Originally Posted by jmnk
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.
Woodrow is trying to help me out by giving me an easy way to remember the correct rule. Don't blow this for me.
-- Random Error Generator, Version 4.0
-- Master Moonballer