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

[OrangePower]

Originally Posted by Cindysphinx

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

True, there are many provisions that can yield an unfair result in a minority of situations, but that we accept because they work in most cases and seem to be the best overall compromise. In this particular case however, I don't see why the rule is not simply "you call a good ball out, you lose the point". I don't see any case where this is not 100% fair - the only person with the potential to be penalized is the person making the bad call in the first place.

Just because the Code is the code does not mean it is perfect or does not have potential for improvement - but granted, there can be no argument against someone following it to the letter.

[Cindysphinx]

Fair enough, Orange One. If I might be allowed to speculate . . .

I would guess that the reason the Code is written this way is because the natural reaction when you blow a line call is embarrassment. You made a mistake, right out in public. There are *a lot* of people who have a very hard time admitting when they make a mistake. They are consumed with saving face.

I think the drafters of the Code wanted to give these people an out and encourage them to correct themselves. These people can know they won't be penalized for doing the honorable thing, which makes them more likely to Step Up.

The Weak Sitter provision seems designed to give players something to argue about.

My sister was playing a 3.0 tournament singles match some years back when this Code provision came up. Late in third set tiebreak. She miscalled the service line and corrected her out call. She said they should play a let. Her opponents said the point was theirs. They discussed, with her pointing out that her partner had played the ball crosscourt to the baseline. The argument continued.

Roving official was summoned. Roving official listened to these undisputed facts and ruled: Point to the opponent because my sister caused the problem by making the mistake. When confronted with the rule, which my sister had pulled from her bag, the roving official decided that the return "must have been a weak sitter." My sister completely lost it -- geez, even roving officials don't know the rules -- and they went on to lose the tiebreak.

She's still mad. She wants her trophy!

[Crusher10s]

You do realize that the "Out Calls Corrected" section of The Code you quoted back on page one is dealing with an opponent's SERVE only right?

[Cindysphinx]

Originally Posted by Crusher10s

You do realize that the "Out Calls Corrected" section of The Code you quoted back on page one is dealing with an opponent's SERVE only right?

No, it isn't. It is under the section called "Making Calls" which also addresses things like disagreements between partners, giving benefit of the doubt and suchlike.

Dang, Crusher. You *scared* me there. I thought I had been doing it wrong all this time.

[blakesq]

Why are you calling balls "good" or giving hand signals indicating "good"? You are only supposed to call balls "out", if you don't call them out they are considered "in". Now, if your partner is closer to the ball, it seems to me she has a better view of it (especially since she was unable to get to it, and swing at it), and if she calls it out I would give her the benefit of the doubt, unless you are sure it was in, then in that case you would have to overrule her.

The thing about line calls is that reasonable people can differ on whether a ball is in or out. Thus, if the ball is close but I "think" it is in (but am not sure), but my partner is closer to the ball and calls it out, I would defer to my partner. Thats what I think you should have done.

Originally Posted by 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?

[robby c]

In a Dbls match we were receiving; two points in a row the opponents hard-hit shot landed just behind the baseline at the center serve mark. Both times the return player called out,and the net player called good.
It taught me that day that the closer player does indeed have a clearer view.
Unless you are convinced your partner missed the call ; defer. Don't call the far line for your partner.
Robby C

[Cindysphinx]

Originally Posted by blakesq

Why are you calling balls "good" or giving hand signals indicating "good"? You are only supposed to call balls "out", if you don't call them out they are considered "in". Now, if your partner is closer to the ball, it seems to me she has a better view of it (especially since she was unable to get to it, and swing at it), and if she calls it out I would give her the benefit of the doubt, unless you are sure it was in, then in that case you would have to overrule her.

The thing about line calls is that reasonable people can differ on whether a ball is in or out. Thus, if the ball is close but I "think" it is in (but am not sure), but my partner is closer to the ball and calls it out, I would defer to my partner. Thats what I think you should have done.

But Blake . . . I was sure it was on the line. Sure enough to give an immediate hand signal. Which leads us in a big circle to whether it is better to say nothing and overrule, or to lose the point to "disagreement between partners."

Regarding giving my partner the benefit of the doubt . . . the Code says I am to give my *opponents* the benefit of the doubt. The only doubt I had was whether this friend of mine has been hooking people on line calls all over the place, 'cause I don't know how she could have thought those balls were out, not once but three times.

But yes, I do use the hand signal for "good" quite a lot. I think it helps avoid scoring disputes, is generally good communication in noisy facilities, and is a courteous thing to do. Lots of people do not use that signal, which is fine. I appreciate it when my opponents use the "good" signal.

We're playing again tonight. Let's see what happens . . .

[Steady Eddy]

Originally Posted by Cindysphinx

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.


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?

Oops. I didn't mean to sound like I was giving ways of circumventing the rules. Just that it occurred to me that I'm not often in that situation, and that's probably because I don't often say "in" or "good", 'cause saying nothing is the same as "in" or "good". But my style does get me into the problem you described, i.e. a partner calling a good shout "out".

My advice (and this is going against everything I have read) is; support your partner. One day I joined 3 guys so we'd have 4 for doubles. They lobbed over the baseline, I said, "out". My 'partner' casually picked up the ball, and as he returned it said, "Jim, the ball was good" They're friends, I'm an outsider, (I knew it was out, also), and I couldn't have looked worse than if I'd have been caught stealing out of their tennis bag! That ruined the experience, and I'm always afraid of that happening again. I wouldn't do that to a partner I thought was a decent human being. These considerations far transcend the value of winning a point, IMO.

[tbini87]

when i am at the net in doubles i am looking at my opponents across the net, and not where their ball is landing. so i let my partner handle all those calls, and we never disagree. it would seem odd to me if a net person kept making calls during the match.

[baek57]

i really think you should be facing forward and let your partner make the call instead of turning your head to watch the ball and your partner.

[cak]

I defer to my partner when they have a better view of the ball.

I am lucky enough to be able to attend a few pro tournaments a year that utilize the "shot spot" technology. Here I am, sitting in the stands in what I consider good seats, and me, and heck, my whole section will be absolutely sure a line call made by the linesmen is wrong and shot spot will show they are right. Not to say the linesmen are always right, but they are right much more often than the folks in the stands are. It made me realize that sometimes my glancing angle view will show balls in that aren't even close. We got to test that theory a few times when we played right after the courts were washed, and we could check marks. I couldn't tell you how often the farther away player was wrong. Things look closer to the line, or even sometimes on the line to the person across the court when they are 3 inches out So if my partner is closer, they probably have a better view, and from where I'm standing I my eyes could be deceived. I let them make the call.

[Crusher10s]

"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."


-----------

^^^^^^This entire section is in reference to a SERVE that an opponent originally called OUT but then realized the SERVE was GOOD and how to handle the situation.

If the return was a weak sitter or out or in the net then the point is automatically given to the server. If the return was a good return then the server gets to start over with 2 serves.

[blakesq]

"This entire section is in reference to a SERVE that an opponent originally called OUT but then realized the SERVE was GOOD and how to handle the situation."

No its not. The whole section is titled "Principles", and it discusses the principles of tennis, not just the serve. The sub-section is titled "Making Calls". The first point under this subsection is: "5. Player makes calls on own side of the net. A player calls all shots landing on, or aimed at, the player’s side of the net." This is not about the serve.

Why do you think point 12, quoted below, is only about the serve?

Originally Posted by Crusher10s

"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."


-----------

^^^^^^This entire section is in reference to a SERVE that an opponent originally called OUT but then realized the SERVE was GOOD and how to handle the situation.

If the return was a weak sitter or out or in the net then the point is automatically given to the server. If the return was a good return then the server gets to start over with 2 serves.

[Cindysphinx]

This stuff is endlessly fascinating to me. It never occurred to me that anyone could possibly interpret Code Provision 12 as applying only to serves.

Crusher, I see your point, but I still disagree, for two reasons.

1. Rule 12 is in a section of the Code that deals with "Making Calls." The very next section is called "Serving." If Rule 12 dealt only with serves, it would be in the Serve Section like all the other things that deal only with serving, which is the following section. Indeed, the "Serving" section contains other rules about making calls that *do* pertain only to serving (Rule 25 and Rule 26, on "Service Calls In Doubles" and "Service Calls By Serving Team.")

2. In the very first sentence, Rule 12 talks about calling a "ball" out. It does not refer to calling a "serve" out. That suggests it applies to any ball, not just serves.

Hey, that's just my interpretation. Maybe someone knows of an official actual ruling or whatever on how this rule should be viewed. I've never heard anyone claim any of the provisions in "Making Calls" apply just to serves, but maybe that's just me. If I'm doing it wrong, I would surely want to know.

You know, it would be kind of weird not to apply Rule 12 to exchanges during a point, though. Say my partner calls a ball "out" in the middle of the point. I see it in and keep playing. Have the opponents been hindered? Well, the talking didn't occur while the shot was on the way to them, so it isn't technically a hindrance. In that case, if my my shot landed in, I would approach the net and we'd play a let. Same result if my opponents make the mistake. I've never had anyone say the rule only applies to serves. As a matter of logic, I don't see why it would.

Interesting point, Crusher.

Oh, and I played with this lady again today, both with her and against her. Her line calling was quite totally appropriate. In fact, we got on well together. Which means yesterday was a fluke, I guess. I see some combo matches in our future.

[raiden031]

Originally Posted by 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!

Here is from the code:

14. Partners' disagreement on calls. If a player and his partner disagree about whether their opponents' ball was out, they shall call it good. It is more important to give your opponents the benefit of the doubt than to avoid possibly hurting your partner's feelings by not overruling. The tactful way to achieve the desired result is to tell your partner quietly that he has made a mistake and then let him overrule himself. If a call is changed from out to good, the point is replayed only if the out ball was put back in play.

There is no difference between making no call and calling it good, because both result in the same outcome. Accidentally making a good call because you didn't see it well enough to make an OUT call is not disagreeing with your partner. So I don't think you are required to overrule your partner when you are unsure of the call and your partner is 100% sure it is out.

[Cindysphinx]

Originally Posted by raiden031

There is no difference between making no call and calling it good, because both result in the same outcome. Accidentally making a good call because you didn't see it well enough to make an OUT call is not disagreeing with your partner. So I don't think you are required to overrule your partner when you are unsure of the call and your partner is 100% sure it is out.

Raiden, I totally lost you there with the bold bit. There is no such thing as "accidentally making a good call" unless you just mix up your hand signals for a nanosecond. You call the ball good and you are stuck with that. Making a change would be an expression of doubt, and we all know what that means.

I think that if you are unsure of the call (because you didn't get a good look at it and therefore have no opinion) but your partner says it was out, then the ball is out. There is nothing that requires a player to have an opinion on whether a ball was in or out. So that part of your argument is correct. You can stand on your partner's call if you didn't see the ball.

The rule about disagreements deals with situations where there is, you know, a disagreement. If you make a good hand signal, the opponents will be tipped off that you thought the ball was good. Your goose is cooked, as you'd look like quite the heel if you said you were reversing your good call to no call. That's the easy case, and I have taken points from people when one hand shoots down for good and one finger gets waved for out.

If you make no hand signal but saw the ball clearly in and know your partner is wrong, you are honor-bound to correct your partner. In that case, there is a disagreement, and point goes to the opponent, IMHO.

[tbini87]

Originally Posted by Cindysphinx

Raiden, I totally lost you there with the bold bit. There is no such thing as "accidentally making a good call" unless you just mix up your hand signals for a nanosecond. You call the ball good and you are stuck with that. Making a change would be an expression of doubt, and we all know what that means.

I think that if you are unsure of the call (because you didn't get a good look at it and therefore have no opinion) but your partner says it was out, then the ball is out. There is nothing that requires a player to have an opinion on whether a ball was in or out. So that part of your argument is correct. You can stand on your partner's call if you didn't see the ball.

The rule about disagreements deals with situations where there is, you know, a disagreement. If you make a good hand signal, the opponents will be tipped off that you thought the ball was good. Your goose is cooked, as you'd look like quite the heel if you said you were reversing your good call to no call. That's the easy case, and I have taken points from people when one hand shoots down for good and one finger gets waved for out.

If you make no hand signal but saw the ball clearly in and know your partner is wrong, you are honor-bound to correct your partner. In that case, there is a disagreement, and point goes to the opponent, IMHO.

cindy, do you try to watch as many balls as possible and make calls on them? it seems to me like you should not make any calls until your partner makes a call you KNOW was completely wrong. also, do you usually use a hand gesture for a good ball by your opponent. i do on occasion when it is close, but not very often. i personally think it is easiest to let your partner let her call her balls, and you focus on your opponents, and vice versa. if for some reason you see the ball clearly and need to overrule then fine, but hopefully that is a small percentage of the time (unless you know your partner calls bad lines of course).

[Cindysphinx]

I dunno, tbini. I see what I see, I call what I see. If I'm looking, I'm more likely to see.

It seems to me that the most important thing is accuracy. If I see it in, I will call it in.

I've played a fair amount of tennis, and this is the first time I have had this issue come up repeatedly. It didn't recur the second time we played. In all instances, we got the calls right. I'm OK with that.

[raiden031]

Originally Posted by Cindysphinx

Raiden, I totally lost you there with the bold bit. There is no such thing as "accidentally making a good call" unless you just mix up your hand signals for a nanosecond. You call the ball good and you are stuck with that. Making a change would be an expression of doubt, and we all know what that means.

Since signalling balls as good is not a rule and not even mentioned in the section I pasted, I don't think people should be held by those as evidence of disagreement between partners. This being because a signal of good can also mean that the player did not see where the ball landed and doesn't want to cheat their opponents.

The only time I agree that the opponent gets the point is if the partners show clear disagreement through dialogue. Where one actually believes it was good and the other believes it was out.

[Cindysphinx]

Boy, Raiden. If you and I were playing and you signaled good and then tried to take it back, we'd have a real problem. Every time I see it, I stroll toward the net. By the time I get there, I expect my opponents to have given me the point. If they don't, I say something like, "I'm sorry, but Becky saw it good and Susie called it out, so it's our point." Their only escape is for Becky to tell a bald-faced lie, and I haven't met anyone yet who is willing to do it.

It's all academic anyway, though. If you are sure you saw it good but didn't use a hand signal, you'd own up to that and overrule your partner. That's true of everyone here, right?