To Bend or Not to Bend?

[fe6250]

There has been some discussions on this board on various rules of USTA amateur tennis (time limits, catching a clearly out ball before it lands, calling minor foot faults, etc..) So do you play completely by the letter of every USTA rule (enforcing them all) OR do you 'bend' the rules where it seems reasonable to you?

(Example - guy catches a ball behind the base line over his head on a fly to keep it from going out of the court area. Do you take the point because 'technically' he caught it before it bounced?)

[tennis-n-sc]

If I'm playing a social for fun match, I'll let a lot slide by. We often discuss the rules at these matches.

If it is a league or tournament match, rules apply. I do not have the authority to "bend" the rules where it seems reasonable to me. Neither do you.

[spiderman123]

Originally Posted by tennis-n-sc

If I'm playing a social for fun match, I'll let a lot slide by. We often discuss the rules at these matches.

If it is a league or tournament match, rules apply. I do not have the authority to "bend" the rules where it seems reasonable to me. Neither do you.

The question is not bending the rule when it seems reasonable to you but when it seems logical and the advantage lies with your opponent (e.g. when the opponent is standing 4 feet behind the baseline, reaches above his head and catches the ball.)

At that point, do you say "I am going to give you a point this time but this is not allowed." or do you say "(ha-ha) My point."

[fe6250]

Originally Posted by spiderman123

The question is not bending the rule when it seems reasonable to you but when it seems logical and the advantage lies with your opponent (e.g. when the opponent is standing 4 feet behind the baseline, reaches above his head and catches the ball.)

At that point, do you say "I am going to give you a point this time but this is not allowed." or do you say "(ha-ha) My point."

I think that is an excellent clarification. I'm not asking whether or not it's 'ok' to cheat when it suits you - but rather do you let someone elses transgression go or not (foot faulting / catching the ball example). In the case of a time limit - both sides would have to agree. I'm assuming that you have to have agreement OR that the call is in your opponents favor that you are making. Personally - I wouldn't call the catched ball or the foot fault unless it was severe and impacted the game.

[Supernatural_Serve]

Originally Posted by fe6250

Personally - I wouldn't call the catched ball or the foot fault unless it was severe and impacted the game.

I wouldn't either, but I would ask him not to do that again.

[tennis-n-sc]

Originally Posted by Supernatural_Serve

I wouldn't either, but I would ask him not to do that again.

Exactly......

[tennis-n-sc]

Originally Posted by fe6250

Personally - I wouldn't call the catched ball or the foot fault unless it was severe and impacted the game.

In other words, you are going to decide which rules infractions to call. Maybe your opponent and you don't agree on what impacts the game. That would be a great argument by Hewitt next time he's called for a foot fault, which usually happens at least twice a match.

[fe6250]

Originally Posted by tennis-n-sc

In other words, you are going to decide which rules infractions to call. Maybe your opponent and you don't agree on what impacts the game. That would be a great argument by Hewitt next time he's called for a foot fault, which usually happens at least twice a match.

Hewitt is playing for money and has line judges - I don't see how your analogy applies to weekend warriors banging the ball around and having a good time. I prefer to be a gentleman - sorry if you didn't get that.

Further - what I meant by 'severe' was catching a ball that had a chance to fall in (never have seen that happen) or foot faulting 3 feet over the base line (haven't seen that either) - SO, for the record - I've never called either in a match.

[AlpineCadet]

Originally Posted by spiderman123

The question is not bending the rule when it seems reasonable to you but when it seems logical and the advantage lies with your opponent (e.g. when the opponent is standing 4 feet behind the baseline, reaches above his head and catches the ball.)

At that point, do you say "I am going to give you a point this time but this is not allowed." or do you say "(ha-ha) My point."

How does everyone NOT read this post, when it is in fact at the very first page, at the top?

[randomname]

Originally Posted by tennis-n-sc

If it is a league or tournament match, rules apply. I do not have the authority to "bend" the rules where it seems reasonable to me. Neither do you.

dont have the authority to bend rules? the usta rulebook isnt exactly the constitution, believe it or not you ARE playing a game where I would hope common sense should be the prevailing rule

[tennis-n-sc]

Originally Posted by randomname

dont have the authority to bend rules? the usta rulebook isnt exactly the constitution, believe it or not you ARE playing a game where I would hope common sense should be the prevailing rule

This is hilarious. Why have lines?

[spiderman123]

Originally Posted by tennis-n-sc

This is hilarious. Why have lines?

It is common sense to draw permanent lines to reduce the conflict with line calls. That is how it became a rule.

The idea of this thread was to ask if you will use your common sense to reduce potential conflicts that could be avoided, not what rules you can overlook so that you can increase conflicts.

[Supernatural_Serve]

Originally Posted by randomname

dont have the authority to bend rules? the usta rulebook isnt exactly the constitution, believe it or not you ARE playing a game where I would hope common sense should be the prevailing rule

I have to disagree with that.

Topaz had it right about respecting the rules.

Common sense is often the rationale for people inventing, manipulating, and falsely interpreting rules, especially by people who haven't taken the time to learn the rules.

I really get irritated by people who have never read the rules making up nonsense in the middle of the match that might be persuasive, might even be common sense, but are simply wrong and their common sense bullsh*t invites unnecessary arguments and fights that cheapen the game.

The rules aren't based in common sense. They are based on principles of what is best for the game. That is a critical thing to understand and respect.

And some of them are counter to common sense, especially the ones that would invite gamesmanship. For example, Its common sense to me that if the server serves a ball in doubles and it hits the opposing net man that the server shouldn't get the point, but the rules say the service team get the point since the ball was never given a chance to bounce.

I can see all kinds of unschooled people using common sense saying "that ball never had a chance of going in. It was out by 6 feet, its a fault" and I would say, "you are absolutely wrong and have never read the rules of tennis"

If the server wants to deny himself the point and offer a "do over" or take a fault, that's his right but in no way an obligation regardless of common sense and bullying by an indignant opponent using common sense is wrong and it is bad for the game.

[fe6250]

Originally Posted by Supernatural_Serve

The rules aren't based in common sense. They are based on principles of what is best for the game. That is a critical thing to understand and respect.

It seems we are losing the context of the original post. The premise was not to use common sense as a tool to invent rules or to give oneself an unfair advantage. Using common sense in that manner is simply cheating - end of discussion. However, my decision to call 'my point' on a caught ball behind the baseline (and it is my call) can be governed by my own common sense without causing cheating or gamesmanship. It can also make tennis more enjoyable by being a good sport.

[spiderman123]

Originally Posted by Supernatural_Serve

I have to disagree with that.

Topaz had it right about respecting the rules.

Common sense is often the rationale for people inventing, manipulating, and falsely interpreting rules, especially by people who haven't taken the time to learn the rules.

Or it is used by people who know the rationale behind a particular rule and are willing to use their common sense to resolve a situation quickly and in the friendliest manner. We can definitely agree to disagree but it is difficult for me to appreciate someone blindly following the rules without thinking first why that rule was formed.

Originally Posted by Supernatural_Serve

I really get irritated by people who have never read the rules making up nonsense in the middle of the match that might be persuasive, might even be common sense, but are simply wrong and their common sense bullsh*t invites unnecessary arguments and fights that cheapen the game.

This is different. Not knowing rules is very different from knowing the rules and willing to overlook it at times. Again the example would be catching a ball 4 feet behind baseline in a timed match with 2 min to go to save time perhaps.

Originally Posted by Supernatural_Serve

The rules aren't based in common sense. They are based on principles of what is best for the game. That is a critical thing to understand and respect.

Yes they are. That is how they evolve. If they were not, the sport would never be popular as human intelligence will refuse to accept it.

I will give you an extreme example (please bear in mind that this is an extreme but true example which can be intrapolated to what we are discussing). I think this happened about 15 years(or more) ago in a Japanese (I think)school. The school was very strict about being on time and decided to have a door that closed automatically when the school started. A girl who was desperately trying to make it to school was crushed to death as the door did not open when it touched her.

Yes, the rule of being on time was in the school's best interest.
Yes, that child was running late.

But common sense demanded that the door should have opened then. See how common sense is a driving factor in our lives. That brings me to another example of driving. If people don't use common sense while following traffic rules, there would be many many more accidents.

Originally Posted by Supernatural_Serve

And some of them are counter to common sense, especially the ones that would invite gamesmanship. For example, Its common sense to me that if the server serves a ball in doubles and it hits the opposing net man that the server shouldn't get the point, but the rules say the service team get the point since the ball was never given a chance to bounce.

I can see all kinds of unschooled people using common sense saying "that ball never had a chance of going in. It was out by 6 feet, its a fault" and I would say, "you are absolutely wrong and have never read the rules of tennis"

And I would say in some of these cases that you are not using common sense. That rule is in place to make sure that the doubles partner does not invalidate a good serve by poking their racquet or does not stand so close to the line that the other person loses some of the serving confidence in the fear of hitting or a curved serve being invalidated because it hit the doubles guy.

Now if the person is standing in the doubles alley and is not paying attention to the server for whatever reason, and if the "abide by rules" server decides to hit him with a first serve, the server will get the point, you can throw the book at them but please don't tell me that the server will not lose any respect because of this.

Originally Posted by Supernatural_Serve

If the server wants to deny himself the point and offer a "do over" or take a fault, that's his right but in no way an obligation regardless of common sense and bullying by an indignant opponent using common sense is wrong and it is bad for the game.

Nobody is saying that the server is obligated use common sense. If you read the poll again, it just asks if you would be willing to use common sense in these cases. And your answer is no. The people who support common sense cannot *make* you use common sense. But we can definitely defend our position when someone says common sense is overrated.

[Supernatural_Serve]

Originally Posted by spiderman123

Or it is used by people who know the rationale behind a particular rule and are willing to use their common sense to resolve a situation quickly and in the friendliest manner. We can definitely agree to disagree but it is difficult for me to appreciate someone blindly following the rules without thinking first why that rule was formed.

This isn't about blindly following the rules.

Its about

- respecting the game and its rules and by doing so elevates the game
- understanding that the rules are there for a reason that sometimes defy common sense, especially the ones that invite gamesmanship if they weren't there
- that its at the selected person's discretion and not obligation to overlook rules, i.e. the person who isn't benefiting from enforcing the rules. Its an important principle enshrined in line calls for example, the benefit of the doubt principle. They are choosing not to enforce rules that they have every right to, that they would benefit from, and by overlooking them give the benefit to their opponent instead.

That's their choice and they can freely choose not to enforce rules against themselves, but its wrong for a person to expect, demand, or require people to overlook rules so they can benefit from them being overlooked, even if good common sense is at work expecting others to blindly go along with their ill sought gain

- that people who choose not to know, learn, understand, or effectively interpret the rules (the area of let's is for example a more complex area of interpretation) shouldn't benefit from ignorance.

I will make one compromise:

in social tennis, maybe common sense has more place than following rules or choosing to overlook some rules assisting the opponent to help everyone have a good time. Its just not worth it. Since in social tennis its not uncommon for people to be ignorant of the rules anyway, so what else do they have but common sense. Nobody knows the rules anyway.

in competitive tennis, tournaments, leagues - forget about it. I'm not going to bend over and allow opponents to introduce gamesmanship or ignorance of rules, or expect me to rule against myself to their benefit because they are "special" in some way. I reserve the right to let my opponent get away with a rule violation, but I won't obligate myself no matter how much common sense the opponent puts out there because behind all that common sense is a motive: I'm special, I want you to give me what I want. I want you to forget about the rules, rule against yourself and rule in my favor.

It's not common sense to go along with their narcissism. That's simply wrong and it hurts the game.

[WBF]

If I'm playing for fun I'll let pretty much anything go (well, I don't like breaks, let alone big breaks.. I won't call people on it, but I'll do everything to encourage them to play as quickly as possible).

As for actual matches (tournaments, leagues, ladders, etc.) I'll call whatever I see. I don't pay attention to foot faults, so probably not those... Not to mention the fact that I love hitting the big serves, and hate weak serves

[Supernatural_Serve]

Play by the rules but I ignore foot faults and people showing up late or other related penalty rules, generous on service line calls, but I will warn people if they play painfully slow. That irritates me.

One of the common things I say no to is people asking not to switch sides according to the rules and the 1st serve in nonsense. Screw those requests.

[Cindysphinx]

Let's see.

I'm OK with a spectator on the court so long as they are as quiet as a church mouse. If they say or do anything, I would ask them to leave.

I insist on switching sides. I think this leads to scoring disputes.

I frequently tell opponents to say the score more loudly, or if they forget to announce it I ask them what it is.

I'll give someone a let for pretty much anything that is not insane, assuming I think they are trustworthy. If they called the let in error, I'll explain but still grant the let.

I don't call footfaults..

I let people play slowly so long as I think they aren't doing it to run out the clock. I'm generous about giving people two serves if there is a question about it.

I once claimed a point in a league match when the opponent was hit by the serve, though. 'Cause that's the rule.

[A.Davidson]

For me, only if NOT breaking the rule would seriously hinder play (such as a ball going over the fence, and instead being caught) would I do any of these "minor" things.

But for time limits, ESPECIALLY the starting time, I try to enforce as much as possible - this includes defaulting too.

I call foot faults if they are blatant and the guy is a repeat offender.

If the ball is gonna be out, but just hit the fence, I let it be. Just grab it after the point.