PDA

View Full Version : Strange rules question - views please


oldhacker
02-02-2009, 04:15 PM
I got a bit annoyed in a game of doubles recently when the following happened.

I hit a deep return of serve cross court back to the server, who had stayed back. He played a weak cross court groundstroke which looked as though is was struggling to make it over the net. He was playing with the wind at his back so I started moving up the court just in case the abll crept over the net.

As the ball approached the opposing netman (who was standing in the middle of the service box directly in front of me) he swung at it as if to make a double hit / concede the point. However, he missed the ball - either deliberately or because the wind caught it - and it subsequently dropped OVER the net. This won them the point because on seeing the opposing netman swinging at the ball in my direction I had stopped my move up the court because I did not want to get hit by the ball when he hit it.

I was a bit angry about what had happened as I consider it to be a deliberate unfair distraction which had hindered me. Opponents did not agree and as it was not important I let it go. What do others think ?

JavierLW
02-02-2009, 04:46 PM
I good a tad annoyed in a game of doubles recently when the following happened.

I hit a deep return of serve cross court back to the server who had stayed back. He played a weak cross court groundstroke which looked as though is was struggling to make it over the net but he was playing with the wind at his back so I started moving up the court just in case.

As the ball approached the opposing netman (who was standing in the middle of the service box directly in front of me) he swung at it in my direction (guys at the net this or head the ball over from time to time when there partner hit a ball in their direction which is not going to make it over the net to basically concede the point. However, in this case he missed the ball - either deliberately or because the wind caught it - and it subsequently dropped OVER the net. This won them the point because on seeing the opposing netman swinging in my direction I had stopped my move up the court because I did not want to get hit by the ball if he hit it to concede the point and I thought he was conceding the point.

I was a bit angry about what had happened as I consider it to be a deliberate unfair distraction which had hindered me. Opponents did not agree and as it was not important I let it go. What do others think ?

I think if you read the rules, you are correct. The rules use the words "deliberate", not "intentional". The rules even define "deliberate" as meaning anything that the player does that he has control over.

--
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 The Code § 33. 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.
--

blakesq
02-02-2009, 08:24 PM
I have a hard time understanding your post, because of the missing parenthesis and mispellings. However, I don't see how your oponents swinging at a ball in play can be considered a hinderance, even if it is going to be a second person hitting the ball.


I good a tad annoyed in a game of doubles recently when the following happened.

I hit a deep return of serve cross court back to the server who had stayed back. He played a weak cross court groundstroke which looked as though is was struggling to make it over the net but he was playing with the wind at his back so I started moving up the court just in case.

As the ball approached the opposing netman (who was standing in the middle of the service box directly in front of me) he swung at it in my direction (guys at the net this or head the ball over from time to time when there partner hit a ball in their direction which is not going to make it over the net to basically concede the point. However, in this case he missed the ball - either deliberately or because the wind caught it - and it subsequently dropped OVER the net. This won them the point because on seeing the opposing netman swinging in my direction I had stopped my move up the court because I did not want to get hit by the ball if he hit it to concede the point and I thought he was conceding the point.

I was a bit angry about what had happened as I consider it to be a deliberate unfair distraction which had hindered me. Opponents did not agree and as it was not important I let it go. What do others think ?

JavierLW
02-03-2009, 06:46 AM
I have a hard time understanding your post, because of the missing parenthesis and mispellings. However, I don't see how your oponents swinging at a ball in play can be considered a hinderance, even if it is going to be a second person hitting the ball.

You dont think having a second person swing and miss at the ball that you're watching while it's on it's way to you is not distracting?

Why dont they just wave there arms around why they are at it? (which is definately hindrance)

I think his description of it (other than the grammer) is excellent, the guy took a big cut at the ball, so the OP moved because he didnt want to get hit with the ball.

If it wouldnt of been such an unusual point with the wind and all, that would look like hindrance every time.

Either way the OP would have a point. (although it's not worth getting too bend out of shape over, it sounds like nobody thought the ball was even going over the net until it actually did)

Although I think the OP would of had to claim hindrance almost immediately as well though (which almost never happens which makes most of these points mute).

Once the ball drops in and the point is over, you can remark on how the other team shouldnt of taken that action, but it's kind of too late to claim the point.

For that reason the only time Ive ever seen hindrance used in a non-officiated match is when there is someone involved who has a history or pattern of doing the same annoying thing over and over again. (like the people who will hit a shot they think is going to go out and moan loudly over it while it's on it's way to you, only to have it fall in)

It's really hard to use it just for one instance when someone does something out of the spur of the moment.

blakesq
02-03-2009, 07:30 AM
Distracting doesn't mean a hinderance. If a guy at net with a powerful forhand winds up to hit a ball right at me, that is also distracting, but not a hinderance. If two people both swing at a ball, that is distracting too, but legal.

I couldn't tell from the OP's scenario what the time frame was, if this was all happening nearly simultaneously, with the 2nd guy trying to hit the ball to keep it in play, but his partner got to it first, then it is not a hinderance. If the 2nd guy was swinging at a ball that his partner clearly hit first, and the 2nd guy was just goofing around, or being a jerk, then I think calling a hinderance immediately is ok.

blakesq

You dont think having a second person swing and miss at the ball that you're watching while it's on it's way to you is not distracting?

Why dont they just wave there arms around why they are at it? (which is definately hindrance)

I think his description of it (other than the grammer) is excellent, the guy took a big cut at the ball, so the OP moved because he didnt want to get hit with the ball.

If it wouldnt of been such an unusual point with the wind and all, that would look like hindrance every time.

Either way the OP would have a point. (although it's not worth getting too bend out of shape over, it sounds like nobody thought the ball was even going over the net until it actually did)

Although I think the OP would of had to claim hindrance almost immediately as well though (which almost never happens which makes most of these points mute).

Once the ball drops in and the point is over, you can remark on how the other team shouldnt of taken that action, but it's kind of too late to claim the point.

For that reason the only time Ive ever seen hindrance used in a non-officiated match is when there is someone involved who has a history or pattern of doing the same annoying thing over and over again. (like the people who will hit a shot they think is going to go out and moan loudly over it while it's on it's way to you, only to have it fall in)

It's really hard to use it just for one instance when someone does something out of the spur of the moment.

boilerfan
02-03-2009, 07:43 AM
It took me a minute to realize what you were talking about, since it is an odd scenario. It sounds like the net man didn't think his partners shot was going over, so he fanned at it probably as a joke...but the ball ended up going over. If that is what happened, he should have said sorry and conceeded the point as he disrupted the point just to be funny.

JavierLW
02-03-2009, 08:42 AM
Distracting doesn't mean a hinderance. If a guy at net with a powerful forhand winds up to hit a ball right at me, that is also distracting, but not a hinderance. If two people both swing at a ball, that is distracting too, but legal.

I couldn't tell from the OP's scenario what the time frame was, if this was all happening nearly simultaneously, with the 2nd guy trying to hit the ball to keep it in play, but his partner got to it first, then it is not a hinderance. If the 2nd guy was swinging at a ball that his partner clearly hit first, and the 2nd guy was just goofing around, or being a jerk, then I think calling a hinderance immediately is ok.

blakesq

You're right, maybe that's why we are disagreeing about this.

Yes it's just two people both trying to swing at it at the same time, which is a normal action then I would agree that you cant call hindrance.

But from what Im reading from the OP is this (which I agree is hard):

1) Player A Hits the ball, seeming in such a manner that nobody on the entire court thinks it's going over the net.

2) Player B (a few seconds afterwards) takes a big cut at it. It's obvious to me that they didnt do this intending to distract anyone because they probably didnt think it was going to clear the net and Ive seen a lot of players play this little trick when a ball is clearly going to fall short (since they were going to lose the point anyway, it's just sort of a joke).

3) After Player B missed entirely the wind blew the ball over the net. The OP claims that he would of still got to it but he was busy getting out of the way because he thought Player B was going to whack it at him (and knowing that if he does he will win the point anyway).

This isnt "trick" tennis. Intended or not in a normal situation the second person cant pretend to swing at the ball and miss it (if like you said it's clearly after the first person hit the ball). That's not cool.

(although in this situation I dont think you can get too bent out shape at the guy, it sounds like a weird point)

oldhacker
02-03-2009, 09:51 AM
Sorry about the poor wording of my question. I wrote it late, in a hurry and after a few glasses ! Have tried to tidy it up a bit for future readers.

To answer your question the first guy hit it from behind the baseline. His partner, who was at the net, swung at it a second or so later as it passed him. I think he thought it was going in the net and was goofing around.

I realise it was probably a bit of a freak event. But my issue was that the opponent who took the joke swing and missed could not see a problem with what he had done. If he is correct then an unscrupulous net player could employ this "swing and miss" tactic on balls which clearly are going over the net.

Distracting doesn't mean a hinderance. If a guy at net with a powerful forhand winds up to hit a ball right at me, that is also distracting, but not a hinderance. If two people both swing at a ball, that is distracting too, but legal.

I couldn't tell from the OP's scenario what the time frame was, if this was all happening nearly simultaneously, with the 2nd guy trying to hit the ball to keep it in play, but his partner got to it first, then it is not a hinderance. If the 2nd guy was swinging at a ball that his partner clearly hit first, and the 2nd guy was just goofing around, or being a jerk, then I think calling a hinderance immediately is ok.

blakesq

blakesq
02-03-2009, 10:03 AM
OK, so the ball was clearly heading back from your opponents side to your side of the net, and thats when one of your opponents tried to "help" the ball over to your side of the net. That seems to me to be a clear hinderance, but you have to call a hinderance. As soon as you slowed down or stopped to avoid being hit by the 2nd guy swinging at the ball, you should have called out "hindrance" or "hinder". However, if you slowed down, the ball hit the net cord, and dribbled over, and you made an attempt at it, and was not able to get it, i dont think you can now call a hinder, you waited too long.

Sorry about the poor wording of my question. I wrote it late, in a hurry and after a few glasses ! Have tried to tidy it up a bit for future readers.

To answer your question the first guy hit it from behind the baseline. His partner, who was at the net, swung at it a second or so later as it passed him. I think he thought it was going in the net and was goofing around.

I realise it was probably a bit of a freak event. But my issue was that the opponent who took the joke swing and missed could not see a problem with what he had done. If he is correct then an unscrupulous net player could employ this "swing and miss" tactic on balls which clearly are going over the net.

Geezer Guy
02-03-2009, 10:15 AM
It took me a minute to realize what you were talking about, since it is an odd scenario. It sounds like the net man didn't think his partners shot was going over, so he fanned at it probably as a joke...but the ball ended up going over. If that is what happened, he should have said sorry and conceeded the point as he disrupted the point just to be funny.

I agree - the guy was probably just trying to be funny. As soon as he realized that he'd "screwed up" a point still in progress, he should have given up the point and offered an apology.

If it had been me, I would have probably given him "a look", but I wouldn't have claimed a hinderance.

The fact that he didn't see anything wrong with what he did would have indicated (to me) that he'd have no objections if I did the same thing in return. Depending on how peeved I was, I may have returned the faver - or I may have just let it go.

rnitz
02-03-2009, 11:42 AM
This actually happened in a Bryan Bros. match a year or so ago (maybe against Dlouhy and Vizner in Davis cup ??). One of the Bryans hit a weak shot from the back court that didn't look like it would clear and the other Bryan swung at it as it went by. It went over the net for a winner. The opponents complained to the Umpire to no avail - Bryans won the point.

So I guess at the professional level there's no hindrance. Don't know about USTA rules differences. What complicates this example is that under slow motion replay it looks like the second Bryan Bro. actually tipped the ball as it went by (which is why the opponents complained). Anyway, the point stood.

JavierLW
02-03-2009, 12:13 PM
This actually happened in a Bryan Bros. match a year or so ago (maybe against Dlouhy and Vizner in Davis cup ??). One of the Bryans hit a weak shot from the back court that didn't look like it would clear and the other Bryan swung at it as it went by. It went over the net for a winner. The opponents complained to the Umpire to no avail - Bryans won the point.

So I guess at the professional level there's no hindrance. Don't know about USTA rules differences. What complicates this example is that under slow motion replay it looks like the second Bryan Bro. actually tipped the ball as it went by (which is why the opponents complained). Anyway, the point stood.

It could of been bad judgement by the official as well, they pretty much have to make a ruling right on the spot.

But you are right, the parts in our rulebook that actually spells out what deliberate means and what unintentional means, are all either USTA comments or part of the code (another USTA invention).

If you take those out, the hindrance rule is even more of a gray area.

The only other thing I can think of is maybe if it's judged that the BB's opponents couldnt of made a play on that ball anyway then it's not hindrance. (you cant be hindered from making a shot that you had no way of making anyway)

Tarboro
02-03-2009, 12:17 PM
I got a bit annoyed in a game of doubles recently when the following happened.

I hit a deep return of serve cross court back to the server who had stayed back. He played a weak cross court groundstroke which looked as though is was struggling to make it over the net. But as he was playing with the wind at his back I started moving up the court just in case.

As the ball approached the opposing netman (who was standing in the middle of the service box directly in front of me) swung at it as if to make a double hit / concede the point. However, he missed the ball - either deliberately or because the wind caught it - and it subsequently dropped OVER the net. This won them the point because on seeing the opposing netman swinging at the ball in my direction I had stopped my move up the court because I did not want to get hit by the ball when he hit it.

I was a bit angry about what had happened as I consider it to be a deliberate unfair distraction which had hindered me. Opponents did not agree and as it was not important I let it go. What do others think ?

I was on the other end of this not too long ago (perhaps I was on the other side of the net from oldhacker and didn't know it, but I don't think so). I did not concede the point when it happened to me. I can certainly see how my opponents would be annoyed and would not have disagreed had they claimed a hindrance or asked for a let, but they did neither.

I can state categorically that I did not wave my racquet at the ball to distract or hinder my opponents, but rather because I did not believe the ball to be going over the net. Perhaps by doing so I was tacitly conceding the point and should have acted accordingly, but I do not believe I was obligated to do so as I was not acting intentionally to hinder my opponent.

JavierLW
02-03-2009, 12:38 PM
I was on the other end of this not too long ago (perhaps I was on the other side of the net from oldhacker and didn't know it, but I don't think so). I did not concede the point when it happened to me. I can certainly see how my opponents would be annoyed and would not have disagreed had they claimed a hindrance or asked for a let, but they did neither.

I can state categorically that I did not wave my racquet at the ball to distract or hinder my opponents, but rather because I did not believe the ball to be going over the net. Perhaps by doing so I was tacitly conceding the point and should have acted accordingly, but I do not believe I was obligated to do so as I was not acting intentionally to hinder my opponent.

If you read the rules (including what I posted above), and the USTA comments on said rules, it spells out that your "intent" is not important.

You did intentionally partake in an action that was distracting, Whether you intended to distract or not is not the point.

My friend does something like this all the time, when he hits a ball he think is going to go long, he starts moaning and complaining about it.

Here's the catch though, if it does distract me and the ball falls in and I dont do anything it may be too late to say anything. (point is over, it's hard to argue whether or not I would of, should of hit it back)

But since he does this every single time, now I as soon as I hear him say anything I can call "Hindrance!!!" and it doesnt matter where the ball goes.

So really you and some others do have a point. If someone really wants to call hindrance, it's just like a let call, you have to call it right away.

If enough time passes after the point is already over and you find yourself commenting on it and questioning it, it's too late because that person didnt call it when it happened. (otherwise you could sit and debate all day on whether what you did really kept them from making their shot or not, they shouldnt get two chances at it)

spot
02-03-2009, 01:29 PM
If the opponents had called hinderance as the guy waved his racket at the ball then they would have been entitled to the point. But I don't believe that they can call hinderance after the play is over.

LuckyR
02-03-2009, 01:41 PM
My take on this issue is a bit different that the conversation so far. Personally, the intent of the returner's netman seems plain: A) he thought the ball wasn't going over the net and B) he was joking around (as most of us have in a similar stuation at some point). However, IMO the "intent" issue is with the OP, not the netman, in the sense that if (as he posted) he was so afraid of being hit by the ball he thought the netman was going to make that he stopped going for the ball, he is entitled to the point (assuming he did not then try secondarily once the ball unexpectedly went over the net). However, the majority of the time, a player in his position would stop trying because he too didn't think the ball was going over the net and besides why go for it when the other team was going to intentionally double hit the ball? In this case, he would not be due a hinderence call, since it was his decision to stop trying.

spot
02-03-2009, 01:54 PM
presumably if he swung and missed then he would have come awfully close to the ball. I think thats a pretty legitimate distraction on a deliberate act of the other team where hinderance is perfectly legitimate to call.

oldhacker
02-03-2009, 04:07 PM
OK, so the ball was clearly heading back from your opponents side to your side of the net, and thats when one of your opponents tried to "help" the ball over to your side of the net. That seems to me to be a clear hinderance, but you have to call a hinderance. As soon as you slowed down or stopped to avoid being hit by the 2nd guy swinging at the ball, you should have called out "hindrance" or "hinder". However, if you slowed down, the ball hit the net cord, and dribbled over, and you made an attempt at it, and was not able to get it, i dont think you can now call a hinder, you waited too long.

Interesting point you raise here about when it becomes too late to call a hinderance. In a real matchplay situation when a player is focussed he will most likely still try to play the ball when he realises it has not been double hit and has gone over the net.

It is a bit like an issue with 'Hawkeye' which was commented on many times at the Australian Open. This being when can player challenge a rally ball. Commentators were saying that a challenge should not be allowed if the player tried to play the ball and, so, if a player wants to challenge they should not attempt to play it. However umpires were often seen to allow challenges from a player who had played the ball.

Geezer Guy
02-03-2009, 04:57 PM
Yes, but they have to call for a challenge immediately. Just like when you play a hard serve, then call it out.
You have to call it ASAP, you can't watch to see if your return is good, and then call it out if it wasn't.

JavierLW
02-03-2009, 06:36 PM
Yes, but they have to call for a challenge immediately. Just like when you play a hard serve, then call it out.
You have to call it ASAP, you can't watch to see if your return is good, and then call it out if it wasn't.

I think an even better example is the let.

Nobody can wait until the point is over and say "hey wait a minute a ball rolled thru the court, that was a let". Nope, instead you have to call it when it actually happens.

So Im not sure why hindrance would be any different.

(either way you are being hindered it's just a matter of whether the other players are doing it or some neutral occurance)

amarone
02-03-2009, 07:07 PM
JavierLW has it exactly right: it is a hindrance (not "hinderance"). If an opponent takes a deliberate action that puts you off, it is a hindrance whether or not the opponent intended to put you off.
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 opponent's act was deliberate; the OP was hindered; point over.

Tarboro
02-04-2009, 08:21 AM
If you read the rules (including what I posted above), and the USTA comments on said rules, it spells out that your "intent" is not important.

You did intentionally partake in an action that was distracting, Whether you intended to distract or not is not the point.

My friend does something like this all the time, when he hits a ball he think is going to go long, he starts moaning and complaining about it.

Here's the catch though, if it does distract me and the ball falls in and I dont do anything it may be too late to say anything. (point is over, it's hard to argue whether or not I would of, should of hit it back)

But since he does this every single time, now I as soon as I hear him say anything I can call "Hindrance!!!" and it doesnt matter where the ball goes.

So really you and some others do have a point. If someone really wants to call hindrance, it's just like a let call, you have to call it right away.

If enough time passes after the point is already over and you find yourself commenting on it and questioning it, it's too late because that person didnt call it when it happened. (otherwise you could sit and debate all day on whether what you did really kept them from making their shot or not, they shouldnt get two chances at it)

You're correct, of course. I was operating without the benefit of an official or rulebook in front of me, and my opponent (who should have called the hindrance) did nothing, so I did nothing also. Had my opponent asked for a let or claimed the point I would have given it to them.

I had a similar situation with a different partner who said "sorry" during a point (he said it to me for volleying our opponents' return which I had warned him was going long). Three strokes or so later (opposing returner hits the volley, I volley his return back, he misses a lob) the opposing netman says he thought the point was over when my partner said "sorry." I asked him what he thought we were saying and why he didn't stop the point on one of the succeeding three strokes and he can't give me a straight answer, merely says that he thought the point was over. I can understand a hindrance call for saying "out" or "long" or something that could be confused for a line call in an unofficiated match, but what should I make of this situation?

JavierLW
02-04-2009, 08:50 AM
You're correct, of course. I was operating without the benefit of an official or rulebook in front of me, and my opponent (who should have called the hindrance) did nothing, so I did nothing also. Had my opponent asked for a let or claimed the point I would have given it to them.

I had a similar situation with a different partner who said "sorry" during a point (he said it to me for volleying our opponents' return which I had warned him was going long). Three strokes or so later (opposing returner hits the volley, I volley his return back, he misses a lob) the opposing netman says he thought the point was over when my partner said "sorry." I asked him what he thought we were saying and why he didn't stop the point on one of the succeeding three strokes and he can't give me a straight answer, merely says that he thought the point was over. I can understand a hindrance call for saying "out" or "long" or something that could be confused for a line call in an unofficiated match, but what should I make of this situation?

I think the magic part of that situation is that whether it's a let or hindrance, they needed to say something when the incident occurs.

Otherwise you can say "you thought wrong". :-)

So ya, they are right, it could of been hindrance, but only if they said something when you did it. Definately as soon as they attempt to return it, they lose the right to say anything because if they returned it into fair play then they were not hindered in any way.

I think that's where LuckyR has it right, if you are not actually hindered then it's not hindrance, and obviously if you return the ball into fair play saying that you were hindered is sort of silly. By rule you should call it immediately just like a let, otherwise you lose the right to claim the point.

oldhacker
02-04-2009, 08:52 AM
I had a similar situation with a different partner who said "sorry" during a point (he said it to me for volleying our opponents' return which I had warned him was going long). Three strokes or so later (opposing returner hits the volley, I volley his return back, he misses a lob) the opposing netman says he thought the point was over when my partner said "sorry." I asked him what he thought we were saying and why he didn't stop the point on one of the succeeding three strokes and he can't give me a straight answer, merely says that he thought the point was over. I can understand a hindrance call for saying "out" or "long" or something that could be confused for a line call in an unofficiated match, but what should I make of this situation?

I cannot see how your partner saying 'sorry' can be construed as a hindrance. In your case shots were played after your partner said it so surely it was too late to call 'hindrance' at the end of the rally. Personally I do not even see how calls of 'out' or 'long' well before thr ball bounces can be claimed as a 'hindrance' as it is a common way for a player to communicate to his partner that they think the ball is going long. Sure 'leave' is a safer choice of words but providing the ball has not bounced 'out' or 'long' both seem pretty legitimate.

JavierLW
02-04-2009, 09:20 AM
I cannot see how your partner saying 'sorry' can be construed as a hindrance. In your case shots were played after your partner said it so surely it was too late to call 'hindrance' at the end of the rally. Personally I do not even see how calls of 'out' or 'long' well before thr ball bounces can be claimed as a 'hindrance' as it is a common way for a player to communicate to his partner that they think the ball is going long. Sure 'leave' is a safer choice of words but providing the ball has not bounced 'out' or 'long' both seem pretty legitimate.

It's hindrance if they said it after they've hit the ball and it's the other team's turn to hit the ball. (you are not supposed to talk when it's not your turn to hit the ball)

That's spelled out in the USTA comments as one of the examples. (even using the common example of where someone yells "SHORT!!!" which happens a lot)

That's only providing that they claim hindrance right away though.

We've argued on here a lot about yelling "out" or "long" when it's still your teams turn to hit the ball. It's debatable whether that is hindrance (it's been debated plenty thank you. :-), but if you say something after you've hit the ball that's clearly not allowed via the rules.

My friend does something even worse. He keeps hitting balls that he thinks are going to go way out so he starts moaning and yelling things like "ARRGH!!!!", and then I watch it fall in and I have to try to hit it.

If he did it just once I would never even think to call hindrance because that's not something we normally call on anyone so it may screw me up and I'll lose the point.

But since he does it all the time (it's like a habit), as soon as I hear him say anything now I just stop playing and say it's my point.

(he always apologizes as well because he said he knows that it's not cool to make noise while Im trying to hit the ball, it's just a bad habit on his part)

Tarboro
02-04-2009, 12:33 PM
Thanks for the confirmation. I'm glad I wasn't unintentionally hooking two separate opponents with two different rules violations!

Crusher10s
02-08-2009, 12:45 PM
I have a hard time understanding your post, because of the missing parenthesis and mispellings. However, I don't see how your oponents swinging at a ball in play can be considered a hinderance, even if it is going to be a second person hitting the ball.



Yeah well I can't understand your post either because of YOUR inability to spell parentheses, misspellings AND opponents.

Crusher10s
02-08-2009, 01:08 PM
It could of been bad judgement by the official as well, they pretty much have to make a ruling right on the spot.

But you are right, the parts in our rulebook that actually spells out what deliberate means and what unintentional means, are all either USTA comments or part of the code (another USTA invention).

If you take those out, the hindrance rule is even more of a gray area.

The only other thing I can think of is maybe if it's judged that the BB's opponents couldnt of made a play on that ball anyway then it's not hindrance. (you cant be hindered from making a shot that you had no way of making anyway)





Hello......The Code is NOT another USTA invention. It was written in the late 1800's dude, BEFORE there even WAS a USTA. Written by a Colonel Nick Powell.

Get your facts straight.

Geezer Guy
02-08-2009, 01:08 PM
edit - never mind

JavierLW
02-08-2009, 05:38 PM
Hello......The Code is NOT another USTA invention. It was written in the late 1800's dude, BEFORE there even WAS a USTA. Written by a Colonel Nick Powell.

Get your facts straight.

Are you here to nitpick and troll everyone or do you have something of value to add to the topic?

Maybe you are right about when "The Code" was written.

But did you even bother to look it up to see what the solution to this issue (in this post)?

Crusher10s
02-08-2009, 06:04 PM
Javier...sorry you're offended that I called you out on a major misstatement of fact.

And once again you have no clue: trolls don't care about facts, which, my little friend is......exactly what I called you out on.

RalphNYC
02-09-2009, 06:21 AM
JavierLW has it exactly right: it is a hindrance. If an opponent takes a deliberate action that puts you off, it is a hindrance whether or not the opponent intended to put you off.

The opponent's act was deliberate; the OP was hindered; point over.

No doubt about it. But in casual play, enforcing a hindrance rule can be nearly impossible. If it were me who swung at the ball in jest like that player did - I would have apologized light-heartedly, conceded the point, and continued on. Not because I knew the exact ruling, but because its obviously the right thing to do.

Luminous
02-09-2009, 06:24 AM
No doubt about it. But in casual play, enforcing a hindrance rule can be nearly impossible. If it were me who swung at the ball in jest like that player did - I would have apologized light-heartedly, conceded the point, and continued on. Not because I knew the exact ruling, but because its obviously the right thing to do.

Well said! :)

amarone
02-09-2009, 09:18 AM
No doubt about it. But in casual play, enforcing a hindrance rule can be nearly impossible. Too true - look at the number of people who think there is such a thing as a voice-let. When I tried to explain the hindrance rule (oppo yelled "back, back, back" very loudly after putting up a short lob), he was about ready to fight over it, even though this particular example is very clearly covered in the rules.

JavierLW
02-09-2009, 09:44 AM
Javier...sorry you're offended that I called you out on a major misstatement of fact.

And once again you have no clue: trolls don't care about facts, which, my little friend is......exactly what I called you out on.

If you dont have anything nice to say about someone, dont say anything at all? (ever heard that before)

Listen, i dont feel like getting into some personal conflict with you over this, we've had enough of those.

I acknowledge that you may know when the code was written but OBVIOUSLY from your other posts you dont know everything that is in it, because you either misread what's in there, or you are basing all of your "facts" on hearsay from people you knew from 30-40 years ago. Those are just as bad as anyone else who says something incorrect.

If you want to have an intelligent conversation based on the facts, that's cool. Maybe you'll get some right and maybe we'll even agree on some things, and I know I am not right all the time.

But if you're just going to nitpick and write childish posts such as this then dont bother.

JavierLW
02-09-2009, 12:03 PM
Javier...sorry you're offended that I called you out on a major misstatement of fact.

And once again you have no clue: trolls don't care about facts, which, my little friend is......exactly what I called you out on.

Also if Im offended, it's because you used the word "dude" (which can be construed as insulting to some from someone they are not familar with, how would you like it if I called you "lady"? Are you that gender biased??)

And you seem to post in the mannerisms of an angry bitter person who apparently feels that they are always right without taking the time to actually read and understand the information that's out there.

I am not trolling, I get involved in topics that happen to sound like real life experiences that Ive been in and I took the time to read the rules and tryed to understand them to get the facts. (rather than go by hearsay and possible mis-understandings about something I heard 30-40 years ago)

Im sure they did teach everyone not to call the ball early. Im sure they teach everyone not to call the ball out when it's a foot inside of the court as well.

But there is no real penalty for such things when there is no official there because tennis is supposed to be a honorable sport among honorable people, where you might make a mistake but you can correct it. (and most of the time when someone calls it early it is an honest mistake, not something that you have to angrily walk away from or get too upset over)

If someone is not honorable, about the best you can do is not play with them, and/or think less of them.

People who make up rules are not desirable to play either. Ive been in a couple matches where my partner tryed to warn me a ball was going out and he said "OUT!!!!", and one of our opponents claimed that since he said "OUT" before it landed we lost the point.

I agree that it's questionable that my partner choose that word and I agree that even if he was calling it out, it's not good to call it while it's in the air, but if the ball goes out, it's still our point. You cant make up your own rule and say it's yours when you after all did hit the ball out.

What's funny is usually when I encounter these people they are league chairperson's or some other part time league volunteer or some fly by night recreational USPTA who obviously thinks themselves SUUUUPER important thus meaning they must know it all, without the need to bother reading the rules or understanding them.

Im sorry but that's how you sound. Maybe that's not you, and you are a fair person who cares about the rules, but it doesnt sound like it from these posts.

chess9
04-19-2009, 09:08 AM
If the opponents had called hinderance as the guy waved his racket at the ball then they would have been entitled to the point. But I don't believe that they can call hinderance after the play is over.

Do you have authority for that position?

If a ball comes onto the court from another court, normally we play a let as the ball was a hindrance. But, if both players continue to play, may one player claim a hindrance at the end of the point? I would think not, but I don't see the rule on this. It must be in the decisions somewhere. Does someone remember the exact language on this ruling, or have a cite to a url?

-Robert

amarone
04-19-2009, 09:40 AM
Do you have authority for that position?

If a ball comes onto the court from another court, normally we play a let as the ball was a hindrance. But, if both players continue to play, may one player claim a hindrance at the end of the point? I would think not, but I don't see the rule on this. It must be in the decisions somewhere. Does someone remember the exact language on this ruling, or have a cite to a url?

-RobertIt is in the Code:
18. Prompt calls eliminate two chance option. A player shall make all
calls promptly after the ball has hit the court. A call shall be made either
before the player’s return shot has gone out of play or before the opponent
has had the opportunity to play the return shot.
Prompt calls will quickly eliminate the “two chances to win the point”
option that some players practice. To illustrate, a player is advancing to the
net for an easy put away and sees a ball from an adjoining court rolling
toward the court. The player continues to advance and hits the shot, only to
have the supposed easy put away fly over the baseline. The player then
claims a let. The claim is not valid because the player forfeited the right to call
a let by choosing instead to play the ball. The player took a chance to win or
lose and is not entitled to a second chance.

chess9
04-19-2009, 10:02 AM
It is in the Code:

Great find. I knew that was the correct result, but I couldn't find the language in my brief trip through the Code. :)

Many thanks.

-Robert