The Premature Celebration Hindrance Call

[Roforot]

Originally Posted by NTRPolice

It's not about it being "brief" or the "intent".

Pro's get called on it for yelling "c'mon" all the time in SINGLES and not even on "doubles overheads at the net". They hit what they perceive to be a "winner" and the prematurely "celebrate" by uttering "c'mon" (vamos', allez, or w/e) and lose the point more often than not.

Anyone who knows the rules does not yell like that when they hit a bad overhead. Only park players do it. Maybe some college/pro players get away with it. That doesnt make it "ok" or make it "not a rule".

Someone yelling "watch out!" does distract you. It's happened to everyone who plays doubles at least once in their life. Do we claim the hindrance point 100% of the time? No. That doesnt mean its "ok" to do.

Like I said, in "park tennis" its ok to break these types of rules. It's ok to foot fault. It's ok to catch balls going obviously long. It's ok to play a let for anything you see fit. That doesnt mean we didnt break 47 different rules in the court of our friendly match and we're definitely not using that as weight in our argument.

It's also a loss of point for a "deliberate" hindrance, which is what this is.
It would be a "let" if it was ruled "accidental".

Under no circumstance would there be a "warning".

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iNhQzDFQPtI

The second point you can hear Henin say "allez" which is ruled a deliberate hindrance and she loses the point. That's exactly the same thing as yelling "watch out" in doubles to "warn your partner" of an impending overhead smash which implies they have a play at the ball.

I don't think we disagree so much that we wouldn't be able to play a match together. I do think the example of Henin's play isn't a fair one... I could pull a lot of other examples where pros are screaming AFTER they've hit the ball.

Anyway, again if I'm playing against the type of team that will claim a hinderance off those situations, I feel it is well worth it because they are likely the sort of players who would try to go for a body shot/kill shot on the net guy because it's okay to do so in the "written rules."

I'm just curious, how many times have you called a hinderance on an opponent? I've had one guy do it to me once (in a singles practice match--> I mishit a ball and cursed but somehow it landed in; totally deserved to lose that point!) I've never had occasion to do so.

[NTRPolice]

Originally Posted by Roforot

I don't think we disagree so much that we wouldn't be able to play a match together. I do think the example of Henin's play isn't a fair one... I could pull a lot of other examples where pros are screaming AFTER they've hit the ball.

Anyway, again if I'm playing against the type of team that will claim a hinderance off those situations, I feel it is well worth it because they are likely the sort of players who would try to go for a body shot/kill shot on the net guy because it's okay to do so in the "written rules."

I'm just curious, how many times have you called a hinderance on an opponent? I've had one guy do it to me once (in a singles practice match--> I mishit a ball and cursed but somehow it landed in; totally deserved to lose that point!) I've never had occasion to do so.

Show me an example of a "pro screaming after they hit the ball". Dont show me a clip of normal stroke sounds, even for delayed ones like Ferrers grunts, or Del Po's "early warning" grunts either.

There is a difference between a grunt and an exclamation.

Also, a pro yelling c'mon after they've clearly won the point is a different story. When an official is presiding over a match, they have to determine if the player had a play at the ball. In all instances ive seen, a player who touches the ball after such exclamation has been given a grievance freebie. In some cases is a "let". In most cases its a loss of point.

I've never called a hindrance on anyone. I just wont do it unless its obvious to me that they're pushing the limit. I'm also the type of person who gives gratuitous line calls and overrules my partner frequently depending on how legit they call the lines. It's why some people refuse to play with me.

If I even think that the ball has touched even 1mm of the line, I will call it good. Ever so often ill realize the ball was an inch (maybe even 2) long, but it dosent bother me.

I actually warn my partner all the time about her exclamations. She does the "watch out!" thing. I tell her she has to watch that in a playoff because someone will more than likely call it in a close game. 1) For a free point 2) "Gamesmanship".

In critical matches bad habits like hindering can be substantial and its poor form to practice it, especially if your reasoning is "they have to call it on me first".

[Cindysphinx]

Originally Posted by gmatheis

Cheating - To violate rules deliberately, as in a game

32. Talking during point. A player shall not talk while a ball is moving toward an opponent’s side of the court.

You are cheating . plain and simple.

Nope, not cheating.

The fact that something is prohibited or required in the Code does not mean failure to comply amounts to cheating. Here is an example:

15. Audible or visible calls. No matter how obvious it is to a player that an opponent’s ball is out, the opponent is entitled to a prompt audible or visible out call.

So. If you do not call a ball out with a visible or audible call, you are cheating?

Want another example?

Making calls on clay courts. If any part of a ball mark touches a line on a clay court, the ball shall be called good. If only part of the mark on a court can be seen, this means that the missing part is on a line or tape. A player should take a careful second look at any point-ending placement that is close to a line on a clay court.

So. If you do not take a careful second look at any point-ending placement close to a line on a clay court, you are cheating?

Want another example?

Obvious faults. A player shall not put into play or hit over the net an obvious fault. To do so constitutes rudeness and may even be a form of gamesmanship.

So. If you loop a first serve fault back to the server, you are cheating?

My point is that the Code contains many provisions that are advisory. They do not amount to cheating, and there is no automatic penalty if you do these things. They are a matter of courtesy, not cheating.

BTW, I also don't think much of your definition of cheating. I think this is better:

Act dishonestly or unfairly in order to gain an advantage, esp. in a game or examination: "she cheats at cards".
Deceive or trick.

In the examples I gave, there is no unfair advantage, and there is no deception or trickery.

I think some of you are going off the deep end here. . . .

[Sumo]

Originally Posted by Cindysphinx

Nope, not cheating.

The fact that something is prohibited or required in the Code does not mean failure to comply amounts to cheating. Here is an example:



So. If you do not call a ball out with a visible or audible call, you are cheating?

Want another example?



So. If you do not take a careful second look at any point-ending placement close to a line on a clay court, you are cheating?

Want another example?



So. If you loop a first serve fault back to the server, you are cheating?

My point is that the Code contains many provisions that are advisory. They do not amount to cheating, and there is no automatic penalty if you do these things. They are a matter of courtesy, not cheating.

BTW, I also don't think much of your definition of cheating. I think this is better:



In the examples I gave, there is no unfair advantage, and there is no deception or trickery.

I think some of you are going off the deep end here. . . .

BOOM!!!

And the term "cheating" is definitely thrown around too loosely on these boards.

[gmatheis]

Originally Posted by Cindysphinx

Nope, not cheating.

The fact that something is prohibited or required in the Code does not mean failure to comply amounts to cheating. Here is an example:



So. If you do not call a ball out with a visible or audible call, you are cheating?

Want another example?



So. If you do not take a careful second look at any point-ending placement close to a line on a clay court, you are cheating?

Want another example?



So. If you loop a first serve fault back to the server, you are cheating?

My point is that the Code contains many provisions that are advisory. They do not amount to cheating, and there is no automatic penalty if you do these things. They are a matter of courtesy, not cheating.

BTW, I also don't think much of your definition of cheating. I think this is better:



In the examples I gave, there is no unfair advantage, and there is no deception or trickery.

I think some of you are going off the deep end here. . . .

Your examples suck , here's why.

- If you do not call a ball out it is considered good, I have had a friend at a tournament not make any call or signal out on a ball that was over a foot wide. When there was a discrepancy in what the players thought the score should be the official asked if he had signaled or called it out on that point and when he was honest about not doing so the fact that it was obviously out did not matter and his opponent was awarded the point. This is a rule that is seldom enforced but intentionally violating it is still cheating.

- The rules say "should take a look" at any point ending mark not "shall take a look". So doing so is encouraged , not required. Learn the difference between "should" and "shall".

- If you loop back a first serve that is "obviously out" yes you are cheating by causing a unnecessary delay between the servers first and second serve. This is usually unenforced because you really need an official to see that the serve was "obviously out" and then do something about it. Just because something is "unenforced" doesn't make it not cheating

As for distracting, I pointed out that anything that happens to which a person is aware is distracting to a certain point. You calling out a warning to your partner may or may not be enough of a distraction to make them miss but the fact that your opponent hears it at all means it distracted him a small amount while his brain processes this unexpected sound that he heard. The advantage you gain could be as much as a missed shot that they would not have missed had you not talked, or maybe more subtle such as an overhead that is returnable rather than one that is completely out of your reach.

The rule says "shall not talk..." you talk anyway even though you know the rule, and yes it does gain you an advantage. You are cheating.
End of story.

[Cindysphinx]

Originally Posted by gmatheis

Your examples suck , here's why.

- If you do not call a ball out it is considered good, . . . This is a rule that is seldom enforced but intentionally violating it is still cheating.

Come on. Let's not be silly.

We all know that when a ball goes over the fence, most folks do not make an audible or visible out call. Those who call crazy-out balls like they are calling balls and strikes in Game 7 of the World Series are . . . . well, make up your own perjorative term.

Now, if you are not making out calls for the purpose of confusing or annoying your opponent, it is cheating. If you are using common sense, it is not cheating.

- If you loop back a first serve that is "obviously out" yes you are cheating by causing a unnecessary delay between the servers first and second serve.

No, you are not cheating. You are probably being thoughtless and discourteous.

If you are doing it to annoy or confuse your opponent for competitive advantage, it is cheating. Again, you have to use *common sense* to see the difference between matters of etiquette and cheating.

Now. On the issue of talking.

If you are talking to warn your partner of a smash, this is an issue of etiquette. If you are heckling your opponent for the purpose of distracting or annoying them, you are cheating.

But if you do talk -- even if your intent isn't to distract or annoy -- and your opponents is actually hindered, you risk loss of point.

It's really not that complicated.

[gmatheis]

Originally Posted by Cindysphinx

Come on. Let's not be silly.

We all know that when a ball goes over the fence, most folks do not make an audible or visible out call. Those who call crazy-out balls like they are calling balls and strikes in Game 7 of the World Series are . . . . well, make up your own perjorative term.

Now, if you are not making out calls for the purpose of confusing or annoying your opponent, it is cheating. If you are using common sense, it is not cheating.



No, you are not cheating. You are probably being thoughtless and discourteous.

If you are doing it to annoy or confuse your opponent for competitive advantage, it is cheating. Again, you have to use *common sense* to see the difference between matters of etiquette and cheating.

Now. On the issue of talking.

If you are talking to warn your partner of a smash, this is an issue of etiquette. If you are heckling your opponent for the purpose of distracting or annoying them, you are cheating.

But if you do talk -- even if your intent isn't to distract or annoy -- and your opponents is actually hindered, you risk loss of point.

It's really not that complicated.

Don't know why i bother ... you live in your own little world where you can do no wrong.

[Roforot]

Originally Posted by NTRPolice

Show me an example of a "pro screaming after they hit the ball". Dont show me a clip of normal stroke sounds, even for delayed ones like Ferrers grunts, or Del Po's "early warning" grunts either.

There is a difference between a grunt and an exclamation.

Also, a pro yelling c'mon after they've clearly won the point is a different story. When an official is presiding over a match, they have to determine if the player had a play at the ball. In all instances ive seen, a player who touches the ball after such exclamation has been given a grievance freebie. In some cases is a "let". In most cases its a loss of point.

I've never called a hindrance on anyone. I just wont do it unless its obvious to me that they're pushing the limit. I'm also the type of person who gives gratuitous line calls and overrules my partner frequently depending on how legit they call the lines. It's why some people refuse to play with me.

If I even think that the ball has touched even 1mm of the line, I will call it good. Ever so often ill realize the ball was an inch (maybe even 2) long, but it dosent bother me.

I actually warn my partner all the time about her exclamations. She does the "watch out!" thing. I tell her she has to watch that in a playoff because someone will more than likely call it in a close game. 1) For a free point 2) "Gamesmanship".

In critical matches bad habits like hindering can be substantial and its poor form to practice it, especially if your reasoning is "they have to call it on me first".

Again, it seems that on the court we're actually pretty much in agreement. I agree w/ your line calling and use of hinderances (or lack thereof). I guess where we disagree is that I'm willing to sacrifice a point if they choose to call a hinderance to give my partner early warning to bail or backup.

I disagree w/ your view on the pros.
Take a look at this clip from Sharapova. Her screams are clearly going on as the ball is headed towards the opponent. I've never had an opponent do this but if I did, I'd be tempted to call a hinderance

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0_PA0w6ca-g

[gmatheis]

Originally Posted by Roforot

Again, it seems that on the court we're actually pretty much in agreement. I agree w/ your line calling and use of hinderances (or lack thereof). I guess where we disagree is that I'm willing to sacrifice a point if they choose to call a hinderance to give my partner early warning to bail or backup.

I disagree w/ your view on the pros.
Take a look at this clip from Sharapova. Her screams are clearly going on as the ball is headed towards the opponent. I've never had an opponent do this but if I did, I'd be tempted to call a hinderance

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0_PA0w6ca-g

Sharapova and Azarenka violate the rules but they seem to let it slide once you become a top player in the world , just like they let Nadal get away with 30+ seconds between points.

[OrangePower]

Interesting how this thread has evolved into a discussion on what does or does not constitute cheating.

Personally, as long as my opponenent(s) are calling lines fairly (which is the case 95% of the time), I'm a happy camper. Most everything else is like water on a duck's back to me. People, rec tennis is supposed to be fun, not a source of stress.

I'm not put off if my opponents warn each other after putting up a short ball. On the other hand, I don't do it myself, because I find it pretty useless.

[dcdoorknob]

Originally Posted by gmatheis

Don't know why i bother ... you live in your own little world where you can do no wrong.

Heh I was not particularly on Cindy's side in this issue, but she argued circles around you from where I"m sitting.

Still don't think that verbally warning partners is either necessary or even a good idea, but you are arguing that I'm cheating by not bothering to call a ball out that hits the back fence on the fly. You are not winning the argument.

[TimothyO]

Originally Posted by Cindysphinx

Sorry, I disagree.

It is common and understood that folks will warn their partners (or say things like "Stay") when the ball is on the way to the other side. This is not cheating.

It is something that can be punished if the other side chooses to claim hindrance. So long as I accept your hindrance call should you choose to make one, there is no problem and no one has cheated.

It's not me who is putting you in the unpleasant position of having to call a hindrance. The rule does that. After all, the rule could be written to say that talking is automatic loss of point. The rule is not that rigid, perhaps in recognition that minor and well-intentioned communication doesn't present a problem for most people.

Nope, it's real simple.

You're cheating, breaking the rules by your own admission, and daring your opponent to challenge you.

The reason this is true is revealed in your last statement: "The rule is not that rigid, perhaps in recognition that minor and well-intentioned communication doesn't present a problem for most people."

The moment you head down the path of "most people" there will be, by definition, "some people" for whom your cheating IS a problem and you've put them in the position of calling you on it. You too are one of those "some people" annoyed by chatter since you called it on your opponent.

And if they don't call you on it at first, or at all, you've garnered an unfair advantage over opponents who DO play by the rules and don't call out to their partner while the ball is heading towards you.

So even if the opponent never calls you on the violation you're still gaining an unfair advantage.

More importantly, your own actions described in the OP demonstrate that you're cheating. In THIS particular instance Cindy Sphinx decided that her opponent's actions were a violation. She became her own little ITF/USTA official by making that declaration while simultaneously declaring her own violations over the years as legit.

Well, there's the rub. It's really quite likely that you've had opponents who suffered your violations in silence, at least on the court. And then they went off to their circle of friends just as you have done her and railed against the obnoxious Cindy Sphinx who repeatedly distracted them from their play.

They simply chose to remain silent while you cheated.

And that's why rules exist: so that each player can't appoint himself or herself Judge, Jury, and Executioner (or biased mini USTA OFFICIAL) over their opponents.

And observance of the rules is that which separates the ladies and gentlemen from the cheaters seeking every last advantage whatever the cost to their opponent in headaches and frustration.

As we've taught our boys, character is what you do when nobody else is looking over your shoulder (or being put in a position to discipline you).

[Sumo]

Originally Posted by TimothyO

Nope, it's real simple.

You're cheating, breaking the rules by your own admission, and daring your opponent to challenge you.

The reason this is true is revealed in your last statement: "The rule is not that rigid, perhaps in recognition that minor and well-intentioned communication doesn't present a problem for most people."

The moment you head down the path of "most people" there will be, by definition, "some people" for whom your cheating IS a problem and you've put them in the position of calling you on it. Heck, you're one of those "some people" annoyed by chatter since you called it on your opponent.

And if they don't call you on it at first, or at all, you've garnered an unfair advantage over opponents who DO play by the rules and don't call out to their partner while the ball is heading towards you.

So even if the opponent never calls you on the violation you're still gaining an unfair advantage.

More importantly, your own actions described in the OP demonstrate that you're cheating. In THIS particular instance Cindy Sphinx decided that her opponent's actions were a violation. She became her own little ITF/USTA official by making that declaration while simultaneously declaring her own violations over the years as legit.

Well, there's the rub. It's really quite likely that you've had opponents who suffered your violations in silence, at least on the court. And then they went off to their circle of friends just as you have done her and railed against the obnoxious Cindy Sphinx who repeatedly distracted them from their play.

They simply chose to remain silent while you cheated.

And that's why rules exist: so that each player can't appoint himself or herself Judge, Jury, and Executioner (or biased mini USTA OFFICIAL) over their opponents.

And observance of the rules is that which separates the ladies and gentlemen from the cheaters seeking every last advantage whatever the cost to their opponent in headaches and frustration.

As we've taught our boys, character is what you do when nobody else is looking over your shoulder (or being put in a position to discipline you).

I don't trust people who use the word "heck".

[Cindysphinx]

Originally Posted by TimothyO

Nope, it's real simple.

You're cheating, breaking the rules by your own admission, and daring your opponent to challenge you.

The reason this is true is revealed in your last statement: "The rule is not that rigid, perhaps in recognition that minor and well-intentioned communication doesn't present a problem for most people."

The moment you head down the path of "most people" there will be, by definition, "some people" for whom your cheating IS a problem and you've put them in the position of calling you on it. You too are one of those "some people" annoyed by chatter since you called it on your opponent.

And if they don't call you on it at first, or at all, you've garnered an unfair advantage over opponents who DO play by the rules and don't call out to their partner while the ball is heading towards you.

So even if the opponent never calls you on the violation you're still gaining an unfair advantage.

More importantly, your own actions described in the OP demonstrate that you're cheating. In THIS particular instance Cindy Sphinx decided that her opponent's actions were a violation. She became her own little ITF/USTA official by making that declaration while simultaneously declaring her own violations over the years as legit.

Well, there's the rub. It's really quite likely that you've had opponents who suffered your violations in silence, at least on the court. And then they went off to their circle of friends just as you have done her and railed against the obnoxious Cindy Sphinx who repeatedly distracted them from their play.

They simply chose to remain silent while you cheated.

And that's why rules exist: so that each player can't appoint himself or herself Judge, Jury, and Executioner (or biased mini USTA OFFICIAL) over their opponents.

And observance of the rules is that which separates the ladies and gentlemen from the cheaters seeking every last advantage whatever the cost to their opponent in headaches and frustration.

As we've taught our boys, character is what you do when nobody else is looking over your shoulder (or being put in a position to discipline you).

You seem like a nice guy, but you seriously need to relax.

[tennis_ocd]

I see it as along the lines as starting a point with a ball lying at the net. Is this "cheating?"

Sometimes you just have to speak up before accusing one afterwards of "cheating."

[gmatheis]

Originally Posted by tennis_ocd

I see it as along the lines as starting a point with a ball lying at the net. Is this "cheating?"

Sometimes you just have to speak up before accusing one afterwards of "cheating."

It is perfectly fine to start a point with a ball lying at the net, so I have no clue what you are trying to say here.

[IA-SteveB]

Sheesh. I am glad I don't experience people wound as tight as some people in this thread at my club or any tournaments. I would really hate the game.

[tennis_ocd]

Originally Posted by gmatheis

It is perfectly fine to start a point with a ball lying at the net, ....

As it is to talk to your partner.... unless the other team speaks up.

[dcdoorknob]

Only tangentially related, but tonight I actually had an opponent ask if I wanted to call a hindrance on her after a point where she called out in frustration after leaving a lob really short (as I was setting up to hit the ball), and then I botched the putaway (sailed it long). She doesn't usually call out like that, and is always super nice to play with or against, so she was genuinely concerned that she messed me up.

I declined though because her vocalization really didn't have anything to do with why I missed, I just missed the shot all on my own.

[TimothyO]

Originally Posted by Cindysphinx

You seem like a nice guy, but you seriously need to relax.

Well, yes, perhaps too nice.



I'm very generous with line calls giving opponents the full benefit of any doubt on my part. I don't rush older or out of shape opponents in the hot Atlanta sun (during my very first mixed doubles match the male opponent nearly collapsed).

And I hope you din't take offense at my post but I really find your attitude far too common whether applied to tennis or other aspects of society.

You're perfectly willing to ignore the rules if YOU feel like it and you're willing to enforce the rule when YOU feel like it. And you seem to imply that others who call such hinderance faults are being too harsh.

And, since our sport at our level is self-regulated and depends on the players to police themselves, you are deliberately putting opponents in the uncomfortable position of having to supervise YOUR behavior on the court. They're there to play a game, not babysit a middle aged woman. It's really quite inconsiderate to expect others to monitor your behavior. The other word that comes to mind is immature. Just play by the rules, it's that simple. Would you teach your children to cheat?