The Code Violation Registry

Discussion in 'Adult League & Tournament Talk' started by Cindysphinx, Apr 19, 2007.

  1. Cindysphinx

    Cindysphinx G.O.A.T.

    Joined:
    Aug 31, 2006
    Messages:
    15,067
    My last singles match had several weird Code moments:

    1. My opponent hit a first serve from the deuce court. I wasn't sure whether the serve was long or not (especially since I was wearing my glasses instead of contacts and therefore can't see straight down quite as well), so I played a nice deep return to the ad court. My opponent made no move to play the ball and prepared to serve from the deuce court again. When she saw me waling over to the ad court to receive, she said "The serve was out" and gestured with her hands that it was out by a lot. I said "I thought it caught the line, so I played it. So it's my point." She said, "But it was out."

    I motioned her to the net and explained the rule about calling first serves out. Then I offered to play a let (on account of how I was winning 4-1 and she was a nice lady). I won the point anyway.

    2. I hit a deep lob and began moving to the net. I believed it was sailing out. When the ball bounced, she yelled something I couldn't hear, which I took to be an "out" call. For some reason, she played the ball from deep behind the baseline, a weak sitter. I was at net, and feeling a little annoyed that she was sending me the ball even though she was serving, I gently returned the ball back toward the ad court where she would next serve. As it turns out, my lob was not out; she was calling it "in." But it was my point because my gentle return was a winner. Weird. Who calls balls "in" in the middle of a point?

    3. When my ball was out, she raised one finger. When my ball was barely in, she often raised her hand, which to a player wearing six-year-old glasses with the wrong prescription looks a lot like one finger. I've never seen a raised hand used as an "in" signal.
     
    #1
  2. Hoot

    Hoot Rookie

    Joined:
    May 20, 2005
    Messages:
    159
    One of my players had the same thing happen on the serve. They guy hit a serve and my guy returned a winner. The server called it out and played a second serve. My player did not know the rules and let him play the second serve. He now knows the rules.
     
    #2
  3. blakesq

    blakesq Professional

    Joined:
    Dec 11, 2006
    Messages:
    1,319
    Location:
    Connecticut
    rule calling first serves out

    What is this rule, is it different from the rule about calling second serves out?

    Blakesq

     
    #3
  4. HellBunni

    HellBunni Rookie

    Joined:
    Apr 13, 2006
    Messages:
    291
    the rule is that you call your side of the court. you can conceive the point if you think your ball was out, but on a serve the receiver's call is final.
     
    #4
  5. Cindysphinx

    Cindysphinx G.O.A.T.

    Joined:
    Aug 31, 2006
    Messages:
    15,067
    The rule is that the server cannot call his own first serve out. The receiver may be giving the benefit of the doubt. If the server fails to hit the return, it is the receiver's point.

    The server may call his own second serve out, thereby conceding the point.

    If the receiver isn't sure and requests the server's help, I imagine that the server could then say he saw the first serve out (or in for an ace), and receiver must accept the server's opinion.
     
    #5
  6. cghipp

    cghipp Professional

    Joined:
    Jun 10, 2006
    Messages:
    1,282
    I think the word you're looking for is "concede."
     
    #6
  7. HellBunni

    HellBunni Rookie

    Joined:
    Apr 13, 2006
    Messages:
    291
    yep yep, hehe. No word check, at least it sounded right, lolz
     
    #7
  8. Raiden.Kaminari

    Raiden.Kaminari Semi-Pro

    Joined:
    Nov 21, 2006
    Messages:
    744
    Mostly correct. The only time a server can call his/her own first serve out is when the opponent fails to make a return.
     
    #8
  9. Raiden.Kaminari

    Raiden.Kaminari Semi-Pro

    Joined:
    Nov 21, 2006
    Messages:
    744
    By the way, I'm see some unfamiliarity with the ITF rules, but I don't really see any code violations in your original post.
     
    #9
  10. Cindysphinx

    Cindysphinx G.O.A.T.

    Joined:
    Aug 31, 2006
    Messages:
    15,067
    From the Code:

    26. Service calls by serving team. Neither the Server nor Server’s partner
    shall make a fault call on the first service even if they think it is out
    because the Receiver may be giving the Server the benefit of the doubt. But
    the Server and the Server’s partner shall call out any second serve that either clearly sees out.

    AND

    28. Obvious faults. A player shall not put into play or hit over the net an
    obvious fault. To do so constitutes rudeness and may even be a form of
    gamesmanship. On the other hand, if a player does not call a serve a fault and gives the opponent the benefit of a close call, the Server is not entitled to replay the point.
     
    #10
  11. beernutz

    beernutz Hall of Fame

    Joined:
    Aug 16, 2005
    Messages:
    4,399
    Location:
    expanding my Ignore List
    Source?

    <><<
     
    #11
  12. Hoot

    Hoot Rookie

    Joined:
    May 20, 2005
    Messages:
    159
    Don't question Cindy. She knows her stuff!
     
    #12
  13. skiracer55

    skiracer55 Hall of Fame

    Joined:
    Feb 21, 2007
    Messages:
    2,005
    I'm sorry...


    ...but there's something a little strange about The Code that I never noticed before. Col. Nick Powel says the following:


    "Before reading this you might well ask yourself: Since we have a book that contains all the rules of tennis, why do we need a code? Isn't it sufficient to know and understand all the rules? There are a number of things not specifically set forth in the rules that are covered by custom and tradition only. For example, if you have a doubt on a line call, your opponent gets the benefit of the doubt. Can you find that in the rules? Further, custom dictates the standard procedures that players will use in reaching decisions. These are the reasons we need a code....The principles set forth in The Code shall apply in cases not specifically covered by the ITF Rules of Tennis and USTA Regulations. "

    I mean, that sounds like something out of the Twilight Zone, which is where I think a lot of USTA league tennis is heading. If The Code is so critical to non-umpired matches...and I'm not saying it isn't...why not just make The Code an appendix to the ITF Rules and the USTA Regs? After the Code gets reviewed, of course. To me, it makes absolutely no sense to say that the server (and/or partner) can't make a call on the first serve, but can make one on a second serve...
     
    #13
  14. cghipp

    cghipp Professional

    Joined:
    Jun 10, 2006
    Messages:
    1,282
    If the server hit a weak first serve and the receiver blasted it for a winner, the server could in theory call the first serve out if that were allowed, and s/he would have another chance. If you call your own second serve out, you're conceding the point altogether.
     
    #14
  15. skiracer55

    skiracer55 Hall of Fame

    Joined:
    Feb 21, 2007
    Messages:
    2,005
    Sorry, it still doesn't make sense...

    ...because now you're getting into different intents on the part of the server. I call my first serve out because the receiver pastes a winner, and I'm essentially a cheater. I call my second serve out because I'm a really nice guy. I guess that's my whole problem with The Code, is that it's a way of trying to make people Do The Right Thing because the rules aren't enough. If the rules aren't enough, then maybe there's a problem with the way people play the game of tennis these days. I've played tournament tennis since I was about 12...which, I hate to admit, is over 45 years, and I've never gotten into the kind of situations we're talking about in this thread.

    The way I've always played it is the only way that I think you can consistently do business: the ball bounces on your side, it's your call. I can question your call, but that's it. If it's a non-umpired match, I can call for the tournament referee or director, or whatever, if things get really out of hand. But if it gets to the point where somebody's obviously cheating me out of a match, it ain't tennis no more and I ain't playing. You want a match that bad, it's yours. I have better things to do...
     
    #15
  16. Cindysphinx

    Cindysphinx G.O.A.T.

    Joined:
    Aug 31, 2006
    Messages:
    15,067
    It's kind of silly for the server to call the serve out. The receiver is much closer and usually in a better position to make the call. Why should serving be the one time when the party at the other baseline can start making line calls?
     
    #16
  17. Islandtennis

    Islandtennis Rookie

    Joined:
    Dec 20, 2006
    Messages:
    205
    "By the way, I'm see some unfamiliarity with the ITF rules, but I don't really see any code violations in your original post."

    "Don't question Cindy. She knows her stuff!"


    I think Raiden was meaning that what Cindy's opponent did was not legal and did not follow the code, but it was not a "code violation." A code violation results in a point, game, and default penalty under the point penalty system in an officiated match.
     
    #17
  18. Cindysphinx

    Cindysphinx G.O.A.T.

    Joined:
    Aug 31, 2006
    Messages:
    15,067
    Nah, I only meant violations of "The Code." It wasn't an officiated match, of course.
     
    #18
  19. beernutz

    beernutz Hall of Fame

    Joined:
    Aug 16, 2005
    Messages:
    4,399
    Location:
    expanding my Ignore List
    I don't understand your disagreement with this either. Do you think that servers SHOULD be able to call their own first serves out?

    If that were the case, you would then be letting the server, who has a much poorer view of the ball than the receiver, dictate which serves the receiver has to play. The server is already in a much more powerful position than the receiver--why give them any more power?

    The current rule on making first serves calls is very clear and follows with the overall rule guidelines that players are responsible for making all calls on their side of the court. The second serve rule is an exception to this guideline, but only because the server would be conceding a point if they make that call on themselves.
     
    #19
  20. sureshs

    sureshs Bionic Poster

    Joined:
    Oct 1, 2005
    Messages:
    34,752
    OK, code experts, who is allowed to call let on a serve?
     
    #20
  21. Topaz

    Topaz Legend

    Joined:
    Jun 18, 2005
    Messages:
    6,782
    I'll play! I believe that ANYONE on the court can call a let on a serve.
     
    #21
  22. Islandtennis

    Islandtennis Rookie

    Joined:
    Dec 20, 2006
    Messages:
    205
    That's right Topaz, any player can call a service let.
     
    #22
  23. Raiden.Kaminari

    Raiden.Kaminari Semi-Pro

    Joined:
    Nov 21, 2006
    Messages:
    744
    I covered this in another post

    It's all about good sportsmanship, not about winning.
     
    #23
  24. drakulie

    drakulie Talk Tennis Guru

    Joined:
    May 3, 2004
    Messages:
    24,466
    Location:
    FT. Lauderdale, Florida
    Sounds to me like you need to be better prepared and not wear 6 year old glasses that hinder your eye sight.
     
    #24
  25. Raiden.Kaminari

    Raiden.Kaminari Semi-Pro

    Joined:
    Nov 21, 2006
    Messages:
    744
    If you obviously see a fault, and the player was unable to make a return, that is when you can make the fault call. Basically, the player is usually so focused on making the return (if you have a fast enough serve), that they're not able to see when it is long.

    Like I said in the post before, it's about good sportsmanship. Not about using the rules to win.
     
    #25
  26. Raiden.Kaminari

    Raiden.Kaminari Semi-Pro

    Joined:
    Nov 21, 2006
    Messages:
    744
    That is correct.

    A code violation includes arguing with an official, delay of game, ball abuse, illegal coaching, obscenity, player abuse, profanity, racquet abuse, time violations, etc. But they are all part of an officiated match, and are penalized via the point penalty system.

    What Cindy originally posted about was a player unfamiliar with The Code and the ITF rules. Nothing more.
     
    #26
  27. Raiden.Kaminari

    Raiden.Kaminari Semi-Pro

    Joined:
    Nov 21, 2006
    Messages:
    744
    The Code is separate because it was written by Col. Nick Powell, and not by the organizations that make up the ITF. It's also important to keep it separate from USTA regulations (have you tried to read all of them? quite boring) so people can quickly refer to it.

    The Code is basically rules for the sportsmanship clueless. It's meant to handle all the tennis players out there that say, "Well, I never heard of that rule before!" Or people so focused on rules that they break sportsmanship rules.

    More importantly, you should purchase Friend At Court (The USTA Handbook of Tennis Rules and Regulations), since The Code is a huge part of it.

    Part 1: ITF rules of tennis
    Part 2: The Code
    Part 3: USTA Regulations
    Part 4: Supplemental Information for Officials
    Part 5: Umpire Awards
    Part 6: Intercollegiate Tennis Association (ITA) regulations
    Part 7: Glossary
    Part 8: Index
     
    Last edited: Apr 20, 2007
    #27
  28. Raiden.Kaminari

    Raiden.Kaminari Semi-Pro

    Joined:
    Nov 21, 2006
    Messages:
    744
    Exactly. When people are competitive, sometimes they refuse to "do the right thing." The Code is meant to reflect the ideal nature of tennis as a sport. True competition. Not cheating.

    Interestingly enough, The adaptation of the original "The Code" published in Friend at Court has spread through out the tennis world. What an important document that one person wrote :)

    Here's my favorite part of the Preface, which many people tend to skip:

     
    #28
  29. dennis1188

    dennis1188 Semi-Pro

    Joined:
    Feb 19, 2004
    Messages:
    768
    There is a guy frm a local team that never calls the serves out until he hits the ball. He will swing at every serve, he can reach (sometimes he hits it in, other times he hits it out). He justs walks back to receive the second serve and then says it (the first serve) was out.
    Is this (covered) as clear code violation?
     
    Last edited: Apr 20, 2007
    #29
  30. Raiden.Kaminari

    Raiden.Kaminari Semi-Pro

    Joined:
    Nov 21, 2006
    Messages:
    744
    This is covered under multiple codes:

    Once an opponent has hit the ball, he can no longer claim the fault. So a serve and volleyer would have a real grievance case against this player.

    The player is supposed to make the call prior to the ball going over the net back towards the opponent. If the ball was clearly out, he needs to call it immediately, and not take his time walking back to receiving position.

    If an official witnessed him attempting to return every serve even though they were clearly faults, he would be warned. If he persists in attempting to hit every faulty serve would result in the PPS being implemented.

    I have to go now, but I can talk about this some more if you want. But basically, by attempting to return every serve, it causes a delay in the game since stray balls have to be retrieved. The recommended courteous action for obvious faults is to catch the ball, or to hit the ball to the bottom of the net.
     
    #30
  31. dennis1188

    dennis1188 Semi-Pro

    Joined:
    Feb 19, 2004
    Messages:
    768
    RK, many thks for yr time and reply 2 my previous question hr.
    cheers, D
     
    #31
  32. Cindysphinx

    Cindysphinx G.O.A.T.

    Joined:
    Aug 31, 2006
    Messages:
    15,067
    Hey, I can assure you I wasn't enjoying playing a match with impaired vision! I'm having some eye problems that have mystified two separate opthalmologists. Hence the six-year-old glasses as a stop-gap measure until a solution is found. Gotta play in the glasses again this afternoon. Ugh.

    I look really stoopid in them, fer sure. :)

    Although I take Raiden's point about the server calling a serve out if the returner misses the return, it doesn't seem especially realistic to me. The serve has to be *way* out for me to be able to see it clearly from the opposing baseline (while I'm busy recovering from my service motion, changing my grip, adjusting my position, and watching the receiver's actions, no less). If it is way out, the receiver will see it. If it is close, I should keep my mouth shut and defer to the receiver.

    I think part of the justification for the rule prohibiting servers from calling first serves out is simple efficiency. You want the players to get on with it already, not constantly quibble about whether serves are in, especially in singles where you don't have a partner helping you call lines. If I miss a line call and also miss the ball, I take my medicine and accept the loss of point.
     
    #32
  33. beernutz

    beernutz Hall of Fame

    Joined:
    Aug 16, 2005
    Messages:
    4,399
    Location:
    expanding my Ignore List
    Oddly there are two versions of The Code posted on the USTA website. There is the standalone pdf file (http://dps.usta.com/usta_master/usta/doc/content/doc_13_2292.pdf) with this quote for #26:

    26. Service calls by serving team. Neither the Server nor Server’s partner
    shall make a fault call on the first service even if they think it is out
    because the Receiver may be giving the Server the benefit of the doubt. But
    the Server and the Server’s partner shall call out any second serve that either
    clearly sees out.

    And there is the ITF Rules of Tennis version (http://dps.usta.com/usta_master/usta/doc/content/doc_13_16051.pdf?2/9/2007 8:54:17 PM) which has The Code #26 quoted as:

    26. Service calls by serving team. Neither the server nor server’s partner
    shall make a fault call on the first service even if they think it is out
    because the receiver may be giving the server the benefit of the doubt. There
    is one exception. If the receiver plays a first service that is a fault and does
    not put the return in play, the server or server’s partner may make the fault
    call. The server and the server’s partner shall call out any second serve that
    either clearly sees out.

    Anyone know which is correct? My printed Friend at Court from 2004 shows the second version.
     
    Last edited: Apr 21, 2007
    #33
  34. Raiden.Kaminari

    Raiden.Kaminari Semi-Pro

    Joined:
    Nov 21, 2006
    Messages:
    744
    How strange ... the 2005, and 2006 versions also have the same text (latter) that I've been quoting. I haven't received my 2007 version, so I'm beginning to wonder if they truncated it yet again.
     
    #34
  35. Raiden.Kaminari

    Raiden.Kaminari Semi-Pro

    Joined:
    Nov 21, 2006
    Messages:
    744
    #35
  36. beernutz

    beernutz Hall of Fame

    Joined:
    Aug 16, 2005
    Messages:
    4,399
    Location:
    expanding my Ignore List

    I did that too yesterday when I noticed the discrepancy. Hopefully between the two of us, we can get the USTA to clean up their act.
     
    #36
  37. skiracer55

    skiracer55 Hall of Fame

    Joined:
    Feb 21, 2007
    Messages:
    2,005
    Nope, what I'm saying is the server should never be able to call serves, first or second, nor should you ever be able to call any balls during a rally that fall in your opponent's court. Sure, in friendly Saturday a. m. games, I've seen all kinds of stuff, including servers calling their second serves out...a nice sporting gesture in a friendly game.

    League tennis doesn't look all that friendly to me, and if you look at the whole idea of The Code, it's an extension to the rules so people can come to a resolution when there's a dispute. In my opinion, if it's well known that servers can call their second serves out, you're asking for situations where the receiving team pulls a number like "I didn't see it...can you make the call?" on a second serve. To which the server can say (a) "No, I didn't"..which I can see provoking a major argument ("Wuddia mean? You're standing right on the %&&**(* line!") or (b) "It was in"...again, provoking a major argument or (c) "It was out" in which case, if the receiving team is Basically Unscrupulous (could never happen, right?) they're going to ask the serving team to make the call on every second serve, hoping they'll be intimidated...well, you get the joke...
     
    #37
  38. sureshs

    sureshs Bionic Poster

    Joined:
    Oct 1, 2005
    Messages:
    34,752
    That is good to know. Sometimes, people look at me strangely if I call let on my own serve.
     
    #38
  39. Cindysphinx

    Cindysphinx G.O.A.T.

    Joined:
    Aug 31, 2006
    Messages:
    15,067

    I don't see how allowing servers to call their second serves out could possibly present a problem. Remember, we're only talking about situations where the receiver *isn't* calling the serve out, and the server is graciously conceding the point.

    I mean, if the receiver isn't sure and asks for help (on the serve or any ball), the opposing team isn't obligated to have an opinion. So what's to argue about?
     
    #39
  40. skiracer55

    skiracer55 Hall of Fame

    Joined:
    Feb 21, 2007
    Messages:
    2,005
    Yeah, I suppose...

    ...what you're doing with this is giving players the opportunity to Do the Right Thing, so who can argue with that? And this happens all the time (players Doing the Right Thing) in USTA League Tennis, right? Right? As I said, I don't play USTA Leagues, so please help me out here...
     
    #40
  41. kylebarendrick

    kylebarendrick Professional

    Joined:
    Nov 16, 2006
    Messages:
    1,042
    Location:
    Northern California
    I've seen plenty of players in USTA league tennis call their own shots out. Yes, some people are jerks. The vast majority, though, seem to be doing their best to play fair. FWIW, if you ask your opponent if they saw a ball in or out that landed on your side of the court, you are required to accept whatever call they make. In your scenario, the server can simply say "it was in" each time until the receiver decides to start making calls.
     
    #41
  42. beernutz

    beernutz Hall of Fame

    Joined:
    Aug 16, 2005
    Messages:
    4,399
    Location:
    expanding my Ignore List
    I guess you are trying to be sarcastic, but in all honesty, yes in my experience it (doing the right thing) does happen all the time in USTA league. So does doing the wrong thing and all manner of gray area in between. What is it you are having difficulty understanding?
     
    #42
  43. skiracer55

    skiracer55 Hall of Fame

    Joined:
    Feb 21, 2007
    Messages:
    2,005
    I'm not a big fan of leagues...

    ...so I was honestly asking...and it's cool to find out that Doing the Right Thing is a common occurrence...
     
    #43
  44. Cindysphinx

    Cindysphinx G.O.A.T.

    Joined:
    Aug 31, 2006
    Messages:
    15,067
    Yeah, people really do try and do the right thing, quite often. They give the server two serves when it isn't strictly required, they admit on a big point that they didn't see a ball clearly enough to call it out, they correct the score even when it costs them points. The number of times an opponent has Done The Right Thing versus Done The Wrong Thing is running about 1000:1 for me at the moment.

    It's refreshing, really.

    Cindy -- pretty sure she got hooked on two baseline calls this weekend though
     
    #44
  45. Raiden.Kaminari

    Raiden.Kaminari Semi-Pro

    Joined:
    Nov 21, 2006
    Messages:
    744
    If the opponent saw the ball as clearly in or out, they should make the correct call and do the right thing.

    However, what skiracer55 was pointing out that the opponent has the potential to abuse the good will.

    kylebarendrick is correct. Once you ask an opponent to make the call, you have to accept it as a good sportsman.

    If the opponent didn't see the ball, then players can decide to have a let. That said, if it happened to me, and neither of us saw the ball correctly, I always concede the point if I was supposed to make the call but couldn't.
     
    #45
  46. Cindysphinx

    Cindysphinx G.O.A.T.

    Joined:
    Aug 31, 2006
    Messages:
    15,067
    Right.

    Either the opponent has an opinion, in which case it must be accepted no matter what it is.

    Or the opponent does not have an opinion, in which case the ball is good.

    Lets for inability to make a line call are for weenies. :)
     
    #46
  47. beernutz

    beernutz Hall of Fame

    Joined:
    Aug 16, 2005
    Messages:
    4,399
    Location:
    expanding my Ignore List
    I don't believe opponents are under any obligation to call the other side of the court. Just because an opponent can't see a call is no reason to play a let. Balls on your side of the court are clearly out or else they are in. If you can't tell if a ball is clearly out on your side of the court, then by rule it is in.

    You may ask the opponent(s) for an opinion, and if you do, you must abide by it, but if they don't have one the ball is in. Negotiating lets in these instances is gamesmanship at best and borderline cheating at worst, in my opinion, because if a ball is not clearly seen to be out it should be automatically called as in.
     
    #47
  48. tennis-n-sc

    tennis-n-sc Professional

    Joined:
    Feb 22, 2004
    Messages:
    1,261
    I believe there are no unseen balls. If trhe oppomemt didn't see the ball, the shot was good. Your application, while sporting, opens up more abuse, bad calls, and arguments.
     
    #48
  49. Supernatural_Serve

    Supernatural_Serve Professional

    Joined:
    Jul 10, 2006
    Messages:
    1,348
    Why would anyone do that? When calling balls on one's side of the net, one either clearly sees it in or clearly sees it out.

    There are no "I am not sure, so let me ask my opponent 40 to 80 feet away what he thinks."

    Its one thing for an opponent to over rule your call of their ball ("in") on your court by calling it "out". Honorable opponents do that sometimes, but they should only do it when they clearly see the ball out, and quite frankly in my opinion, should not be asked.

    Make the call based on clearly seeing the ball, and if you can't, then you must call it in. If your opponent then says, "you are wrong, I clearly saw it out", then you have to go with their overrule, but asking them, isn't in my book, the honorable thing to do.

    Its like saying, "I don't want to call it out since I didn't see it, so I am hoping that you call it out instead" which is transferring the responsibility.

    Personally, if somone asks me, then I am 98% of the time going to say, "I didn't see it clearly, therefore, it is in" because at 80 ft away its not easy to call line shots, especially baseline or service line shots.
     
    #49
  50. bm3

    bm3 New User

    Joined:
    Sep 16, 2006
    Messages:
    69
    It can happen that the opponent has a better view of his/her own shot. Say you are behind the baseline and outside the sideline and your opponent hits a short volley to the other sideline, surely he might be able to see his volley barely out (or in) better than you...
     
    #50

Share This Page