Fiend at Court Unplugged
In 2020, this site launched into coverage of the hindrance rule in tennis with the post “Hindrance in Tennis: A Conceptual Description.” As it turns out, hindrance is one of the more subjective and controversial items encoded in the ITF Rules of Tennis as published within the USTA Friend at Court.
Hindrance is a lot like pornography. (Stick with me here.) It is hard to define but most people will claim to “know it when they see it.” The following clip that was used to illustrate a hindrance call in practice now serves to illustrate that interpretation of hindrance is very much debatable.
Robin Haase was called for hindrance in this case for making a noise in the middle of this point against Gonzalo Lama. To me, that noise constitutes hindrance because the noise was to intentionally distract his opponent. Additionally, Hasse made the noise while playing a relatively deep ball. His enunciation is similar to an out call that might have been made by a linesman. The chair umpire saw this as intentionally distracting behavior and awarded the point to Lama.
The Fiend at Court spousal unit had a completely different interpretation of this clip. His perspective is that Haase had become frustrated by his opponent’s grunting. That frustration manifested itself into Hasse imitating Lama’s persistent noises mid-point. In other words, how can hindrance occur when one player is simply repeating the behavior of the other? This was hotly debated in the Fiend at Court household for a couple of days.
The ATP Rulebook has a case that speaks very directly to this specific instance of hindrance.
Opponent Makes Noise
Case: During play, a player thinking he has hit a winner, shouts “va- mos”, “come on”, “yes”, etc. as his opponent is in the act of hitting the ball.
Decision: If the Chair Umpire rules that a hindrance has occurred then, as the sound or exclamation that caused the hindrance was deliberate, the point shall be awarded.
Excerpt from ATP Official Rulebook, Section VII, The Competition
Essentially, if a player makes a deliberate noise that distracts their opponent, it is hindrance. The intent behind the noise does not matter. Consequently, whether Haase was mimicking his opponent’s grunt or simulating an out call makes absolutely no difference. It is hindrance either way.
It seems counterintuitive – or perhaps even patently unfair – that one player is allowed to grunt all the time while another is flagged for hindrance based on a single sound. The key point is the continuous nature of the noise. In the case of Lama, he made that sound each and every time he contacted the ball. Since it is made every time, no one instance can be asserted to be intentionally distracting.
In an officiated match this call is at the discretion of the chair umpire or roving official. In matches without an official close at hand, sorting out a hindrance call is much more of a challenge. In my own personal experience resolution in those cases can range from quick consensus to a screaming debate. It is usually much more dependent on the relationship between the players than on the technical merit of the infraction.
In any case, I think that most players will agree that noises made by an opponent in the middle of the point are annoying at a minimum. It is also one of those rare cases where hearing loss has upside.
- United States Tennis Association (2021), Friend at Court: Handbook of Rules and Regulations, White Plains, NY
- ATP Tour (2021, The 2021 ATP® Official Rulebook, the United States of America.
