Does Rule 7 of the Code Need Revising?

Discussion in 'Adult League & Tournament Talk' started by tennistim, Oct 13, 2012.

  1. tennistim

    tennistim New User

    Joined:
    Aug 5, 2011
    Messages:
    68
    Location:
    London, UK
    Rule 7 of the code (http://assets.usta.com/assets/1/15/2. The Code.4.pdf) states:

    That last sentence has got me thinking...

    The trouble is that there are times when this is a bit over simplistic. E.g. when you are receiving a serve that is coming straight to you, even if the ball is 2 inches out you won't see a space between the ball and the line because the ball itself is in the way of that view. The ball would have to be several inches out before you would clearly see space between it and the line.

    I would say that people can call the ball very accurately - say to within 1/4 inch or less - without clearly seeing space for the reason given above, instead solely relying on seeing the trajectory of the ball and the position of the line. To my understanding, this is how Hawk Eye works also - by seeing the ball's trajectory and not seeing space between the line and ball.

    On top of that, even if you are looking down the line, if the ball is hit hard enough then it is just a blur and so again seeing space is not at all a reliable method of judging the ball. Seeing the trajectory is in my opinion the best way in this situation also.

    I think the bit about "99% out is 100% good" is totally correct - just the last sentence needs to re-thought. Something like, "If you wouldn't bet your favourite racket on your out call being correct, don't make it".
     
    Last edited: Oct 13, 2012
    #1
  2. blakesq

    blakesq Professional

    Joined:
    Dec 11, 2006
    Messages:
    1,319
    Location:
    Connecticut
    then you are calling balls out that you only "think" or "hope" are out. not a good thing.
     
    #2
  3. InspectorRacquet

    InspectorRacquet Semi-Pro

    Joined:
    Jul 27, 2011
    Messages:
    427
    I think the last sentence is as simplistically perfect as it can be. The quoted part doesn't seem to account for the player's position, in which case any ball coming head on to a player (such as a serve) can never be called out.

    I think there should be a clause added afterwards, and not a complete revisal. Maybe something saying "the ball is in or out on the opponent's discretion when it is impossible for the opponent to be able to see the clear distinction between the ball and the line."

    Really, the clause should just imply common sense. If you know the ball is out, call it out. If you are even slightly unsure, it has to be called in.
     
    #3
  4. TimothyO

    TimothyO Hall of Fame

    Joined:
    Oct 5, 2010
    Messages:
    3,600
    Location:
    Baseline
    That's not overly simplistic. It's just that you can't absolutely confirm the ball is long and, since there's some doubt, you must call the ball in.

    Don't forget, the ball also slides a couple of inches while in contact with the ground.

    Yes, the bulk of the ball often obscures the line, and not just when returning serves. If it does, give the benefit of the doubt to your opponent.

    That's especially important since folks in the stands and your opponent may have a better view of the situation and if you just assume the ball is out without confirmation you might look like a cheater if they see the ball is truly in.
     
    #4
  5. tennistim

    tennistim New User

    Joined:
    Aug 5, 2011
    Messages:
    68
    Location:
    London, UK
    Not true.

    Try this:

    Place a ball on the ground next to the service line so that it is about 3 inches out. Then go back to the baseline as if you were receiving serve. You can be 100% sure it is out. You would bet your life on it. But you cannot see any space between the line and the ball.
     
    Last edited: Oct 13, 2012
    #5
  6. tennistim

    tennistim New User

    Joined:
    Aug 5, 2011
    Messages:
    68
    Location:
    London, UK
    What I am saying is that you don't have to "clearly see space" to be 100% certain a ball is out (see my last post). Judging the ball is not simply about clearly seeing space all the time. The way that hawk eye works is perhaps similar to the way our perception works. And Hawk eye does not rely on seeing space between the line and ball.

    Having said that, when the ball is very close to the line, or if it's a very fast ball, a person might not be able to be 100% sure and that's when a you should give benefit of the doubt.

    I don't know for sure, but perhaps that this "clearly see space" phrase comes from the way linespeople are trained. They are always looking down the line. Whereas a player often is not.
     
    Last edited: Oct 13, 2012
    #6
  7. floridatennisdude

    floridatennisdude Hall of Fame

    Joined:
    Feb 9, 2012
    Messages:
    1,975
    This is a very good example. Even better is to set the ball 3" behind the service line...on the sideline. Really tough ball to "see" out, but when it's coming at you, you just know it is long.
     
    #7
  8. Dags

    Dags Professional

    Joined:
    Aug 29, 2008
    Messages:
    951
    [​IMG]

    So long as you give your opponent the benefit of the doubt when you're unsure, I don't see much wrong with it.

    Be warned: I know one guy who takes this approach, and whilst he calls flat serves well he makes a lot of mistakes when topspin is involved. I've heard a number of people at the club joking about his calls, and he's getting a reputation for it. Don't be that guy.
     
    #8
  9. spot

    spot Hall of Fame

    Joined:
    Jul 22, 2005
    Messages:
    2,440
    Location:
    Atlanta
    Without doing the math I'd think that a serve would have to be at least 3 inches out for you to be able to see "space between the ball and the line" when you are returning. That said I don't think that the code needs to be changed for this one situation because people don't hyperparse the rules like that.
     
    #9
  10. andfor

    andfor Hall of Fame

    Joined:
    Mar 16, 2004
    Messages:
    4,883
    All of this is why a few years ago the rule to replay the point when a missed line call and corrected himself but made the shot changed from a let to loss of point.

    If you're not 100% the ball is good. If you make a mistake correct the call lose the point and move on. Simple
     
    #10
  11. rufus_smith

    rufus_smith Professional

    Joined:
    Apr 21, 2011
    Messages:
    887
    I agree with the OP especially on receiving serves:
    "A player shall not call a ball out unless the player clearly sees space between where the ball hits and a line."
    If you follow this literally on return of serve, a tall player gets an advantage over a short player since he has a better chance to see space on a long serve because of higher viewing angle. The rules shouldn't favor taller players. That particular rule should be exempted on return of serve,imo.
     
    #11
  12. TimothyO

    TimothyO Hall of Fame

    Joined:
    Oct 5, 2010
    Messages:
    3,600
    Location:
    Baseline
    Nope, the ball can skid about 2". What you decide is out may not be out.

    Key: you have no visual evidence the shot is out.

    This reminds me of people who catch balls they "know" are heading out. Problem some us hit with enough spin that our shots look like they're heading out and then dive in.

    These rules exist for good reasons: they prevent arguments.

    In this specific case, the OP may believe a ball to be out but an opponent with a better view may actually see the ball hit the line. At that point the OP is truly cheating his opponent.
     
    #12
  13. TimothyO

    TimothyO Hall of Fame

    Joined:
    Oct 5, 2010
    Messages:
    3,600
    Location:
    Baseline
    Yeah, they should lower the net for shorter servers.

    Do people just post crap without even thinking?
     
    #13
  14. rufus_smith

    rufus_smith Professional

    Joined:
    Apr 21, 2011
    Messages:
    887
    I'm sure you post nothing but pearls of wisdom. So you agree the rule is biased towards taller players but you think it is fair to keep it? That part of Rule 7 is an arbitrary rule in a tennis book of codes that has changes every year. It is not a physical part of the court like the net. It can be changed in a day and nobody would object.
     
    #14
  15. Timbo's hopeless slice

    Timbo's hopeless slice Hall of Fame

    Joined:
    Feb 8, 2011
    Messages:
    4,097
    this thread reminds me of that one about the foot faults..

    ppl say things that beggar belief.
     
    #15
  16. SFrazeur

    SFrazeur Legend

    Joined:
    Mar 26, 2006
    Messages:
    6,476
    Location:
    Arkansas
    The rule is simple and straight forward. If your wrote all possible exceptions the rule would be 10 pages and counting. The rules and conduct covering benefit of the doubt and sportsmanship fills in any grey area.
     
    #16
  17. tennistim

    tennistim New User

    Joined:
    Aug 5, 2011
    Messages:
    68
    Location:
    London, UK
    Sounds like he is making his mind up about the call too early.

    Perhaps I didn't explain myself properly. Judging the ball by relying on trajectory is not the same as calling the ball early.

    Although it seems most people don't really think too much about how they are judging a line call, a critical part of it is seeing the path of the ball both into and out of the bounce.

    Seeing space between the line and ball is another important way to judge a ball, but I think this is not always necessary to make a perfectly accurate call.

    Did you try placing the ball 3 inches behind the service line like I explained? If not try it and let me know your thoughts...
     
    #17
  18. tennistim

    tennistim New User

    Joined:
    Aug 5, 2011
    Messages:
    68
    Location:
    London, UK
    All I am proposing is changing one sentence.

    Other than the point in question, I think the code really is a great document.
     
    #18
  19. tennistim

    tennistim New User

    Joined:
    Aug 5, 2011
    Messages:
    68
    Location:
    London, UK
    Yes the ball can skid. But for arguments sake, lets say that it is not a skidding ball. It is a high, slow serve that lands 3 inches out. You still see the bounce, but just not the space between the line and the ball. You would bet your life on the ball being out. You do have visual evidence.

    If you are strictly following the code you would have to call that in.

    Ultimately, I am not attacking the code for the sake of cheating. Actually it's just the oposite. I would like to see far more players respect the code. If the code has mistakes in it, people are less likely to follow it.

    This all might seem like a very minor point. But after you try viewing a ball placed 3 inches out (see previous post) it does seem like a major oversight.
     
    Last edited: Oct 15, 2012
    #19
  20. TimothyO

    TimothyO Hall of Fame

    Joined:
    Oct 5, 2010
    Messages:
    3,600
    Location:
    Baseline
    Great, assume no skid.

    How far must the ball land beyond the line for the receiver to "just know it's out"? 3"? 1"? A tiny fraction of an inch? How would you rewrite the rule to handle this huge range of judgement?

    Once you introduce that level of guesswork into play you'll have people calling all sort of stuff long just because the "know it must be long". The entire point of the rule is to balance the power of the receiver with the interests of the server.

    The receiver gets to call shots on his side of the net. Since he has a clear conflict of interest in calling shots out the rules demand there's as little error in judgment as possible.

    What you're proposing is to give the player calling shots the power to guess as to whether or not a shot is out. That's a recipe for chaos and very long matches as both sides start "guessing shots out" instead of "calling shots out".
     
    #20
  21. TimothyO

    TimothyO Hall of Fame

    Joined:
    Oct 5, 2010
    Messages:
    3,600
    Location:
    Baseline
    Maybe you need to have another go at geometry. For a taller player to recieve a significant benefit in this case he'd have to be a few stories tall.

    In any case, taller players have an advantage in tennis at net, serving, in the power of their groundstrokes, etc. If you are really that concerned about it take up bowling.

    Rule 7 is not arbitrary. The rules give the receiving player the power to act as umpire and call shots out. Rule 7 balances that extraordinary power with the requirement that the player actually see the shot and not "guess that the shot is out".
     
    #21
  22. SoBad

    SoBad Legend

    Joined:
    Aug 2, 2006
    Messages:
    8,064
    Location:
    shiran
    The early draft of the USTA Rule 7(b)(V)(ii) that has not yet been released suggests that the player is not in the position to ascertain the distance, in millimeters, between the landing ball and the drawn line unless their eyesight had been examined by a licensed practioner within the six months immediately preceding the line call in question, unless they have a certificate stating otherwise.:neutral:
     
    #22
  23. Cindysphinx

    Cindysphinx G.O.A.T.

    Joined:
    Aug 31, 2006
    Messages:
    15,092
    Talk about overthinking things.

    A ball is only out if you have concrete and indisputable evidence that it is out. What could that evidence possibly be?

    The only objective measure that could possibly work is seeing space between line and ball, and that is the measure the Code uses.

    My work here is finished.
     
    #23
  24. SoBad

    SoBad Legend

    Joined:
    Aug 2, 2006
    Messages:
    8,064
    Location:
    shiran
    Cindy, sorry to go off-topic here, but is the vaccination thread still alive somewhere? Seriously, I want to read up on some of the things you said.
     
    #24
  25. spot

    spot Hall of Fame

    Joined:
    Jul 22, 2005
    Messages:
    2,440
    Location:
    Atlanta
    Cindy- In singles do you think that players should only call serves long if they can see space in between the ball and the line? I think what the OP is saying is that is an exceedingly high bar and in practice it would mean that the returner must play balls that are several inches long.
     
    #25
  26. Timbo's hopeless slice

    Timbo's hopeless slice Hall of Fame

    Joined:
    Feb 8, 2011
    Messages:
    4,097
    but you're happy for them to serve from a few inches closer, what's the difference??
     
    #26
  27. Orion3

    Orion3 Semi-Pro

    Joined:
    Jul 4, 2011
    Messages:
    463
    Really simple - unless you are certain the ball was out...you should be calling it in and playing on.
     
    #27
  28. Cindysphinx

    Cindysphinx G.O.A.T.

    Joined:
    Aug 31, 2006
    Messages:
    15,092
    Yes. I think that unless a player sees objective evidence that the ball is long, they should call it good. Anything else is just guessing that it didn't clip the line.

    To me, the argument you are making is like saying, "I couldn't see space on that ball near the sideline because I was running and my head was bobbing. But the trajectory means it had to be out, so I'm calling it out."
     
    #28
  29. Cindysphinx

    Cindysphinx G.O.A.T.

    Joined:
    Aug 31, 2006
    Messages:
    15,092
    I don't know, but remember that anything I say about vaccinations is me just shooting my mouth off based on personal and subjective belief.

    It's hardly worth searching for, ya know? :)
     
    #29
  30. SoBad

    SoBad Legend

    Joined:
    Aug 2, 2006
    Messages:
    8,064
    Location:
    shiran
    It's too big of a business to challenge it, isn't it. People just have to find their own way around the vaccination terror.
     
    #30
  31. spot

    spot Hall of Fame

    Joined:
    Jul 22, 2005
    Messages:
    2,440
    Location:
    Atlanta
    Cindy- I think that its very possible to return serve and be 100% sure a ball was long without seeing space in between the ball and the line.

    OK... just because I don't think people get the math on this. Lets say that a ball when bouncing is 2.4 inches high. (balls normally are approx 2.65 inches high). Lets say the Receiver is standing at the baseline and that their eyes are 5 feet above ground level. If the ball is less than 8.5 inches long then the returner cannot see space over the top of the ball. Its not reasonable for the rules to be that the returner must return all these balls even though they can know with 100% accuracy that the ball is out.

    Does anyone really want to say that when playing singles they return all balls that are less than 8 inches long? If I can say with 100% confidence that the ball is long then I call it long and that occurs well before I can see space in between the ball and the service line.
     
    Last edited: Oct 15, 2012
    #31
  32. Alchemy-Z

    Alchemy-Z Hall of Fame

    Joined:
    Dec 14, 2010
    Messages:
    1,542
    Location:
    Augusta, GA
    Just change scoring to winners only no unforced errors.

    We did this once for fun in a clinic.... even the regular pushers were no longer pushing.

    if a unforced error is made by the Server then you re-start the point with a 2nd serve.

    if a unforced error is made by the return side you restart the point giving the server 2 serves.

    you play 1 set and it takes about the same time as playing 2 sets and a 10 point tie break.
     
    #32
  33. tguru

    tguru Rookie

    Joined:
    Jun 26, 2004
    Messages:
    183
    I have my own hardcourt at home and on most days it provides full ball marks. Everyday I get to see the difference between what my eyes saw, in a flash, and where the ball actually hit in relation to the line. Many times I have seen the strike accurately while many times the reality is upwards of 6" different. For the record, my real name is not Stevie Wonder.
     
    #33
  34. sundaypunch

    sundaypunch Hall of Fame

    Joined:
    May 17, 2011
    Messages:
    1,684
    Yes, and this is the reality of calling your own lines. Change the wording of the rule or not - it is still going to be a judgement call.
     
    #34
  35. beernutz

    beernutz Hall of Fame

    Joined:
    Aug 16, 2005
    Messages:
    4,427
    Location:
    expanding my Ignore List
    Of all the things I'd love to see changed in the Code, this is definitely not one of them. Please leave guessing out of the equation used for calling lines. If you see the ball 100% out, call it out, otherwise shut up and play the dang thing.
     
    #35
  36. Cindysphinx

    Cindysphinx G.O.A.T.

    Joined:
    Aug 31, 2006
    Messages:
    15,092
    Yeah, it's simple math.

    You have the receiver standing at the baseline in your example. Of course, receivers often stand well in front of or well behind the baseline. This would of course greatly affect their ability to see whether there is space between ball and line.

    What we need to do is outfit every racket with a protractor and a compass, and perhaps a slide rule. The receiver would decide where to stand for each serve, would calculate (based upon his own height) how much space he could see from that position if the serve is actually long and the ball were not blocking his view, then use rudimentary calculus to determine what combination of trajectory, speed and spin the ball would have to have to be "out" without the receiver actually seeing space between line and ball.

    Me, I think I will just play balls as in unless I see space. I will play a lot of out balls, but I won't finish the match with a throbbing migraine.
     
    #36
  37. andfor

    andfor Hall of Fame

    Joined:
    Mar 16, 2004
    Messages:
    4,883
    I may be accused of arguing just to be arguing. But this thread may take the award for it in 2012 if there was a catagory for that.
     
    #37
  38. dcdoorknob

    dcdoorknob Hall of Fame

    Joined:
    Mar 14, 2010
    Messages:
    3,564
    I think that the people saying that they never call a ball out while returning without seeing space between the ball and the line are being being inaccurate, even if it is what they believe they do it is likely not what they actually do.

    You can be sure the ball was out without seeing space in this particular situation. If it is a slow, high trajectory 2nd serve that lands 6 inches beyond the service line, you likely can not see space between the ball and the line from your vantage piont, but you can still be sure the ball was out, and so calling it out would still be perfectly reasonable.

    If you do call these out, but think it's because you actually see space between the line and the ball, over the top of the ball, you are, again, likely mistaken (unless you are just really tall). What you are really doing is arriving to your (perfectly legitimate) conclusion that the ball was out due to other means, such as the trajectory of the ball and an ingrained, subconscious understanding of how what you just saw could not have been a ball that was anything but out. But you still aren't seeing space between the ball and the line just due to the geometry of the situation. If you could take a snapshot with your eyeball, you may in fact see that the top of the ball is just barely obscuring the bottom of the line from your line of sight, but again due an ingrained understanding of how to interpret that visual, you are still sure that the ball was out even though you are not seeing space between the ball and the line.
     
    Last edited: Oct 15, 2012
    #38
  39. spot

    spot Hall of Fame

    Joined:
    Jul 22, 2005
    Messages:
    2,440
    Location:
    Atlanta
    Making contact just 10 feet behind the serviceline would mean that its impossible to call a ball out that is less than 4.5 inches out. Do you honestly think that this is the standard you actually use while playing singles? And all of this assumes that someone's eyes are 5 feet off the ground. For a woman of average height who is bending her knees at all I'd think it would be significantly lower.

    I don't think that the code has to change- I simply am saying that while returning serve in singles that no one actually uses the measure of needing to see space in between the ball and the line. The math just doesn't work out.
     
    Last edited: Oct 15, 2012
    #39
  40. Cindysphinx

    Cindysphinx G.O.A.T.

    Joined:
    Aug 31, 2006
    Messages:
    15,092
    I have watched league players play singles. I find myself constantly thinking, "Wow. That was was well long. How come she didn't call that out?"

    I think singles players really do play by that standard. I certainly haven't seen singles players repeatedly call serves that hit the line out.

    By the way, I have never in my life made contact with a serve while 10 feet behind the baseline. Not even in mixed.
     
    #40
  41. OrangePower

    OrangePower Hall of Fame

    Joined:
    Sep 7, 2007
    Messages:
    4,071
    Location:
    NorCal Bay Area
    Definitely more long serves played in singles vs dubs. Tough to make those calls in singles, especially if the serve has pace. Ball coming fast + bad angle + concentrating on setting up for the return = large margin for error. Giving the opponent the benefit of the doubt makes it hard to call those serves out.

    In dubs of course, receiver's partner has better angle plus is not focusing on making the return, so can better make those close out calls.

    On a slightly different note, in my experience, singles players hook less than doubles players. Huge generalization, and YVMV. I also find that there is less confrontation on the court in singles vs dubs. Again just my personal experience.
     
    #41
  42. spot

    spot Hall of Fame

    Joined:
    Jul 22, 2005
    Messages:
    2,440
    Location:
    Atlanta
    Sorry- I meant 10 feet behind the service line. The further up in the box you go the easier it is to see over the ball. Cindy- you honestly believe that you have never seen a ball called out that was less than 4 inches past the line in singles?! That is an insanely high standard for calling a ball out. I mean for a woman who is 5 foot tall and who has a knee bend, if they are returning a ball from the baseline then they wouldn't be able to see space between the ball and the line even if it were 10 inches past the service line. You honestly think that this is how people call it in the real world!? Hell- in doubles teams often don't even bother making an audible out call for a ball that is 6 inches long and you think in singles this gets played all the time?
     
    Last edited: Oct 15, 2012
    #42
  43. North

    North Professional

    Joined:
    Jun 21, 2005
    Messages:
    937
    I'm glad you mentioned this. I play singles almost exclusively but watch a lot of matches, singles & doubles. In watching & in my admittedly limited doubles play, it always seemed like there was much more hooking & other nonsense in doubles.

    Cheating/gamesmanship certainly goes on in singles but is much easier to just calmly deal with & put a stop to - at least that has been my experience. Far fewer tussles over the rules, as well, in singles - again, just my experience.
     
    #43
  44. Cindysphinx

    Cindysphinx G.O.A.T.

    Joined:
    Aug 31, 2006
    Messages:
    15,092
    Spot, I think your argument is rather beside the point.

    Of course it is difficult/impossible to see space on balls that are in fact out. The way I know this is that my doubles partners will call balls long when I would have bet money they were well in.

    In this thread, I haven't heard you or anyone else formulate a better version of the Code that addresses your concerns. Perhaps it would go something like this:

    7. Ball touching any part of line is good. If any part of a ball touches a line, the ball is good. A ball 99% out is still 100% good. A player shall not call a ball out unless the player really, really thinks it was out but the ball itself might have blocked the player's view of the space that was probably between the ball and the line."
     
    Last edited: Oct 15, 2012
    #44
  45. spot

    spot Hall of Fame

    Joined:
    Jul 22, 2005
    Messages:
    2,440
    Location:
    Atlanta
    I don't think that the code should be changed. I don't think that there is a problem with people playing singles who are always playing serves that are 8 inches long because the ball is blocking their view of the line. I just don't think that there are any singles players who actually wait to see space between the ball and the line on these types of plays. The code doesn't need to be changed because the letter of the law ofcode simply isn't followed in this situation and players are instead applying the intent of the code.
     
    #45
  46. Cindysphinx

    Cindysphinx G.O.A.T.

    Joined:
    Aug 31, 2006
    Messages:
    15,092
    I tend to agree with OrangePower and North. I think singles players accept that they cannot see the service line well and know they have no partner to help them out. As a result, they do for the most part give ridiculous amounts of leeway on service line calls. When I am watching my teammates play, I see singles players playing out balls way more often than doubles players.

    Fun story from my most recent 7.5 mixed doubles match. My lefty partner was receiving in the deuce court. He struggles when the serve is out wide to his BH and often tries to run around it.

    Again and again, these wide serves came very close to the sideline, and my partner played them as good. From where I stood, I kind of thought they were out but I wasn't sure I saw space. If truth be told, I didn't wish to make an out call only to have my partner tell me it was good. So I kept my mouth shut, called the service line only, and let my partner play these wide serves.

    After a while, the opposing man actually got a bit shirty with us. See, my partner was hitting great returns off of these possibly out serves. The server questioned my partner's "in" calls, but my partner said he wasn't getting a good look at the ball and hadn't seen space, so he felt he had to play them as good.

    So yeah, some folks really do give benefit of the doubt and play serves as good if they do not see space.
     
    #46
  47. Fuji

    Fuji Legend

    Joined:
    Aug 30, 2010
    Messages:
    6,597
    I just have to ask this:

    Is it really the end of the world if we play a ball that in all actuality is out by 2 inches? In singles I'd rather play a ball that I see in (That by the math is 2 inches out) then have to worry about it later.

    Just me, but who knows haha!

    -Fuji
     
    #47
  48. Cindysphinx

    Cindysphinx G.O.A.T.

    Joined:
    Aug 31, 2006
    Messages:
    15,092
    I dunno, Fuji.

    He who routinely plays serves that are 2 inches out can get double-bageled in 23 minutes.

    :)
     
    #48
  49. Fuji

    Fuji Legend

    Joined:
    Aug 30, 2010
    Messages:
    6,597
    Bahahaha good point! ;)

    Honestly though, my eye sight is 20/20 and I have a tough time seeing balls that come in fast. Most of the time I see them as in, and I play them as such. The toughest is when they are body serves, as I'm more focused on getting positioned then if they are out by an inch LOL! Maybe I just don't take rec tennis all that seriously. (Probably another aid to that 23 minute bagel LOL!)

    -Fuji
     
    #49
  50. spot

    spot Hall of Fame

    Joined:
    Jul 22, 2005
    Messages:
    2,440
    Location:
    Atlanta
    Giving the benefit of the doubt and returning a serve you believe is probably a couple inches out is far different than playing every serve 8 inches long that you know with 100% certainty is out simply because it is physically impossible to see space between the ball and the line while looking over the ball.
     
    Last edited: Oct 15, 2012
    #50

Share This Page