THROWING POINTS

Dominion, Volume 21, Issue 123, 22 February 1928, Page 12

THROWING POINTS

UNDERMINING A TENNIS UMPIRE’S AUTHORITY BOROTRA STATES HIS ATTITUDE The action of players in the lawn tenuis matches between France ana New Zealand of purposely netting balls when they disagreed with the umpire’s ruling was criticised by Mr. G. A. Hv”ley, when he contended that “such an action was hastily and ill-advised ano calculated to result in the very serious undermining of the honoured authority vested by the laws of tennis in the umpire and by him in big matches to the line umpires as the sole judges of the facts concerning the game as regards their particular line.” By netting a ball in such circumstances a player "constituted himself a court qi honour for adjudicating upon the decisions of the umpire and his delegates as far as those decisions affected his opponent. Surely the law of chance coukH be allowed’ to overrule for good the umpire's allegedly bad decision.’ These views Mr. Hurley communicated to M. Borotra in Sydney, who, being too busy to write himself, has asked a friend to reply for him. The letter stated that M. Borotra, after reading with interest Mr. Hurley’s letter, “is still Oi the same opinion as regards umpiring In fact, he thinks that an umpire’s role is to decide on any difference Ct opinion which might arise between two players, but when two players are absolutelv in agreement on a certain point the umpire has no need at all to intervene, and neither should he be hurt in his feelings, for in many cases the player is in a better' position to see, as lie has followed the flight of the ball since its departure from his opponent’s racket. The above does not diminish at all the capital importance of the role of ths umnrres, who have to decide every time there is a doubt or a difference of opinion. M. Borotra has umpired himself in many matches, and has never felt hur. whenever lhe two players agreed on an opinion different to his.”