missed "not-up" calls-- what do you do?

[Avles]

A few times in recent matches I've had opponents fail to call "not-up" on themselves when the ball visibly bounced twice.

I'm pretty sure these were all honest mistakes (I find not-up to be a tricky call, as I'm more focused on getting my racquet on the ball than on seeing whether or not it bounces). And I didn't say anything to the opponents about them.

I'm wondering how other people handle this situation-- do you ignore it? Do you say something at the end of the point? Do you stop the point?

One time I missed a not-up call, and my opponent stopped the point and said "that was two bounces, right?" I was fine with that, but I don't know how others would respond.

[LeeD]

That would be the correct response, the opponent has to make the call, because the hitter is almost diving in desperation to get to the ball.

[woodrow1029]

If you stop the point immediately, and they say that they got it in one bounce, you lose the point, as it's their call to make on themselves.

If they agree with you, then good, but unfortunately you can't make the call for them.

You can say something after the point like, "Did you really get that one?" But if it happens once, I wouldn't let it bother you too much, because then it's too late, and if they were sure it was 2 bounces they most likely would call it against themselves. If they are either not sure, or don't agree with you, there's nothing you can do anyway.

If it happens a couple times, and there is an official present, call the official to court to watch some of the match. if not, there's not too much that can be done except to say something like "I thought that was 2 bounces. I just want to make sure you know it's your responsibiltiy to call against yourself" or something liek that.

[woodrow1029]

Originally Posted by LeeD

That would be the correct response, the opponent has to make the call, because the hitter is almost diving in desperation to get to the ball.

Are you saying that it's the responsibility of a person to call their opponent's not-up?

[LeeD]

Logic....
The person diving for the ball in desperation is in no position to make an accurate call.
The person on the other side of the net is clear sighted, he hit that short ball, is watching unimpeded, and is not moving around.
Now rules might say otherwise, but who should make this call?
We know the hitter wants to win the point.
We know the dropshotter wants to win the point.
Who has the better line of sight?

[woodrow1029]

Originally Posted by LeeD

Logic....
The person diving for the ball in desperation is in no position to make an accurate call.
The person on the other side of the net is clear sighted, he hit that short ball, is watching unimpeded, and is not moving around.
Now rules might say otherwise, but who should make this call?
We know the hitter wants to win the point.
We know the dropshotter wants to win the point.
Who has the better line of sight?

So, disregard the rules because your logic doesn't agree with it?

[woodrow1029]

Btw, there are not-up situations that happen that are not right at the net. There are not up situations behind the baseline. You really think the person 60-78 feet away (possibly having to look through the net to see) is going to have a better look at a possible not up than the person that is actually hitting it?

[amorris525]

Originally Posted by LeeD

Logic....
The person diving for the ball in desperation is in no position to make an accurate call.
The person on the other side of the net is clear sighted, he hit that short ball, is watching unimpeded, and is not moving around.
Now rules might say otherwise, but who should make this call?
We know the hitter wants to win the point.
We know the dropshotter wants to win the point.
Who has the better line of sight?

No way. It's not that hard for the retriever to know whether or not he/she got it. Not hard at all.

[woodrow1029]

Originally Posted by amorris525

No way. It's not that hard for the retriever to know whether or not he/she got it. Not hard at all.

It's only LeeD "logic".

[Avles]

Thanks for the response Woodrow. I understand that LeeD is wrong about the rule, but I'm not convinced that it's such a straightforward call for the player who is chasing the ball.

The fact that it's happened multiple times with opponents who don't strike me as dishonest in their other calls makes me wonder. If they had anything near as clear of a view of the second bounce as I did they were definitely cheating and I don't think that was the case.

For what it's worth, none of these calls were at the baseline-- they were all around the service line. My impression (could be wrong) is that double-bounce calls at or behind the baseline are relatively rare, and that when a controversy occurs it's usually with a player charging forward to get a short ball.

[woodrow1029]

It may be rare that it happens farther than behind the service line, but that's only one point.

Even if it's a short ball, you're still looking at it a lot of times from 35-40 feet away and through the net. It is a deceptive thing to see. Amorris is right, most of the time, it's easier for the retriever to decide if it's one bounce or 2.

[Cindysphinx]

The best response is to crush the ball directly back at the person who hit it. She is usually running forward and is off balance. Her ball is often a pop-up.

Crushing the ball at her will encourage her to make her not-up calls more quickly.

I wouldn't stop the point; I would win the point.

[LeeD]

Here is clearly a case of an umpire making the call thru his rules training over his actual tennis play.
If Woody would experience diving for a short ball in desperation, he'd know he couldn't possibly make the call, while the other guy on the other side of the net is staring right in with the right angle.
Once again, both want to win the point. Which is the cheater?
But clearly, the guy NOT diving and lunging has a better view.

[Maui19]

The rules say it is up to the player who hits the ball to make the call. Personally, I play by the rules. YMMV.

[LeeD]

Yes, some will always argue for the status quo, what is in place by law at this moment in time.
Other's will question the logic, or lack of logic, of some of today's laws, and make it known that common sense is not being applied.
I know who you and Woody are.

[LeeD]

And of course, 400 years ago, prevailing thought was that the earth was flat.
Law abiders would agree.
Those with questions and think for themselves would question this notion.

[mikeler]

Originally Posted by woodrow1029

It's only LeeD "logic".

Which is as valid as my wife's logic.

[NTRPolice]

I'll usually hit it into the net or just let it go out of courtesy.

It's really a bad habit and inconsiderate to play a double bounce back over the net because we all know when it happens play tends to "continue" just to be sure and everyone gets a little apprehensive.

IMO double bounces are not like line calls and there's no reason to "play on".

[LeeD]

You know, there's a lot of crazy laws still in existence right now.
I can't name many, because I'm ******** and a little slow in the memory department.
But all of you know about laws that were introduced in the older days, and still on the books today.
Like some law in Newark, just N of UnionCity, about carriages not being allowed to back up within the downtown city limits. Now that law was made in the horse carriage days, left in the books, and now translates to ...it's illegal to back your car up within the downtown area. It's been on Channel 7 news.
I'm sure all of you know plenty of statutes that just don't apply nowadays.
OTOH, if you're a law enforcement personel, you might not agree with me, and would give out tickets to every car you see backing up in the city of Newark.

[JLyon]

it is the hitter's responsibility to make the call on themselves otherwise it gives the opponent to much of an opportunity to make a judgement call when they are further from the ball.
The Code is there for a reason