The Unready Receiver's Partner

[gmatheis]

Originally Posted by Cindysphinx

I think it is good practice to give a clear indication when you are not ready. Why make the server read your mind?

I have had servers serve to my partner when I was not ready. I kind of which my partners would take note of whether I am ready and hold up a racket. Unless they are planning to win that particular point all by themselves, that is.

It doesn't take a mind reader to see the person's back is turned

this really is pathetic ...

[RoddickAce]

Originally Posted by woodrow1029

Technically, yes, when she played the return, she indicated that they were ready. Unfortunately, even though Cindy's partner was completey wrong for serving when she did, they could have claimed the point. However, by them conceding and not claiming the point, but taking a first serve instead, to me they are admitting maybe they were wrong. In which case, I think they should have either claimed the point, or played a second serve. I don't agree with the first serve.

Good point.

[Cindysphinx]

Woodrow,

You are technically right that the two most correct choices are claim the point or take a second serve.

In the real world, there is a third, compromise choice: Cut people some slack already and just replay the whole point.

I mean, there is no official present. If I dig in my heels and insist on the point and opponent digs in her heels and insists on second serve, we have a stalemate. So I guess you terminate the match and file a grievance -- a grievance my partner and I would have won.

Better, I think, is to just get on with it and replay the entire point.

It seems bush to say that anyone who doesn't go to the mat on every little rule violation is "admitting they were wrong." Sometimes ya gotta go along to get along.

[cll30]

So Cindy's team could have claimed the point, but since she was generous enough not to they only get a second serve? Time for Woodrow to retire.

[Cindysphinx]

And um . . . I'm going to defend my partner a little bit here.

I am 100% certain she didn't serve when she did because she is Evil and was seeking to pull some kind of trick. She said she looked at the receiver and saw she was ready. She also said (at the changeover) something like, "I saw her step toward the net, but people move around all the time. I didn't know she was going to turn around."

See, when there's a ball in the bottom of the net, what do most folks do? They leave it, or they clear it. When they clear it, they step forward and roll the ball into the side curtain or pocket it, stepping backward to their position as quickly as possible so as not to disturb the server's rhythm. They often say, "Hold up" or "wait." They really shouldn't lolligag.

It is totally weird and unexpected for the net player to turn her back to clear a ball like that. I don't understand why some of you are being so harsh on my partner that she didn't recognize what was happening.

[dizzlmcwizzl]

Woodrow ... he is only interpreting the rules. When he became aware that he had made a mistake he changed the call. To me this is the mark of a good official.

To the sphyinx ... I love your threads and usually side with your oppinions on league play.

However, I cannot agree with any scenario where your team takes advantage of an opponent who is clearing the court of a tennis ball and then claims to be magnanomous by only taking a first serve instead of an unearned point.

Originally Posted by cll30

So Cindy's team could have claimed the point, but since she was generous enough not to they only get a second serve? Time for Woodrow to retire.

That's pretty far out there.

[Cindysphinx]

Originally Posted by dizzlmcwizzl

Woodrow ... he is only interpreting the rules. When he became aware that he had made a mistake he changed the call. To me this is the mark of a good official.

To the sphyinx ... I love your threads and usually side with your oppinions on league play.

However, I cannot agree with any scenario where your team takes advantage of an opponent who is clearing the court of a tennis ball and then claims to be magnanomous by only taking a first serve instead of an unearned point.

It is not an unearned point. Not under the rules/code. Woodrow, to his considerable credit, has said as much. Point to the server.

But you are right that it doesn't feel right. And I wouldn't want there to be hard feelings. And we came there to play, not argue. And we are dealing with three people (server, receiver and receiver's partner) who screwed up. Server shouldn't have served, receiver shouldn't have struck the return, and receiver's partner should get the server's attention and not turn her back to clear a ball.

We worked out a reasonable solution -- replay the point. So how did I become the bad guy again?

Originally Posted by Cindysphinx

It is not an unearned point. Not under the rules/code. Woodrow, to his considerable credit, has said as much. Point to the server.

But you are right that it doesn't feel right. And I wouldn't want there to be hard feelings. And we came there to play, not argue. And we are dealing with three people (server, receiver and receiver's partner) who screwed up. Server shouldn't have served, receiver shouldn't have struck the return, and receiver's partner should get the server's attention and not turn her back to clear a ball.

We worked out a reasonable solution -- replay the point. So how did I become the bad guy again?

YOure not the bad guy. Your partner should not have served when she did.

[jht32]

Originally Posted by Cindysphinx

We didn't claim the point. We could have IMHO, but we didn't. The Code seems clear that a receiver who isn't ready cannot make any attempt to hit the return.

What I don't get is why the lady who had her back turned didn't just do a split step and play the point. That's what I would have done. I guess I think it's very dangerous to interrupt points in progress for any reason other than a ball rolling onto court, but that's just me.

Dangerous? Let's not go overboard here. And it's not dangerous to serve to the other team when one of the players has their back to you.

I just cannot imagine how the server could not notice that the receiver's partner is still walking back to position and how the server could start serving.

[doubleshack]

Originally Posted by woodrow1029

YOure not the bad guy. Your partner should not have served when she did.

What a great thread. The nuances of this are fun to work through. Woodrow1029 is never wrong when it comes to the rules. Wait, let me rephrase that, I've never seen Woodrow1029 be wrong. Rich Kaufman might be able to find something, but I never will. Whoever said Woodrow1029 should retire has clearly not read all the thoughtful posts that have been made by Woodwow1029.

Anyway, in my opinion, in this case the receiver returned the ball, so they were ready. Kudos to all the people who make sure both players are ready, but you are going above and beyond. Yes, that makes you awesome, but that doesn't mean I have to do it as well. It is the receiver's responsibility to make sure their partner is ready, not the server.

It should have been point -> Cindysphinx. I think everyone is agreement with that. The question then becomes, since she conceded the point should be replayed due to the receiver's partner wasn't ready, should it be first or second serve. Ok, now we are outside the rules at this point, since the rules say point-> Cindysphinx. So, we are voting. And I will vote with Cindysphinx, first serve. They decided to replay the point. When you replay a point, it is first serve. I don't think the rules are clear as to first serve or second in this situation. So, it's a vote, and I vote first serve as they are replaying the point.

[kylebarendrick]

[rant] Way too many people expect (and often demand) a first serve for the most pathetic delays. You missed your first serve fair and square. Hit a second and don't look for an excuse to start over. If people played more singles (and I'm primarily a doubles player too) and had to clear more balls themselves they'd whine less about delays between serves.[/rant]

I don't start my service motion until I see both opponents ready. Once I start, I'm not really looking at either one of them so if the partner turned around to do something (including clear the ball) I'd be serving anyway. If they shout "hold on" then no problem. If they just start wandering around then I'm not likely to be sympathetic to their claims of unreadiness.

[dizzlmcwizzl]

Originally Posted by Cindysphinx

But you are right that it doesn't feel right. And I wouldn't want there to be hard feelings. And we came there to play, not argue. And we are dealing with three people (server, receiver and receiver's partner) who screwed up. Server shouldn't have served, receiver shouldn't have struck the return, and receiver's partner should get the server's attention and not turn her back to clear a ball.

We worked out a reasonable solution -- replay the point. So how did I become the bad guy again?

I realize you can tell the story so that yes, the returner hit the ball with her racket, so you should win the point ... however, if we were watching the match and someone hit a serve while one of the opponents had their back turned, as observers we would call that classless... Even if you could find an obscure rule that gave you the point.

While you say the receivers partner screwed up I would say one of the universal signals for "I am not ready" is to have your back to the opponents.

I agree that the correct resolution was to replay the point ... but I felt from the original telling of this story you took a position that "we cut them a break" by only taking a first serve and not the point.

[dizzlmcwizzl]

As for the rule ... I believe that most rules are written so that disputes can be settled on the court, by non officials after an infraction has occurred.

In this case that meant that the rules were written to identify the only measure of readiness that could be found, after the fact. Specifically, did the returner hit the ball ... if yes then point to server ... if no then replay the point. If there was any way to definitely measure the readiness of every player after the point was played, I am sure that would be written into the rules.

However, this does not make what your team did right, just within a strict interpretation of rules. You acknowledge that the opponent was not ready, as you saw her with her back turned.

If this had been an officiated match the umpire would have stopped play immediately .... and you would have had a second serve, not a first. To me, the generous thing to do was acknowledge that you erred in serving when she was clearly not ready and take a second serve.

[sundaypunch]

If this is a friendly league match, why not just let Cindy's team have a first serve? If I was the receiving team I would be unhappy to have the opposite team claim a point on a serve when my partner was clearing a ball. Conversely, if I don't want that point to count, I would never tell them they lost their first serve.

It would seem to be common courtesy to play a let. If it's a "do over" give them a first serve and get on with the match.

[sundaypunch]

Also, I believe there is a Jon Lovitz "court calls" that deals with this situation. The receiver is ready and the partner is tying their shoes. I believe the call is that if the receiver is ready then it doesn't matter what the partner does.

As Cindy said, the receiver hit the serve back which indicates she was ready. The strict interpretation of the rules is as Cindy said - they get the point. The friendly interpretation is to play a let. I don't see any reason they should lose their first serve. The receiving team is out nothing with the "do over"

[dizzlmcwizzl]

Originally Posted by sundaypunch

Also, I believe there is a Jon Lovitz "court calls" that deals with this situation. The receiver is ready and the partner is tying their shoes. I believe the call is that if the receiver is ready then it doesn't matter what the partner does.

As Cindy said, the receiver hit the serve back which indicates she was ready. The strict interpretation of the rules is as Cindy said - they get the point. The friendly interpretation is to play a let. I don't see any reason they should lose their first serve. The receiving team is out nothing with the "do over"

I agree that replaying the point is the fair thing ... but it was already a second serve ... so they did not lose their first serve during the exchange, as they had already lost that ... instead they gained a first serve through the exchange.

[sundaypunch]

Originally Posted by dizzlmcwizzl

I agree that replaying the point is the fair thing ... but it was already a second serve ... so they did not lose their first serve during the exchange, as they had already lost that ... instead they gained a first serve through the exchange.

That is my bad. I thought it happened on a first serve. I agree with you - they should not gain a first serve here. The "friendly league match" thing to do is to replay the second serve.

[Cindysphinx]

Originally Posted by dizzlmcwizzl

I realize you can tell the story so that yes, the returner hit the ball with her racket, so you should win the point ... however, if we were watching the match and someone hit a serve while one of the opponents had their back turned, as observers we would call that classless... Even if you could find an obscure rule that gave you the point.

While you say the receivers partner screwed up I would say one of the universal signals for "I am not ready" is to have your back to the opponents.

I agree that the correct resolution was to replay the point ... but I felt from the original telling of this story you took a position that "we cut them a break" by only taking a first serve and not the point.

You know I think you're awesome, right? But I really think we are wandering off a cliff at this point.

The receiver is the one who has to be ready. It doesn't matter whether the partner is turning her back, fixing her skirt, blowing her nose, tying her shoe. If the receiver is ready, the receiving team is ready, and the person with the responsibility to see that her team is ready is the receiver.

The receiver should have held her racket up, or said something. Failing that, she should have let the ball go past her and not play it.

All of this mess is the fault of the receiver. She probably did not notice her partner not being ready. That is understandable. Loss of point would teach her a lesson.

The only way we are at fault and should have to hit a second serve is if my partner *knew* the receiver's partner wasn't ready and served anyway. That would be nasty gamesmanship, and we shouldn't profit from it.

That didn't happen.

So yes. We most definitely cut them a break. Anytime the rules say it is your point and you volunteer not to take the point out of sportsmanship, you are cutting the opponent a break.

[Cindysphinx]

Originally Posted by jht32

Dangerous? Let's not go overboard here. And it's not dangerous to serve to the other team when one of the players has their back to you.

I just cannot imagine how the server could not notice that the receiver's partner is still walking back to position and how the server could start serving.

I'm sorry. When I said "dangerous," I didn't mean that someone would get hurt. I meant "dangerous" in the sense you might create a problem that starts an argument.

For example, many servers mumble the score or do not announce it at all. Some people will interrupt the server and correct the score or ask that it be repeated.

I usually do not do that because it is dangerous. If you start speaking during someone's service motion, they might serve anyway. Then you might get into a squabble about it.

My practice is simply to wait until the point is over and then raise it. "Hey, you said 15-30, wasn't it really 30-15?" I have found over the years that it works better that way.

Similarly, when I am not ready when a point begins, I don't yell, "Hey, I wasn't ready!" I let the serve go unplayed if I was the receiver. If I am the receiver's partner, then I put my racket up and try to win the point.