Should the point have been replayed?

Discussion in 'Adult League & Tournament Talk' started by Ironwood, Sep 20, 2013.

  1. Ironwood

    Ironwood Semi-Pro

    Joined:
    Jun 16, 2009
    Messages:
    682
    Location:
    North of the 49th!
    Played our clubs end of summer season mens doubles tournament this week. Just one set with tiebreaker at 6 all, so it could be run off on a couple nights per week over 3 weeks. Just a club tournament with not even a trophy on the line. I was serving at 5-4, 40-30 match point. My first serve appeared to catch the center service line, and the receiver approached the net to shake hands. His partner after what must have been a 10 second delay, calls 'out'! The receiver who was now at the net says 'I thought it was good', but then goes silent, while his partner, who was more than twice his age firmly insisted 'out'. The receiver offered first service to replay the point, but his partner said no....I could have put my second serve in play much quicker had I not protested the call. I served a second, we went on to loose that game. We eventually went to a tiebreaker, which we won 7-4, so justice prevailed.
    Was I entitled to a first service to replay the contested point? The delay between first and second service was largely my doing as I was protesting a vey late and questionable 'out' call on match point. But even if I had taken an immediate second service, the delayed call still would have prevented play being 'reasonably continuous' However, my opponent was correct in asserting I was responsible for the delay of about 2 minutes between first and second serve.
    What's the call....should the point have been replayed?
     
    #1
  2. TimeSpiral

    TimeSpiral Professional

    Joined:
    Jul 9, 2013
    Messages:
    1,291
    Location:
    Gotham City
    You don't replay the point, you win the point.

    Starting in 2011, the USTA Tennis Rules and Regulations Committee has determined that any call on a serve or in a rally corrected from out to good is loss of point to the player or team that corrected the call, even if the ball is put back into play. An out call on any ball (on a serve or in a rally) that is corrected to good is considered to have created a hindrance to play and it is loss of point due to this hindrance.

    NOTE: The only exception is on the first or second serve that is a service let (i.e. the ball hits the net before it lands in the service box). Let serves that occur on first or second serve and called out and are then corrected to good result in the replay of the entire point, thus a first serve to the server.

    http://www.usta.com/Improve-Your-Game/Player-to-Player/Rules/Ruling_on_a_serve/

    However, assuming you're not going to be a stickler--sometimes it's not easy to invoke these rules, and who knows what type of line calling precedent was set in the match--since you caused the delay, I would say you do not get another first serve. Next time, just invoke the proper rule and take the point, or in this case, the match.
     
    #2
  3. tennis tom

    tennis tom Hall of Fame

    Joined:
    Jun 15, 2007
    Messages:
    2,767

    Should have been your point, if doubles partners disagree on a call, as they clearly did in your scenario, POINT GOES TO THEIR OPPONENTS--no replay. As you say, nothing on the outcome, no trophy, bragging rights at the club bar--and a little matter of honor.

    I subbed in a similar type of match just yesterday, very "competitive" old farts--except when it comes to calling out the score when they are down--suddenly the Alzheimers kicks in--but no trouble remembering the score loudly when they are up 40-5. Suddenly the throat gets dry calling your ball landing near the baseline good or not--of course it was "long"--"Didn't you hear me call it out?"--when they tell you two points later after confusion about the score because you assumed it was good because there was no audible call, but was tired of asking: "How was it?" after every point on their baseline--would it be so hard to point a finger for out or palm down for good?? I couldn't leave fast enough and the next time they call me to sub I'll be "busy".
     
    Last edited: Sep 20, 2013
    #3
  4. schmke

    schmke Professional

    Joined:
    Jan 20, 2010
    Messages:
    1,369
    Ummm, not sure how this applies. The OP situation was not a change from out to good but either from good to out or simply a very late out call. What you quoted does not address this situation.

    Now, you could argue that you win the point because the non-returning opponent said it was good. From Friend At Court:

    "14. Partners’ disagreement on calls. If one partner calls the ball out and the
    other partner sees the ball good, the ball is good."

    But to your original question, if the delayed call really was 10 seconds and the other 3 players on the court had left their positions and were at the net to shake hands, yes, that would IMHO be a delay that would justify a first serve.
     
    #4
  5. LuckyR

    LuckyR Legend

    Joined:
    Jun 2, 2006
    Messages:
    6,404
    Location:
    The Great NW
    If the receiver acted as if it was "in" because he didn't see the ball and assumed it was "in" because of the 10 second delay in his partner's calling the shot, then the ball is "out", no first serve.

    But in reality the returner said he thought the ball was "in", therefore there is conflict between the partners hence the ball is "in" by the rules above.
     
    #5
  6. Ironwood

    Ironwood Semi-Pro

    Joined:
    Jun 16, 2009
    Messages:
    682
    Location:
    North of the 49th!
    Tennis Tom.....I play seniors tennis, and don't get me started on line calls amongst that group! You would think they would be more charitable on calls than the younger set, but not at all! Some of the more habitual 'bad' line callers I encounter are the still competitive over 65ers.
     
    #6
  7. mikeler

    mikeler G.O.A.T.

    Joined:
    Sep 26, 2008
    Messages:
    19,816
    Location:
    Central Florida
    Aside from the partner's disagreement issue, another point in the OP's favor is that the call was not made promptly.
     
    #7
  8. jk175d

    jk175d Semi-Pro

    Joined:
    Sep 10, 2009
    Messages:
    661
    that's the end of it right there. If there's disagreement on the call between the two partners the ball was good.
     
    #8
  9. TimeSpiral

    TimeSpiral Professional

    Joined:
    Jul 9, 2013
    Messages:
    1,291
    Location:
    Gotham City
    Nah. I think you may have just misread. Look again:

    A ball that is 99% out is 100% in. The original call was out. His partner said he thought it was in. (a) the ball is in, and (b) the disagreement means the point is lost.
     
    #9
  10. goober

    goober Legend

    Joined:
    Jun 9, 2004
    Messages:
    8,491
    Most of the really bad line callers I have come across have been seniors. Some of them could be from bad eyesight, but then they always call close balls in their favor, never the other way around.
     
    #10
  11. Joeyg

    Joeyg Semi-Pro

    Joined:
    Feb 21, 2004
    Messages:
    747
    Location:
    Sarcasm, USA
    Had this happen in a USTA tourney in 2000. Once the opponent said he thought it was good, the point is over in your favor (regardless what his partner said). In our case, the opponents partner started cursing and threatening me when I told him it was our point. Called the tourney director and she basically told him point was ours and to play or leave.
     
    #11
  12. goober

    goober Legend

    Joined:
    Jun 9, 2004
    Messages:
    8,491
    Everyone is quoting USTA regulations, but clubs are under no obligation to play by USTA rules for the tourneys or leagues and often don't. Club matches can sometimes be tricky in that they can have their own set rules or they can follow USTA rules, but often it isn't clear. Pulling out USTA friend of the court for a private club match may not really endear you to the club members nor will it serve as some sort of final authority like it could in a USTA match. A lot of club players are use to playing lets in their social matches when 2 people disagree and will do so even in club league matches.

    On the one hand you probably got bullied on that point, but on the other I am not sure if it is worth it to make a huge scene out of the situation for a nothing tournament and possible longer term consequences if you are a member of the club.
     
    #12
  13. schmke

    schmke Professional

    Joined:
    Jan 20, 2010
    Messages:
    1,369
    Except what you quoted applies to an actual out call made during play that could be a hinderance and the point loss being because of this hinderance. This did not happen in this case, the out call wasn't made until 10 seconds later. I'd also contend the non-returning partner walking to the net was an implicit "good" call so it was changed from in to out.

    But further, you are now quoting the disagreement rule which wasn't in your original response which is the real rule that applies here and the one I quoted.
     
    #13
  14. beernutz

    beernutz Hall of Fame

    Joined:
    Aug 16, 2005
    Messages:
    4,427
    Location:
    expanding my Ignore List
    Did the receiver actually shake someone's hand at the net? Not that the other team had any case at all anyway given the delayed call and the disagreement between partners, if a concession handshake had occurred that would seal it for me.
     
    #14
  15. TimeSpiral

    TimeSpiral Professional

    Joined:
    Jul 9, 2013
    Messages:
    1,291
    Location:
    Gotham City
    I think we're splittin' hairs here, brother. It specifies in the rule that, "[...] any call on a serve or in a rally [...]" that is called out, then corrected, constitutes a hindrance. It's the out call that creates the hindrance. The delayed call doesn't really matter in this case. We don't know whether or not it was an ace, or a service winner, but either way, both rules apply in this case, imo.

    Plus: I've got five bucks that the late call was 2-5-ish seconds late. The OP did say, what must have been a 10 second delay. It probably just felt super late. I've never seen a call that late before, unless the other person just assumed the out call because it was like two feet out, then had to clarify.
     
    #15
  16. schmke

    schmke Professional

    Joined:
    Jan 20, 2010
    Messages:
    1,369
    Yes, we are splitting hairs, but someone is going to come read this thread some day and I don't want them to be confused and start applying the wrong rules in situations.

    My last statement will be this. How can a call 5 seconds (I'll even let you assume the 10 seconds was just 5) after the point is over and the receiver is approaching the net to shake hands be a hinderance? The rule you cited is clearly about calls made during play. This call was made well after playing the point was over and thus can't apply as a hinderance. It is simply the rule about partners disagreeing that applies here.
     
    #16
  17. gmatheis

    gmatheis Hall of Fame

    Joined:
    Aug 10, 2010
    Messages:
    1,581
    The only thing that really matters here is that the returner actually made the statement "I thought it was good".

    Whether your club goes by USTA rules or not, it is basic tennis etiquette that when playing doubles and partners disagree on a call the benefit of the doubt goes to their opponents.
     
    #17
  18. TimeSpiral

    TimeSpiral Professional

    Joined:
    Jul 9, 2013
    Messages:
    1,291
    Location:
    Gotham City
    Me too! I'm sensitive about propogating incorrect information and I'm all for admitting when I'm wrong. It happens all the time, but I don't think I'm wrong here.

    Let's look at the rule again:
    Starting in 2011, the USTA Tennis Rules and Regulations Committee has determined that any call on a serve or in a rally corrected from out to good is loss of point to the player or team that corrected the call, even if the ball is put back into play. An out call on any ball (on a serve or in a rally) that is corrected to good is considered to have created a hindrance to play and it is loss of point due to this hindrance.

    NOTE: The only exception is on the first or second serve that is a service let (i.e. the ball hits the net before it lands in the service box). Let serves that occur on first or second serve and called out and are then corrected to good result in the replay of the entire point, thus a first serve to the server.

    http://www.usta.com/Improve-Your-Game/Player-to-Player/Rules/Ruling_on_a_serve/
    The call was made on a serve. The rule clearly specifies that calls on the serve are governed by this rule. That "even if" clause that I underlined indicates that it applies to the call regardless of whether or not the ball was put back into play. In other words: if the ball was not put back into play, then obviously play has stopped, but if the out call is corrected, then this rule applies.

    What am I missing here? The rule is written rather unambiguously in my opinion.
     
    #18
  19. Mongolmike

    Mongolmike Professional

    Joined:
    Jun 5, 2009
    Messages:
    996
    Location:
    Ohio

    This is what should be important. Anything said after the receiver said "I thought it was good" doesn't matter. The point was over when he said that. Now if you are playing house rules (allow a "do over") is a different matter. The point was over.
     
    #19
  20. Angle Queen

    Angle Queen Professional

    Joined:
    Jul 27, 2010
    Messages:
    839
    Location:
    On the deuce side, looking to come in
    Ok guys. Help me out here. Isn't this scenario just a bit different from the quoted citation in that "the call" (that being the receiver heading to the net in acknowledgement of game/match over) was/wanted to be changed from good to out (not the reverse)?

    I'm with gmatheis on this one, though: regardless of when it was implied or actually said, the receiver said/thought it was good. End of point. End of game. End of match.

    We had the rule's scenario happen in our non-USTA match this week and I thought it was handled beautifully by our opponents. 40*-30. My partner served; the net/linecaller initially called it out...but then, almost immediately reversed herself and called it good. Her partner, the receiver had gotten the ball back. But we had all stopped play on the initial "out" call. Point and game over. The linecaller apologized to both her partner and mine for the bad call (which really wasn't necessary; it happens and she was very quick to correct herself). The receiver initially tried to argue that it was a replay because she'd returned the ball but her partner, the errant linecaller, carefully and politely explained the "new" rule and we all moved on. After the match, the receiver did ask her captain for an explanation and got the same one -- a "changed" call...goes to the opponent.
     
    #20
  21. schmke

    schmke Professional

    Joined:
    Jan 20, 2010
    Messages:
    1,369
    Ok, I said I was done, but you are still missing a key point. The rule you are citing says when a call is corrected from out to good. In this case, the call was never corrected. The receiver insisted the call was out and so the call was never changed and the server in fact was forced to hit a second serve.

    The rule you cite could only kick in after the call was corrected and the rule that applies to that correction is the one I cited where if partners disagree, the ball is considered in. So it is this rule that was not followed and the rule that applies here.

    I will grant you that if the disagreement rule had been applied correctly, then the call would have been corrected and your rule would then apply. But since the disagreement rule was not applied and the call not corrected, your rule isn't the one that was applied and broken.
     
    #21
  22. TimeSpiral

    TimeSpiral Professional

    Joined:
    Jul 9, 2013
    Messages:
    1,291
    Location:
    Gotham City
    That's some bizarre logic! Haha.

    I guess where we disagree is when the returner said, "I thought the ball was good." That to me, is a correction. Everything after that was just gamesmanship nonsense, unrelated to the rules of tennis.

    Anyway, I think we've both given enough for a random passerbye to come to the right conclusion (mine :twisted: :twisted: :twisted:)

    [​IMG]
     
    #22
  23. Ironwood

    Ironwood Semi-Pro

    Joined:
    Jun 16, 2009
    Messages:
    682
    Location:
    North of the 49th!
    Just got back to my office to pick up my thread. Here's the sequence in point form.
    - At match point I believe my first serve clipped the centre line
    - The receiver attempted a return dumping it into the net
    - He approached the net, switched the racket into his other hand getting ready to shake.
    - After what seemed an eternity....even 5 seconds late can be an eternity, his partner called 'the ball was out'
    - Receiver said to me at the net 'I thought the ball was in' Partner reiterated 'out'
    - Receiver offered to replay the point. Partner said 'second serve'
    - Receiver went silent, in deference to his assertive partner who was more than twice his age
    - I played a second serve at least two minutes after my first. The delay was entirely due to my protestation of the call and it being so late in coming.
    - We lost that game. The match went to a tiebreak which we eventually won.
    Case closed!
     
    #23
  24. TimeSpiral

    TimeSpiral Professional

    Joined:
    Jul 9, 2013
    Messages:
    1,291
    Location:
    Gotham City
    More responses than you expected, I bet. But did you get the final gist of how it should have gone down?
     
    #24
  25. Ironwood

    Ironwood Semi-Pro

    Joined:
    Jun 16, 2009
    Messages:
    682
    Location:
    North of the 49th!
    Yeah! I should have stood my ground and claimed the set right there! At club level it's all about a sense of fairness and reasonableness. I can't pull out a USTA rule book everytime I think someone has got something wrong.
    Yes, it's just one point as someone said, but it was....match point, and I still think I was the victim of a 'it was close and I'll give us the benefit of the doubt'....out call!
    In the end we won, but if we had eventually lost....I'd be seething!
     
    #25
  26. TimeSpiral

    TimeSpiral Professional

    Joined:
    Jul 9, 2013
    Messages:
    1,291
    Location:
    Gotham City
    There's a simple way to handle this in the future. You don't need to bust out the rule book, just calmly assert yourself: "If your partner disagrees at all, then the ball is good, sorry. Hate to end a match like that, but those are the rules."

    I probably wouldn't cite the more technical rule in a casual match like this, and frankly, if the other guys got all butt-hurt and were obviously just trying to game me, then I would probably state that I knew they were wrong, but just go on to roll with the punches.

    If it's a league or ranked match--no way. Stick with the rules.
     
    #26
  27. tennis_ocd

    tennis_ocd Hall of Fame

    Joined:
    Aug 17, 2011
    Messages:
    2,002
    This is the part that would've gotten me fired up. Had they given a replay it would've just been another social match sigh. Partner went too far and is begging for a code book over the head.
     
    #27
  28. Mongolmike

    Mongolmike Professional

    Joined:
    Jun 5, 2009
    Messages:
    996
    Location:
    Ohio
    We are allowed to do that??? :) SWEET!!!
     
    #28
  29. RoddickAce

    RoddickAce Hall of Fame

    Joined:
    Jul 2, 2007
    Messages:
    2,472
    Here is my take:

    Sequence of events:

    1. Returner inherently calls the serve good by not calling it out, and walking to the net as it is not common practice to explicitly call "in" on all shots.
    2. 10 seconds
    3. Returner's partner inherently disagrees with his partner and "tries to correct" the call from in to out (no correction from out to in here).
    4. Can argue at this point already that disagreement thus exists and the ball is deemed good. Point awarded to server. But for more clarity...
    5. Returner insists that the call is good. No correction to the call is made at this moment because the returner and his partner have not decided whether they think the ball is good or not. At this point, since there is no clear call, we must first address the first level of the dispute, that there is a disagreement.
    6. Dispute exists between returner and his partner, ball is called good. Point awarded to the server.
    7. The original call made by the returner, disputed by his partner, that the serve was in stands.

    An analogy would be as follows:
    Person A was sentenced to jail for theft.
    Person A appeals to the court (disagrees with the original sentence).
    No correction to the sentence has been made at this point until the dispute is over.
    Must first resolve the appeal (dispute) before we can say whether a correction or new call is made.
     
    #29
  30. RoddickAce

    RoddickAce Hall of Fame

    Joined:
    Jul 2, 2007
    Messages:
    2,472
    Another take on this, assuming that you don't think that the returner originally called the serve in:

    1. Returner's partner makes a late out call.
    2. Returner insists the ball is good.
    3. Disagreement between the returner and his partner, no clear call made at this point.
    4. Must first address this issue by looking at rule #14, point awarded to the server.

    A simplified way to see how this rule applies first is by taking away this rule.

    Assuming rule #14 DOES NOT exist:
    If the returner and his partner both insisted strongly on their positions, how would you deal with the situation?

    Can you really say the returner corrected the call to good? How can the rule regarding correcting a call from out to good apply if we can't even address what the call is?
     
    #30
  31. TimeSpiral

    TimeSpiral Professional

    Joined:
    Jul 9, 2013
    Messages:
    1,291
    Location:
    Gotham City
    I like your sequence of events. Not calling the ball out definitely implies a call of good most of the time, however; it's still slightly gray, in that a short period of time went by before the returning team ultimately called the ball out. It does seem to me like technically, the returning team verbally called the ball out first, and then verbally disagreed (To my knowledge of the events, no hand signal was given). The receiver remained tacit until after his opponent called out, but since the partner called the ball out I don't know that you can use the return's original silence as a "good call." I think you have to take his verbal, unambiguous call at that point.

    It's a good rules debate, imo. The end results, from a rules perspective is the same, but hashing it out like this could help someone clarify a situation where only one of the two might happen.
     
    #31
  32. paul500w

    paul500w Rookie

    Joined:
    May 31, 2013
    Messages:
    128
    Location:
    Atlanta Ga
    Never replay a point unless it is a LET - Tennis ball is either IN or OUT, never I 'm not sure or we can't decide.
     
    #32
  33. tennis_ocd

    tennis_ocd Hall of Fame

    Joined:
    Aug 17, 2011
    Messages:
    2,002
    I can't see why this discussion.
     
    #33
  34. tennixpl

    tennixpl Rookie

    Joined:
    Apr 22, 2013
    Messages:
    277
    Location:
    SA Texas
    where is newpball on this, those pesky rules....

    proper response was to tag net guy with an errant second serve and claim the point as it hit him before bouncing. If you care to be really mean just ask if he saw that one out?

    yeah approaching net after attempt clearly implies he thought it was good in my world. its like walking across after a serve with no call, you start heading to other side you are calling it good.
     
    #34

Share This Page