Did Tennis Magazine Get This Right?

[Dartagnan64]

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

So you want me to over rule my partner when I’m unsure? “Sorry partner, I thought it was possibly in so I’m overruling your out call no matter how certain you are and despite the fact you are in a far superior position to make the right call.”

Hands up how many people here have heard that discussion on a doubles court?

 

[NTRPolice]

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.

Only one player needs to make the call. This is in The Code. The Code does not say you are forbidden to ask about line calls because there are legitimate reasons for asking, such as not actually know what call was made.

In context, you DID hear the call, and the only reason you're asking is because that's the only way you can now win the point. It's lame. It's rude. Rationalize it as "it's legal" if that is your desire.

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.

If you're the type that goes around asking for "gimmies" then that's just the way you are. In golf, some people ask for putts that are like 5 ft. from the hole. In tennis, people ask their opponents for lets. It's ironic that you use the word "entitled" when addressing my opinion, but yet, you seem to be encouraging the acceptance of entitled behaviors.

FWIW, Dick Kaufman also says it's rude.

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.

Right. And this is the only time you're allowed to "deliberate" on line calls, otherwise, call should be made instantly, or the point should be conceded due to doubt.

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.

And what i've been trying to express to you is that The Code cannot address every social issue/aspect of the game.

Entitlement is taking the maximum amount of benefit or advantage to oneself, with disregard for any other elements in the set; in this case though the use of ambiguous or interpretative wording of The Code. So, you're right. The Code does not specifically say you cannot ask. That doesnt mean it's not rude.

By asking for an opinion which wasnt volunteered, and a question at which an answer is not required, you're putting undue pressure on your opponents--in a situation that can only be to your advantage no less.

Repeated attempts at asking for a second opinion would be interpreted as Unsportsmanlike Conduct.

 

[MisterP]

So you want me to over rule my partner when I’m unsure? “Sorry partner, I thought it was possibly in so I’m overruling your out call no matter how certain you are and despite the fact you are in a far superior position to make the right call.”

Hands up how many people here have heard that discussion on a doubles court?

I want you to call it as you see it, it's pretty freaking simple actually. If you see it in, and you let your partner call it out just because he's closer to the ball, you're a cheat.

 

[NTRPolice]

So you want me to over rule my partner when I’m unsure? “Sorry partner, I thought it was possibly in so I’m overruling your out call no matter how certain you are and despite the fact you are in a far superior position to make the right call.”

Hands up how many people here have heard that discussion on a doubles court?

This is exactly why it's rude to ask for a call confirmation from both players in doubles.

People who want to call the lines as fair as possible will start making mental notes that they need to watch their partners line calls if they see something that may be inaccurate, because they are the only player that can fix bad line calls in an unofficiated match. Questioning of line calls, or asking for second opinions, will definitely take away from the efforts of players who are trying to watch for their partners bad line calls, the same way opponents who are like "ARE YOU SURE????" when the ball is like 6" out will tend to get less help when it's actually close.

If you want to question the player who made the call. Fine. Trying to create a conflict between players by interrogating or accusing them is not the way you achieve the result you want, which is to have correct calls made.

 

[J_R_B]

This is exactly why it's rude to ask for a call confirmation from both players in doubles.

People who want to call the lines as fair as possible will start making mental notes that they need to watch their partners line calls if they see something that may be inaccurate, because they are the only player that can fix bad line calls in an unofficiated match. Questioning of line calls, or asking for second opinions, will definitely take away from the efforts of players who are trying to watch for their partners bad line calls, the same way opponents who are like "ARE YOU SURE????" when the ball is like 6" out will tend to get less help when it's actually close.

If you want to question the player who made the call. Fine. Trying to create a conflict between players by interrogating or accusing them is not the way you achieve the result you want, which is to have correct calls made.

It's not rude, though. That's ridiculous. If someone is so wishy-washy that they feel they HAVE to make a call if asked and are too spineless to say "I didn't see it so my partner's call is correct" deserve to get screwed out of a couple points.

 

[Dartagnan64]

I want you to call it as you see it, it's pretty freaking simple actually. If you see it in, and you let your partner call it out just because he's closer to the ball, you're a cheat.

There’s a difference between seeing something as being clearly in and maybe in.
In singles you give the benefit of the doubt to the opponent. In doubles, you have a partner who might have a clearer view and could be far more certain about the call. Defering to him is not cheating.

It’s a simple algorithm:
1) both partners certain of same thing, call stands as called (80% of situations)
2) one partner certain, other uncertain, defer to certain partners call (15% of situations)
3) both partners uncertain, ball is in (4% of situations)
4) both partners are certain of opposite things, ball is in (1% of situations)

 

[Cindysphinx]

There’s a difference between seeing something as being clearly in and maybe in.
In singles you give the benefit of the doubt to the opponent. In doubles, you have a partner who might have a clearer view and could be far more certain about the call. Defering to him is not cheating.

It’s a simple algorithm:
1) both partners certain of same thing, call stands as called (80% of situations)
2) one partner certain, other uncertain, defer to certain partners call (15% of situations)
3) both partners uncertain, ball is in (4% of situations)
4) both partners are certain of opposite things, ball is in (1% of situations)

Math is hard.

Does anyone disagree with: You should disagree with your partner if and only if you are certain they are wrong, in which case you must give point to opponent?

 

[Dartagnan64]

Math is hard.

Does anyone disagree with: You should disagree with your partner if and only if you are certain they are wrong, in which case you must give point to opponent?

I agree and play this way.

 

[NTRPolice]

It's not rude, though. That's ridiculous. If someone is so wishy-washy that they feel they HAVE to make a call if asked and are too spineless to say "I didn't see it so my partner's call is correct" deserve to get screwed out of a couple points.

Look, the rules could easily be changed so that both players in doubles must make line calls.

The reason why it's not done is because USTA expects players in recreational adult leagues to have basic social skills, practice etiquette and common courtesy, to encourage fun above all other things. If I see a call that is wrong, I will overrule it in my opponents favor. You dont need to, nor should you ask me to do it for you. If I feel you deserve a let, I will give you one if the rules permit it. Asking me for a let is rude and so it is to ask me to confirm my partners call.

All of this amounts to whether or not you give me more or less incentive to be nice to you.

It's the same theory when interacting with law enforcement. If you "exercise your rights to the maximum", you can expect a much harder time during the encounter than interacting with the same law enforcement officer as a human being.

If you keep asking me to confirm my partners line calls, I can assure you that my head will spend a lot more time facing your side of the court than it will face mine to help my partner make line calls. If you're polite however, I have a lot more incentive to turn my head unnaturally to fix unusually bad calls on our side of the court.

 

[MisterP]

Math is hard.

Does anyone disagree with: You should disagree with your partner if and only if you are certain they are wrong, in which case you must give point to opponent?

Completely agree.

My beef is with the notion that we should be deferring calls to partners solely because of someone's position on the court(returner vs net player). If I see the ball in, I call it in, I don't care if my partner is standing a foot away from it while calling it out.

 

[Cindysphinx]

@NTRPolice:

If you keep asking me to confirm my partners line calls, I can assure you that my head will spend a lot more time facing your side of the court than it will face mine to help my partner make line calls. If you're polite however, I have a lot more incentive to turn my head unnaturally to fix unusually bad calls on our side of the court.

I have to chuckle at the idea of your not turning your head to help your partner make line calls out of spite. That just means your partner might not get a good look at a ball and so must call it good, and you won't have the ability to call it out because you refuse to look!

Keep in mind that a lot of conflict in tennis can be avoided if people will check their idiosyncratic notions of rudeness and etiquette at the door. That was the whole point of the Code, after all. If the Code doesn't forbid it or require it, we are in a gray zone where it pays to be a little less rigid and judgmental.

 

[Dartagnan64]

Completely agree.

My beef is with the notion that we should be deferring calls to partners solely because of someone's position on the court(returner vs net player). If I see the ball in, I call it in, I don't care if my partner is standing a foot away from it while calling it out.

I never said anything to the contrary. Only said if you were uncertain you should defer to the net partner.

I just think that the times a returner is absolutely certain of something different than his partner is really rare.

And I also think if your concentration on getting the line call right is detracting from your ability to make a good return, it’s not a bad idea to trust your partner to get things right.

It’s doubles. You are a team. It’s ok to sometimes let the other person take primary responsibility for some things.

 

[NTRPolice]

@NTRPolice:

I have to chuckle at the idea of your not turning your head to help your partner make line calls out of spite. That just means your partner might not get a good look at a ball and so must call it good, and you won't have the ability to call it out because you refuse to look!

Keep in mind that a lot of conflict in tennis can be avoided if people will check their idiosyncratic notions of rudeness and etiquette at the door. That was the whole point of the Code, after all. If the Code doesn't forbid it or require it, we are in a gray zone where it pays to be a little less rigid and judgmental.

-The rules only suggest that help my partner make line calls.
-You cant prove where I was looking. I am totally within the rules to make line calls while facing the wrong way and to not offer an opinion if you ask me.
-You only assume that my partner will not get a good look at the ball. You cannot argue based on what you think my partner saw.

You see how this works? How stupid it can get if people do what you're suggesting?

When people like you aspire to reach the limit of the extent and interpretations of the rules, you ruin the game for everyone, including yourself. You just have no idea that you're doing it.

This thread isnt about "very obvious" calls, where the ball is seen miles in the court. This is about clowns who see the ball close to the line, are so sure their opponents are cheating them, so they take to the rule book and begin an interrogation, trying to look for a discrepancy. This is the very definition of "entitled" and, to the civilized world, "unusual behavior".

It's very hilarious to me that you suggest that i'm the entitled one, when your argument is literally "the rules dont say I cant" and that you try to insult me by saying I have idiosyncrasies, which suggests that you think it's "normal" to question opponents line calls.

 

[Cindysphinx]

If the return

-The rules only suggest that help my partner make line calls.
-You cant prove where I was looking. I am totally within the rules to make line calls while facing the wrong way and to not offer an opinion if you ask me.
-You only assume that my partner will not get a good look at the ball. You cannot argue based on what you think my partner saw.

You see how this works? How stupid it can get if people do what you're suggesting?

When people like you aspire to reach the limit of the extent and interpretations of the rules, you ruin the game for everyone, including yourself. You just have no idea that you're doing it.

This thread isnt about "very obvious" calls, where the ball is seen miles in the court. This is about clowns who see the ball close to the line, are so sure their opponents are cheating them, so they take to the rule book and begin an interrogation, trying to look for a discrepancy. This is the very definition of "entitled" and, to the civilized world, "unusual behavior".

It's very hilarious to me that you suggest that i'm the entitled one, when your argument is literally "the rules dont say I cant" and that you try to insult me by saying I have idiosyncrasies, which suggests that you think it's "normal" to question opponents line calls.

You're right.

You don't have to look at anything.

You don't have to answer any questions.

You can play the whole match without saying a single word to your opponents other than announcing the score.

My argument is that people can ask line call questions of their opponents, and opponents can respond. If everyone is an adult and is civil, there will be no conflict or drama. I have had people ask me what I saw when my partner made a close call, I answer, they accept my answer, and it doesn't trouble me one bit. And I have asked an opponents' partner if I had a reason to do so, they answer, and everyone behaves like a grown-up. It doesn't happen all that often, but it has happened.

You're attaching a whole lot of drama and nefarious meaning to a situation where there needn't be any.

 

[J_R_B]

Look, the rules could easily be changed so that both players in doubles must make line calls.

The reason why it's not done is because USTA expects players in recreational adult leagues to have basic social skills, practice etiquette and common courtesy, to encourage fun above all other things.

I fail to see how asking politely if you saw something differently than your partner violates your guidelines in any way, although I believe your passive aggressive response of refusing to even look for bad calls because of your ridiculous oversensitivity to being asked a simple question probably does.

 

[JLyon]

as soon as the partners disagree on a call, then it should be a fault, now if the interruption continues then first serve could be granted.
In this case if the serve was good and there was a official on court then point would go to server, but that would be an overrule anyways.

 

[NTRPolice]

My argument is that people can ask line call questions of their opponents, and opponents can respond. If everyone is an adult and is civil, there will be no conflict or drama. I have had people ask me what I saw when my partner made a close call, I answer, they accept my answer, and it doesn't trouble me one bit. And I have asked an opponents' partner if I had a reason to do so, they answer, and everyone behaves like a grown-up. It doesn't happen all that often, but it has happened

You dont think questioning your opponents line calls constitutes rude behavior? Inquiring as to what a line call was, is not the same thing as questioning a line call. When you ask for the second opinion after a call has been made, you are questioning the call. It's the same thing as asking "are you sure?", even if you ask it very softly.

Your argument is not simply just about asking a line call question. Nice try. When you ask for the second opinion after a call has already been made, you are questioning the integrity of the call. After I called you out on that, you said, basically, "the rules dont say that I cant". So, your argument is literally "the rules dont say that I cant, and dont specify what is rude behavior".

I fail to see how asking politely if you saw something differently than your partner violates your guidelines in any way, although I believe your passive aggressive response of refusing to even look for bad calls because of your ridiculous oversensitivity to being asked a simple question probably does.

Because there is nothing "polite" about questioning a line call. If both players made a call, but you didnt see or hear what the call was, I have absolutely nothing against asking them what call was made. In my example in another post, I illustrated how to inquire about a line call in a way that never comes across as rude. All you have to do is wait for the start of the next point.

When you ask for that second opinion, you're pleading for an overrule, because that's the only different outcome that can be achieved by asking the question and also an outcome which happens to be greatly in your favor. You're also asking for a statement from a person who hasnt volunteered one.


I've defeated this one with pretty clean reasoning. It's unfortunate that people dont see asking for that second opinion is the same thing as asking your opponent "are you sure?", which is rude.


Dick Kaufman says: Only one player in doubles needs to call the ball out. If the other player is silent it is assumed that that partner agreed with the call or could not determine the call. It is not really proper to ask the silent partner what they thought. You can ask the person who made the call nicely if they are sure.

 

[J_R_B]

Because there is nothing "polite" about questioning a line call. If both players made a call, but you didnt see or hear what the call was, I have absolutely nothing against asking them what call was made. In my example in another post, I illustrated how to inquire about a line call in a way that never comes across as rude. All you have to do is wait for the start of the next point.

When you ask for that second opinion, you're pleading for an overrule, because that's the only different outcome that can be achieved by asking the question and also an outcome which happens to be greatly in your favor. You're also asking for a statement from a person who hasnt volunteered one.


I've defeated this one with pretty clean reasoning. It's unfortunate that people dont see asking for that second opinion is the same thing as asking your opponent "are you sure?", which is rude.

You've defeated this one with clean reasoning only in your own little echo chamber. Politely asking someone if they saw the call as in saying "did you see that call?" without directing them towards a particular answer is not the same as "questioning their call" as in saying "are you sure about that?" or even "you've got to be kidding me, you called that out?!?!?", which is likely to be done rudely.

 

[NTRPolice]

You've defeated this one with clean reasoning only in your own little echo chamber. Politely asking someone if they saw the call as in saying "did you see that call?" without directing them towards a particular answer is not the same as "questioning their call" as in saying "are you sure about that?" or even "you've got to be kidding me, you called that out?!?!?", which is likely to be done rudely.

If you are unsure as to what call was made, it's not rude to ask. You are not challenging the call.
If you heard the call, but ask the partner "passive-aggressively" if they can confirm it, it is rude. You are challenging the call.

Easy.

Didnt know what the call was? Ask. Not rude.
Heard the call but disagree? Put opponents partner under pressure to confirm the call, and if they cant, it's a contradiction and therefore you win the point. Rude.

 

[darkhorse]

I think you two should team up for doubles and put your theories to the test

 

[J_R_B]

If you are unsure as to what call was made, it's not rude to ask. You are not challenging the call.
If you heard the call, but ask the partner "passive-aggressively" if they can confirm it, it is rude. You are challenging the call.

Easy.

Didnt know what the call was? Ask. Not rude.
Heard the call but disagree? Put opponents partner under pressure to confirm the call, and if they cant, it's a contradiction and therefore you win the point. Rude.

That's only true in the echo chamber in your own mind. Ask politely = not rude. The very definition of politely is "not rudely". And you are not pressuring the partner to confirm the call, you are asking if they contradict it. An answer of "I didn't see it clearly" is neither confirmation nor contradiction but doesn't lead to you winning the point because they "can't confirm" the call.

 

[J_R_B]

I think you two should team up for doubles and put your theories to the test

No chance. Our policey friend sounds like exactly the type of person who makes tennis not fun. I can just envision him tensing up and being a passive aggressive jackass for the rest of the match at first sign of anything that goes against his strict code of social norms that no one else adheres to.

 

[Cindysphinx]

You dont think questioning your opponents line calls constitutes rude behavior? Inquiring as to what a line call was, is not the same thing as questioning a line call. When you ask for the second opinion after a call has been made, you are questioning the call. It's the same thing as asking "are you sure?", even if you ask it very softly.

Hold up. Now it sounds like you think players cannot question the accuracy of an opponent's line call at all, ever.

Could you please show me in the Code where it says you are not allowed to question your opponents' line calls?

The 2018 Code does not address it either way. Had the authors of the Code wished to preclude players for questioning line calls, that would have been a simple provision to put in the Code, no?

I know the Code used to contain a specific provision telling players how to question line calls. The 2008 version stated: "16. Opponent’s calls questioned. When a player genuinely doubts an opponent’s call, the player may ask: “Are you sure of your call?” If the opponent reaffirms that the ball was out, the call shall be accepted. If the opponent acknowledges uncertainty, the opponent loses the point. There shall be no further delay or discussion."

I recall that this provision was revised at some point to delete the "Are you sure of your call" language. This meant players could use whatever language they wanted (which I at the time thought was not a great idea).

The entire issue has been removed from the current Code. Questioning a line call, it appears, is neither authorized nor prohibited. Presumably, players can do whatever they want within Rule No. 1: "1. Courtesy is expected. Tennis is a game that requires cooperation and courtesy."

Now, I fail to see how refusing to answer a question posed about the accuracy of a line call in an appropriate tone amounts to "cooperation."

And just so you know . . . if I ask you about your partner's line call, one reason could be because I saw you call it in and change your mind, so I am absolutely giving you a chance to prove your integrity. But I am also doing what most people are doing when they question a line call -- serving notice that I saw that botched call, you didn't get away with it, and you two had better clean up your act.

Dick Kaufman says: Only one player in doubles needs to call the ball out. If the other player is silent it is assumed that that partner agreed with the call or could not determine the call. It is not really proper to ask the silent partner what they thought. You can ask the person who made the call nicely if they are sure.

As for Dick Kaufman, well . . . I am sure he is lovely but I couldn't find that statement or quote attributed to Dick Kaufman via google. I am very interested, so if you have a link, please share.

The USTA FAQs for officials do not address the subject, and I don't recall it in my roving official training classes.

 

[kylebarendrick]

If I recall correctly, USTA removed the "are you sure" discussion from the Code so as to not encourage people to question calls. By explicitly stating "you can ask them if they are sure" then people may take that as permission to continually question calls and create a bad atmosphere on the court while stating all along that "the Code says I can do this!".

So with that in mind, I'll only question a call if I truly don't know what the call was (it happens) or if I am pretty darn sure it was wrong.

 

[NTRPolice]

That's only true in the echo chamber in your own mind. Ask politely = not rude. The very definition of politely is "not rudely". And you are not pressuring the partner to confirm the call, you are asking if they contradict it. An answer of "I didn't see it clearly" is neither confirmation nor contradiction but doesn't lead to you winning the point because they "can't confirm" the call.

I understand now. "Asking a person to contradict their partner doesnt create pressure between those players."

Remember, we're talking about balls that are seen close to the line. We're not talking about balls miles in or out. There is no pressure to correct an obviously bad call. You cant seem to distinguish between the two.

This is exactly what I mean when I say people like you have no idea you're ruining the game.

Hold up. Now it sounds like you think players cannot question the accuracy of an opponent's line call at all, ever.

Not what im saying at all; however, a great attempt at an informal fallacy.

The agenda I'm trying to push here is that fun should be the focus of adult league tennis. If the ball is close to the line and you dont agree, what about being a good person and just chalking it up as "well, MAYBE I SAW it wrong."? This was never about blatant hooking. This is about challenging close line calls in such a way as to create pressure or doubt between doubles partners. This is the ONLY reason why you'd ask for the second opinion if it was not openly given.

And just so you know . . . if I ask you about your partner's line call, one reason could be because I saw you call it in and change your mind, so I am absolutely giving you a chance to prove your integrity. But I am also doing what most people are doing when they question a line call -- serving notice that I saw that botched call, you didn't get away with it, and you two had better clean up your act.

And just so you know. . . I have never corrected a line call in favor of myself. If my partner calls it out and I call it in, I will insist on conceding the point. If I call the ball in, I will not change the call. I HAVE called balls out, then corrected the call to in.

Another attempt at projecting yourself on me. First it was claiming that im entitled. Second it was claiming that I have idiosyncrasies. Third, and im now being accused of "adding dramatic effect", when you have just created a completely dramatic scenario in which I lack integrity, botch calls, and need to clean up my act.

As for Dick Kaufman, well . . . I am sure he is lovely but I couldn't find that statement or quote attributed to Dick Kaufman via google. I am very interested, so if you have a link, please share.

It's certainly Google-able.

Normally, whenever someone wants a citation for a ruling, I am more than happy to oblige. However, in this case, I have no desire to help you. This is not an academic arena. You are not entitled to references or citations provided by others. I promise you that it is able to be found on Google, but I will not look it up for you.

 

[jmnk]

I must say that I completely see @NTRPolice reasoning here. If this was an officiated debate I would declare him a winner for sure.

also, as far as asking for a link to that Kaufman quote. I've literally copied that entire paragraph that @NTRPolice provided into google search box and it was in the very first link returned. So that request by @Cindysphinx because she can't find any reference is pretty weak indeed.....

 

[Cindysphinx]

I must say that I completely see @NTRPolice reasoning here. If this was an officiated debate I would declare him a winner for sure.

also, as far as asking for a link to that Kaufman quote. I've literally copied that entire paragraph that @NTRPolice provided into google search box and it was in the very first link returned. So that request by @Cindysphinx because she can't find any reference is pretty weak indeed.....

Sorry, dude. I googled with copy paste and couldn't find it. If no one will provide the link, then I guess I'm out of luck.

So with that in mind, I'll only question a call if I truly don't know what the call was (it happens) or if I am pretty darn sure it was wrong.

Fair enough. I don't think anyone makes it a habit to question calls they believe were correct. People question calls they believed to be botched. I suppose one reason the paragraph was removed is because asking "Are you sure?" doesn't work. If you question whether a person is sure of a call, they always say yes anyway.

I never came across anyone who thought that paragraph meant you could or should question every call, but you never know with some people.

 

[Cindysphinx]

Uh oh. I just thought of something. I'm not sure how this works with folks who think asking your opponents about accuracy of their line calls is forbidden.

I few weeks ago, I posted about a partner who fibbed about a ball touching her on the fly.

Our opponents asked her if the ball hit her, even though it is her call to make per the Code.

Was it rude of them to ask her if the ball struck her? Is she obligated to answer, or can she just remain mute?

 

[NTRPolice]

Uh oh. I just thought of something. I'm not sure how this works with folks who think asking your opponents about accuracy of their line calls is forbidden.

I few weeks ago, I posted about a partner who fibbed about a ball touching her on the fly.

Our opponents asked her if the ball hit her, even though it is her call to make per the Code.

Was it rude of them to ask her if the ball struck her? Is she obligated to answer, or can she just remain mute?

I'm tired of debating "what is rude and what isnt". I'll just respond by saying what I would do in this circumstance.

If it was my partner? I would verbally ask my partner "Did you hit/touch that"? My opponents needn't ask.

No one I play with is a huge cheater, so we're going to assume that the touch was not 100% "obvious".

Just by asking my question, it implies that I may have seen my partner touch the ball. If they had thought about not calling a "minor touch" on themselves, by posing my question, it now makes them accountable to me as well as our opponents. This is usually enough to convince them to admit a touch if they have indeed touched it.

See, this has nothing to do with your opponents asking--it has to do with you. When you have a solid foundation, you dont need to worry about how your opponents play. You dont need to think about hooking in response to hooking. You dont need to take an eye for an eye. USTA adult league is not war. It isnt win at all costs.

Play hard. Call the game good. I PROMISE that you will go home happy, win or lose.