When Cal’s Daniel Sebescen called UCLA’s Chris
Lam’s serve out during the waning moments of Sunday’s
regional tennis match, it made me sympathize with the chair
umpire.
Lam’s kick serve appeared to have grazed the outside of
the line, warranting the umpire’s overrule. Of course,
Sebescen didn’t see it that way, prompting him to throw his
arms up in confusion and give the typical
“how-can-you-overrule-that?” stare.
The umpire remained firm in his decision, which I found pretty
admirable, considering I would have responded to the players by
shrugging my shoulders in uncertainty and telling them to just play
the point over.
Unfortunately, this middle option wasn’t available to the
umpire, leaving him prone to the verbal tirade that frequently
accompanies an overruled call. Athletes and coaches tend to get on
their high horse when the calls don’t go their way, and if a
referee ever caves in, it provokes an even higher horse to explode
from the opposing bench.
Both teams are perfectly convinced they’re right, while
the umpires are just frightened at the prospect of being wrong.
From my bird’s eye view in the stands, I can’t help but
wonder why a do-over rule isn’t invoked.
I was chatting with a United States Tennis Association referee
at Sunday’s tennis match, curious as to whether she would
enjoy having the do-over option at her disposal and whether it was
a feasible solution. Midway through our conversation, she informed
me that referees weren’t allowed to be quoted, which took me
by surprise since she hadn’t said anything particularly
interesting. I reminded her of the subject of our conversation, but
she remained equally adamant. Perhaps she was just afraid of making
the wrong call in the emerging do-over debate.
It’s hard to overlook the benefits of pressing the delete
button on a play and starting from scratch. Referees questioned for
their bias would instead be commended for their conciliatory
nature. I suppose I’m a sucker for compromise, but the term
gets bandied about in political circles so often these days that it
has to be the best solution.
During the NCAA men’s volleyball championship between
Pepperdine and UCLA, the head referee was forced to sort out a
number of points that even the jumbotron wasn’t sure about.
Players on each side stood at the bottom of his ladder pleading
their cases, adopting a theater student’s persona to explain
why some minor infraction had or hadn’t been committed. If
the referee had immediately called for a do-over, the point could
have been replayed in the time it took for the theatrics and final
decision to play out.
The do-over would be well-suited to a variety of sports. If a
photo finish at the track proves too tough to call, have the
runners return to the blocks. Not quite sure if a pitch was a ball
or strike? It doesn’t have to be either.
At the recreational level, where umpires aren’t involved,
the do-over is part of common law. Whenever there’s
disagreement, both parties generally go back to the last point of
agreement. There’s less bickering and more mingling, and
while some may chalk this up to a less competitive environment, I
prefer to give the do-over principle much of the credit.
Just because there’s a winner and loser at the end of
every game doesn’t mean there has to be one at the end of
every point or play. Particularly if the fairest results would come
from a do-over.
E-mail Finley at afinley@media.ucla.edu if you think he
needs a do-over for this column.