PDA

View Full Version : Vibration Dampener Let?


jrod
12-23-2008, 06:21 PM
Is there any situation in doubles where a vibration dampener coming out of a players racquet can lead to a let or hindrance? What USTA rule(s) make it clear what happens in this situation?

Steady Eddy
12-23-2008, 06:44 PM
I don't think so. The rules use an example of a player's hat coming off in a point. She would not be entitled to a let, because the hat is her own equipment and responsibility. If some debris blew onto the court, that would be different, and a let would be in order. To me the vibration dampener sounds more like an example of the former since it is the player's equipment, and hence, her responsibility. To sum up, no let.

Nanshiki
12-23-2008, 06:49 PM
If your vibration damper lands on your opponents court, you lose the point.

Hilarious but true.

(same goes for any other equipment)

jrod
12-23-2008, 06:54 PM
I don't think so. The rules use an example of a player's hat coming off in a point. She would not be entitled to a let, because the hat is her own equipment and responsibility. If some debris blew onto the court, that would be different, and a let would be in order. To me the vibration dampener sounds more like an example of the former since it is the player's equipment, and hence, her responsibility. To sum up, no let.

In this specific situation (assuming it's dubs), the hat could distract the players partner or a member of the other team. In many cases the players may not know where the "debris" came from. This is why I am unclear on the rules. The cause of the "debris" is not necessarily obvious while the ball is in play.

jrod
12-23-2008, 06:55 PM
If your vibration damper lands on your opponents court, you lose the point.

Hilarious but true.

(same goes for any other equipment)

What USTA rule applies here?

nocab
12-23-2008, 07:51 PM
I believe if anything falls onto the court that is your responsibility: hat, ball from pocket, vib dampener, etc... You are not allowed to call a let but your opponent can if they want. If it happens again you automatically lose the point.

Nanshiki
12-23-2008, 09:33 PM
What USTA rule applies here?

Pff, what USTA rules?

It's specifically mentioned in the ITF rule book.

jrod
12-24-2008, 04:00 AM
Pff, what USTA rules?

It's specifically mentioned in the ITF rule book.

Good enough...which ITF rule says that the opponents can call a let in this situation? I don't have the rule book so I need the reference. Thanks!

Nanshiki
12-24-2008, 02:30 PM
I don't know, that's not what the rule says. It says if your stuff lands in the other court, you lose the point. Period.

amarone
12-24-2008, 02:58 PM
What USTA rule applies here?ITF Rule 24.g, with the exact situation being quoted in a USTA comment to the rules:
USTA Comment 24.4: What happens if a player’s dampening device comes out and hits the net or the opponent’s court? The player loses the point unless the ball went out of play before the device hit the net or court.

amarone
12-24-2008, 03:04 PM
Good enough...which ITF rule says that the opponents can call a let in this situation? I don't have the rule book so I need the reference. Thanks! Rule 26, the hindrance rule:
26. HINDRANCE
If a player is hindered in playing the point by a deliberate act of the opponent(s), the player shall win the point. However, the point shall be replayed if a player is hindered in playing the point by either an unintentional act of the opponent(s), or something outside the player’s own control (not including a permanent fixture). The dampener coming off can be viewed as an unintentional act, I think, based on the following comment to rule 26 (bolding mine):
USTA Comment 26.1: What is the difference between a deliberate
and an unintentional act? Deliberate means a player did what the
player intended to do, even if the result was unintended. An example
is a player who hits a short lob in doubles and loudly shouts “back”
just before an opponent hits the overhead. See Section 33 of The Code.
Unintentional refers to an act over which a player has no control, such
as a hat blowing off or a scream after a wasp sting.

jrod
12-25-2008, 12:27 PM
Rule 26, the hindrance rule:
The dampener coming off can be viewed as an unintentional act, I think, based on the following comment to rule 26 (bolding mine):


ok, we need Woodrow to weigh in here....B U M P !!!!

woodrow1029
12-26-2008, 10:36 AM
Rule 26 is the correct rule reference.

Technically, the dampener could cause a let if it was the first occurence of an unintentional hindrance or a loss of point if it was the second or more.

I have only maybe seen 2 instances in my career as an umpire where a chair umpire has actually called it. I think probably about 98 out of 100 times, nobody even realizes it happened until the player is walking around after the point looking for it as if it were a contact lens on the ground. It would have to be pretty distracting to notice it. That being said, if an umpire or the opposing player (in an unofficiated match) called it, it would be correct.

As far as losing the point if it goes in the opponent's court, the rule 24 stated above by amarone is correct.

BUT BOTH OF THESE CALLS HAVE TO BE MADE IMMEDIATELY. YOU CAN'T COMPLETELY PLAY OUT THE POINT, THEN CLAIM A LET OR THE POINT AFTER THE FACT.

jrod
12-26-2008, 01:01 PM
Rule 26 is the correct rule reference.

Technically, the dampener could cause a let if it was the first occurence of an unintentional hindrance or a loss of point if it was the second or more.

I have only maybe seen 2 instances in my career as an umpire where a chair umpire has actually called it. I think probably about 98 out of 100 times, nobody even realizes it happened until the player is walking around after the point looking for it as if it were a contact lens on the ground. It would have to be pretty distracting to notice it. That being said, if an umpire or the opposing player (in an unofficiated match) called it, it would be correct.

As far as losing the point if it goes in the opponent's court, the rule 24 stated above by amarone is correct.

BUT BOTH OF THESE CALLS HAVE TO BE MADE IMMEDIATELY. YOU CAN'T COMPLETELY PLAY OUT THE POINT, THEN CLAIM A LET OR THE POINT AFTER THE FACT.


Thanks Woodrow! I need something clarified regarding rule 26...can the team whom the dampener belongs to call the let (e.g.the partner of the person who struck the ball causing the dampener to come out) or is a let only callable by the opponent in this case?

edit (adding perspective)--> if a player on the team to whom the dampener belongs to is distracted by the bouncing dampener, it is rarely clear where the dampener came from.

woodrow1029
12-26-2008, 01:15 PM
Thanks Woodrow! I need something clarified regarding rule 26...can the team whom the dampener belongs to call the let (e.g.the partner of the person who struck the ball causing the dampener to come out) or is a let only callable by the opponent in this case?

edit (adding perspective)--> if a player on the team to whom the dampener belongs to is distracted by the bouncing dampener, it is rarely clear where the dampener came from.
You cannot hinder yourself. Anytime a ball falls out of your pocket, your hat falls off, dampener comes out, or anything similar, only your opponent can call the let or claim the hindrance. Your partner counts as yourself in doubles. Only the opposing team can call it.

If the opponent has no play on the ball, meaning your shot is a winner when the incident happens, the opponent can't claim the let. This gets tricky in an unofficiated match where the roving official doesn't see it happen. If the opponent calls the let, and you say it is a winner, then one of you gets the roving official. The official is going to give the benefit of the doubt to the player who called the let. He can't make a judgment call when he hasn't seen it.

jrod
12-26-2008, 01:52 PM
You cannot hinder yourself. Anytime a ball falls out of your pocket, your hat falls off, dampener comes out, or anything similar, only your opponent can call the let or claim the hindrance. Your partner counts as yourself in doubles. Only the opposing team can call it.

If the opponent has no play on the ball, meaning your shot is a winner when the incident happens, the opponent can't claim the let. This gets tricky in an unofficiated match where the roving official doesn't see it happen. If the opponent calls the let, and you say it is a winner, then one of you gets the roving official. The official is going to give the benefit of the doubt to the player who called the let. He can't make a judgment call when he hasn't seen it.

Actually, if you ever saw me play you might think otherwise!!!

Thanks again Woodrow and Happy Holidays!