Rules question

[Midlife crisis]

I was playing a match tonight against a SV player. We're both right handed. On one point, my opponent served a first serve from the deuce court and I hit a chip return down low and near the sideline. He scrambled hard to get it on the fly and hit a deep floating return crosscourt to my backhand. During this scramble, a ball came out of his pocket and was rolling around on his backhand side near the net. Because the shot had sit up a bit high, he backed a bit away from the net, so I hit a topspin angle back towards his backhand. He scrambled for it and was going to hit it on the half volley, but my shot hit the ball that had fallen out of his pocket. It then bounced nearly straight up, whereupon he recovered and put it away for a winner.

We talked and played a let. We agreed that if my shot had hit his ball, which was inside the court, and he couldn't return it, that the point should be mines. Neither of us knew what the correct ruling was for this instance.

What would have been the correct ruling?

[dancraig]

Case 3. The service, or ball in play, strikes a ball lying in the Court. Is the point won or lost thereby?

[USTA Comment: A ball that is touching a boundary line is considered to be "lying in the court".]

Decision. No. Play must continue. If it is not clear to the Umpire that the right ball is returned a let should be called.

[bcaz]

If a let had not been called as soon as the extra ball appeared, then the point should be played as it was played -- he gets his winner. The best scenario would have been for the let to be called and the point be ended and re-played as soon as the extra ball appeared on the court.

[Midlife crisis]

Thanks for the clarifications. Not that I'll probably ever see this again in my lifetime, but it is good to know in case this scenario needs to be applied to something else wacky that happens.

[PM_]

Somebody please pull the rule-book on this one:
I don't see how 1) it can be a let; and 2) your opponent can get away with a free ball b/c your shot hit a ball that dropped out of HIS POCKET.
If anything, the point should be rewarded to you.
What if he dropped his keys out of his pocket and your shot hit it and deflected out of bounds? Would that be considered a let too?

[dancraig]

RULE 24
A Good Return
It is a good return:

(a) If the ball touches the net, posts, singles sticks, cord or metal cable, strap or band, provided that it passes over any of them and hits the ground within the court; or

(b) If the ball, served or returned, hits the ground within the proper Court and rebounds or is blown back over the net, and the player whose turn it is to strike reaches over the net and plays the ball, provided that neither he nor any part of his clothes or racket touches the net, posts, singles sticks, cord or metal cable strap or band or the ground within his opponent's Court, and that the stroke is otherwise good, or

(c) If the ball is returned outside the posts, or singles sticks, either above or below the level of the top of the net, even though it touches the posts or singles sticks, provided that it hits the ground within the proper Court, or

(d) If a player's racket passes over the net after he has returned the ball provided the ball passes the net before being played and is properly returned; or

(e) If a player succeeds in returning the ball, served or in play, which strikes a ball lying in the Court.

[USTA Comment: Paragraph (e) of the rule refers to a ball lying on the court at the start of the point, as a result of a service let or fault, or as a result of a player dropping it. If a ball in play strikes a rolling or stationary "foreign" ball that has come from elsewhere after the point started, a let should be played. See Case 7 under Rule 25 and note that it pertains to an object other than a ball that is being used in the match.]

[dancraig]

Case 7. Is it a good stroke if the ball touches a stationary or moving object on the Court?

Decision. It is a good stroke unless the stationary object came into Court after the ball was put into play, in which case a let must be called. If the ball in play strikes an object moving along or above the surface of the Court, a let must be called.

[dancraig]

RULE 21
Player Hinders Opponent
If a player commits any act which hinders his opponent in making a stroke, then, if this is deliberate, he shall lose the point or if involuntary, the point shall be replayed.

[USTA Comment: 'Deliberate' means a player did what he intended to do, although the resulting effect on his opponent might or might not have been what he intended. Example: a player, after his return is in the air, gives advice to his partner in such a loud voice that his opponent is hindered. 'Involuntary' means a non-intentional act such as a hat blowing off or a scream resulting from a sudden wasp sting.]

[tennis-n-sc]

Rule 21 is not applicable. And the time to call a let is immediately. If play continues, the stray ball becomes part ot the court.

[Rickson]

I was playing a match tonight against a SV player. We're both right handed. On one point, my opponent served a first serve from the deuce court and I hit a chip return down low and near the sideline. He scrambled hard to get it on the fly and hit a deep floating return crosscourt to my backhand. During this scramble, a ball came out of his pocket and was rolling around on his backhand side near the net. Because the shot had sit up a bit high, he backed a bit away from the net, so I hit a topspin angle back towards his backhand. He scrambled for it and was going to hit it on the half volley, but my shot hit the ball that had fallen out of his pocket. It then bounced nearly straight up, whereupon he recovered and put it away for a winner.

We talked and played a let. We agreed that if my shot had hit his ball, which was inside the court, and he couldn't return it, that the point should be mines. Neither of us knew what the correct ruling was for this instance.

What would have been the correct ruling?You were right to play a let because the ball dropped out of your buddy's pocket rather than him not clearing the court.

[Kathy]

Since neither of you called a let immediately when the ball fell out of his pocket, it became "a part of the court." So, the rule is the same as when the ball hits a crack in the court -- you just have to play it.

Since he managed to play it and put the ball away, he wins the point. If he had been unable to adjust to the bad bounce, you would have won the point.

Either of you can call a let immediately when such a thing happens though.

Kathy K
www.operationdoubles.com (http://www.operationdoubles.com)

[Midlife crisis]

Hmm, it seems the rules are written in a way that could allow multiple interpretations. For instance, DanCraig wrote:

[USTA Comment: Paragraph (e) of the rule refers to a ball lying on the court at the start of the point, as a result of a service let or fault, or as a result of a player dropping it.

Does the "or as a result of a player dropping it" stand by itself, meaning it is entirely a separate condition, or is it part of the rest of the sentence, meaning it must also be a part of "the ball lying in the court at the start of a point. . .". Depending on which of these you choose, the interpretations are entirely different from each other.

From the responses, I think I'm still not clear. Rule 7 seems to indicate a let should be called, but then it is also said that since neither of us immediately called a let, the play should stand.

Does this need to be a poll? :mrgreen:

[oldguysrule]

Hmm, it seems the rules are written in a way that could allow multiple interpretations. For instance, DanCraig wrote:



Does the "or as a result of a player dropping it" stand by itself, meaning it is entirely a separate condition, or is it part of the rest of the sentence, meaning it must also be a part of "the ball lying in the court at the start of a point. . .". Depending on which of these you choose, the interpretations are entirely different from each other.

From the responses, I think I'm still not clear. Rule 7 seems to indicate a let should be called, but then it is also said that since neither of us immediately called a let, the play should stand.

Does this need to be a poll? :mrgreen:

The "or" refers to the two instances of how a ball can be "lying in the court at the start of a point..." The rules of sentence construction would require the interpretation to be "...a ball lying on the court at the start of a point...as a result of a player dropping it."

However this is not what happened. I agree with Kathy, since a let was not called immediately, the dropped ball became part of the court which means the point stands as played.

[kevhen]

Yeah I agree the ball became part of the court when no one called a let. You chose to play the point out and took the chance of it hitting the ball and bouncing straight up. Your opponent got a lucky bounce and finished the point off. 99/100 you would have won that point when you hit his ball on the court and you would have taken the point. He didn't put the ball on his court intentionally and again you chose to play the point out instead of calling a let when you first noticed the 'distraction'.

[dancraig]

RULE 21
Player Hinders Opponent
If a player commits any act which hinders his opponent in making a stroke, then, if this is deliberate, he shall lose the point or if involuntary, the point shall be replayed.

[USTA Comment: 'Deliberate' means a player did what he intended to do, although the resulting effect on his opponent might or might not have been what he intended. Example: a player, after his return is in the air, gives advice to his partner in such a loud voice that his opponent is hindered. 'Involuntary' means a non-intentional act such as a hat blowing off or a scream resulting from a sudden wasp sting.]

What if the point had been played and you lost it. Could you not claim that you were "hindered" by the distraction of the ball on the court? What would be the difference between a ball falling out of a pocket, and a hat blowing off someone's head? (as mentioned above in rule 21)

[Midlife crisis]

This was basically just a casual match, and if the results had really counted I definitely would have called for a let. It was just such an unusual thing that the balls would hit so perfectly, and neither one of us, both of whom have played tennis for the better part of two decades, knew what the exact ruling should be.

So, the concensus seems to be that since neither of us called a let, the play stands and my opponent should correctly claim the point, right?

[dancraig]

Who won the match?

[bcaz]

"two bites at the apple..." you can't have it both ways ... either call the let immediately, as soon as the hazard is apparent, or play it as it lays.

[bcaz]

............

[Midlife crisis]

Who won the match?

I did, 4 and 4. The guy has a really good kick serve and I missed quite a bit trying to hit it past him. Also, because the serve kicks up high, it goes slow so it gave him a lot of time to get close to the net, just increasing my anxiety and making me swing harder and less accurately. I usually try and hit out against SV players because I hate, let me repeat ***HATE*** being run around like a rag doll. I will try and do almost anything to dictate pace and the game, even if it means I miss more.

After I lost the first three of his serve games winning maybe only one or two points combined, I decided I had to give him some sort of practice just by getting the ball back in play. All of a sudden, I make a few good, low, soft returns that he has to volley up on, and for some reason he's not as good with these as with harder, faster, low shots. He gets them up high enough that even with my relatively slow foot speed, I usually have enough time to get there and make a swing. Maybe because he plays such good players that they don't usually hit that soft at his feet?

This was a breakthrough for me. This guy is good, and I've seen him beat players that I could not get two games a match from. I just happened to have found something that he didn't like, seemed to do it in a way which bothered him, and then it was just a matter of how well I executed this one strategy versus him executing his game. I've been on the receiving end of this too. I'm currently fighting against this one player who plays flights a half level below me with only moderate success, but I haven't come close to taking a set of him in two matches yet because he has figured out my one big weakness and is very good at exploiting it.

[Geezer Guy]

This was basically just a casual match, and if the results had really counted I definitely would have called for a let. It was just such an unusual thing that the balls would hit so perfectly, and neither one of us, both of whom have played tennis for the better part of two decades, knew what the exact ruling should be.

So, the concensus seems to be that since neither of us called a let, the play stands and my opponent should correctly claim the point, right?

You can't wait till the point is over, and THEN call a let because you didn't like the outcome. Either call a let immediately, or play on. In the case you mentioned, your opponent won (and deserved) the point.