, the team that owned the towel should concede the point because it is their object and they failed to properly store/remove it on time.
Sorry, I've been really busy with other stuff lately. Charlotte would call it a let since it was accidental and no one noticed it until then. Stating the law 14.2 It shall be a ‘let”, if: 14.2.7 any unforeseen or accidental situation has occurred. But yes, what Capnx says is what made me brought up this subject. It should be kind of common sense to know to clear the court area. It will save this from happening and possibly even an injury. It should be definitely looked out for before the match starts. Instead of the shuttle landing on that piece of clothing, what if a player slips on it instead trying to go for a shot? Then that just brings up more complications and it should be removed from the court before the match even begins.
Whilst it may appear harsh to penalise an unintentional mistake, I agree that it's a fault. Otherwise, we open ourselves up to increasingly dubious claims for a let. However, if the clothing were to fall onto the court during play, then I think 14.2.7 would apply and a let is appropriate.
IMHO, team B is at fault as the players should have noticed that there is a foreign object and the play should not continue until the foreign object is cleared. This is not about judging where the shot lands; this is about responsibility and accountability as participants in a match to ensure the court is free of any hazards. The umpire has the same responsibility as well and if in this situation there was an umpire he should be at fault and be replaced immediately and the point should still be awarded to team A. In other words, team B should be penalized for the fault of negligence.
