New-York tribune., 1922-10-06

Before going further, want to
stress the point that the work of the
umpires and linesmen this season has
been uniformly good. The men who
volunteered for hazardous, thankless
job went into it with their eyes open
or they should have done so, and there.
fore they should have realized that
mistakes in calling were bound to
stand out prominently and to be com.
mented upon, adversely, of course.
Surely it is not necessary to point
out that such is the way of the world
A man may go through most Of his
existence leading an exemplary life
and then make one mistake. There
after all else is forgotten and the
world always associates that man. with
that one mistake. Cali it injustice
! narrow, what you WILL but it is human
nature, and we shall never get away
from it.
Linesmen Clearly at Fault
But, really, the position of the hap.
less tennis critic is getting to be fully
as hazardous as that. of the linesman
I, in common with a majority of the
other tennis writers, had occasion tc
criticize the work Of linesman in the
Tilden-J Johnston match at Germantown
ndISi, AlIIuelltdlIyy upUIl WHICH LnG
national singles title hinged. The
lnesman failed to call bali out that
was so palpably out as to admit of no
doubt. The linesman himself could not
have failed to call it properly had he
been giving his undivided attention
to the line, but he was more interested d
in watching the man in the opposite
court serving and to obtain a better
view sat sideways on his chair
My position in the press box at Ger
mantown happened to place me directly
opposite the line in question, and be-
side me sat critic in whose good
judgment I have implicit faith. We
both agreed at the same instant that
the ball was far out, as did practically
everybody else sitting in that vicinity,
and the next day the newspapers COM
mented on it in more or less detail To
protect the linesman holding the cor
responding line in the opposite court it
was necessary to mention the name Of
the man at fault.
was the center of a raging mob of
members of the Tennis Umpires' AS
sociation, who. demanded to know why
X had criticized the work Of the lines
man, and asked if l didn't realize that
cut of several hundred decisions cor
rectly made in the tournament, this
was lone instance "Would you have
mentioned my name, if had made a
wrong decision ?" demanded one irate
linesman, of old acquaintance. He
was assured that such would undoubt-
edly be the case, under similar cir
cumstances, and the announcement
only served to add fury to the fire Of
denunciation.
A Question Of Fact
1t is far more pleasant, surely, to
write pleasantly Of things, to give the
written "pat on the back" that marks
the writer as good fellow, than to
criticize adversely, but it is not al
ways in agreement with a strict IN
depreciation of the facts as to the
technical points of a match. To fail
to mention such an incident rs that
occurring in the Tilden-Johnston
match at Germantown, would be to
fail to present the news of that match,
and, in journalistic understanding,
that is what the reporter is there to
do, irrespective Of all else. He would
be a renegade to his duty did ne do
otherwise.
OF course, the whole thing SINNERS
down to question of fact. Either the
Iinesman is right and the player and
critic wrong or vice-versa, and in the
great majority Of decisions the lines
man is undoubtedly correct, and play
n1anifestly at fault as that mentioned
above it is the plain duty OF the critic
to make mention of it, and he will
probably continue to do SO.
Nobody will question the fact that
the Tennis Umpires' Associations has