LET vs. NET

Discussion in 'Odds & Ends' started by peter_iltchev, Mar 31, 2011.

  1. peter_iltchev

    peter_iltchev New User

    Joined:
    Sep 18, 2010
    Messages:
    7
    Hello TT forum-goers,

    I have a question to which, as an avid tennis fan, I feel I should know the answer. I know that in squash, when a let is called, it essentially means 'replay the point'. This is what happens when, in tennis, you hit the net and it goes into the correct service box, and you subsequently replay the point due to the interference.

    However, it seems that there are two terms that can be used for this in tennis: 'net' as well as 'let'...so which one is right? Or are they both right?

    Thanks,

    PI
     
    #1
  2. jswinf

    jswinf Professional

    Joined:
    Sep 30, 2009
    Messages:
    1,149
    When a serve hits the net and continues across it, it's a "net." All that means is that that serve won't count as a serve, one way or the other. Ordinary folks won't bother with calling "net," they'll wait to see if:

    --the ball lands within the correct service box, then it's a "let" and the serve (1st or 2nd) is replayed, or

    --the ball does not land within the correct service box, then it's a "fault," a missed serve. If it was the first serve, proceed with the second. If it was the second serve, double fault, server loses the point.

    Of course, some players will say "net" when they mean "let."

    I don't know a darn thing about squash, except it's not my favorite vegetable.
     
    #2
  3. Djokovicfan4life

    Djokovicfan4life Legend

    Joined:
    Jan 24, 2008
    Messages:
    5,484
    Location:
    Stillwater, OK
    I suspect the commentators have the meanings screwed up. I always hear about a lucky "let cord." Lets don't have cords, nets do.
     
    #3
  4. Sentinel

    Sentinel Bionic Poster

    Joined:
    Jan 21, 2008
    Messages:
    31,287
    Location:
    Far from suresh's "drying up pool of old farts"
    Its identical to tennis, just without a net. Remember that, and you're fine.
     
    #4
  5. SystemicAnomaly

    SystemicAnomaly G.O.A.T.

    Joined:
    Feb 25, 2006
    Messages:
    11,214
    Location:
    Stuck in the Matrix somewhere in Santa Clara CA
    Note that you can also have a let that has nothing to do with the net. For instance, a let might be called if a ball from another court encroaches your court during a point.
     
    #5
  6. SFrazeur

    SFrazeur Legend

    Joined:
    Mar 26, 2006
    Messages:
    6,480
    Location:
    Arkansas
    There is no such ruling as a "Net"

    It is all a "Let."

    RULE 13
    The Let

    In all cases where a let has to be called under the rules, or to provide for an interruption to play, it shall have the following interpretations:

    (a) When called solely in respect of a service that one service only shall be replayed.

    (b) When called under any other circumstance, the point shall be replayed.

    Case 1. A service is interrupted by some cause outside those defined in Rule 14. Should the service only be replayed?

    Decision. No the whole point must be replayed.

    [USTA Comment: If the interruption occurs during delivery of the second service, the Server gets two serves. Example: On a second service a linesman calls "fault" and immediately corrects it, the Receiver meanwhile having let the ball go by. The Server is entitled to two serves, on this ground: The corrected call means that the Server has put the ball into play with a good service, and once the ball is in play and a let is called, the point must be replayed. Note, however, that if the serve is an unmistakable ace - that is, the Umpire is sure that the erroneous call had no part in the Receiver's inability to play the ball - the point should be declared for the Server.

    If a delay between first and second serves is caused by the Receiver, by an official or by an outside interference the whole point shall be replayed; if the delay is caused by the Server, the Server has one serve to come. A spectator's outcry (of "out", "fault" or other) is not a valid basis for replay of a point, but action should be taken to prevent a recurrence.]

    Case 2. If a ball in play becomes broken, should a let be called?

    Decision. Yes.

    [USTA Comment: A ball shall be regarded as having become "broken" if, in the opinion of the Chair Umpire, it is found to have lost compression to the point of being unfit for further play, or unfit for any reason, and it is clear the defective ball was the one in play.]

    RULE 14
    The "Let" in Service

    The service is a let:

    (a) If the ball served touches the net, strap or band, and is otherwise good, or, after touching the net, strap or band, touches the Receiver or anything which he wears or carries before hitting the ground.

    (b) If a service or a fault is delivered when the Receiver is not ready (see Rule 12).

    In case of a let, that particular service shall not count, and the Server shall serve again, but a service let does not annul a previous fault.

    -SF
     
    #6
  7. jswinf

    jswinf Professional

    Joined:
    Sep 30, 2009
    Messages:
    1,149
    I think when some of the big tourneys used "net cord judges" sitting by the post with their hand on the net to feel vibration if a serve ticked it (remember Bud Collins talking about 'Fingers Fortescue'? maybe not) the net cord judge would call "net" if he detected the serve touching the net, then you'd either hear a linesman call "fault" if the serve landed out or the umpire call "let" if there was no fault call.
     
    #7
  8. kc571

    kc571 New User

    Joined:
    Aug 10, 2008
    Messages:
    53
    If anyone sees this, curious how many lets / nets you get. Can you continue to hit the net and have it drop in the box? Or do you only get a set number of lets?
     
    #8
  9. BHiC

    BHiC Rookie

    Joined:
    May 7, 2012
    Messages:
    308
    Location:
    USA
    If it continues to hit the net and go in the box, then you can get an infinite number of lets. Obviously this is not possible, but there is no USTA rule against it.
     
    #9

Share This Page