User Tag List

Results 1 to 4 of 4
  1. #1
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2013
    Location
    russia
    Posts
    443
    Mentioned
    2 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default Halt signal by a partner in the back in doubles

    Interesting case:
    doubles game, a player is about to receive. his partner (standing a bit in the back) raises his hand as a "wait" signal, but the opponent serves and the player receives the serve as he hasn't seen his partner's signal, and loses the point. Then the umpire says "stop". All this happens fast, almost simultaneously.
    So the opponents claim it's their point since the opponent received the serve. The umpire says it's not, since there was a halt signal. Who's right?

  2. #2
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Location
    Germany
    Posts
    647
    Mentioned
    2 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    14.2 It shall be a ‘let”, if:
    14.2.5 in the opinion of the umpire, play is disrupted or a player of the opposing side is distracted by a coach;

    The umpire was right.

  3. #3
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2005
    Location
    Cal Central
    Posts
    150
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by swunk View Post
    Interesting case:
    doubles game, a player is about to receive. his partner (standing a bit in the back) raises his hand as a "wait" signal, but the opponent serves and the player receives the serve as he hasn't seen his partner's signal, and loses the point. Then the umpire says "stop". All this happens fast, almost simultaneously.
    So the opponents claim it's their point since the opponent received the serve. The umpire says it's not, since there was a halt signal. Who's right?
    Going with the chronological sequence of events, the server legally won the rally.

    Then the officious meddling took place, when there was no need. What the umpire could have done was not call "stop" after the serve was delivered legally. S/he did not have any reason to call "let" as the receiver was ready, the server and his/her teammate were not distracted. In other words, there was no violation of Law 14.2.5.

    Only the receiver must be ready, per law, the receiver's partner may decide to take a hike on his/her side of the court, raise hand/leg, tie shoelaces on court, whatever, as long as s/he does not distract the server, there is no requirement that the receiver's partner must be ready for the serve to take place.

  4. #4
    Regular Member visor's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    Vancouver, BC
    Posts
    10,104
    Mentioned
    136 Post(s)
    Tagged
    1 Thread(s)

    Default

    I'd pull him aside and issue him a warning for delay of play, and warn him the next time it'll be a yellow card.

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •