Does Rule 7 of the Code Need Revising?

[tennistim]

Rule 7 of the code (http://assets.usta.com/assets/1/15/2...e%20Code.4.pdf) states:

Ball touching any part of line is good. If any part of a ball touches a line, the
ball is good. A ball 99% out is still 100% good. A player shall not call a ball out
unless the player clearly sees space between where the ball hits and a line.

That last sentence has got me thinking...

The trouble is that there are times when this is a bit over simplistic. E.g. when you are receiving a serve that is coming straight to you, even if the ball is 2 inches out you won't see a space between the ball and the line because the ball itself is in the way of that view. The ball would have to be several inches out before you would clearly see space between it and the line.

I would say that people can call the ball very accurately - say to within 1/4 inch or less - without clearly seeing space for the reason given above, instead solely relying on seeing the trajectory of the ball and the position of the line. To my understanding, this is how Hawk Eye works also - by seeing the ball's trajectory and not seeing space between the line and ball.

On top of that, even if you are looking down the line, if the ball is hit hard enough then it is just a blur and so again seeing space is not at all a reliable method of judging the ball. Seeing the trajectory is in my opinion the best way in this situation also.

I think the bit about "99% out is 100% good" is totally correct - just the last sentence needs to re-thought. Something like, "If you wouldn't bet your favourite racket on your out call being correct, don't make it".

[blakesq]

then you are calling balls out that you only "think" or "hope" are out. not a good thing.

[InspectorRacquet]

I think the last sentence is as simplistically perfect as it can be. The quoted part doesn't seem to account for the player's position, in which case any ball coming head on to a player (such as a serve) can never be called out.

I think there should be a clause added afterwards, and not a complete revisal. Maybe something saying "the ball is in or out on the opponent's discretion when it is impossible for the opponent to be able to see the clear distinction between the ball and the line."

Really, the clause should just imply common sense. If you know the ball is out, call it out. If you are even slightly unsure, it has to be called in.

[TimothyO]

The trouble is that there are times when this is a bit over simplistic. E.g. when you are receiving a serve that is coming straight to you, even if the ball is 2 inches out you won't see a space between the ball and the line because the ball itself is in the way of that view. The ball would have to be several inches out before you would clearly see space between it and the line.

That's not overly simplistic. It's just that you can't absolutely confirm the ball is long and, since there's some doubt, you must call the ball in.

Don't forget, the ball also slides a couple of inches while in contact with the ground.

Yes, the bulk of the ball often obscures the line, and not just when returning serves. If it does, give the benefit of the doubt to your opponent.

That's especially important since folks in the stands and your opponent may have a better view of the situation and if you just assume the ball is out without confirmation you might look like a cheater if they see the ball is truly in.

[tennistim]

Originally Posted by blakesq

then you are calling balls out that you only "think" or "hope" are out. not a good thing.

Not true.

Try this:

Place a ball on the ground next to the service line so that it is about 3 inches out. Then go back to the baseline as if you were receiving serve. You can be 100% sure it is out. You would bet your life on it. But you cannot see any space between the line and the ball.

[tennistim]

Originally Posted by TimothyO

That's not overly simplistic. It's just that you can't absolutely confirm the ball is long and, since there's some doubt, you must call the ball in.

Don't forget, the ball also slides a couple of inches while in contact with the ground.

Yes, the bulk of the ball often obscures the line, and not just when returning serves. If it does, give the benefit of the doubt to your opponent.

That's especially important since folks in the stands and your opponent may have a better view of the situation and if you just assume the ball is out without confirmation you might look like a cheater if they see the ball is truly in.

What I am saying is that you don't have to "clearly see space" to be 100% certain a ball is out (see my last post). Judging the ball is not simply about clearly seeing space all the time. The way that hawk eye works is perhaps similar to the way our perception works. And Hawk eye does not rely on seeing space between the line and ball.

Having said that, when the ball is very close to the line, or if it's a very fast ball, a person might not be able to be 100% sure and that's when a you should give benefit of the doubt.

I don't know for sure, but perhaps that this "clearly see space" phrase comes from the way linespeople are trained. They are always looking down the line. Whereas a player often is not.

[floridatennisdude]

Originally Posted by tennistim

Not true.

Try this:

Place a ball on the ground next to the service line so that it is about 3 inches out. Then go back to the baseline as if you were receiving serve. You can be 100% sure it is out. You would bet your life on it. But you cannot see any space between the line and the ball.

This is a very good example. Even better is to set the ball 3" behind the service line...on the sideline. Really tough ball to "see" out, but when it's coming at you, you just know it is long.

[Dags]

And thirdly, the code is more what you'd call "guidelines" than actual rules.

So long as you give your opponent the benefit of the doubt when you're unsure, I don't see much wrong with it.

Be warned: I know one guy who takes this approach, and whilst he calls flat serves well he makes a lot of mistakes when topspin is involved. I've heard a number of people at the club joking about his calls, and he's getting a reputation for it. Don't be that guy.

[spot]

Without doing the math I'd think that a serve would have to be at least 3 inches out for you to be able to see "space between the ball and the line" when you are returning. That said I don't think that the code needs to be changed for this one situation because people don't hyperparse the rules like that.

[andfor]

All of this is why a few years ago the rule to replay the point when a missed line call and corrected himself but made the shot changed from a let to loss of point.

If you're not 100% the ball is good. If you make a mistake correct the call lose the point and move on. Simple

[rufus_smith]

I agree with the OP especially on receiving serves:
"A player shall not call a ball out unless the player clearly sees space between where the ball hits and a line."
If you follow this literally on return of serve, a tall player gets an advantage over a short player since he has a better chance to see space on a long serve because of higher viewing angle. The rules shouldn't favor taller players. That particular rule should be exempted on return of serve,imo.

[TimothyO]

Originally Posted by tennistim

Not true.

Try this:

Place a ball on the ground next to the service line so that it is about 3 inches out. Then go back to the baseline as if you were receiving serve. You can be 100% sure it is out. You would bet your life on it. But you cannot see any space between the line and the ball.

Nope, the ball can skid about 2". What you decide is out may not be out.

Key: you have no visual evidence the shot is out.

This reminds me of people who catch balls they "know" are heading out. Problem some us hit with enough spin that our shots look like they're heading out and then dive in.

These rules exist for good reasons: they prevent arguments.

In this specific case, the OP may believe a ball to be out but an opponent with a better view may actually see the ball hit the line. At that point the OP is truly cheating his opponent.

[TimothyO]

Originally Posted by rufus_smith

I agree with the OP especially on receiving serves:
"A player shall not call a ball out unless the player clearly sees space between where the ball hits and a line."
If you follow this literally on return of serve, a tall player gets an advantage over a short player since he has a better chance to see space on a long serve because of higher viewing angle. The rules shouldn't favor taller players. That particular rule should be exempted on return of serve,imo.

Yeah, they should lower the net for shorter servers.

Do people just post crap without even thinking?

[rufus_smith]

Originally Posted by TimothyO

Yeah, they should lower the net for shorter servers.

Do people just post crap without even thinking?

I'm sure you post nothing but pearls of wisdom. So you agree the rule is biased towards taller players but you think it is fair to keep it? That part of Rule 7 is an arbitrary rule in a tennis book of codes that has changes every year. It is not a physical part of the court like the net. It can be changed in a day and nobody would object.

[Timbo's hopeless slice]

this thread reminds me of that one about the foot faults..

ppl say things that beggar belief.

[SFrazeur]

Originally Posted by tennistim

Rule 7 of the code (http://assets.usta.com/assets/1/15/2...e%20Code.4.pdf) states:



That last sentence has got me thinking...

The trouble is that there are times when this is a bit over simplistic. E.g. when you are receiving a serve that is coming straight to you, even if the ball is 2 inches out you won't see a space between the ball and the line because the ball itself is in the way of that view. The ball would have to be several inches out before you would clearly see space between it and the line.

I would say that people can call the ball very accurately - say to within 1/4 inch or less - without clearly seeing space for the reason given above, instead solely relying on seeing the trajectory of the ball and the position of the line. To my understanding, this is how Hawk Eye works also - by seeing the ball's trajectory and not seeing space between the line and ball.

On top of that, even if you are looking down the line, if the ball is hit hard enough then it is just a blur and so again seeing space is not at all a reliable method of judging the ball. Seeing the trajectory is in my opinion the best way in this situation also.

I think the bit about "99% out is 100% good" is totally correct - just the last sentence needs to re-thought. Something like, "If you wouldn't bet your favourite racket on your out call being correct, don't make it".

The rule is simple and straight forward. If your wrote all possible exceptions the rule would be 10 pages and counting. The rules and conduct covering benefit of the doubt and sportsmanship fills in any grey area.

[tennistim]

Originally Posted by Dags

So long as you give your opponent the benefit of the doubt when you're unsure, I don't see much wrong with it.

Be warned: I know one guy who takes this approach, and whilst he calls flat serves well he makes a lot of mistakes when topspin is involved. I've heard a number of people at the club joking about his calls, and he's getting a reputation for it. Don't be that guy.

Sounds like he is making his mind up about the call too early.

Perhaps I didn't explain myself properly. Judging the ball by relying on trajectory is not the same as calling the ball early.

Although it seems most people don't really think too much about how they are judging a line call, a critical part of it is seeing the path of the ball both into and out of the bounce.

Seeing space between the line and ball is another important way to judge a ball, but I think this is not always necessary to make a perfectly accurate call.

Did you try placing the ball 3 inches behind the service line like I explained? If not try it and let me know your thoughts...

[tennistim]

Originally Posted by SFrazeur

The rule is simple and straight forward. If your wrote all possible exceptions the rule would be 10 pages and counting. The rules and conduct covering benefit of the doubt and sportsmanship fills in any grey area.

All I am proposing is changing one sentence.

Other than the point in question, I think the code really is a great document.

[tennistim]

Originally Posted by TimothyO

Nope, the ball can skid about 2". What you decide is out may not be out.

Key: you have no visual evidence the shot is out.

This reminds me of people who catch balls they "know" are heading out. Problem some us hit with enough spin that our shots look like they're heading out and then dive in.

These rules exist for good reasons: they prevent arguments.

In this specific case, the OP may believe a ball to be out but an opponent with a better view may actually see the ball hit the line. At that point the OP is truly cheating his opponent.

Yes the ball can skid. But for arguments sake, lets say that it is not a skidding ball. It is a high, slow serve that lands 3 inches out. You still see the bounce, but just not the space between the line and the ball. You would bet your life on the ball being out. You do have visual evidence.

If you are strictly following the code you would have to call that in.

Ultimately, I am not attacking the code for the sake of cheating. Actually it's just the oposite. I would like to see far more players respect the code. If the code has mistakes in it, people are less likely to follow it.

This all might seem like a very minor point. But after you try viewing a ball placed 3 inches out (see previous post) it does seem like a major oversight.

[TimothyO]

Great, assume no skid.

How far must the ball land beyond the line for the receiver to "just know it's out"? 3"? 1"? A tiny fraction of an inch? How would you rewrite the rule to handle this huge range of judgement?

Once you introduce that level of guesswork into play you'll have people calling all sort of stuff long just because the "know it must be long". The entire point of the rule is to balance the power of the receiver with the interests of the server.

The receiver gets to call shots on his side of the net. Since he has a clear conflict of interest in calling shots out the rules demand there's as little error in judgment as possible.

What you're proposing is to give the player calling shots the power to guess as to whether or not a shot is out. That's a recipe for chaos and very long matches as both sides start "guessing shots out" instead of "calling shots out".