Question about Tennis rules

[Cindysphinx]

^Also, if you have to ask your partner, you're still not in violation of the rules.

If you didn't see the ball or aren't sure, you can ask your partner. If she is sure, you can go with her call.

I think you have to be careful so that you aren't constantly having conferences to see if you can gin up a way to call the ball out.

But if I am in a bad position or am busy hitting the ball *and* my partner had a better angle/position, then I will ask my partner and go with her call.

What will get under my skin is when you get one person raising a finger, the other person putting a palm down and then they confer and decide it was out.

Yes, I have actually had this happen and it is infuriating because it is cheating. One time we had an opponent at the service line and one at the baseline. The baseliner couldn't reach a ball at the baseline and called it good by putting her hand down. Partner at the service line put a finger up for out. They conferred and decided it was out. The baseliner said she hadn't had a good look at the ball -- which was a fib because she saw it well enough to put her palm down.

Anyway . . . . Unless we are talking about serve to the T or side T (where I might see it not wide but my partner can see it was long), that sort of thing is not cool.

[gmatheis]

Originally Posted by Cindysphinx

^Also, if you have to ask your partner, you're still not in violation of the rules.

If you didn't see the ball or aren't sure, you can ask your partner. If she is sure, you can go with her call.

I think you have to be careful so that you aren't constantly having conferences to see if you can gin up a way to call the ball out.

But if I am in a bad position or am busy hitting the ball *and* my partner had a better angle/position, then I will ask my partner and go with her call.

What will get under my skin is when you get one person raising a finger, the other person putting a palm down and then they confer and decide it was out.

Yes, I have actually had this happen and it is infuriating because it is cheating. One time we had an opponent at the service line and one at the baseline. The baseliner couldn't reach a ball at the baseline and called it good by putting her hand down. Partner at the service line put a finger up for out. They conferred and decided it was out. The baseliner said she hadn't had a good look at the ball -- which was a fib because she saw it well enough to put her palm down.

Anyway . . . . Unless we are talking about serve to the T or side T (where I might see it not wide but my partner can see it was long), that sort of thing is not cool.

Once one of them calls it good (in this case with their palm down) the point is yours. Your opponent can't change their mind after a conference.

[SwankPeRFection]

Originally Posted by Cindysphinx

Actually, there is no requirement that partners agree on a call. The rule is that they cannot disagree on a call.

If a player didn't get a good look at a ball and the partner is sure it was out, the out call is proper.

I agree that partners should correct errors their partners make, but they had better be in good position to be sure their partner got it wrong.

Which is what I said. The partners must agree to a call. If you don't disagree, then you agree by definition.

Originally Posted by spot

You have that rule completely wrong. The actual rule is that if you ask then the opponents are supposed to tell you what they saw. So if you aren't sure on a call, instead of conceding the point you really should be asking the opponent what they saw. You have to go along with whatever they say and even if they saw it out its likely they will say "I couldn't tell..." but its still worth it to ask them just in case you are facing someone honest who will concede the point.

The "I couldn't tell..." BS doesn't fly with me. If you make a call, you better be able to tell. You can't make a call and then say that you couldn't tell. WTF? Also, if the ball was a winner and it barely missed or clipped the line but it caused the person who's making the call to sit there and think about it to decide, the call is basically overruled if they call it out. This is a timing thing most of the time, but if you have to sit there to guess, it's too late. The only time this doesn't apply and the call stands is if the person really walks up to the mark quickly to take a closer look AFTER the call was made and either sustains or overrules it based on what they see. I've made the mistake to call something out that clipped like a mm or two of a line and made the correction after running up to it to take a peek. This tends to happen more on serves than other shots since they're so fast, but it can happen. If the call was wrong, the point was theirs anyway. Besides, those serves are either aces or unreturnables anyway from what I've experienced, so it's no big deal to make a mistake and correct those calls. Everyone's cool with that.

[SwankPeRFection]

Originally Posted by Cindysphinx

^Also, if you have to ask your partner, you're still not in violation of the rules.

If you didn't see the ball or aren't sure, you can ask your partner. If she is sure, you can go with her call.

I think you have to be careful so that you aren't constantly having conferences to see if you can gin up a way to call the ball out.

But if I am in a bad position or am busy hitting the ball *and* my partner had a better angle/position, then I will ask my partner and go with her call.

What will get under my skin is when you get one person raising a finger, the other person putting a palm down and then they confer and decide it was out.

Yes, I have actually had this happen and it is infuriating because it is cheating. One time we had an opponent at the service line and one at the baseline. The baseliner couldn't reach a ball at the baseline and called it good by putting her hand down. Partner at the service line put a finger up for out. They conferred and decided it was out. The baseliner said she hadn't had a good look at the ball -- which was a fib because she saw it well enough to put her palm down.

Anyway . . . . Unless we are talking about serve to the T or side T (where I might see it not wide but my partner can see it was long), that sort of thing is not cool.

This is what that rule I told you about refers to. In conflicting calls, the point is awarded as if the ball was good. There is no conference and then decide. If you have conflicting calls and you're talking it over, the point isn't yours. The ball was good regardless of how in/out it really was. Like I said, this rule was introduced for us about a year ago, so I don't know if it's everywhere... especially since we don't play silly timed matches like you guys do. I can say I've never honestly heard of that. About the closest thing we have to a "time limited" match is corporate tennis, which is played by the same rules as team tennis, so inherently it goes pretty quickly since you play let serves and there's no ad scoring.

[gameboy]

You must be a lot of fun to play with...

[Cindysphinx]

I don't know how we got on the subject of timed matches.

There is a difference between disagreeing on a call and requiring that both partners agree.

Think about it. You are at baseline, I am at net. Ball goes deep to you and you call it out. Opponents turn to me and ask what I saw. I am not sure because I didn't look, couldn't see, was screened by my partner. So I say "I dont know."

Opponents cannot say my uncertainty means I am not 100% sure it was out, so we do not agree so it is good.

Partners do not have to agree. They cannot disagree. Not the same thing.

[dizzlmcwizzl]

Originally Posted by SwankPeRFection

Which is what I said. The partners must agree to a call. If you don't disagree, then you agree by definition.

This is just not true. There is absolutely no requirement in tennis that the partners have to agree on the call. Only that if they disagree or are unsure, then the point must be awarded to the opponent.

You have four options when making calls ... I saw it in, I saw it out, I saw it but I am unsure, or I did not see it.

If you saw the ball hit but are still unsure then point to your opponent, regardless of what your partner thinks.

If you and your partner both make a call and disagree, point to the opponents.

However, if you did not see the ball hit and your partner calls it out ... then there is no requirement to give the point to your opponent.

[SwankPeRFection]

Originally Posted by dizzlmcwizzl

This is just not true. There is absolutely no requirement in tennis that the partners have to agree on the call. Only that if they disagree or are unsure, then the point must be awarded to the opponent.

You have four options when making calls ... I saw it in, I saw it out, I saw it but I am unsure, or I did not see it.

If you saw the ball hit but are still unsure then point to your opponent, regardless of what your partner thinks.

If you and your partner both make a call and disagree, point to the opponents.

However, if you did not see the ball hit and your partner calls it out ... then there is no requirement to give the point to your opponent.

Not correct. There have been numerous times when serves or other shots have been called by my partner as out (which were out) that were not possible for me to make a quick call on because of the shot placement and my concentrating more on the ball than what side of the line it hit. I play the ball, if I hear a call from my partner as out, that call stands and I stop playing. If challenged, I reply with "I couldn't tell, so my partner made the call." As long as my partner is in a position to make the call (i.e. not too far away, etc.), then the call stands. If I was to go about saying "Could have been in but it could have been out too." Then that's enough to give cause to give the point away. I don't usually play with partners who cheat out points and there's been points where I've asked my partner if a winner from me was in out our (the close ones) even though the opponents called it good. A few times, they were out and we actually were both aware of this, so we told the opponents that we saw the ball as out. Usually, the opponents thank us for that, but maintain the point was ours. Again, things like that usually build that trust that no one's there to rip anyone off.

I think we're all saying the same thing here... so it's all good.

[SwankPeRFection]

Originally Posted by gameboy

You must be a lot of fun to play with...

Actually, I am. It's even better when we play doubles or mixed where the points are extended to get better shots, etc. We still go for winners, aces, etc., but people have more fun if we laugh a little during play. And then there's been where we went out to play social doubles and it turned out to be one of those where sometimes you argue over some stupid play you made. It happens, we're not all saints, but we laugh and shake it off at the end.

[dizzlmcwizzl]

Originally Posted by SwankPeRFection

Not correct.

Wrong again .... this is what I said "If you saw the ball hit but are still unsure then point to your opponent, regardless of what your partner thinks.".

When you are returning serve you are watching the ball and your partner is calling the line.... you need not have an oppinion here. If you have run down a cross court shot and are 40 feet away from the ball you are in no position to have an oppinion and thus are not required to relinquish the point. However, if you are in position to see the ball land, have an angle from which a decision can be made and the ball is so close that you cannot decide for yourself if the ball was in or out ... point to your opponents.

Originally Posted by SwankPeRFection

Which is what I said. The partners must agree to a call.

This however, is clearly not true. it is not in the code ... nor will it ever be.

[Cindysphinx]

Originally Posted by dizzlmcwizzl

However, if you are in position to see the ball land, have an angle from which a decision can be made and the ball is so close that you cannot decide for yourself if the ball was in or out ... point to your opponents.

Mmmm, can't get behind this part.^

Say I am right on top of the ball, and my partner is not. I see the ball hit but am unsure. If my partner is 100% certain the ball was 100% out, she can call it out and I do not have to call disagree. Again, we do not have to agree. If I see it in, then we have a disagreement.

Another example: My partner is calling the service line. Often, those service line calls on long balls will look good to me. But because she is standing right there on the line watching the service line bounce for me, I stand by her call. This, even though I didn't see space and therefore am not 100% sure the ball is out.

Similarly, every now and then I see the serve as long even though my partner on the service line said nothing (out to lunch, just missed it?). Even if I saw space, I will play the point rather than call it long. If I am going with my partner's service line call, I am going with her service line call.

[dizzlmcwizzl]

Originally Posted by dizzlmcwizzl

, have an angle from which a decision can be made

I point out you have to have an angle to make the call

[rufus_smith]

What if, in singles, the first serve in the ad court was out, the returner fails to call it out and hits a winner. Then the polite returner asked the server if he thinks the serve was out. The server says "yes". The returner agrees. They go back to the ad court. According to the code, is it now officially first serve or second serve?

[dizzlmcwizzl]

Point to returner ... per the code

If you are being a nice guy and let him go back to serving ... do whatever you want because the rules are now just a suggestion.

In this scenario, I would give him a first serve,

[omega4]

Originally Posted by rufus_smith

What if, in singles, the first serve in the ad court was out, the returner fails to call it out and hits a winner. Then the polite returner asked the server if he thinks the serve was out. The server says "yes". The returner agrees. They go back to the ad court. According to the code, is it now officially first serve or second serve?

I'm not sure what the Code would say, but I think it should be the server's second serve in the situation you've described. Or at least that's what I'd push for the ruling to be.

The key is that the returner AGREES with the server that the server's first serve was out. Also, the server never had a chance to make a play on the ball as the returner hit a clear winner.

If the returner never asked the server if his serve was out, then the point goes to the returner, in spite of whether the server thought his serve was out or not.

I say this based on what I've learned in his thread from my original post.

[NineMileSkid]

Originally Posted by omega4

It's great to see that golf doesn't have a monopoly on honesty and playing with honor.

It was really sad though to see those 12 year old girls question each others calls on just about every point during that recent USTA tournament that I watched. You'd hope that kids didn't learn to treat each other disrespectfully while playing tennis at such a young age.

I was watching a USTA match during the fall and it seemed like about half of the calls were followed by an "Are you sure?"

I just shook my head.

[omega4]

Originally Posted by NineMileSkid

I was watching a USTA match during the fall and it seemed like about half of the calls were followed by an "Are you sure?"

I just shook my head.

Completely agreed. I was watching in disbelief as these 12 year old girls were questioning practically every call of the other. Finally, a tournament director stepped in and had someone stand there to officiate the match.

I don't mean to suggest that golfers are completely without fault or that tennis players are honorless, since I know that isn't the case.

It's just that I've just seen many junior tournament golfers (boys and girls) calling penalties on themselves (e.g. their ball oscillated as they were addressing the ball on the green) that no one else would have seen (other than myself).

As a die-hard golfer, I'm extremely proud to see young golfers uphold for the most part the tradition and honor that golf is known for.