Time for another rules quiz!

[Marcus2137]

Originally Posted by floridatennisdude

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

Agreed! If I can't win a point where my opponent lost his/her racket... I'm the ONLY ONE to blame for that, not the racket hitting the ground.

[muddlehead]

'' Originally Posted by woodrow1029 View Post
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.''

last november 2011, played national 55 and over hard court tourney at indian wells. first match. second set goes to tie breaker. split sets. sitting on the side chairs resting before the start of the third. i say to opponent, because i know this rule, and i'm aware some don't, although i'm thinking at a big tournament like this s/b no problemo, something like " ok, you know i start the third serving from this side, right?" he disagrees. we discuss. he says i'm wrong. i'm way cool with this. can use the extra rest before the third set. and, of course i know i'm correct...a court monitor/official comes down to see what's up. she says, incredibly, even after looking through the rule book, she knows the rule and my opponent is right and i'm wrong...again, no animosity anywhere from any of the three of us. it's all good. neither of our serves is good enough for us to lobby to serve first, so, cheating is not an issue. she leaves to say she'll double check with someone else. we rest more. cool. she comes back 2 minutes later and says my opponent is right, and i'm wrong. whatever. no impact on the match. i'm thinking am i crazy? anyway, i win the third and match. woo hoo. next day, before my second round match, another official seeks me out to say " the official yesterday was incorrect in her ruling etc..."
no worries. everyone's happy.
long silly story just to prove no matter where you're playing, when it comes to some rules, you never know...

[Avles]

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

That's interesting-- to me it seems inconsistent with the rule that a player is responsible for calling "not up" on himself, as that seems like a pretty analogous situation. What's the justification for the difference?

[xFullCourtTenniSx]

Originally Posted by woodrow1029

These questions will be from the Rules and from "The Code":

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

2. If a ball falls out of a player's pocket during a point, then later in the match, the same player's hat flies off during a point, what would be the correct ruling, assuming both were called in a timely fashion?

A. Let both times, since they are two different types of events
B. Let for the ball falling out, then loss of point for the hat flying off
C. Loss of point both times because both were hindrances

3. In doubles, one partner calls a shot out, and when asked, the other partner says, "I don't know, I didn't see it".

A. The team that originally called it out loses the point because the partner didn't see it and this shows doubt
B. The call of "out" stands, as both partners don't have to agree on the call, they just can't "disagree".

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
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

5. What are the dimensions of a DOUBLES court

A. 100' X 36'
B. 78' X 36'
C. 78' X 27'

6. How many dampening devices is a player allowed to have on a racket, assuming placed in the proper position on the racket?

A. 1
B. 2
C. As many as they want

7. A tournament posted on it's website that all matches would be played, "Best of 3 sets, with a 10-point match tiebreak in lieu of the third set". In one match, the players began to play an actual full set, and the error was discovered at 3-0.

A. The match is over
B. Restart the set and play a match tiebreak
C. Continue playing out a full third set

8. Same as the question 7, but this time, the error is discovered at 2-1 in the third set.

A. Continue playing until the score reaches 3-1 or 2-2. At 3-1, the match is over. At 2-2 play a 10-point MATCH tiebreak.
B. Continue playing until the score reaches 3-1 or 2-2. At 3-1, the match is over. At 2-2 play a STANDARD SET tiebreak (first to 7 by 2).
C. Continue playing a full third set
D. Restart the set and play a match tiebreak.

9. May a tournament referee authorize a player to wear a cell phone in vibrate mode in certain situations such as when the player is an on-call doctor or emergency medical responder?

A. Yes
B. No

10. If a player's racket flies out of his hand during the serve, and the serve lands in the proper court, then:

A. The server can call a let
B. The receiver can call a let
C. Play continues, unless the racket hits the net or the receiver's court
D. The server loses the point based on the hindrance rule

1) A
2) B
3) A
4) C
5) B
6) A
7) A
B
9) A
10) C

[dcdoorknob]

Originally Posted by Avles

That's interesting-- to me it seems inconsistent with the rule that a player is responsible for calling "not up" on himself, as that seems like a pretty analogous situation. What's the justification for the difference?

Yeah that's pretty much why I picked "the player that hit the ball" in my original guesses. The 'not up' situation seemed to me to be the closest analogous situation, but apparently not.

[Thud and blunder]

I'll try:

1 A
2 B
3 B
4 A
5 B
6 C
7 A (applying the 'all points played in good faith stand' principle, although I see the argument for B; it's all well retaining points played in good faith, but when players aren't even clear on their objective (ie they may tank their return game), is this really fair?
8 D (applying the 'this is one omelette that can't be unscrambled' principle.
9 A
10 B

[Cindysphinx]

Originally Posted by dcdoorknob

Yeah that's pretty much why I picked "the player that hit the ball" in my original guesses. The 'not up' situation seemed to me to be the closest analogous situation, but apparently not.

'Cause you call things when the ball is on its way to you. Your opponent calls things when the ball is on its way to them.

If you strike the ball and it bounces before it goes over the net, the problem occurs when the ball is on its way to the opponent. So it is the opponent's call.

[Thud and blunder]

No, you call your side of the net; direction of ball travel is irrelevant.

[Cindysphinx]

Originally Posted by Thud and blunder

No, you call your side of the net; direction of ball travel is irrelevant.

Mmmm . . . that approach doesn't work all the time.

Say I hit a ball to you that bounces on your side of the court. You swing and shank it, and it barely grazes into a ceiling fixture directly above you.

That's my call to make, even though it happened on your side of the court.

[dcdoorknob]

Originally Posted by Cindysphinx

Mmmm . . . that approach doesn't work all the time.

Say I hit a ball to you that bounces on your side of the court. You swing and shank it, and it barely grazes into a ceiling fixture directly above you.

That's my call to make, even though it happened on your side of the court.

Couldn't you have just cited the exact rule being discussed to disprove his claim?

I did recently have an opponent swear up and down that we could not call a let when another court's ball bounced onto our court behind her in the middle of a point, as she didn't see it or call it and only the people on that side of the court can call a let.

[Thud and blunder]

Originally Posted by Cindysphinx

Mmmm . . . that approach doesn't work all the time.

Say I hit a ball to you that bounces on your side of the court. You swing and shank it, and it barely grazes into a ceiling fixture directly above you.

That's my call to make, even though it happened on your side of the court.

Nothing works all the time....having said that, I read the question as a not-up situation. Rereading it, I have no idea what it refers to; it seems you could parse it several ways.

[woodrow1029]

Originally Posted by Avles

That's interesting-- to me it seems inconsistent with the rule that a player is responsible for calling "not up" on himself, as that seems like a pretty analogous situation. What's the justification for the difference?

Originally Posted by dcdoorknob

Yeah that's pretty much why I picked "the player that hit the ball" in my original guesses. The 'not up' situation seemed to me to be the closest analogous situation, but apparently not.

Originally Posted by Cindysphinx

'Cause you call things when the ball is on its way to you. Your opponent calls things when the ball is on its way to them.

If you strike the ball and it bounces before it goes over the net, the problem occurs when the ball is on its way to the opponent. So it is the opponent's call.

Originally Posted by Thud and blunder

No, you call your side of the net; direction of ball travel is irrelevant.

Originally Posted by Cindysphinx

Mmmm . . . that approach doesn't work all the time.

Say I hit a ball to you that bounces on your side of the court. You swing and shank it, and it barely grazes into a ceiling fixture directly above you.

That's my call to make, even though it happened on your side of the court.

Originally Posted by Thud and blunder

Nothing works all the time....having said that, I read the question as a not-up situation. Rereading it, I have no idea what it refers to; it seems you could parse it several ways.

Here's the Code section from the Friend at Court (page 47):

20.

Balls hit through net or into ground. A player makes the ruling on a ball that
the player’s opponent hits:
• Through the net; or

• Into the ground before it goes over the net.

[Cindysphinx]

Originally Posted by dcdoorknob

Couldn't you have just cited the exact rule being discussed to disprove his claim?

I did recently have an opponent swear up and down that we could not call a let when another court's ball bounced onto our court behind her in the middle of a point, as she didn't see it or call it and only the people on that side of the court can call a let.

Yeah, I could have just cited the rule. I was kind of explaining how I remember the rule. To me, it is logical and consistent with the idea that you call things that occur when the ball is on its way to you. That covers the situations Woodrow identified in the quote rule above.

Maybe I am unusual, but I am always looking for logical ways to remember things. Like, people often get confused about who should serve first in a new set when a tiebreak decided the previous set. I cannot quote the rule. I can say how I remember it: The player who served first in the tiebreak can consider the tiebreak her service game, so that means the other team should serve first in the new set.

[woodrow1029]

Originally Posted by Avles

That's interesting-- to me it seems inconsistent with the rule that a player is responsible for calling "not up" on himself, as that seems like a pretty analogous situation. What's the justification for the difference?

I think the difference is that the code also says that you are responsible for calling balls that land on or are aimed at your side of the court. Which is great for a not-up, but since once you hit the ball, it is traveling to the other side of the court, so it's the opponent's call.

[cneblett]

Had this happen this weekend in tourney. My partner hit the ball which then hit ground and went over. I made the call because I was only person who saw it happen. I assume this is ok from another principle of calling a point against you when you should call ball out. The opponents did not see it hit the ground and thought he got it clean.

[Cindysphinx]

Originally Posted by cneblett

Had this happen this weekend in tourney. My partner hit the ball which then hit ground and went over. I made the call because I was only person who saw it happen. I assume this is ok from another principle of calling a point against you when you should call ball out. The opponents did not see it hit the ground and thought he got it clean.

Not only is it OK, it makes you the most honest person ever to play the game!

[tennis tom]

I once had a shot hit off my shin and go over for a winner. No one noticed, I didn't tell them until after the match was over--it was rec. I made them buy me a beer. It's much harder to hit a tennis ball with your shin then a racket. I keep my leg hairs strung at 60 lbs.

[Cindysphinx]

Hey, Woodrow, if you're still out there. . . .

You're intimately familiar with the rules. If you were allowed to change just one rule or Code provision, what change would you make and why?

[Taxvictim]

Originally Posted by Cindysphinx

If you were allowed to change just one rule or Code provision, what change would you make and why?

This would make a good new topic.

[jmnk]

Originally Posted by Cindysphinx

Mmmm . . . that approach doesn't work all the time.

Say I hit a ball to you that bounces on your side of the court. You swing and shank it, and it barely grazes into a ceiling fixture directly above you.

That's my call to make, even though it happened on your side of the court.

actually, is it really --your-- call to make? In general - who makes calls on balls hitting permanent fixture? The player who hit the ball last?