Originally Posted by TimeSpiral
That's some bizarre logic! Haha.
I guess where we disagree is when the returner said, "I thought the ball was good." That to me, is a correction. Everything after that was just gamesmanship nonsense, unrelated to the rules of tennis.
Anyway, I think we've both given enough for a random passerbye to come to the right conclusion (mine
Here is my take:
Sequence of events:
1. Returner inherently calls the serve good by not calling it out, and walking to the net as it is not common practice to explicitly call "in" on all shots.
2. 10 seconds
3. Returner's partner inherently disagrees with his partner and "tries to correct" the call
from in to out (no correction from out to in here).
4. Can argue at this point already that disagreement thus exists and the ball is deemed good. Point awarded to server. But for more clarity...
5. Returner insists that the call is good. No correction to the call is made at this moment because the returner and his partner have not decided whether they think the ball is good or not.
At this point, since there is no clear call, we must first address the first level of the dispute, that there is a disagreement.
6. Dispute exists between returner and his partner, ball is called good. Point awarded to the server.
7. The original call made by the returner, disputed by his partner, that the serve was in
An analogy would be as follows:
Person A was sentenced to jail for theft.
Person A appeals to the court (disagrees with the original sentence).
No correction to the sentence has been made at this point until the dispute is over.
Must first resolve the appeal (dispute) before we can say whether a correction or new call is made.