Calling service line: Do we really mean that you see court between ball and line?

[BabblingPsychopath]

Another thread got me thinking about this.

If you are calling your service line, and a serve is hit right at you, how far "long" would the ball have to be before it was humanly possible to in fact see court between the ball and the line? I.e. you are really seeing court over the ball as it hits.

A little simple trigonometry shows that if you are average height, standing up straight, and AT the baseline, the "shadow" of the ball hides 8.17 inches of court (from it's midpoint).

So technically, are we calling serves that are long by 6 or 7 inches in? Or does our brain do a little calculation of "I know where the ball landed so it must in fact be long"?

 

[Jack the Hack]

Another thread got me thinking about this.

If you are calling your service line, and a serve is hit right at you, how far "long" would the ball have to be before it was humanly possible to in fact see court between the ball and the line? I.e. you are really seeing court over the ball as it hits.

A little simple trigonometry shows that if you are average height, standing up straight, and AT the baseline, the "shadow" of the ball hides 8.17 inches of court (from it's midpoint).

So technically, are we calling serves that are long by 6 or 7 inches in? Or does our brain do a little calculation of "I know where the ball landed so it must in fact be long"?

I try not to call balls out unless I actually see them out. This is really tough on the serve, especially if the opponent is serving fast or with heavy spin near the line.

My wife has told me that I consistantly give away at least 6 points a match on second serves that I don't call out in the tournament matches she has watched. I've gotten similar input from people on my USTA League team. This makes me wonder if you are on to something here.

By the way, I also firmly believe that your mind does play "calculation tricks" on you that tell you where the ball landed... and many players do rely on this. To me, this is the "feel" that people describe in knowing whether a ball went in or out depending on how they hit it.

 

[drakulie]

I consistantly give away at least 6 points a match on second serves that I don't call out

Same here. People I play against and spectators always say I'm extremely generous with line calls.

 

[grizzly4life]

yeah, i started a similar thread a few years ago, but alot of people didn't seem to clue in to what i meant.... you explained the physics better than me, i suppose.

but yes, to actually see the space between the ball and the line, you have to be really high... i do think that easily 95%+ of people, including me, do a little depth perception calculation (or whatever you want to call it... you can see beside the ball and infer, but you certainly can't see the space between ball and line).

i mostly get good line call comments from my opponents... although one guy got pissed and said that the ball sometimes skids so what looks easily out by depth perception. thought it was an interesting point... BTW, i realize i'm not really doing the lines properly. i think a decent opponent should call their own serves out to a certain extent (NOT the close ones)

 

[WBF]

Yep.

I won't call unless I'm certain it was out, and it results in too many generous calls. Personally I don't mind, I've just tried to improve my game to the point where it doesn't matter whether I miss a few calls.

As for the previous post, on calling your own balls out, I agree as well. I won't stop a point, but if the opponent misses it, and I saw it clearly out, there is no way I'm taking a point I don't deserve. Personally I'd say it's *more* competitive than a player who takes points he doesn't deserve, but others don't see it that way.

 

[tbini87]

over 8 inches of the court being hidden by the ball seems like a lot, but i am not a physics guy. but i was thinking at least 4 or 5 inches, which leads to most people playing balls that are a little long on the serve. i don't always see the court between the line and the ball though, so i guess i just trust my instincs. i usually play balls that are close, because it keeps the match running more smoothly. if it is too close to call out then it was in.

 

[spot]

Here is the proportion as I have it. Say its a 6 foot tall guy is standing on the baseline to return serve. (say its right down the t- he is looking dead on to the center line to make it easier. The player's eyes would be at 5'6". (66 inches). Say the ball is 2.4 inches tall when it hits the ground. (regulation balls are betweeen 2.575 inches and 2.7 inches, forward deformation is around .2 so 2.4 is my best guess. There are 18 feet between the service line and the baseline. (216 inches) After that its a simple proportion because you are looking for the distance between the ball and the service line when you can just see the back of the service line over the ball. A diagram would make it more obvious. But at this point its a simple proportion. (2.4/x)=(66/216) You solve for X and you find out that the ball would have to be 7.8 inches away from the line in order to see over it.

Of course this is why its preferable for the net player to call the service line in doubles.

 

[WBF]

This is why when I play on grass or hard courts, I double fault far more often than clay courts. I love the mark. But hate the surface. Sigh.

If only grass courts had marks, and it never rained.

 

[callitout]

This seems like an especially difficult version of the ball which the pros inaccurately challenge most often--the ball hit on the baseline which they think is out.
I've actually changed my own practice and started calling more of those in--basically being even more careful on the deep baseline ball not to be inaccurately calling one's opponents best deep shots out...but clearly its very hard to see from right on top of it.
As to the serve I basically dont worry about it and assume that I will be playing some deep serves, because it is so difficult to call.

 

[tbini87]

This seems like an especially difficult version of the ball which the pros inaccurately challenge most often--the ball hit on the baseline which they think is out.
I've actually changed my own practice and started calling more of those in--basically being even more careful on the deep baseline ball not to be inaccurately calling one's opponents best deep shots out...but clearly its very hard to see from right on top of it.
As to the serve I basically dont worry about it and assume that I will be playing some deep serves, because it is so difficult to call.

i thought you would just "call it out"... your name is very misleading.

 

[BabblingPsychopath]

... i think a decent opponent should call their own serves out to a certain extent (NOT the close ones)

But technically they aren't allowed to (at least on first serves).

 

[Supernatural_Serve]

The test isn't seeing court between the line and the ball. The test is "any part of the ball touching the line"

They aren't the same thing.

Its simple. If you have doubt, even a moment's hesitation to consider it, then you have to give the opponent the benefit of the doubt.

This isn't a trig problem.

Its a best effort objective judgment call devoid of bias problem.

 

[chlsmo]

The test isn't seeing court between the line and the ball. The test is "any part of the ball touching the line"

They aren't the same thing.

Its simple. If you have doubt, even a moment's hesitation to consider it, then you have to give the opponent the benefit of the doubt.

This isn't a trig problem.

Its a best effort objective judgment call devoid of bias problem.

I think this is the problem. I mean the OP says the ball has to be over 8 inches out before it is obvious that it is out, Example; You can see court between the ball and the service line. So this implies that the ball can be 6 inches or so out and still look like it caught the line. So in my mind balls that are 3-7 inches out are almost always going to have grounds for doubt thereby requiring them to be played, if you go by the "If there is any doubt its out, it must be in" mentality.

I played a tournament yesterday where I must have played a more than a few of these on my opponent's serve, because he did not even react to my returns thinking the ball was obviously out. I was mildly irritated, but I said nothing.

What is the math for whether the server can see his own ball out vs. the returner?

 

[Loco4Tennis]

i agree in the ruling of calling balls in/out, if there is a slight dought in my mind that it could have been out, then there is a small portion of me that thinks it was in as well,
99% out and 1% in is still 100% in!!
i do see your point on how hard it is to see the ball sometimes and your provably right on this thaery of yours, but i am going to play and act like i want the other person to play and act with me, if i hit a ball and he is not sure if it was in or out, then i want him to make the same call i would make, and that is to call a ball out only when he is 100% sure it was out

 

[Loco4Tennis]

The test isn't seeing court between the line and the ball. The test is "any part of the ball touching the line"

They aren't the same thing.

Its simple. If you have doubt, even a moment's hesitation to consider it, then you have to give the opponent the benefit of the doubt.

This isn't a trig problem.

Its a best effort objective judgment call devoid of bias problem.

i agree with what your saying here, not 99% but 100%
just give the point and keep-on-playing,
you wont stress over it and you'll provably play much better than if you dwell over the points you thought you should have called out,
not being 100% correct all the time is part of the game, its the human factor which also what makes this sport fun

 

[michael_1265]

Another thread got me thinking about this.

If you are calling your service line, and a serve is hit right at you, how far "long" would the ball have to be before it was humanly possible to in fact see court between the ball and the line? I.e. you are really seeing court over the ball as it hits.

A little simple trigonometry shows that if you are average height, standing up straight, and AT the baseline, the "shadow" of the ball hides 8.17 inches of court (from it's midpoint).

So technically, are we calling serves that are long by 6 or 7 inches in? Or does our brain do a little calculation of "I know where the ball landed so it must in fact be long"?

There is one additional factor which might affect the perception of "in" or "out". I think that you are making the assumption that the line between the head of the receiver, the ball, and the server is exactly straight. In reality, as soon as we sense the direction of the serve, we move into a position from which we can hit a backhand or a forehand. This results in a slight offset, allowing us to view the ball from a better angle, and reducing the "blind spot" that you have described.

That being said, if somone hits a flat, hard serve directly at you, the blind spot definitely come into play.

Mike

 

[callitout]

i thought you would just "call it out"... your name is very misleading.

yeah, I always thought it was amusing when I heard college players say, "when in doubt call it out"...but in reality that's not a great way to play.

 

[BabblingPsychopath]

As the OP, I thought I would clarify my point/question.

We all know that we are to give the benefit of the doubt to the opponent. But you hear this described with some slightly different phrases. This thread was prompted by another thread, which contained the question "did you see court between ball and line?" Do we consider this the necessary criteria? I would have to say no.

We hear "if you don't see it out, it is in." But what would it mean to see it out other than in seeing court between ball and line?

So, can you know it is out without seeing it out? I would say you can. If I see a serve land 7 inches past the service line I can know it is out without actually observing the separation. But, is this sufficient grounds for an out call?

 

[Nellie]

I do not understand the issue. If you see that ball lands well behind a line, of course you can call it out, even if you do not see a space between the ball and line. I can generally tell from the front, visible portion of the ball where a serve is landing in relation to the service line. I think that the expression that a part of the court was seen between the line and ball is meant to emphasize of the supposed truth of a call.

Also, according to you math, it would be no different whether you are calling a ball at the baseline versus a serve at the service line, except the distance you are typically standing behind the service line is farther and the service is typically faster.

Per previous poster's comments, it would seem to make a big difference where you’re positioned relative to the ball. I think that it why it is generally much more difficult to call serves hit at you than balls hit in the corners, where you can see the ball path at an angle. I guess that is why I am much more generous when calling serves hit to my body.

On a similar note, I get annoyed in doubles when the non-receiving partner makes a call that a serve near the side/center line is wide. From that angle, the receiver has a much better angle to judge the location of the serve.

 

[Idaho MEP]

[Bumping a very old thread because it's still quite relevant...]

Played a singles match against a guy who hit both first and second serves with a lot of power. It's extremely difficult to see the back service line:

1. The ball is going really fast!
2. I'm focused on getting in position to return it.
3. I'm at a terrible angle to see whether there is space between the ball and the back line (see the OP).

My opponent suggested a couple times I had played balls that were out, and my wife told me after the match I had played about 7-8 balls that were out. But I have no idea how to play that any differently.

I have to be able to see that it was out, right??

 

[tennis3]

You call serves as best as you can. Nobody calls every serve correctly in singles (or doubles for that matter). If you played several out serves, it sounds like you were trying to call them as fair as possible. Well done!!

 

[socallefty]

Whenever I have been a spectator for 4.0/4.5+ singles matches, I see at least 5 out serves being called in during a match and the number goes up if the serves are faster - this is way more than the 1-2 in balls called out typically when two fair-minded line callers are playing. It is just impossible as a returner to see close out balls properly on the serve and most players play them as in. That’s why we ask partners to call the serves in or out in doubles.

 

[McLovin]

[Bumping a very old thread because it's still quite relevant...]

From the bottom of my heart, thank you for prefixing your post with this line.

One of my biggest pet peeves here is when people bump threads that are decades old and don’t even acknowledge it. I normally call them out in it, so I guess I feel obliged to commend someone when, IMO, they do things correctly.

 

[Connor35]

[Bumping a very old thread because it's still quite relevant...]

Played a singles match against a guy who hit both first and second serves with a lot of power. It's extremely difficult to see the back service line:

1. The ball is going really fast!
2. I'm focused on getting in position to return it.
3. I'm at a terrible angle to see whether there is space between the ball and the back line (see the OP).

My opponent suggested a couple times I had played balls that were out, and my wife told me after the match I had played about 7-8 balls that were out. But I have no idea how to play that any differently.

I have to be able to see that it was out, right??

Totally the same here. Especially to my backhand, I'm just awful at calling and returning, so I compensate with generosity.

 

[ChaelAZ]

Record matches and review. You can easily see how good you are at calls and either gain some assurance you are playing as fair as your eyes and mind can process, or need to be better with calls.

I've said before, I have recorded 1000's of hours of matches - rec to pro - and for the most part line calls are pretty good and no one is doing anything deliberate.

Personally, I am apt to call an opponent out for something I thought was out they called in, than them calling something out.

But yeah, for a ball coming at me, that is where I tend to play some out balls in because you cannot readily see the margin behind the ball as well.

 

[cks]

My opponent suggested a couple times I had played balls that were out

I played a singles match this past Sunday. My opponent told me on one of the changeovers that one of his first serves was out, but I did not call it out and we played out the point. From my point of view, I'm try to call as I see them and I was not 100% sure his serve was out, so I just started to play the point.

 

[tennis3]

Personally, I am apt to call an opponent out for something I thought was out they called in, than them calling something out.

What do you mean "call an opponent out for something"? If they play the serve, no matter what you think, the serve is in and the point is live.

I really hate when servers make the call on their own serve. Meaning, I return the ball and they stop play and say it was out. You can't actually do this as a server on first serve. If you want to do it on second serve and just give up the point, that's fine.

 

[ChaelAZ]

What do you mean "call an opponent out for something"? If they play the serve, no matter what you think, the serve is in and the point is live.

I really hate when servers make the call on their own serve. Meaning, I return the ball and they stop play and say it was out. You can't actually do this as a server on first serve. If you want to do it on second serve and just give up the point, that's fine.

I mean they play a serve or shot, I get the point, and if I thought it was actually out I give them the opportunity to correct themselves. I play any ball that is played, but plenty of times I'll tell them something looked out they thought was in.

 

[Creighton]

What do you mean "call an opponent out for something"? If they play the serve, no matter what you think, the serve is in and the point is live.

I really hate when servers make the call on their own serve. Meaning, I return the ball and they stop play and say it was out. You can't actually do this as a server on first serve. If you want to do it on second serve and just give up the point, that's fine.

These post just confirms you’re the bad sport.

It’s so hard to call the service line in singles. I play far too many out balls because I’m not sure of them and I err on the side of caution.

It’s unfair for me to benefit from a bad line call, even if it “benefits” the server. If they see their ball out and stop playing, I absolutely want them to correct me.

The same way, I should be able to correct the returner. It’s cooperative line calling and how the sport should work. The goal should always be to get the call right.

 

[darkhorse]

This situation is made more complicated because the server likely has a better view than the returner on the service line (in singles anyway), which can lead to the server stopping play on a ball they see as out but was called in. Obviously you should play out everything but it's difficult sometimes as it seems obvious to the server that the serve is long. I used to get upset about it but now I just try to let it go, tough to do but it's a consequence of self-officiating. If it's a more casual match I do correct the opponent if they seem unsure, but in league/official matches I just try to be ready for anything.

 

[MisterP]

One of the many advantages of playing on clay courts is that you can clearly see the ball marks and can correct the call if it’s done in a timely manner.

 

[Dartagnan64]

[Bumping a very old thread because it's still quite relevant...]

Played a singles match against a guy who hit both first and second serves with a lot of power. It's extremely difficult to see the back service line:

1. The ball is going really fast!
2. I'm focused on getting in position to return it.
3. I'm at a terrible angle to see whether there is space between the ball and the back line (see the OP).

My opponent suggested a couple times I had played balls that were out, and my wife told me after the match I had played about 7-8 balls that were out. But I have no idea how to play that any differently.

I have to be able to see that it was out, right??

If you are doing it right, you should call several "out" balls as "in" on serves. As should your opponent so it should even out.

I play a lot on clay so I always have a mark to back me up and I know I can't tell whether an incoming serve is out until it's 4-5 inches past the service line, maybe longer on flat fast serves. I doubles of course you have a partner to help out so it's not much of an issue.

What I can say as a server, is I hate guys that truly wait until they can see court and return balls that are over a foot long. I'm already getting prepared for a second serve and they are claiming the point.

In the end it's more about knowing a ball is out rather than seeing the ball as out. If you know a certain distance beyond the service line is always out and the ball hits that spot or beyond, it's fair to call it out without actually seeing space. Again for me that's about 4 inches past the service line.

 

[Dartagnan64]

What do you mean "call an opponent out for something"? If they play the serve, no matter what you think, the serve is in and the point is live.

I really hate when servers make the call on their own serve. Meaning, I return the ball and they stop play and say it was out. You can't actually do this as a server on first serve. If you want to do it on second serve and just give up the point, that's fine.

What if you net the return and the server says his ball is out and takes a second serve rather than the point? Do you dislike it then? Or do you return every first serve and play out the good returns and call the serve out on the bad returns?

 

[tennis3]

These post just confirms you’re the bad sport.

It’s so hard to call the service line in singles. I play far too many out balls because I’m not sure of them and I err on the side of caution.

It’s unfair for me to benefit from a bad line call, even if it “benefits” the server. If they see their ball out and stop playing, I absolutely want them to correct me.

The same way, I should be able to correct the returner. It’s cooperative line calling and how the sport should work. The goal should always be to get the call right.

What if you net the return and the server says his ball is out and takes a second serve rather than the point? Do you dislike it then? Or do you return every first serve and play out the good returns and call the serve out on the bad returns?

13. Player calls own shots out. With the exception of the first serve, a player should call out the player’s own shots if the player clearly sees the ball out regardless of whether requested to do so by an opponent. The prime objective in making calls is accuracy. All players should cooperate to attain this objective.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I'm just following the code. If you think about why this is true, it makes sense. But given the tone of the comments, an explanation from me wouldn't do much good.

In reality, if I play the serve and you stop play and say it was out, I'm not likely to say anything. I realize all it will do is delay play with a useless, protracted argument. Nobody likes to be told their "wrong". Even if you open up the rulebook. Tennis players will still argue with you. Better to just play by your opponents rules, even if they aren't the actual rules.

When you play, if you call your own first serve out and your opponent doesn't say anything, it's likely he just view you as a contentious person and realizes that it's just not worth the bother. Just something to think about next time you play.

 

[Chalkdust]

13. Player calls own shots out. With the exception of the first serve, a player should call out the player’s own shots if the player clearly sees the ball out regardless of whether requested to do so by an opponent. The prime objective in making calls is accuracy. All players should cooperate to attain this objective.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I'm just following the code. If you think about why this is true, it makes sense. But given the tone of the comments, an explanation from me wouldn't do much good.

In reality, if I play the serve and you stop play and say it was out, I'm not likely to say anything. I realize all it will do is delay play with a useless, protracted argument. Nobody likes to be told their "wrong". Even if you open up the rulebook. Tennis players will still argue with you. Better to just play by your opponents rules, even if they aren't the actual rules.

When you play, if you call your own first serve out and your opponent doesn't say anything, it's likely he just view you as a contentious person and realizes that it's just not worth the bother. Just something to think about next time you play.

I think you're missing the point of what @Dartagnan64 said.
The rule is the way it is to prevent the server from having two bites at the apple... meaning, returner gets a good return in play (in good faith, believing the serve to be in), but server calls 1st serve out thus negating the good return.
However if the returner fails to get the return in play, then it is to the returners advantage if the sever calls the 1st serve out.
Which I believe one should do in this specific scenario (return not in play).
I would find it very odd if anyone would object to this.

What if you net the return and the server says his ball is out and takes a second serve rather than the point? Do you dislike it then? Or do you return every first serve and play out the good returns and call the serve out on the bad returns?

 

[tennis3]

I think you're missing the point of what @Dartagnan64 said.
The rule is the way it is to prevent the server from having two bites at the apple... meaning, returner gets a good return in play (in good faith, believing the serve to be in), but server calls 1st serve out thus negating the good return.
However if the returner fails to get the return in play, then it is to the returners advantage if the sever calls the 1st serve out.
Which I believe one should do in this specific scenario (return not in play).
I would find it very odd if anyone would object to this.

I would object to it. Why? Because if I go with his call this time, I'm somewhat obligated to go with his call next time. When I return his serve for a winner and he says "no, it was out". Just play by the code. The interesting assumption here is that the server is correct with his call and the returner is wrong. Why is that the assumption? Servers are wrong all the time.

It also matters if the server thinks the returner was playing the serve because he thought it was in, or if he played it but acted like he really wanted to call it out, but it just happened too fast. In the first case, just take the point. The returner thought the serve was in, played it and missed. In the second case it's OK to say "ya, I could see you weren't really playing that. Second serve". But those are very different scenarios.

Basically, if I'm the returner and I think the serve was in, don't overrule me. I don't care if I miss or make the return. Don't overrule me. Just play my call (as the rule states). Even if you know I'm wrong. It doesn't matter.

But as I said, in reality, I pretty much do whatever my opponent wants. Anyone who overrules my call from the other side of the net, isn't someone likely to be reasoned with. You simply do what they say, or you argue with them. So, I just do what they say.

 

[tennis3]

Look, there's a reason I do what I do in these situations. I have a big serve. As any big server knows, you have no idea how your opponent is going to call any of your serves. I have guys return balls that are nearly a foot out. But I just play it. Because it's his call.

And trust me, I've seen every gamesmanship possibility when it comes to this.

• Guy returns my serve that is a foot out. I don't move. He says he's playing it and takes the point
• Gury returns my serve that is a foot out. I return if for a winner. Guy says he wasn't really playing the serve. It was obvious the ball was out

And the list goes on. As a server, just be prepared to play anything that is returned. It's the opponents call. That's the rule.

 

[ChaelAZ]

These post just confirms you’re the bad sport.

It’s so hard to call the service line in singles. I play far too many out balls because I’m not sure of them and I err on the side of caution.

It’s unfair for me to benefit from a bad line call, even if it “benefits” the server. If they see their ball out and stop playing, I absolutely want them to correct me.

The same way, I should be able to correct the returner. It’s cooperative line calling and how the sport should work. The goal should always be to get the call right.

This apparently doesn't have enough drama for some folks, right?

 

[ChaelAZ]

Look, there's a reason I do what I do in these situations. I have a big serve. As any big server knows, you have no idea how your opponent is going to call any of your serves. I have guys return balls that are nearly a foot out. But I just play it. Because it's his call.

And trust me, I've seen every gamesmanship possibility when it comes to this.

• Guy returns my serve that is a foot out. I don't move. He says he's playing it and takes the point
• Gury returns my serve that is a foot out. I return if for a winner. Guy says he wasn't really playing the serve. It was obvious the ball was out

And the list goes on. As a server, just be prepared to play anything that is returned. It's the opponents call. That's the rule.

Why is it always gamesmanship? Played dubs last night and at one point my partner served and when the opponent hit the return he paused for a second like he stopped play, so we relaxed...and no call was made and I duffed the return thinking the point was done. We mentioned it, but they were playing it and it was my fault that with no call I assumed it was a dead ball, whether we thought it was out or not. But it isn't like that happens all the time and we play with those guys all the time.

Maybe it was out and a mistake, but it is rec tennis and not that serious. And just one point.

 

[tennis3]

Why is it always gamesmanship?

Trust me, you can tell.

But as I said, it's irrelevant for me. I simply play any ball that is returned, no matter what I think. Think about it. If I don't have this mindset, I won't move to balls where I think my serve was out. Then I'm at a huge disadvantage. I just have to assume any ball returned in play is good. I can't stop play and say the serve was long. The returner can just tell me to pound sand. It's his call. And he's right. Nothing I can do.

(I know I'll get a reply to this as with "any ball" taken literally).


Look, as a big server, this used to be one of my biggest pet peeves on court. Opponents that called serves like a random response generator. No consistency. No idea what they are going to call. Then I realized I can eliminate all of this just by playing every ball returned. Simple solution.

But then what p!$$es me off is, even though I play 20 lousy serve calls my opponent makes, he feels OK stopping play on one of my returns saying "that serve was out". Difference is, I just do what he says. But if I stopped play, he'd let me know it's his call.

Thus my solution. Do whatever my opponent says. It makes life so much easier. And contrary to what people like Creighton think, I'd imagine it's pretty darn nice to have your opponent always agree with you, never question anything and just do what you say. He just doesn't like the fact that on this forum I'm letting you know that I know I'm getting cheated. But my opponent never knows. I just not my head and move along. Usually with a smile. And my opponent never seems to mind getting his way 100% of the time. Every opponent sees me as "reasonable". Well of course. How could you not when you always get your way?

 

[tennis3]

Now, if as the server you want to overrule the returns call, you can ask the opponent "did you think that serve was out"? Key here is, it's still the opponents call. He is still the one saying "ya, I thought it was, but I played it". Then you can say, "that's fine, I thought it was out too, so it's your point / it's second serve".

But never tell your opponent the serve was out. Never just stop play and basically say "you're wrong, we're going with my call". That's not only extremely impolite and offensive, it's also against the rules. Even if you're right.

 

[Dartagnan64]

I think there is quite a big difference between an obviously out serve and a questionably out serve. Return all questionably out serves and play all returns on questionably out serves. But some serves are out by over a foot and I've had returners play them and not call out if they hit a good return, but interestingly they never let those serves stand if they muff the return.

The code says not to return obviously out serves. So if you are returning a serve that's over a foot out, you are not playing fair.

 

[cks]

I can eliminate all of this just by playing every ball returned. Simple solution

This is the way.

 

[Chalkdust]

I would object to it. Why? Because if I go with his call this time, I'm somewhat obligated to go with his call next time. When I return his serve for a winner and he says "no, it was out". Just play by the code. The interesting assumption here is that the server is correct with his call and the returner is wrong. Why is that the assumption? Servers are wrong all the time.

The code strives to get correct line calls. That's why if you hit a shot that you clearly see as out but that your opponent does not call out, you should concede the point. That's by the code.

The exception for first serve is to prevent any potential gamesmanship in the event that the return is good. However, if the return is not made, the same logic applies as above.

You ask why assume that the server is correct with his call. Again, there are times when the server can clearly make an out call that the returner cannot, same as there are times when you can call your shot out, but your opponent does not have as clean a look at it. A good example is a fast serve right by the center line. From the perspective of the server you can sometimes see that it clearly just missed the line and landed in the wrong court, but the returner is at more of an angle to where the ball lands and may not be confident in making that call. This is similar to when you hit a ball down the line and can clearly see down the line whereas your opponent is looking across the court at it.

Basically, you should always strive to get the correct call made, as long as doing so does not put your opponent at a disadvantage.

 

[esgee48]

Way back in the Jurassic, we we taught how to judge whether serves were out or in. The lesson goes like this. Stand at your normal return position. Another person would place a series of tennis balls on the service line, 2, 4 and six inches out. Then have the returner come up to the service line to see where the ball landed. You get a very good perspective of whether the serve is in or out. Do this from a variety of return positions varying how far you are behind the service line. FWIW I would play balls 2” out as good. Farther than that and I wouldn’t hesitate to say out.

 

[ChaelAZ]

Trust me, you can tell.

I've only had a few I could tell, and confirmed by teammates on the sidelines. But always being able to tell from the other side of the court? I've done tons of video and I watch my own serve and think things are out and they get played, but then watch video from that side and while they looked long, most the time those are actually inside the service line. If you are talking ball length out or more, those you can tell from the other side, but grabbing the back of the line, whether a serve or ground stroke...not always clear.

But back to the original trig question and formula...it isn't that complicated. If I don't see any clear separation, I play it or call it good. Again, most everyone I play is about the same. In watching many hours of video, sure mistakes happen, but more to giving the benefit of the doubt something is in - good faith and fair play - over calling anything close out.

 

[Fairhit]

I do undertand the point being made her but i dont see such a problem, yes, you call a ball out if you see a space between the ball and the line but you can watch the point of contact of the ball with the ground and make a very educated guess. If the serve ball makes contact 2 icnhes away from the line, that migth be an in serve but 3 inches is clearly out, no need to be standing above the ball to see space or to play an obviously out ball because from the returning position it is imposible to see space between the line and the ball at contact if you aren´t an 8 feet player.

 

[tennis3]

But back to the original trig question and formula...it isn't that complicated.

It is simple. I call the lines as best as I can and then always agree with my opponent without issue or argument.

Why do I do this? Even from this thread (where we aren't even "in the heat of battle") there are several differences of opinion on what is right. And every person believes their way is right. When you add in the emotional aspect everyone feels while playing, it just makes sense to simply agree with my opponent and move on. Because agreeing with my opponent is the only way we will move on.

To me it's better to not get angry and distracted then to win arguments on court. I like to keep a very clear head and just go about my business. Many times I feel like my opponent creates issues to try to distract me and get me angry. But when I just agree with them and give them what they want, this "tactic" is disarmed. You can't really argue with a person that just agrees with you.

Back to the issue, I never overrule my opponents call. If they play a serve clearly out and hit it into the net, I just move along to the next point. If they play a serve clearly out and hit a winner, I just move along to the next point. I think sometimes it depends on the level you are playing. Against good players, there's a sort of understanding everyone has about the way things should be done. Nothing much is said. And to say anything (even overruling your own out serve that your opponent hits into the net) is seen as pretty disrespectful. You just let your opponent call his side of the court and move along. It's actually more important to do this than to "get it right".

 

[Chalkdust]

It is simple. I call the lines as best as I can and then always agree with my opponent without issue or argument.

Why do I do this? Even from this thread (where we aren't even "in the heat of battle") there are several differences of opinion on what is right. And every person believes their way is right. When you add in the emotional aspect everyone feels while playing, it just makes sense to simply agree with my opponent and move on. Because agreeing with my opponent is the only way we will move on.

To me it's better to not get angry and distracted then to win arguments on court. I like to keep a very clear head and just go about my business. Many times I feel like my opponent creates issues to try to distract me and get me angry. But when I just agree with them and give them what they want, this "tactic" is disarmed. You can't really argue with a person that just agrees with you.

Back to the issue, I never overrule my opponents call. If they play a serve clearly out and hit it into the net, I just move along to the next point. If they play a serve clearly out and hit a winner, I just move along to the next point. I think sometimes it depends on the level you are playing. Against good players, there's a sort of understanding everyone has about the way things should be done. Nothing much is said. And to say anything (even overruling your own out serve that your opponent hits into the net) is seen as pretty disrespectful. You just let your opponent call his side of the court and move along. It's actually more important to do this than to "get it right".

I just don't understand your reasoning at all. Conceding a point, or a first serve where the return was not made, is always to your opponent's favor. But you somehow feel that doing so indicates disagreement with your opponent and will lead to argument?

So if you hit a passing shot down the line that you very clearly saw out, but the opponent did not call just because he could not be sure from his vantage point... you think you should not overrule... and not because you want to keep the point, but because you think you are somehow going to upset or disrespect the opponent by doing so? Just bizarre. Sorry.

Oh wait, I just saw the bit about good players. Right, so only good players feel disrespected if you overrule a call to their favor. Eh, ok, got it. Guess I need to improve so that I can also feel disrespected in these cases.

 

[J_R_B]

Another thread got me thinking about this.

If you are calling your service line, and a serve is hit right at you, how far "long" would the ball have to be before it was humanly possible to in fact see court between the ball and the line? I.e. you are really seeing court over the ball as it hits.

A little simple trigonometry shows that if you are average height, standing up straight, and AT the baseline, the "shadow" of the ball hides 8.17 inches of court (from it's midpoint).

So technically, are we calling serves that are long by 6 or 7 inches in? Or does our brain do a little calculation of "I know where the ball landed so it must in fact be long"?

The answer to this is that with experience, you can begin to see where the ball landed as it is bouncing away, so you don't actually need to "see green" at >8 in long before you can call it out. This narrows the band closer to the line where it's too close to tell and I'll play it, but I'd guess I only play the balls 3-4 in out when served right at me as opposed to 8 in required to actually see space on the bounce.