Time for another rules quiz!

[woodrow1029]

11. A player leaps across the net in a blind rage believing he has been 'hooked' by the opposing mixed doubles team.

does he:

A: storm to the baseline to check 'his' mark in righteous fury, thus fulfilling his destiny

B: upon failure to find said mark, begin 'hunting for heads'

C: slink off to TT and create a thread on the issue

(or)

D: All of the above

I am going to make a proposal to the USTA Rules Committee that this be added to the Friend at Court for 2014 (I think it's too late to get it in the 2013 book).

[Mike Y]

Originally Posted by woodrow1029

ANSWERS IN RED

1. Who is responsible for making the call when a player hits a ball that bounces on the court before going over the net?

A. The player that hit the ball
B. The opponent

Ok, that is interesting, and if I am interpreting this correctly, this came up in a match last week for me, and I called it wrong.

My opponent hit an overhead at my feet and slightly to the side, very hard, I stuck my racket out, and it basically hit the ground, my strings, and my frame instantaneously. In my view, it hit the ground first, then my racket, and it weakly went over the net, bounced, and had a ton of spin on it. My opponent said after it went over "It hit the ground", I shook my head no, and he hit the ball into the net. He said after the point that the ball hit the ground after the ball hit my racket, and I said no, the shot hit the ground first, then my racket, then over the net. The four of us were in agreement that it was my call, and I said that it was a legal shot since the ball hit the ground, then my racket, then over the net. The other two players and spectators couldn't tell.

So, in this situation, that call wasn't mine? My opponent should have rightfully claimed the point?

[woodrow1029]

Originally Posted by Mike Y

Ok, that is interesting, and if I am interpreting this correctly, this came up in a match last week for me, and I called it wrong.

My opponent hit an overhead at my feet and slightly to the side, very hard, I stuck my racket out, and it basically hit the ground, my strings, and my frame instantaneously. In my view, it hit the ground first, then my racket, and it weakly went over the net, bounced, and had a ton of spin on it. My opponent said after it went over "It hit the ground", I shook my head no, and he hit the ball into the net. He said after the point that the ball hit the ground after the ball hit my racket, and I said no, the shot hit the ground first, then my racket, then over the net. The four of us were in agreement that it was my call, and I said that it was a legal shot since the ball hit the ground, then my racket, then over the net. The other two players and spectators couldn't tell.

So, in this situation, that call wasn't mine? My opponent should have rightfully claimed the point?

Yes. This is one exception to the "call it on yourself" rule. Another exception is when you hit a ball that goes "through" the net, it's the opponent's call.

[woodrow1029]

But, it's hard to tell for sure right? you have one player that says he got it legally, another player that says he didn't get it legally, and 2 other players and spectators that say they can't tell what happened.

This is why when you watch pro matches, and the umpire misses a call like this, and then they show it in super slow-motion, I am always amused when people complain about the umpire missing such an easy call, and the players are cheating because they didn't acknowledge they did something illegal, when the only way anyone can tell is by watching the super slow-motion.

[Mike Y]

Originally Posted by woodrow1029

Yes. This is one exception to the "call it on yourself" rule. Another exception is when you hit a ball that goes "through" the net, it's the opponent's call.

Interesting. Seems ripe for abuse. I doubt most people would know that rule, I would think most people would not let the opponent make that call. In my situation, I don't think it hit the ground after it hit my racket, I'm not even sure if that is possible, but it happened so fast.

[Mike Y]

Originally Posted by woodrow1029

But, it's hard to tell for sure right? you have one player that says he got it legally, another player that says he didn't get it legally, and 2 other players and spectators that say they can't tell what happened.

This is why when you watch pro matches, and the umpire misses a call like this, and then they show it in super slow-motion, I am always amused when people complain about the umpire missing such an easy call, and the players are cheating because they didn't acknowledge they did something illegal, when the only way anyone can tell is by watching the super slow-motion.

Yeah, this was about a 6'3" 20 year old player smashing an overhead at full speed at almost point blank range. It was virtually impossible to tell exactly what happened.

[floridatennisdude]

Here's one that came up last night...

When playing a 10 pt match tiebreaker, who serves first and from which side when the 2nd set was decided by a 12 pt tiebreaker?

I've played a dozen of these over the past few years and my opponents always have a different philosophy.

[RedWeb]

Originally Posted by floridatennisdude

Here's one that came up last night...

When playing a 10 pt match tiebreaker, who serves first and from which side when the 2nd set was decided by a 12 pt tiebreaker?

I've played a dozen of these over the past few years and my opponents always have a different philosophy.

Believe its the same start as if you were playing a full third set. The team that received first in the second set tiebreaker has the honors.

[woodrow1029]

Originally Posted by floridatennisdude

Here's one that came up last night...

When playing a 10 pt match tiebreaker, who serves first and from which side when the 2nd set was decided by a 12 pt tiebreaker?

I've played a dozen of these over the past few years and my opponents always have a different philosophy.

The team that received the first point of the 2nd set tiebreak serves the first point of the match tiebreak. You would start the match tiebreak at the opposite end of the court from where you finished the 2nd set tiebreak.

[Nellie]

Hey Woodrow:

Situation 10 has happened to me a couple of time (where I drop the racquet when serving). I know to pickup the racquet and get ready for the next shot, but every time, my opponents stops and calls a let, claiming that the loud sound from the racquet hitting the court is distracting. Can I claim the point (if the serve was in).

[jonnyjack]

Originally Posted by woodrow1029

ANSWERS IN RED

1. Who is responsible for making the call when a player hits a ball that bounces on the court before going over the net?

A. The player that hit the ball
B. The opponent

I originally read this as a double bounce scenario. I didn't know the rule for this though. Thanks.

Originally Posted by woodrow1029

ANSWERS IN RED

4. If one player refuses the 5-minute warm-up prior to a match, then:

A. The other player is entitled to a 5 minute warm-up with any person of his/her choice, with coaching allowed
B. The other player is entitled to a 5 minute warm-up with any person of his/her choice, with NO coaching allowed (THE WARM-UP IS CONSIDERED THE START OF THE MATCH WITH REGARD TO TOILET BREAKS AND COACHING, SO NO COACHING ALLOWED DURING THE WARM-UP)
C. The other player can hit serves for 5 minutes, but can't choose another person to come warm-up with
D. The warm-up doesn't happen

Is this for tournaments and league? I know that a sub may be used in league if a player got injured during the warmup. In league, the match is considered have started when the very first serve is struck so I thought that implied that the warm up wasn't exactly the official start. We can also use new lineups if it starts raining during the warm up provided none of the lines have started too.

I was in a league match earlier this year when our teammates gave us coaching advice right after the warm up. I didn't really want to hear it anyway but my opponent was saying you can't and my teammates were saying the match doesn't officially start until that first serve is struck. They started arguing and I just said, let's play already!

woodrow1029: Can you show me where the rule is for this? Not doubting you, just want to know where for reference should this come up again. I have looked but I couldn't find it anywhere.

[gmatheis]

Originally Posted by Nellie

Hey Woodrow:

Situation 10 has happened to me a couple of time (where I drop the racquet when serving). I know to pickup the racquet and get ready for the next shot, but every time, my opponents stops and calls a let, claiming that the loud sound from the racquet hitting the court is distracting. Can I claim the point (if the serve was in).

Dropping a racket is not cause for a hinderance so play continues. If your serve was in and they failed to return it, you win the point.

[gmatheis]

Originally Posted by woodrow1029

But, it's hard to tell for sure right? you have one player that says he got it legally, another player that says he didn't get it legally, and 2 other players and spectators that say they can't tell what happened.

This is why when you watch pro matches, and the umpire misses a call like this, and then they show it in super slow-motion, I am always amused when people complain about the umpire missing such an easy call, and the players are cheating because they didn't acknowledge they did something illegal, when the only way anyone can tell is by watching the super slow-motion.

I like the one where the umpire called a shot good in doubles but the slow motion showed that the ball never hit the guys racket at all. The ball struck the players leg and bounced back to the other side of the court. There's no way the guy didn't know that it hit his leg and not his racket, but he kept his mouth shut and they got the point.

[woodrow1029]

Originally Posted by jonnyjack

I originally read this as a double bounce scenario. I didn't know the rule for this though. Thanks.



Is this for tournaments and league? I know that a sub may be used in league if a player got injured during the warmup. In league, the match is considered have started when the very first serve is struck so I thought that implied that the warm up wasn't exactly the official start. We can also use new lineups if it starts raining during the warm up provided none of the lines have started too.

I was in a league match earlier this year when our teammates gave us coaching advice right after the warm up. I didn't really want to hear it anyway but my opponent was saying you can't and my teammates were saying the match doesn't officially start until that first serve is struck. They started arguing and I just said, let's play already!

woodrow1029: Can you show me where the rule is for this? Not doubting you, just want to know where for reference should this come up again. I have looked but I couldn't find it anywhere.

Different leagues may have different individual rules, but while they can put a sub in during the warm-up (you are correct that the first point actually signifies the start of the match), the warm-up is considered part of the match with regard to the code of conduct, toilet breaks, coaching, medical time-outs, etc.

As far as warming up with someone other than the opponent if the opponent refuses to warmup, it's USTA Regulations, page 116 of the Friend at Court:


4.

Warm-up. A player who refuses to warm-up with the opponent forfeits the

right to a warm-up. During the warm-up or a re-warm-up, a player may have

any person hit with the player if the opponent refuses to do so.

Regulation 10, on page 116-117 states that (I quoted the entire regulation, but the pertinent part to this discussion is the last sentence, which I bolded:

10.

No coaching. Except as permitted under Rule 30 of the ITF Rules of Tennis,
a player may not receive coaching during any suspension or interruption of
play due to the following:
a. Medical timeout or bleeding timeout under USTA Regulations III.E.1
and III.E.2.;
b. Maladjustment of a player’s clothing, footwear, or equipment under Rule
29(b) of the ITF Rules of Tennis;
c. Toilet/change of attire break under Rule 29(c) of the ITF Rules of
Tennis and USTA Regulation III.F.; or
d. Seeking the assistance of the Referee under USTA Regulation IV.C.5.

Coaching is permitted during an authorized rest period between sets under

Rule 30

of the ITF Rules of Tennis and during any other authorized
suspension of play under either USTA Regulation III.D. or Rule 30. A
temporary interruption of play during which the players do not leave the
playing area is not a “suspension” of play for these purposes. Coaching is not

permitted during any warm-up.

[floridatennisdude]

Originally Posted by woodrow1029

The team that received the first point of the 2nd set tiebreak serves the first point of the match tiebreak. You would start the match tiebreak at the opposite end of the court from where you finished the 2nd set tiebreak.

Yep, that's how I've done it. Funny to me how many get it wrong. And then are adamant about it.

[dcdoorknob]

I'm not sure that I agree with that 'dropped raquet can't be called a hindrance' rule. I think I could certainly be distracted/hindered by an opponent loudly dropping a raquet, even moreso than alot of other things that can legitimately be called (hat falling off, ball coming out of pocket, etc). I don't think the person who dropped the raquet should be able to call a let, but I do think that the opponent(s) ought to have that option.

[woodrow1029]

Originally Posted by dcdoorknob

I'm not sure that I agree with that 'dropped raquet can't be called a hindrance' rule. I think I could certainly be distracted/hindered by an opponent loudly dropping a raquet, even moreso than alot of other things that can legitimately be called (hat falling off, ball coming out of pocket, etc). I don't think the person who dropped the raquet should be able to call a let, but I do think that the opponent(s) ought to have that option.

Well, they don't.

In the Friend at Court, it's clarified in Rule 22

USTA Comment 22.1:

May the receiver claim a let if the server loses
control and grip of the racket and it lands during the service in the server’s

court? No. Such an occurrence is not sufficiently unusual to justify a let.

[dcdoorknob]

I'm (now) aware that they don't. I'm saying I disagree with the rule.

[woodrow1029]

Originally Posted by dcdoorknob

I'm aware that they don't. I'm saying I disagree with the rule.

Oh, sorry, I thought you weren't agreeing with the answer.

[floridatennisdude]

Originally Posted by dcdoorknob

I'm (now) aware that they don't. I'm saying I disagree with the rule.

If your opponent is without a raquet and you can't win the point... you are terrible.