Get it Right: Grunting & Hindrance

I always tell myself that I’m never going to get involved with the two most ridiculous debates in tennis, grunting and equal prize money, but just when I thought I was out, they pull me back in.

Let me preface this by saying this is not going to be a rant about the aesthetics of grunting. Some find it annoying, while others, such as myself, aren’t bothered by it at all. That’s completely acceptable; I’m not here to force my opinion on others, nor would I appreciate others forcing their opinion on me. However, I am here to address facts.

It is because of this that I felt the need to write this, against my better judgement; despite the fact that this non-issue has already been beaten to hell and back, the commentary on it points towards another, even more glaring issue in tennis.

Last night, during the Australian Open fourth round match between Sloane Stephens and Bojana Jovanovski, Pam Shriver (and others later) took issue with what they believed to be Jovanovski’s excessive grunting. Shriver then proceeded to state, as if it were fact, that although Sharapova and Azarenka have never been called for hindrance due to grunting, it has happened to lower-ranked players.

This can’t be further from the truth for two reasons; firstly, this has never happened and secondly, grunting is not, and never has been, EXPLICITLY discussed in rule 26 of the ITF Rules of Tennis, or the hindrance rule.

As a USTA certified official, I have a card in my wallet that says I’m semi-qualified to speak on such matters and I intend to use it to dissect, and perhaps educate some, as to why. While not a professional umpire, I’ve not only attended numerous USTA seminars and yearly trainings, but discussed many matters of law with those certified higher than me. The understanding in regards to what hindrance is and is not is shockingly low in the tennis commentating community; I find this to be a problem in tennis more often than other sports that I watch. The casual fans look to these people to guide them as to what makes our sport so awesome, yet, their reluctance to fact-check and merely examine the FACTS, not their opinions masquerading as fact, is what makes this an issue.

Let’s break it all down. First, the text of the hindrance rule, from pg. 12 of the ITF Rules of Tennis:

If a player if hindered in playing the point by a deliberate act of the opponent(s) the player shall win the point.

However, the point shall be replayed if a player is hindered in playing the point by either an unintentional act of the opponent(s), or something outside the player’s own control (not including a permanent fixture).

An appendix (pg. 19) in the 2013 USTA Officials’ Friend at Court rulebook, which has been sitting on my coffee table since it came in the mail two days ago, adds several comments to of its own to contribute to clarity in regards to judgements of hindrance, which will prove quite useful in proving my points later:

USTA Comment 26.1: What is the difference between a deliberate and an unintentional act? Deliberate means a player did what the player intended to do, even if the result was unintended. An example is a player who hits a short lob in doubles and loudly shouts “back” just before an opponent hits an overhead. Unintentional refers to an act over which a player has no control, such as a hat blowing off or a scream after a wasp sting.

USTA Comment 26.2: Can a player’s own actions be the basis for that player claiming a let or a hindrance? No. Nothing a player does entitles that player to call a let. For example, a player is not entitled to call a let because the player breaks a string, the player’s hat falls off, or a ball in the player’s pocket falls out.

Ruling an objective hindrance is perhaps one of the easiest things an umpire can do in his/her job, purely because the language of the rule itself is quite clear. Before I dissect why Jovanovski’s and others’ grunting, while it might be many things, is not hindrance, I’m first going to explain how and why hindrance has been correctly applied in the past.

Exhibit A: Serena Williams – Smantha Stosur: 2011 US Open Final

The point penalty is valid and completely correct due to Serena shouting “Come on!”; verbal shouts of encouragement such as “Come on!” are deliberate. Using the example stated in USTA Comment 26.1 that I discussed above, it is a deliberate hindrance and loss of point because, although I doubt Serena deliberately intended to hinder Stosur, she ACTED deliberately by shouting “Come on!”. It might sound redundant, but this is a black and white case.

Exhibit B: Matt Ebden – Mardy Fish: 2012 Indian Wells R3

See explanation above. The point in question begins at 47:44.

Exhibit C: Maria Kirilenko – Maria Sharapova: 2012 Indian Wells QF

Easiest call of the lot. Kirilenko’s racket tapping is a clearly deliberate action; much like shouts of “Come on!”, even if the player does not intend to hinder their opponent, it’s treated as a deliberate hindrance.

Exhibit D: Serena Williams – Virginie Razzano: 2012 Roland Garros R1

Here is where some are going to incorrectly state that grunting can be called as a hindrance. I’m going to try and make this distinction as clear as possible. Razzano’s penalty draws from a verbal utterance of pain (which is akin to the wasp sting example discussed in USTA Comment 26.1), NOT a grunt. It’s treated as a let in the first instance due to the fact that such verbal utterances fall under unintentional hindrance. Razzano was asked if she needed the trainer after the first instance, and she declined. She was then correctly warned that if it happened again, it would be a point penalty, which it was. The same logic applies in other instances of unintentional hindrance, such as loose balls or windblown hats. Secondly, the noise itself is separate from Razzano’s grunt. She grunted while hitting her shot, paused, and the hindrance comes as Serena is preparing to hit and/or hitting HER shot.  Razzano is not penalized for what she does while hitting her own shot.

Now that I’ve discuss what hindrance is, I need to address why grunting is not. Hindrance exists because a player cannot act as they please with an intent to distract their opponent. Any noise which BEGINS when the ball is in  the opponent’s court can be treated as hindrance; a grunt begins when a player is paying their own shot.

An umpire cannot rule if an extended grunt hindered a player in any way because, unlike the examples above, it is not an objective case. The Code, another appendix in the USTA Friend at Court, is NOT a part of the ITF Rules of Tennis. It shall be followed by players in un-officiated matches until an official is present to assume some responsibilities. While grunting is addressed in The Code, it only mentions that a player may be warned in an extreme case if and only if an official receives a complaint from the opponent. Only an official may rule if further noises can be considered hindrance.

When players say that they are genuinely not bothered or do not notice their opponent grunting, I believe them. While some spectators may find it an irritant or unsporting, that does not give an official grounds to call hindrance. It also needs to be said that the volume of said noise is irrelevant in determining if hindrance has taken place; it is the timing of said noise that is crucial in determining if hindrance should be called.

On Jovanovski, I watched her three-hour match against Mona Barthel out on a field court at the US Open last year in grueling midday heat. I was seated right next the fence and her volume was a non-issue. There’s another thing to mention here, and that is on-court microphones; mainly used to pick up the calls of the lines people for the viewers, they exacerbate the situation.

Following Stephens’ match, Brad Gilbert took the airwaves on ESPN to say how glad he was that Stephens’ kept her head and “beat that screamer.” Ever the defender of injustice everywhere, I called him out on Twitter:

And got this in response:

“Good point.” So he’s basically confirming the fact that he completely disrespected her because she isn’t a well-known player? That’s nice. It’s a question that needs to be asked; would he have referred to Jovanovski as such if she were well-known, or not playing an American?

There are reasons why not just anyone off the street can be a tennis official. One’s opinions on certain issues cannot detract from his/her ability to judge matters of law and matters of fact in any way. If commentators and journalists alike just took a little time to realize this and, *gasp*, actually pick up a rulebook, there might be a little more clarity for all involved.

About these ads

15 thoughts on “Get it Right: Grunting & Hindrance”

  1. Excellent, passionate write-up of the reality of the situation. How umpires get vilified by players, journalists and fans alike for doing their job is extremely frustrating and also largely why they often don’t feel comfortable applying some of the rules as they should e.g. the time violation issue.

  2. excellent article! i for one love watching the grunters play. I find they are always the most exciting to watch. It’s funny how no one mentions the mens grunting, i assume simply because they are not as loud as the womens. Rafa and Novak do it frequently. As for the fans being apparently “put off” for the grunting, why does a Sharapova match get a sell out crowd? Why did millions of people watch the US Open womens final last yr (between two famous grunters)? Why is Sharapova the most widely searched female athlete in the world if people are so “put off” by her? I reckon there are a few people who complain of the grunting, and the media grab that and run and make a big deal out of it, when the facts clearly show millions of people watch these grunters, and these grunters is what is paying their paycheck. without these high profile players (who grunt), there would be a poor turnout, poor tv viewers, means charging less money on advertising, means less of a paycheck for the commentators.
    i say go the grunters!

  3. Thanks for this explanation of what is a hindrance.

    It also irks me when commentators (and the players) act like the calling of a foot fault is objectively up to the official.

  4. Well, that may be a solid explanation of “grunting” but “shrieking” (actually, almost “singing” the way Sharapova and Asarenka do it) to me is a completely different animal.
    I, nor do I think anybody else, minds the grunting that comes with full-out exertion. But the sound that lasts for two or three seconds until RIGHT BEFORE the opposing player hits is just plain wrong and it is ignorant. If the USTA is interested in promoting the sport (increasing TV viewership, for example) it needs to put a stop to it somehow. And if the court-side microphones are amplifying the issue for the TV audience, as you say, why don’t they correct this? It can’t be that difficult of an engineering feet!
    I, for one, who has loved women’s tennis for decades, will turn my TV off when one of these “shriekers” is playing. Yes, it is THAT annoying. I am sure I am not alone. And, just because the rulebook says that if the noise began “when” the player hit the ball and not “after” the player hit the ball, that doesn’t mean the rule is right and that it isn’t being abused. Why is it that these screeches continue until JUST BEFORE their opponent hits the ball, but they cut off instantly when they drive a shot into the net. You cannot seriously tell me that they have no control over it.
    Look, it is bogus gamesmanship (like calling an injury timeout because you are out of breath – (see:the Asarenka v. Stephens match in the Australian this year) and just plain cheating – in my rulebook.

    1. You’re entitled to your opinion but whether it’s “grunting”, “shrieking” or whatever you want to call it, it’s still not hindrance and not breaking the rules as they’re written. That’s what I’ve explained here and what people need to be aware of.

      1. and that’s fine. But it is turning off a large segment of the fan base and the USTA should be about promoting the sport, or do you disagree? Besides, rules can be changed. Do you think God handed a tablet to Rene LaCoste with all the “rules”? No one anticipated this kind of “gamesmanship” when the rules were written.
        No one really cares about your “explanation”….what they want is for these FEW women to stop making so much noise.

  5. “Any noise which BEGINS when the ball is in the opponent’s court can be treated as hindrance; a grunt begins when a player is paying their own shot.” There is nothing in the rule that stipulates when the noise “begins” or “ends”. So what you said is only ONE interpretation of the rule. Granted, your interpretation is close to the current practice by the umpires, but it’s still only an interpretation. The letter of the “law” does not preclude other possible interpretations.

    Players such as Navratilova and Chris Evert clearly felt their play was impeded by the grunt of the opponent (Monica Seles). If there are enough players to feel the same way, the rules can easily be interpreted to treating grunt as a hindrance.

  6. Simply wish to say your article is as amazing. The clearness in your
    post is just nice and i can assume you are an expert on this
    subject. Fine with your permission allow me to grab your feed to keep up to date
    with forthcoming post. Thanks a million and please keep up the enjoyable work.

  7. What about the courts I play on where I have listen to 14 yr old wannabes emulating the annoying, distracting, ridiculous crap allowed. Why is this a part of tennis? Didn’t Seles start the whole problem? A rule is needed! Ruins playing tennis for me sometimes; partner and I suggested grunting and non-grunting courts!

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s