Net Ruling
 

Hi,

So on the court there is a flip board for keeping track of the games in a set. It is physically attached to the net post. I played a shot (groundstroke...not serve) that hit the flip board, and dropped over the net within the lines. My opponents claimed it as their point. Is that right?? I would think it should have counted, just like getting a net-cord that drops over.

http://www.usta.com/Improve-Your-Gam...nent_fixtures/

Q. I was in our club doubles final today, and a return of serve hit the score card and bounced on the court. Our opponents did not play the ball because they assumed it was out. Who wins the point?

A. Technically, the scorecard that is attached to the post really should not be there, according to the Rules of Tennis. If it is there, and a ball hits it, it is considered a permanent fixture, and the player or team that hit the scorecard loses the point.

You lose the point. Eg. When you returned a ball and the ball flew straight into the side or back fence or backboard and rebound back into your opponent's court. You lose the point.

OK. I knew that if I hit the net post, and the ball goes in it still counts (as seen in this years US Open). I figured since the flip board was fixed to the post, then the same would hold true.

Thanks.

I believe "the net post counts" only if there are no singles sticks. If there are singles sticks, a ball that strikes the net post is a dead ball and a loss of point.

I may by wrong, but I believe when singles sticks are used, the singles stick effectively becomes the "net post" and the actual net post becomes like any other permanent fixtures (light post, score card, ect) and is then a loss of point for the ball striker.

It's unlikely that bbulla would have been using singles sticks, seeing as he was playing doubles :oops:

You are right about the rule though.

BTW does anyone actually use singles sticks? I only see them used (1) at a nearby D1 school where I sometimes go watch the matches, and (2) these two dorks that hit at my club - they are probably 3.0 players but they have all the latest pro attire etc and always make us laugh... After setting up the singles sticks they proceed to hit every ball either into the back fence or into the bottom of the net, thus making the singles sticks pretty moot.

I've only ever recalled seeing singles sticks used for the USO wildcard qualifier. They may use them for college here, but I didnt notice it.

They are used and required for singles Senior Age Group Tournaments. And, if your're playing in an event using them you better be practicing with them beforehand, size (of net hight) matters. There's a nice set you can buy that is made of aluminum and collapses to fit into a tennis bag. And while you're at it you better be practicing with the balls used in the tournament.



I am probably one of these two dorks...if not both of them.

Additionally, if the serve hits the net post (or singles stick when applicable), and goes in the correct court, it is a fault.

So basically, the net posts (or singles sticks when in use) are permanent fixtures, not part of the net?

You got it totally wrong. You should re-read the thread.

Ugh. I consider this the second-most complicated thing in the rules.

OK. If ball strikes scoring device attached to net post, permanent fixture.

If ball strikes singles stick/net post during a point, that's the same as the ball striking the net.

If serve strikes singles stick/net post and lands in correct court, that's a fault.

Is that all correct?

They are part of the net with respect to groundstrokes/volleys. But they are permanent fixtures with respect to the serve.

If singles sticks are in use, the permanent net posts become permanent fixtures. When singles sticks are in use, if the ball touches the net or net posts outside of the singles sticks, he loses the point. However, a player can touch the net outside of the singles stick, and he does not lose the point.

That is all correct.

^^^^
OK, now I'm curious - what's the reasoning behind treating it one way for serves and another once the ball is in play?

Unlikely, unless you're 30 and of asian descent.

Although I don't doubt that you would look spiffy in a coordinated adidas outfit, and with a Rafa-approved Babolat 12-pack combo bag and racquets.

No, Hungarian and one hobble away from a wheel chair. I may weigh as much as both of them together and am partial to adidas for their quality versus Nike accept for their zippers.

I asked the same thing when I began officiating, and the answer makes sense. If the serve hits the net post, it had zero percent chance of going in before it hit the net post. Someone will say, "Well I tried to hit an amazing unbelievable amount of spin to go around the net, and it was going to go in anyway", but it's not realistic.

During play, you can be hitting the ball from outside the court back into the court, and the net post could definitely interfere with a ball that has a good chance of going in anyway.

Interesting. Makes sense.

In my mind ive hit a few around the net post shots. After the point was over and I thought about the angles that were played in that point, my "around the net shot" was more like "off the court DTL off a high ball". It's amazing to see a pro scoop the ball from a foot off the ground, on the run, near or around the net post for a winner ESPECIALLY hitting the singles lines and not cheating by using the doubles. haha

I respectfully disagree (not with the rule itself, just with the reasoning why the rule is the way it is). if the reasoning is that '[the ball] had zero percent chance of going in before it hit the net post' that one could easily argue that a ball that hit a net two inches toward the center of the court, and happen to land in the service box, also had 'zero percent chance' of going in had it not hit the net. yet it would be a let, not a fault. Plus, good luck trying to figure out if the ball hit the top of the net post (or sticks) - and therefore it is a fault, or maybe just the top of the net very close by the net post/sticks - and therefore it is a let. really, making a differentiation between a serve and a rally makes little sense to me in this case.