During the Kuznetsova vs. Schiavone match came up a situation that is good quiz material for tennis afficionados: Kuznetsova's ball dropped short on Schiavone's side, Schiavone scrambled to it, hit it past Kuznetsova for a winner, but touched the net before the ball hit the ground twice. It was unambiguously clear that Kuznetsova had no play on the ball. The chair umpire gave the point to Kuznetsova. Yes, I'm aware of the rule, and the chair seemed to have gone by the book. But somehow it didn't feel right. Isn't there like the overarching rule that reaches a more just and fair conclusion in a situation like this? I often watch Jon Lovitz's segments on Tennis Channel, and I remember a segment where you can't call a let when your opponent hits a winner, you have no play on it, but a ball rolls into the opponent's court from the next court. Brad Gilbert was argued on a similar ground for Schiavone's point: Kuznetsova had not play, regardless of the technicality of the rule. Pam Shriver, on the other hand, argued that the net-touching rule takes precedence over anything. I have such little respect for that woman that because she said the rule on net-touching trumps any other rule, I really have doubts. (I'm digressing, but Pam Shriver adds absolutely no value to the commentaries.) Anyone?