Did Tennis Magazine Get This Right?

[Cindysphinx]

In this month's issue of Tennis Magazine, they answered a rules question and I am not sure about their answer. Apologies that I can't copy the Q&A, but I'll do my best to convey the gist.

The question was a doubles scenario. Receiver hits a winner off the return. Meanwhile, partner had called the serve out; receiver says the serve was in. Whose point is it?

The article said that there were two possible outcomes:

1. Serving team wins the point. If partners disagree on a line call, they lose the point. The Code says: "Partners’ disagreement on calls. If one partner calls the ball out and the other partner sees the ball good, the ball is good. . . . .If a call is changed from out to good, the principles of Code § 12 apply." [Code Section 12 is "Out calls reversed. A player who calls a ball out shall reverse the call if the player becomes uncertain or realizes that the ball was good. The point goes to the opponent and is not replayed."]

OR

2. Receiving team wins the point. The Code says players must give benefit of the doubt to the opponent on line calls. That means the receivers are obligated to call the serve good because they are not sure it was out. Which means the return winner counts, point over.

I have a problem with outcome number 2. If the receiver calls the ball out, that is a hindrance, is it not? So why wouldn't it be server's point on that basis alone? And how can the return winner count when the point ends the instant any player calls the ball out?

What am I missing?

 

[Chadillac]

If one partner calls the ball out and the other partner sees the ball good, the ball is good. . . .

Calling a ball out ends the point. Both players respresent the team. If the out call is overturned by the partner, you lose the point.

 

[r2473]

Partner had no way of knowing their partner receiving serve was going to hit a winner when they made the "league out" call. As such, they shouldn't get penalized for protecting the team.

 

[kylebarendrick]

Serve was in, receiving team stopped play with their erroneous out call, point to serving team.

 

[Dartagnan64]

Partner's disagree which means the ball was good, which means the play should have continued. But since someone had indicated an out call, this would be a hindrance. Serving team point.

The only other scenario is that the team confabs the returner decides she was totally unsure, defers to her partner and the out call stands. Which should be a second serve if the instance occurred on a first serve or receiver's point if a second serve.

Both partner's need not agree on a call. One can be certain and the other uncertain. That's not a disagreement. So if the returner admits they weren't sure it's the partners call and it stands as out.

So I think it can only be a server's point or a fault. The returner's winner is negated by an out call.

 

[Topspin Shot]

Tennis magazine says the receiver was sure the serve was good. So if the receiver's partner called the serve out, it's a disagreement, the out call is a hindrance, and the serving team loses the point. On the other hand, if there was no call and the receiver's partner only said the serve was out after the fact because he was a good sport and didn't want a cheap winner, the server should also be a good sport and take a second serve.

 

[ttwarrior1]

uh, my tennis mag says different,

 

[S&V-not_dead_yet]

I seem to recall that the writer [Rebel Good?] acknowledged the vaguely worded rule.

The basic idea is that when partners disagree, the call more favorable to the opponent stands. Notice I didn't say "if there is a disagreement, the ball is in." What I wrote is more generic.

So if the other team hits anything besides a first serve and you see it in and your partner sees it out, the more favorable call to the other team is "in".

Using this language, rather than "disagreement means in", allows the following interpretation [which I think is in the spirit of the rule]: "out" is actually more favorable to the server so that call stands. The first serve is out and the server gets a 2nd serve rather than losing the point on the return.

The reason for the apparent contradiction is that the serve is the only shot where you get 2 tries. If we only got 1 serve, you wouldn't need the fancier language.

The problem is that the rule doesn't account for the scenario where an out call is actually advantageous to the other team. IMO, they ought to fix it to read something like I wrote above.

 

[Hmgraphite1]

Thought the same thing when I read it, I was like wtf, world tour finals. That don't sound fair.

 

[NTRPolice]

Server wins the point.

The rules are always worded so your opponents have the advantage in ambiguous scenarios. This is why even on the pro tour players can give away points to the opponents even if there are line judges.

Since the receiving partners are disagreeing on the line call and an out call has been made, the point goes to the serving team (benefit of doubt; disagreement). Had the return been out, it would have been the servers point also (benefit of doubt; calling the ball good).

 

[willeric]

Does it matter if it's first or second serve? If it's first serve, then they get a second serve? If it's second serve, then what? Or do the receivers just lose the point for a bad line call?

 

[J_R_B]

Serve was in, receiving team stopped play with their erroneous out call, point to serving team.

This seems right to me.

 

[Dartagnan64]

The only way I can see it being receivers point is if the “out” call happened after the outcome of the return and the end of the point. In that case it’s a late call and against the code. So point stands as played.

Of course I’ve never seen the receivers partner watch the returner hit a winner then say the serve was out. Like ever.

 

[MisterP]

The receiving team definitely doesn't win the point.

It's either a first serve or point to the serving team.

 

[PJGtennis]

I don't see how this could possibly be the returners point, Once an out call is made the point is essentially over. Once the receiver partner calls out, the ball is dead it doesn't matter where the ball lands. This means the returning team changed the call after the point or were unsure of the call. Thus "Out calls reversed. A player who calls a ball out shall reverse the call if the player becomes uncertain or realizes that the ball was good. The point goes to the opponent and is not replayed."
However, I believe the point whoever wrote the magazine article was trying to make is if there was no call till after the point has concluded then the point was played in "good faith". If all players attempted to play the point as though the ball was in. Then the point should stand as played, Returners point.
This really comes down to when the call was made and how noticeable it was.
In my opinion, I would give the point to the server's team if I was returning, and if I was serving and the other team did not give me the point then I would be pretty ticked off.
Does anybody remember the match, Andy Roddick played at Wimbledon where he challenged his own serve out after Ferrer hit a clean winner on match point. At least I think it was Ferrer. He ended up losing the match I believe but I think his 1st serve was out and then he had a chance to hit a second serve.

 

[Cindysphinx]

Yeah, I also think Tennis Mag got it wrong. They got way off track with their discussion of how "benefit of the doubt" allows the receiver's to call the ball good and keep the point.

 

[Dartagnan64]

Yeah, I also think Tennis Mag got it wrong. They got way off track with their discussion of how "benefit of the doubt" allows the receiver's to call the ball good and keep the point.

It could only happen if the out call occurred after the point. If the ball was in play when someone yelled out, it would be a hindrance. Or maybe the serving team didn't consider themselves hindered by the out call and refused to take the point. Which is fine. But I would normally stop playing if the receiver's partner signalled out.

 

[penpal]

2. Receiving team wins the point. The Code says players must give benefit of the doubt to the opponent on line calls. That means the receivers are obligated to call the serve good because they are not sure it was out. Which means the return winner counts, point over.

No, that isn't what the Code means here. The Code is simply saying, 'Hey, don't get into a long, heated argument about your opponent's line calls. Assume they are making the best calls they can and move on.'

The receivers aren't obligated to call the serve good - not after one of them yells "Out!" during the point. There is only one outcome that is acceptable, and it's obvious that the serving team wins the point.

 

[Cindysphinx]

Hey, don't yell at me. I thought the Tennis Mag columnist was way wrong.

 

[darkhorse]

I read the article you're talking about, just one point of clarification: The question involved a first serve, and the options were either serving team gets a second serve (the "out" call is accepted) or receiving team wins the point (logic being doubt on the call = "in", so the return stands). The author argues that the serving team getting a second serve is the logical answer, but the code doesn't outright say that.

I agree that I'm not sure the author's answer is right, to me logic would suggest either a first serve or the serving team winning the point due to hindrance (although the latter doesn't quite sit well with me). To me the most fair solution is to give another first serve even if the code doesn't really give that as an option.

 

[Dartagnan64]

I read the article you're talking about, just one point of clarification: The question involved a first serve, and the options were either serving team gets a second serve (the "out" call is accepted) or receiving team wins the point (logic being doubt on the call = "in", so the return stands). The author argues that the serving team getting a second serve is the logical answer, but the code doesn't outright say that.

I agree that I'm not sure the author's answer is right, to me logic would suggest either a first serve or the serving team winning the point due to hindrance (although the latter doesn't quite sit well with me). To me the most fair solution is to give another first serve even if the code doesn't really give that as an option.

You know, I think in every scenario similar to this the outcome has been a second serve. Why? Because my returning partner has accepted my “out” call. They know that they will sometimes see a ball look “in” that is a couple inches out.

Of course they are a little upset at nailing a nice winner, but unless it’s clearly inside the line, they are going to defer to the guy standing still staring down the line. So it’s hardly ever going to be an issue if the team accepts primary responsibility for the service line call is to the receivers partner and you don’t disagree with him unless he’s totally of base.

 

[MisterP]

You know, I think in every scenario similar to this the outcome has been a second serve. Why? Because my returning partner has accepted my “out” call. They know that they will sometimes see a ball look “in” that is a couple inches out.

Of course they are a little upset at nailing a nice winner, but unless it’s clearly inside the line, they are going to defer to the guy standing still staring down the line. So it’s hardly ever going to be an issue if the team accepts primary responsibility for the service line call is to the receivers partner and you don’t disagree with him unless he’s totally of base.

Can't be a second serve. If there is a disagreement on the line call then the call is good. Meaning the serve is in. But the ensuing discussion means play can't continue. So the receiving team either concedes the point or gives the serving team a first serve.

 

[SGM1980]

I can't imagine a scenario where I would overrule my doubles partner on an "out" call on a serve. Maybe on the sideline? But certainly not on a deep ball. I'll play anything close and trust them to call it out. I know I play tons of slightly deep balls in singles because I can't call the line very tight in that situation. But with a partner usually standing right on the service line it's pretty easy to call that for your partner... It would have to be a HORRENDOUS call for me to overrule on a deep ball.

 

[MisterP]

I can't imagine a scenario where I would overrule my doubles partner on an "out" call on a serve. Maybe on the sideline? But certainly not on a deep ball. I'll play anything close and trust them to call it out. I know I play tons of slightly deep balls in singles because I can't call the line very tight in that situation. But with a partner usually standing right on the service line it's pretty easy to call that for your partner... It would have to be a HORRENDOUS call for me to overrule on a deep ball.

What if you're the net player and it's your receiving partner who calls the ball deep but you clearly saw that it clipped the line? Happens all the time. Overrule and move on.

 

[SGM1980]

What if you're the net player and it's your receiving partner who calls the ball deep but you clearly saw that it clipped the line? Happens all the time. Overrule and move on.

I'll do that. My post is from the perspective of the returner. As the net player I'll absolutely over rule if my returning partner calls it out and it's not.

 

[Cindysphinx]

What if you're the net player and it's your receiving partner who calls the ball deep but you clearly saw that it clipped the line? Happens all the time. Overrule and move on.

That's easy.

Once I decide my partner is calling that line, *I do not look at that line." I look at the ball, and I play that ball. I will return that ball and play the point every single time if my partner does not call the serve out. If he/she is out to lunch and not watching or is as blind as a bat, oh well, I guess we are going to play that point.

During my brief period as a probationary roving official, we were taught that the best way to be sure of a line call was to watch the spot where you expect the ball to land. If you try to track the ball in flight and make the call, you will be less accurate.

Your partner is standing stationary on that line. You are in a bad spot and are moving. Trust your partner's call and don't even bother watching the line -- then you will never have a dilemma about whether to overrule your partner's opinion that the serve was in, and you will never lose a point due to disagreement.

 

[SGM1980]

That's easy.

Once I decide my partner is calling that line, *I do not look at that line." I look at the ball, and I play that ball. I will return that ball and play the point every single time if my partner does not call the serve out. If he/she is out to lunch and not watching or is as blind as a bat, oh well, I guess we are going to play that point.

During my brief period as a probationary roving official, we were taught that the best way to be sure of a line call was to watch the spot where you expect the ball to land. If you try to track the ball in flight and make the call, you will be less accurate.

Your partner is standing stationary on that line. You are in a bad spot and are moving. Trust your partner's call and don't even bother watching the line -- then you will never have a dilemma about whether to overrule your partner's opinion that the serve was in, and you will never lose a point due to disagreement.

Honestly, this is what I do. If I'm returning and my partner is up I don't consider the back line at all. I'll still pay attention to the T and the sideline, but I don't call anything back. If it's between the T and the side, I pretty much hit it no matter what and trust my partner to call it out - unless it's like 3 feet back!

 

[heninfan99]

Can the teams agree to a redo of the serve?

 

[Dartagnan64]

What if you're the net player and it's your receiving partner who calls the ball deep but you clearly saw that it clipped the line? Happens all the time. Overrule and move on.

That’s rare. The deep ball looks in to the returner but the net partner can see its out more clearly. I’ve only had that scenario happen once that I can recall.

 

[Dartagnan64]

Can't be a second serve. If there is a disagreement on the line call then the call is good. Meaning the serve is in. But the ensuing discussion means play can't continue. So the receiving team either concedes the point or gives the serving team a first serve.

There shouldn’t be a disagreement unless the out call is an egregious error. Returner should always defer to his partner who has a better view and is in a more stationary position.

As a returner I always defer unless I’ve clearly seen the ball land inside the line. I’ve disagreed once in my life in this scenario. Every other time I’ve accepted my partners call as I am not in a position to be certain. Second serve.

 

[kylebarendrick]

If one of the players on the receiving side insists that the ball was in, then it was in. Combine that with the "out" call from their partner and we have the situation of "out call corrected" from the code and the point goes to the server. I agree with most of you, though, if I'm the receiver I will not make an audible call on the serve's depth unless I see it clearly long and my partner doesn't speak up. So that disagreement would never have happened, serve was called out, and server gets a second serve.

 

[Dartagnan64]

The scenario of receiver hits a winning return and the receivers partner calls out has played out in countless matches I’ve been in over the years.
The twist in this scenario is a receiver that is insistent the ball was in. I think that’s such an exceptional case it probably doesn’t warrant a lot of discussion. As has been said most returners defer to their partner on service line calls. Only the biggest mistakes are overturned.

 

[Gemini]

The disagreement between the receiving partners takes precedent in this instance (doubles). Favor goes to the serving team. 1st serve or award the point.

Had it been singles then the scenario of deferring to the returner would be more applicable because only one person would be making the call. No way you can have a disagreement between partners.

 

[jwocky]

If each player on the receiving doubles team sees the ball landing on a line on the receiver’s side differently (one “in”, other “out”):

1. In all non-service cases, award the point to the other team.

2. In the case of a service:

a. If the service is a direct winner (ace) or indirect winner (return is out, not returnable), award the point to the serving team.​

b. If the service was returned for a winner (because player receiving the serve sees it in) award another service (first if it was the first, second if it was the second). This is analogous to an overrule by a chair umpire.​

In all non-service cases, It is probably simplest to award the point to the player that hit the ball and for service landing uncertainty to the server.

In doubles, this also enforces the discipline to allow the person best placed to see the line to make the call (returner’s partner for service line calls and returner for side line calls)

 

[Gemini]

If each player on the receiving doubles team sees the ball landing on a line on the receiver’s side differently (one “in”, other “out”):

1. In all non-service cases, award the point to the other team.

2. In the case of a service:

a. If the service is a direct winner (ace) or indirect winner (return is out, not returnable), award the point to the serving team.​

b. If the service was returned for a winner (because player receiving the serve sees it in) award another service (first if it was the first, second if it was the second). This is analogous to an overrule by a chair umpire.​

In all non-service cases, It is probably simplest to award the point to the player that hit the ball and for service landing uncertainty to the server.

In doubles, this also enforces the discipline to allow the person best placed to see the line to make the call (returner’s partner for service line calls and returner for side line calls)

Okay..I had to process your post further but yes...agreed. I can live with this assessment. The only area of debate might be whether or not the serving team claims that the only reason it was a winner was because the out/in call caused them to disengage. Otherwise they would have been able to make a play on it...LOL!

 

[MisterP]

There shouldn’t be a disagreement unless the out call is an egregious error. Returner should always defer to his partner who has a better view and is in a more stationary position.

As a returner I always defer unless I’ve clearly seen the ball land inside the line. I’ve disagreed once in my life in this scenario. Every other time I’ve accepted my partners call as I am not in a position to be certain. Second serve.

Ok, well in Dartagnan64's world of perfect line calls from his perfect partner there would be no disagreement or discussion about it. In the real world, it happens all the time. Which is the reason for the OP and for the rules guiding the response to it.

I'd grant a first serve or the point and I suspect that's what most would do.

 

[NTRPolice]

Few things--since people are making things up as they go along. The rules regarding this are very clear.


-The only time you play a let for a reversed call is if the serve hits the net first. You do not play a let if you disagree with your partner on a call. A team which openly disagrees on a line call loses the point.
-The only exceptions for this are when the serving team attempts to call their own serves out.
-The person who is closest to the ball does not need to be the one to make the call. Either doubles player can make the call. Only one player needs to make a call.
-Doubles partners dont need to agree on a line call, they just cant disagree. A silent partner means they either agree with the call or could not determine the call. It is inappropriate to ask a players partner to confirm the call.

b. If the service was returned for a winner (because player receiving the serve sees it in) award another service (first if it was the first, second if it was the second). This is analogous to an overrule by a chair umpire.​

This is only the procedure in an officiated match. This does not apply to rec tennis where there arnt neutral 3rd parties officiating. The reason is that a 3rd party must make a determination of whether or not a play on the ball was affected by the call, or overturned call. This is why there are arguments over "play on the ball" all the time in pro tennis. In rec tennis, there is no one to determine "play on the ball".

 

[Cindysphinx]

Where does it say it is inappropriate to ask a player's partner to confirm a call?

 

[NTRPolice]

Where does it say it is inappropriate to ask a player's partner to confirm a call?

Because you are not a detective or attorney doing an interrogation or cross examination. You are not entitled to have line calls made and confirmed by both players. You may however, ask the caller if they are sure of what they saw.

Only one player needs to make the call. The rules are very clear on this. So, asking both players to make a call would be "rude". It would be like asking for the opinion of spectators.

 

[MRfStop]

In this month's issue of Tennis Magazine, they answered a rules question and I am not sure about their answer. Apologies that I can't copy the Q&A, but I'll do my best to convey the gist.

The question was a doubles scenario. Receiver hits a winner off the return. Meanwhile, partner had called the serve out; receiver says the serve was in. Whose point is it?

The article said that there were two possible outcomes:

1. Serving team wins the point. If partners disagree on a line call, they lose the point. The Code says: "Partners’ disagreement on calls. If one partner calls the ball out and the other partner sees the ball good, the ball is good. . . . .If a call is changed from out to good, the principles of Code § 12 apply." [Code Section 12 is "Out calls reversed. A player who calls a ball out shall reverse the call if the player becomes uncertain or realizes that the ball was good. The point goes to the opponent and is not replayed."]

OR

2. Receiving team wins the point. The Code says players must give benefit of the doubt to the opponent on line calls. That means the receivers are obligated to call the serve good because they are not sure it was out. Which means the return winner counts, point over.

I have a problem with outcome number 2. If the receiver calls the ball out, that is a hindrance, is it not? So why wouldn't it be server's point on that basis alone? And how can the return winner count when the point ends the instant any player calls the ball out?

What am I missing?

Yes

 

[Cindysphinx]

Because you are not a detective or attorney doing an interrogation or cross examination. You are not entitled to have line calls made and confirmed by both players. You may however, ask the caller if they are sure of what they saw.

Only one player needs to make the call. The rules are very clear on this. So, asking both players to make a call would be "rude". It would be like asking for the opinion of spectators.

I don’t see any code provision on it, so I think it is not a rule but is instead your personal preference or practice.

I think it is fine if my partner makes a call and my opponents ask me for the call. I will answer that I didn’t see it, I agree with my partner, or hang on. The latter will be if I want to tell my partner I disagree, and need to confer.

Now, I absolutely will ask the other opponent in one fairly common situation. One player puts her hand down or through body language suggests the ball was in, and the other one (often poorly positioned) calls it out. I will asked the player who probably saw it in, “Are you calling that out?” She can answer however she wants.

 

[jwocky]

@NTRPolice - Life is too short, and much tennis to be played. Offering a "let" seems courteous and keeps everyone playing when the rule book is unclear.

Personally, I prefer that the point goes to the opponent whether it is a service or line call difference in opinion between partners. This is imperfect because partners can be (have been) irritated.

 

[Dartagnan64]

Ok, well in Dartagnan64's world of perfect line calls from his perfect partner there would be no disagreement or discussion about it. In the real world, it happens all the time. Which is the reason for the OP and for the rules guiding the response to it.

I'd grant a first serve or the point and I suspect that's what most would do.

I don’t think I live in a world of perfect line callers. I live in a world where I only over rule my partners out call if I’m sure it was in. As a returner that’s not usually the case. My partner has the better sightline and is likely focusing a bit better.

Are you trying to say that in doubles, as a returner, you’ve frequently over ruled your partner who is standing there looking down the line? I’ve never had that happen, like ever. I know my memory is not perfect but, man, I’m drawing a blank.

Now I’ve definitely had disagreements on out calls during point play because we’re both watching from different angles, moving at different speeds and both equally responsible for the line calls. But serves are different. You have one player that is 3 hits away from touching a ball, he can be the best judge.

 

[NTRPolice]

I don’t see any code provision on it, so I think it is not a rule but is instead your personal preference or practice.

I think it is fine if my partner makes a call and my opponents ask me for the call. I will answer that I didn’t see it, I agree with my partner, or hang on. The latter will be if I want to tell my partner I disagree, and need to confer.

Now, I absolutely will ask the other opponent in one fairly common situation. One player puts her hand down or through body language suggests the ball was in, and the other one (often poorly positioned) calls it out. I will asked the player who probably saw it in, “Are you calling that out?” She can answer however she wants.

The Code says only one player needs to make the call. Therefore, there is no legitimate reason to inquire further, other than an attempt to discover a contradiction and win the point. This is of course, assuming only one player has made a call and the other is silent.

If the partner confirms the call, the calls stands and there was no change. If the partner disagrees on the call, you win the point. Because asking for a second opinion can only be to your advantage, that's why it's rude to ask.

Now, why is it ok to ask an opponent if "they are sure"? What's the difference? The reason why the rules do not prohibit asking an opponent about a call is simply because players are sometimes actually not sure what the call was. The rules do not distinguish what is rude and what isnt. For example: If I am not sure of the call, I wait till the next point is about to start before I confirm it. If i'm serving, I ask "I didnt see the last one. Was it in or out?". If I am returning, I hold my hand up and ask "what's the score?". This comes across as NOT RUDE because the timing would indicate I accept their call and am just seeking clarity. However, some people elect to say "ARE YOU SUREEEEEE???" which indicates a challenge, and implies their opponents may be cheating. This is RUDE.

As for saying "hang on", that is allowed if you are intending to overturn the call in your opponents favor. Otherwise, calls must be made in a timely manner. I havnt played anyone that "discusses" line calls in a while, but it really is important to make calls quickly and not deliberate over calls that arnt going to be overturned. No one likes it when two players take time to discuss a call, then call the ball out. LOL

It's perfectly reasonable to ask either player what the call was if you believe that both players have made a call.

@NTRPolice - Life is too short, and much tennis to be played. Offering a "let" seems courteous and keeps everyone playing when the rule book is unclear.

Personally, I prefer that the point goes to the opponent whether it is a service or line call difference in opinion between partners. This is imperfect because partners can be (have been) irritated.

It would seem that playing lets is a great neutral solution. However, constantly replaying points in the form of lets lead to a disruption of the natural occurrence of things. When there are line call disagreements, the team which is in disagreement gets a second chance to play the point if a let occurs. Then they arnt really giving their opponents the "benefit of doubt" because a ball that has been effectively called good leads to a replay and not loss of point.

 

[MisterP]

I don’t think I live in a world of perfect line callers. I live in a world where I only over rule my partners out call if I’m sure it was in. As a returner that’s not usually the case. My partner has the better sightline and is likely focusing a bit better.

Are you trying to say that in doubles, as a returner, you’ve frequently over ruled your partner who is standing there looking down the line? I’ve never had that happen, like ever. I know my memory is not perfect but, man, I’m drawing a blank.

Now I’ve definitely had disagreements on out calls during point play because we’re both watching from different angles, moving at different speeds and both equally responsible for the line calls. But serves are different. You have one player that is 3 hits away from touching a ball, he can be the best judge.

Nope. Not saying that. But as the net player I have overruled the returner on multiple occasions because the blown call was obvious. Not something that happens to me a lot, fortunately, but in a world where thousands of rec matches are played each day I'm sure it happens frequently in general.

 

[Cindysphinx]

Whew! There's a lot here, so let's unpack it.

The Code says only one player needs to make the call. Therefore, there is no legitimate reason to inquire further, other than an attempt to discover a contradiction and win the point.

Inquiring to find out if there is a disagreement between partners is legitimate, and of course the reason to do it is to discover a contradiction and win the point. There is nothing nefarious about that, and the Code doesn't forbid it.

Because asking for a second opinion can only be to your advantage, that's why it's rude to ask.

I don't see anything in the Code indicating that asking about something that would work to your disadvantage is rude. If I think there has been a delay between first and second serve, I can ask for a first serve, which would be to my advantage. Is that rude also? I guess you're entitled to think this or that is rude, but you should know that this is your personal opinion and not at all supported by the Code.

The rules do not distinguish what is rude and what isnt.

Exactly. So on what basis are you declaring some things to be rude per the Code?

For example: If I am not sure of the call, I wait till the next point is about to start before I confirm it. If i'm serving, I ask "I didnt see the last one. Was it in or out?". If I am returning, I hold my hand up and ask "what's the score?". This comes across as NOT RUDE because the timing would indicate I accept their call and am just seeking clarity. However, some people elect to say "ARE YOU SUREEEEEE???" which indicates a challenge, and implies their opponents may be cheating. This is RUDE.

It is not rude per the Code. The Code explicitly allows players to ask opponents about line calls. You do not have to do this by saying "What's the score?" or going through any other sequence of steps. You may just ask, "Are you sure?" Indeed, the Code used to specify that those were the words to be used, although now they allow you to phrase it however you want.

As for saying "hang on", that is allowed if you are intending to overturn the call in your opponents favor. Otherwise, calls must be made in a timely manner. I havnt played anyone that "discusses" line calls in a while, but it really is important to make calls quickly and not deliberate over calls that arnt going to be overturned. No one likes it when two players take time to discuss a call, then call the ball out. LOL

To clarify, the reason to say "hang on" is to buy time to comply with the Code. The Code states that the appropriate way to overturn your partner's call is to discuss it with them first and get them to do it. But yes, of course you cannot emerge from a conference and call the ball out. It seems almost everyone knows this, and when I see my opponents caucus I know I am about to be awarded a point.

It's perfectly reasonable to ask either player what the call was if you believe that both players have made a call.

It is also perfectly reasonable to ask any player if the ball was out if you have *any* reason to think they saw it good (e.g. they made a call, they started to make a call, they have an expression of horror on their face at their partner's call).

That's a long way of saying that it is OK for you to have your own value system and beliefs about what is rude in tennis. I think it goes too far to claim that the Code requires that everyone have those views.

 

[Dartagnan64]

Nope. Not saying that. But as the net player I have overruled the returner on multiple occasions because the blown call was obvious. Not something that happens to me a lot, fortunately, but in a world where thousands of rec matches are played each day I'm sure it happens frequently in general.

I think at our club it’s assumed the net man covers the service line calls so that may be why I see it less.
And a returner that calls a ball out when the net partner sees it as good is probably hooking. From the receivers vantage point it’s very hard to see a long serve until it’s a good inch or two beyond the line.

 

[MisterP]

I think at our club it’s assumed the net man covers the service line calls so that may be why I see it less.
And a returner that calls a ball out when the net partner sees it as good is probably hooking. From the receivers vantage point it’s very hard to see a long serve until it’s a good inch or two beyond the line.

Even on the pro tour where line judges literally have only one job of watching the ball, they still miss calls. Add a rec player who's trying to return a 4.0/4.5 first serve and make a call at the same time, and you have a recipe for a mistake. Not a hook. As I said, it happens. We move on.

 

[Dartagnan64]

Even on the pro tour where line judges literally have only one job of watching the ball, they still miss calls. Add a rec player who's trying to return a 4.0/4.5 first serve and make a call at the same time, and you have a recipe for a mistake. Not a hook. As I said, it happens. We move on.

They should be deferring to their partner then. That’s what happens in my doubles games. If the serves are coming hard, the returner focuses on returning and leaves all the line calls to his partner. Then there isn’t any issue. Net player calls the serve out, move on to second serve, “sorry you hit such a good return.”

 

[MisterP]

They should be deferring to their partner then. That’s what happens in my doubles games. If the serves are coming hard, the returner focuses on returning and leaves all the line calls to his partner. Then there isn’t any issue. Net player calls the serve out, move on to second serve, “sorry you hit such a good return.”

Lol. So you are one of those "sorry, I didn't see it" guys anytime your partner makes a close call. Gotcha.