How sure must you be?

[Majik]

How sure must you be when calling balls out? I mean, it seems a little pretentious to say you're 100% sure of anything. Afterall, you're going on your memory of what you thought you saw. It seems there is a slight chance that you're seeing what you want to see. So if we're not talking about 100% certainty, then what is acceptable? When we ask the opponent whether he's "sure" or not, what are we asking him to do but to reevaluate the basis of his decision, did he actually see court when the ball touched the ground, or how the ball came up off the court far from the line, etc.

[damazing]

If you are not sure then the ball was in. If you have no doubt, like if you are standing beyond the baseline and the ball bounces past your feet then you can be sure the ball is out.

[tennis tom]

Originally Posted by Majik

How sure must you be when calling balls out?

As sure as you are of the accuracy of your eyesight. Your eyes are controlled by tiny muscles, it is just as important to develop them as any other aspect of your game, maybe it is the MOST fundamentally important aspect.

***********************
'I mean, it seems a little pretentious to say you're 100% sure of anything.'

Ah, moral relativism comes to Tennis Talk; how sure are you of how to spell your name? 80%, 90%, 99%--do you sometimes spell it wrong?

***********************

'Afterall, you're going on your memory of what you thought you saw. It seems there is a slight chance that you're seeing what you want to see.'

With some people it's a BIG chance--they are called delusional or CHEATERS.

************************
'So if we're not talking about 100% certainty, then what is acceptable?'

In honest tennis only 100% is acceptable.

***********************
' When we ask the opponent whether he's "sure" or not, what are we asking him to do but to reevaluate the basis of his decision, did he actually see court when the ball touched the ground, or how the ball came up off the court far from the line, etc.'

Tennis is a game of second chances, when we ask "Are you sure?", we are, in a nice way, saying "You are a cheating, thieving liar. I'm giving you one last chance to give me that point before I condemn you to eternal damnation, you dick-hole".

As long as one hair on that ball hit the line, it's GOOD!

[Larrysümmers]

Originally Posted by tennis tom

As long as one hair on that ball hit the line, it's GOOD!

fed knows that all to well

[darkhorse]

My personal rule is that if I don't immediately call it out, it's in. If I have to stand there and think about for more than a split second, then I can't call the ball out.

[ProgressoR]

sometimes on serves, you have to play the ball and then only realise it was long, i often do that on close serve calls.

[Jim A]

Originally Posted by darkhorse

My personal rule is that if I don't immediately call it out, it's in. If I have to stand there and think about for more than a split second, then I can't call the ball out.

I was in this boat yesterday where by the time I realized the ball was out it was far too late to call it...

to the OP at times I would say my opponent was working at 0.01% as there were a few balls hit towards the sideline where I could still see the color of the court between ball/sideline

[jswinf]

I'd say it's like "if you have to ask how much the yacht costs, you can't afford it." (I don't have a yacht.)

If you have to think about whether it was out or not, call it in. Or rather, don't call it anything. Sometimes I've had an opponent make a strangled cry when I hit a shot near the line and I stop playing, thinking it was called out, and they say "no, I called it good." The proper call for good is (silence) and play the ball. If you can't reach it, OK, call it good then.

[North]

[quote=Majik;4677621]It seems there is a slight chance that you're seeing what you want to see.

I think it is probably more than a slight chance. Just my opinion, but I don't think most people outright cheat on line calls. I think many players have such an emotional/psychological investment in winning that their brains "see" close balls as out. No doubt about the call even occurs because the subconscious stuff going on is so powerful. There is lots of research on the phenomenon in terms of witnesses to a single crime who give wildy different versions of events that have a lot to do with biases, preconceived notions, personal needs, etc. This is why when people who give terrible line calls are asked if they are sure, they almost invariably say yes.

In addition, most of us simply do not see the ball well when both we and it are in motion (which is on nearly every call) - try reading a newspaper while walking or going up or down stairs.





So if we're not talking about 100% certainty, then what is acceptable?

We are talking about 100% certainty. Nothing else is acceptable.

[tennis tom]

Originally Posted by ProgressoR

sometimes on serves, you have to play the ball and then only realise it was long, i often do that on close serve calls.

If it disrupts the rhythm of the server, you should offer to play a first serve.

[Majik]

Originally Posted by jc4.0

Please, for the love of god, call the ball GOOD if you cannot with 100% certainty call it in. If you hesitate for even a fraction of a second, then the ball is GOOD. If your opponent doesn't give you the same courtesy, don't play with them anymore. If you're playing on clay, you can ask for a second look at the mark - but that's probably not going to resolve it. Half the time, the person can't even identify the correct mark. Just err on the side of your opponent, and you'll sleep well at night (and have more good people to play with).

Is that what the USTA states, "100%" certain? The difficult calls are those that are close and are moving too fast. Very rarely does your eye actually see the instant when the ball touches the ground. Instead you go by trajectory, or when the ball comes up off the ground giving say a 4 inch skid. So in those instances, I think it is pretentious to think you're certain by 100% because you're only going on partial information, trajectory etc. Still you have some certainty that the must have been out even though you did not actually see the crush of the ball as it hit the ground. So for me the question remains.

[ProgressoR]

yeh, i generally only call out when 100% sure its out, sometimes i play on when i am not sure and the opponent stops the point, as he saw it out. Then its a little awkward as i am ready to carry on the rally and he has stopped, so i kind of act like i knew it was out all the time, sometimes i call a feeble "yeh that was just out" and hope he hasnt noticed i am crouched in the ready position bouncing on my feet.

[Majik]

Originally Posted by jc4.0

Yes, the USTA actually says that if the ball is 99.9% out, then it's "in". It's true that sometimes when the ball lands right at your feet it's difficult to see. If you didn't see it, then the ball is "good". If there is even a tiny shred of doubt about the call, give your opponent the benefit of doubt. Wouldn't you want your opponent to do that for you?

What I don't want is for my opponent calling obvious good balls out, or balls that clearly paint the line out. Apart from that he may call it out if he wishes.

[West Coast Ace]

Originally Posted by darkhorse

My personal rule is that if I don't immediately call it out, it's in. If I have to stand there and think about for more than a split second, then I can't call the ball out.

Well said. I have a friend I play with almost every week. He'll occasionally do the 'stare' - bugs me a little - but I think all in all he's pretty 'forgiving' with his calls - as I am - so I don't worry about it.

Originally Posted by jc4.0

If you hesitate for even a fraction of a second, then the ball is GOOD. If your opponent doesn't give you the same courtesy, don't play with them anymore.

I agree 100%

Originally Posted by jc4.0

Please, for the love of god, ...

And atheists!

Originally Posted by Majik

What I don't want is for my opponent calling obvious good balls out, or balls that clearly paint the line out.

If he does and
wins either congratulate him on his great hooking skills - or refuse to shake his hand. He might get the message.

[Cindysphinx]

If it was close, it was good.

[J_R_B]

You have to be 100% certain that you saw it out. Of course no one's eyesight is infallible.

[raiden031]

If you have any doubt, then its good. Thats not a difficult way to assess the situation. If you have to think more than this and are still calling it out, consider yourself a line hooker.

I'd say it's like "if you have to ask how much the yacht costs, you can't afford it." (I don't have a yacht.)

Sorry but this is a terrible analogy. I want to know what everything I buy costs, doesn't mean I can't afford it. BTW, I can't afford a yacht, but thats irrelevant.

[jswinf]

^^^^C'mon, it might not be a great analogy, but it's not that bad. The point's not really the cost but the certainty.

Originally Posted by Majik

So for me the question remains.

If a question remains, it's good.

[tennis tom]

Originally Posted by Majik

Is that what the USTA states, "100%" certain?

The code says if there is ANY doubt, you award the point to your opponent.

I play on my club's challenge court a lot and use it for practice to improve my technique and prepare for tournaments. I'll be serving in doubles and I can see my first serve long. I can see the gap between the service line and the ball by inches. The returner isn't sure and is looking at his partner for help. His partner right on the line is looking dumbfounded. I know my serve was long and I just go into my service motion for a second serve. I made the call for them, relieving them of the responsibility.

For me it's practice and just not worth the hassle of convening a meeting at the net to discuss it. I just want to get on with it. If it were a tournament, I would "play the call",--my opponent's call. I have good eyesight from playing for years. Some people don't have good eyesight--drinking doesn't help one's eyesight.

[Delano]

Originally Posted by Majik

Is that what the USTA states, "100%" certain? The difficult calls are those that are close and are moving too fast. Very rarely does your eye actually see the instant when the ball touches the ground. Instead you go by trajectory, or when the ball comes up off the ground giving say a 4 inch skid. So in those instances, I think it is pretentious to think you're certain by 100% because you're only going on partial information, trajectory etc. Still you have some certainty that the must have been out even though you did not actually see the crush of the ball as it hit the ground. So for me the question remains.

I'm going to agree with the majority of the comments here - there *is* certainty in this situation: you must call the ball good. I agree that the question remains on whether the ball was actually in or out, but no question remains on how you should call it.