. . . . and then a fight broke out, and I wasn't sure of the rule.

[Cindysphinx]

I was playing mixed 8.0 in a tight second set. Partner was at net, I was at baseline, opposing guy was running down a short ball. He hits his shot to the baseline, and crashes into the net.

Opposing guy says he touched the net after the ball was out of play, or bounced twice, or something. My partner says no way because opposing guy hit the net fast, right after he hit his shot. Me, I don't know because I was calling the baseline and didn't see when the guy touched the net.

Whose call is it? I know a player must call it on himself when he touches the net, but we're entitled to make calls on balls on or headed toward out side of the net.

Opposing guy says it's his point, my partner hits the roof, and my efforts to bring order to the situation and just ask everyone what they think happened fell on two sets of deaf male ears. My partner "gave them" the point but let them both know in no uncertain terms that they were cheating scoundrels of the very worst variety.

So. What should have happened there? I wanted to tell my partner that it is our call, so if he is sure the guy fell into the net before the ball bounced twice or hit a fixture, he should just say that. If both teams insisted they were right and couldn't agree, then the match would end in a stalemate and the grievance committee would have sort it out based on the rule.

All of that fuss could have been avoided if anyone would have listened to me, but I'm just a woman so no one cares what I think because apparently the men folk decide such matters.

Cindy -- reconsidering playing 8.0 any more

 

[Ronaldo]

Pack a gat in yer bag. End the conversation quickly

 

[dsp9753]

Huh, interesting scenario and I am not sure what the rule would be. But I would assume you would make the call on your side when the ball is out of play (2nd bounce etc). Since that happened on your side, that would be your call.

If your partner didnt see the ball bounce twice or hit the back fence, and you didn't see it, then I am assuming it would be the opponent's point? Its just like if the opponent hit the ball longish, but no one saw it go long. Then it should be the opponents point. I think if neither of you saw it, but the opponent saw it, then its correct to take his word for it?

 

[Rattler]

If he acknowledged touching the net, then the timing issue of if it happened before the ball was out of play is your call. You can take his word for it, but you don’t have to. especially since your partner was certain of it.

either way this is a near impossible scenario Most rec players would agree to replay the point and move on.

 

[TagUrIt]

The rule:

In fact, if any part of the player's body, clothing, or racket touches the net or net posts while the ball is in play, the opponent(s) earns the point. Once the point has ended (e.g., the ball bounces twice or lands outside of the court), it is okay to touch the net.

The issue at hand with your match is there was a disagreement on whether or not ball was still in play. With both teams in such disagreement and no definitive proof, I think replaying the point would have been the best option.

 

[Cashman]

What should have happened there?

Since the opponent acknowledged he touched the net, the point of contention is when the ball went out of play. You don't say explicitly how this happened, but from your description it sounds like the point ended on your side of the court (via a double bounce or otherwise).

If so, the code makes it very clear that this is your team's call. If your partner was confident that the ball went out of play after the net contact, it's your team's right to claim the point. Your opponent gets no say in the matter.

That said - were I in your partner's shoes, I am not sure I would have claimed this point. The baseline player (i.e. you) is in the best position to make this call, and you were unsure. The sporting thing would be to cede the point under benefit of the doubt.

 

[S&V-not_dead_yet]

Friend of Court states:

Touches, hitting ball before it crosses net, invasion of opponent’s court, double hits, and double bounces. A player shall concede the point when:
• A ball in play touches that player; 

• That player touches the net or opponent’s court while a ball is in play; 

• That player hits a ball before it crosses the net; 

• That player deliberately carries or double hits a ball; or 

• A ball bounces more than once in that player’s court. 
The opponent is not entitled to make these calls.

The principle of giving the opponent the benefit of any doubt applies.

It doesn't state who decides whether the ball is still in play. Notice the last sentence about benefit of the doubt.

In order for the net-toucher to win the point, he had to have hit a winner where the ball bounced twice or bounced once and then hit a permanent fixture. Logic suggests this did not happen if he was rushing forward and touched the net a split second after he contacted the ball. Try run your own experiment to see how difficult that is.

You stated that you didn't see him touch the net. But did you see where he was on the court when he hit the ball? SL? Doubtful, as the SL is 21' away from the net and most people could avoid running into the net from that far away.

10' away from the net? Again, seems like most people could stop in time. So, having no evidence other than a thought experiment, I would say he was likely within 5-7'.

What was the arc of the ball? Did it skim low over the net or did it loop? If it looped, again, that argues in your favor. However, even if he knifed it, it seems unlikely that the ball could bounce twice before he ran into the net.

You stated that you were watching the ball and not the opponent. Was your partner watching the opponent and not the ball? If so, how does he know the opponent touched the net before the 2nd bounce?

Bottom line: from my reading of the rule, it's your team's call assuming the opponent acknowledges touching the net but you're supposed to give the benefit of the doubt. That's the sticky wicket.

Anecdote: I once successfully argued your opponent's case but only because I dropped on my butt and did a psuedo-break dance move that delayed my contact with the net just long enough for the 2nd bounce [a low, CC, volley winner]. If I hadn't done that, I would have run into the net before the 2nd bounce.

 

[esgee48]

The guy who touched the net was looking at the ball bounce? And he said he touched it after it bounced twice or ball was no longer in play? If he hits it long, he loses point whether he touched net or not. People who touch the net generally do it just after they hit the ball. They cannot stop unless they windmill and lean over the net. If ball goes towards BL and is in, the amount of time elapsed would generally be around 2-3 seconds. It is what I call a Bang-Bang play. Question is whether CS saw the ball bounce out or in and then bounce again before she heard her partner call the net touch. That is how I would resolve this. [In baseball, the Umpire looks at the first baseman' foot and the runner. If he hears the ball caught before the runner's foot hits the bag, the runner is out. Any other case is a safe call.] However [IME>95%], most people touch the net when the ball is still in play. The remainder of the time, they hit the ball into the net or out.

 

[Cindysphinx]

When I turned my head back to the net player, he was touching the net and was leaning over the net with his racket touching our side of the court for balance so he didn’t fall over. His ball was kind of a stabbing volley, flat but not 100 mph.

On the benefit of the doubt question, he is supposed to give us benefit of the doubt about whether ball was in play when he touched the net

See, this is what happens when hot head men don’t listen to women. That point would have given us set point.

 

[Vox Rationis]

Were you playing with a 4.5 since it's 8.0 mixed? Better players tend to have better court awareness when it comes to these things. Your description doesn't say whether he saw both the ball and the opponent hit the net but even assuming the ball bounced behind him I'd be shocked if he didn't know exactly when the ball bounced twice in relation to the opponent hitting the net. Would have been really easy to know based on the balls speed and flight path.

I'd say if it was truly a bang bang play where the ball bounced twice around the same time as the opponent hitting the net then I'd give the opponent the benefit of the doubt like a line call. His point. But from the sound of things it didn't sound like it was that close. I don't agree with your partner throwing a tantrum but I definitely would have tried to stand my ground on the call if I were in his shoes.

Anyways like others have said, I don't think the rules will help you out here. Doesn't seem to indicate who calls it although my guess would be the person who touched the net calls it on him/herself. That would keep things consistent with other rules like a double bounce. When you don't get there in time you're supposed to call a double bounce on yourself too right?

 

[S&V-not_dead_yet]

When I turned my head back to the net player, he was touching the net and was leaning over the net with his racket touching our side of the court for balance so he didn’t fall over. His ball was kind of a stabbing volley, flat but not 100 mph.

On the benefit of the doubt question, he is supposed to give us benefit of the doubt about whether ball was in play when he touched the net

See, this is what happens when hot head men don’t listen to women. That point would have given us set point.

Would it have been any different had it been all women or all men? I can easily see how it would have turned out the same.

 

[esgee48]

The guys I play with would not have a problem. We all use the KISS principles. Guy watching the other guy touches the net will call touch. Other guy watching the ball will say good when he sees 2nd bounce or call it out. The sequence of sounds tells you when and what happened. It really sounds like your group of folks haven't gotten all the kinks worked out in the partnerships. So the sequence of calls would be Touch-Good or Good-Touch. You win the point in the 1st case, but lose the point in the 2nd.

 

[travlerajm]

When I play 8.0 mixed, I always make sure that my partner clearly knows her role, and that includes paying attention to when the opposing macho male crashes clumsily into the net. If I know I can trust my partner in her role, it makes life easier, and I get less frustrated.

In all seriousness, 8.0 mixed brings out some really competitive personalities.

 

[Cashman]

On the benefit of the doubt question, he is supposed to give us benefit of the doubt about whether ball was in play when he touched the net

This is not correct. The ball went out of play on your side of the net, so when that occurred is your call to make. Benefit of any doubt is therefore your responsibility to give.

If there had been doubt over whether (or when) he touched the net, that would be his call. But there wasn't - he was disputing your call, not the other way around.

 

[tennis tom]

This post is great evidence for why all matches need to be videoed to settle disputes--too bad there wasn't a guy in a trenchcoat taping match who could have been called on to help arbitrate the dispute with incontrovertible video evidence. Maybe tennis players should wear bodycams for instant replays.

 

[mxmx]

Sorry for this hijack (not worth a whole thread):
I have a tricky one. Recently I played an opponent and I had to duck for a ball on the baseline. It was a lob I had to run after, but due to the ball being too close to me, I moved out of the way so that it doesn't touch me. It felt at almost a foot behind the basline but I could not see the bounce. I asked the opponent how he saw it and obviously he saw it in, but then also doubted. I asked if we should replay the point, which we did and which I won.

In hindsight I should have conceded the point?

 

[Cashman]

In hindsight I should have conceded the point?

Yes. It’s your call to make, and if it’s not definitively out you should call it in.

 

[tennis tom]

Pack a gat in yer bag. End the conversation quickly

Women should be issued gats from birth to make up for the superior upper body strength of hot-headed men that allows them to bully women. A little pink Derringer could easily be carried in a clutch or when playing mx'ed in one of those tennis panty ball pockets--the great equalizer. Some conspiracy theorists actually believe Mary Todd Lincoln shot Abe with her derringer for chastising her for her shopaholicism and that it wasn't John Wilkes Boothe.

 

[esgee48]

I asked the opponent how he saw it and obviously he saw it in, but then also doubted. I asked if we should replay the point, which we did and which I won.

[/Hijack Alert]
If you have to ask, you have to take their call. You really can't ask them if they are sure otw why ask.
[/End Hijack Alert]

 

[mxmx]

[/Hijack Alert]
If you have to ask, you have to take their call. You really can't ask them if they are sure otw why ask.
[/End Hijack Alert]

Otw? Read properly. He himself wasn't sure. Kids that text these days

 

[GatorTennis]

To the OP, any point involving hitting the net, double bounces, and other things that happen on their side of the net is their call. Recently I had one call where an opponent hit a net shot and the follow thru hit the net. I asked if they hit the net, and they said yes but after they hit the ball. I told them the rule and they conceded the point. Another point where my partner likely hit a double bounce (I didn't see it, because I didn't think she could get to it and started walking to the baseline). The opponent pitched a fit that it was obvious and an argument ensued and we conceded the point, and like I said I didn't think she could get to the ball, so opponents were probably right.

Point being, first you should have established he hit the net and how quickly and then address if the ball could have been in play. All you guys did was cause him to dig his heels in. If it was obviously your point, rope them on a call toward the end of the match when it counts more.

 

[tpro2000]

I had this happen at a usta sectionals a couple years ago.

I was at the net and my partner was serving, and the return was kind of high and short so I ran forward to hit the volley and angle it into the side fence.

I lost my footing, got to close and ended up falling kind of over the net, obviously touching it. There was an Umpire actually watching the point, and immediately called me for touching the net but I knew the continuation rule. So my partner argued that we had already won the point since it bounced twice while our opponents disagreed.

The empire was useless basically, So since neither of us could agree on where the ball was when I touched we gave them the point.

Sent from my SM-G975U1 using Tapatalk

 

[stapletonj]

first, I have done this several times, so I get it. Truth is, even big clumsy oafs (like me) can put on the brakes and be able to stop from the waist down, but their upper body weight isnt stopped. if you have hit one that you know is a winner, the force of your stopping will compress your legs somewhat. as your upper body weight goes just past vertical, you can spring up in the air. (think of a high jumper), buying you maybe even a full second before you touch the net, your opponent, or the ground on your opponents side of the court. This extra second is usually all that is needed for the second bounce to occur.

Since, almost by definition, the shot is past your opponent (at net), I don't think he could call a hinder because you distracted him by violating the air on his side of the court.
If it is one that you sprinted forward for that you barely tapped over the net and then did the leaping over maneuver, the other side might well be able to claim the point if it hinders their ability to play the ball (but not if it just distracted them, as you were making a tennis play, not just solely trying to distract)

whose call it is on whether he touched before the ball bounced twice is still a question in my mind.

 

[J_R_B]

Obviously, I wasn't there, but it seems to me very unlikely that the ball bounced twice (or otherwise hit something that would have ended the point) before the guy touched the net. That would have been pretty remarkable unless (as someone said above), the guy was doing windmills or something to delay the touch as long as possible. This is your call and if your partner saw it that way, you (actually, he) should have stuck to the call.

I had a similar situation at sectionals several years ago. My match had ended, and two of my teammates were finishing up a doubles match tb, and the opponents hit a short floating lob. The guy at the baseline had to sprint in to hit an overhead, which he did, and it would have been a winner except that his momentum carried him into the net, where he flipped over it spectacularly and landed on his back on the other side of the court. Everyone on and around the court from both teams watching the match was watching the flip and immediately our concern was whether the guy was OK (he was and he continued playing no problem), except for his partner who turned to me and asked if I saw whether the ball hit the back fence before he touched the net. LOL, I had no idea, but there's no way they would have won that argument.

 

[Luke Yonex]

I don't know what being a women has to do with it, If anything women are better at defusing a situation because men don't want to abuse a women because it makes them look like a bully. In doubles we always just replay a controversial point. In singles I give any close call points on my side of the net to my opponent, If in doubt just give it away. If my opponent is doing bad calls on his side of the net I bite my tongue because its just not worth it. Sometimes my opponent will call a ball on my side of the net in when its clearly out, This really gets up my goat however I don't argue if you want a point that much you can have it. Some people are just way to serious for me they are as happy as pigs in mud when they are winning but when they start to lose they look for reasons to split the dummy. I like to enjoy my tennis. I use it for stress relief not to give me stress

 

[Chalkdust]

Friend of Court states:

Touches, hitting ball before it crosses net, invasion of opponent’s court, double hits, and double bounces. A player shall concede the point when:
• A ball in play touches that player; 

• That player touches the net or opponent’s court while a ball is in play; 

• That player hits a ball before it crosses the net; 

• That player deliberately carries or double hits a ball; or 

• A ball bounces more than once in that player’s court. 
The opponent is not entitled to make these calls.

The principle of giving the opponent the benefit of any doubt applies.

It doesn't state who decides whether the ball is still in play. Notice the last sentence about benefit of the doubt.

Actually based on the rule you quoted I would interpret it to mean that it's the call of the person touching the net:

"A player shall concede the point when that player touches the net or opponent’s court while a ball is in play"

To me that means the point can only be lost via concession by the player, who is responsible for deciding whether he/she touched the net while the ball was in play. The opponent cannot 'concede' the point on the player's behalf!

Having said that, I agree with your point re benefit of doubt, and given the circumstances described, it seems very unlikely that the player in question could definitively say that he did not touch the net until after the ball was dead. So he should IMO have conceded the point. But still, it was his call to make, and his opponents are not correct IMO in asserting otherwise.

 

[sureshs]

Just look at the recording and decide.

 

[mucat]

Opponent already admitted touched the net (your opponent also touched your side of the court?)
IMO, it is your call to make about when the ball bounced twice on your side of the court.

 

[kevrol]

I think it's opponent's call. You have to call a net touch on yourself. Very likely the opponent was being less than a good sport on the call but it is his call. It's a rare occassion when someone actually calls it on themselves.

 

[kevrol]

Sorry for this hijack (not worth a whole thread):
I have a tricky one. Recently I played an opponent and I had to duck for a ball on the baseline. It was a lob I had to run after, but due to the ball being too close to me, I moved out of the way so that it doesn't touch me. It felt at almost a foot behind the basline but I could not see the bounce. I asked the opponent how he saw it and obviously he saw it in, but then also doubted. I asked if we should replay the point, which we did and which I won.

In hindsight I should have conceded the point?

And if you ask for the opponents help you are required to abide by their call.

 

[CosmosMpower]

OP should change her name to CindyDrama

 

[Dartagnan64]

I can see this from the opposing player's side. He hit a winning shot that was out of reach for both of you and then hit the net. If you had any play on the ball then it's your point but, really, you are trying to claim a point you legitimately lost (he hit a winner) on a technicality (sometime after hitting the winner he touched the net).

I'd have argued to replay the point since the rule of uncertainty and benefit of the doubt applies to both parties. He has to give benefit of the doubt on hitting the net and you have to give benefit of the doubt on whether it occurred before or after the ball was out of play. Play a let.

 

[brettatk]

I can see this from the opposing player's side. He hit a winning shot that was out of reach for both of you and then hit the net. If you had any play on the ball then it's your point but, really, you are trying to claim a point you legitimately lost (he hit a winner) on a technicality (sometime after hitting the winner he touched the net).

I'd have argued to replay the point since the rule of uncertainty and benefit of the doubt applies to both parties. He has to give benefit of the doubt on hitting the net and you have to give benefit of the doubt on whether it occurred before or after the ball was out of play. Play a let.

Agreed. I see this sort of like people who see a ball rolling on the court and wait until their opponent is about to put the ball away to call a let. I mean it's within the rules but the point is over and no let should be called at that point.

 

[ChaelAZ]

Rec tennis is serious business.

 

[Chalkdust]

I was playing mixed 8.0 in a tight second set. Partner was at net, I was at baseline, opposing guy was running down a short ball. He hits his shot to the baseline, and crashes into the net.

Opposing guy says he touched the net after the ball was out of play, or bounced twice, or something. My partner says no way because opposing guy hit the net fast, right after he hit his shot. Me, I don't know because I was calling the baseline and didn't see when the guy touched the net.

Whose call is it? I know a player must call it on himself when he touches the net, but we're entitled to make calls on balls on or headed toward out side of the net.

Opposing guy says it's his point, my partner hits the roof, and my efforts to bring order to the situation and just ask everyone what they think happened fell on two sets of deaf male ears. My partner "gave them" the point but let them both know in no uncertain terms that they were cheating scoundrels of the very worst variety.

So. What should have happened there? I wanted to tell my partner that it is our call, so if he is sure the guy fell into the net before the ball bounced twice or hit a fixture, he should just say that. If both teams insisted they were right and couldn't agree, then the match would end in a stalemate and the grievance committee would have sort it out based on the rule.

All of that fuss could have been avoided if anyone would have listened to me, but I'm just a woman so no one cares what I think because apparently the men folk decide such matters.

Cindy -- reconsidering playing 8.0 any more

Here's why it's your opponents call as to whether or not the ball was live or dead at the moment he touched the net:
We all agree it's his call as to whether or not he actually touched the net.
Of course there can be situations where he touches the net and you are not even aware that the net was touched. For example, his feet just touch the bottom of the net lightly. He is still obliged to call it on himself, even if you didn't notice.
So in the situation above, I think we can agree that he is the one to decide whether the ball was live or dead - since you are not even aware of the moment at which the net was touched, you cannot make that determination.
Logically then we need to make the dead ball / live ball decision the responsibility of the person touching the net, because then it covers all situations consistently. which is what a good rule should do.

Now in your specific case it could well be that your opponent was cheating, but that is no different to the situation where he calls out a ball that was clearly in. You have every right to be upset with the call, but your opponent was right about it being his call and you and your partner were wrong.

 

[TennisOTM]

Actually based on the rule you quoted I would interpret it to mean that it's the call of the person touching the net:

"A player shall concede the point when that player touches the net or opponent’s court while a ball is in play"

To me that means the point can only be lost via concession by the player, who is responsible for deciding whether he/she touched the net while the ball was in play. The opponent cannot 'concede' the point on the player's behalf!

Having said that, I agree with your point re benefit of doubt, and given the circumstances described, it seems very unlikely that the player in question could definitively say that he did not touch the net until after the ball was dead. So he should IMO have conceded the point. But still, it was his call to make, and his opponents are not correct IMO in asserting otherwise.

I'd agree with this. The only way the net-toucher could lose this point is if he concedes by saying "I touched the net while the ball was in play." If he doesn't make that concession, then he wins the point because his shot was in and not returned. That said, it seems like he probably made a bad call in this case. He likely did not see the ball bounce twice before touching the net, and therefore should have conceded. So your partner was justifiably angry at a bad call but had no recourse to claim the point via the rules, just like with a bad line call.

 

[kevrol]

I can see this from the opposing player's side. He hit a winning shot that was out of reach for both of you and then hit the net. If you had any play on the ball then it's your point but, really, you are trying to claim a point you legitimately lost (he hit a winner) on a technicality (sometime after hitting the winner he touched the net).

I'd have argued to replay the point since the rule of uncertainty and benefit of the doubt applies to both parties. He has to give benefit of the doubt on hitting the net and you have to give benefit of the doubt on whether it occurred before or after the ball was out of play. Play a let.

Completely disagree with this. The net touching rules imply that you must be able to control your body enough to not touch the net after striking the ball. If the player had been playing such as to avoid the net then in many cases they probably would not have been able to hit a winner.

 

[tennis tom]

I've seen top tier gold badge grand slam chair umpires not be able to make this call. They were focussed on the net man-Not on the ball towards the baseline--they can't focus on two places at the same time. This is where video replay comes in handy. The OP's eyes were likely staring into the eyes of the opponents, as is often extolled here, to discern their next move. OP was closest to the ball so perhaps she could have been able to best make the double bounce ruling--she did not--so it's a disagreement between partners--therefore point goes to the opponents.

 

[Dartagnan64]

Completely disagree with this. The net touching rules imply that you must be able to control your body enough to not touch the net after striking the ball. If the player had been playing such as to avoid the net then in many cases they probably would not have been able to hit a winner.

There is that but in many cases the ball has already won the point (past any player that could realistically get to it) but hasn't hit the ground twice AND then the net is touched. If you smack winner WHILE barreling into the net I can see it being an easy call. But if you hit a ball past everyone and then touch the net a microsecond before the ball hits the ground for it's second time, it's winning a point on a technicality.

For instance, you pop up a sitter and I crater it so that it's bouncing over the fence. if I lazily lean against the net while we are waiting for it to come back from outer space, are you going to call "net touch"? If so, should I or would I be upset?

Of course I think the net touch rule is silly. If someone can hit a dropper near the net I should be able to run up and get to it without worry of losing a point by touching the net. Otherwise they should put a line 3 feet from the net and disallow a ball to be hit into that space. That would certainly eliminate some unfairly earned net cord winners.

 

[Vox Rationis]

There is that but in many cases the ball has already won the point (past any player that could realistically get to it) but hasn't hit the ground twice AND then the net is touched. If you smack winner WHILE barreling into the net I can see it being an easy call. But if you hit a ball past everyone and then touch the net a microsecond before the ball hits the ground for it's second time, it's winning a point on a technicality.

But that's why most people never call it in that scenario. I feel like most people aren't going to call it unless it's super obvious. Which is what makes me give the benefit of the doubt to Cindy's partner, unless he's just too competitive for his own good.

 

[kylebarendrick]

There is that but in many cases the ball has already won the point (past any player that could realistically get to it) but hasn't hit the ground twice AND then the net is touched. If you smack winner WHILE barreling into the net I can see it being an easy call. But if you hit a ball past everyone and then touch the net a microsecond before the ball hits the ground for it's second time, it's winning a point on a technicality.

For instance, you pop up a sitter and I crater it so that it's bouncing over the fence. if I lazily lean against the net while we are waiting for it to come back from outer space, are you going to call "net touch"? If so, should I or would I be upset?

Of course I think the net touch rule is silly. If someone can hit a dropper near the net I should be able to run up and get to it without worry of losing a point by touching the net. Otherwise they should put a line 3 feet from the net and disallow a ball to be hit into that space. That would certainly eliminate some unfairly earned net cord winners.

Avoiding touching the net and dodging a ball coming at you are both part of the game. If you lazily lean against the net while the ball is in play then you deserve to lose the point. Sorry, not with you on this.

 

[TTMR]

The person that won the fight is correct.

 

[S&V-not_dead_yet]

Actually based on the rule you quoted I would interpret it to mean that it's the call of the person touching the net:

"A player shall concede the point when that player touches the net or opponent’s court while a ball is in play"

To me that means the point can only be lost via concession by the player, who is responsible for deciding whether he/she touched the net while the ball was in play. The opponent cannot 'concede' the point on the player's behalf!

Having said that, I agree with your point re benefit of doubt, and given the circumstances described, it seems very unlikely that the player in question could definitively say that he did not touch the net until after the ball was dead. So he should IMO have conceded the point. But still, it was his call to make, and his opponents are not correct IMO in asserting otherwise.

Yeah, I'm inclined to agree with you: I initially thought the net-toucher's opponent was the one making the call with respect to the point being over but re-reading the wording, I think your interpretation is correct.

 

[S&V-not_dead_yet]

I can see this from the opposing player's side. He hit a winning shot that was out of reach for both of you and then hit the net. If you had any play on the ball then it's your point but, really, you are trying to claim a point you legitimately lost (he hit a winner) on a technicality (sometime after hitting the winner he touched the net).

I'd have argued to replay the point since the rule of uncertainty and benefit of the doubt applies to both parties. He has to give benefit of the doubt on hitting the net and you have to give benefit of the doubt on whether it occurred before or after the ball was out of play. Play a let.

The rules specifically do not mention the point being over just because it's out of reach, probably because this will open a giant can of worms where people argue over whether a ball was out of reach.

If you think about it another way, it's not a technicality that the net-toucher touched the net: if he had moved in such a way to avoid the net, he wouldn't have been able to move as aggressively. I can cover more ground if I don't have to worry about stopping quickly.

 

[S&V-not_dead_yet]

There is that but in many cases the ball has already won the point (past any player that could realistically get to it) but hasn't hit the ground twice AND then the net is touched. If you smack winner WHILE barreling into the net I can see it being an easy call. But if you hit a ball past everyone and then touch the net a microsecond before the ball hits the ground for it's second time, it's winning a point on a technicality.

So is the umpire calling a time violation. Of the opponent calling a foot fault. Or any number of rules where you push the scenario to the very edge. Simpler is to just accept the rule and take both good and bad since you will experience both.

For instance, you pop up a sitter and I crater it so that it's bouncing over the fence. if I lazily lean against the net while we are waiting for it to come back from outer space, are you going to call "net touch"? If so, should I or would I be upset?

Of course I think the net touch rule is silly. If someone can hit a dropper near the net I should be able to run up and get to it without worry of losing a point by touching the net. Otherwise they should put a line 3 feet from the net and disallow a ball to be hit into that space. That would certainly eliminate some unfairly earned net cord winners.

If you eliminate the net touch rule, people can be more aggressive. It will change the nature of the game. Fine if everyone agrees to the rule change but until then, the rule stands. Just don't touch the darn net.

 

[travlerajm]

I don’t know for certain who was right in the OP’s case, but I know one thing for sure:

I’m more likely to crash into the net chasing a drop shot these days than I was 10 years ago. I still feel I can move pretty fast, but my ability to change direction quickly or apply the brakes isn’t what it used to be.

 

[mxmx]

And if you ask for the opponents help you are required to abide by their call.

Yeah...and their call was uncertain also. I actually feel it was fair to replay the point. But I would probably give the point in the future in a situation like this.

 

[TTMR]

Whenever incidents like this arise, you gotta say to yourself "I'm gonna be the bigger person."

So. Start building up your biceps, triceps and pecs. Protein, diet, 'supplements', whatever it takes. I have my personal guarantee that once you're the bigger person, you will encounter these occurrences much less often, and when they do happen, they will be resolved much more expeditiously.

 

[mucat]

"A player shall concede the point when that player touches the net or opponent’s court while a ball is in play"

Just want to add this does not mean the opposite. It only means the player can give up the point, not the player has the right to get the point.

 

[pabletion]

I was playing mixed 8.0 in a tight second set. Partner was at net, I was at baseline, opposing guy was running down a short ball. He hits his shot to the baseline, and crashes into the net.

Opposing guy says he touched the net after the ball was out of play, or bounced twice, or something. My partner says no way because opposing guy hit the net fast, right after he hit his shot. Me, I don't know because I was calling the baseline and didn't see when the guy touched the net.

Whose call is it? I know a player must call it on himself when he touches the net, but we're entitled to make calls on balls on or headed toward out side of the net.

Opposing guy says it's his point, my partner hits the roof, and my efforts to bring order to the situation and just ask everyone what they think happened fell on two sets of deaf male ears. My partner "gave them" the point but let them both know in no uncertain terms that they were cheating scoundrels of the very worst variety.

So. What should have happened there? I wanted to tell my partner that it is our call, so if he is sure the guy fell into the net before the ball bounced twice or hit a fixture, he should just say that. If both teams insisted they were right and couldn't agree, then the match would end in a stalemate and the grievance committee would have sort it out based on the rule.

All of that fuss could have been avoided if anyone would have listened to me, but I'm just a woman so no one cares what I think because apparently the men folk decide such matters.

Cindy -- reconsidering playing 8.0 any more

Geeeeez....... what would've happened if, instead of him crashing in the net, he just touched the net with the tip of one of his sneakers? The rule is the same, it should've been your point.................. I don't know, rules are rules, but its a hard way of claiming a poing bc IN THEORY he just came up with a great shot, and, had he been able to avoid the net, its a great point he's earned. I really dont know what I wouldve done, come to think about it, if it was early in the match, probably just let it go and concede the point, SPECIALLY since an argument breaks down.... but then again, what about a tight situation? A, for example, deciding point????

Yeah, would've claimed the point. You cant let it go at some points and then expect to call it bc all of a sudden its a tight match & important point... I think your partner acted well, maybe overreacted a bit, and shouldve just let it go at the end, youre not gonna convince them to give up the point....