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?
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.
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.
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.
What should happen if the server partner is NOT ready? Is it a "let", regardless of who won that point? 14.2 It shall be a ‘let”, if: .... 14.2.7 any unforseen or accidental situation has occured. I would like to think that the receivers would offer to play a let, in the name of sportsmenship/sportswomenship.
Responding to the first question: The server's partner is not ready is of no concern.Is the receiver ready? Is the server ready? If yes to both, then, do not let the server delay the delivery of service. If the server is distracting the receiver, then penalise that player accordingly. Such situations are not accidental or unforeseen, they are used by players to break the rhythm of the game, and/or get under the opponents' skin. Any good umpire will not let it happen on her/his court. As for the second question of the inquiry: Remember, do not penalise the good guys. And do not play more than one let each (team that is, not player) per match. Anything beyond these two lets and the umpire has no control over the game flow. My own philosophy is if the player/s is/are making me work, then s/he should pay a price, which will be a warning, right away, and the next transgression, a formal caution (yellow) and so forth. Thanks for reviving a year old thread.
I agree with [MENTION=8715]2wheels04[/MENTION] that the point was won (although I'd certainly call a let if the serving side asked for it). Look closely at the rules you quoted: Play has not been disrupted since nothing unusual happened. I'd be of the opinion that a player should not be able to disrupt the game anyways. The second part of the rule is irrelevant; coaches may not even be present here. As [MENTION=8715]2wheels04[/MENTION] already said, the situation is not unforeseen. This rule is meant to apply if the ceiling falls down or a naked fan runs over the court. The part where I disagree with [MENTION=8715]2wheels04[/MENTION] is the number of lets per game though. Especially in (Women's) singles, I find it quite hard to accurately call close line calls (away from the umpire's chair) and then do what I've observed high-level umpires doing, i.e. ask the players and calling a let if there is disagreement. Of course, at high enough levels, you've got plenty of line judges so that can't happen.
