The Premature Celebration Hindrance Call

TimothyO · Nov 9, 2012

Cindysphinx said:
FWIW, NTRPolice, I disagree that it is a bad idea to warn your partner of a short lob.

I have had partners explicitly ask me to warn them of short lobs. I give the warning if I think of it, and I appreciate it when they do it for me.

Yes, giving a warning runs the microscopic risk that some opponent someday might claim hindrance and claim the point. Failing to give a warning, however, risks that (1) your net player will be surprised by a short lob, and (2) that partner will dislike playing with you because you throw up short lobs but won't warn.

I think if we took a show of hands of how many people here have ever had an opponent claim hindrance if they say "Short" or "Watch it" or "Watch out" when they hit a short lob, very few people would say this happens.

I think it happens even less at the higher levels because players know that giving a warning is quite common.

I dislike it when I hit the ball out but a rule is a rule. If I hit out, I lose the point.

Whether or not the penaltY is called frequently the rule is there for good reason. Breaking it is, well, cheating, and you're basically putting your opponent in the unpleasant position of having to supervise YOUR behavior and adherence to the rules. And you're hoping they'll feel uncomfortable enough to not enforce the rule...

Cindysphinx · Nov 9, 2012

TimothyO said:
I dislike it when I hit the ball out but a rule is a rule. If I hit out, I lose the point.

Whether or not the penaltY is called frequently the rule is there for good reason. Breaking it is, well, cheating, and you're basically putting your opponent in the unpleasant position of having to supervise YOUR behavior and adherence to the rules. And you're hoping they'll feel uncomfortable enough to not enforce the rule...

Sorry, I disagree.

It is common and understood that folks will warn their partners (or say things like "Stay") when the ball is on the way to the other side. This is not cheating.

It is something that can be punished if the other side chooses to claim hindrance. So long as I accept your hindrance call should you choose to make one, there is no problem and no one has cheated.

It's not me who is putting you in the unpleasant position of having to call a hindrance. The rule does that. After all, the rule could be written to say that talking is automatic loss of point. The rule is not that rigid, perhaps in recognition that minor and well-intentioned communication doesn't present a problem for most people.

kylebarendrick · Nov 9, 2012

I generally recommend that people avoid developing habits that give their opponents an opportunity to legitimately take points during a match. Common habits of this type include warning your partner about a short ball, foot faulting, and catching balls before they bounce. None of these actions give you a significant advantage in a match, so don't give your opponents a free point by doing them.

NTRPolice · Nov 9, 2012

Cindysphinx said:
Sorry, I disagree.

It is common and understood that folks will warn their partners (or say things like "Stay") when the ball is on the way to the other side. This is not cheating.

Yes, it is cheating.

In "park tennis" its "understood". It's also acceptable to foot fault, catch balls going obviously out, take extended breaks between points/games/sets, and drink alcohol. We're not talking about park rules.

You can say "stay" all you want, as long as the ball is coming over to your side of the court.

Cindysphinx said:
It is something that can be punished if the other side chooses to claim hindrance. So long as I accept your hindrance call should you choose to make one, there is no problem and no one has cheated.

You're breaking the rules. Whether or not they call it is irrelevant. If I foot fault, im cheating. If I "hinder", im cheating. If I catch a ball with my racket that's going out and still win the point, im cheating. If I bean and opponent with a serve and do not claim the point, im cheating.

All of those instances ARE CHEATING. They're just not enforced more often than not.

Cindysphinx said:
It's not me who is putting you in the unpleasant position of having to call a hindrance. The rule does that. After all, the rule could be written to say that talking is automatic loss of point. The rule is not that rigid, perhaps in recognition that minor and well-intentioned communication doesn't present a problem for most people.

As pretty much everyone else has been saying... your "intentions" dont matter and why you seem to think that "it's ok, as long as they dont call it." is just silly.

I'm not saying you should call a hindrance every time someone says "watch out!" and neither is anyone else. We're just saying that you are breaking the rules and its a terribly bad habit (like foot faulting, or catching balls going obviously long) to "hinder" your opponent.

So, does your world view include "It's not up to people to behave themselves, its up to the victim to prosecute"?

I cant see that going very well.

Roforot · Nov 10, 2012

This is analagous to the enforcement of the time limits b/w points. I don't watch a lot of live doubles, but I've been to college matches and seen some pros at Indian Wells and Miami. I have never seen the refs call hindrance for doubles teams that communicate during the point. I don't argue that they couldn't and perhaps you've seen a match where this occurred.

As amateurs it is worth the risk of losing that point to give my partner an extra second to bail. I figure if they're the sort that would claim a hindrance for that, then they'd be the sort that would try to do some damage w/ their overhead.

I think there are unwritten rules of sportsmanship on the court. I've been lucky having played in Texas and NY w/ people who were good sports (not counting my brief stint in mixed dubs).

gmatheis · Nov 10, 2012

Cindysphinx said:
Sorry, I disagree.

It is common and understood that folks will warn their partners (or say things like "Stay") when the ball is on the way to the other side. This is not cheating.

It is something that can be punished if the other side chooses to claim hindrance. So long as I accept your hindrance call should you choose to make one, there is no problem and no one has cheated.

It's not me who is putting you in the unpleasant position of having to call a hindrance. The rule does that. After all, the rule could be written to say that talking is automatic loss of point. The rule is not that rigid, perhaps in recognition that minor and well-intentioned communication doesn't present a problem for most people.

Cheating - To violate rules deliberately, as in a game

32. Talking during point. A player shall not talk while a ball is moving toward an opponent’s side of the court.

You are cheating . plain and simple.

gmatheis · Nov 10, 2012

Roforot said:
This is analagous to the enforcement of the time limits b/w points. I don't watch a lot of live doubles, but I've been to college matches and seen some pros at Indian Wells and Miami. I have never seen the refs call hindrance for doubles teams that communicate during the point. I don't argue that they couldn't and perhaps you've seen a match where this occurred.

As amateurs it is worth the risk of losing that point to give my partner an extra second to bail. I figure if they're the sort that would claim a hindrance for that, then they'd be the sort that would try to do some damage w/ their overhead.

I think there are unwritten rules of sportsmanship on the court. I've been lucky having played in Texas and NY w/ people who were good sports (not counting my brief stint in mixed dubs).

You are allowed to communicate all you want while the ball is heading towards your side of the court.

One of those unwritten rules of sportsmanship is that you don't talk whie the ball is heading towards your opponents side of the court ... of wait that's a WRITTEN rule.

Roforot · Nov 10, 2012

gmatheis said:
You are allowed to communicate all you want while the ball is heading towards your side of the court.

One of those unwritten rules of sportsmanship is that you don't talk whie the ball is heading towards your opponents side of the court ... of wait that's a WRITTEN rule.

Look you're correct about the written rule.
But, no the unwritten rule is "You don't call a hinderance on brief communication b/w your opponents"

Again, how many times have you seen a ref call hinderance or even give a warning for this sort of communication?

tennis tom · Nov 10, 2012

Roforot said:
Look you're correct about the written rule.
But, no the unwritten rule is "You don't call a hinderance on brief communication b/w your opponents"

Again, how many times have you seen a ref call hinderance or even give a warning for this sort of communication?

I played a center court dubs match at La Jolla once--had a chair-ump, electronic scoreboard and everything. The chair-ump called us all over early on in the match and admonished us not to say ANYTHING while the ball was on our opponent's side of the net. I couldn't recall saying anything or hearing our opponent's say anything either--I sure as heck didn't utter anything after that.

Moral of the story, when in doubt--STFU! I don't communicate much, if at all, with my partner during a point, I like to give him credit (or the benefit of the doubt) that he knows how to play the game and is playing on the same court as me. If someone is shouting in my ear, just as I'm about to contact the ball, my biceps and triceps don't like it--make's 'em jumpy.

NTRPolice · Nov 10, 2012

Roforot said:
Look you're correct about the written rule.
But, no the unwritten rule is "You don't call a hinderance on brief communication b/w your opponents"

Again, how many times have you seen a ref call hinderance or even give a warning for this sort of communication?

It's not about it being "brief" or the "intent".

Pro's get called on it for yelling "c'mon" all the time in SINGLES and not even on "doubles overheads at the net". They hit what they perceive to be a "winner" and the prematurely "celebrate" by uttering "c'mon" (vamos', allez, or w/e) and lose the point more often than not.

Anyone who knows the rules does not yell like that when they hit a bad overhead. Only park players do it. Maybe some college/pro players get away with it. That doesnt make it "ok" or make it "not a rule".

Someone yelling "watch out!" does distract you. It's happened to everyone who plays doubles at least once in their life. Do we claim the hindrance point 100% of the time? No. That doesnt mean its "ok" to do.

Like I said, in "park tennis" its ok to break these types of rules. It's ok to foot fault. It's ok to catch balls going obviously long. It's ok to play a let for anything you see fit. That doesnt mean we didnt break 47 different rules in the court of our friendly match and we're definitely not using that as weight in our argument.

It's also a loss of point for a "deliberate" hindrance, which is what this is.
It would be a "let" if it was ruled "accidental".

Under no circumstance would there be a "warning".

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iNhQzDFQPtI

The second point you can hear Henin say "allez" which is ruled a deliberate hindrance and she loses the point. That's exactly the same thing as yelling "watch out" in doubles to "warn your partner" of an impending overhead smash which implies they have a play at the ball.

Roforot · Nov 10, 2012

NTRPolice said:
It's not about it being "brief" or the "intent".

Pro's get called on it for yelling "c'mon" all the time in SINGLES and not even on "doubles overheads at the net". They hit what they perceive to be a "winner" and the prematurely "celebrate" by uttering "c'mon" (vamos', allez, or w/e) and lose the point more often than not.

Anyone who knows the rules does not yell like that when they hit a bad overhead. Only park players do it. Maybe some college/pro players get away with it. That doesnt make it "ok" or make it "not a rule".

Someone yelling "watch out!" does distract you. It's happened to everyone who plays doubles at least once in their life. Do we claim the hindrance point 100% of the time? No. That doesnt mean its "ok" to do.

Like I said, in "park tennis" its ok to break these types of rules. It's ok to foot fault. It's ok to catch balls going obviously long. It's ok to play a let for anything you see fit. That doesnt mean we didnt break 47 different rules in the court of our friendly match and we're definitely not using that as weight in our argument.

It's also a loss of point for a "deliberate" hindrance, which is what this is.
It would be a "let" if it was ruled "accidental".

Under no circumstance would there be a "warning".

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iNhQzDFQPtI

The second point you can hear Henin say "allez" which is ruled a deliberate hindrance and she loses the point. That's exactly the same thing as yelling "watch out" in doubles to "warn your partner" of an impending overhead smash which implies they have a play at the ball.

I don't think we disagree so much that we wouldn't be able to play a match together. I do think the example of Henin's play isn't a fair one... I could pull a lot of other examples where pros are screaming AFTER they've hit the ball.

Anyway, again if I'm playing against the type of team that will claim a hinderance off those situations, I feel it is well worth it because they are likely the sort of players who would try to go for a body shot/kill shot on the net guy because it's okay to do so in the "written rules."

I'm just curious, how many times have you called a hinderance on an opponent? I've had one guy do it to me once (in a singles practice match--> I mishit a ball and cursed but somehow it landed in; totally deserved to lose that point!) I've never had occasion to do so.

NTRPolice · Nov 10, 2012

Roforot said:
I don't think we disagree so much that we wouldn't be able to play a match together. I do think the example of Henin's play isn't a fair one... I could pull a lot of other examples where pros are screaming AFTER they've hit the ball.

Anyway, again if I'm playing against the type of team that will claim a hinderance off those situations, I feel it is well worth it because they are likely the sort of players who would try to go for a body shot/kill shot on the net guy because it's okay to do so in the "written rules."

I'm just curious, how many times have you called a hinderance on an opponent? I've had one guy do it to me once (in a singles practice match--> I mishit a ball and cursed but somehow it landed in; totally deserved to lose that point!) I've never had occasion to do so.

Show me an example of a "pro screaming after they hit the ball". Dont show me a clip of normal stroke sounds, even for delayed ones like Ferrers grunts, or Del Po's "early warning" grunts either.

There is a difference between a grunt and an exclamation.

Also, a pro yelling c'mon after they've clearly won the point is a different story. When an official is presiding over a match, they have to determine if the player had a play at the ball. In all instances ive seen, a player who touches the ball after such exclamation has been given a grievance freebie. In some cases is a "let". In most cases its a loss of point.

I've never called a hindrance on anyone. I just wont do it unless its obvious to me that they're pushing the limit. I'm also the type of person who gives gratuitous line calls and overrules my partner frequently depending on how legit they call the lines. It's why some people refuse to play with me.

If I even think that the ball has touched even 1mm of the line, I will call it good. Ever so often ill realize the ball was an inch (maybe even 2) long, but it dosent bother me.

I actually warn my partner all the time about her exclamations. She does the "watch out!" thing. I tell her she has to watch that in a playoff because someone will more than likely call it in a close game. 1) For a free point 2) "Gamesmanship".

In critical matches bad habits like hindering can be substantial and its poor form to practice it, especially if your reasoning is "they have to call it on me first".

Cindysphinx · Nov 10, 2012

gmatheis said:
Cheating - To violate rules deliberately, as in a game

32. Talking during point. A player shall not talk while a ball is moving toward an opponent’s side of the court.

You are cheating . plain and simple.

Nope, not cheating.

The fact that something is prohibited or required in the Code does not mean failure to comply amounts to cheating. Here is an example:

15. Audible or visible calls. No matter how obvious it is to a player that an opponent’s ball is out, the opponent is entitled to a prompt audible or visible out call.

So. If you do not call a ball out with a visible or audible call, you are cheating?

Want another example?

Making calls on clay courts. If any part of a ball mark touches a line on a clay court, the ball shall be called good. If only part of the mark on a court can be seen, this means that the missing part is on a line or tape. A player should take a careful second look at any point-ending placement that is close to a line on a clay court.

So. If you do not take a careful second look at any point-ending placement close to a line on a clay court, you are cheating?

Want another example?

Obvious faults. A player shall not put into play or hit over the net an obvious fault. To do so constitutes rudeness and may even be a form of gamesmanship.

So. If you loop a first serve fault back to the server, you are cheating?

My point is that the Code contains many provisions that are advisory. They do not amount to cheating, and there is no automatic penalty if you do these things. They are a matter of courtesy, not cheating.

BTW, I also don't think much of your definition of cheating. I think this is better:

Act dishonestly or unfairly in order to gain an advantage, esp. in a game or examination: "she cheats at cards".
Deceive or trick.

In the examples I gave, there is no unfair advantage, and there is no deception or trickery.

I think some of you are going off the deep end here. . . .

Sumo · Nov 10, 2012

Cindysphinx said:
Nope, not cheating.

The fact that something is prohibited or required in the Code does not mean failure to comply amounts to cheating. Here is an example:

So. If you do not call a ball out with a visible or audible call, you are cheating?

Want another example?

So. If you do not take a careful second look at any point-ending placement close to a line on a clay court, you are cheating?

Want another example?

So. If you loop a first serve fault back to the server, you are cheating?

My point is that the Code contains many provisions that are advisory. They do not amount to cheating, and there is no automatic penalty if you do these things. They are a matter of courtesy, not cheating.

BTW, I also don't think much of your definition of cheating. I think this is better:

In the examples I gave, there is no unfair advantage, and there is no deception or trickery.

I think some of you are going off the deep end here. . . .

BOOM!!!

And the term "cheating" is definitely thrown around too loosely on these boards.

gmatheis · Nov 10, 2012

Cindysphinx said:
Nope, not cheating.

The fact that something is prohibited or required in the Code does not mean failure to comply amounts to cheating. Here is an example:

So. If you do not call a ball out with a visible or audible call, you are cheating?

Want another example?

So. If you do not take a careful second look at any point-ending placement close to a line on a clay court, you are cheating?

Want another example?

So. If you loop a first serve fault back to the server, you are cheating?

My point is that the Code contains many provisions that are advisory. They do not amount to cheating, and there is no automatic penalty if you do these things. They are a matter of courtesy, not cheating.

BTW, I also don't think much of your definition of cheating. I think this is better:

In the examples I gave, there is no unfair advantage, and there is no deception or trickery.

I think some of you are going off the deep end here. . . .

Your examples suck , here's why.

- If you do not call a ball out it is considered good, I have had a friend at a tournament not make any call or signal out on a ball that was over a foot wide. When there was a discrepancy in what the players thought the score should be the official asked if he had signaled or called it out on that point and when he was honest about not doing so the fact that it was obviously out did not matter and his opponent was awarded the point. This is a rule that is seldom enforced but intentionally violating it is still cheating.

- The rules say "should take a look" at any point ending mark not "shall take a look". So doing so is encouraged , not required. Learn the difference between "should" and "shall".

- If you loop back a first serve that is "obviously out" yes you are cheating by causing a unnecessary delay between the servers first and second serve. This is usually unenforced because you really need an official to see that the serve was "obviously out" and then do something about it. Just because something is "unenforced" doesn't make it not cheating

As for distracting, I pointed out that anything that happens to which a person is aware is distracting to a certain point. You calling out a warning to your partner may or may not be enough of a distraction to make them miss but the fact that your opponent hears it at all means it distracted him a small amount while his brain processes this unexpected sound that he heard. The advantage you gain could be as much as a missed shot that they would not have missed had you not talked, or maybe more subtle such as an overhead that is returnable rather than one that is completely out of your reach.

The rule says "shall not talk..." you talk anyway even though you know the rule, and yes it does gain you an advantage. You are cheating.
End of story.

Cindysphinx · Nov 10, 2012

gmatheis said:
Your examples suck , here's why.

- If you do not call a ball out it is considered good, . . . This is a rule that is seldom enforced but intentionally violating it is still cheating.

Come on. Let's not be silly.

We all know that when a ball goes over the fence, most folks do not make an audible or visible out call. Those who call crazy-out balls like they are calling balls and strikes in Game 7 of the World Series are . . . . well, make up your own perjorative term.

Now, if you are not making out calls for the purpose of confusing or annoying your opponent, it is cheating. If you are using common sense, it is not cheating.

- If you loop back a first serve that is "obviously out" yes you are cheating by causing a unnecessary delay between the servers first and second serve.

No, you are not cheating. You are probably being thoughtless and discourteous.

If you are doing it to annoy or confuse your opponent for competitive advantage, it is cheating. Again, you have to use *common sense* to see the difference between matters of etiquette and cheating.

Now. On the issue of talking.

If you are talking to warn your partner of a smash, this is an issue of etiquette. If you are heckling your opponent for the purpose of distracting or annoying them, you are cheating.

But if you do talk -- even if your intent isn't to distract or annoy -- and your opponents is actually hindered, you risk loss of point.

It's really not that complicated.

gmatheis · Nov 11, 2012

Cindysphinx said:
Come on. Let's not be silly.

We all know that when a ball goes over the fence, most folks do not make an audible or visible out call. Those who call crazy-out balls like they are calling balls and strikes in Game 7 of the World Series are . . . . well, make up your own perjorative term.

Now, if you are not making out calls for the purpose of confusing or annoying your opponent, it is cheating. If you are using common sense, it is not cheating.

No, you are not cheating. You are probably being thoughtless and discourteous.

If you are doing it to annoy or confuse your opponent for competitive advantage, it is cheating. Again, you have to use *common sense* to see the difference between matters of etiquette and cheating.

Now. On the issue of talking.

If you are talking to warn your partner of a smash, this is an issue of etiquette. If you are heckling your opponent for the purpose of distracting or annoying them, you are cheating.

But if you do talk -- even if your intent isn't to distract or annoy -- and your opponents is actually hindered, you risk loss of point.

It's really not that complicated.

Don't know why i bother ... you live in your own little world where you can do no wrong.

Roforot · Nov 11, 2012

NTRPolice said:
Show me an example of a "pro screaming after they hit the ball". Dont show me a clip of normal stroke sounds, even for delayed ones like Ferrers grunts, or Del Po's "early warning" grunts either.

There is a difference between a grunt and an exclamation.

Also, a pro yelling c'mon after they've clearly won the point is a different story. When an official is presiding over a match, they have to determine if the player had a play at the ball. In all instances ive seen, a player who touches the ball after such exclamation has been given a grievance freebie. In some cases is a "let". In most cases its a loss of point.

I've never called a hindrance on anyone. I just wont do it unless its obvious to me that they're pushing the limit. I'm also the type of person who gives gratuitous line calls and overrules my partner frequently depending on how legit they call the lines. It's why some people refuse to play with me.

If I even think that the ball has touched even 1mm of the line, I will call it good. Ever so often ill realize the ball was an inch (maybe even 2) long, but it dosent bother me.

I actually warn my partner all the time about her exclamations. She does the "watch out!" thing. I tell her she has to watch that in a playoff because someone will more than likely call it in a close game. 1) For a free point 2) "Gamesmanship".

In critical matches bad habits like hindering can be substantial and its poor form to practice it, especially if your reasoning is "they have to call it on me first".

Again, it seems that on the court we're actually pretty much in agreement. I agree w/ your line calling and use of hinderances (or lack thereof). I guess where we disagree is that I'm willing to sacrifice a point if they choose to call a hinderance to give my partner early warning to bail or backup.

I disagree w/ your view on the pros.
Take a look at this clip from Sharapova. Her screams are clearly going on as the ball is headed towards the opponent. I've never had an opponent do this but if I did, I'd be tempted to call a hinderance

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0_PA0w6ca-g

gmatheis · Nov 11, 2012

Roforot said:
Again, it seems that on the court we're actually pretty much in agreement. I agree w/ your line calling and use of hinderances (or lack thereof). I guess where we disagree is that I'm willing to sacrifice a point if they choose to call a hinderance to give my partner early warning to bail or backup.

I disagree w/ your view on the pros.
Take a look at this clip from Sharapova. Her screams are clearly going on as the ball is headed towards the opponent. I've never had an opponent do this but if I did, I'd be tempted to call a hinderance

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0_PA0w6ca-g

Sharapova and Azarenka violate the rules but they seem to let it slide once you become a top player in the world , just like they let Nadal get away with 30+ seconds between points.

OrangePower · Nov 11, 2012

Interesting how this thread has evolved into a discussion on what does or does not constitute cheating.

Personally, as long as my opponenent(s) are calling lines fairly (which is the case 95% of the time), I'm a happy camper. Most everything else is like water on a duck's back to me. People, rec tennis is supposed to be fun, not a source of stress.

I'm not put off if my opponents warn each other after putting up a short ball. On the other hand, I don't do it myself, because I find it pretty useless.

dcdoorknob · Nov 11, 2012

gmatheis said:
Don't know why i bother ... you live in your own little world where you can do no wrong.

Heh I was not particularly on Cindy's side in this issue, but she argued circles around you from where I"m sitting.

Still don't think that verbally warning partners is either necessary or even a good idea, but you are arguing that I'm cheating by not bothering to call a ball out that hits the back fence on the fly. You are not winning the argument.

TimothyO · Nov 12, 2012

Cindysphinx said:
Sorry, I disagree.

It is common and understood that folks will warn their partners (or say things like "Stay") when the ball is on the way to the other side. This is not cheating.

It is something that can be punished if the other side chooses to claim hindrance. So long as I accept your hindrance call should you choose to make one, there is no problem and no one has cheated.

It's not me who is putting you in the unpleasant position of having to call a hindrance. The rule does that. After all, the rule could be written to say that talking is automatic loss of point. The rule is not that rigid, perhaps in recognition that minor and well-intentioned communication doesn't present a problem for most people.

Nope, it's real simple.

You're cheating, breaking the rules by your own admission, and daring your opponent to challenge you.

The reason this is true is revealed in your last statement: "The rule is not that rigid, perhaps in recognition that minor and well-intentioned communication doesn't present a problem for most people."

The moment you head down the path of "most people" there will be, by definition, "some people" for whom your cheating IS a problem and you've put them in the position of calling you on it. You too are one of those "some people" annoyed by chatter since you called it on your opponent.

And if they don't call you on it at first, or at all, you've garnered an unfair advantage over opponents who DO play by the rules and don't call out to their partner while the ball is heading towards you.

So even if the opponent never calls you on the violation you're still gaining an unfair advantage.

More importantly, your own actions described in the OP demonstrate that you're cheating. In THIS particular instance Cindy Sphinx decided that her opponent's actions were a violation. She became her own little ITF/USTA official by making that declaration while simultaneously declaring her own violations over the years as legit.

Well, there's the rub. It's really quite likely that you've had opponents who suffered your violations in silence, at least on the court. And then they went off to their circle of friends just as you have done her and railed against the obnoxious Cindy Sphinx who repeatedly distracted them from their play.

They simply chose to remain silent while you cheated.

And that's why rules exist: so that each player can't appoint himself or herself Judge, Jury, and Executioner (or biased mini USTA OFFICIAL) over their opponents.

And observance of the rules is that which separates the ladies and gentlemen from the cheaters seeking every last advantage whatever the cost to their opponent in headaches and frustration.

As we've taught our boys, character is what you do when nobody else is looking over your shoulder (or being put in a position to discipline you).

Sumo · Nov 12, 2012

TimothyO said:
Nope, it's real simple.

You're cheating, breaking the rules by your own admission, and daring your opponent to challenge you.

The reason this is true is revealed in your last statement: "The rule is not that rigid, perhaps in recognition that minor and well-intentioned communication doesn't present a problem for most people."

The moment you head down the path of "most people" there will be, by definition, "some people" for whom your cheating IS a problem and you've put them in the position of calling you on it. Heck, you're one of those "some people" annoyed by chatter since you called it on your opponent.

And if they don't call you on it at first, or at all, you've garnered an unfair advantage over opponents who DO play by the rules and don't call out to their partner while the ball is heading towards you.

So even if the opponent never calls you on the violation you're still gaining an unfair advantage.

More importantly, your own actions described in the OP demonstrate that you're cheating. In THIS particular instance Cindy Sphinx decided that her opponent's actions were a violation. She became her own little ITF/USTA official by making that declaration while simultaneously declaring her own violations over the years as legit.

Well, there's the rub. It's really quite likely that you've had opponents who suffered your violations in silence, at least on the court. And then they went off to their circle of friends just as you have done her and railed against the obnoxious Cindy Sphinx who repeatedly distracted them from their play.

They simply chose to remain silent while you cheated.

And that's why rules exist: so that each player can't appoint himself or herself Judge, Jury, and Executioner (or biased mini USTA OFFICIAL) over their opponents.

And observance of the rules is that which separates the ladies and gentlemen from the cheaters seeking every last advantage whatever the cost to their opponent in headaches and frustration.

As we've taught our boys, character is what you do when nobody else is looking over your shoulder (or being put in a position to discipline you).

I don't trust people who use the word "heck".

Cindysphinx · Nov 13, 2012

TimothyO said:
Nope, it's real simple.

You're cheating, breaking the rules by your own admission, and daring your opponent to challenge you.

The reason this is true is revealed in your last statement: "The rule is not that rigid, perhaps in recognition that minor and well-intentioned communication doesn't present a problem for most people."

The moment you head down the path of "most people" there will be, by definition, "some people" for whom your cheating IS a problem and you've put them in the position of calling you on it. You too are one of those "some people" annoyed by chatter since you called it on your opponent.

And if they don't call you on it at first, or at all, you've garnered an unfair advantage over opponents who DO play by the rules and don't call out to their partner while the ball is heading towards you.

So even if the opponent never calls you on the violation you're still gaining an unfair advantage.

More importantly, your own actions described in the OP demonstrate that you're cheating. In THIS particular instance Cindy Sphinx decided that her opponent's actions were a violation. She became her own little ITF/USTA official by making that declaration while simultaneously declaring her own violations over the years as legit.

Well, there's the rub. It's really quite likely that you've had opponents who suffered your violations in silence, at least on the court. And then they went off to their circle of friends just as you have done her and railed against the obnoxious Cindy Sphinx who repeatedly distracted them from their play.

They simply chose to remain silent while you cheated.

And that's why rules exist: so that each player can't appoint himself or herself Judge, Jury, and Executioner (or biased mini USTA OFFICIAL) over their opponents.

And observance of the rules is that which separates the ladies and gentlemen from the cheaters seeking every last advantage whatever the cost to their opponent in headaches and frustration.

As we've taught our boys, character is what you do when nobody else is looking over your shoulder (or being put in a position to discipline you).

You seem like a nice guy, but you seriously need to relax.

tennis_ocd · Nov 13, 2012

I see it as along the lines as starting a point with a ball lying at the net. Is this "cheating?"

Sometimes you just have to speak up before accusing one afterwards of "cheating."

gmatheis · Nov 13, 2012

tennis_ocd said:
I see it as along the lines as starting a point with a ball lying at the net. Is this "cheating?"

Sometimes you just have to speak up before accusing one afterwards of "cheating."

It is perfectly fine to start a point with a ball lying at the net, so I have no clue what you are trying to say here.

Turbo-87 · Nov 13, 2012

Sheesh. I am glad I don't experience people wound as tight as some people in this thread at my club or any tournaments. I would really hate the game.

tennis_ocd · Nov 13, 2012

gmatheis said:
It is perfectly fine to start a point with a ball lying at the net, ....

As it is to talk to your partner.... unless the other team speaks up.

dcdoorknob · Nov 13, 2012

Only tangentially related, but tonight I actually had an opponent ask if I wanted to call a hindrance on her after a point where she called out in frustration after leaving a lob really short (as I was setting up to hit the ball), and then I botched the putaway (sailed it long). She doesn't usually call out like that, and is always super nice to play with or against, so she was genuinely concerned that she messed me up.

I declined though because her vocalization really didn't have anything to do with why I missed, I just missed the shot all on my own.

TimothyO · Nov 13, 2012

Cindysphinx said:
You seem like a nice guy, but you seriously need to relax.

Well, yes, perhaps too nice.

I'm very generous with line calls giving opponents the full benefit of any doubt on my part. I don't rush older or out of shape opponents in the hot Atlanta sun (during my very first mixed doubles match the male opponent nearly collapsed).

And I hope you din't take offense at my post but I really find your attitude far too common whether applied to tennis or other aspects of society.

You're perfectly willing to ignore the rules if YOU feel like it and you're willing to enforce the rule when YOU feel like it. And you seem to imply that others who call such hinderance faults are being too harsh.

And, since our sport at our level is self-regulated and depends on the players to police themselves, you are deliberately putting opponents in the uncomfortable position of having to supervise YOUR behavior on the court. They're there to play a game, not babysit a middle aged woman. It's really quite inconsiderate to expect others to monitor your behavior. The other word that comes to mind is immature. Just play by the rules, it's that simple. Would you teach your children to cheat?

gmatheis · Nov 14, 2012

tennis_ocd said:
As it is to talk to your partner.... unless the other team speaks up.

Umm no, thre is specifically a rule against any talking while the ball is traveling towards your opponents side of the court.

There is no rule against starting a point with a ball at the net.

tennis_ocd · Nov 14, 2012

gmatheis said:
Umm no, thre is specifically a rule against any talking while the ball is traveling towards your opponents side of the court.

There is no rule against starting a point with a ball at the net.

Only if talking interferes with your opponent's ability to play the ball. Same as with loose ball on court.

tennis tom · Nov 14, 2012

Cindysphinx said:
... She is, erm, exuberant...She celebrates her own winners with gusto.

... I heard all this celebrating and carrying on from my female opponent.

...she was doing war whoops, loud enough for me to hear in a noisy bubble.

...I really felt the celebration was over the top

Anybody else ever claim hindrance for a premature celebration?

I had a female tennis partner like that once, I never complained--but the neighbors did--they admonished her: "We're not living in the jungle!" I appreciated her enthusiasm and would think about other things like baseball. I like women who can release their inhibitions, get lost in the moment and express their joy.

rufus_smith · Nov 14, 2012

I had one of those premature celebrations last night. Wife was not pleased.

tennis tom · Nov 14, 2012

rufus_smith said:
I had one of those premature celebrations last night. Wife was not pleased.

Maybe you can get her to hook-up up with Cindy, she's always open for experimenting with new partners and formations.

gmatheis · Nov 14, 2012

tennis_ocd said:
Only if talking interferes with your opponent's ability to play the ball. Same as with loose ball on court.

Wrong

32. Talking during point. A player shall not talk while a ball is moving toward an opponent’s side of the court

do you people not know the definition of "shall not" ?

It does not say "should not", or "it is discouraged" , it says "SHALL NOT"

There is no rule for a loose ball being on the court other than

Whenever a ball is not in play, a player must honor an opponent’s request to remove a ball from the court or from an area outside the court that is reasonably close to the lines.

Which doesn't say anything about it being there, just that if your opponent wants you to clear it you have to honor their request.

tennis_ocd · Nov 14, 2012

gmatheis said:
Wrong

32. Talking during point. A player shall not talk while a ball is moving toward an opponent’s side of the court

do you people not know the definition of "shall not" ?

It does not say "should not", or "it is discouraged" , it says "SHALL NOT"

The ENTIRE paragraph:

32. Talking during point. A player shall not talk while a ball is moving toward an opponent’s side of the court. If a player’s talking interferes with an opponent’s ability to play a ball, the player loses the point. For example, if a doubles player hits a weak lob and loudly yells at the player’s partner to get back and if the shout is loud enough to distract an opponent, then the opponent may claim the point based on a deliberate hindrance. If the opponent chooses to hit the lob and misses it, the opponent loses the point because the opponent did not make a timely claim of hindrance.

Admittedly, just as with the loose ball, distraction and interference is left to the opponent. But I think it pretty clear from the entire rule (and personal experience in playing) that it'd be quite a stretch to present that non-interfering, verbal signaling to your partner would be "cheating."

leroy_sunset · Nov 14, 2012

TimothyO said:
Just play by the rules, it's that simple. Would you teach your children to cheat?

I think that's the end of the thread. Calling out as the ball moves away from you (other than a grunt from the swing) is against the rules. Don't do it. If you know the rule and do it anyway, I think that's at the very least bad sportsmanship. Or you can use the 'c' word if you want :shock:

tennis_ocd · Nov 15, 2012

leroy_sunset said:
I think that's the end of the thread. Calling out as the ball moves away from you (other than a grunt from the swing) is against the rules. Don't do it. If you know the rule and do it anyway, I think that's at the very least bad sportsmanship. Or you can use the 'c' word if you want :shock:

lol. So a loud grunt is ok but a quiet "short" is cheating? I think the rule, in full context, is pretty clear that it must be distracting to your opponent and called by him. And that's the end of the thread :???:

rufus_smith · Nov 15, 2012

That Code section 32 needs a revison. "A player shall not talk loudly enough that can be heard by opponent(s) while a ball is moving toward an opponent’s side of the court." would be better, I think. Strictly speaking, as it is worded now Code 32. implies that even whispering to your partner or even to yourself is automatically a hindrance. That's too extreme, imo.

tennis_ocd · Nov 15, 2012

rufus_smith said:
That Code section 32 needs a revison. "A player shall not talk loudly enough that can be heard by opponent(s) while a ball is moving toward an opponent’s side of the court." would be better, I think. Strictly speaking, as it is worded now Code 32. implies that even whispering to your partner or even to yourself is automatically a hindrance. That's too extreme, imo.

Agreed; the paragraph is conflicting. If just reading and stopping after the first sentence; no talking. If reading the remainder; no loud noise that an opponent finds distracting.

In real life, communication with a partner has never been expressed as even remotely an issue on either side. Really kind of surprised to read that some may strain to hear a whispered "stay," over acceptable loud shrieks, to be able to righteously label one as "cheaters". Perhaps the solution is to loudly grunt out commands as part of one's follow through.

jc4.0 · Nov 15, 2012

I don't mind celebrations on court, unless the opponent continuously celebrates my stupid errors (as if they hit a mad winner on me, when I just boned out). I find it merely amusing when someone acts like they just won Wimbledon, when in reality they just beat poor old me on a so-so day.

I also don't mind partners talking to each other with short, sharp directions like "get back" or "short!" even when the ball is on my side - why be such a stickler? But I think if someone consistently screamed and whooped when I still had a legitimate play on the ball (no matter how unlikely it is that I would make the shot) - that would be a hinderance. I've never played with anybody like that, but if I did, I would also call it, especially if in a league match.

Roforot · Nov 15, 2012

gmatheis said:
Wrong

32. Talking during point. A player shall not talk while a ball is moving toward an opponent’s side of the court

do you people not know the definition of "shall not" ?

It does not say "should not", or "it is discouraged" , it says "SHALL NOT"

There is no rule for a loose ball being on the court other than

Whenever a ball is not in play, a player must honor an opponent’s request to remove a ball from the court or from an area outside the court that is reasonably close to the lines.

Which doesn't say anything about it being there, just that if your opponent wants you to clear it you have to honor their request.

Thanks for quoting the rule, note that it says "talk." I suppose this means singing or rapping is okay with you then b/c you go by the book...

whatcha-whatcha-whatcha-whatcha-get back
lob's short
get back
off the court
I didn't sort
get back!

gmatheis · Nov 15, 2012

Roforot said:
Thanks for quoting the rule, note that it says "talk." I suppose this means singing or rapping is okay with you then b/c you go by the book...

whatcha-whatcha-whatcha-whatcha-get back
lob's short
get back
off the court
I didn't sort
get back!

Gotta love idiots

Sumo · Nov 15, 2012

gmatheis said:
Gotta love idiots

That is actually hilarious, and because you've made it clear there is no room for interpretation, he is "technically" right.

gmatheis · Nov 16, 2012

Sumo said:
That is actually hilarious, and because you've made it clear there is no room for interpretation, he is "technically" right.

Yet another one.

Roforot · Nov 16, 2012

Sumo said:
That is actually hilarious, and because you've made it clear there is no room for interpretation, he is "technically" right.

Thanks. I've been lucky in that for the most part I've played against people w/ a good sense of sportsmanship. Gmatheis as you can see is turning to personal insults as he's lost his argument.

gmatheis · Nov 16, 2012

Roforot said:
Thanks. I've been lucky in that for the most part I've played against people w/ a good sense of sportsmanship. Gmatheis as you can see is turning to personal insults as he's lost his argument.

No, I just dont argue with people who aren't worth arguing with.

Sumo · Nov 16, 2012

gmatheis said:
No, I just dont argue with people who aren't worth arguing with.

Too late....

Rjtennis · Nov 17, 2012

Ive never been distracted to the point of thinking of calling a hinderance. It would have to be a sitter where someone is jumping up & down and screaming for me to call it.

The Premature Celebration Hindrance Call

Hall of Fame

G.O.A.T.

Professional

Hall of Fame

Professional

Hall of Fame

Hall of Fame

Professional

Legend

Hall of Fame

Professional

Hall of Fame

G.O.A.T.

Semi-Pro

Hall of Fame

G.O.A.T.

Hall of Fame

Professional

Hall of Fame

Legend

Hall of Fame

Hall of Fame

Semi-Pro

G.O.A.T.

Hall of Fame

Hall of Fame

G.O.A.T.

Hall of Fame

Hall of Fame

Hall of Fame

Hall of Fame

Hall of Fame

Legend

Professional

Legend

Hall of Fame

Hall of Fame

Rookie

Hall of Fame

Professional

Hall of Fame

Professional

Professional

Hall of Fame

Semi-Pro

Hall of Fame

Professional

Hall of Fame

Semi-Pro

Hall of Fame

Similar threads