A first-round match at Indian Wells last week ended with a “controversial” call that is the perfect illustration of two aspects of the “Player Loses Point” section of the ITF Rules of Tennis. Anyone who has ever played a match with me can attest that I am an expert in that particular part of the rules.
The point in question occurred during Yibing Wu’s first-round victory against Jaume Munar which culminated in a third-set tiebreaker. With the score 6-3 at match point in Wu’s favor, Munar attempted a passing shot that forced a desperation dive from Wu. While he returned the ball successfully, Wu’s racquet fell out of his hand and skidded into the bottom of the net.
ITF Rule 24 makes it clear that the player loses the point if the racquet hits the net.
24. PLAYER LOSES POINT:
The point is lost if:
g. The player or the racket, whether in the player’s hand or not,or anything which the player is wearing or carrying touches the net, net posts/singles sticks, cord or metal cable, strap or band, or the opponent’s court at any time while the ball is in play;
ITF Rules of Tennis, 24.g
The fact that Wu’s racquet hit the net is not in dispute. That means it is necessary to determine if the ball was in still play when his racquet came into contact with it. Fortunately, another part of the ITF Rule 24 provides a crystal clear distinction.
24. PLAYER LOSES POINT
The point is lost if:
b. The player does not return the ball in play before it bounces twice consecutively;
ITF Rules of Tennis, 24.b
If the ball had not contacted the court for a second bounce before the racquet hit the net, then it is technically still in play. Per the letter of the rule, it does not matter if Munar had a legitimate play on the ball or not. Fortunately, the ATP provided a clip of the point via Twitter.
Per this video, the racquet had come to rest long before the second bounce on Munar’s side of the court. Additionally, Wu was subsequently shown picking up his racquet which was clearly in contact with the net. The point should have gone to Munar.
I have seen some tweets and blogs that suggest that chair umpire Aurelie Tourte did not understand the rule. I do not believe that is the situation. This was strictly a judgment call. It was a bang-bang play and she was likely (and correctly) watching the ball for the second bounce rather than Wu’s racquet. It is highly unusual for a dropped racquet to contact the net.
I have also heard some chatter that Wu was unsportsmanlike by not conceding the point. I think that he was in a difficult position to determine the sequence of events. He was sprawled on the court at the time looking through the net and also watching the ball rather than his racquet. It is likely that he simply didn’t know the sequence real-time and went with the judgment call of the chair umpire.
In any case, this is an argument for incorporating some form of video replay into matches for situations like this.
I would suggest that the fateful call by the chair was not a judgement call, but an objective call based on her knowledge of the rules and the information she possessed at the time (i.e., the ball bounced twice before the player could return it). Without the aid of video playback or some other impartial system that provides additional information, chair umpires are limited by what they see with their own eyes when applying the rules. Indeed, a fair and impartial chair would eschew the plea of a defeated player that the opponent’s racquet touched the net if in fact they did not witness it, even though the defeated player’s argument was factually true. Thus, not poor judgment, but a lack of information. Who wouldn’t agree that using video replay for such situations would be more fair to the players and better for the sport?