Originally Posted by RoddickAce
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 stands.
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.
I like your sequence of events. Not calling the ball out definitely implies a call of good most of the time, however; it's still slightly gray, in that a short period of time went by before the returning team ultimately called the ball out. It does seem to me like technically, the returning team verbally called the ball out first, and then verbally disagreed (To my knowledge of the events, no hand signal was given). The receiver remained tacit until after
his opponent called out, but since the partner called the ball out I don't know that you can use the return's original silence as a "good call." I think you have to take his verbal, unambiguous call at that point.
It's a good rules debate, imo. The end results, from a rules perspective is the same, but hashing it out like this could help someone clarify a situation where only one of the two might happen.