PDA

View Full Version : Crazy ruling on court


bamajoneser
07-13-2009, 11:30 AM
This past weekend my team was playing a regional match. Our team had already clinched and we had one team playing the final match of doubles. The other team was serving and our guy returned the serve, playing the ball in. The other team's net man calls the ball out and they catch the ball ending play. They say it's second serve and our guy says it is our point b/c he played the ball in and it is our call. The official came onto the court and told them to play a let b/c the net man basically caused a verbal let by calling the ball out. I still can't get over it. She later admitted she may have made the wrong call, but that was the call. I just can't see where she was right. Thoughts?

conditionZero
07-13-2009, 11:37 AM
That was wrong in so many ways.

tennisnj
07-13-2009, 11:58 AM
From my experience, on court officials for league matches & other small tournaments are a big waste of money & time. Running a few tournaments that employed them, it got tiresome asking them to stop answering the cell phones while roving around the courts staring @ kids for foot faults only.

goober
07-13-2009, 12:22 PM
This past weekend my team was playing a regional match. Our team had already clinched and we had one team playing the final match of doubles. The other team was serving and our guy returned the serve, playing the ball in. The other team's net man calls the ball out and they catch the ball ending play. They say it's second serve and our guy says it is our point b/c he played the ball in and it is our call. The official came onto the court and told them to play a let b/c the net man basically caused a verbal let by calling the ball out. I still can't get over it. She later admitted she may have made the wrong call, but that was the call. I just can't see where she was right. Thoughts?

The official admitted that she *may* have made the wrong call? I thought they were the ones that are suppose to have the firm understanding of the rules? She messed up twice on the ruling. First making the wrong call and then giving an explanation that is wrong. Oh well at least it wasn't an important point.

TsongaEatingAPineappleLol
07-13-2009, 12:28 PM
I think they made the right decision, because regardless if it's played, if it's called out, it's out.

bamajoneser
07-13-2009, 12:32 PM
I think they made the right decision, because regardless if it's played, if it's called out, it's out.
The serving team can't call it's own serve out though. That was the returning team's call. Tough to say if the ball was actually out or not b/c I didn't see that.

conditionZero
07-13-2009, 12:36 PM
The official came onto the court and told them to play a let b/c the net man basically caused a verbal let by calling the ball out. I still can't get over it.

I'm glad to find out about this rule. The next time I can't get to a shot I'll just yell something and then call a let on myself.

PatrickB
07-13-2009, 12:37 PM
Yes, this is wrong in multiple ways. Code 13 says that players may call their own ball out *except for a first serve*. For first serves, Code 26 says:

26. Service calls by serving team. Neither the server nor server’s partner shall make a fault call on the first service even if they think it is out because the receiver may be giving the server the benefit of the doubt. There is one exception. If the receiver plays a first service that is a fault and does not put the return in play, the server or server’s partner may make the fault call. The server and the server’s partner shall call out any second serve that either clearly sees out.


Technically, in this case, the serving team did not play a ball they were oblidged to play, so they lose the point. If the official is unaware of Code 27 and is remembering Code 13 that allows players to call their own shots out, at most the servers should get a second serve, not a let; a let would only be warranted in the case of a hindrance, and a team cannot hinder itself. Playing a let here gives the serving team two chances at a first serve that aren't warranted.

That said, my experience is (as a spectator, husband of a sectional player, and as a roving official) that officials on court are incredibly useful at tournaments, sectional playoffs and such, particularly at high school and juniors matches and the lower NTRP levels where in many cases players are incredibly ignorant of the rules, incredibly picky about rules that they don't actually know, and very irritable because they feel they have so much on the line. The ubiquitous scoring disputes (or blatant foot faulters) that every official runs into (much too often) are probably the best example of why its a good idea to have officials around, but their are others.

As an example, I observed (as a spectator) a match at local USTA league playoffs where a player at net was waving her racquet during her partner's and her opponent's serve in what pretty clearly was an attempt to distract, and the official warned her to stop or she would be subject to code violations. There are other times I've wished I had officials around as a player because of an opponent who swears or stalls unneccesarily (e.g. taking 2 minute water breaks between every game), but haven't had the luxury of having an official around.

The problem is that most people only hear about officials in the occasional situation when they do something wrong, not the hundreds of situations where they do something right.

blakesq
07-13-2009, 12:47 PM
if the court official saw it in, then I think it was the right call. The court official is supposedly impartial, and if she thought it was in, then, the original out call would have been a hindrance, and she actually let you guys off easy with a "let".

From my experience, on court officials for league matches & other small tournaments are a big waste of money & time. Running a few tournaments that employed them, it got tiresome asking them to stop answering the cell phones while roving around the courts staring @ kids for foot faults only.

goober
07-13-2009, 12:49 PM
nm

+10.........

goober
07-13-2009, 01:03 PM
if the court official saw it in, then I think it was the right call. The court official is supposedly impartial, and if she thought it was in, then, the original out call would have been a hindrance, and she actually let you guys off easy with a "let".

From the description it doesn't sound like she was actually on the court. But even if she were, she it was the wrong ruling. Only the receiving team can call a first serve out with the exception noted above. Regardless whether the official saw it in or not. The serving team created a hindrance by calling a let which only can be called by the receiving team. Once the serving team caught the ball, the point was over with point to the receiving team.

bamajoneser
07-13-2009, 01:03 PM
if the court official saw it in, then I think it was the right call. The court official is supposedly impartial, and if she thought it was in, then, the original out call would have been a hindrance, and she actually let you guys off easy with a "let".
The official never saw if the ball was in or not. She came onto the court after the two teams were arguing over the point.

PatrickB
07-13-2009, 01:07 PM
if the court official saw it in, then I think it was the right call. The court official is supposedly impartial, and if she thought it was in, then, the original out call would have been a hindrance, and she actually let you guys off easy with a "let".

Please reread what happened - the side that called the ball out was the *serving* team. They *cannot* receive a let due to their own actions because *you cannot hinder yourself (or your own team)*. In this case, the serving team called a ball out that they were not allowed to call out (because on a first serve, that is *solely* the receiving team's call*, and then didn't make a play on the ball due to their own actions. They are not entitled to a let because they cannot hinder themselves (they made the out call), and in fact should lose the point.

blakesq
07-13-2009, 01:09 PM
can you describe this "waving" of the racquet that was deemed a violation? because the rules/code also say you do not have to be statue still during the serve.


Yes, this is wrong in multiple ways. Code 13 says that players may call their own ball out *except for a first serve*. For first serves, Code 26 says:


Technically, in this case, the serving team did not play a ball they were oblidged to play, so they lose the point. If the official is unaware of Code 27 and is remembering Code 13 that allows players to call their own shots out, at most the servers should get a second serve, not a let; a let would only be warranted in the case of a hindrance, and a team cannot hinder itself. Playing a let here gives the serving team two chances at a first serve that aren't warranted.

That said, my experience is (as a spectator, husband of a sectional player, and as a roving official) that officials on court are incredibly useful at tournaments, sectional playoffs and such, particularly at high school and juniors matches and the lower NTRP levels where in many cases players are incredibly ignorant of the rules, incredibly picky about rules that they don't actually know, and very irritable because they feel they have so much on the line. The ubiquitous scoring disputes (or blatant foot faulters) that every official runs into (much too often) are probably the best example of why its a good idea to have officials around, but their are others.

As an example, I observed (as a spectator) a match at local USTA league playoffs where a player at net was waving her racquet during her partner's and her opponent's serve in what pretty clearly was an attempt to distract, and the official warned her to stop or she would be subject to code violations. There are other times I've wished I had officials around as a player because of an opponent who swears or stalls unneccesarily (e.g. taking 2 minute water breaks between every game), but haven't had the luxury of having an official around.

The problem is that most people only hear about officials in the occasional situation when they do something wrong, not the hundreds of situations where they do something right.

blakesq
07-13-2009, 01:13 PM
I did read what happened. So tell me, what should have happened if the official said that the receiving team was WRONG when they called the first serve out? If the receiving team made the wrong call, and the official saw it, what should have happened?

Please reread what happened - the side that called the ball out was the *serving* team. They *cannot* receive a let due to their own actions because *you cannot hinder yourself (or your own team)*. In this case, the serving team called a ball out that they were not allowed to call out (because on a first serve, that is *solely* the receiving team's call*, and then didn't make a play on the ball due to their own actions. They are not entitled to a let because they cannot hinder themselves (they made the out call), and in fact should lose the point.

PatrickB
07-13-2009, 01:48 PM
I did read what happened. So tell me, what should have happened if the official said that the receiving team was WRONG when they called the first serve out? If the receiving team made the wrong call, and the official saw it, what should have happened?

If the official was, say, at the net post and the ball was *clearly* out, the official should overrule it immediately, but only if it was clearly out. For roving umpires, Friend at Court Comment Vi-4.D, for example, says:

Players are playing under The Code and are expected to give their opponents the benefit of the doubt. Therefore, a Roving Umpire should be reluctant to call a ball out that has been played as good.
This also holds true of solo chair umpires when the players are calling their own lines. As Friend at Court VI.C-4 2 says:

The Solo Chair Umpire overrules clear mistakes. This includes “good” balls that are called “out.” This includes obviously “out" balls that are called “good.” It does not include close “out” balls that are called “good.”


Finally, it's worth nothing that if a chair or roving umpire is going to overrule a call, they must do so immediately, before any sort of verbal appeal or anything else happens. If they do *not*, then the call as made by the players (in this case the receiver, who had the right to call the ball) stands.
As a practical matter, all of this means that I as an official have been taught not to overrule a ball played out as good unless it was *not* close, and that if I don't make a call, then it's too late to do anything.

So, if I as an official was standing on the net post or sitting in the chair and had not overruled the ball played as good as out, then I would rule that the servers had lost the point by declining to play a ball in play. They are responsible for knowing that this is the receiver's call according to code 26.

And finally, I'll note that all of this is different in collegiate tennis, where overrules are made *only* on player appeal, and the server is allowed to catch the ball (or make a first volley) prior to stopping play and appealing the first serve played as in as out.

PatrickB
07-13-2009, 01:58 PM
can you describe this "waving" of the racquet that was deemed a violation? because the rules/code also say you do not have to be statue still during the serve.

The person in question was repeatedly swinging the racquet in wide motions from the left side of the body to about as far to the right as it could go (almost the full extension of her right arm); the tip of the racquet was covering an arc with a length of perhaps 6-8 feet during this time. The official though it was clearly an attempt to distract the opponent, though this is of course a judgement call on his part. You're of course right that you're by no means oblidged to stand like a statue and are, for example, explicitly allowed to feint with your body or "change position" at any time. Specifically, the Code says:

34. Body movement. A player may feint with the body while the ball is in play. A player may change position at any time, including while the server is tossing the ball. Any other movement or any sound that is made solely to distract an opponent, including, but not limited to, waving the arms or racket or stamping the feet, is not allowed.

blakesq
07-13-2009, 02:40 PM
OK, that is obviously a distraction. I know, that i like to do a small split step, or take a step or two in one direction or another during the service motion of whoever is serving, when I am the net guy. People have tried to tell me that I can't move during the service motion of the server, and i point out that the code says I can change position at ANY TIME, like you quoted.


The person in question was repeatedly swinging the racquet in wide motions from the left side of the body to about as far to the right as it could go (almost the full extension of her right arm); the tip of the racquet was covering an arc with a length of perhaps 6-8 feet during this time. The official though it was clearly an attempt to distract the opponent, though this is of course a judgement call on his part. You're of course right that you're by no means oblidged to stand like a statue and are, for example, explicitly allowed to feint with your body or "change position" at any time. Specifically, the Code says:

DE19702
07-14-2009, 08:44 PM
OK, that is obviously a distraction. I know, that i like to do a small split step, or take a step or two in one direction or another during the service motion of whoever is serving, when I am the net guy. People have tried to tell me that I can't move during the service motion of the server, and i point out that the code says I can change position at ANY TIME, like you quoted.

You can't move at ANY TIME, but only during the toss. Also, what conceivable reason would you have to move around "during the service motion" if your not receiving except to cause a distraction? You have no reason to move.

PatrickB
07-16-2009, 01:41 AM
You can't move at ANY TIME, but only during the toss. Also, what conceivable reason would you have to move around "during the service motion" if your not receiving except to cause a distraction? You have no reason to move.

The Code explicitly states that you can move at any time. It also distinguishes feinting with the body from a move "only to distract".

Lakers4Life
07-16-2009, 03:27 AM
What if I happen to hit a high lob at the net, not on purpose but just a bad shot. My opponent standing at the net has a wide open smash or whatever he decides to hit. Can I move or make a noise to distract him?

Also if his follow through crosses the net line, and strikes me or my racket, does he lose the point? I know if he touches the net with his body or racket, it's a fault.

blakesq
07-16-2009, 05:27 AM
Please provide the rule or a citation from the Code that supports your statement below, because i believe you are wrong.

One conceivable reason is that I don't want to be flat footed. Another conceivable reason is that I want to change my position on the court.


You can't move at ANY TIME, but only during the toss. Also, what conceivable reason would you have to move around "during the service motion" if your not receiving except to cause a distraction? You have no reason to move.

conditionZero
07-16-2009, 06:00 AM
Please provide the rule or a citation from the Code that supports your statement below, because i believe you are wrong.

One conceivable reason is that I don't want to be flat footed. Another conceivable reason is that I want to change my position on the court.

Blake, you're right. Here's the code, notice it say's including while the server is tossing the ball, not only while the server is tossing the ball.

34. Body movement. A player may feint with the body while the ball is in
play. A player may change position at any time, including while the server is tossing the ball. Any other movement or any sound that is made solely to distract an opponent, including, but not limited to, waving the arms or racket or stamping the feet, is not allowed.

PatrickB
07-16-2009, 09:11 AM
What if I happen to hit a high lob at the net, not on purpose but just a bad shot. My opponent standing at the net has a wide open smash or whatever he decides to hit. Can I move or make a noise to distract him?


If you'd actually read the Code that several have quoted above, you'd read that you can make a move to make him think you're going one direction and then go the other direction - feinting is specifically allowed and is simply "changing position". Anything you do that is done *solely* to distract (stamp your feet, yell loudly, wave your arms, etc.) however, is not allowed and your opponent could claim a deliberate hindrance and the point. Again, read the rules of tennis and the Code as freely available in the USTA's A Friend at Court (google it!); it makes all of this abundantly clear.


Also if his follow through crosses the net line, and strikes me or my racket, does he lose the point?


Friend at Court doesn't directly deal with if he inadvertently strikes you with the racquet on his follow-through that I can see. The rules only state that he loses the point if he touches the net or your side of the court during the point, so that doesn't apply

However, you could claim the point for a deliberate hinderance if his unintentionally striking you prevented you from having a play on the ball (deliberate hindrance does not require intent, merely that his deliberate act - in this case swinging and crossing the plane of the net - prevented you from having a play on the ball - see for example FaC's discussion of yelling "back" when the ball is headed toward your opponent).

Of course, if your opponent intentionally strikes you with the racquet, on the other hand, he loses the *match*.

I know if he touches the net with his body or racket, it's a fault.

I'll be a little pedantic here - faults are only on serves and don't apply in the case of "touches", which is what you describe here. If a player touches the net while the ball is in play (not bounced twice while the ball is in normal play, or not touched outside the service box on a serve), then he loses the point. Even your opponent has struck a first serve, for example, and his opponent touches the net while the serve is in the air for some unknown reason, it's not a fault, it's loss of point.

kylebarendrick
07-16-2009, 09:29 AM
However, you could claim the point for a deliberate hinderance if his unintentionally striking you prevented you from having a play on the ball (deliberate hindrance does not require intent, merely that his deliberate act - in this case swinging and crossing the plane of the net - prevented you from having a play on the ball - see for example FaC's discussion of yelling "back" when the ball is headed toward your opponent).

I have also seen people make the claim that in this situation (player hitting the ball unintentionally strikes their opponent on their follow through) the player hitting the ball/player can claim a hindrance since their opponent (the player that was hit) did not leave them sufficient space to make a legal play on the ball.

woodrow1029
07-16-2009, 10:03 AM
If you'd actually read the Code that several have quoted above, you'd read that you can make a move to make him think you're going one direction and then go the other direction - feinting is specifically allowed and is simply "changing position". Anything you do that is done *solely* to distract (stamp your feet, yell loudly, wave your arms, etc.) however, is not allowed and your opponent could claim a deliberate hindrance and the point. Again, read the rules of tennis and the Code as freely available in the USTA's A Friend at Court (google it!); it makes all of this abundantly clear.



Friend at Court doesn't directly deal with if he inadvertently strikes you with the racquet on his follow-through that I can see. The rules only state that he loses the point if he touches the net or your side of the court during the point, so that doesn't apply

However, you could claim the point for a deliberate hinderance if his unintentionally striking you prevented you from having a play on the ball (deliberate hindrance does not require intent, merely that his deliberate act - in this case swinging and crossing the plane of the net - prevented you from having a play on the ball - see for example FaC's discussion of yelling "back" when the ball is headed toward your opponent).

Of course, if your opponent intentionally strikes you with the racquet, on the other hand, he loses the *match*.



I'll be a little pedantic here - faults are only on serves and don't apply in the case of "touches", which is what you describe here. If a player touches the net while the ball is in play (not bounced twice while the ball is in normal play, or not touched outside the service box on a serve), then he loses the point. Even your opponent has struck a first serve, for example, and his opponent touches the net while the serve is in the air for some unknown reason, it's not a fault, it's loss of point.

You CAN touch the ball on the other side of the net, provided that it has bounced on your side first and bounced back because of spin or wind. Also, your follow through may cross the net, provided that you have not hit the ball before it crossed the plane of the net. If you are returning a ball that has bounced on your side, and crosses back over the net becasue of wind or spin, and you then get in the way of your opponent making his next shot, it would be an unintentional hindrance and the point would be replayed. You would not lose the point in this case.

PatrickB
07-16-2009, 10:41 AM
You CAN touch the ball on the other side of the net, provided that it has bounced on your side first and bounced back because of spin or wind. Also, your follow through may cross the net, provided that you have not hit the ball before it crossed the plane of the net.

Sure, but that wasn't quite the (oft-seen) question he asked - he was referring to touching the player on the other side of the net with your follow-through, and didn't specify that the ball had blown/spun to the other side of the net....

If you are returning a ball that has bounced on your side, and crosses back over the net becasue of wind or spin, and you then get in the way of your opponent making his next shot, it would be an unintentional hindrance and the point would be replayed. You would not lose the point in this case.

His specific question was just the followthrough touching or impeding the opponent, and I debated between deliberate and unintentional hindrance in that case. The ball blowing/spinning back over the net may make a difference, too. This seems like a somewhat difficult case, partly because of how the Rules of Tennis and clarrifying USTA comments define "deliberate hindrance". Specifically, they define "deliberate hindrance" as doing something over which you have control, for example saying something or choosing where to stand/place your racquet, which happens to hinder the opponent, even if hindering your opponent was not the intent of the action. Specifically, Friend at Court's USTA Comment 26.1 says (comments in brackets mine):

What is the difference between a deliberate and an unintentional act? Deliberate means a player did what the player intended to do, even if the result [the hindrance] was unintended.


I think FAC's example is precisely on point here, too:

An example [of a deliberate hindrance] is a player who hits a short lob in doubles and loudly shouts “back” just before an opponent hits the overhead. Unintentional refers to an act over which a player has no control, such as a hat blowing off or a scream after a wasp sting.


My interpretation of this is that the player has deliberate control over where he positions himself and places his racquet, particularly if he strikes the ball on his side of the court. So, if a player strikes the ball on his side of the court and his deliberate followthrough hinders his opponent, my reading is that he loses the point, even if it wasn't his intent to hinder the opponent. This seems to me to be identical to the deliberate act of yelling "back" which isn't intended to hinder the opponent but does, resulting in a loss of point due to a "deliberate" hindrance.

If the ball blew/spun back over the net on the other hand, and so the player had no reasonable choice but to reach over the net, potentially hindering his opponent, I could see calling that an unintentional hindrance.

Interesting cases. :)

DownTheLine
07-16-2009, 11:31 AM
It would be your point by the rule book yes, but when a team calls there own ball out that's being trust worthy. Plus, if the guy could catch the ball he probably could have put it away.

woodrow1029
07-16-2009, 11:39 AM
Sure, but that wasn't quite the (oft-seen) question he asked - he was referring to touching the player on the other side of the net with your follow-through, and didn't specify that the ball had blown/spun to the other side of the net....



His specific question was just the followthrough touching or impeding the opponent, and I debated between deliberate and unintentional hindrance in that case. The ball blowing/spinning back over the net may make a difference, too. This seems like a somewhat difficult case, partly because of how the Rules of Tennis and clarrifying USTA comments define "deliberate hindrance". Specifically, they define "deliberate hindrance" as doing something over which you have control, for example saying something or choosing where to stand/place your racquet, which happens to hinder the opponent, even if hindering your opponent was not the intent of the action. Specifically, Friend at Court's USTA Comment 26.1 says (comments in brackets mine):


I think FAC's example is precisely on point here, too:


My interpretation of this is that the player has deliberate control over where he positions himself and places his racquet, particularly if he strikes the ball on his side of the court. So, if a player strikes the ball on his side of the court and his deliberate followthrough hinders his opponent, my reading is that he loses the point, even if it wasn't his intent to hinder the opponent. This seems to me to be identical to the deliberate act of yelling "back" which isn't intended to hinder the opponent but does, resulting in a loss of point due to a "deliberate" hindrance.

If the ball blew/spun back over the net on the other hand, and so the player had no reasonable choice but to reach over the net, potentially hindering his opponent, I could see calling that an unintentional hindrance.

Interesting cases. :)
I disagree with you. If it's the normal follow through that hits the opponent who is in the position to be hit by a racket, then it would be an unintentional hindrance, and a let should be played.. That's how I would rule if I were in the chair or roving.

PatrickB
07-16-2009, 11:57 AM
I disagree with you. If it's the normal follow through that hits the opponent who is in the position to be hit by a racket, then it would be an unintentional hindrance, and a let should be played.. That's how I would rule if I were in the chair or roving.

Oh, I that's what I'd like to rule, too, and it was my initial reaction before I went back and perused FAC carefully. In particular, if all we had to go on was what was in the ITF's Rules of Tennis as opposed to the associated USTA Comment 26.1, I'd completely agree with you. The problem is that Comment 26.1 says that that perform an act over which you have conscious control that hinders your opponent, then you lose that point even if their intent wasn't to hinder the opponent.

Perhaps the problem here is that the Rules of Tennis's choose to use "unintentional" and "deliberate" which has connotations that support your proposal, whereas the USTA's comments seem to differentiate on what I'd term "controlled" vs. "uncontrolled" acts. The USTA comment seems to be saying if you have control over whether an event happens or not, and it happens and hinders your opponent, then you should lose the point. The ITF Rules of Tennis, on the other hand, just say "deliberate" vs. "unintentional".

Hmmm.

Lakers4Life
07-16-2009, 01:10 PM
I disagree with you. If it's the normal follow through that hits the opponent who is in the position to be hit by a racket, then it would be an unintentional hindrance, and a let should be played.. That's how I would rule if I were in the chair or roving.

That is if the player is still standing after getting hit with a racket and a fisticuff does not ensue.

Lakers4Life
07-16-2009, 01:16 PM
Getting back to original theme of the thread:

Who has final say on the call? I'm assuming it's the recieving players first. Basically, your side, your call, their side, their call. If neither sides can agree. Play again (let)?

woodrow1029
07-16-2009, 01:24 PM
Oh, I that's what I'd like to rule, too, and it was my initial reaction before I went back and perused FAC carefully. In particular, if all we had to go on was what was in the ITF's Rules of Tennis as opposed to the associated USTA Comment 26.1, I'd completely agree with you. The problem is that Comment 26.1 says that that perform an act over which you have conscious control that hinders your opponent, then you lose that point even if their intent wasn't to hinder the opponent.

Perhaps the problem here is that the Rules of Tennis's choose to use "unintentional" and "deliberate" which has connotations that support your proposal, whereas the USTA's comments seem to differentiate on what I'd term "controlled" vs. "uncontrolled" acts. The USTA comment seems to be saying if you have control over whether an event happens or not, and it happens and hinders your opponent, then you should lose the point. The ITF Rules of Tennis, on the other hand, just say "deliberate" vs. "unintentional".

Hmmm.
That comment in the FAC is more for incidents such as you hit a ball and you think it's going to be a winner and yell COME ON! Then your opponent gets to the ball. That is something you have control over, not done deliberately to hinder your opponent. The case of legitimately hitting a ball and your legitimate follow through gets in the way of your opponent trying to play the next shot, or even hits them, would not be considered a hindrance. A let would be played..

woodrow1029
07-16-2009, 01:26 PM
Getting back to original theme of the thread:

Who has final say on the call? I'm assuming it's the recieving players first. Basically, your side, your call, their side, their call. If neither sides can agree. Play again (let)?
The correct rule is that it is the receiver's point. The serving team can't call their first serve out unless the receiving team failed to put the return in play.

Ironwood
07-16-2009, 01:58 PM
I am still haunted by an indoor match I lost this past winter in a mid season club tournament. Serving at my match point third set, my seeded opponent returned a short sitter. Pouncing on the short return for a big finish, I rifled a forehand that was caught waist high by my opponent standing just behind the baseline...in other words my big finish would have been 10-15' long. But, he caught the ball before it had bounced and I approached the net to shake hands. He protested, how could I, and called the club pro. We were calling our own lines. The club pro turned to me and essentially said, not in these words, how could I call match point on a ball that was clearly miles out. I backed off and he held firm for a 7-5 win in the third. I still berate myself for wimping out and not insisting on what would have been a career win for me. What would others have done?

conditionZero
07-16-2009, 02:20 PM
I am still haunted by an indoor match I lost this past winter in a mid season club tournament. Serving at my match point third set, my seeded opponent returned a short sitter. Pouncing on the short return for a big finish, I rifled a forehand that was caught waist high by my opponent standing just behind the baseline...in other words my big finish would have been 10-15' long. But, he caught the ball before it had bounced and I approached the net to shake hands. He protested, how could I, and called the club pro. We were calling our own lines. The club pro turned to me and essentially said, not in these words, how could I call match point on a ball that was clearly miles out. I backed off and he held firm for a 7-5 win in the third. I still berate myself for wimping out and not insisting on what would have been a career win for me. What would others have done?

I wouldn't have claimed the point, but it's stupid when people catch an out ball before it lands.

Lakers4Life
07-16-2009, 02:21 PM
I am still haunted by an indoor match I lost this past winter in a mid season club tournament. Serving at my match point third set, my seeded opponent returned a short sitter. Pouncing on the short return for a big finish, I rifled a forehand that was caught waist high by my opponent standing just behind the baseline...in other words my big finish would have been 10-15' long. But, he caught the ball before it had bounced and I approached the net to shake hands. He protested, how could I, and called the club pro. We were calling our own lines. The club pro turned to me and essentially said, not in these words, how could I call match point on a ball that was clearly miles out. I backed off and he held firm for a 7-5 win in the third. I still berate myself for wimping out and not insisting on what would have been a career win for me. What would others have done?

If it were a recreational match, I probably would have let it go. But in a Tournament, the ball must first be out to be called out. Somewhere in the rules, if the ball in play touches any part of the body except the racket it's considered your point. SO even if he was standing outside the lines, and catchs or gets hit with the ball it's your point.

Lakers4Life
07-16-2009, 02:28 PM
The correct rule is that it is the receiver's point. The serving team can't call their first serve out unless the receiving team failed to put the return in play.

So what your saying is, If the ball is out, on their first serve, but neither of the recieving team calls it out, then returns the ball over the net, it's considered in play?

Why is it only on the first serve and not the second? I would assume it's the same circumstances for any serve.

conditionZero
07-16-2009, 02:29 PM
If it were a recreational match, I probably would have let it go. But in a Tournament, the ball must first be out to be called out. Somewhere in the rules, if the ball in play touches any part of the body except the racket it's considered your point. SO even if he was standing outside the lines, and catchs or gets hit with the ball it's your point.

The rules absolutely give the point to ironwood. I'm just saying that I wouldn't have claimed it. He had every right to, though.

conditionZero
07-16-2009, 02:33 PM
So what your saying is, If the ball is out, on their first serve, but neither of the recieving team calls it out, then returns the ball over the net, it's considered in play?

Why is it only on the first serve and not the second? I would assume it's the same circumstances for any serve.

It's definitely not the same. If you can call your own first serve out, then when the receiver hits a return winner, you could claim the serve was out and take a second serve. You can call your second serve out because you're conceding the point. You can call your first serve out if the receiver tries to return it but hits it out or in the net, because then it benefits him, not you.

Lakers4Life
07-16-2009, 02:36 PM
The rules absolutely give the point to ironwood. I'm just saying that I wouldn't have claimed it. He had every right to, though.

I agree, I rarely see someone catch a ball going out. It takes a lot of effort, to catch a ball in midair, especially when you are hold a racquet in one hand.

Ironwood
07-17-2009, 06:45 AM
Thanks for the comments on whether I should have claimed the win. I think we all agree technically the rules would have given me the win, but I find it curious that most commentary, including a couple of competitive players I have asked at the club conclude if the ball would have landed that far out, I should not have claimed match point and should have carried on as I did. If the circumstances had been reversed, I would not have caught the ball. In recreational play, balls hit well out of play are stopped by racket or hand all the time so you don't have to chase it down, but in tournament play, even at a small club, the rules apply. Anyway, I've moved on!

PatrickB
07-18-2009, 08:08 AM
I've run into this "verbal let" situation before. If you played the serve, then the point is on. The server or serving team cannot call their own serve out, it's your call.

They can't call their own *first* serve out because they get a second serve on the same point if they do. The idea here is to avoid a situation like one where they hit a first serve, a tough return comes back, and they say the first serve was out so that they get a second serve. The rules allow them to call their own *second* serve out - they lose the point in that case, of course, and that's pretty much why it's kosher.


But my question is, if may partner calls the ball "out" and I still play the serve as receiver, is the point is still on? Sometimes we have continued the point to the end - sometimes the opposing team stops play and insists that we replay the point. The rules seem to say play two in most situations...

What do you mean by "still play the serve as receiver"?

If you think your partner's call is incorrect, then the rules on correcting a call apply here - stop play after hitting the ball and correct your partner, and if your return of the serve was in, you play a let, and if your return was out, you lose the point.

If you don't know for sure whether the serve was in or out, your partner should stop the point, and tell the servers he/she called it out, so the serve was a fault.

To put it simply, your partner shouldn't let you all keep playing if he/she called it out.