When your partner has the better view but you see it as "in"

[Cindysphinx]

Played doubles with a new partner. She was serving.

Opponent's flat groundstroke goes deep and wide to my partner. It was a good shot; partner is toward the middle of the court and can't reach it because of the angle. I turn to look. I see it on the doubles sideline and I give the hand signal for good. She calls it out. I tell her we have to give them the point because we disagree. We give them the point.

This happened twice more in that same (long) service game.

Which made me wonder if I was doing the wrong thing. After all, she is in a much better position to make the call than I am, as I am looking backward and across the line rather than down it. Then again, I genuinely saw the balls as in. Not on the outside of the line, right on the line. But it is her call to make, yet here I am overruling her from an inferior position on the court.

I have seen net players call the deep sidelines and baselines when their partners are better positioned to see the ball, but usually these net players are calling balls out rather than calling them in. As an opponent, I feel these calls by the net player are highly suspect, and more often than not the call goes against us.

So how do the rest of you handle this? If you are the net player, do you just let your partner call those deep and wide balls as out even if you think she might be wrong on the theory that it is her call to make? Should I be keeping my hand signals to myself until the two of us have talked it over?

[raiden031]

Originally Posted by Cindysphinx

I tell her we have to give them the point because we disagree.

I don't agree with this statement. There are many times where my partner makes an out call and I can't say I 'agree' with the call because I didn't see either way if it was out or in. I am putting faith into my partner making the right call. There is no rule that BOTH partners have to see the ball go out. If you think you see the ball in, that doesn't mean your partner isn't 100% sure it was out. Its possible you are wrong. I would say in this scenario that you should defer to your partner and let the out call stand, unless you are absolutely certain your partner made a bad call. But if you let the out call stand, you must defer quickly and if it takes too long to decide, then give the point to your opponent.

[Cindysphinx]

Raiden, what I mean is that if one partner signals good and the other signals in, that is a disagreement and the team *must* give the point to the other team per the Code. They can't talk it over and decide the ball was out.

I guess the only exception would be if I told the other team I got my hand signals confused and really meant to signal out, but of course that wasn't the case here.

And to be clear, if I didn't see the ball or was unsure, I would of course defer to my partner. In this case, I did see the ball clearly.

[Joeyg]

Raiden: You are wrong here. If one partner calls it good and the other out, the rules state that there is confusion and that the call goes to your opponent. Always!

[nytennisaddict]

When I'm returning against big servers (eg. 100+) on hard courts, I have a tendency to play alot of long balls. Unless I'm absolutely certain I saw the ball in, I will always defer to my partner. I think in this case it sounds like (from the way you described it) you weren't sure, but you took the singles good sportsman mindset, and called a ball good that you weren't sure of. In doubles you have the benefit of deferring to your partner (obviously if neither of you are sure, the call is in). As a receiving partner, particularly when playing with new folks, I try to be very quick about my call (presuming I'm standing on the service line, I probably have the better vantage for long balls), so I don't give my partner a chance to "call it good because they weren't sure". As a returner, if my partner is not calling the ball quick enough, and I'm finding myself unsure of calls, I'll ask them explicitly to help me watch the long service call.

I agree with the above posters if you're SURE you saw it in, and your partner was SURE (s)he saw it out, point goes to the other team.

[flash9]

If you plan to be "helping" your partner with these calls, you better have a discussion with them before the match begins explaining your position that if either of you see the ball as IN versus the other seeing it as OUT then you both must agree that it is your (as in both of you) intention to award the point to your opponents. I have seen my share of arguments between partners when one overrules the other. It can be uglier then when the disagreements on line calls are with a player on the other side of the net.

Best to discuss it before hand and ensure your partner will be OK with this policy!

I have even had this discussion with players I am playing with, in close proximity to our competitors so that they hear the discussion, and I have had a few then say to their partners that this is also how they want to play as well.

[OrangePower]

In the OP situation, if you clearly saw the ball out, you call it as such. You lose the point. End of story. Anything else is just dishonest.

On the other hand, if you suspect there's a chance it might have been out but you didn't see it clearly, and your partner is better positioned to see it, then you should defer to your partner's call.

[darkhorse]

If your partner has a better view, I'd say it's their call. I've had some partners ask me if a serve was wide on the far sideline, and I always say "It's your call" unless it's real obvious, but if its obvious there usually isn't a question. But if I can't tell and my partner can't tell, it's good.

You were right, though, if there is a disagreement between partners the ball has to be called good.

[Nellie]

Remember the end goal is to get the call right, not about following the proper procedure/etiquette. If your partner is wrong, correct him/her. I am sure that you are an honest and fair person, and the other team should respect your call, as should your partner. If you have any doubt, then the ball is good.

I had a situation once where my partner got ticked off because he called ball out and I was certain it was in the court because I had the better view. In that case, we could not agree, so the ball was called in. I don't play with that guy anymore.

[Steady Eddy]

If you give a 'split decision' it's good. Like you said. That's the rule, you can't say, "Well, let's call it out." But maybe you don't want to signal good. I mean, if you say nothing, that's implies good, but you haven't said "good". So doing it this way, if you thought good, but your partner says, "out", all your opponents see is your partner calling "out". No split. Then if you felt sure that it was on the line, you could talk to your partner. But if you've already signaled 'good', that's another story. There's no going back from there.

[Xisbum]

Originally Posted by flash9

If you plan to be "helping" your partner with these calls, you better have a discussion with them before the match begins explaining your position that if either of you see the ball as IN versus the other seeing it as OUT then you both must agree that it is your (as in both of you) intention to award the point to your opponents. I have seen my share of arguments between partners when one overrules the other. It can be uglier then when the disagreements on line calls are with a player on the other side of the net.

Best to discuss it before hand and ensure your partner will be OK with this policy!

I have even had this discussion with players I am playing with, close enough to our competitors so that they hear the discussion, and I have had a few then say to their partners that this is also how they want to play as well.

Right on. I always tell partners that if I am looking across a line, I cannot and will not confirm or overrule a close call because that view is always skewed. It has to be the other person's call. The only exception I would make on this call would be if the ball is way, way inside the line - like a foot. So, partner, it's your call - you have to make it and you have to make it decisively.

Just how I would handle it, of course.

[consistency wins]

You've already received a ton of info here, but I'll agree with the fact that if two partners cannot agree or decide quickly without a conversation about the call--the point is awarded to the other side of the net.

[blakesq]

I agree 100% with orangepower.


Many times I am unsure of a call, and if I am playing singles I will play it "in", according to the rules. However, in doubles, if i am unsure of a call, I will give my partner a questioning look, or I will simply say "I didn't see it" to my partner, and if my partner saw it out, he should call it "out", if he saw it in, or isn't sure it is in, then we call it "in".

If we are in the middle of the point, and either my partner or I hit a ball that is out, but the hitter is unable to call it out (because he or she is unsure), then if the non-hitting partner clearly saw it out, he should call it out.


A sticky situation occurs, if during the point, one guy sees it out, one sees it in, and the ball is still in play...then what happens? For instance, I hit the ball, and it looks in to me, my partner sees it out and yells "out", but I say "no, its in"...do we lose the point if it bothers the opponents or do we play a let? I always get confused on this particular issue.

Originally Posted by OrangePower

In the OP situation, if you clearly saw the ball out, you call it as such. You lose the point. End of story. Anything else is just dishonest.

On the other hand, if you suspect there's a chance it might have been out but you didn't see it clearly, and your partner is better positioned to see it, then you should defer to your partner's call.

[LawnChairGeneral]

Originally Posted by blakesq

A sticky situation occurs, if during the point, one guy sees it out, one sees it in, and the ball is still in play...then what happens? For instance, I hit the ball, and it looks in to me, my partner sees it out and yells "out", but I say "no, its in"...do we lose the point if it bothers the opponents or do we play a let? I always get confused on this particular issue.

The point should be over as soon as anyone calls it out. You disagree on the call and therefore lose the point.

I do not to call lines that my partner has a better angle on... especially if I am at the net and the call is at the baseline.

If you meet for a discussion about a call, then there is obviously doubt between you and your partner and the call must be good. Furthermore, any delay in the call puts doubt in your opponents mind.

If I am not in a position to make the call and am asked for clarification by our opponents I always say, "I agree with my partner." Usually ends all discussion right there.

[OrangePower]

Originally Posted by blakesq

A sticky situation occurs, if during the point, one guy sees it out, one sees it in, and the ball is still in play...then what happens? For instance, I hit the ball, and it looks in to me, my partner sees it out and yells "out", but I say "no, its in"...do we lose the point if it bothers the opponents or do we play a let? I always get confused on this particular issue.

Your opponents are entitled to the point. As soon as your partner calls it out and your opponents hear/see the call made, they potentially stop playing the point. To subsequently continue the point disadvantages them. Therefore the point is technically conceded to them.

However, in this situation, I've had opponents graciously decline the point and suggest that a let be played instead. If they were not at an advantage during the point I'll agree and give them props for good sportsmanship. When the situation is reversed I usually do the same - I'll offer to play a let even though I can technically claim the point.

[Cindysphinx]

Originally Posted by Steady Eddy

If you give a 'split decision' it's good. Like you said. That's the rule, you can't say, "Well, let's call it out." But maybe you don't want to signal good. I mean, if you say nothing, that's implies good, but you haven't said "good". So doing it this way, if you thought good, but your partner says, "out", all your opponents see is your partner calling "out". No split. Then if you felt sure that it was on the line, you could talk to your partner. But if you've already signaled 'good', that's another story. There's no going back from there.

Well, yeah. I mean, if the goal was to call as many close balls in our favor as possible, then neither of us should ever give a "good" hand signal. That reserves to us the ability to talk it over, and our opponents will not know there is a disagreement.

This strikes me as Too Cute By Half. I mean, as I said, I saw the ball *on the line.* Not maybe on the line. I was actually pretty surprised that she saw it out. Had it been close, I would have stood there hoping she got a good look at it and deferred to her call, which is frequently what happens.

I was thinking on it more, and the "good" hand signal in this situation in doubles really changes the dynamic, doesn't it? Say I hadn't signaled "good" but still saw the ball as squarely on the line. Partner calls it out. I then have to walk over, talk with her, and then get her to overrule herself or overrule her if she won't do it. Yuk. This is the thing that sets people off and leads to fights between partners. But if I give that "good" hand signal, then I get to hide behind the "disagreement between partners" rule and say "Ah, well, they saw me give the signal, so we have to give it to them." Partner sees it not as a direct overrule or insinuation that they are blind, but sees it as my making a mistake. Better, perhaps?

But yeah, maybe I should have discussed it with her. I don't discuss these things with people beforehand, preferring instead to believe everyone has read and understands the Code. This works fine. But after the first time with this lady, in addition to explaining the rule on disagreements, we should have gone over this. After all, if she didn't know the Code provision about disagreements, maybe she didn't know some other things too.

BTW, my statement that disagreeing partners "must" award the point to the opponent wasn't entirely accurate either. There is one more option. My partner and I can disagree, but then we can ask the opponents for help. If they saw it out, they are supposed to tell us that and give us the point. If they saw it in or didn't see it, we have to give them the point. Right?

I didn't think to do that.

[Cindysphinx]

Originally Posted by blakesq

I agree 100% with orangepower.
A sticky situation occurs, if during the point, one guy sees it out, one sees it in, and the ball is still in play...then what happens? For instance, I hit the ball, and it looks in to me, my partner sees it out and yells "out", but I say "no, its in"...do we lose the point if it bothers the opponents or do we play a let? I always get confused on this particular issue.

Code:

"12. Out calls corrected. If a player mistakenly calls a ball “out” and then
realizes it was good, the point shall be replayed if the player returned the ball
within the proper court. Nonetheless, if the player’s return of the ball results
in a “weak sitter,” the player should give the opponent the point. If the player
failed to make the return, the opponent wins the point. If the mistake was
made on the second serve, the server is entitled to two serves."

So no, you don't automatically lose the point. If you want to surrender the point for some sportsmanship reason, you are free to do so.

Me, I don't surrender the point. I play by the Code and play a let if the Code allows. Botched calls are part of the game and happen to everyone. Play a let if the Code allows (or grant a let to your opponents if they botched it) and be more careful next time.

[OrangePower]

Originally Posted by Cindysphinx

Code:

"12. Out calls corrected. If a player mistakenly calls a ball “out” and then
realizes it was good, the point shall be replayed if the player returned the ball
within the proper court. Nonetheless, if the player’s return of the ball results
in a “weak sitter,” the player should give the opponent the point. If the player
failed to make the return, the opponent wins the point. If the mistake was
made on the second serve, the server is entitled to two serves."

So no, you don't automatically lose the point. If you want to surrender the point for some sportsmanship reason, you are free to do so.

Me, I don't surrender the point. I play by the Code and play a let if the Code allows. Botched calls are part of the game and happen to everyone. Play a let if the Code allows (or grant a let to your opponents if they botched it) and be more careful next time.

Well then I stand corrected - the Code is after all the code.

However in this case I still believe that the Code is not fair. For example Cindy, say we are playing singles, on your serve. We are in a point and I have you scrambling from side to side. You are getting the balls back and they are not "weak sitters" in the sense that they are not neccessarily automatic put-aways, but I am able to stand in the middle of the court just inside the baseline and easily run you around. Clearly I am in control of the point and am much more likely than not to win the point. You call a ball out and then change your mind. If we play a let, you get to start the point again by serving, which actually gives you an advantage in the point. So basically your botched call turns the point from one which I am likely to win to one which you are likely to win. Just doesn't seem fair, does it?

Or perhaps it's all in the definition of "weak sitter"... to me, any ball that I'm able to get my racquet on I think of as a weak sitter (hence my 3-1 errors to winners margin)

[Cindysphinx]

Originally Posted by OrangePower

Well then I stand corrected - the Code is after all the code.

However in this case I still believe that the Code is not fair. For example Cindy, say we are playing singles, on your serve. We are in a point and I have you scrambling from side to side. You are getting the balls back and they are not "weak sitters" in the sense that they are not neccessarily automatic put-aways, but I am able to stand in the middle of the court just inside the baseline and easily run you around. Clearly I am in control of the point and am much more likely than not to win the point. You call a ball out and then change your mind. If we play a let, you get to start the point again by serving, which actually gives you an advantage in the point. So basically your botched call turns the point from one which I am likely to win to one which you are likely to win. Just doesn't seem fair, does it?

Or perhaps it's all in the definition of "weak sitter"... to me, any ball that I'm able to get my racquet on I think of as a weak sitter (hence my 3-1 errors to winners margin)

Yes, you're correct. This Code provision -- like any other -- has the potential to yield an unfair result in some situations.

I'm OK with that, even in the situation you describe. The reason is that even the pros must deal with botched line calls (reversed by the linesperson, chair or instant replay) that cost them a competitive advantage. We don't see their opponents giving them the point, and we don't see the victim throwing a huge tantrum. Everyone understands this happens, nothing can be done for it, and over time it will all even out.

So no, I wouldn't award you the point in the scenario you describe, although I would apologize profusely for my mistake. I would play to the Code, and I wouldn't expect you to toss points to me that I didn't earn under the Code.

[nytennisaddict]

Originally Posted by OrangePower

Or perhaps it's all in the definition of "weak sitter"...

The definition of "weak sitter" is too open to interpretation... if I call a ball out (eg. on a first serve) then realize it was good, I'll give my opponent the point. Seems like the code could be abused... eg. 4-4 30-30, keep calling big close serves out to rattle your opponent (eg. play a let as you get the ball back, hope they get rattled, and now take a look at a second serve).

In reality I probably never run into this much anymore because I presume the serve is in (mentally I'm thinking I want the first serve to be in, so I'm better prepared to return it), but I might (after returning) it, realize it was out and call it as such.

Any time I've made a mistake calling an "in" ball "out", it was probably because I was hoping the first serve would go out, in which case I deserved to lose anyway (eg. leaving results to fate vs. taking control of my destiny).