Hissy Fits Tantrums And Miss-Trust Of The Umpire

Umpires are meant to be there to ensure matches are played fairly and all players adhere to the rules. Just as the players are trained to compete umpires are trained to understand the rules of the game and how to apply them. Sometimes an umpires job is straightforward and sometimes their job can be a little more tricky especially were an element of judgement is called for. But the reason why umpires are considered necessary is because they are meant to be impartial and have sufficient authority and wisdom to be relied on to make such judgements in a fair and consistent manner.

However in pro tennis there is often much at stake and players with their powerful celebrity status are often reluctant to accept judgement calls from umpires or even the more straightforward application of the rules. From McEnroe's screams of "You cannot be serious" when an umpire judged a ball to be out to Wawrinka's hissy fit about an opponents legitimate MTO they are all attempts to undermine and influence umpires. Some players now even attempt to tell an umpire how they should be doing their job. For example telling an umpire before a match starts that they want them to pay particular attention to the amount of time their opponent takes between points and that they "want the rules to be enforced"

Are umpires dealing with players trying to influence the out come of matches effectively? Have umpires become less trusted? Has the balance of power shifted to far in the players favour making it difficult for umpires to do their job? How should umpires deal with a player who questions their authority? Are umpires swayed by players that shout the loudest to treat them more favourably?

Umpires are often in a no-win situation. Apply the rules and big name players can effectively put them out of a job. Don't apply them and their superiors can put them out of a job.
It doesn't help when players criticise them publicly for not understanding the game, with ill-judged post-match press conference hissy fits.

hawkeye wrote:they "want the rules to be enforced"

Truly frightful stuff.  Luckily umpires do not seem to be bowing to this pressure.

The only big failing is the lack of courage to properly enforce the 20/25 second rule.

But I can't stand the players chirping at the umpire. Worse still are ridiculous complaints about getting a time warning, which are offered not in the heat of battle but in the press conference afterwards.

HM Murdoch wrote:The only big failing is the lack of courage to properly enforce the 20/25 second rule.

But I can't stand the players chirping at the umpire. Worse still are ridiculous complaints about getting a time warning, which are offered not in the heat of battle but in the press conference afterwards.

Come on HM what sport do you watch where the players dont chirp at the umpire... or referee..
Take football for instance good lord referees have much more to cope with than do tennis umpires.
All players have a grump at the umpire at sometime its in the natural run of things and the umpires
expect it. Its within their power to control it but if they choose to be a hail fellow well met then they are not doing their job properly. If they complain at the umpire most times it gets dismissed out of hand that is why they complain in the press conference.  I maintain most of the problems that are on court should be dealt with on court.
I read this forum and it seems that everyone expects these players to be robots.. they are human beings with human failings.. they have their hissy  moments at work like everyone else.

JuliusHMarx wrote:Umpires are often in a no-win situation. Apply the rules and big name players can effectively put them out of a job. Don't apply them and their superiors can put them out of a job.

Exactly! Umpires are being dis-empowered. They are no longer trusted and players think they can tell the umpire how to do their job. I don't expect players to act like robots and there is nothing wrong with being upset about a ruling and of course umpires can get things wrong because they are not robots either.

But watching Wawrinka's hissy fit at the umpire when it was explained to him that he had no right to know details about Nadal's injury time out and watching him continue when a supervisor had to be called to tell him that what the umpire had told him was correct certainly showed lack of trust and respect and went way beyond him merely being upset.

The way the umpires have been told to apply the 20 second rule has also put them in a no win situation because it's impossible to do this. Without being able to use discretion they will always get it wrong. Players can then point out their errors further undermining their authority. This will also affect their authority when making other judgement calls.

I don't think it's always the case but IMO some on court questioning of the umpire is used as a form of gamesmanship because it questions an opponents integrity whilst a match is on going. Being accused "cheating" or not playing strictly to the rules could certainly throw a player off. Hearing an Umpire being questioned about rule enforcement whilst a match is on going can also send signals to the crowd that rules are not being enforced and influence the crowds behavior and that in itself can influence play.

I think on court hissy fits and tantrums are more of a problem than criticism of rule enforcement after the match because they are not direct confrontations with the umpire and they can't influence the outcome of a match. Everyone has a right to an opinion but it is important how and when it expressed.

summerblues wrote:

hawkeye wrote:they "want the rules to be enforced"

Truly frightful stuff.  Luckily umpires do not seem to be bowing to this pressure.

I think you are misunderstanding my point. The players are undermining the umpires authority by telling them they are not doing their job. If  they say they "want the rules to be enforced" what does that say about what they think of the umpires ability to do their job?

HE I can only assume that you will condemn Rafa's hissy fit in the same way that you condemn Stan's?

Julius. I thought the latest thing Rafa was being "condemned" for was taking a MTO? Sometimes it's difficult to keep up. Maybe there should be a special place set aside on 606v2 were people can discuss all the latest Rafa condemnations without clogging up other threads with their anger about him in particular? Not everything in tennis is about Rafa  

So you can have a go at Stan and other players, but you can't bring fairness to your argument and apply the same criteria to all players?

Perhaps a good debate could be had other subject if you were prepared to sensibly debate the matter and not use it as a stick to beat certain players while ignoring the indiscretions of others.

Julius. I'm prepared to sensibly debate this subject    I was using Stans outburst at the umpire as an example of a player having a hissy fit despite being told clearly by both the umpire and a superviser that the rules were being adhered to. I think it's an excellent example of a player miss trusting an umpire. What's wrong with that? Are you saying I always have to use Rafa as an example or always have to refer to him? I don't think that would be a sensible way to debate  

HE, do you view this in the same way as Stan's strop?

hawkeye wrote:Julius. I'm prepared to sensibly debate this subject    I was using Stans outburst at the umpire as an example of a player having a hissy fit despite being told clearly by both the umpire and a superviser that the rules were being adhered to. I think it's an excellent example of a player miss trusting an umpire. What's wrong with that? Are you saying I always have to use Rafa as an example or always have to refer to him? I don't think that would be a sensible way to debate  

If asked a question about Rafa, it might help if you answered it instead of avoiding it.

I think all players should be allowed to have a strop .. why not.
What do umpires get paid for anyway... they are merely score keepers
The highest paid doddle of a job that allows you to travel all over the world and they cant deal with a player who is having a strop that may well be valid.. they should move over and let someone else do it.  The umpire is a toothless tiger and a lot of the responsibility of what ALL players do and do not get away with rests with him/her. WHOEVER that player may be.
Go on lads have a strop ...Umpires deal with it and let the match and indeed tennis move on. It might liven things up a bit

I agree. The fiercely competitive nature of sport at the highest level can get emotional. It's not a sign of disrespect for the umpires if from time to time their emotions get in the way of impeccable behaviour.

Yes JM  I cant think of another sport where for the very most part such respect is paid to your oponent and the officers during the course of play. Its natural and human that at sometime during a fiercely contested match where one point can make a complete difference to the outcome that players will get upset. They should be allowed to discuss their grievance with the umpire without it being seen as gamesmanship.
Let the umpire get down off his lofty perch and stand face to face with the player in order not to make a public spectacle of it. I personally feel that if disrespect is shown at all its the umpire who is at fault not the player. Im convinced that some incidents get out of control because the player feels he has no chance of being allowed to put his case without ... pardon the pun... being talked down to.

Why has this been turned into a Rafa article again? Hell why is a mod trying to turn this into a rafa article.? Its a general article about how all players abuse and take it our on umpires, which is pretty embarassing I feel. Shout at the umpire and it should be an automatic penalty

Theyre adults, if the player feels the rules haven't been enforced properly, then enquire, politely without shouting and gesturing at them. Otherwise, shut up and get on with the job at hand, you should be old enough and have enough respect to keep it tight

The Rafa stuff is a litmus test.

If HE is willing to discuss all players, then we have an interesting debate.

If Rafa remains exempt, then we have to question the motivation of the article.

falzy21 wrote:Why has this been turned into a Rafa article again? Hell why is a mod trying to turn this into a rafa article.? Its a general article about how all players abuse and take it our on umpires, which is pretty embarassing I feel. Shout at the umpire and it should be an automatic penalty

The OP says this "Some players now even attempt to tell an umpire how they should be doing their job. For example telling an umpire before a match starts that they want them to pay particular attention to the amount of time their opponent takes between points and that they "want the rules to be enforced" "

Is that not a reference to Rafa's opponents? I could ask HE who she was referring to and who they were playing against, in the same way I could ask why Stan was singled out for having a hissy fit, but let's face it, trying to get straight answer of out HE is like trying to get the England cricket team to conjure up a decent performance.

You cant have a holy war with HE on every article, and keep turning them into Rafa articles. Ignroe HE dont fuel her!

Well stop eating the bait Julius! I know you dont like HE too much, but its not great as a rafa fans to read of him and him alone being slagged off for stuff other people also do, just because of some war against HE

Bait = wumming?

So it's wrong for me to expect Stan and Rafa to be treated equally and to point out when they're not?

HE's OP is a direct reference to Rafa - she created a Rafa-related article, not me, not HMM.

Youre a very intelligent person, that much is very clear. You know what shes doing Julius, but eveytime you call it out, Rafas name gets dragged through the mud to try and wind her up. Im already bummed that Rafa lost the final in the circumstances he did, its not pleasant to read.
You know shes baiting a response and an argument Julius, its the same as the Murray digs, but you must know not to respond.
If you feel that sharply about it, lock the thread, or warn her or pm her

I dont agree that any player should not dispute a decision by an umpire and "just get on with it"  The incident that involved Stan could well have been avoided had the umpire dealt with it differently,
Get down off that perch of his and talk to Stan and explain to him why Rafa went off court (that was what Stan wanted to know) instead of that he was more or less told to mind his own business. In the meantime Stan plus the crowd thought that Rafa was using it to disrupt play when in fact he had a genuine problem.. hence the whole thing escalated into Rafa being booed back on court and Stan probably feeling bliddy awful because Rafa was genuinely in pain.ç

Umpires are not Gods and for my part their decisions should and could be questioned.  Lets have fair play here not just by the players but bv the umpires..if they treat players with such disrespect then they deserve it in return.  That umpire made a wrong decision in my opinion and Rafa or any other player has the right to query such decisions on court and get an answer not a dismissal for having the balls to query a decision just because he on high says so.

Falzy, why are you complaining about the person you see as taking the bait rather than the person laying the bait?

I'd also point out that not a single negative comment has been made about Rafa by anyone. JHM and I each asked HE a direct question that related to her comments.

falzy, I don't feel that sharply about it. But if you're going to write this sort of article, you've got to expect the replies in kind.
Even on a thread such as this you can get good comments, such as H-N's, so it's not all bad, despite HE's manner.

falzy21 wrote:Youre a very intelligent person, that much is very clear. You know what shes doing Julius, but eveytime you call it out, Rafas name gets dragged through the mud to try and wind her up. Im already bummed that Rafa lost the final in the circumstances he did, its not pleasant to read.
You know shes baiting a response and an argument Julius, its the same as the Murray digs, but you must know not to respond.
If you feel that sharply about it, lock the thread, or warn her or pm her

I  don't know whether it is more tedious HE relentless wumming and double standards or your hyper hyper sensitivity on everything Rafa. How can any discussion on umpire crticism ignore what Nadal has had to say on umpiring and application rules just few weeks ago. Which planet are you from?

No need for your sharp input JK...
Fine JHM, be she IS expecting replies in kind, thats the point. She asked about Wawrinkas time outs, for a start. Just dont take the bait

But I quite enjoy it. It shows that HE would rather bait than debate (that has a nice ring to it).

The forum in general, if I've understood recent comments correctly, seems to think the odd 'baiting' thread is not a bad thing. But if, say, a Murray fan was the baiter, then I'd expect a few negative comments abut Murray in return. When it's a Rafa fan, it will obviously invite negative comments about Rafa in return.

Ok fair enough. If nobody minds a bit of baiting thats ok I guess, well just have to make sure we dont descend into anything too nasty about anyone.

Soo on HE's topic. Stan acted mostly fine, Rafa took a MTO a set and a break down, it took a while, and the timing looked a bit dodgy, soo Stan got a bit mad, thats fair. Also what was fair was when Stan could see it clearly wasnt tactical, he calmed straight back down and was fine the rest of the match, thats fine.

Perhaps he shouldnt have had such a go at the umpire, but its understandable.
HM gave a couple of Rafa examples, for some reason, he has had a go at umpires a few times, mostly over time violations. In that case i have no sympathy, you cant waster MORE time by arguing with the unpire when you broke the rule.

The Wimby one though was over a replay of a point, which slow mo showed that Rafa in fact DID have a point, he was exasperated, but he didnt insult the umpire, still maybe should have argued his point more calmly.

Fed for example has actually had a go at the umpires a couple times, one this Aussie and another in the 09 US final, which even included swearing at them. I cant condone that, especially since Rog did that both times when he was under pressure and venting, though Feds behaviour is generally stellar.

There was a moment with Hewitt against Blake once where he accused a lineman of racism, which is WAY too far

They do it in football too and I cant stand it, getting in the refs face, and swearing at them. I cant believe thats allowed, you shouldnt vent at an umpire, and you shouldnt have a go at them either, argue you point calmly, or not at all

HM Murdoch. Those two examples you showed of Nadal arguing with the umpire are interesting. Both show a decision by the umpire and officials being proved wrong by hawkeye. The umpire and officials are having their decisions proved to be incorrect by a device. I wonder if the use of hawkeye has affected the authority of umpires because their judgements on line calls can be shown to be wrong. I have heard that umpires are less likely to overall line judgements now probably because they fear this.

It's interesting that Rafa's hissy fit was the result of an umpires decision being proved wrong. That first clip shows Berdych shouting at the umpire too over the same thing. Hawkeye may be a way of giving a clear answer to whether a ball was in or out but perhaps has added to the misstrust of umpires. I would say in a similar way to the umpires being told to srtictly enforce the 20 second rule when it is impossible

IMO they are not quite the same as Wawrinka because Wawrinka was told clearly and repeatedly what the rule was (he didn't have to be told details about Nadal's injury) by both an umpire and a supervisor. He wasn't questioning a judgement call by the umpire but questioning the umpires knowledge of the rules and also by doing so questioning the integrity of an opponent and the legitimacy of the MTO.

I don't think it's any worse nowadays than before.
This one is a classic from 2003
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0uMu04tmuLw

JuliusHMarx wrote:But I quite enjoy it. It shows that HE would rather bait than debate (that has a nice ring to it).

The forum in general, if I've understood recent comments correctly, seems to think the odd 'baiting' thread is not a bad thing. But if, say, a Murray fan was the baiter, then I'd expect a few negative comments abut Murray in return. When it's a Rafa fan, it will obviously invite negative comments about Rafa in return.

What rubbish! This thread wasn't specifically about Nadal. But because I have said previously that I like watching Nadal then it's OK for everyone to make negative comments about Nadal just for the fun of it or even turn it into a thread just about Nadal's hissy fits? How childish. I also like Federer and Djokovic so I suppose they should be singled out to  

falzy21 wrote:They do it in football too and I cant stand it, getting in the refs face, and swearing at them. I cant believe thats allowed, you shouldnt vent at an umpire, and you shouldnt have a go at them either, argue you point calmly, or not at all

Yes! At least tennis isn't as bad as football. Truly ugly treatment of officials by self important players. There is a difference between making a view known and showing total disregard for those that are there to enforce rules and fair play.

hawkeye wrote:HM Murdoch. Those two examples you showed of Nadal arguing with the umpire are interesting. Both show a decision by the umpire and officials being proved wrong by hawkeye. The umpire and officials are having their decisions proved to be incorrect by a device. I wonder if the use of hawkeye has affected the authority of umpires because their judgements on line calls can be shown to be wrong. I have heard that umpires are less likely to overall line judgements now probably because they fear this.

It's interesting that Rafa's hissy fit was the result of an umpires decision being proved wrong. That first clip shows Berdych shouting at the umpire too over the same thing. Hawkeye may be a way of giving a clear answer to whether a ball was in or out but perhaps has added to the misstrust of umpires. I would say in a similar way to the umpires being told to srtictly enforce the 20 second rule when it is impossible

IMO they are not quite the same as Wawrinka because Wawrinka was told clearly and repeatedly what the rule was (he didn't have to be told details about Nadal's injury) by both an umpire and a supervisor. He wasn't questioning a judgement call by the umpire but questioning the umpires knowledge of the rules and also by doing so questioning the integrity of an opponent and the legitimacy of the MTO.

Forgive me, but can you clarify what the rule is regarding MTOs? My understanding was that Stan was correct and was eventually told by the referee that there was a problem with Rafa's back?

As for the two examples shown by Murdoch, Rafa is obviously entirely in the wrong. It's very disappointing to see a top player argue correct decisions by the umpire. The only thing wrong with the officiating in the Wimbledon one is that he should have also received a time violation. Poor Soderling had to wait an eternity to play a massive point.

hawkeye wrote:

JuliusHMarx wrote:But I quite enjoy it. It shows that HE would rather bait than debate (that has a nice ring to it).

The forum in general, if I've understood recent comments correctly, seems to think the odd 'baiting' thread is not a bad thing. But if, say, a Murray fan was the baiter, then I'd expect a few negative comments abut Murray in return. When it's a Rafa fan, it will obviously invite negative comments about Rafa in return.

What rubbish! This thread wasn't specifically about Nadal. But because I have said previously that I like watching Nadal then it's OK for everyone to make negative comments about Nadal just for the fun of it or even turn it into a thread just about Nadal's hissy fits? How childish. I also like Federer and Djokovic so I suppose they should be singled out to  

Calling Stan's argument with the umpire a 'hissy fit' is childish. It set the tone for the thread.
You also wrote this "For example telling an umpire before a match starts that they want them to pay particular attention to the amount of time their opponent takes between points and that they "want the rules to be enforced". You want to include "the amount of time their opponent takes between points" but don't want anyone to mention Rafa?

For the sake of clarity, I put those two clips up not solely because they involved Rafa but because of their circumstances.  

The first one is a bit ambiguous but I think Rafa just loses the plot.

In the second one I think he has a point. Looks to me that the umpire made a mistake.

So are both, one or neither instances wrong? Do both, one or neither undermine the umpire?

The problem is umpires and top level management are so afraid to act against top name violating the rules.

For instance referees in Basel wouldn't dare to argue anything with Federer, similar Refrees and top level management are so afraid to raise their voice against Rafa in most of the places he play, did you forget what happened to blue clay ?  , just coz Rafa warned of not turning up if the blue clay continues the tournament was force to revert back to red clay.

Do you think the umpires in Spain have the guts to call time violation against Rafa? if they do they won't umpire the next year.   

So all in all I feel pity for them, coz they really have no powers, tournament officials themselves ready to budge for any demands of top dogs just to keep their presence for marketing the event and hence the tickets.

hawkeye wrote:HM Murdoch. Those two examples you showed of Nadal arguing with the umpire are interesting. Both show a decision by the umpire and officials being proved wrong by hawkeye. The umpire and officials are having their decisions proved to be incorrect by a device. I wonder if the use of hawkeye has affected the authority of umpires because their judgements on line calls can be shown to be wrong. I have heard that umpires are less likely to overall line judgements now probably because they fear this.

It's interesting that Rafa's hissy fit was the result of an umpires decision being proved wrong. That first clip shows Berdych shouting at the umpire too over the same thing. Hawkeye may be a way of giving a clear answer to whether a ball was in or out but perhaps has added to the misstrust of umpires. I would say in a similar way to the umpires being told to srtictly enforce the 20 second rule when it is impossible

IMO they are not quite the same as Wawrinka because Wawrinka was told clearly and repeatedly what the rule was (he didn't have to be told details about Nadal's injury) by both an umpire and a supervisor. He wasn't questioning a judgement call by the umpire but questioning the umpires knowledge of the rules and also by doing so questioning the integrity of an opponent and the legitimacy of the MTO.

  

OK I give up! I may as well have titled this thread "Rafa Once Had A Hissy Fit And Tantrum (possibly in 2011) Because He Miss-Trusted The Umpire" Maybe laverfan could do some research and watch all Rafa's old matches in full and cross reference the data to prove that he has had a hissy fit on more than one occasion proving he is the worst offender and that he had no grounds for his disagreements. Unlike other players who only have hissy fits and tantrums when they have genuine complaints because their opponent is Rafa...

Is everyone happy now?

falzy wrote:...I know you dont like HE too much…

I do like HE, despite her dislike for specific players.

Federer @USO 2009 was peed at Jack Garner because of Del Potro's slow challenging approach and Garner being accommodating. Perhaps Do not tell me the F$K1ng rules… was a bit OTT, though. On occasions, he has been frustrated with Hawkeye and wanted it turned off. (not our v2 HE though).

hawkeye wrote:Maybe laverfan could do some research and watch all Rafa's old matches in full and cross reference the data to prove that he has had a hissy fit on more than one occasion proving he is the worst offender and that he had no grounds for his disagreements.

The players are human, too. As H-n says, a strop once in a while is fine. JK and JHM can also have occasional strop as well.

BTW, this MTO research is turning to be scary a bit. My son is pi$$3d at me for allowing his socks on the floored-robe. . He has become a Nadal fan of late and teases me constantly about the MTO research. Can I have a strop, too?

...In any case, lets move this away from Rafa. I meant JHM Lf sorry. Should players be unpunished for venting at the umpire

Sometimes Umpires do make errors and unfair decisions.  It has to be assessed on an incident by incident basis.  However I don't think players should force particular umpires out of the game - that's a question of the umpire regulatory body.  Ideally the umpire should have a light touch approach to regulating the game.  Did Wawrinka have a hissy fit? - probably - but I am not 100% certain what he was complaining about.

HM Murdoch wrote:For the sake of clarity, I put those two clips up not solely because they involved Rafa but because of their circumstances.  

The first one is a bit ambiguous but I think Rafa just loses the plot.

In the second one I think he has a point. Looks to me that the umpire made a mistake.

So are both, one or neither instances wrong? Do both, one or neither undermine the umpire?

The first one isnt ambiguous. Rafa sticks his hand up and would clearly have challenged were it not for the overrule. Therefore, when the ball was shown to be in he correctly lost the point. The second one depends on the timing of the call which is hard to tell on tv. The impression though is that it was late and therefore did not affect his shot.

Born Slippy wrote:

HM Murdoch wrote:For the sake of clarity, I put those two clips up not solely because they involved Rafa but because of their circumstances.  

The first one is a bit ambiguous but I think Rafa just loses the plot.

In the second one I think he has a point. Looks to me that the umpire made a mistake.

So are both, one or neither instances wrong? Do both, one or neither undermine the umpire?

The first one isnt ambiguous. Rafa sticks his hand up and would clearly have challenged were it not for the overrule. Therefore, when the ball was shown to be in he correctly lost the point. The second one depends on the timing of the call which is hard to tell on tv. The impression though is that it was late and therefore did not affect his shot.

Good point on the second call.  Looking at it again it is called out late.  It does seem to have been called milliseconds after Raffa has hit the ball.  It is difficult to judge without slow motion and without being there.  Now I see why the umpire made the decision  

I certainly agree that the 'hissy fit' at umpires is bad, and should not be allowed - it is just not cricket

Unfortunately it seems that they all do it - I suppose a quick flash of anger may be understood, as we are all human, but to challenge an umpire directly should also be punished - cause an effect

If you look at football as a great example of when refs do not stand up for themselves (or are not allowed to), it gets worst and worst - so now swearing at a ref's face seems the norm


If we look online we can see all players have done it - so none are in the clear

There should be no need for hissy fits.. we live in a democracy for JC sake the umpires have no right not to let a player give voice to a grievance and he not listen.. he is paid to do a job and he is not doing it. All it needs is a civilised conversation between Umpire and player.. not for an umpire to talk through his microphone in order that the world and his wife can here him.. but nobody can here the player.  Its hardly any wonder that players give into their gripes and moans (but this time they have escalated into much more than they should have if they had been dealt with on court).. and speak to the media who 9 cases of 10 embellish the story to make it controversial and newsworthy.  Sorry I still maintain umpires are paid to do a job other than merely keeping the scores.. for which they get extraordinarily well paid. Im sure any player would respond to be spoken to as a professional tennis player rather than an errant school boy

Haddie-nuff wrote:Sorry I still maintain umpires are paid to do a job other than merely keeping the scores.. for which they get extraordinarily well paid.  Im sure any player would respond to be spoken to as a professional tennis player rather than an errant school boy

This is taken from a posting by an ex-umpire on another board ...

"There are about 6 chair umpires that are full time salaried and/or contracted chair umpires with the ITF, about 10 with ATP and about 7 with the WTA. They make roughly between $30,000-$70,000 per year, plus all expenses while on the road.

As ITF/ATP/WTA Silver and Gold Badge chair umpires, the rest of us make roughly between $15,000-$30,000 per year, with MOST expenses paid (although if we are not specifically hired as a chair umpire for a certain tournament like the Grand Slams, the majority of our plane tickets come out of pocket. Housing and meals onsite are included.

Line umpires make between $70-$150 per day usually. Wimbledon and Roland Garros it's a bit more because of the exchange rate only, but not by much."

Certainly pay and expenses but I'm not sure that the description extraordinarily well paid would apply. I seem to remember that the umpires had a dispute with the USO a couple of years ago because fees were low.