A Closer Look at Tennis Hindrance Rules: The Sabalenka Case

During the Australian Open semifinal between Aryna Sabalenka and Elina Svitolina, a rare hindrance call drew attention early in the match.

The ruling came from chair umpire Louise Engzell, who stopped a point due to Sabalenka’s extended vocalization after striking a mishit forehand.

The decision raised questions about the interpretation of the hindrance rule — and the consistency with which it’s enforced.

What Triggered the Call?

The incident occurred when Sabalenka mishit a forehand, sending a slow, deep shot into Svitolina’s court. As the ball floated across the net, Sabalenka let out a vocal reaction that changed pitch — described by the umpire as an “UH-AYA” sound. Engzell ruled that the timing and nature of this sound constituted a hindrance.

While Sabalenka is known for grunting, the issue was not volume but duration and context. Her sound extended into the opponent’s shot preparation time, made more noticeable by the slow speed of the ball.

Sabalenka requested a review and expressed clear frustration, but the decision stood. She did not formally challenge it further.

What the Rules Say

According to ITF Rule 26, a player can be penalized for hindrance if they deliberately or inadvertently interfere with their opponent’s ability to play a shot. Hindrance can be physical or auditory.

Common examples include:

Speaking or exclaiming during a rally.
Noise that continues beyond ball contact and affects the opponent’s timing or concentration.
Equipment or clothing causing a visible or audible distraction.

In this case, the umpire judged that the prolonged sound during the ball’s flight interfered with Svitolina’s ability to prepare for the return.

Why Context Matters

Enforcement of hindrance rules depends heavily on timing and perception. A short grunt at impact is generally allowed. A vocalization that continues while the ball is still in motion is more likely to be penalized — especially if the ball is traveling slowly, giving the opponent more time to notice the sound.

This incident also highlights variability in interpretation. Players like Sabalenka, who naturally grunt or react audibly, may find themselves under closer scrutiny when the pace of play changes.

Summary

Hindrance includes audible or visible interference that affects an opponent’s ability to play a shot.
Timing and context — particularly ball speed and duration of vocalization — are key to how these calls are assessed.
Consistency in enforcement remains a challenge, especially when players’ vocal habits vary widely.

While rare, hindrance calls like this one serve as a reminder for players to be aware of how their presence — and voice — might impact play.

A Closer Look at Tennis Hindrance Rules: The Sabalenka Case