The Code Violation Registry

[Cindysphinx]

My last singles match had several weird Code moments:

1. My opponent hit a first serve from the deuce court. I wasn't sure whether the serve was long or not (especially since I was wearing my glasses instead of contacts and therefore can't see straight down quite as well), so I played a nice deep return to the ad court. My opponent made no move to play the ball and prepared to serve from the deuce court again. When she saw me waling over to the ad court to receive, she said "The serve was out" and gestured with her hands that it was out by a lot. I said "I thought it caught the line, so I played it. So it's my point." She said, "But it was out."

I motioned her to the net and explained the rule about calling first serves out. Then I offered to play a let (on account of how I was winning 4-1 and she was a nice lady). I won the point anyway.

2. I hit a deep lob and began moving to the net. I believed it was sailing out. When the ball bounced, she yelled something I couldn't hear, which I took to be an "out" call. For some reason, she played the ball from deep behind the baseline, a weak sitter. I was at net, and feeling a little annoyed that she was sending me the ball even though she was serving, I gently returned the ball back toward the ad court where she would next serve. As it turns out, my lob was not out; she was calling it "in." But it was my point because my gentle return was a winner. Weird. Who calls balls "in" in the middle of a point?

3. When my ball was out, she raised one finger. When my ball was barely in, she often raised her hand, which to a player wearing six-year-old glasses with the wrong prescription looks a lot like one finger. I've never seen a raised hand used as an "in" signal.

[Hoot]

One of my players had the same thing happen on the serve. They guy hit a serve and my guy returned a winner. The server called it out and played a second serve. My player did not know the rules and let him play the second serve. He now knows the rules.

[blakesq]

What is this rule, is it different from the rule about calling second serves out?

Blakesq

[quote=Cindysphinx;1389134]My last singles match had several weird Code moments:

snip

I motioned her to the net and explained the rule about calling first serves out.

[HellBunni]

the rule is that you call your side of the court. you can conceive the point if you think your ball was out, but on a serve the receiver's call is final.

[Cindysphinx]

The rule is that the server cannot call his own first serve out. The receiver may be giving the benefit of the doubt. If the server fails to hit the return, it is the receiver's point.

The server may call his own second serve out, thereby conceding the point.

If the receiver isn't sure and requests the server's help, I imagine that the server could then say he saw the first serve out (or in for an ace), and receiver must accept the server's opinion.

[cghipp]

Originally Posted by HellBunni

the rule is that you call your side of the court. you can conceive the point if you think your ball was out, but on a serve the receiver's call is final.

I think the word you're looking for is "concede."

[HellBunni]

yep yep, hehe. No word check, at least it sounded right, lolz

[Raiden.Kaminari]

Originally Posted by Cindysphinx

The rule is that the server cannot call his own first serve out. The receiver may be giving the benefit of the doubt. If the server fails to hit the return, it is the receiver's point.

Mostly correct. The only time a server can call his/her own first serve out is when the opponent fails to make a return.

[Raiden.Kaminari]

By the way, I'm see some unfamiliarity with the ITF rules, but I don't really see any code violations in your original post.

[Cindysphinx]

Originally Posted by Raiden.Kaminari

By the way, I'm see some unfamiliarity with the ITF rules, but I don't really see any code violations in your original post.

From the Code:

26. Service calls by serving team. Neither the Server nor Server’s partner
shall make a fault call on the first service even if they think it is out
because the Receiver may be giving the Server the benefit of the doubt. But
the Server and the Server’s partner shall call out any second serve that either clearly sees out.

AND

28. 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. On the other hand, if a player does not call a serve a fault and gives the opponent the benefit of a close call, the Server is not entitled to replay the point.

[beernutz]

Originally Posted by Raiden.Kaminari

Mostly correct. The only time a server can call his/her own first serve out is when the opponent fails to make a return.

Source?

<><<

[Hoot]

Originally Posted by Cindysphinx

From the Code:

26. Service calls by serving team. Neither the Server nor Server’s partner
shall make a fault call on the first service even if they think it is out
because the Receiver may be giving the Server the benefit of the doubt. But
the Server and the Server’s partner shall call out any second serve that either clearly sees out.

AND

28. 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. On the other hand, if a player does not call a serve a fault and gives the opponent the benefit of a close call, the Server is not entitled to replay the point.

Don't question Cindy. She knows her stuff!

[skiracer55]

Originally Posted by Cindysphinx

From the Code:

26. Service calls by serving team. Neither the Server nor Server’s partner
shall make a fault call on the first service even if they think it is out
because the Receiver may be giving the Server the benefit of the doubt. But
the Server and the Server’s partner shall call out any second serve that either clearly sees out.

AND

28. 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. On the other hand, if a player does not call a serve a fault and gives the opponent the benefit of a close call, the Server is not entitled to replay the point.

...but there's something a little strange about The Code that I never noticed before. Col. Nick Powel says the following:


"Before reading this you might well ask yourself: Since we have a book that contains all the rules of tennis, why do we need a code? Isn't it sufficient to know and understand all the rules? There are a number of things not specifically set forth in the rules that are covered by custom and tradition only. For example, if you have a doubt on a line call, your opponent gets the benefit of the doubt. Can you find that in the rules? Further, custom dictates the standard procedures that players will use in reaching decisions. These are the reasons we need a code....The principles set forth in The Code shall apply in cases not specifically covered by the ITF Rules of Tennis and USTA Regulations. "

I mean, that sounds like something out of the Twilight Zone, which is where I think a lot of USTA league tennis is heading. If The Code is so critical to non-umpired matches...and I'm not saying it isn't...why not just make The Code an appendix to the ITF Rules and the USTA Regs? After the Code gets reviewed, of course. To me, it makes absolutely no sense to say that the server (and/or partner) can't make a call on the first serve, but can make one on a second serve...

[cghipp]

Originally Posted by skiracer55

To me, it makes absolutely no sense to say that the server (and/or partner) can't make a call on the first serve, but can make one on a second serve...

If the server hit a weak first serve and the receiver blasted it for a winner, the server could in theory call the first serve out if that were allowed, and s/he would have another chance. If you call your own second serve out, you're conceding the point altogether.

[skiracer55]

Originally Posted by cghipp

If the server hit a weak first serve and the receiver blasted it for a winner, the server could in theory call the first serve out if that were allowed, and s/he would have another chance. If you call your own second serve out, you're conceding the point altogether.

...because now you're getting into different intents on the part of the server. I call my first serve out because the receiver pastes a winner, and I'm essentially a cheater. I call my second serve out because I'm a really nice guy. I guess that's my whole problem with The Code, is that it's a way of trying to make people Do The Right Thing because the rules aren't enough. If the rules aren't enough, then maybe there's a problem with the way people play the game of tennis these days. I've played tournament tennis since I was about 12...which, I hate to admit, is over 45 years, and I've never gotten into the kind of situations we're talking about in this thread.

The way I've always played it is the only way that I think you can consistently do business: the ball bounces on your side, it's your call. I can question your call, but that's it. If it's a non-umpired match, I can call for the tournament referee or director, or whatever, if things get really out of hand. But if it gets to the point where somebody's obviously cheating me out of a match, it ain't tennis no more and I ain't playing. You want a match that bad, it's yours. I have better things to do...

[Cindysphinx]

It's kind of silly for the server to call the serve out. The receiver is much closer and usually in a better position to make the call. Why should serving be the one time when the party at the other baseline can start making line calls?

[Islandtennis]

"By the way, I'm see some unfamiliarity with the ITF rules, but I don't really see any code violations in your original post."

"Don't question Cindy. She knows her stuff!"


I think Raiden was meaning that what Cindy's opponent did was not legal and did not follow the code, but it was not a "code violation." A code violation results in a point, game, and default penalty under the point penalty system in an officiated match.

[Cindysphinx]

Nah, I only meant violations of "The Code." It wasn't an officiated match, of course.

[beernutz]

Originally Posted by skiracer55

To me, it makes absolutely no sense to say that the server (and/or partner) can't make a call on the first serve, but can make one on a second serve...

I don't understand your disagreement with this either. Do you think that servers SHOULD be able to call their own first serves out?

If that were the case, you would then be letting the server, who has a much poorer view of the ball than the receiver, dictate which serves the receiver has to play. The server is already in a much more powerful position than the receiver--why give them any more power?

The current rule on making first serves calls is very clear and follows with the overall rule guidelines that players are responsible for making all calls on their side of the court. The second serve rule is an exception to this guideline, but only because the server would be conceding a point if they make that call on themselves.

[sureshs]

OK, code experts, who is allowed to call let on a serve?