Were You Frustrated With The MLP Controversy?


Did you watch the MLP Semifinals and Finals?

There were 4 really good teams which included many of the top players.

However, the referees caused some serious controversy.

In a semifinals men's doubles game in match 2 of the best-of-three series between New Jersey and Brooklyn, a major controversy took place.

The score was 10-9, New Jersey.

Riley Newman, of the receiving Brooklyn team, was walking across the kitchen toward the referee to discuss calling a timeout.

However, the referee called the score, and Fed Staksrud served.

The referee then called a fault on Brooklyn for not being ready when she called the score.

A point, game point no less, was awarded to New Jersey.

Now, I'm not saying that cost Brooklyn the entire match, but it caused a major on-court controversy.

Brooklyn players argued with the referee.

The head referee was called.

The crowd grumbled.

Overall play was halted while the arguments occurred.

But the call was maintained.

That game was over.

New Jersey went up 2 games to none.

And that call clearly affected the Brooklyn players who had to play mixed doubles in game 3.

So, New Jersey won match two, 3 games to none.

And the series was over.

New Jersey advanced.

Brooklyn went home.

How many times have you seen a referee say they would recall the score?

Many times!

Isn't the referee responsible to make sure all players are ready before calling the score?

And to add insult to injury on the call that was made, Christian Alshon of the Brooklyn Pickleball Team returned that serve.

His ball landed in play, yet New Jersey did not hit the third shot because the ref called a fault.

Just because Riley Newman was walking across the kitchen should not have been a fault.

He was not hitting the ball.

So, he could stand in the kitchen if he wanted.

Why did New Jersey not lose the point for failing to hit their 3rd shot after Brooklyn's successful return?

The referee contended that since she had called the score, Brooklyn could not then ask for a timeout.

So, she called the fault on Brooklyn for attempting to call a timeout.

The announcers on the TV broadcast said "the rules were the rules" and that Brooklyn knew the rules.

But the controversy got worse during the second finals match between New Jersey and St. Louis.

New Jersey had won match 1.

In match 2, the NJ women had won their women's doubles game.

Then, in men's doubles, the score was 11-10-2.

Fed Staksrud was serving.

The referee, who was a different referee from the day before in the NJ-Brooklyn match, called the score.

Staksrud bounced the ball before serving but fumbled it.

He then picked the ball up and looked at the referee waiting for the ref to recall the score.

The ref just looked at him, waiting for him to serve.

It went well past 10 seconds from the time the ref called the score.

And the rule states that players must serve within 10 seconds after the score is called.

The ref then agreed to recall the score.

Why was that not a fault?

It was well beyond the 10 second rule.

The announcers said the ref had chosen to give Staksrud and New Jersey "a little grace" on that call.

The ref then recalled the score.

Staksrud was allowed to serve with no fault.

If the fault had been called, you can imagine an emotional player like Staksrud would have pitched a fit.

Would that have affected his play in the rest of that game?

We don't know.

It sure affected Brooklyn the day before.

As it turned out, the New Jersey men went on to win that match 12-10.

Would the outcome have been different had the rule been enforced?

We will never know.

But, the clear question is why isn't there more uniformity in the referee's calls?

Why was the one referee in the Brooklyn match hard-nosed and extending no grace?

And why was the other referee in the St. Louis match giving lots of latitude and extending grace?

And why did both issues coincidentally benefit the New Jersey 5's?

They profited both from the "by-the-book" strict ref and from the nice, "grace extending" ref.

On one day, the rules are the rules.

On another day, the rules can be ignored.

Even before the finals there were lots of pickleball fans who believed the 5's had been given other favors through the year already that made it more likely for them to win the championship.

These referee calls only made that seem glaringly more concerning.

Remember when MLP seemingly arbitrarily extended the trade deadline resulting in New Jersey trading with Orlando and receiving Fed Staksrud?

That wasn't a good look for MLP.

Then, polar opposite referee calls which each benefitted the 5's this past weekend were also not a good look.

In order to combat the loud online criticism of favoritism to the 5's, MLP needed to go out of its way to appear to be extremely fair and unbiased.

Unfortunately, the volume from the online critics just went up many decibels!

Do better, MLP!!

The players deserve it.

And so do the fans!


Ben Holt
​CEO, Pickleball Living