PDA

View Full Version : Another rule question


Rickson
06-20-2005, 06:16 PM
Player A hits a drop shot, player B rushes the net and gets to the ball, player A attempts a quick volley but nets it, player B in his rush to get to the ball crashes into the net from the momentum but not before player A hits the ball into the net. Who wins the point?

Bonus points!

tom-selleck
06-20-2005, 06:29 PM
i would assume point over as ball never made it over net, so next player was never in play.

Rickson
06-20-2005, 06:44 PM
i would assume point over as ball never made it over net, so next player was never in play.
I don't think you read the question properly. John hits a drop shot, Sam runs down and hits it over, John makes a quick reflex volley that hits the net, Sam crashes into the net because he still has some momentum going but John nets the volley before Sam crashes into the net. Who wins the point? John or Sam?

tom-selleck
06-20-2005, 07:02 PM
rickson, you are correct!!!

then i'd say the first guy who hit it and then crashed into net lost the point. not that much different than a serve where the returner netted but there was a foot fault (although i guess the foot fault technically happened before the server returned).... but i think on rereading your thread, it might be fairly clear-cut.

tennis-n-sc
06-20-2005, 07:03 PM
The point ended when John netted the volley, IMO. Whatever transpires after that is pretty moot, I would think. It is too late to look it up tonight.

Rickson
06-20-2005, 07:59 PM
Very interesting. We have 2 different answers already. So did John lose the point because he netted the volley or did Sam lose the point because he crashed into the net? Let's wait and find out what the rulebook says.

Tennis Ball Hitter
06-20-2005, 09:46 PM
John hits a drop shot,
Sam runs down and hits it over,
John makes a quick reflex volley that hits the net,
Sam crashes into the net because he still has some momentum going
but John nets the volley before Sam crashes into the net.

Sam wins the point as he touched the net after the point finished.

Real example.
remember that shot where Phillipousous leans over the net and leans on his racquet on the other side of the net?
Flip hit a shot, his momentum/off balance, caused him to lean over the net and touch his racquet on his opponents court. But the ball had bounced twice before Flip's racquet came in contact with the ground. Flip won the point.

Rickson
06-21-2005, 05:06 AM
Ah, but what if John nets the volley, but the ball didn't hit the ground before Sam crashed into the net?

Carley1986
06-21-2005, 05:11 AM
I think as long as the ball is in play no player is allowed to touch the net. So if the ball is still in play when Sam crashed into the net then John wins the point. But if the ball hit the net hits john's court then Sam crashed, Sam wins the point. Now that makes sense :D

Tennis Ball Hitter
06-21-2005, 05:37 AM
hmmm, I see your point. So we need to know when is the ball considered dead?

when it hits the net OR when the ball hits the ground after it hits the net.

since the ball could still go in after hitting the net.

Carley1986
06-21-2005, 05:45 AM
When the ball hits the ground after it hits the net offcourse. But I'm not sure though, thats the logical thing to do. From what i know the rule said that if you go over the net or touch part of the net during play then you lose the point. So I would've thought that if it hits the net and hits the ground, or after the ball bouced twice (double bounce then you're allowed to touch the net). But it all depends on the umpire i guess. Just like a line call if the referee didn't say nothing then the ball is still in play. If there is no umpire then the fairest thing to do is the above. But if there was one, then ask him. At the end of the day he's the boss

Rickson
06-21-2005, 06:15 AM
Sounds good, Carley! If John nets the ball, but the ball has not hit the ground and Sam crashes the net, John wins the point, but if the ball hits the net and the ground, and Sam takes a delayed stumble to the net, the ball is considered dead and Sam wins the point. I'm still not 100% sure about it, but that would be my guess.

kevhen
06-21-2005, 06:45 AM
Does the ball need to hit the ground after hitting the net or is the point dead once the ball hits the net and doesn't go over immediately?

Rickson
06-21-2005, 06:50 AM
Does the ball need to hit the ground after hitting the net or is the point dead once the ball hits the net and doesn't go over immediately?
The ball is still in play if it didn't hit the ground because a "miracle" could take place and send the ball over to Sam's side.

tom-selleck
06-21-2005, 06:53 AM
have we got a definitive answer... as i'd be very surprised if the player that hit the net wins the point.... it seems it's a clear "continuation" of his shot, and that it "invalidates" his getting the ball over the net. i'd be shocked if that was wrong, but i'm shocked alot. :confused: :confused:

Rickson
06-21-2005, 07:05 AM
have we got a definitive answer... as i'd be very surprised if the player that hit the net wins the point.... it seems it's a clear "continuation" of his shot, and that it "invalidates" his getting the ball over the net. i'd be shocked if that was wrong, but i'm shocked alot. :confused: :confused:
Well, Tom, if Sam has a very slow momentum going and hits the net after John's volley hits the net and the ground, he'd win the point because the ball is dead after it hits the ground.

tom-selleck
06-21-2005, 07:18 AM
Well, Tom, if Sam has a very slow momentum going and hits the net after John's volley hits the net and the ground, he'd win the point because the ball is dead after it hits the ground.

you may be right, but if i go barrelling into the net, and my opponent has put a reflex volley into the net, i know they'll be all over me for the point (and rightfully so from a common sense point of view IMO)..... i just don't see this "point is over" argument, unless you guys are telling me that you are sure that's the rule.

Geezer Guy
06-21-2005, 07:35 AM
The point is over when John's ball hit's the ground. Nothing after that matters.

Now, if John goes back and serves the next point, and THEN Sam's previously noted VERY slow momentum causes him to crash into the net, Sam would lose THAT point.

Tennis Ball Hitter
06-21-2005, 07:38 AM
tom,

When the "point is over" you can do what you want [e.g sit on the net, throw your racquet into the opponenets court ...].

So for example, that point where philliposuous lent over the net and placed his racquet on his oponents court. Once the ball had bounced twice the point was considered over and thus phillipousous was not penalized for his actions. However, if phillipousous had touched his oponents court before the ball had bouced the second time, then flip would have lost the point.

so were just dicsussing when exactly would the point be over. We are nit-picking over a technicality and as you said, chances are, the opponent who did not touch the net would take the point unless the guy who hit the net made a fuss about it [even then I would not like his chances to argue the "win"].

Carley1986
06-21-2005, 07:50 AM
The rule book doesn't state the specific scenario. But technically speaking when the ball hits the ground (at John's court) after it hits the net, the point is finished, there is no way the point will continue. Therefore Sam is allowed to touch the net anyway, just like the rule said you are allowed to touch after the point's finished. However, umpire would probably have a different view like most of us do. So some might agree some might not. It's upto the umpire I guess. But as for the rule book *shrugs*

Rickson
06-21-2005, 10:09 AM
The point is over when John's ball hit's the ground. Nothing after that matters.

Now, if John goes back and serves the next point, and THEN Sam's previously noted VERY slow momentum causes him to crash into the net, Sam would lose THAT point.
But if Sam charges after he returns a winner and the ball bounces twice or hits the fence first, Sam gets the point because he hits the net after the ball is dead.

Rickson
06-21-2005, 12:54 PM
Can you believe the scenario almost happened today at Wimbledon? Roddick hit a defensive volley that fell just over the net and Vanek tried his best to run it down. Vanek missed the shot anyway, but his momentum sent him flying over the net to Roddick's side. Now if Vanek made the shot and the ball bounced twice before he fell over, we'd have had a good thread going.

papa
06-21-2005, 05:10 PM
Well, the confusion, if any, might come from the fact that the net, posts and cable are NOT fixed objects so, as many have said, the point is not over if the ball touches the net. Many, many times in any given match, the ball hits the net and can go to either side - as we all know, it sometimes can hit the net more than once and bounce relatively high before it hits the ground - in other words it can take "some time" for it to hit the court after it hits the net. However, again as several have already said, the point is over after the ball hits the net when it touches the ground once on the side of the person who hit the ball or if it bounces twice on the opponents side.

So in the example stated, Rickson has it right. The varibles are the length of time the ball takes to hit the ground after it hits the net and when the opponent hits the net - whatever happens first.

SageOfDeath
06-23-2005, 07:45 AM
The ball is still in play if it didn't hit the ground because a "miracle" could take place and send the ball over to Sam's side.

I don't doubt that the ball will still be considered in play but I doubt the possibility of a "miracle" like that. What would happen a bird sudden swoop down and steal the tennis ball and drop it to Sam's side???

Geezer Guy
06-23-2005, 08:42 AM
I don't doubt that the ball will still be considered in play but I doubt the possibility of a "miracle" like that. What would happen a bird sudden swoop down and steal the tennis ball and drop it to Sam's side???

No, a bird swooping down wouldn't be a miracle - that would be an unusual natural occurance. A miracle would be like the hand of a god reaching down from the sky, catching the ball mid-flight, and depositing in on the other side.

papa
06-23-2005, 09:44 AM
I don't doubt that the ball will still be considered in play but I doubt the possibility of a "miracle" like that. What would happen a bird sudden swoop down and steal the tennis ball and drop it to Sam's side???

If the ball hits a bird during play, its considered a hindrance, and the point is played over. Rules don't get into what the bird's intentions were or their size. However, the bird must be in flight.

Geezer Guy
06-23-2005, 12:07 PM
If the ball hits a bird during play, its considered a hindrance, and the point is played over. Rules don't get into what the bird's intentions were or their size. However, the bird must be in flight.
NOW we're getting into some serious discussion! If a ball hit's a bird in flight (meaning the BIRD is in flight) then it's a hindrance you say? Implying that a ball hitting a stationary bird is NOT a hindrance, I assume? A ball strking a stationary bird on the ground would be treated as if it were hitting any other random object on the court - you just hope for a good bounce and continue playing the point. If a served ball hit's a stationary bird on the net, I'm guessing it would be a LET if the ball then bounces into the correct court?

kevhen
06-23-2005, 12:16 PM
If a bird flew in on your court during a point, couldn't you call a let? Has anyone had this happen since I don't think birds are attracted to courts with moving tennis balls?

papa
06-23-2005, 01:02 PM
If a bird flew in on your court during a point, couldn't you call a let? Has anyone had this happen since I don't think birds are attracted to courts with moving tennis balls?

No, you can't call a let. Birds fly in and around courts on a regular basis and its not uncommon for one to get inside. Can't have a different set of rules for each State and birds are very common occurance in most of the southern states.

Birds, like hawks, eagles and seagulls, to name a few, aren't bothered by tennis balls at all and seem intrigued by them at times. Even small birds aren't that uncommon around tennis courts.

papa
06-23-2005, 01:14 PM
NOW we're getting into some serious discussion! If a ball hit's a bird in flight (meaning the BIRD is in flight) then it's a hindrance you say? Implying that a ball hitting a stationary bird is NOT a hindrance, I assume? A ball strking a stationary bird on the ground would be treated as if it were hitting any other random object on the court - you just hope for a good bounce and continue playing the point. If a served ball hit's a stationary bird on the net, I'm guessing it would be a LET if the ball then bounces into the correct court?

Well, believe it or not, I think you have this right GG, because I'm not aware of any other "bird" stories. USTA, Rules of Tennis, sec. 26, "Hindrance" case 3 "A ball hits a bird flying over the court. Does this create a hindrance? decision: Yes. The point shall be replayed."

Anything that land or is on the court, like a hat that fall off someones head, becomes part of the court so I would assume a bird landing on the court would be the same.

equinox
07-13-2005, 02:18 AM
Well, believe it or not, I think you have this right GG, because I'm not aware of any other "bird" stories. USTA, Rules of Tennis, sec. 26, "Hindrance" case 3 "A ball hits a bird flying over the court. Does this create a hindrance? decision: Yes. The point shall be replayed."

Anything that land or is on the court, like a hat that fall off someones head, becomes part of the court so I would assume a bird landing on the court would be the same.

Technically if your hat fell off during the point, an opponent could call a non deliberate hinderence on you. You'd then play a let and replay the point. If your hat fell off your head again, this would then be deemed a deliberate hinderence. You lose the point.


A ball strking a stationary bird on the ground would be treated as if it were hitting any other random object on the court - you just hope for a good bounce and continue playing the point.

A stationary bird is no different than a bug, piece of bark, or stationary ball you forgot to clear before starting the point. You continue play even if you hit or kill the object.

x Southpaw x
07-13-2005, 05:37 AM
Person who lost the point first, loses the point. Person who drove the ball into the net before the other guy crashed into the net, loses the point. If the argument cannot be settled easily, best solution is show tennis etiquette and replay the point. However if there is an umpire around, call the umpire or coach around to resolve it.

papa
07-13-2005, 02:08 PM
Technically if your hat fell off during the point, an opponent could call a non deliberate hinderence on you. You'd then play a let and replay the point. If your hat fell off your head again, this would then be deemed a deliberate hinderence. You lose the point.




A stationary bird is no different than a bug, piece of bark, or stationary ball you forgot to clear before starting the point. You continue play even if you hit or kill the object.

Would you mind giving us a reference on the first paragraph. Certainly not aware of your "two strikes and your out" rule. Keep in mind that the hat doesn't create a hinderence for the oposing players but might be for the person or his partner who lost it.

On the second paragraph, if you kill a bird during flight, you do not continue playing. If you happen to kill a bird that has "landed" I'm not exactly sure what you do except hope that your not in charge.

AngeloDS
07-13-2005, 03:01 PM
Just curious on two rulings. What happens if it goes through the net? And what happens if the ball bounces in the opposite court and has enough spin and wind to bring it back to the other court and the other player can't get to it? Or it's a wifty lob that hits before the service line and floats back to the opposite side?

SageOfDeath
07-13-2005, 03:32 PM
Just curious on two rulings. What happens if it goes through the net? And what happens if the ball bounces in the opposite court and has enough spin and wind to bring it back to the other court and the other player can't get to it? Or it's a wifty lob that hits before the service line and floats back to the opposite side?

If you hit a ball that has enough backspin to get back to your side and your opponent is unable to touch the ball with any part of his racquet then you win the point.

Opposite court? I don't understand what you mean by that, side you mean? If so then that's answered by my first paragraph.

What happens IF it goes through the net? IF is the main thing and they probably haven't created a rule for it because I'm so sure that a 57 gram tennis ball can have enough force off a racquet to go through the net.

You have to consider there is only so much abuse that a tennis string can take so you consider durablity of string as a limit to the speed of the ball.

Even if you were using kevlar for strings, I doubt even if you broke the strings to hit the ball, I doubt that it would go through the net.

More likely though, you could break the ball. I haven't seen it happen but I know its possible. If the ball had a lot of pressure in it like a new ball and it was a hot day. If hit extremely hard I bet that thing would pop open.

Rickson
07-13-2005, 03:36 PM
Just curious on two rulings. What happens if it goes through the net? And what happens if the ball bounces in the opposite court and has enough spin and wind to bring it back to the other court and the other player can't get to it? Or it's a wifty lob that hits before the service line and floats back to the opposite side?
This question has been answered many times before and the answer is a ball that bounces back to the side it came from is a point for the person who hit the ball if the opponent did not touch the ball at all.

MegacedU
07-13-2005, 03:40 PM
I think Sam wins.

papa
07-13-2005, 04:08 PM
I had a similar point to this. My brother hit a drop shot, so I ran for it and hit the ball over. I was off balance, but I believed the ball bounced twice already. It was then that I touched the net. I ended up giving him the point, but I'm not sure it was the right one.

Ball bounces twice and the point is over - period. You can touch the net without a problem.

papa
07-13-2005, 04:17 PM
If you hit a ball that goes "through" the net (generally due to a broken net string) you loose the point.

krussell
07-13-2005, 04:21 PM
I may have this wrong but I'm pretty sure that if ball bounces on your side and then back over the net to your opponents side then this is the one case in which you are allowed to reach over the net and make contact with the ball without penalty. You still can't touch the net though.

Rabbit
07-14-2005, 04:24 AM
Nope, you're correct.

Rickson
07-14-2005, 07:55 PM
I may have this wrong but I'm pretty sure that if ball bounces on your side and then back over the net to your opponents side then this is the one case in which you are allowed to reach over the net and make contact with the ball without penalty. You still can't touch the net though.
You can reach over the net even if the ball hasn't bounced back to the other side if the ball has already bounced on your side. You can't touch the net at all while the ball is in play, but if the ball has bounced on your side, it means the ball has crossed that imaginary line above the net that you're not supposed to cross while the ball is in the air, but the followthrough can go well past the net as long as you don't touch it.

papa
07-15-2005, 03:51 AM
You can reach over the net even if the ball hasn't bounced back to the other side if the ball has already bounced on your side. You can't touch the net at all while the ball is in play, but if the ball has bounced on your side, it means the ball has crossed that imaginary line above the net that you're not supposed to cross while the ball is in the air, but the followthrough can go well past the net as long as you don't touch it.

No, this is not entirely correct. You have to "hit" the ball "prior" to the racquet passing over the vertical plane of the net - the only exception is when the ball has enough spin to return back by itself.

I think Rickson knows this because he mentions the followthrough which "can" cross as he states.

Rickson
08-13-2005, 03:50 PM
No, this is not entirely correct. You have to "hit" the ball "prior" to the racquet passing over the vertical plane of the net - the only exception is when the ball has enough spin to return back by itself.

I think Rickson knows this because he mentions the followthrough which "can" cross as he states.
I said that after the bounce, one can follow through well past the net, I never said that you can hit the ball before it crosses the net. If you hit the ball on the other side after the bounce, of course the only time that would happen is with an over and back. My point was that after the bounce, you're allowed to break the plane when you hit the ball as long as you never touch the net. My opponent once tried to get me on that play because my FT went well past the net, but I never touched it. I told him, "the ball bounced on my side, buddy, you lose the point because no part of me ever touched the net". He said, "but your racquet was over the net". I said, "so what?".

Concealeddreamer
08-13-2005, 04:05 PM
The person that hit to net loses point. They net it before they crash.

Rickson
08-14-2005, 04:41 AM
The person that hit to net loses point. They net it before they crash.
Your answer would only be correct if the player who hit into the net, hit the ball to the net then the ball hit the court before the other guy touches the net with his body.