PDA

View Full Version : Continuance rule?


jamauss
07-08-2009, 10:08 PM
I think I know the answer to this, but figured I would pose it to the group here anyway just for clarification/confirmation.

When playing a point (it happened to be *set point* tonight...)...my opponent hit a weak volley and I had to run up as fast as I could to the ball and, according to me, got to the ball before the second bounce and hit it up over the net to my opponent. He volleyed it back at me, and then I dinked a lob over his head. He ran back to retrieve the lob, and then hit the ball past the baseline on my side. I claimed the point for myself. Then, he walked back to the net and told me I didn't get to the ball before the 2nd bounce. I told him I was very sure I did, but he wouldn't change his mind. He didn't offer to play a let, which I would have, but since I knew I could beat him anyway I let him have the point. (I did end up winning the set :lol:)

Much later on, I realized that if I wanted to be a hard a$s about it, I could've claimed the point was mine based on his continuance of playing the ball he claimed I didn't get to before the 2nd bounce, as well as retrieving the lob on my next shot. Am I right? His claim was that after seeing me not get to the ball before the second bounce, he "gave up" which is why he hit it back at me. But my thought was, "then why did you run back to hit the lob after that?"

Your thoughts?

OrangePower
07-08-2009, 10:51 PM
I think I know the answer to this, but figured I would pose it to the group here anyway just for clarification/confirmation.

When playing a point (it happened to be *set point* tonight...)...my opponent hit a weak volley and I had to run up as fast as I could to the ball and, according to me, got to the ball before the second bounce and hit it up over the net to my opponent. He volleyed it back at me, and then I dinked a lob over his head. He ran back to retrieve the lob, and then hit the ball past the baseline on my side. I claimed the point for myself. Then, he walked back to the net and told me I didn't get to the ball before the 2nd bounce. I told him I was very sure I did, but he wouldn't change his mind. He didn't offer to play a let, which I would have, but since I knew I could beat him anyway I let him have the point. (I did end up winning the set :lol:)

Much later on, I realized that if I wanted to be a hard a$s about it, I could've claimed the point was mine based on his continuance of playing the ball he claimed I didn't get to before the 2nd bounce, as well as retrieving the lob on my next shot. Am I right? His claim was that after seeing me not get to the ball before the second bounce, he "gave up" which is why he hit it back at me. But my thought was, "then why did you run back to hit the lob after that?"

Your thoughts?

1. If he was going to question the call, he needed to stop play immediately. Once you continue to play the point, you can't go back and question a call.

2. Calling a double bounce is up to the player making the shot, so regardless it was your call to make and not his, and he would not have been able to claim the point even if he stopped play immediately.

woodrow1029
07-08-2009, 11:05 PM
OrangePower is correct on both statements.

SretiCentV
07-09-2009, 05:17 AM
Your opponent was a tool. I wouldn't even argue - just give him the point if it's so important to him. I refuse to let people like him damage the experience for me.

Atown
07-09-2009, 05:37 AM
OrangePower is correct on both statements.

Ditto.

10 chars

mikeler
07-09-2009, 06:03 AM
I had this happen in a league match once but the guy stopped playing immediately. I told him that it did not bounce twice and it was my call but I offered to play a let if he disagreed. He copped an attitude, so I just took the point.

JavierLW
07-09-2009, 06:24 AM
Your opponent was a tool. I wouldn't even argue - just give him the point if it's so important to him. I refuse to let people like him damage the experience for me.

You can also "not argue" and still not give him the point. :-)

That's yet another reason why I put all of my stuff on the other side of the court of the opponent's stuff, so I dont have to listen to stuff like that.

(if they come up to confront me about it, Im just going to walk away and wait for them to play, if they want to sit there at the net and put on a show by themselves then I'll grab a chair and a nice cool lemonade or ice tea and observe)

goober
07-09-2009, 07:56 AM
I think I know the answer to this, but figured I would pose it to the group here anyway just for clarification/confirmation.

When playing a point (it happened to be *set point* tonight...)...my opponent hit a weak volley and I had to run up as fast as I could to the ball and, according to me, got to the ball before the second bounce and hit it up over the net to my opponent. He volleyed it back at me, and then I dinked a lob over his head. He ran back to retrieve the lob, and then hit the ball past the baseline on my side. I claimed the point for myself. Then, he walked back to the net and told me I didn't get to the ball before the 2nd bounce. I told him I was very sure I did, but he wouldn't change his mind. He didn't offer to play a let, which I would have, but since I knew I could beat him anyway I let him have the point. (I did end up winning the set :lol:)

Much later on, I realized that if I wanted to be a hard a$s about it, I could've claimed the point was mine based on his continuance of playing the ball he claimed I didn't get to before the 2nd bounce, as well as retrieving the lob on my next shot. Am I right? His claim was that after seeing me not get to the ball before the second bounce, he "gave up" which is why he hit it back at me. But my thought was, "then why did you run back to hit the lob after that?"

Your thoughts?

Hmm I wonder if I know this guy? :)

He must have been a real arse if he continued claim the point, especially after he played it out and still lost- lol. But basically he had no grounds as everybody said. It is not his call and he can't question calls if he continues to play out the point.

The only thing that bothers me about the rule that you call double bounces on yourself is what if you have someone who deliberately cheats or obviously has 2 bounces but won't call it on themselves?

Thud and blunder
07-09-2009, 08:56 AM
@ Goober: Well, that's no different to any other type of hooking. Cheating on a double bounce is the same as cheating on a line call.

goober
07-09-2009, 09:15 AM
@ Goober: Well, that's no different to any other type of hooking. Cheating on a double bounce is the same as cheating on a line call.

I understand that. I am just wondering if the rule would be better if either person could call it. If there is a disagreement a let could be played.

JavierLW
07-09-2009, 09:56 AM
I understand that. I am just wondering if the rule would be better if either person could call it. If there is a disagreement a let could be played.

The problem is sometimes the other team might call it when it wasnt really a double bounce.

I had one the other night, where I was reaching for a ball that seemed to land far too short to get it on the first bounce, but the wind was blowing my way and carryed the ball into my racquet.

I was surprised, but I clearly saw and felt that it didnt bounce twice even though it seemed weird, and we carryed on with the point, the opponents eventually hit it out and the point was over.

They asked right away "was that a double bounce?". Now they werent upset or anything about it and once I said no, they accepted it (we were clobbering these guys on the scoreboard anyway). But if they got to call it, Im sure a lot of points like that would go the other way.

The people who make the rules just assume that things to happen on your side of the net are easier to call then things that happen clear across on the other side of the net.

You can argue that it may be hard for you as the hitter to tell if it bounced twice sometimes but it's not all that great for the other team either. You'll get just as many "wishful" calls when things are ambiguous then with line calls.

beernutz
07-09-2009, 09:58 AM
1. If he was going to question the call, he needed to stop play immediately. Once you continue to play the point, you can't go back and question a call.

2. Calling a double bounce is up to the player making the shot, so regardless it was your call to make and not his, and he would not have been able to claim the point even if he stopped play immediately.

Ding! Ding! Ding!
</thread>

Steady Eddy
07-09-2009, 02:24 PM
Much later on, I realized that if I wanted to be a hard a$s about it, I could've claimed the point was mine based on his continuance of playing the ball he claimed I didn't get to before the 2nd bounce, as well as retrieving the lob on my next shot. Am I right? His claim was that after seeing me not get to the ball before the second bounce, he "gave up" which is why he hit it back at me. But my thought was, "then why did you run back to hit the lob after that?"

Your thoughts?
Pretty easy to reconstruct what happened here. He wanted badly to win this point. When he lost it he tried claiming the point by talking about a "second bounce". When you asked why did he then hit a return, he thought he was pretty smart to say that he was hitting it back to you. But this doesn't explain the lob he chased down. Not only is he a liar, he's not a very smart liar.