PDA

View Full Version : Would you make this call in a match?


Blask
05-03-2009, 04:23 AM
This happened on the court next to me and wanted to get some opinions. USTA doubles match, lost the first set 6-7. The serving team is down 0-2 in the second set but up 40-30 in the game. Serving from the ad court obviously, the server hits a ball that is unusually long and obviously out. The service returner who was creeping up to take the ball short deliberately hits the ball out of the air to move it out of the way and get ready for a 2nd serve.

If you were the server, would you call that game since the returner didn't let the ball bounce?

blakesq
05-03-2009, 05:07 AM
If the returning team touches a serve that has not bounced yet, they lose the point. If it is a USTA match, I would take the point. If it is just a friendly match among friends, maybe not.


This happened on the court next to me and wanted to get some opinions. USTA doubles match, lost the first set 6-7. The serving team is down 0-2 in the second set but up 40-30 in the game. Serving from the ad court obviously, the server hits a ball that is unusually long and obviously out. The service returner who was creeping up to take the ball short deliberately hits the ball out of the air to move it out of the way and get ready for a 2nd serve.

If you were the server, would you call that game since the returner didn't let the ball bounce?

J011yroger
05-03-2009, 06:17 AM
No, I wouldn't.

J

woodrow1029
05-03-2009, 06:34 AM
No, I wouldn't.

J
Not even in a league match???

J011yroger
05-03-2009, 06:41 AM
Not even in a league match???

Not even on Centre Court at Wimbledon.

I would like to think I was a better person than that.

J

Blask
05-03-2009, 06:43 AM
Not even on Centre Court at Wimbledon.

I would like to think I was a better person than that.

J

Not that I disagree with you, but I'm curious what part of making a legitimate rule call would make you not a good person.

JavierLW
05-03-2009, 06:59 AM
Not even on Centre Court at Wimbledon.

I would like to think I was a better person than that.

J

It's just a game....

If it was REALLY a friendly match we can play by the rules and let it go....

(without all the talk about "being a better person", etc.....)

But actually it's really that person's call anyway, they can always lie and say they didnt touch it. All you can do it ask them if they touched it, and if they say yes, then they lose the point.

J011yroger
05-03-2009, 07:20 AM
Not that I disagree with you, but I'm curious what part of making a legitimate rule call would make you not a good person.

I just would have a problem taking a point if I missed a shot so badly that it didn't even come close to its target.

If I knew the ball was going out, and he knew it, who cares if he touches it, catches it, whatever.

To me the object of playing is to get better. And claiming points for stupid crap doesn't further that objective.

J

Mada
05-03-2009, 08:15 AM
I partly agree with jolly and with the OP. I would probably not take the point, but a rule is a rule. Some people would take the point. I would tell my opponent I will not penalize him but I would warn him that it is against the rules and some future opponent may do what I did not.

OrangePower
05-03-2009, 08:22 AM
It depends. You say the receiver was moving in closer to the service line at the time. Is it possible that the receiver just coudn't get out of the way in time (rather than hitting it deliberately knowing it was out)? Or that it was not a reflexive sticking-out of the racket on the part of the receiver?

Basically, if I thought it might have been involuntary on the part of the receiver, I would claim the point. That's the price to pay for moving in on the serve. But if it is clear that it was voluntary and that he was just clearing the ball then I would not claim the point. Even though the rules allow you to, I think it would set an unpleasant tone for the rest of the match.

JavierLW
05-03-2009, 08:43 AM
It depends. You say the receiver was moving in closer to the service line at the time. Is it possible that the receiver just coudn't get out of the way in time (rather than hitting it deliberately knowing it was out)? Or that it was not a reflexive sticking-out of the racket on the part of the receiver?

Basically, if I thought it might have been involuntary on the part of the receiver, I would claim the point. That's the price to pay for moving in on the serve. But if it is clear that it was voluntary and that he was just clearing the ball then I would not claim the point. Even though the rules allow you to, I think it would set an unpleasant tone for the rest of the match.

The funny thing is most people I play will not try to touch the ball, voluntary or otherwise. They know they lose the point if it touches them so they try to avoid it. (unless there is obvious circumstances that require them to catch it, like a hole in the fence with a cliff behind it and man-eating tigers, etc....)

The rare person I find who cant help themselves always seems to be the person who sets the unpleasant tone for the match.

Most matches that I play in though, even if just for "fun", consist of people who care about winning by the rules. We watched tennis on TV as kids and played high school tennis and making up some game outside of that is not really "fun".

However if I find myself in another crowd (permanant court time leagues, mixers, etc...), I usually dont say anything because they tend to play by their own rules anyway.

As far as being a better person for not calling it, Im sorry any reasoning you come up with can be countered. So you were hitting the ball out?? So what??

If you were going to hit it out and they hit it in mid-air and THEIR ball went out, you wouldnt give them the point. Most people would just say "whew!!", they saved your point.

It's unfortuanate for them and good for you, but that's tennis. Get over it, just move on....

J011yroger
05-03-2009, 08:49 AM
As far as being a better person for not calling it, Im sorry any reasoning you come up with can be countered.


What is to counter?

The OP asked if I would claim the point, and I said no.

The OP asked if you would claim the point and you said yes.

J

Cindysphinx
05-03-2009, 09:43 AM
Jolly, I understand your point of view. Personally, I would take the point if the person simply didn't make enough of an effort to get out of the way. That is the rule. If the person was simply stopping a ball so it didn't fly onto the neighboring court or something, I would let it go.

There are *A LOT* of people who do not know that if the ball hits you in the air, you lose the point even if you are standing out of bounds.

I can recall claiming points twice in matches, once in a league match, once in a social match.

In the team practice match, the returner's partner made no effort to get out of the way of my second serve and it struck her on the thigh. I explained the rule. And I took the point. Why? Not because I cared about winning the match. It was because my three teammates were completely unaware of the rule, and as captain I wanted it seared into everyone's brain that this is the rule.

In the USTA match, my partner's first serve bounced off the shoe of the returner, who was positioned near the T. Again, I was dealing with an opponent who didn't know the rule. I took the point. If you are going to crowd the T, you'd better read the rules first.

gogeta087
05-03-2009, 10:04 AM
I've had it happen multiple times to me in school play, and I just let it go. I really don't care, it's obviously going out. I've never been hit with a serve (I've pulled off some weird acrobatics to get away from the completely mistruck balls, though) and I don't want to imagine what it would be like to lose a point because of my reaction time or reflexes.

Blask
05-03-2009, 10:25 AM
It depends. You say the receiver was moving in closer to the service line at the time. Is it possible that the receiver just coudn't get out of the way in time (rather than hitting it deliberately knowing it was out)? Or that it was not a reflexive sticking-out of the racket on the part of the receiver?

Basically, if I thought it might have been involuntary on the part of the receiver, I would claim the point. That's the price to pay for moving in on the serve. But if it is clear that it was voluntary and that he was just clearing the ball then I would not claim the point. Even though the rules allow you to, I think it would set an unpleasant tone for the rest of the match.

I was on the next court so I did not see it as it happened. I did get multiple first hand accounts of the situation and was told that the returner blatantly stuck his racquet out to move the ball. It was not accidental. All I know is that it caused a pretty big stir in the match and there was some bad blood apparently leading up to it (bad line calls, teams taking shots at eachother, etc). I don't know if I have made up my mind on what is the right thing to do. On one hand the serve was out and therefore I would have a tough time with any reward. On the other hand, a rule is a rule and it was a USTA match.

10sfreak
05-03-2009, 11:03 AM
If it was obvious to me that the serve was going to be way out, and also obvious that the returner knew it, and was just trying to keep the ball from flying all over the place, I would not take the point.

sphinx780
05-03-2009, 11:18 AM
I wouldn't take the point although it is in the rules that I could choose to. If I missed my shot that badly, I don't see how it would help my game improve by taking that point.

If I was the returner, and my opponent took the point, fine, it is in the rule book but I would argue that it goes against the intent of the rule. IMHO, I believe that rule is to keep returners from taking a net position and volley the serve, not to award the server for missing a shot so wildly that the returner needs to get out of the way at the baseline. Intent of a rule vs. the written rule is always debatable, so I understand if someone chooses to take the point.

Personally, I just ask myself...would I rather earn the point by playing a second serve or take the point because the rule allows it? For me, I feel that mentality helps my game develop and improve. Everyone will have different opinions and reasoning as we have seen, this is just how I choose to look at it.

OrangePower
05-03-2009, 11:35 AM
I was on the next court so I did not see it as it happened. I did get multiple first hand accounts of the situation and was told that the returner blatantly stuck his racquet out to move the ball. It was not accidental. All I know is that it caused a pretty big stir in the match and there was some bad blood apparently leading up to it (bad line calls, teams taking shots at eachother, etc). I don't know if I have made up my mind on what is the right thing to do. On one hand the serve was out and therefore I would have a tough time with any reward. On the other hand, a rule is a rule and it was a USTA match.

Ah, well, if there was bad blood already, then I would claim the point. My primary motivation for *not* claiming the point under ordinary conditions would be to avoid drama, keep things cordial, and focus on playing tennis. But if the cat's already out of the bag and tempers are flaring, then I would be extra careful to play exactly by the rules for the rest of the match.

J011yroger
05-03-2009, 11:54 AM
Jolly, I understand your point of view. Personally, I would take the point if the person simply didn't make enough of an effort to get out of the way.

Ya, I dig it.

Also, on my end, if the reciever's partner was standing right on the T just to mess with me, I wouldn't have a problem drilling him on the fly and taking the point.

J

maverick66
05-03-2009, 12:16 PM
its the rule. why wouldnt you enforce it. especially it was a league match so winning mattered. i dont get jo11y not taking the point. they knowingly violated the rule.

nhat8121
05-03-2009, 12:30 PM
no i would not take the point

unless im at wimbledon and the ump says that's your point...then I have no choice but to take it :)

slick
05-03-2009, 05:07 PM
No frickin way would I take the point. Have some pride people. I only want to win if I earn it, not on same lame *** technicality.

JavierLW
05-03-2009, 05:17 PM
What is to counter?

The OP asked if I would claim the point, and I said no.

The OP asked if you would claim the point and you said yes.

J

You said you were a "better person" for saying no. That's what's debatable.

You are not any better or worse either way....

If you wish to not take the point then that's your choice and if it makes you feel better great, it doesnt make you any better then anyone else though....

You're playing a tennis match, you're not running a business, running for political office or handing out food for the homeless. You can play the rules or not, or do whatever floats your boat, "being a better person" doesnt enter into it.

"WHO!!! WHO DOESNT WANT TO WEAR THE RIBBON!!!!????"

Cindysphinx
05-03-2009, 09:05 PM
Well, I think Jolly is a better person! :)

maverick66
05-03-2009, 09:11 PM
Well, I think Jolly is a better person! :)

But its the rule. It was put there for a reason. I do not understand not using the rules.

Cindysphinx
05-03-2009, 09:47 PM
But its the rule. It was put there for a reason. I do not understand not using the rules.

:shrug:

I just think Jolly is pretty cool, that's all.

Seriously. There are always going to be people who think this or that is Bush League. They are entitled to think that and do as they please. If it costs them points they could otherwise win, that is their choice, and I respect their choice.

nhat8121
05-03-2009, 10:41 PM
for me, it comes down to that word slick said above ^^

pride. I would feel so embarrassed to claim such a point.

Though, not everyone feels the same, so you're can do what you like, it's within the rules.

slick
05-04-2009, 08:16 AM
Somebody pulled that crap on me once in a social mixed dubs match of all things. I caught a ball that was going to be way out as I was standing BEHIND the baseline so I didn't have to run after it. They claimed the point. I thought they were joking. They were not and even got a little testy.

I never played with them again.

charliefedererer
05-04-2009, 09:37 AM
Somebody pulled that crap on me once in a social mixed dubs match of all things. I caught a ball that was going to be way out as I was standing BEHIND the baseline so I didn't have to run after it. They claimed the point. I thought they were joking. They were not and even got a little testy.

I never played with them again.

Good for you for not playing with them again.
But a bigger reason for catching a ball like that in a social match is so the errant ball doesn't interupt play on the next court. Otherwise, let it fly.

spiderman123
05-04-2009, 09:50 AM
This is last year's thread all over again. That time the discussion was what happens if you catch the ball that is very obviously going long to save some time.

For the record, in the OP's case, I will not claim the point and politely ask the opponent not to do that in future as it is controversial. (Some thing that I love to tell people who signal out before the ball bounces, then it lands near the line, they take their hand down a bit and then lift it up again in a "I was right" body language)

If my serve hits the net person's shoes like Cindy said, I will claim the point.

The difference in two is opponent's control. If the opponent is not in control then I can safely say GOTCHA!

JavierLW
05-04-2009, 09:51 AM
Somebody pulled that crap on me once in a social mixed dubs match of all things. I caught a ball that was going to be way out as I was standing BEHIND the baseline so I didn't have to run after it. They claimed the point. I thought they were joking. They were not and even got a little testy.

I never played with them again.

Well look at it from their point of view.

YOU were the one who decided to catch the ball. THEY would not normally catch the ball, so from their point of view you can not fault them for taking the point when it was YOU that decided to catch it and cause that whole mess in the first place.

It all depends on who you are used to playing probably. Some circles might do that all the time and they dont care, other people might think it's strange because they are used to just playing by the whole rules and they dont have a problem with them. (it is just a game after all.....)

I dont think a small issue like that is any reason to play with anyone.

Id hate to sound like some other person on here, but when I see the occasional person who catches the ball, it makes them stick out like a sore thumb, so I wonder if they know what they are doing. But that's because it's not very common, maybe if I saw people doing it all the time I wouldnt think much of it. (although in this case their happens to be a rule that you dont do it, not just a case of social stigma, vanity, etc.....)

JavierLW
05-04-2009, 09:57 AM
This is last year's thread all over again. That time the discussion was what happens if you catch the ball that is very obviously going long to save some time.

For the record, in the OP's case, I will not claim the point and politely ask the opponent not to do that in future as it is controversial. (Some thing that I love to tell people who signal out before the ball bounces, then it lands near the line, they take their hand down a bit and then lift it up again in a "I was right" body language)

If my serve hits the net person's shoes like Cindy said, I will claim the point.

The difference in two is opponent's control. If the opponent is not in control then I can safely say GOTCHA!

Sometimes they catch it and they were not under control though. It's like a habit that a few people seem to not be able to shake. If you are playing with people who respect the rules, you get out of the way. Sometimes people dont, and sometimes they even catch it because they cant help themselves.

That's why I dont think it's really fair to feel you are getting a free point for something you didnt accompish.

Your opponent can give you free points all the time for things that you didnt really do. (like you hit an easy sitter and they hit it out, or you hit a ball that was clearly going out but they hit it in midair and mishit it)

That's just tennis, you lose points either because your opponent did something good, or because you screwed up. If you touched the ball and you were able to avoid it, then you screwed up.

woodrow1029
05-04-2009, 10:02 AM
Sometimes they catch it and they were not under control though. It's like a habit that a few people seem to not be able to shake. If you are playing with people who respect the rules, you get out of the way. Sometimes people dont, and sometimes they even catch it because they cant help themselves.

That's why I dont think it's really fair to feel you are getting a free point for something you didnt accompish.

Your opponent can give you free points all the time for things that you didnt really do. (like you hit an easy sitter and they hit it out, or you hit a ball that was clearly going out but they hit it in midair and mishit it)

That's just tennis, you lose points either because your opponent did something good, or because you screwed up. If you touched the ball and you were able to avoid it, then you screwed up.
Javier, I don't understand why you bother to keep going on this. The people that arguing against you are only still trying to imply that they are better than you because you would claim a point that is rightfully yours. You have been correct the entire time. I don't buy Jo11y's whole "I would never call it" thing, and like you, I don't appreciate his "I'm a better person for it" comment or however it went. I think it's hopeless trying to reason with certain individuals.

JavierLW
05-04-2009, 10:17 AM
Javier, I don't understand why you bother to keep going on this. The people that arguing against you are only still trying to imply that they are better than you because you would claim a point that is rightfully yours. You have been correct the entire time. I don't buy Jo11y's whole "I would never call it" thing, and like you, I don't appreciate his "I'm a better person for it" comment or however it went. I think it's hopeless trying to reason with certain individuals.

You're right, we will never change their minds. They will definitely never change my mind.

But there are new people logging into TW everyday. Maybe they will read this post and if they see something intelligent being said it may sway their opinion (on something that they either didnt care much about or didnt think much about).

And that's less people going out there operating by some made up principle based on what they perceive is acceptable by everyone.

spiderman123
05-04-2009, 10:18 AM
Javier, I don't understand why you bother to keep going on this. The people that arguing against you are only still trying to imply that they are better than you because you would claim a point that is rightfully yours. You have been correct the entire time. I don't buy Jo11y's whole "I would never call it" thing, and like you, I don't appreciate his "I'm a better person for it" comment or however it went. I think it's hopeless trying to reason with certain individuals.

Nobody is saying that we are right and you are wrong. It is just what some people would do (as per the question). What Jolly said was for Jolly. Jolly never said that if anyone else did not do that he will think they are a bad human being. It just meant that Jolly would feel nice to do that.

secondly, from the tone of your post, if I do that against you, I will not even expect you to understand and concede the point. No, that does not make you a bad person, but there are very different personalities on tennis courts and after some tennis you can predict their responses to such points.

slick
05-04-2009, 10:31 AM
I dont think a small issue like that is any reason to play with anyone.



Yes it is. I would only catch a ball that was WAY out and only if I'm already standing outside the court behind the baseline, which, by the laws of physics make it impossible for the ball to land in. If someone tries to get a point that way and then gets snippy about it when you think that they can't be serious is plenty of reason not to play them again.

Besides any chance I get to play less mixed doubles is an added bonus.

JavierLW
05-04-2009, 10:32 AM
Nobody is saying that we are right and you are wrong. It is just what some people would do (as per the question). What Jolly said was for Jolly. Jolly never said that if anyone else did not do that he will think they are a bad human being. It just meant that Jolly would feel nice to do that.

secondly, from the tone of your post, if I do that against you, I will not even expect you to understand and concede the point. No, that does not make you a bad person, but there are very different personalities on tennis courts and after some tennis you can predict their responses to such points.

If someone throws in the phrase:

"I would like to think Im a better person than that....."

That generally means they think they are a better person because they are not doing something.

(it's a somewhat meaningless comment designed to just pat themselves on the back)

That's what makes it different from just saying "I wouldnt call it....".

And to be perfectly honest I dont always call it either. Sometimes I dont because if I know the person is going to create a huge fuss and cry about it I will let it go because the drama is not good for the game. It's only one point.

But that's another good reason not to catch the ball in the first place as well. When in Rome.....

JavierLW
05-04-2009, 10:42 AM
Yes it is. I would only catch a ball that was WAY out and only if I'm already standing outside the court behind the baseline, which, by the laws of physics make it impossible for the ball to land in. If someone tries to get a point that way and then gets snippy about it when you think that they can't be serious is plenty of reason not to play them again.

Besides any chance I get to play less mixed doubles is an added bonus.

They are not "trying" to win the point, they did win the point.

You dont always win point by doing something, that's just tennis, sometimes your opponents bail you out.....

And it was going to land out, but it didnt. (you kept it from going out) What luck!!!

That's just a different view point. People who play by the rules avoid touching the ball because they know they lose the point if it touches them. There isnt any reason to catch it. (unless maybe it's extra ordinary circumstances where the ball was obviously going to get lost or would of ended up under the fence or somewhere far away, but not to just save a few seconds of walking to go get it)

Again YOU ARE the one who touched it. You cant totally blame the other team for that since you do have control over yourself.

Sounds like you have some other reasons as well for not playing mixed so that makes more sense. :-) (not that there is anything wrong with mixed, but whether someone called you out on catching a ball seemed like a weak excuse. :-) )

randomname
05-04-2009, 10:57 AM
The rare person I find who cant help themselves always seems to be the person who sets the unpleasant tone for the match.


its funny that you say that, because most everyone I know HATE playing with sticklers for the rules. Intent matters to most people, if they're obviously only trying to help and you know that you didnt earn the point, it DOES make you a worse person for taking it from them. Thats not any different from reporting someone else for jaywalking to the police, sure its the law, but it doesnt meant your not a doucebag for doing it.

Winners or Errors
05-04-2009, 11:01 AM
Had it happen to me in a high school doubles match long ago. Lost the point because the jerks on the other side of the net took it, but my partner and I got riled up and crushed them the rest of the match. It had been tight until that point. Bad idea for them to take that point.

There's the letter of the rules and the spirit of the rules. I'm always in favor of the latter ruling over the former.

woodrow1029
05-04-2009, 11:06 AM
Had it happen to me in a high school doubles match long ago. Lost the point because the jerks on the other side of the net took it, but my partner and I got riled up and crushed them the rest of the match. It had been tight until that point. Bad idea for them to take that point.

There's the letter of the rules and the spirit of the rules. I'm always in favor of the latter ruling over the former.
Ok. So, you wouldn't call it. No way does that give you the right to call someone a jerk because they called you on violating a rule.

Winners or Errors
05-04-2009, 11:09 AM
The funny thing is most people I play will not try to touch the ball, voluntary or otherwise. They know they lose the point if it touches them so they try to avoid it. (unless there is obvious circumstances that require them to catch it, like a hole in the fence with a cliff behind it and man-eating tigers, etc....)

There's a vast difference between not being able to get out of the way and casually hitting a ball aside that everyone on the court knows to be out. Often in doubles, I hit the ball very hard at the net man, because even if my ball's headed for the back fence, there's a 75% chance he will react and try to hit it. I'm sure others do this, as it's a very useful tactic. The same cannot be said of, for example, hitting the non-returning partner with your serve.

Winners or Errors
05-04-2009, 11:11 AM
Ok. So, you wouldn't call it. No way does that give you the right to call someone a jerk because they called you on violating a rule.

Guy was a jerk. Spirit v. letter. I happen to think that people who emphasize the letter over the spirit of the law are jerks. It's not a question of whether I have the "right" to do so, which I do as it's my own darned opinion, and if you think I shouldn't that's certainly your prerogative.

onehandbh
05-04-2009, 11:12 AM
Hypothetical questions for everyone. In a tournament
would you take the point in any of the following situations?

1) You hit a ground stroke that is obviously going out.
your opponent is standing BEHIND the baseline and is unable to get out of the way and the ball grazes their clothing.

2) same situation as #1 but this time your opponent is standing just inside the baseline.

3) same as #1 except your opponent is now further inside the baseline near the service line.

4) same as #1 except your opponent is at the net.

5) you hit an overhead going way out. Your opponent is standing way outside the doubles sideline and gets tagged.

spiderman123
05-04-2009, 11:17 AM
Ok. So, you wouldn't call it. No way does that give you the right to call someone a jerk because they called you on violating a rule.

Another case: You are in a tournament and are getting blown away. Opponent is serving 6-0 5-0 40-0, and twists his ankle. Needs medical attention. Allowed timeout is 8 min, takes 8 min 10 seconds to come back. Tournament rules say if you exceed medical timout you concede the match.

Do you take the win?

woodrow1029
05-04-2009, 11:19 AM
Guy was a jerk. Spirit v. letter. I happen to think that people who emphasize the letter over the spirit of the law are jerks. It's not a question of whether I have the "right" to do so, which I do as it's my own darned opinion, and if you think I shouldn't that's certainly your prerogative.
So if you were playing in a match with an umpire, and the umpire called "touch," would you concede the point?

woodrow1029
05-04-2009, 11:20 AM
Another case: You are in a tournament and are getting blown away. Opponent is serving 6-0 5-0 40-0, and twists his ankle. Needs medical attention. Allowed timeout is 8 min, takes 8 min 10 seconds to come back. Tournament rules say if you exceed medical timout you concede the match.

Do you take the win?
Most importantly, where are you playing where those are the rules?

raiden031
05-04-2009, 11:23 AM
I don't see how you can be a stickler for the rules and be a good sportsman at the same time. I liken it to strictly following the law, yet completely doing away with common courtesy. You can be walking into a building and let the door close on an 80 year old woman behind you and then claim you are not a jerk because what you did is not illegal.

In tennis, when someone is stopping a ball that is clearly without a shadow of a doubt going to sail long, then you are knowingly enforcing this rule, knowing that it will bother your opponent. Purposely using the rules in your favor to intentionally annoy your opponent and cause tension for your own advantage is not my idea of good sportsmanship. Why would you want a point that you should've lost anyways? A good rule of thumb should be that if enforcing a rule is going to **** off 90% of opponents, then maybe there's a reason nobody enforces the rule. Its one of those un-written rules. Now with that being said, I would NEVER touch a ball that is sailing long because I don't want to put myself in this situation and give someone the pleasure of enforcing the rule on me.

I think its also more sportsman-like not to accept every generous offer of your opponents when they miss something and give you the benefit of the doubt. For example, there have been times where we would play out a point and then I hit a shot that is clearly sailing long, and then a rogue ball rolls on the court before mine lands. I know the point is over so I don't call a let, but my opponent is a little less aware and asks if I wanted a let for that. I would say NO because I know I was losing the point no matter what.

spiderman123
05-04-2009, 11:25 AM
Most importantly, where are you playing where those are the rules?

Those are the rules and you are playing a tournament where players abused medical timeout for six years or whatever.

Will you take the win?

woodrow1029
05-04-2009, 11:28 AM
Those are the rules and you are playing a tournament where players abused medical timeout for six years or whatever.

Will you take the win?
Those are not the rules, plus add in that if it were an ankle problem, the player's shoe would be off. Putting your shoes back on is not considered part of the medical time out, and would take more than 10 seconds, therefore, the player would not be over the time.

spiderman123
05-04-2009, 11:29 AM
So if you were playing in a match with an umpire, and the umpire called "touch," would you concede the point?

Firstly, there is no question of conceding in this scenario. The umpire does not have a choice.

Secondly, the question is not if you concede the point or not if you touch it.

The question is will you claim the point if your opponent touches it. In this case, you have a choice.

spiderman123
05-04-2009, 11:32 AM
Those are not the rules, plus add in that if it were an ankle problem, the player's shoe would be off. Putting your shoes back on is not considered part of the medical time out, and would take more than 10 seconds, therefore, the player would not be over the time.

*8 min 10 seconds*, we are talking serious ankle roll and the opponent is coming back hoping for an ace or return error.

My question, the one you are not ready to answer is, in a world where that was the rule (in place because the medical time out was seriously abused a lot), will you take the win?

Cindysphinx
05-04-2009, 11:37 AM
Hypothetical questions for everyone. In a tournament
would you take the point in any of the following situations?

1) You hit a ground stroke that is obviously going out.
your opponent is standing BEHIND the baseline and is unable to get out of the way and the ball grazes their clothing.

2) same situation as #1 but this time your opponent is standing just inside the baseline.

3) same as #1 except your opponent is now further inside the baseline near the service line.

4) same as #1 except your opponent is at the net.

5) you hit an overhead going way out. Your opponent is standing way outside the doubles sideline and gets tagged.

I think a sensible way to handle these things is to ask yourself *why* the person was hit by the ball. If they let themselves be hit (or caught the ball) on purpose for a good reason, of course you let it slide. If they are simply ignorant of the rules because they can't be bothered to learn the rules of the sport they are playing or their getting hit was a result of their own positioning choices, then I would take the point.

Here's an example. Say my ball hits the opponent (or she catches it). She was in the process of backpedaling to avoid the ball, but she saw another ball on the court and stopped so she wouldn't risk stepping on it. I wouldn't take the point no matter where she was standing on the court. Why? Because she had a good reason for letting the ball hit her or catching it.

I was playing a match a few weeks ago and was in the ad court. This lady hit a wild shot with a ton of sidespin and reasonable pace. I started running toward the curtain and the ball seemed like it was chasing me. I finally kind of ducked down as low as I could, and it almost hit me. It was like a heat-seeking tennis ball. Had it hit me, I would have awarded the opponent the point because it is my job to get out of the way of the ball.

Had I instead caught this errant shot to avoid having it an ongoing point on the next court, I would definitely think less of my opponents for taking the point. I would not want them executed. I would just think less of them. I would consider it Bush League.

woodrow1029
05-04-2009, 11:37 AM
*8 min 10 seconds*, we are talking serious ankle roll and the opponent is coming back hoping for an ace or return error.

My question, the one you are not ready to answer is, in a world where that was the rule (in place because the medical time out was seriously abused a lot), will you take the win?
Assuming this is a USTA match, if the trainer had done his evaluation, treated the injury, and at 3 minutes when the official calls time, the player has 30 seconds to play. If the trainer is still treating at 30 seconds, or the player is stalling trying to buy more time, and the official gives a code violation, delay of game, point penalty, then I would take the point. 30 seconds later, code violation, delay of game, game penalty. I would take the game. 30 seconds later, code violation, delay of game default, the match is over.

OrangePower
05-04-2009, 11:51 AM
Hypothetical questions for everyone. In a tournament
would you take the point in any of the following situations?

1) You hit a ground stroke that is obviously going out.
your opponent is standing BEHIND the baseline and is unable to get out of the way and the ball grazes their clothing.

2) same situation as #1 but this time your opponent is standing just inside the baseline.

3) same as #1 except your opponent is now further inside the baseline near the service line.

4) same as #1 except your opponent is at the net.

5) you hit an overhead going way out. Your opponent is standing way outside the doubles sideline and gets tagged.

I would take the point in all of the above. And I would feel that I 'deserved' the point, in the same way that you 'deserve' the point when your opponent makes an unforced error or a double fault. Why? Because in these examples the opponent made an attempt to get out of the way, and could not. Court positioning is part of the game, they are responsible for their court positioning, and if they are positioned such that they can't get out of the way despite trying, then they are beaten and they lose the point.

On the other hand...

I would NOT take the point if the ball is clearly heading out, and my opponent moves to prevent it from going out (by catching it or blocking it with the racket). Why? Because in this case they were not beaten by their court positioning, and their touching of the ball is not related to the play.

But if it's a tournament or league match I might ask them nicely not to do it again, in order to avoid future potential confusion (there might be times when it's not obvious if they were actually trying to get out of the way and couldn't, or whether they were deliberately stopping the ball).

EDIT: I see that Cindy just posted a similar posting. So at least someone else here agrees with me :-)

kylebarendrick
05-04-2009, 01:01 PM
One benefit of playing by the rules is that you don't have to make qualitative judgements about the intent of the other player. I have no problem giving someone the benefit of the doubt when they knock down a ball that has sailed way long. I have a big problem with people that take offense when someone tries to enforce the rules.

woodrow1029
05-04-2009, 01:25 PM
One benefit of playing by the rules is that you don't have to make qualitative judgements about the intent of the other player. I have no problem giving someone the benefit of the doubt when they knock down a ball that has sailed way long. I have a big problem with people that take offense when someone tries to enforce the rules.
Now, that I agree with!

jefferson
05-04-2009, 02:33 PM
Friendly/ social tennis I generally would not take the point.

Competitive tennis, whether high school, college or usta you bet ya, I'm taking the point. Actually they are giving me a point that I didn't earn because of a mental breakdown. It is very clear in the rule book. The ball needs to land out of bounds.

The rules are in place for a reason... I also would take a double fault on match point to win a match too. Should I give him a third chance because I want to "EARN" the win?

onehandbh
05-04-2009, 02:40 PM
A few more hypothetical situations...

6) Your opponent runs after your dropshot and hits a spinny
dropshot that arcs high, lands in your court and spins back to his side of the court. you sprint after the ball and jump over the net in an attempt to reach the ball. The opponent seeing you flying over the net, covers in fear and balls up on the ground at the net. Just before you hit the ball your feet clip the balled up opponent and you fall, failing to hit the ball.

7) Your opponent hits the same spinny dropshot in #6 above. This time you don't trip on him and instead bound off his back into the air and then smash the ball and tag him.

8) Your opponent hits the same spinny dropshot in #6 above and this time instead of cowering in fear he braces for the impact and the two of you collide. You fail to hit the ball.

OrangePower
05-04-2009, 03:30 PM
A few more hypothetical situations...

6) Your opponent runs after your dropshot and hits a spinny
dropshot that arcs high, lands in your court and spins back to his side of the court. you sprint after the ball and jump over the net in an attempt to reach the ball. The opponent seeing you flying over the net, covers in fear and balls up on the ground at the net. Just before you hit the ball your feet clip the balled up opponent and you fall, failing to hit the ball.

7) Your opponent hits the same spinny dropshot in #6 above. This time you don't trip on him and instead bound off his back into the air and then smash the ball and tag him.

8) Your opponent hits the same spinny dropshot in #6 above and this time instead of cowering in fear he braces for the impact and the two of you collide. You fail to hit the ball.

Um. I think you left out the part where the giant eagle grabs you in its talons and lifts you up right before you land on your opponent...

Where exactly are you going with this?

Blask
05-04-2009, 03:54 PM
I'm going back to my original post. A few people on here have said that after the first offense you give the person a warning and then after that you take the point.

How does that make any sense? I don't see how a warning solves anything. If it's clearly out then you should never want the point, regardless of the rules. If you are going to follow the rules then you might as well do it the first time, not after a warning.

10sfreak
05-04-2009, 03:57 PM
I agree with Cindy, Winners or Errors, and OrangeOne's posts.

randomname
05-04-2009, 04:42 PM
I'm going back to my original post. A few people on here have said that after the first offense you give the person a warning and then after that you take the point.

How does that make any sense? I don't see how a warning solves anything. If it's clearly out then you should never want the point, regardless of the rules. If you are going to follow the rules then you might as well do it the first time, not after a warning.


I think that really is the most sensible solution though, because this thread has obviously shown that there are people who think they are morally justified taking a point like that, and clearly they arnt going to be changing their minds. So at the very least they can just let one go and let the opponent know that it bothers them. Taking the point outright when your opponent clearly only has the best intentions is just being a ****** bag

Cindysphinx
05-04-2009, 05:59 PM
Um. I think you left out the part where the giant eagle grabs you in its talons and lifts you up right before you land on your opponent...

Where exactly are you going with this?

I dunno, but I want to buy the screenplay! :)

pabletion
05-05-2009, 12:56 AM
In an official match, I take the point. Rules are rules and i wouldnt like my opponent to think hes above the rules just because he didnt feel like gettin outta the way

Lefty78
05-06-2009, 03:35 AM
Not even on Centre Court at Wimbledon.

I would like to think I was a better person than that.

J

I would like to think that I was a smarter person than to do that on Centre Court at Wimbledon.

Lefty78
05-06-2009, 03:45 AM
Personally, I think hitting a ball out of the air when it is clearly going out can be insulting and disrespectful to the server/opponent.

JavierLW
05-06-2009, 07:35 AM
Taking the point outright when your opponent clearly only has the best intentions is just being a ****** bag

Whether needing to catch a ball in midair before it lands is done in best intentions is debatable to some.

If it's clear that if they had not done it the ball might be lost or have went somewhere very far away then I may agree with you.

But if it's just because you dont want to walk 3 or 4 steps to get it, then that's just being lazy, and there are no good intentions involved with that.

It's also rude to some like Lefty78 said. They just hit the ball out way out and being able to catch it in midair is sort of rubbing it in to some. (because it has to be REALLY far out for you to be able to catch it when it's "clearly going out")

Like I keep saying though this it may depend on who you play with.

If most people around you dont catch it, then you shouldnt catch the ball, you stick out like a sore thumb then and everyone notices you've done it which is what causes these uncomfortable situations. (not the person enforcing the rules)

randomname
05-06-2009, 09:43 AM
Well, I would never be insulted by someone doing it, but I do understand yall being annoyed by it if thats how you see it. Although i still stand by my claim that you should never take the point outright the first time they do it, just because the people who could care less FAR outnumber the people who would actually take the point, and even if you dont think its a big deal, I can garuntee you that anyone you do that to will think much less of you after the match.

drakulie
05-06-2009, 10:08 AM
If you were the server, would you call that game since the returner didn't let the ball bounce?

Yup. Rules are rules.

Not even on Centre Court at Wimbledon.

I would like to think I was a better person than that.

J

By doing so, you are putting yourself "above the game".

The game has rules. People need to learn them, and learn how to play with them.

drakulie
05-06-2009, 10:13 AM
Well, I would never be insulted by someone doing it, but I do understand yall being annoyed by it if thats how you see it. Although i still stand by my claim that you should never take the point outright the first time they do it, just because the people who could care less FAR outnumber the people who would actually take the point, and even if you dont think its a big deal, I can garuntee you that anyone you do that to will think much less of you after the match.


Hmmm.

So how about someone serving from the service line?? Would you tell them they are not allowed to serve from there??

How about someone saying they won the game, even though they double faulted 4 straight times to start the match?

How about someone saying they won the set, even though the score is 1-0?

How about someone who hits a shot out 5 feet beyond the basline and claims that it is in, because >>>> "who really cares what the rules say'?????

Or takes 5 serves before they get the serve in, even though each serve was a fault????


Rules are rules. Either you learn to play by them, or go invent your own game where you make up the rules as you go along.

RoddickAce
05-06-2009, 10:37 AM
I partly agree with jolly and with the OP. I would probably not take the point, but a rule is a rule. Some people would take the point. I would tell my opponent I will not penalize him but I would warn him that it is against the rules and some future opponent may do what I did not.

I agree with you, but for example, if I hit a passing shot that was going way out, but the guy at net touched the ball with his racquet frame, I'd take the point. Although the ball wasn't going way out, I think everyone remembers the Blake-Gonzales incident during the olympics. Just because it's a serve and not in the middle of a point doesn't mean the rule is not in effect.

OrangePower
05-06-2009, 10:43 AM
Hmmm.

So how about someone serving from the service line?? Would you tell them they are not allowed to serve from there??

How about someone saying they won the game, even though they double faulted 4 straight times to start the match?

How about someone saying they won the set, even though the score is 1-0?

How about someone who hits a shot out 5 feet beyond the basline and claims that it is in, because >>>> "who really cares what the rules say'?????

Or takes 5 serves before they get the serve in, even though each serve was a fault????


Rules are rules. Either you learn to play by them, or go invent your own game where you make up the rules as you go along.

So...

Do you also time your opponents in between points, and give them a warning followed by claiming points if they take too long?

Rules are rules, and for the most part I agree with you that they should be followed. But in reality I think most of us recognize that there are cases where we go by the spirit of the rules rather than by the letter.

Yes, this makes some things subjective rather than purely objective. But some subjectivity can't be avoided anyway (for example, line calls are somewhat subjective despite the best intentions).

woodrow1029
05-06-2009, 10:46 AM
So...

Do you also time your opponents in between points, and give them a warning followed by claiming points if they take too long?

Rules are rules, and for the most part I agree with you that they should be followed. But in reality I think most of us recognize that there are cases where we go by the spirit of the rules rather than by the letter.

Yes, this makes some things subjective rather than purely objective. But some subjectivity can't be avoided anyway (for example, line calls are somewhat subjective despite the best intentions).
The difference is in an unofficiated match, you can't call a time violation or code violation.

Technically, you can't call a touch against your opponent either. If you ask them if they caught the ball and they say no, then it's bad luck. But if they admit they caught the ball, and you claim the point, there's nothing wrong with it. You are more than welcome to not claim the point, however it doesn't make it wrong to claim a point that you earned.

spiderman123
05-06-2009, 10:52 AM
Hmmm.

So how about someone serving from the service line?? Would you tell them they are not allowed to serve from there??

How about someone saying they won the game, even though they double faulted 4 straight times to start the match?

How about someone saying they won the set, even though the score is 1-0?

How about someone who hits a shot out 5 feet beyond the basline and claims that it is in, because >>>> "who really cares what the rules say'?????

Or takes 5 serves before they get the serve in, even though each serve was a fault????


Rules are rules. Either you learn to play by them, or go invent your own game where you make up the rules as you go along.

This conversation is similar to:

A cop asks the other cop if he would give a warning or a ticket to a driver who stopped his car in the middle of a country road (with no vehicle around for miles) for a few seconds for <insert reason that you find acceptable>

Othe cop replies, "Do you give a warning to a cold-blooded killer?"

OrangePower
05-06-2009, 10:53 AM
The difference is in an unofficiated match, you can't call a time violation or code violation.

Technically, you can't call a touch against your opponent either. If you ask them if they caught the ball and they say no, then it's bad luck. But if they admit they caught the ball, and you claim the point, there's nothing wrong with it. You are more than welcome to not claim the point, however it doesn't make it wrong to claim a point that you earned.

I agree - nothing wrong with claiming the point. And depending on the circumstances, I might do it.

I just don't like the argument where extreme examples are offered along with the suggestion that unless the rules are followed to the letter 100% of the time, then we aren't playing tennis.

Cindysphinx
05-06-2009, 11:05 AM
Hmmm.
Rules are rules. Either you learn to play by them, or go invent your own game where you make up the rules as you go along.

I'll quote Drakulie because his statement is a nice and tidy bundle, not to pick on him especially.

Allow me to bring gender into this.

Many times on this board, folks have claimed that women are rules sticklers. This trait, some have said, is a reason that mixed doubles is less appealing.

Yet a significant number of people (and some of them are *men*!) here are claiming they would take the point.

Well, OK. Fine. But I think we all know deep down that "rules are rules," but we also know we won't have any friends and may lose others' respect if we enforce every niggling little rule. We know we are there to play tennis consistent with the spirit of the game, not enforce rules for the sake of it.

So yeah, I think many of us would look the other way on a lot of things for the sake of keeping the peace, cutting someone a break, recognizing their good intentions, etc.

Examples: A default in our league occurs when an opponent is 10 minutes late. Me, I give them a few extra minutes, especially if their captain is in cell phone contact.

An injury time-out is 5 minutes in our league. My partner twisted his ankle, and the opponents let him have extra time to decide if he could continue. We finished the match.

If an opponent stopped playing because they thought my "Bounce!" call was an "Out!" call, I would of course replay the point. If someone on a neighboring court distracted my opponent as she was hitting with a loud "Watch that ball!!", I would play a let. If someone's talking while I was hitting was a hindrance, I would probably try to play the shot and then warn them later rather than stopping play and claiming the point the first time it happened.

YMMV, of course. But I had better not hear any more complaints about how women are such sticklers about rules! :)

drakulie
05-06-2009, 11:06 AM
So...

Do you also time your opponents in between points, and give them a warning followed by claiming points if they take too long?

Actually, I have. I have warned them when they are taking too long, and on my serve, if they aren't ready they are ***** out of luck.

I will never accept that people either don't want to learn the rules, or don't want to play by them.

If you're playing a friendly match with someone, and they don't know the rules>>> teach them. That simple.

I once, in a league match, played someone who was blatantly foot faulting. He was know to do this, so I was looking for it. Before the match started, I told him I would be calling foot faults. He ignored it, and was stepping into the court a few feet. I let the first game slide. When I went to serve, I walked right up to the net, and hit my first serve from there.

Of course, he complained. I said, if you are going to foot fault, then so am I. He then went on to say I was being ridiculous, which I replied,,,,,"So, you are going to be the judge of how many feet we are allowed to serve from inside the basline??"

He got the point.

And, my point is, when rules are ignored, these situations happen.

To avoid it, just play within the rules. Period.

drakulie
05-06-2009, 11:12 AM
I agree - nothing wrong with claiming the point. And depending on the circumstances, I might do it.

I just don't like the argument where extreme examples are offered along with the suggestion that unless the rules are followed to the letter 100% of the time, then we aren't playing tennis.

Sorry, but you have this very backward.

The "extreme" is>>> breaking the rule. You want to re-define it by establishing by how much one could break before it is <<in your mind>>> "extreme".

Remember, what **YOU** might consider extreme ( a person serving two feet inside the baseline), might not be "extreme" for the person doing it.

sureshs
05-06-2009, 11:23 AM
Actually, I have. I have warned them when they are taking too long, and on my serve, if they aren't ready they are ***** out of luck.

I will never accept that people either don't want to learn the rules, or don't want to play by them.

If you're playing a friendly match with someone, and they don't know the rules>>> teach them. That simple.

I once, in a league match, played someone who was blatantly foot faulting. He was know to do this, so I was looking for it. Before the match started, I told him I would be calling foot faults. He ignored it, and was stepping into the court a few feet. I let the first game slide. When I went to serve, I walked right up to the net, and hit my first serve from there.

Of course, he complained. I said, if you are going to foot fault, then so am I. He then went on to say I was being ridiculous, which I replied,,,,,"So, you are going to be the judge of how many feet we are allowed to serve from inside the basline??"

He got the point.

And, my point is, when rules are ignored, these situations happen.

To avoid it, just play within the rules. Period.

I think half or more club players footfault. The obvious ones are those who edge their feet into the baseline as they start their serve. But there are others who step into the court when the ball is in the air but hasn't been hit yet.

woodrow1029
05-06-2009, 11:35 AM
I'll quote Drakulie because his statement is a nice and tidy bundle, not to pick on him especially.

Allow me to bring gender into this.

Many times on this board, folks have claimed that women are rules sticklers. This trait, some have said, is a reason that mixed doubles is less appealing.

Yet a significant number of people (and some of them are *men*!) here are claiming they would take the point.

Well, OK. Fine. But I think we all know deep down that "rules are rules," but we also know we won't have any friends and may lose others' respect if we enforce every niggling little rule. We know we are there to play tennis consistent with the spirit of the game, not enforce rules for the sake of it.

So yeah, I think many of us would look the other way on a lot of things for the sake of keeping the peace, cutting someone a break, recognizing their good intentions, etc.

Examples: A default in our league occurs when an opponent is 10 minutes late. Me, I give them a few extra minutes, especially if their captain is in cell phone contact.

An injury time-out is 5 minutes in our league. My partner twisted his ankle, and the opponents let him have extra time to decide if he could continue. We finished the match.

If an opponent stopped playing because they thought my "Bounce!" call was an "Out!" call, I would of course replay the point. If someone on a neighboring court distracted my opponent as she was hitting with a loud "Watch that ball!!", I would play a let. If someone's talking while I was hitting was a hindrance, I would probably try to play the shot and then warn them later rather than stopping play and claiming the point the first time it happened.

YMMV, of course. But I had better not hear any more complaints about how women are such sticklers about rules! :)
The point that I am making, and I'm pretty sure that Javier and Drakulie are saying the same, is that if someone wants to make the call and claim the point, there is nothing wrong with it. That is why the rule is there, so that it can be called and it is justified. There is also no problem with someone who lets it slide and doesn't call it or claim the point.

The problem is in the people who think that they are better people because they wouldn't call it. The other problem is that people lose respect for someone that calls it.

r2473
05-06-2009, 11:38 AM
The rules are clear. I can't imagine anyone would think otherwise.

My position is:

1) If I touch a ball that is clearly going out (to save time or whatever), I would not be surprised if my opponent claimed the point. The rules are clear. If this happened, I would accept that my opponent enforces the letter of the rules and not do this again.

2) If my opponent touches a ball that is clearly going out (to save time or whatever) I would never take the point. I think the "spirit" of the rules and the spirit of competitive play would make me embarrassed to take the point.

OrangePower
05-06-2009, 11:45 AM
The point that I am making, and I'm pretty sure that Javier and Drakulie are saying the same, is that if someone wants to make the call and claim the point, there is nothing wrong with it. That is why the rule is there, so that it can be called and it is justified. There is also no problem with someone who lets it slide and doesn't call it or claim the point.

The problem is in the people who think that they are better people because they wouldn't call it. The other problem is that people lose respect for someone that calls it.

Well, that's the point you and Javier are making, and this I agree with. Drak is taking it one step further and takes offense with anyone who might let it slide. This I disagree with.

(Drak, nothing personal - we can agree to disagree)

OrangePower
05-06-2009, 11:54 AM
The rules are clear. I can't imagine anyone would think otherwise.

My position is:

1) If I touch a ball that is clearly going out (to save time or whatever), I would not be surprised if my opponent claimed the point. The rules are clear. If this happened, I would accept that my opponent enforces the letter of the rules and not do this again.

2) If my opponent touches a ball that is clearly going out (to save time or whatever) I would never take the point. I think the "spirit" of the rules and the spirit of competitive play would make me embarrassed to take the point.

+1 on this. My sentiment exactly. Only thing I would add is that if my opponent touched the ball not to save time, but because he/she tried to get out of the way and could not, then I would take the point.

PushyPushster
05-06-2009, 11:55 AM
Rules are rules. Either you learn to play by them, or go invent your own game where you make up the rules as you go along.

Or you could just use some common sense and not take the point for the shot you hit 15ft outside the court, even though The Rules(tm) allow for such.

Do you also time your opponents in between points, and give them a warning followed by claiming points if they take too long?

Actually, I have. I have warned them when they are taking too long, and on my serve, if they aren't ready they are ***** out of luck.

Ahh. This explains a lot. Anyhow, I'm not playing for money and the ill-will involved with such actions isn't worth the aggravation. Take an extra 15 seconds to catch your breath so you don't die of sunstroke. It's on me, buddy. I'm 'Above The Game' so it's all cool.

spiderman123
05-06-2009, 11:59 AM
peace, cutting someone a break, recognizing their good intentions, etc.

Examples: A default in our league occurs when an opponent is 10 minutes late. Me, I give them a few extra minutes

Who are you and how did you hack into Cindy's account?

[Remembering real Cindy's arguments about how she takes extra efforts to be on time and the other player must pay a penalty for not respecting her efforts. For the record, Cindy v2.0 is better. :) ]

randomname
05-06-2009, 12:14 PM
Actually, I have. I have warned them when they are taking too long, and on my serve, if they aren't ready they are ***** out of luck.

I will never accept that people either don't want to learn the rules, or don't want to play by them.

If you're playing a friendly match with someone, and they don't know the rules>>> teach them. That simple.

I once, in a league match, played someone who was blatantly foot faulting. He was know to do this, so I was looking for it. Before the match started, I told him I would be calling foot faults. He ignored it, and was stepping into the court a few feet. I let the first game slide. When I went to serve, I walked right up to the net, and hit my first serve from there.

Of course, he complained. I said, if you are going to foot fault, then so am I. He then went on to say I was being ridiculous, which I replied,,,,,"So, you are going to be the judge of how many feet we are allowed to serve from inside the basline??"

He got the point.

And, my point is, when rules are ignored, these situations happen.

To avoid it, just play within the rules. Period.


Thats a god-awful analogy. Clearly you have no idea what the phrase "spirit of the rules" means. Your just looking for nit picky ways to win points. And yes, people do think less of you for that. In your example your opponent was doing something that DID actually make a difference and was most definately violating the spirit of the rules, and all you were doing was making a point.

randomname
05-06-2009, 12:30 PM
I guess my real question is, why are people so opposed to using common sense?

JavierLW
05-06-2009, 01:04 PM
Thats a god-awful analogy. Clearly you have no idea what the phrase "spirit of the rules" means. Your just looking for nit picky ways to win points. And yes, people do think less of you for that. In your example your opponent was doing something that DID actually make a difference and was most definately violating the spirit of the rules, and all you were doing was making a point.

"Spirit of the rules"? I dont think that's a phrase used to describe how one can make up their own rules....

And if it is, why would we care about that?

Stop thinking that everyone should think like you.

This is the problem with all of these sorts of arguments, you really have no good reason for WHY someone should even touch the ball so you are reduced to lame excuses ("reasonable reason why they would do it"), and the use of nonsense phrases such as "spirit of the rules" or the generic idea of "common sense")

If people playing drak play by the rules they wont have a problem with him Im sure, they certainly wouldnt have a problem with me.

You DONT have to catch the ball, and if you do, you're the one who obviously feels you should be winning a point you dont earn, Im not the one "taking a point that I didnt earn".

If my ball is sailing out YOU have a choice of letting it go, swinging at it (which anyone would say is my point if you dont hit it back in my court), or playing outfielder and catching it. If YOU catch it, then that's you're problem, not mine, I may choose to let it go (if I know that you are going to whine about it and cause drama) but it's just as annoying to me that you're stealing a point as you might think it is if I call you out on it.

(only if we both go to the court of tennis law, the rules are on my side, that's why we have rules and that's why they try not to be amigious because otherwise we'd just sit out there shouting at each other all day long and we'd never get anywhere)

JavierLW
05-06-2009, 01:12 PM
I guess my real question is, why are people so opposed to using common sense?

Common sense about what?

We're playing a tennis match, not stealing your lunch money or getting you in trouble with law over some petty crime.

It's just tennis....

If YOU accidently (or out of habit) catch the ball, just concede the point and let it go and move on. I shouldnt even have to say anything....

sureshs
05-06-2009, 01:16 PM
Footfaulting is different. You are calling from the opposite end of the court and sometimes (jn the second situation I mentioned previously) judging if the ball was hit before or after the foot touched the court. You have to expect some resistance with this kind of call.

Cindysphinx
05-06-2009, 01:48 PM
Who are you and how did you hack into Cindy's account?

[Remembering real Cindy's arguments about how she takes extra efforts to be on time and the other player must pay a penalty for not respecting her efforts. For the record, Cindy v2.0 is better. :) ]

Hey, I didn't say I wouldn't take a default! I am saying I am not going to call it at 10:01 past start time. Nor am I going to call it if the captain is on the phone with the player and she is sprinting in from the lobby or parking her car. That's close enough.

I am a bit more relaxed about it now that our league has resumed 2-hour matches rather than 90-minutes. However I would most definitely claim the penalties for tardiness: Toss and one game for 0-5 minutes late, toss plus 2 games for 5-10 minutes late.

And we'll use whatever timepiece to judge lateness that is least likely to start an argument. The last time I took a time penalty, the cell phones showed a different time (with a higher penalty) than the facility clock. Captains had agreed to use cell phones. Eh, whatever. I cut her a break and used the facility clock so it was only toss plus 1 game.

The other thing I might do in the future with Severe Tardiness (say, 15+ minutes) is that I would agree with opposing captain that if the match could be played to completion, then we wouldn't take the default and whatever result happened would be the result. If the match timed out, then we would take the default. It is not within the league's rules, but I think it would be a humane way to handle tardiness.

But I would get it in writing! :)

woodrow1029
05-06-2009, 02:06 PM
Hey, I didn't say I wouldn't take a default! I am saying I am not going to call it at 10:01 past start time. Nor am I going to call it if the captain is on the phone with the player and she is sprinting in from the lobby or parking her car. That's close enough.

I am a bit more relaxed about it now that our league has resumed 2-hour matches rather than 90-minutes. However I would most definitely claim the penalties for tardiness: Toss and one game for 0-5 minutes late, toss plus 2 games for 5-10 minutes late.

And we'll use whatever timepiece to judge lateness that is least likely to start an argument. The last time I took a time penalty, the cell phones showed a different time (with a higher penalty) than the facility clock. Captains had agreed to use cell phones. Eh, whatever. I cut her a break and used the facility clock so it was only toss plus 1 game.

The other thing I might do in the future with Severe Tardiness (say, 15+ minutes) is that I would agree with opposing captain that if the match could be played to completion, then we wouldn't take the default and whatever result happened would be the result. If the match timed out, then we would take the default. It is not within the league's rules, but I think it would be a humane way to handle tardiness.

But I would get it in writing! :)

I think that part is terrible.

Cindysphinx
05-06-2009, 02:44 PM
I think that part is terrible.

Why? If the other captain simply wants to give me the tardiness default and send her players home, she can refuse my offer. If she wants to have a chance to win the match, she can go with my proposal.

What I don't want is for my players to be on time, for the opponents to be significantly late thereby increasing the chance that the match will time out, and then for my players to lose because the match timed out. They are late, they can bear the risk of the tardiness. What's the problem?

drakulie
05-06-2009, 04:59 PM
Well, that's the point you and Javier are making, and this I agree with. Drak is taking it one step further and takes offense with anyone who might let it slide. This I disagree with.

(Drak, nothing personal - we can agree to disagree)

hey, no problem. I don't take offense. The OP asked a question, and I answered it. It's not my opinion, its a fact, backed up by rules. Now, if people want to play outside those rules, that is fine. However, keep in mind, one day that person that plays outside the rules is going to meet someone on the courts that plays within the rules. Or, will play in USTA league or tournaments where there are umps, roaming umps, and players who play by the rules. Better to get into the habit of learning and playing by rules, than to learn the hard way.

Peace.

Or you could just use some common sense and not take the point for the shot you hit 15ft outside the court, even though The Rules(tm) allow for such.

No, **YOU** and others who want to justify playing outside the rules could learn to play fair and square.

When two people play who play outside the rules, there is way too many instances that things go wrong. One might be playing withing "his rules", while the other is playing "within theirs".


This explains a lot. Anyhow, I'm not playing for money and the ill-will involved with such actions isn't worth the aggravation.


wow! so now it is "ill-will" to play within rules.

you must be one of those people who cheats their way thur school, life, would steal from your mom, and blame everyone else for being such a wad.

randomname
05-06-2009, 06:26 PM
"Spirit of the rules"? I dont think that's a phrase used to describe how one can make up their own rules....

And if it is, why would we care about that?

Stop thinking that everyone should think like you.

This is the problem with all of these sorts of arguments, you really have no good reason for WHY someone should even touch the ball so you are reduced to lame excuses ("reasonable reason why they would do it"), and the use of nonsense phrases such as "spirit of the rules" or the generic idea of "common sense")

If people playing drak play by the rules they wont have a problem with him Im sure, they certainly wouldnt have a problem with me.

You DONT have to catch the ball, and if you do, you're the one who obviously feels you should be winning a point you dont earn, Im not the one "taking a point that I didnt earn".

If my ball is sailing out YOU have a choice of letting it go, swinging at it (which anyone would say is my point if you dont hit it back in my court), or playing outfielder and catching it. If YOU catch it, then that's you're problem, not mine, I may choose to let it go (if I know that you are going to whine about it and cause drama) but it's just as annoying to me that you're stealing a point as you might think it is if I call you out on it.

(only if we both go to the court of tennis law, the rules are on my side, that's why we have rules and that's why they try not to be amigious because otherwise we'd just sit out there shouting at each other all day long and we'd never get anywhere)


Good lord your arrogance is overwhelming. Are you always sure to NEVER go a single mile over the speed limit? Do you condemn anyone who doesnt find a cross walk to cross the street? In Florida its illegal for an unmarried woman to parachute on Sunday, do you spend your sundays with a shotgun outside Floridian skydiving businesses making damn sure that any woman who comes in has a ring on her finger? If you said yes then your a liar. Yet if your so hell bent on following the rules of tennis, then why is THE ACTUAL LAW so much less important? hmmm, because its not practical to follow all of those laws? that sounds familiar...

randomname
05-06-2009, 06:30 PM
wow! so now it is "ill-will" to play within rules.

you must be one of those people who cheats their way thur school, life, would steal from your mom, and blame everyone else for being such a wad.

what hes saying is that people do judge you for being a rules stickler, you become "that guy" and people generally assume it says something about your character (read: not a good thing).

JavierLW
05-06-2009, 08:51 PM
what hes saying is that people do judge you for being a rules stickler, you become "that guy" and people generally assume it says something about your character (read: not a good thing).

That's what a very select few say about people like that, but it only gets to that point because they made up their own special rules.

But again, the reality is most people wouldnt touch the ball in the first place, and even among some of those they would just concede the point and it wouldnt even get to the point where the opponent has to say anything.

This is not a case of someone speeding a bit over the limit or any of your other goofy examples.

This is a case of this:

1) Player touched the ball, they didnt need to, but they decided to do it anyway.

2) Player doesnt concede the point as is written in the code.

3) Now when opponent has to say something, Player sticks his nose up in the air at him because apparently he has some special right to win a point that he just lost when he touched the ball.

You can spin it whatever way you want, but it's just that, it's you spinning it to look at it your way.

Apparently anyone trying to make a reasonable well thought out point to you is arrogant... (as opposed to just speaking in generalitys and so forth)

You should go rent this movie called "Idiocracy". http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Idiocracy

In it a person of absolute average intelligence ends up in the future due to some botched hibernation experiment.

In this future the population has become so stupid that when this guy trys to talk to them they dont understand him and he comes off as being some sort of arrogant ***** to them.

I think it's funny because you made the same analogy, apparently when someone puts some thought into what they are saying, they sound arrogant to people who only think in meaningless emotional generality's.

Thank you for that, I guess..... :-)

Steady Eddy
05-06-2009, 09:36 PM
You should go rent this movie called "Idiocracy". http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Idiocracy

Loved "Idiocracy"
Would I take the point? If there's prize money, I might. But if it's just for 'glory', nahh.

drakulie
05-07-2009, 05:35 AM
what hes saying is that people do judge you for being a rules stickler, you become "that guy" and people generally assume it says something about your character (read: not a good thing).


I would rather get a reputation for being "that guy" (who plays within the rules), than for being "that guy" who:

1. shows up late
2. foot faults
3. cheats on line calls
4. cheats on the score
5. takes too long between points
6. tries to distract you when serving


basically, I would rather be "me", than "that guy <1-6>".

Let's face it, how many threads are started where people complain about people who play withing the rules and are honest???

Truth is, most threads started are about "that guy" who cheats, and how to handle them.

Lastly, when you play in your league match or USTA do you tell the director, "I don't want to play with 'that guy' because he plays with-in the rules?"

Please.

Again, you people are trying very hard to justify cheating, and playing outside the rules of the game, and in a very weak attempt trying to make the honest player the villain.

JavierLW
05-07-2009, 06:00 AM
Loved "Idiocracy"
Would I take the point? If there's prize money, I might. But if it's just for 'glory', nahh.

You are not really "taking the point" though. If you have to "take the point" that means that they didnt give it to you (because by the Code that's their call, it's their choice whether to give up the point or take one that THEY didnt really earn....).

Im going to keep saying that from now on. It's the "ball catcher" that is causing these drama filled dilemma's, not the "rule stickler". They are doing that by catching a live ball in the first place and then by not simply conceding the point. And why? Because they want to use their own "common sense" version of the rules....

woodrow1029
05-07-2009, 07:56 AM
I love playing tennis with other umpires. These debates don't happen. Last night my wife and I were playing doubles with another couple. All 4 of us are officials. I tried an underhand slice serve to the deuce side (I'm lefty) and I completely shanked it and the wacky spin carried it right to the receiver's partners body. We all laughed, we won the point, and then went on to the next point.

PushyPushster
05-07-2009, 10:14 AM
No, **YOU** and others who want to justify playing outside the rules could learn to play fair and square.

If I want to decline a point that was obviously going long, then that's my decision. Personally, I'd feel ashamed to take a point because an opponent decided to catch a ball that was already 10ft outside the court. In my opinion it breeds ill-will and I'm playing tennis to have fun.

When two people play who play outside the rules, there is way too many instances that things go wrong.

I've never had any problems. You're the guy who is timing people in between points, monitoring foot faults, and serving from 1ft away from the net in order to teach your opponent a lesson. Sounds like you're having way more confrontations than I am.

you must be one of those people who cheats their way thur school, life, would steal from your mom, and blame everyone else for being such a wad.

Dude, you should relax a little before that angry throbbing vein in the middle of your forehead explodes.

drakulie
05-07-2009, 10:42 AM
If I want to decline a point that was obviously going long, then that's my decision.

OK. But it is also in the rules that if you touch a ball before it hits the ground, your opponent is well within the rules to claim the point.


Personally, I'd feel ashamed to take a point because an opponent decided to catch a ball that was already 10ft outside the court. In my opinion it breeds ill-will and I'm playing tennis to have fun.

If you're playing tennis to just have fun>>>> then don't keep score, and stop posting in the "Adult League & Tournament Talk" section of the boards.

yes, "league" & "tournament" , where rules are in effect.

The rest of your post is garbage.

PushyPushster
05-07-2009, 10:57 AM
If you're playing tennis to just have fun>>>> then don't keep score, and stop posting in the "Adult League & Tournament Talk" section of the boards.

Apparently, you think having fun and playing in a competitive league are mutually exclusive items. Perhaps if I was obsessed enough to carry a stop watch in order to time my opponents then you'd be right.

Anyhow, this is beating a dead horse. To answer the OP's question, I wouldn't take the point. The Rules do not back me up on that decision. Then again, I ride my bike without a helmet too. What can I say? I'm a rebel.

JavierLW
05-07-2009, 10:57 AM
Personally, I'd feel ashamed to take a point because an opponent decided to catch a ball that was already 10ft outside the court. In my opinion it breeds ill-will and I'm playing tennis to have fun.


You're kind of fun...

It's not fun because that person first of all caught the ball, and second of all they didnt concede the point.

If you did mention something, it's not your fault, it's theirs for creating that situation in the first place.

Stop using the word "Im playing for fun...". Everyone is playing for fun, if they were miserable out there, they wouldnt even bother playing tennis at all.

And the guy that's out there catching fly balls is robbing some other people of "fun" because they have "fun" playing the game by the rules. (just like we watch on TV or in our leagues, tournaments, etc.....

JavierLW
05-07-2009, 11:01 AM
Apparently, you think having fun and playing in a competitive league are mutually exclusive items. Perhaps if I was obsessed enough to carry a stop watch in order to time my opponents then you'd be right.

Anyhow, this is beating a dead horse. To answer the OP's question, I wouldn't take the point. The Rules do not back me up on that decision. Then again, I ride my bike without a helmet too. What can I say? I'm a rebel.

No, it's the people who think it's okay they should be able to touch the ball and wont concede the point, thus making their own "special" rules that think that having fun and playing in a league are mutually exclusive items.

If that wasnt true they wouldnt keep using the "this is just for fun", or "this is a friendly match" terms as if that's some justification for playing their way.

The rules dont say anything about you taking that point, it's not your point to take. If the other person touches the ball they are supposed to concede the point, it's their call.

It's only when they dont know the rules or want to make up their own that it puts you in the uncomfortable position of having to say something (or choosing not to).

woodrow1029
05-07-2009, 11:09 AM
I love playing tennis with other umpires. These debates don't happen. Last night my wife and I were playing doubles with another couple. All 4 of us are officials. I tried an underhand slice serve to the deuce side (I'm lefty) and I completely shanked it and the wacky spin carried it right to the receiver's partners body. We all laughed, we won the point, and then went on to the next point.
And to add to that, we were only playing "for fun." And nobody was hostile about it..

PushyPushster
05-07-2009, 12:02 PM
The rules dont say anything about you taking that point, it's not your point to take. If the other person touches the ball they are supposed to concede the point, it's their call.

Okay, so let me make sure I understand your logic. I hit the ball 10ft out of the court and my opponent catches the ball. He is then supposed to say,

"Oh my. I have inadvertently caught the ball. That was a mistake on my part because, according to The Rules, which I have previously read and fully understand, it is not allowed. I will now concede this point to you."

Does that sound remotely plausible? Obviously, if the guy is catching the ball, he doesn't understand the rules. He's not going to concede the point and you will therefore have to take the point. If you want to go through the argument and hassle that entails, in order to win a point for a ball you shanked, then feel free. I don't choose to do so.

PushyPushster
05-07-2009, 12:11 PM
Stop using the word "Im playing for fun...". Everyone is playing for fun, if they were miserable out there, they wouldnt even bother playing tennis at all.

Btw, I don't agree with this at all. Not a bit. Everyone has seen guys with an overdeveloped competitive streak who think they're earning a slot at the US Open. Screaming, yelling, hitting balls around the court, the whole nine yards. If these guys are having fun it's well disguised. It's the competition that motivates them, and that's fine. It's not the primary reason I play, however, and I don't want the hassles and arguments of enforcing foot-faults and changeover times. It's not that I don't realize the rules provide for such - it's just that I'm not going to be the Tennis Cop.

Xisbum
05-07-2009, 12:19 PM
OK. But it is also in the rules that if you touch a ball before it hits the ground, your opponent is well within the rules to claim the point.




If you're playing tennis to just have fun>>>> then don't keep score, and stop posting in the "Adult League & Tournament Talk" section of the boards.

yes, "league" & "tournament" , where rules are in effect.

The rest of your post is garbage.

You're kind of fun...

It's not fun because that person first of all caught the ball, and second of all they didnt concede the point.

If you did mention something, it's not your fault, it's theirs for creating that situation in the first place.

Stop using the word "Im playing for fun...". Everyone is playing for fun, if they were miserable out there, they wouldnt even bother playing tennis at all.

And the guy that's out there catching fly balls is robbing some other people of "fun" because they have "fun" playing the game by the rules. (just like we watch on TV or in our leagues, tournaments, etc.....

I'm pretty sure I'm on your side in this, Drak and Javy. To me, here's the question: when exactly is the point over? When someone makes a call? How can you make the call if the ball never touches the ground? :confused:

Okay, that's more than one question, but I think it makes the point (pun intended).

Here's one that really bothers me - and I play often with a lady who does it every time she receives a serve: those who return every serve, whether it's good or not, and doesn't make a call until after they hit the ball. To me, that's definitely close to gamesmanship. But she continues to do it even though I've talked it over with her often. As long as opponents let her do it, I just stay on my side of the court and grin. :oops:

EndLy
05-07-2009, 12:24 PM
well it's a rule .. i believe it's up to the digression of the server whether or not he/she should take the point.

I, personally, wouldn't care if they smacked it outta the air back to my court .. i would just move onto my second serve.

if the umpire is present, then the call should be made because the umpire is the official and has the last say.

I just think that if there's no umpire, the decision should ultimately be left up to the server and if they want to, take the point.

woodrow1029
05-07-2009, 12:34 PM
well it's a rule .. i believe it's up to the digression of the server whether or not he/she should take the point.

I, personally, wouldn't care if they smacked it outta the air back to my court .. i would just move onto my second serve.

if the umpire is present, then the call should be made because the umpire is the official and has the last say.

I just think that if there's no umpire, the decision should ultimately be left up to the server and if they want to, take the point.
What does the server have to do with it? It's up to the person that caught the ball to call it on themselves..

Gemini
05-07-2009, 12:48 PM
I agree with Drak and Javier for the most part. I would more than likely claim the point if it's in a competition league/tourney and my opponent touched an obviously out serve (first or second) before it touches the ground.

Depending on the circumstances, I MIGHT give him/her a warning (make them aware that it's normally a lost point on their part if they do that) the first time it happens. They may think I'm an a*****e for bringing it up but it is the rule.
I've played fun and highly competitive tournaments against family members and we've hit some shots that were obviously out against one another. Even though we're family, we didn't make any exceptions when it came to the rules IF the person knows better.

At the level I play, 99% of my opponents know the rules so I've never let anyone slide in tournament/competitive league match.

OrangePower
05-07-2009, 01:12 PM
At the level I play, 99% of my opponents know the rules so I've never let anyone slide in tournament/competitive league match.

Possibly we're beating a dead horse here since everyone seems to hold their opinions strongly and I don't think anyone is going to be swayed one way or the other...

For the record, I know the rules, and I try keep to them even in casual play. If for some reason I break a rule and the opponent calls me on it, I accept that. At the same time though, there are circumstances where I personally will not hold my opponent to the letter of the law, and will instead cut them some slack.

Here is an example that actually happened to me in league play a year or two ago:

We were playing in the morning after it had rained during the night. The court itself was dry but there was still a deep puddle in one of the corners. During play, one of our balls had landed in this puddle and gotten completely wet. We put it aside to dry a bit and continued with the two dry balls. Several points later I hit a shot that was clearly going long and wide, and sailing towards the corner in the direction of the puddle. My opponent stopped it with his racket well outside the court. It was clear that his intent was to prevent the ball from potentially going into the puddle and getting wet. I guess that technically I could have claimed the point - but I don't think that would have been right, even if it's within the rules.

Would any of the rule-sticklers on this thread have claimed the point under this scenario?

moonbat
05-07-2009, 01:19 PM
I called it once during a club league match, when our our opponent at the net took a wide serve out of the air. She went ballistic, and we ended up playing a let, but she harangued me the rest of the match as "not being fair." She had no idea of the rule--I figured it was time she learned it.

woodrow1029
05-07-2009, 01:35 PM
Possibly we're beating a dead horse here since everyone seems to hold their opinions strongly and I don't think anyone is going to be swayed one way or the other...

For the record, I know the rules, and I try keep to them even in casual play. If for some reason I break a rule and the opponent calls me on it, I accept that. At the same time though, there are circumstances where I personally will not hold my opponent to the letter of the law, and will instead cut them some slack.

Here is an example that actually happened to me in league play a year or two ago:

We were playing in the morning after it had rained during the night. The court itself was dry but there was still a deep puddle in one of the corners. During play, one of our balls had landed in this puddle and gotten completely wet. We put it aside to dry a bit and continued with the two dry balls. Several points later I hit a shot that was clearly going long and wide, and sailing towards the corner in the direction of the puddle. My opponent stopped it with his racket well outside the court. It was clear that his intent was to prevent the ball from potentially going into the puddle and getting wet. I guess that technically I could have claimed the point - but I don't think that would have been right, even if it's within the rules.

Would any of the rule-sticklers on this thread have claimed the point under this scenario?
The "Rule-Sticklers" I don't think would have a problem with that. I am one of the "rule-sticklers" and I have stated that if you choose to let it go, there's nothing wrong with that. Javier has said the same thing. In that situation, I would never say anything either.

Steady Eddy
05-07-2009, 01:48 PM
I wonder if we could take a vote? How many think this subject is entirely talked out, and that nothing new can be added to the topic?

woodrow1029
05-07-2009, 01:55 PM
I wonder if we could take a vote? How many think this subject is entirely talked out, and that nothing new can be added to the topic?
I agree. This is my last post in this thread..

r2473
05-07-2009, 01:55 PM
I have a big problem with people that take offense when someone tries to enforce the rules.

Have you ever read "friend of the court"? Many "rules" are interpretive.

With this in mind, good old "just playin' by the rules" me could effectively bring any match to a standstill:

you were grunting too loud.......I think you are bouncing the ball excessively..........you took longer than 120 seconds between sets..............that first serve you cleared did not need to be cleared...............you were stamping your feet to distract me.................you hit and put back into play an obvious fault (clear gamesmanship on your part)................foot fault (and I suspect I could call this anytime I want. First a warning, then attempt to call an official. If I am lucky, no official will show up. Now I can call a flagrant foot fault.)

I could go on forever. And, don't accuse me of doing anything wrong here. Many of these calls are interpretive (and my interpretation is as valid as yours).

Hey guys, "just followin' the rules". "If you don't want to play by the rules, don't bother playin' at all".

woodrow1029
05-07-2009, 02:01 PM
Have you ever read "friend of the court"? Many "rules" are interpretive.

With this in mind, good old "just playin' by the rules" me could effectively bring any match to a standstill:

you were grunting too loud.......I think you are bouncing the ball excessively..........you took longer than 120 seconds between sets..............that first serve you cleared did not need to be cleared...............you were stamping your feet to distract me.................you hit and put back into play an obvious fault (clear gamesmanship on your part)................foot fault (and I suspect I could call this anytime I want. First a warning, then attempt to call an official. If I am lucky, no official will show up. Now I can call a flagrant foot fault.)

I could go on forever. And, don't accuse me of doing anything wrong here. Many of these calls are interpretive (and my interpretation is as valid as yours).

Hey guys, "just followin' the rules". "If you don't want to play by the rules, don't bother playin' at all".
Ok, I lied. One more post. The "Rules of Tennis" are pretty much black and white.

Time between points is interpretive and a guideline, not a "rule of tennis." That is the difference.

r2473
05-07-2009, 02:22 PM
Ok, I lied. One more post. The "Rules of Tennis" are pretty much black and white.

Time between points is interpretive and a guideline, not a "rule of tennis." That is the difference.

Everything I stated in my post is in "friend of the court".

"Excessive grunting" I would call interpretive. Same with "excessive ball bouncing".

My post only scratched the surface of the myriad things I could do to interrupt play while simply trying to play the game "strictly to the rules".

And please don't say my concerns with these rules is "stupid". They are every bit as much of the rules as anything else.

woodrow1029
05-07-2009, 02:25 PM
Everything I stated in my post is in "friend of the court".

"Excessive grunting" I would call interpretive. Same with "excessive ball bouncing".

My post only scratched the surface of the myriad things I could do to interrupt play while simply trying to play the game "strictly to the rules".

And please don't say my concerns with these rules is "stupid". They are every bit as much of the rules as anything else.
Grunting and excessive ball bouncing (time between points) are not part of the "rules of tennis." They are in the friend at court under the code and the point penalty schedule. Those are debatable and gray area (interpretive). The rules of tennis are not. There is a difference.

r2473
05-07-2009, 02:29 PM
Grunting and excessive ball bouncing (time between points) are not part of the "rules of tennis." They are in the friend at court under the code and the point penalty schedule. Those are debatable and gray area (interpretive). The rules of tennis are not. There is a difference.

Clear enough.

My original point is that I could bring the match to a standstill and make my opponent one miserable SOB by simply "playing by the friend of the court".

Are you saying that "friend of the court" is not important? Should this perceived excessive grunting be ignored?

Seriously. If you play "by the letter", where does it stop? When am I stepping over the line and when am I simply trying to enforce "friend of the court"?

woodrow1029
05-07-2009, 02:32 PM
Clear enough.

My original point is that I could bring the match to a standstill and make my opponent one miserable SOB by simply "playing by the friend of the court".

Are you saying that "friend of the court" is not important? Should this perceived excessive grunting be ignored?

Seriously. If you play "by the letter", where does it stop? When am I stepping over the line and when am I simply trying to enforce "friend of the court"?
Of course I don't think the Friend At Court is unimportant. As an umpire, I am basically live by the Friend at Court. :-)

randomname
05-07-2009, 02:36 PM
I would rather get a reputation for being "that guy" (who plays within the rules), than for being "that guy" who:

1. shows up late
2. foot faults
3. cheats on line calls
4. cheats on the score
5. takes too long between points
6. tries to distract you when serving


basically, I would rather be "me", than "that guy <1-6>".

Let's face it, how many threads are started where people complain about people who play withing the rules and are honest???

Truth is, most threads started are about "that guy" who cheats, and how to handle them.

Lastly, when you play in your league match or USTA do you tell the director, "I don't want to play with 'that guy' because he plays with-in the rules?"

Please.

Again, you people are trying very hard to justify cheating, and playing outside the rules of the game, and in a very weak attempt trying to make the honest player the villain.

Why do you think the only alternative to being a rules stickler is a blatant cheater? are you that far above anyone that anyone who doesnt live up to your stringent moral codes of tennis is just a scumbag?

r2473
05-07-2009, 02:39 PM
Of course I don't think the Friend At Court is unimportant. As an umpire, I am basically live by the Friend at Court. :-)

Sometimes playing by the rules is not the best that can be done. There is room for (and must be) rational compromise.

Cindysphinx
05-07-2009, 03:05 PM
Here is an example that actually happened to me in league play a year or two ago:

We were playing in the morning after it had rained during the night. The court itself was dry but there was still a deep puddle in one of the corners. During play, one of our balls had landed in this puddle and gotten completely wet. We put it aside to dry a bit and continued with the two dry balls. Several points later I hit a shot that was clearly going long and wide, and sailing towards the corner in the direction of the puddle. My opponent stopped it with his racket well outside the court. It was clear that his intent was to prevent the ball from potentially going into the puddle and getting wet. I guess that technically I could have claimed the point - but I don't think that would have been right, even if it's within the rules.

Would any of the rule-sticklers on this thread have claimed the point under this scenario?

I would not take the point.

Say I were the person who caught the ball to save it from getting wet. I would toss it back to the server. I might offer a word of explanation, "Sorry 'bout that, but I didn't want us to get down to one dry ball." I would not offer to surrender the point or play a let.

If my opponent then said, "Too bad, so sad, rules are rules, we win the point!", then I would give serious thought to walking over to my tennis bag, packing my gear and going home. And if the balls were mine, I would perhaps take the dry ones with me. :)

Seriously, I wouldn't wish to play social tennis with folks who lack common sense. I might hang around to keep the peace and not punish the two innocent players who perhaps would not behave in such a way. But the person who claimed the point would rocket to the bottom of the list of folks I invite to play tennis with me.

Kaptain Karl
05-07-2009, 03:48 PM
I haven't read five pages of replies. In a tournament, league or ladder match I'd take the point. In a "friendly" match I'd point out I *could* take the point and use it as a teaching moment.

I'd especially take the point if I knew the rule would make my oppononent lose his cool and fall apart. (But I'm nasty like that.)

- KK

r2473
05-07-2009, 04:08 PM
I'd especially take the point if I knew the rule would make my oppononent lose his cool and fall apart. (But I'm nasty like that.)

- KK

I would especially take the point if I knew the rule would make my opponent die a horrible death on the spot (though I would call a referee for the actual DQ ruling. Making such a ruling myself would be against the rules).

drakulie
05-07-2009, 04:10 PM
Why do you think the only alternative to being a rules stickler is a blatant cheater?

Because if one knows the rules, and chooses to disrgeagrd them>>> they are "blatantly cheating". :roll:

are you that far above anyone that anyone who doesnt live up to your stringent moral codes of tennis is just a scumbag?


First off, lets make one thing clear. They are not **MY** rules. They are the rules of tennis. I had nothing to do with the development, or implementation of any of these rules. However, I do follow them, and expect anyone I play to do the same.

You want justification for following the rules **YOU** feel are important, and dismissing the ones **YOU** choose not to follow.

As I said before, if you don't like playing withing the rules>> don't keep score.

JavierLW
05-07-2009, 07:48 PM
Possibly we're beating a dead horse here since everyone seems to hold their opinions strongly and I don't think anyone is going to be swayed one way or the other...

For the record, I know the rules, and I try keep to them even in casual play. If for some reason I break a rule and the opponent calls me on it, I accept that. At the same time though, there are circumstances where I personally will not hold my opponent to the letter of the law, and will instead cut them some slack.

Here is an example that actually happened to me in league play a year or two ago:

We were playing in the morning after it had rained during the night. The court itself was dry but there was still a deep puddle in one of the corners. During play, one of our balls had landed in this puddle and gotten completely wet. We put it aside to dry a bit and continued with the two dry balls. Several points later I hit a shot that was clearly going long and wide, and sailing towards the corner in the direction of the puddle. My opponent stopped it with his racket well outside the court. It was clear that his intent was to prevent the ball from potentially going into the puddle and getting wet. I guess that technically I could have claimed the point - but I don't think that would have been right, even if it's within the rules.

Would any of the rule-sticklers on this thread have claimed the point under this scenario?

I would not claim the point in this situation because it's clear that he's just trying to save the ball from getting wet. It would suck if the ball got wet, that could ruin our match, and it would be a total tool thing to do I think to insist on the point there....

But most of the time there is not a big giant puddle on the court and the person has no reason to stop the ball except for pure laziness or stubborness or a unbreakable habit or because they dont understand the rule about touching the ball.

And again for the 80th time, you cant claim the point anyway. It's the person who touches the ball's job to claim it, although you can ask him if he touched it.

JavierLW
05-07-2009, 07:54 PM
Okay, so let me make sure I understand your logic. I hit the ball 10ft out of the court and my opponent catches the ball. He is then supposed to say,

"Oh my. I have inadvertently caught the ball. That was a mistake on my part because, according to The Rules, which I have previously read and fully understand, it is not allowed. I will now concede this point to you."

Does that sound remotely plausible? Obviously, if the guy is catching the ball, he doesn't understand the rules. He's not going to concede the point and you will therefore have to take the point. If you want to go through the argument and hassle that entails, in order to win a point for a ball you shanked, then feel free. I don't choose to do so.

Sometimes people do things out of habit, they know the rules but they cant help it because they've been playing "for fun" matches for so long that when someone calls them on it they still catch it anyway. Which is a good reason why people shouldn't do it.

So yes it is plausible, whether you think so or not.

Again if you want to let the **** that's catching the ball go, that's up to you. I may let it go as well, but Im going to be annoyed because you shouldnt catch or touch the ball.

It's rude and it's annoying that they are even putting us in that situation.

And Im sorry but using sarcasm is a useless tool for a argument.

Gemini
05-08-2009, 04:11 AM
Possibly we're beating a dead horse here since everyone seems to hold their opinions strongly and I don't think anyone is going to be swayed one way or the other...

For the record, I know the rules, and I try keep to them even in casual play. If for some reason I break a rule and the opponent calls me on it, I accept that. At the same time though, there are circumstances where I personally will not hold my opponent to the letter of the law, and will instead cut them some slack.

Here is an example that actually happened to me in league play a year or two ago:

We were playing in the morning after it had rained during the night. The court itself was dry but there was still a deep puddle in one of the corners. During play, one of our balls had landed in this puddle and gotten completely wet. We put it aside to dry a bit and continued with the two dry balls. Several points later I hit a shot that was clearly going long and wide, and sailing towards the corner in the direction of the puddle. My opponent stopped it with his racket well outside the court. It was clear that his intent was to prevent the ball from potentially going into the puddle and getting wet. I guess that technically I could have claimed the point - but I don't think that would have been right, even if it's within the rules.

Would any of the rule-sticklers on this thread have claimed the point under this scenario?


I might've done the same thing as you did but in that situation you're introducing an element (the puddle) that the original poster did not have. There was no valid reason in this thread's original post for taking the ball out of the air other than the serve being obviously out.

I've played college matches where my opponent's serve was shanked and obviously headed out towards another active court. I could've stopped it but why should I take the chance of my opponent playing fairly by the rules and claiming the point. Even if the ball hits me on the fly after being served because I could not avoid it, I've lost the point because that's the rule. There is no giving or taking of the point from either player.

Stopping a ball from flying into a puddle is more of "courtesy code" issue. It makes perfect sense (common sense) to stop it from getting wet but is it against the rule and does your opponent have the right to enforce that rule...yes.

To be honest, I would've done what I could to make the puddle a non-issue, if possible -- drying it as much as possible before playing a rec match but if it's a competitive match and we agree to play, the rules are pretty much the rules. Also, I usually have more than just three balls with me at any point in time. I'll keep substituting in a "fresh" ball as long as it takes to finish the match.

PushyPushster
05-08-2009, 06:24 AM
Sometimes people do things out of habit, they know the rules but they cant help it because they've been playing "for fun" matches for so long that when someone calls them on it they still catch it anyway. Which is a good reason why people shouldn't do it.

So yes it is plausible, whether you think so or not.

Again if you want to let the **** that's catching the ball go, that's up to you. I may let it go as well, but Im going to be annoyed because you shouldnt catch or touch the ball.

It's rude and it's annoying that they are even putting us in that situation.

And Im sorry but using sarcasm is a useless tool for a argument.

Fair enough - sorry about the sarcasm. I hope we can agree that the likelihood of someone catching the ball due to a reflex action is lower than someone catching the ball because they don't know the rules. For anyone in the latter category enforcing the rules has now become your responsibility.

Maybe this decision is based on personal irritation? You find the action rude and annoying and that outweighs any concerns about starting an argument. It doesn't bother me as much so I'd rather let them get away with it, and avoid the conflict, despite knowing it's against the rules.

nickynu
05-08-2009, 07:05 AM
Not even on Centre Court at Wimbledon.

I would like to think I was a better person than that.

J


What you think you are above the rules of tennis and that they dont apply to you !!:shock:

Joeyg
05-08-2009, 07:13 AM
I've posted on this a number of times. You shouldn't choose which rules to enforce. That way there won't be a problem down the line when it comes time to make a call regarding the rules.

JavierLW
05-08-2009, 02:24 PM
Fair enough - sorry about the sarcasm. I hope we can agree that the likelihood of someone catching the ball due to a reflex action is lower than someone catching the ball because they don't know the rules. For anyone in the latter category enforcing the rules has now become your responsibility.

Maybe this decision is based on personal irritation? You find the action rude and annoying and that outweighs any concerns about starting an argument. It doesn't bother me as much so I'd rather let them get away with it, and avoid the conflict, despite knowing it's against the rules.

Sarcasm is Anger's dirty cousin. :-) (From Anger Management)

If they dont know the rules (which is not really the case most of the time whether you think so or not), then enforcing the rules will teach them what the rules are. That's a GOOD thing!!!

If they are cool, they will accept that and we'll move on.

But face it, sometimes they actually did know it's the rule so they go on some weird bent or make excuses about "fun" or "friendly match" which is disrespectful to me. They are the ones making it a unfriendly match, not me.

Sure I can let it go, and sometimes I do (if I know the person and how they are going to behave themselves), but that's not an excuse for not pointing it out to someone in all cases.

If it's so obvious to you that these people all are just clueless and they dont know any better, then there is no reason why you cant at least educate them.

If that was the case, we would not be having this argument. We are having this argument (for the most part) because people keep making excuses for why it's okay to do certain things or why it should be let go.

And as Ive said before I play a LOT of tennis, and it's easy to have this viewpoint because contrary to the claims most people, it's usually specific individuals who act like this and it is a habit. That's the only explanation for why you see the same person doing it over and over again when most people do not.

When you are playing tennis and moving around hitting balls you are not always doing a whole lot of logical thinking and decision making out there.

It's all instinct and habits.... So if you are used to catching the ball everytime it's clearly going out, you probably are going to catch the ball, especially when you get older and it's harder to train yourself to do something differently.