Question on a rule of Tennis!

Discussion in 'Adult League & Tournament Talk' started by squints, Apr 7, 2007.

  1. squints

    squints Rookie

    Joined:
    Aug 15, 2006
    Messages:
    355
    Location:
    San Jose, Ca
    So my former coach as well as others have told me in the past that in order for a shot to be valid the ball must travel over the net/posts.

    yet while playing with my friends the other day one of them hit a shot that traveled around the post and onto my court, and yet they called it valid, even my doubles partner agreed. These friends of mine player regularly in the USTA at around a 4.5 and 5.0 level, but i still think I'm right.

    so the question is who is right?
     
    #1
  2. BreakPoint

    BreakPoint Bionic Poster

    Joined:
    Feb 18, 2004
    Messages:
    43,472
    Your friends were right. You can hit the ball in any direction or trajectory you want as long as it lands inside the lines of your opponent's court without touching or bouncing off of anything first. The pros hit these kinds of shots all the time when they have to run very wide to return a sharply angled shot. They smack the ball only a few inches off of the ground, around the outside of the net post and inside the sideline of their opponent's side of the court. Of course, the ball was so low that it would have never cleared the net, but it's still good. I've seen Federer do this a number of times, as well as Michael Chang.
     
    #2
  3. squints

    squints Rookie

    Joined:
    Aug 15, 2006
    Messages:
    355
    Location:
    San Jose, Ca
    well thank you very much for the clarification!
     
    #3
  4. J011yroger

    J011yroger G.O.A.T.

    Joined:
    Feb 2, 2007
    Messages:
    12,334
    Location:
    Long Island, NY
    It doesn't have to go over the net, it can go around it, even below net level. As long as it lands inbounds on the other side it is good.

    J
     
    #4
  5. Swissv2

    Swissv2 Hall of Fame

    Joined:
    Oct 19, 2005
    Messages:
    2,491
    Location:
    Tennis Courts!
    Look to Agassi making the very shot you mention and that will prove you can hit around a net post and the shot will be valid if it lands in the court.
     
    #5
  6. dancraig

    dancraig Hall of Fame

    Joined:
    May 24, 2005
    Messages:
    3,240
    #6
  7. nhstennis

    nhstennis Semi-Pro

    Joined:
    Sep 20, 2006
    Messages:
    460
    NOOB question: can u reach ovr the net to get a ball???
     
    #7
  8. dancraig

    dancraig Hall of Fame

    Joined:
    May 24, 2005
    Messages:
    3,240
    According to C, you can even bounce one off the side of the net post.
     
    Last edited: Apr 7, 2007
    #8
  9. dancraig

    dancraig Hall of Fame

    Joined:
    May 24, 2005
    Messages:
    3,240
    Last edited: Apr 7, 2007
    #9
  10. Raiden.Kaminari

    Raiden.Kaminari Semi-Pro

    Joined:
    Nov 21, 2006
    Messages:
    744
    Those are the 1995 rules.

    For 2006 (I don't have my 2007 Friend at Court yet), 1995 - 2004 rule 24 is rule 25.

    Clarification ... you're return has to be made outside of the net post. If you were in the court and hit the net post, the ball is still considered out ( 25D)
     
    #10
  11. bleach

    bleach Rookie

    Joined:
    Apr 7, 2004
    Messages:
    220
    I'm not sure what your trying to say here. With the exception of serving, there's no rules regarding standing in or out of the court to make a good shot.
     
    #11
  12. ! ! ! ! ronakp10

    ! ! ! ! ronakp10 New User

    Joined:
    Apr 2, 2007
    Messages:
    58
    Location:
    Tempe, AZ
    Who judges if your "reaching over" the net to hit a ball. I myself was doubted for being within the rules when I got exicited and hit a very nice angled volley. I just want to know who calls that.
     
    #12
  13. bleach

    bleach Rookie

    Joined:
    Apr 7, 2004
    Messages:
    220
    Being techinical it's not "reaching over" that is a problem, it's hitting the ball before it crosses the net. But really one in the same, except in the case of blowback.

    I guess your allowed to call things on your side of the net, so in this case your opponents should have the right to make that call. Because, if you are guilty, you are on his/their side of the net. A really hard call to make. regardless.

    **** OK I ended up looking this one up. It is the responsibility of the player that hits the ball to call it. The Code, page 54, #20. Might explain why we never see this one called!
     
    Last edited: Apr 9, 2007
    #13
  14. Raiden.Kaminari

    Raiden.Kaminari Semi-Pro

    Joined:
    Nov 21, 2006
    Messages:
    744
    What I tried to clarify was that the only time you can hit the net post and have the ball land in court and still be considered good is when you are pulled out wide (off the court).

    Maybe you can imagine this (although this has not happened, yet):

    Let's say Federer is receiving serve from Roddick. Federer gets pulled wide, but instead of going around the netpost to the baseline, decides to hit a "zero" angle shot. He accidentally hits the outside of the netpost, and then lands on his Roddick's side of the court. The ball is considered good.
     
    #14
  15. BreakPoint

    BreakPoint Bionic Poster

    Joined:
    Feb 18, 2004
    Messages:
    43,472
    But what bleach is saying that the ball would have been good even if Federer was not pulled out wide off of the court. If he was standing in the middle of the court and hits the netpost on a shot and the ball bounces off of the netpost and into Roddicks court, the ball is still considered good.
     
    #15
  16. bleach

    bleach Rookie

    Joined:
    Apr 7, 2004
    Messages:
    220
    Correct,

    I now understand what your saying. It really should be that it is "almost impossible" to hit the netpost and have the ball land in unless your off the court, but that is not a rule. And it can happen...

    Believe it or not, one time I was playing in very windy conditions and I "deflected" a shot hit at me around the "T". The ball shanked wide and hit the post, bounced up and the wind caught it and it landed good. I was winning big at the time, so I wasn't going to claim the point and cause an argument, but my opponent knew the rules and gave me the point.
     
    #16
  17. Raiden.Kaminari

    Raiden.Kaminari Semi-Pro

    Joined:
    Nov 21, 2006
    Messages:
    744
    That must have been an amazing shot, since 25A applies in that case. However, if you were playing singles with singles sticks, both the net and netpost are considered permanent fixtures outside of the singles sticks, and would have resulted in a loss of point (rule 2 and 24D).

    But, I see where the confusion was. I was referring to a "through" deflection, not an "over" deflection. The only "through" deflection allowed (ie. below the net level), is the case stated in 25 C. Which is why it specifically states "returned outside."

    But again, even with 25C, the singles stick / permanent fixture applies (rule 2 and 24D) . So that's why Federer hasn't hit that particular shot in singles (since it would be ruled a loss of point for him).
     
    #17
  18. BreakPoint

    BreakPoint Bionic Poster

    Joined:
    Feb 18, 2004
    Messages:
    43,472
    Are you sure it would be a loss of the point? As you stated, both the net and the net post are considered permanent fixtures so hitting the net post and having the ball land in should be the same thing as hitting the net cord and having the ball land in, which happens all the time, both of which are considered a good shot.
     
    #18
  19. J011yroger

    J011yroger G.O.A.T.

    Joined:
    Feb 2, 2007
    Messages:
    12,334
    Location:
    Long Island, NY
    BP permanant fixtures are out, like a light, or side curtain, or roof, or garbage can, or some other such. The net is not considered a permanant fixture, it is its own category.

    J
     
    #19
  20. Raiden.Kaminari

    Raiden.Kaminari Semi-Pro

    Joined:
    Nov 21, 2006
    Messages:
    744
    What J011yroger said ...
     
    #20
  21. BreakPoint

    BreakPoint Bionic Poster

    Joined:
    Feb 18, 2004
    Messages:
    43,472
    Here's the definitive answer from the USTA website:

    Q: When a ball in play hits the net pole then lands in the court on the opponents side, is the ball considered good?
    A: If the ball hits the net post (with no single sticks) during a rally and lands in the court, it is a good shot. However, if it happens during the serve, it is a fault.
    If there are singles sticks, and the ball hits the net post, it is considered out.

    I guess I've always considered hitting the net post and the ball deflecting into my opponent's court a good shot because I rarely play on courts that have singles sticks. And in that case, I would be correct.
     
    #21
  22. Cindysphinx

    Cindysphinx G.O.A.T.

    Joined:
    Aug 31, 2006
    Messages:
    15,070
    What?

    I hit a serve in doubles, it hits the net post and then lands in the service box, and that is considered a fault? Why?
     
    #22
  23. J011yroger

    J011yroger G.O.A.T.

    Joined:
    Feb 2, 2007
    Messages:
    12,334
    Location:
    Long Island, NY
    ^^Because the net post is outside of service box.

    J
     
    #23
  24. bleach

    bleach Rookie

    Joined:
    Apr 7, 2004
    Messages:
    220
    That's true, but so is the net cord just prior to contacting the post. I think this is just one of those "just because" rules that you have to except.
     
    #24
  25. J011yroger

    J011yroger G.O.A.T.

    Joined:
    Feb 2, 2007
    Messages:
    12,334
    Location:
    Long Island, NY
    Right, but it would be impossible to determine where on the net it hit, and it is easy to tell if it hits the post or not.

    J
     
    #25
  26. BreakPoint

    BreakPoint Bionic Poster

    Joined:
    Feb 18, 2004
    Messages:
    43,472
    I guess for the same reason that hitting the net cord and the ball going over the net is considered a let on a serve but is considered a good shot during a rally. Except that when you hit the net post on a serve, it's not a let but a fault.
     
    #26

Share This Page