Worst call in memory

Worst call in memory

Post by James Kersha » Sat, 22 Aug 1998 04:00:00


Quote:









> > > > > > I didn't see the incident, but the near side line is the only
> line that
> > > > > > the
> > > > > > umpire can see AT LEAST as well as the linesman.

> > > > > You're overlooking the most important consideration of the
> umpire's view:
> > > > > the angle.

> > > > I agree with you, that is, that there is parallax error from the chair
> > > > umpire.
> > > > The parallax error is the _least_ on this particular line.

> > > > James.

> > > The umpire's view of the line directly below him is the worst view he has
> > > of any line on the court.  He can only see the ball traveling in a
> > > straight line, even as it's bouncing.  Exactly where it bounced is a very
> > > difficult determination to make.  Coupled with the fact that he is to the
> > > outside of the line, his view of the ball can make it look on the line
> > > when it is, in fact, outside the line.

> > And on all the other lines he can see when it bounced, but has no real
> > idea
> > where on the court it bounced.  This is born out by over-rules being
> > VERY
> > seldomly applied on the far side-line, and infrequently on the baseline.

> This is simply not true.  The court is only 78x27, and even the furthest
> point from the chair is not very far.  With normal vision, the vantage
> from the chair is excellent for each line.  If there are linespeople much
> closer to those lines than the chair, their calls naturally carry more
> weight, but that is not to suggest that the chair "has no real idea where
> on the court it bounced".

> In many professional (and amateur) tennis tournaments, the chair umpire
> calls all the lines.  In others, there are a couple of sideline judges,
> with the chair calling the service and baselines.  Certainly the chair has
> a much better view of every ball than both competitors, and in most of
> tennis played in the world, the competitors call their own lines.

> The hardest line for the chair to call is the one right below him/her.

I could give you the physical evidence for what is happening... things
like
field of view, parallax distortion and pixellation.  I could also give
you
my personal experience as chair umpire of quite a number of matches, and
line umpire of a number of matches.  I could even describe the
psychovisual
system for you, and explain those factors which have highest
psychovisual
sensitivity, and those factors which have a low psychovisual
sensitivity.

It would take too long to be worth it, and you would probably disagree
anyway.

I'll just repeat... there are strong reasons why the closest side line
is the
easiest line to call from the chair.

James.

 
 
 

Worst call in memory

Post by David Mande » Sat, 22 Aug 1998 04:00:00

 probably for Sampras.  
The linesman had the best view. There is no
way in the world the umpire could see the spot
better. The ump was just trying to call attention
to himself and show the audience how much juice
he had. That ump should be ashamed of himself.

 
 
 

Worst call in memory

Post by tennis » Sat, 22 Aug 1998 04:00:00


Quote:










> > > > > > > I didn't see the incident, but the near side line is the only
> > line that
> > > > > > > the
> > > > > > > umpire can see AT LEAST as well as the linesman.

> > > > > > You're overlooking the most important consideration of the
> > umpire's view:
> > > > > > the angle.

> > > > > I agree with you, that is, that there is parallax error from the chair
> > > > > umpire.
> > > > > The parallax error is the _least_ on this particular line.

> > > > > James.

> > > > The umpire's view of the line directly below him is the worst view
he has
> > > > of any line on the court.  He can only see the ball traveling in a
> > > > straight line, even as it's bouncing.  Exactly where it bounced is
a very
> > > > difficult determination to make.  Coupled with the fact that he is
to the
> > > > outside of the line, his view of the ball can make it look on the line
> > > > when it is, in fact, outside the line.

> > > And on all the other lines he can see when it bounced, but has no real
> > > idea
> > > where on the court it bounced.  This is born out by over-rules being
> > > VERY
> > > seldomly applied on the far side-line, and infrequently on the baseline.

> > This is simply not true.  The court is only 78x27, and even the furthest
> > point from the chair is not very far.  With normal vision, the vantage
> > from the chair is excellent for each line.  If there are linespeople much
> > closer to those lines than the chair, their calls naturally carry more
> > weight, but that is not to suggest that the chair "has no real idea where
> > on the court it bounced".

> > In many professional (and amateur) tennis tournaments, the chair umpire
> > calls all the lines.  In others, there are a couple of sideline judges,
> > with the chair calling the service and baselines.  Certainly the chair has
> > a much better view of every ball than both competitors, and in most of
> > tennis played in the world, the competitors call their own lines.

> > The hardest line for the chair to call is the one right below him/her.

> I could give you the physical evidence for what is happening... things
> like
> field of view, parallax distortion and pixellation.  I could also give
> you
> my personal experience as chair umpire of quite a number of matches, and
> line umpire of a number of matches.  I could even describe the
> psychovisual
> system for you, and explain those factors which have highest
> psychovisual
> sensitivity, and those factors which have a low psychovisual
> sensitivity.

> It would take too long to be worth it, and you would probably disagree
> anyway.

> I'll just repeat... there are strong reasons why the closest side line
> is the
> easiest line to call from the chair.

Oh, go on.  Cite some support.

Or at least refute these facts:  Watching a tennis ball bounce from almost
directly above makes it more difficult to determine where the bounce
occured (the flight path from this perspective deviates very little, if at
all, maintaining a straight line), than when you see the ball from the
side;  and when you observe an out ball from the outside of the boundary,
it is more difficult to see space between the ball and the line than when
you are observing an out ball from inside the boundary.  The latter is the
reason so many serve returns are played as good when the server, who
clearly sees space between the ball and service line, knows the ball was
long. The returner can only see space between the ball's bounce and the
line if the ball is more than a couple of inches long.

Psychovisualize that.

 
 
 

Worst call in memory

Post by tennis » Sat, 22 Aug 1998 04:00:00

Quote:




> > > > The hardest line for the chair to call is the one right below him/her.

> > > Hi,
> > > That's a pretty strong blanket statement, don't you think?
> > > Sanj

> > A pretty strong blanket statement?  Yeah, it is.  Because it's strongly,
> > uniformly true.

> Hi,
> So, that would mean that you think it's harder for an ump to call a ball
> that falls on the line right below him/her, very deep (near the baseline),
> compared to one that falls on the opposite side of the ump, on the sideline
> that's farther from the ump (also very deep - near the baseline).
> Am I correct in that assumption?
> That's a ***e for me to gauge.
> Sanj

When an out ball is between the observer and the line it is more difficult
to determine whether the ball touched the line or not, since it can easily
look like the ball is on the line when it is not.  To see a space between
the ball and the line from that perspective, the ball has to be well out.
When the out ball is on the other side of the line from the observer, it
is much more easy to see space between the ball and the line, even when
the ball is close.

The chair umpire sees out balls on the closest sideline as in the first
example, and out balls on the far sideline as in the second.

 
 
 

Worst call in memory

Post by Sanj » Sat, 22 Aug 1998 04:00:00

Hi,
I agree.  I didn't think that Rafter's comment was***y at all.
I think he was simply pointing out the fact that this particular
point isn't what lost Sampras the match (we tend to zoom in
on such a point, when there's a controversy, -just look at this
thread- forgetting the bigger picture).
He would have had a second serve, even if it *was* a fault!
Sanj
--

orbital.com
 
 
 

Worst call in memory

Post by Sanj » Sat, 22 Aug 1998 04:00:00

Hi,
That makes sense (about the ball obstructing the ump's view, on the
near line).  But, the problem with the far line is simply the distance.
I *do* realize that it is not that far away.  
Of course, both depend on how high the umpire's chair is.
In any case, I am not sure which side would be worse in a tradeoff -
how would you compare the two on 'even' ground?
Sanj

--

orbital.com

 
 
 

Worst call in memory

Post by Alan Vin » Sat, 22 Aug 1998 04:00:00

I still think you can't see the separation of the ball from the line if the
ball is in front of the line vs. behind the line from a high chair or at
ground level.  It is always best to look straight up the line, that's why
the lines people stand/sit where they do - to look straight up *their* line.  
The umpire is not looking straight up *any* line, except maybe the net cord
if you can call that a line, in which case he has the best view for calls
such as a player contacting a ball before the ball crosses over the net
to his/her side.  The case in question about match point between Rafter
and Sampras, the angle for the umpire to see the ball is IMO absolutely
not as good as the lines person looking straight up that line and calling
that particular serve as a fault (correctly IMO) - the umpire was wrong!

Alan

Quote:

> Hi,
> That makes sense (about the ball obstructing the ump's view, on the
> near line).  But, the problem with the far line is simply the distance.
> I *do* realize that it is not that far away.  
> Of course, both depend on how high the umpire's chair is.
> In any case, I am not sure which side would be worse in a tradeoff -
> how would you compare the two on 'even' ground?
> Sanj

> --
> sanj                                

> orbital.com

 
 
 

Worst call in memory

Post by Richa » Sat, 22 Aug 1998 04:00:00


posted...
// >

// > //
// > // A still seething Sampras advances in New Haven
// > //
// > // [....]
// > //
// > // According to Rafter, he doesn't understand why Sampras is still seething
// > // about the final match Sunday.
// > //
// > // ``I don't know why he's angry about that last point. It's not the reason
// > // why I won -- I had match point and a second serve,''
// > // Rafter said. ``He'd have a lot of work to have done to win.''
// >
// > By all accounts, Rafter is genuinely pleasant and down to earth with
// > his peers.  I can't imagine why he'd want to say stuff like that,
// > though.  It was 5-4, 40-30 and second serve in a match that, match
// > point notwithstanding, was still undecided.  There's nothing to be
// >***y about.
//
// That is a gutsy call.  At deuce, the server STILL has a significant
// advantage.  Had Sampras managed to break, it was probably still going
// to be a tie-break.  
//
// I read Rafter's comment to be quite simply that this point wasn't that
// important in the match, and the Sampras had a long way to go even if
// he _did_ win this point before the match would be his. That is an
// observation of fact, nothing to be***y about.

"...you say toMAHto, and I say tomMAYto..."

I disagree that the point wasn't that important.  Match point is the
very definition of an important (or big) point, IMO--particularly in
such a close match.  (People disagree as to whether such things as
"big points" exist at all.  We might discuss that, if you'd like.)  

I also disagree that Rafter doesn't appear a little***y; to me, he's
going out of his way to get a dig in about it.  I can't see continuing
a thread, however, on a subject theme it's clear enough we'll only
continue to disagree on.  

What about the idea of "big points," however?  Do you think they
exist?

--
All of reality is just a simulation running in God's computer.  So
chill.

// net dot earthlink at huddler

 
 
 

Worst call in memory

Post by David Mande » Sun, 23 Aug 1998 04:00:00

THe ump in Cinci was way out of line
(no pun intended). The linesman had
a way better view than that ump.
That ump should be assigned to the
tennis academy for some lessons on how to
follow a tennis ball.

 
 
 

Worst call in memory

Post by Fred William » Mon, 24 Aug 1998 04:00:00

Quote:

>The umpire's over rule to award match
>point to Pat Rafter was the worst call
>I can ever recall. On a match point you
>do not over rule the linesman on a judgment
>call. Rafter's serve was a very close
>call. There is no way the umpire had a
>better view. The umpire must have wanted
>to go home after sitting in the sun.
>It was a disgraceful way to end a title
>match.

    How do you know the Ump didn't see the call as
clearly wrong?  You can't second guess really close calls
on the TV.  There's just not enough resolution.  True the
linesperson should have a better view, but not better judgement.  Umpires
have more experience and training.
By the same token, the umpire has a much better view than the home viewer,
or even a member of the gallery.
    Now there are occasions where even an Ump can be wrong and it's been
clearly shown on TV.  This, however is not one of those cases.  TV replays
are inconclusive.  That is no reason to assume the umpire did not have a
clear view and an obligation to overrule.
--
     Peace, Siblings,
     Fred Williams,

 
 
 

Worst call in memory

Post by James Kersha » Tue, 25 Aug 1998 04:00:00

Quote:

> I still think you can't see the separation of the ball from the line if the
> ball is in front of the line vs. behind the line from a high chair or at
> ground level.  It is always best to look straight up the line, that's why
> the lines people stand/sit where they do - to look straight up *their* line.
> The umpire is not looking straight up *any* line, except maybe the net cord
> if you can call that a line, in which case he has the best view for calls
> such as a player contacting a ball before the ball crosses over the net
> to his/her side.  The case in question about match point between Rafter
> and Sampras, the angle for the umpire to see the ball is IMO absolutely
> not as good as the lines person looking straight up that line and calling
> that particular serve as a fault (correctly IMO) - the umpire was wrong!

The near sideline is the closest line the umpire has to looking straight
along the line.  The rules state quite clearly that the chair umpire has
the right to over-rule on ANY call that they clearly see as mistaken.  
Whether the umpire judged it right or not is always in question - but
that the umpire acted appropriately there is no doubt.  IFF he saw the
mistake, he MUST over-rule.  To suggest that the umpire was wrong is
tantamount to calling him a cheat and a liar.... you'd better have
strong evidence of that if you do.

James.