The Rules of Tennis
There was a controversial ending to a first round match at the Citi Open between Australia’s Jordan Thompson and Elias Ymer, a qualifier from Sweden. The disagreement between the players got so heated that the umpire had to separate them after the match. That is something that you don’t see every day in officiated professional tennis.
The Baseline Tennis site has an article that contains a short embedded video of the point in question. Serving at 3-5 deuce in the third set, Thompson hit a drop volley. Ymer appeared to get a racquet on it and played a weak sitter directly back to Thompson. Apparently believing that the ball had bounced twice, Thompson put it in the net. He went ballistic when the umpire awarded the point to Ymer. It was a close (non-)call on a crucial point.
The ATP Tour has its own Rule Book. However, the ITF Rules of Tennis is reprinted within that rulebook just like it is within the USTA Friend at Court. In accordance with rule 24(b) the point is lost if the player does not return the ball before it bounces twice. That rule is familiar to most tennis players and fans.
In an ATP officiated match, the “not up” call is the responsibility of the chair umpire. The ATP Rulebook has a section that addresses situations where the umpire was blocked or doesn’t see a potential offense.
Umpire Blocked on Question of Fact
Excerpt from the ATP Rulebook
Case: Player A stops play claiming that player B had played the ball after it had bounced twice. The Chair Umpire said that he was “blocked” and could not make the decision.
Decision: The point stands as played. When the Chair Umpire has the primary responsibility for a call (nets, throughs, not-ups and touches) as opposed to the secondary responsibility (line calls), an immediate decision must be made. If the Chair Umpire did not see a rules violation on something for which he has the primary responsibility then technically no violation can be called.
In addition to the short clip published by Baseline Tennis, I reviewed the point using Tennis Channel Plus on-demand replay. From the video it was not clear whether or not Ymer had reached the ball before the second bounce. Thompson may have been arguing with the official that the ball bounced on Ymer’s side of the net before it went over to his side. The video and replays from the official match feed were inconclusive either way.
Ironically, if Electronic Line Calling was in use, the call could have been reviewed. “Not Up” is specifically listed as a reviewable call within the ATP Rulebook.
With a close (non-)call and a sitter volley, Thompson’s best course of action was to maintain his concentration and simply put the ball away. His subsequent anger at Ymer for inability or unwillingness to make the call on himself was completely avoidable.
“Play on” turns out to be the proper way to handle the situation in recreational play as well.
- Jordan Thompson, Elias Ymer Bring Their Own D.C. Heat at the Citi Open, Baseline Staff, August 4, 2021.
- ATP Official Rulebook, 2021.
Looks to me from the clip that the ball did not bounce twice before Ymer return the ball. I totally agree with “play on” approach to most questionable situations.