Originally Posted by TimeSpiral
Me too! I'm sensitive about propogating incorrect information and I'm all for admitting when I'm wrong. It happens all the time, but I don't think I'm wrong here.
Let's look at the rule again:
Starting in 2011, the USTA Tennis Rules and Regulations Committee has determined that any call on a serve or in a rally
corrected from out to good is loss of point to the player or team that corrected the call, even if the ball is put back into play.
An out call on any ball (on a serve or in a rally) that is corrected to good is considered to have created a hindrance to play and it is loss of point due to this hindrance.
NOTE: The only exception is on the first or second serve that is a service let (i.e. the ball hits the net before it lands in the service box). Let serves that occur on first or second serve and called out and are then corrected to good result in the replay of the entire point, thus a first serve to the server.
The call was made on a serve. The rule clearly specifies that calls on the serve are governed by this rule. That "even if"
clause that I underlined indicates that it applies to the call regardless of whether or not the ball was put back into play.
In other words: if the ball was not put back into play, then obviously play has stopped, but if the out call is corrected, then this rule applies.
What am I missing here? The rule is written rather unambiguously in my opinion.
Ok, I said I was done, but you are still missing a key point. The rule you are citing says when a call is corrected from out to good. In this case, the call was never corrected. The receiver insisted the call was out and so the call was never changed and the server in fact was forced to hit a second serve.
The rule you cite could only kick in after the call was corrected and the rule that applies to that correction is the one I cited where if partners disagree, the ball is considered in. So it is this rule that was not followed and the rule that applies here.
I will grant you that if the disagreement rule had been applied correctly, then the call would have been corrected and your rule would then apply. But since the disagreement rule was not applied and the call not corrected, your rule isn't the one that was applied and broken.