The “Role of Court Officials” section of the ITF Rules of Tennis contained in the USTA Friend at Court describes the roles and authority that various officials have during a USTA officiated match. The rules are clear that questions of fact, such as whether a ball was in or out, can only be ruled on by an official based on direct observation. However, the rules surrounding overrules also reveal that sometimes officials with direct observation disagree on the correct call.
Most recreational players will never have the chance to play a fully officiated match. However, the core principles that underpin the rules for officiated matches are still illuminating for any sanctioned play. Additionally, that knowledge can be helpful to better understand and enjoy tennis as a spectator of officiated matches.
Case: Is a chair umpire allowed to overrule a line umpire at the end of a point if, in the chair umpire’s opinion, a clear mistake was made earlier in the point?
Decision: No. A chair umpire may only overrule a line umpire immediately after the clear mistake has been made.
Appendix VI, Role of Court Officials, ITF Rules of Tennis, Case 3.
This ITF Case Decision illustrates the principle that all calls have to be made promptly. In an officiated match, that means that both the call and the overrule have to happen immediately. If the chair umpire waited until the end of the point, then there might be some question as to which call was overruled. The facts will not change as the point is played out.
This same principle is the reason why professional players have to issue Hawk-Eye (or other automated system) challenges immediately. Additionally, in non-officiated matches a player may not check a mark after the point was over unless the ball was the last shot of the point. On clay court matches, you will occasionally see a player return a ball in play and then quickly check the mark. Most players are tolerant of the “late” call that still comes before the next play on the ball.
Case: 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?
Decision: No. A chair umpire must never overrule as the result of the protest or appeal by a player.
Appendix VI, Role of Court Officials, ITF Rules of Tennis, Case 4.
If the chair umpire does not immediately overrule the call, then the player cannot argue their way to any other resolution. However, should the chair umpire capitulate in that situation, the other player could legitimately ask for the referee. The escalation would be for an interpretation of tennis law on the basis that the overrule wasn’t immediately made. I think that this (hypothetical) case is one where a referee overrule might reasonably occur.
Case: A line umpire calls a ball “Out”. The chair umpire was unable to see clearly, but thought the ball was in. May the chair umpire overrule the line umpire?
Decision: No. The chair umpire may only overrule when sure that the line umpire made a clear mistake.
Appendix VI, Role of Court Officials, ITF Rules of Tennis, Case 5.
The chair umpire may only overrule when it is clear that an error has occurred. The following video captures a series of three terrible calls that were made in a match that went against Reilly Opelka. The first two calls were overruled by player challenges and the language the umpire uses to describe the balls indicate that he did not see the ball well enough to justify the overrule. Opelka was… frustrated.
Next Wednesday we will consider a curious edge case that illuminates a surprising loophole on when a line call truly becomes final.
