Overruling Umpires

Bit of controversy in the Sharapova-Caroline W match last night when with Maria 5-4, 40-30 up in the final set the umpire overruled a Sharopova second serve out call which would have made it deuce. (Maria went on to have two serves and held for the match)
This is a trend I've noticed in which umpires overrule on BIG points. My view is that there should only be an overrule from the chair when a CLEAR mistake has been made. Umpires should not be ruling on marginal calls, especially as Hawk-eye exists now. All this does is undermine the line judges who can lose all confidnece.
I once saw a Davenport match at Wimbledon where the umpire was booed off after making so many over calls that the poor linespeople were quivering wrecks. So when do you think there should be umpire intervention?

The umpire decision was correct. The overrule was good.
It was not his fault Wozniacki ran out of challenges, and even is she did have a challenge, she would've found she was wrong.

She stormed off the court without shaking hands with the umpire. An ill-mannerred, spoiled brat.

NITB. Ta for your reply. I haven't seen the incident and was relying on reports. Was the call on the umpire's side? It's always more acceptable if the umpire calls the balls closer to him than doing, say, a call on the baseline on the far side.

sirfredperry wrote:NITB. Ta for your reply. I haven't seen the incident and was relying on reports. Was the call on the umpire's side? It's always more acceptable if the umpire calls the balls closer to him than doing, say, a call on the baseline on the far side.

yes, right under his nose. He did his job well.

If it means the right call is made, then frankily I cannot see any argument against it.

If anything I salute the umpire for making a brave and correct decision at important part of the match.

If the player feels that the overall is incorrect they have Hawkeye to challenge the decision.

Why would the line judges feel 'undermind' if the chair umpire is making the correct call. If anything they should relieved that the correct call is being made and that an incorrect decision does not cost a player a point, set or even the match.

Still begs the question whether it would have happened at say 40-0 love in the opening game. Broadening this a bit, I know the players get really upset when they serve without a problem for two hours and then get footfaulted on a key point right at the end of the match.

sirfredperry wrote:Still begs the question whether it would have happened at say 40-0 love in the opening game. Broadening this a bit, I know the players get really upset when they serve without a problem for two hours and then get footfaulted on a key point right at the end of the match.

that WAS disgusting....mind you I shudder tho think what would've happened if the umpire's overrule was shown to be bad last night

Another point roughly on the same grounds is the tendency of players to ask the umpire if it's worth challenging on a particular point. Surely it's not up to the umpire to say yes or no but merely to ask: "Are you challenging, then?"
LKV2. If you'd seen that Davenport match I was referring to you would have seen some ridiculous overrules. (This was before Hawk-eye) All this did was to lead to a lot of jitters by the linespeople who felt under undue pressure. The umpire must let the linespeople get on with it unless there has been a really bad mistake.

sirfredperry wrote:Another point roughly on the same grounds is the tendency of players to ask the umpire if it's worth challenging on a particular point. Surely it's not up to the umpire to say yes or no but merely to ask: "Are you challenging, then?"
LKV2. If you'd seen that Davenport match I was referring to you would have seen some ridiculous overrules. (This was before Hawk-eye) All this did was to lead to a lot of jitters by the linespeople who felt under undue pressure. The umpire must let the linespeople get on with it unless there has been a really bad mistake.

how do you define a "really bad mistake" then?
It's either a mistake or it isn't

sirfredperry wrote:Another point roughly on the same grounds is the tendency of players to ask the umpire if it's worth challenging on a particular point. Surely it's not up to the umpire to say yes or no but merely to ask: "Are you challenging, then?"
LKV2. If you'd seen that Davenport match I was referring to you would have seen some ridiculous overrules. (This was before Hawk-eye) All this did was to lead to a lot of jitters by the linespeople who felt under undue pressure. The umpire must let the linespeople get on with it unless there has been a really bad mistake.

The most disgusting over-rule was Henin v Clijsters AO 2004.

Saw carlos bernardes make some crazy overrules against Ancic once in a wimbledon match.

NITB. The bad mistake, for me, is when the ball is miles over the line but somehow does not get called out by the linesperson. What I think is wrong is umpires overruling very tight calls - particularly on the far side of the chair - that ought to be left to the linesperson.
There must be times when the umpire thinks that a call MAY have been wrong. On such occasions the umpire should do nothing. Let's face it, if the umpire is gonna call everything from the chair there's not much point in having line judges.

I don't think I agree with fred on this one. For me the umpire should over-rule any call he sees as wrong - to use a legal term, "beyond reasonable doubt". I agree it's easier for him to over-rule calls which are on his side of the court, but to me he isn't doing his job properly if he only over-rules the stinkers and otherwise leaves it down to the players to challenge (especially as in some cases it requires the player to actually stop play - something he's usually unwilling to do).

On the other point you make about when a player asks him his opinion before challenging, I don't see anything wrong with it myself. The answers are either "yeah it was close" - i.e. I'm not too sure - or "it was definitely in/out" - no point challenging. Don't see much wrong with that myself.

sirfredperry wrote:NITB. The bad mistake, for me, is when the ball is miles over the line but somehow does not get called out by the linesperson. What I think is wrong is umpires overruling very tight calls - particularly on the far side of the chair - that ought to be left to the linesperson.
There must be times when the umpire thinks that a call MAY have been wrong. On such occasions the umpire should do nothing. Let's face it, if the umpire is gonna call everything from the chair there's not much point in having line judges.

The umpire's job is to make sure the match is played ideally without ANY mistakes, not to make linespeople look good. In the past, umpires' /linesmen's mistakes may have caused damage, not any more, players have the right to challenge, and it's their problem if they run out of them (Wozniacki) or have no guts to use them (like Raonic against Federer recently).

But the umpire is decidedly NOT calling the lines. That's the job of the line judges. M for Ch - fraid I can't share your views about the umpire's views being sought on a challenge. Either the player thinks it's worth a challenge or he doesn't. The ump. shouldn't come into it.

sirfredperry wrote:But the umpire is decidedly NOT calling the lines. That's the job of the line judges. M for Ch - fraid I can't share your views about the umpire's views being sought on a challenge. Either the player thinks it's worth a challenge or he doesn't. The ump. shouldn't come into it.

Yes, I'd like HE to be a decision of the player only. Not the referee's nor his coach, family, physio and racquet stringer..

But the umpire is decidedly NOT calling the lines.

Doesn't stop Lahyani from overruling and making rookie mistake after mistake.

One of the joys for me is to see interfering umpires put in their place when their overrule is successfully challenged by a player. Meanwhile, do you think McEnroe would have been any less vitriolic if there had been HE in his time?

sirfredperry wrote:One of the joys for me is to see interfering umpires put in their place when their overrule is successfully challenged by a player. Meanwhile, do you think McEnroe would have been any less vitriolic if there had been HE in his time?

No!

Johnny Mac was able to argue with his own shadow given half the chance!!

McEnroe has a lot more respect for the umpires than the current top 2. He didn't cheat/time waste to put pressure on the umpires like they are doing in these days.