View Single Post
Old 11-10-2012, 03:23 PM   #6
Hall Of Fame
Join Date: Aug 2010
Posts: 1,530

Originally Posted by tennisee View Post
Well - I'm still not sure; of course it seems sensible, but I'm having trouble finding any reference to it; the only one I can find would seem to indicate to the contrary...

USTA Comment 26.2: Can a player’s own action be the basis for
that player claiming a let or a hindrance? No. Nothing a player does
entitles that player to call a let. For example, a player is not entitled to a
Let because the player breaks a string, the player’s hat falls off, or a ball
in the player’s pocket falls out.
You are not the player in this scenario, the server is. So if the server breaks a string on his first serve he can switch rackets and then serves his second serve. Since his string broke he caused the delay and is not entitled to another first serve.

When you as the returner break a string by hitting a serve that was out and need to switch your racket, the server is now entitled to a first serve because it was not anything he did ... it was something you did that caused the delay. It was not the servers actions ... it was your action of hitting ball that was already dead rather than letting it just go by that caused the delay.

See the difference ?
Völkl PB10 Mid with some strings at some tension
gmatheis is offline   Reply With Quote