Last week, Coco Gauff was eliminated from Olympic medal contention in a dramatic and controversial loss to Donna Vekic. Midway through the second set, the chair umpire, Jaume Campistol, overruled a line call on a shot from Vekic that the linesperson called long. However, he also awarded the point to Vekic since he determined that the erroneous call did not impact Gauff’s shot, which she missed.
I cannot find a definitive source for this, but I am 99.99% sure that the Olympics are played directly under the ITF Rules of Tennis. That means that the WTA Rulebook, ATP Rulebook, Grand Slam Rulebook, and the USTA Friend at Court do not apply. Consequently, the rules for this situation are defined in the most simple fundamental form.
To further set the scene, both the initial bad call, the umpire’s overrule, and the decision that Gauff was not hindered were all very close calls. The only one in question for this post is the lack of hindrance. The broadcast rights holders have been very aggressive about taking down clips of the point. Consequently, I watched it via the on-demand replay of the full match on Peacock. I don’t have an isolated clip to point to here.
If the audio and video are perfectly in sync, my slowed-down capture of the point suggests that the ball had already left Gauff’s racquet before the audible call was made. Even if it came earlier, Gauff’s claim that it altered her swing appears to be without merit. A more plausible scenario is that her unusual swing path was due to a bad bounce from the ball clipping the baseline. I think the umpire’s call was correct.
A Case Decision within the ITF Rules of Tennis outlines the umpire’s responsibility in this scenario.
If a chair umpire or line umpire calls “Out” and then corrects the call to good, what is the correct decision?
ITF Rules of Tennis, Appendix VI, Role of Court Officials, Case Decision 7
The chair umpire must decide if the original “Out” call was a hindrance to either player. If it was a hindrance, the point shall be replayed. If it was not a hindrance, the player who hit the ball wins the point.
This rule establishes that it is the responsibility of the umpire to determine if Gauff was hindered.
The umpire conceded that he had possibly made an incorrect call. Such is the nature of officiating in tennis. However, officials are never permitted to change a judgment decision based on a player’s appeal or protest. Gauff should be aware of that.
A line umpire calls a ball “Out” and then the player argues that the ball was good. Is the chair umpire allowed to overrule the line umpire?
ITF Rules of Tennis, Appendix VI, Role of Court Officials, Case Decision 4
Decision: No. A chair umpire must never overrule as the result of the protest or appeal by a player
There is a separate Case Decision in addition to the one above that also contains that principle. Once the non-hindrance call was made, the decision was unchangeable. It is ironic for Gauff to complain that the umpire didn’t know the rules when she was clearly not knowledgeable in this situation.
I have heard it suggested that the umpire should have erred on the side of a hindrance for such a crucial point. However, that wouldn’t have been fair to Vekic. She hit a great return that likely clipped the line and forced Gauff to miss.
This episode also renewed calls for video review in tennis. Unfortunately, this is another case where it would not have helped Gauff. Whether it was a hindrance is a judgment call by the chair umpire, and there was nothing definitive in the video that would have justified overturning it.
One thing that Gauff got right in this scenario is comparing her outburst to previous episodes involving Serena Williams. Her repeated claims that the call was made before she struck the ball were clearly wrong. Gauff would be better served to focus on accepting bad breaks and close calls and not allowing them to distract her from the subsequent points. Also, Gauff double-faulted the previous point at 30-30 and missed her first serve on the point in question. You can’t blame any official for that.
Coco Gauff was wrong, and thus she was not wronged. It is important to remember that she is still very young and has an opportunity to learn to handle controversial situations better.
- ITF Rules of Tennis, International Tennis Federation, 2024
This incident is not an arguement for video review, it’s an arguement for automatic line calling. With that available now, it should be used in all the big tournaments. Then no bad call would have been made so there wouldn’t have to be a judgement about a hinderance.
I think the margin of error on clay is too large for this still. But, there’s still a margin of error on every surface. Bad calls still be made using the electronic line calling system. Give the players their 3 challenges/set back. That was much more entertaining for the fans and still quite fair for the players.
Too often, with the ‘challenge system’, players have run out of challenges and then unable to challenge a bad call. I am thinking of an incident involving Serena Williams here.
Automatic line calls remove the possibility of an argument.
That’s on the players though. Most of the time if the players run out of challenges it’s because they’re wasting them on challenges that aren’t close. But, this is still very rare and a non issue. 3 challenges is a lot for one set. And for every challenge they’re correct on, they get another challenge.
Coco may be “young”, as you say, but she is a high level professional. As such, her team of professional coaches are responsible to a great degree not just on conditioning and match strategy, but in the education of this young player in handling situations pertaining to unique rule situations. In my officiating avocation, I often come across players who do not know basic rules (Coco’s situation here is a bit unique), e.g. not knowing when the service motion begins; not knowing what the height of the net should be, not knowing they cannot call “double bounce“ on their opponent, for example. One questionable call by a line judge or the chair umpire did not cost her the match. As you intimate, there were plenty of points throughout the match which she had control of that could have changed the outcome. A point played at the beginning of the match carries the same weight as a point played at the end of the match.
Bob, I agree with most of what you say. But, this is another meltdown from Gauff. It seems like she’s doing this every other week lately. She needs to get a grip and stop whining so much.
You’re right so many players don’t know many basic rules, even players who have played high-level tennis before. But, while one questionable call most likely wouldn’t alter the outcome of a match, it potentially could. It’s important to get every call correct, which officials are obviously trying to do but nobody is perfect. And every point counts the same, but tennis is a sport of big, pressure points. The better players play better at the ends of sets overall and on deuce/ad points. The first point of the match is hardly anywhere as important than when it’s 4-4 or 5-5 in the final set.