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

[tennis3]

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.

The more I say, the more offended you get. Which is why I don't say much in a match. Even if I'm only trying to be helpful.

If you ask me my opinion on a call, I'll give it. Otherwise, I keep my mouth shut.

 

[Chalkdust]

The more I say, the more offended you get. Which is why I don't say much in a match. Even if I'm only trying to be helpful.

If you ask me my opinion on a call, I'll give it. Otherwise, I keep my mouth shut.

Hah, I'm not offended in the least, so no worries!
Just seems that your opinion has an inherent contradiction.
On the one had you assert that you want to follow the rules...
But then on the other hand you say you won't offer an overrule, despite you yourself quoting the bit from the code that requires that you do so:
"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."
So, not offended, just confused. But so be it.

 

[tennis3]

Hah, I'm not offended in the least, so no worries!
Just seems that your opinion has an inherent contradiction.
On the one had you assert that you want to follow the rules...
But then on the other hand you say you won't offer an overrule, despite you yourself quoting the bit from the code that requires that you do so:
"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."
So, not offended, just confused. But so be it.

Ya got me. You win. I surrender.

 

[Fairhit]

Ya got me. You win. I surrender.

Completely in character. Well done.

 

[Connor35]

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.

Agree. If I receive a cross court and hit a down the line 'winner' my opponent calls in, but I clearly saw out because I had the much better angle, I'm going to concede the point every time.
It shocks me that someone would take that point.

Though perhaps that's why I'm not a good player. I don't take points I don't win.

 

[tennis3]

Agree. If I receive a cross court and hit a down the line 'winner' my opponent calls in, but I clearly saw out because I had the much better angle, I'm going to concede the point every time.
It shocks me that someone would take that point.

Though perhaps that's why I'm not a good player. I don't take points I don't win.

Well, you might have noticed that the discussion was about the serve. Then it changed to any shot. I guess I'm just not great at internet discussions. I'm too old. This is a crazy world.

I guess I will say that, on shots like this, the world has changed. It used to be that you would just defer to your opponent on a down the line shot and he would just give you the good/bad sign. Now, opponents are more likely to not give their opinion and instead say "it's not my call" or "I didn't see it clearly". Now, since you asked them, it implies that you didn't see it clearly out. Therefore, by rule, you must call it in.

So now on these shots I'll only ask my opponent by saying "I saw it out, but you had a better view, what do you think". Then they will almost always give their opinion "No, it caught line". Then I give them the point.

If I hit the down the line shot, I used to just give the sign. Now I don't. Because if I give the "in" sign, my opponent might get mad and say it's his call and he's calling it out. So whether or not I say anything is opponent dependent. If I think he's likely to be quarrelsome, I pretty much don't say anything period. Otherwise, I go by the "old" rules of just being cooperative if it looks like my opponent is the same way. But these days, you have to be careful.

 

[Connor35]

Well, you might have noticed that the discussion was about the serve. Then it changed to any shot. I guess I'm just not great at internet discussions. I'm too old. This is a crazy world.

But it applies on the serve if you're a righty receiving on the deuce side and hit a down the line return just out.