PDA

View Full Version : Rule Question - Running into another court to retrieve a shot


JRstriker12
08-17-2010, 07:49 AM
Played dubs last night with some friends of mine - it was fun but very competitive. I cracked a sharp angled forehand return that landed in and pulled my one friend wide.

We were playing at a set of courts where there is very little room between our court and the next court and no dividers. To get to the ball my opponent had to run onto the other court and nearly collided with the players on the other court (Ray Lewis style - LOL!).

I though it was a winner, but he thought he could have gotten it back.In the end we played a let. It was kind of funny, but I was just wondering is there an offical rule for this situation?

bcart1991
08-17-2010, 07:59 AM
I *think* since the player went onto another court, it's your point. If a player came onto your court and interrupted play, it would be a let. Makes the most sense to me that way.

Players on other courts would probably fall under "permanent fixtures of the court" or something like that.

Given my non-professional opinion, let's see what the rule-readers have to say.

Islandtennis
08-17-2010, 08:20 AM
Players on the other court could have called a let in their match, but you would have won the point had your opponent not returned the ball in play.

woodrow1029
08-17-2010, 08:21 AM
Players on an adjacent court would be considered permanent fixtures. Like said above, if someone came onto YOUR court to hit a shot, then your court would be entitled to a let; but, not in the OP's situation.

LuckyR
08-17-2010, 08:44 AM
Players on an adjacent court would be considered permanent fixtures. Like said above, if someone came onto YOUR court to hit a shot, then your court would be entitled to a let; but, not in the OP's situation.

Really? Players (who move about and leave the court) are permanent fixtures? If true then the rules people are shoehorning this rule to fit a predetermined outcome.

JRstriker12
08-17-2010, 09:07 AM
Players on an adjacent court would be considered permanent fixtures. Like said above, if someone came onto YOUR court to hit a shot, then your court would be entitled to a let; but, not in the OP's situation.

Thanks Woodrow!

LOL! Spectators, Ballboys, and Officals are permanent fixtures too!

The permanent fixtures of the court include the backstops and sidestops,
the spectators, the stands and seats for spectators, all other fixtures around
and above the court, the chair umpire, line umpires, net umpire and ball persons when in their recognised positions.

I guess this stops a player from claiming a let if they thought they could have returned a ball by climbing into the stands but the spectators got into the way.

Really? Players (who move about and leave the court) are permanent fixtures? If true then the rules people are shoehorning this rule to fit a predetermined outcome.

How so? Don't most rules have a predetermined outcome?

woodrow1029
08-17-2010, 09:13 AM
Just so you know, my opinion on this same situation used to be different. In fact there is another thread somewhere from last year on here I think in which I said that both courts would be entitled to a let in this situation. I brought up the question to the national chairperson of officials who asked the rules committee, and the interpretation given to me was that it would only be a let for the court that was invaded onto.

JRstriker12
08-17-2010, 09:28 AM
Just so you know, my opinion on this same situation used to be different. In fact there is another thread somewhere from last year on here I think in which I said that both courts would be entitled to a let in this situation. I brought up the question to the national chairperson of officials who asked the rules committee, and the interpretation given to me was that it would only be a let for the court that was invaded onto.


Thanks again. Very interesting....

athiker
08-17-2010, 10:15 AM
Great info Woodrow...thanks for responding to these type of threads.

So to be clear...kind of a side issue to the original question...its perfectly fine to run into an adjacent court (maybe not polite if occupied, but nonetheless legal) and return a ball to continue a point.

auzzieizm
08-17-2010, 10:25 AM
What's the rule if the player almost pile drives the two unassuming ladies on the next court ;)?

JRstriker12
08-17-2010, 10:29 AM
What's the rule if the player almost pile drives the two unassuming ladies on the next court ;)?

LOL! (10 char) that about sums it up.

tennis tom
08-17-2010, 10:59 AM
What's the rule if the player almost pile drives the two unassuming ladies on the next court ;)?

Could be a good way of meeting new mx'ed partners but keep your liability policy up to date.

woodrow1029
08-17-2010, 11:16 AM
Great info Woodrow...thanks for responding to these type of threads.

So to be clear...kind of a side issue to the original question...its perfectly fine to run into an adjacent court (maybe not polite if occupied, but nonetheless legal) and return a ball to continue a point.
Absolutely...

Cindysphinx
08-17-2010, 11:22 AM
I think this is the original thread on this subject:

http://tt.tennis-warehouse.com/showthread.php?t=288894&highlight=adjacent

LuckyR
08-17-2010, 01:34 PM
How so? Don't most rules have a predetermined outcome?


Sure, my comment wasn't on that, rather the (mis)use of the term: "permanent" to describe a player, who is obviously anything but permanent.

Limpinhitter
08-18-2010, 01:49 PM
Players on the other court could have called a let in their match, but you would have won the point had your opponent not returned the ball in play.

That's the way I see it.

MethodTennis
08-23-2010, 03:32 AM
i recently played a lefty who fired every serve to the ad court onto the singles line of the next court, not much i could do about it tbh. i eventualy started stepping in and taking it really early.