In yesterday's ETC semifinal between Russia and Germany, at 19-19 in the second set, the umpire called a fault on the Russian woman when she was about to serve. She was preparing to serve a low backhand serve. She had completed her takeback of the racket, and then she aborted her service, probably because she was distracted by a motion of the receiver. Now we hear the umpire shouting "FAULT". The umpire says nothing more, and the Russian girl is about to start her service again. But the German women obviously heard the umpire say fault, so they walk up to him. The umpire realizes he has to stick with what he said, so he says "service over, 20-19", hereby awarding a very crucial point to the Germans who could go on to take the second set 21-19. In the set-break we can hear the service judge discuss with the umpire about his decision, explaining to the umpire that the service rule was not broken (the forward motion of the racket had not started), and we can hear the umpire at first trying to defend his decision (the serve has to be one fluent motion), and then I THINK I heard him saying "ok I guess I was wrong". Am I right in thinking that this was a bad mistake by the umpire? The service only begins upon the first forward-motion of the racket, right?
I am guessing that the umpire meant to say "LET" instead of "FAULT". He could have just told the German ladies that he made the mistake and no harm done but instead he gave in (which in my opinion is probably the crucial mistake made).
But can a let be called before the point has begun? Lets are called to stop a rally and replay the point. She hadn't served yet. I guess it makes sense though, because as an umpire how can you not know the service rules. Maybe you are right, and he just didn't want to admit he called fault instead of let. But it's pretty scandalous either way. The Russians won the 3rd set anyway so it didn't affect the outcome of this match. But they might have won in 2 sets and be fresher for today's final.
I am surprised the umpire calls a service fault when a service judge is there to do that for the umpire.
that follow on discussion on the other thread re. video replays. should players/coaches allow to challenge umpire decision with video replay?
Um, you cannot have a service fault before the shuttle is served. I'm surprised the Russians didn't ask to see the chief referee.
if i'm concentrating on my serve and heard something from the umpire's desk I would assume it's a 'let' as well.
I have not seen it as streaming was not available here, but the call is legitimate enough. Aborting a serve because of distraction before you start your back swing is fair enough, but to abort after back swing is just games and should be faulted.(unless a foreign object fell on the court or something) 9.1.1 neither side shall cause undue delay to the delivery of the service once the server and the receiver are ready for the service. On completion of the backward movement of server’s racket head, any delay in the start of the service (Law 9.2), shall be considered to be an undue delay;
The receiver Does not have to be deadly still. As long as one part of both feet remains in constant contact with the ground. Was the German girl waving or pulling faces or something? You can't just decide you are distracted at every little movement. You may get away with it before a takeback but not after. If I was allowed to cancel serves after any takeback I could use this as a severe tactical advantage.
Well probably depended on what happened, I just had the fault receiver call in my head that actually happened in one of the MD matches. Sounds like the server got caught out by a legal motion which would make it a correct call.
strangely enough if the umpire did say this - "we can hear the umpire at first trying to defend his decision "(the serve has to be one fluent motion)". " Then the umpire was wrong about his statement because the service had not started, but luckily he had called a fault correctly anyways, because that is an undue delay fault as stated in 9.1.1 My feeling is the umpire knew the rule but did not express himself properly when challenged by the service judge at the interval.
I think you are completely right. Now I understand the umpire calling a fault, because it was an undue delay. Birgit Michels wasn't doing anything particularly distracting. So the call was warranted, the umpire just didn't refer to the right rule when explaining his decision. This makes sense to me now because after all, there was no protests from the Russian coaches. So I stand corrected, the call wasn't scandalous at all.
Undue delay would be the call. It would be an umpire's decision to call undue delay of service (not the service judge). Ma Jin was called on it once at match point by the umpire and Gillian Clark was arguing about what the umpire was doing, and that it should be the service judge's call (which is incorrect). Anyways, if the umpire made a mistake, he should've apologized if he recognized it pretty instantly he made the wrong call. I guess there would be arguments and stuff, but I would've apologized and said I made a mistake (this wasn't a rally, this was before too). Humans make mistakes sometimes.
On a side note. I did find the umpires at the ETC rather strange. One umpire got so excited he made some sort of chicken noise mid rally 24m28s to 24m30s http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cleTr-1yxFA There was also a WD match involving Corrales & Marin V German i think. The umpire seemed to take a dislike to the Spanish girls and on a few occasions after their opponents killed the shuttle he shouted out yess! Then called the score. It was quite bizarre.
Off-topic here. What do you think of low serves of Danish player Christinna Pedersen. She also does this forward movement as preparatory move.
She's fine. It's only a preparation as you said, not part of her stroke. But her partner Fisher, that's another different story. His so called preparation seems to be part of the stroke. http://www.badmintoncentral.com/for...Joaquim-Fischer-s-double-action-serve-illegal
