Surely there must be a rule against this

[Cindysphinx]

My partner was serving to the deuce court. She has what I will cheerfully call an "anti-gravity" server. Let's just say there isn't much pace on her serve. Her serve landed in the ad service box, about six inches into the wrong service box. Clearly a fault.

The returner's partner was standing near the T. She said, "Out" and returned the ball straight at me, hard. I ducked, so I didn't get hit.

What the -- ?

Not only did she return an obviously out serve, she wasn't even the returner (!). This is dangerous and annoying.

Just on general principal, shouldn't there be a rule against this?

[skiracer55]

Originally Posted by Cindysphinx

My partner was serving to the deuce court. She has what I will cheerfully call an "anti-gravity" server. Let's just say there isn't much pace on her serve. Her serve landed in the ad service box, about six inches into the wrong service box. Clearly a fault.

The returner's partner was standing near the T. She said, "Out" and returned the ball straight at me, hard. I ducked, so I didn't get hit.

What the -- ?

Not only did she return an obviously out serve, she wasn't even the returner (!). This is dangerous and annoying.

Just on general principal, shouldn't there be a rule against this?

...and I think there's probably something specific about not returning fault serves, but this really comes under the general heading of unsportsmanlike conduct re Nick Powell's "The Code"...which few players, these days, seem to have heard of. So, I dunno. You could stop play and explain why (since she obviously doesn't know...), why this is dangerous, but I doubt that would work, if she did it in the first place. So what are your other options? Well, there's always giving her a fuzz sandwich the next time you get a short overhead, but I suppose that's not very sportsmanlike, either.

I'm really mystified why there seems to be so much just plain crappy behavior on the tennis courts these days. It's a great sport, or has been, but in many quarters, it's beginning to look like a knife fight in a phone booth...

[CaldwellYSR]

I don't know about a rule but that's a rather obnoxious and unethical thing to do. Did she apologize or at least pretend it was an accident? I probably wouldn't have confronted her if I thought it was purposeful...

[Cindysphinx]

I'm not sure what she did afterward. She probably said sorry. I doubt she meant to hurt me. I just can't figure out what she meant to do.

If she had hit me in the eye and I had to retire, would that be a loss for her or me?

[blakesq]

What did you say to the person who hit the ball at you?

I would have said something like "What the HELL??!!" and expect an apology, or else every ball near me will be zinging back towards his head, especially faults!

Originally Posted by Cindysphinx

My partner was serving to the deuce court. She has what I will cheerfully call an "anti-gravity" server. Let's just say there isn't much pace on her serve. Her serve landed in the ad service box, about six inches into the wrong service box. Clearly a fault.

The returner's partner was standing near the T. She said, "Out" and returned the ball straight at me, hard. I ducked, so I didn't get hit.

What the -- ?

Not only did she return an obviously out serve, she wasn't even the returner (!). This is dangerous and annoying.

Just on general principal, shouldn't there be a rule against this?

[Cindysphinx]

Originally Posted by blakesq

What did you say to the person who hit the ball at you?

I would have said something like "What the HELL??!!" and expect an apology, or else every ball near me will be zinging back towards his head, especially faults!

Honestly, I don't know. The serve came, it was clearly well out and the returner wasn't going to play it. I was looking at the returner, so the returner's partner really surprised me. I think I just ducked and mumbled, "Whoa!" I was mostly glad I was all in once piece.

There was a *lot* of Obvious Fault Returning going on in that match. I don't think these ladies knew that rule.

What gets me is that the returner's partner has no business hitting a return. Had the serve been in and the returner's partner hits it, then clearly the point is ours. Had the serve hit the returner's partner on the fly, the point is ours.

I can't think of a rule that says there is any penalty for having the receiver's partner do some headhunting and teeing off on each and every serve that bounces in the wrong service box.

[spot]

Originally Posted by Cindysphinx

I'm not sure what she did afterward. She probably said sorry. I doubt she meant to hurt me. I just can't figure out what she meant to do.

If she had hit me in the eye and I had to retire, would that be a loss for her or me?

That would be a loss for her.

[Cindysphinx]

Originally Posted by spot

That would be a loss for her.

But she didn't intend to hurt me (I think). She could argue it is more like having her racket fly out of her hand and injure me, and in that case she wins.

[SweetH2O]

You really need a rule to quote to be able to tell that their action is wrong? Seems like common sense.

A simple "What was that for?" to them at the time would probably get you more answers than you will find here, or maybe an apology so that you could move on without the needless drama.

[Cindysphinx]

^I am actually asking a legit rules question. I do not know the answer.

Since you are of no assistance, maybe Woodrow or Jlyon or one of the other officials around here knows the answer.

[SweetH2O]

Your definition of legit is different than mine then.

[DANMAN]

Originally Posted by Cindysphinx

But she didn't intend to hurt me (I think). She could argue it is more like having her racket fly out of her hand and injure me, and in that case she wins.

She did it on a ball that was not in play when it was struck. Therefore, it would have been a loss for her.

[spot]

Injury caused by player. When a player accidentally injures an opponent, the opponent suffers the consequences. Consider the situation where the server’s racket accidentally strikes the receiver and incapacitates the receiver. The receiver is unable to resume play within the time limit. Even though the server caused the injury, the server wins the match by retirement.

On the other hand, when a player deliberately injures an opponent and affects the opponent’s ability to play, then the opponent wins the match by default. Hitting a ball or throwing a racket in anger is considered a deliberate act.

Because what she did was not part of the game, she would lose the match. By my reading if the returner had hit the ball to you even if the ball were significantly out then you would lose the match.

[Cindysphinx]

The Code:

38. Injury caused by player. When a player accidentally injures an opponent, the opponent suffers the consequences. Consider the situation where the server’s racket accidentally strikes the receiver and incapacitates the receiver. The receiver is unable to resume play within the time limit. Even though the server caused the injury, the server wins the match by retirement.

On the other hand, when a player deliberately injures an opponent and affects the opponent’s ability to play, then the opponent wins the match by default. Hitting a ball or throwing a racket in anger is considered a deliberate act.

Boy, I had never given this rule much thought. I'm not sure I like it, though. It seems to be if you are doing something that is clearly prohibited by the rules (returning a ball when you are not the returner), you ought to suffer the consequences, even if the injury was an accident and not intentional.

[skiracer55]

Originally Posted by Cindysphinx

The Code:



Boy, I had never given this rule much thought. I'm not sure I like it, though. It seems to be if you are doing something that is clearly prohibited by the rules (returning a ball when you are not the returner), you ought to suffer the consequences, even if the injury was an accident and not intentional.

...I think there is a rule against returning fault serves, so go look it up. You probably also have a case about the non-returner returning serves, so go look that one up, too. Per what some other posters have said, this would only have to happen one time with me, and I'd get right in the other players' face. I almost lost an eye due to a bunji cord accident that was somebody else's fault, so I don't cotton to anyone taking a swing that come anywhere near my eyes, or anywhere else on my person, either, and neither should you...

[burosky]

Originally Posted by Cindysphinx

Boy, I had never given this rule much thought. I'm not sure I like it, though. It seems to be if you are doing something that is clearly prohibited by the rules (returning a ball when you are not the returner), you ought to suffer the consequences, even if the injury was an accident and not intentional.

Let me stir the pot a little bit. Let's just say that instead of hitting it directly at you, the returner's partner hit a clearly out serve to the side fence but it ricocheted directly to you (yes, it is remotely possible but that's why it is an accident), hit your eye which forced you to retire. Should your opponent take the loss? Just trying to remove whatever intent the returner's partner might have had in the equation.

[OrangePower]

Originally Posted by Cindysphinx

Honestly, I don't know. The serve came, it was clearly well out and the returner wasn't going to play it. I was looking at the returner, so the returner's partner really surprised me. I think I just ducked and mumbled, "Whoa!" I was mostly glad I was all in once piece.

Perhaps her intention was just to get you the ball to hold in preparation for the next point? Possibly she thinks she has more control than she actually has, and so it was a failure in execution rather than any bad intent.

[r2473]

Originally Posted by burosky

Let me stir the pot a little bit. Let's just say that instead of hitting it directly at you, the returner's partner hit a clearly out serve to the side fence but it ricocheted directly to you (yes, it is remotely possible but that's why it is an accident), hit your eye which forced you to retire. Should your opponent take the loss? Just trying to remove whatever intent the returner's partner might have had in the equation.

When a tennis ball hits your eye like a big pizza pie?

That's Amore

15-Amore

[Cindysphinx]

Originally Posted by OrangePower

Perhaps her intention was just to get you the ball to hold in preparation for the next point? Possibly she thinks she has more control than she actually has, and so it was a failure in execution rather than any bad intent.

Maybe.

Or perhaps she had a grand mal seizure.

Boy. I have played a lot of matches, and I have never, ever seen a returner's partner strike the serve.

[Cindysphinx]

Originally Posted by burosky

Let me stir the pot a little bit. Let's just say that instead of hitting it directly at you, the returner's partner hit a clearly out serve to the side fence but it ricocheted directly to you (yes, it is remotely possible but that's why it is an accident), hit your eye which forced you to retire. Should your opponent take the loss? Just trying to remove whatever intent the returner's partner might have had in the equation.

You're asking me?