Can you call the ball out after getting jammed?

[directionals]

Here's what happened today - opponent hit a fast ball at me and I wasn't sure if the ball was gonna go out. I had very little time to react after the ball landed and hit the ball on the rise. I saw the ball was out. Could I have called the ball was out?

I saw on TV that the pros do it all the time - they would hit the ball and after realizing that the ball was out before they hit it, they would immediately stop and challenge. It applies at the pros level. Does the same rule apply in USTA play?

In case you're wondering, I decided not to call the ball out. My shot went to the net and I lost the game. I ended up winning the set but still I was wondering the whole time after that game.

 

[Lord Luton]

Surely if you call it as you hit it and not once your return has hit the net, that's perfectly valid.

 

[gmatheis]

As long as your own shot doesn't affect your decision to make the call it's ok.

What I mean is that had your shot been going in if you would have played on and not called your opponent's shot out then you should not call it out just because you realize your shot is about to go out (or into the net).

But if you would have called his shot out regardless of where your shot is headed then as long as your shot hasn't already gone out or into the net you can make the call.

 

[Cindysphinx]

Sure, you can call it out.

But if you are really and truly giving benefit of the doubt, if the ball is coming quickly, if you are more focused on the ball than the line, if the ball is headed right for you and might be catching the back of the line . . . then you probably should just play the ball as in.

 

[spaceman_spiff]

When it's that close to the line, it's better to hit the ball to be safe and then make the call if you see it landed out. You don't want to leave it only for it to land in and lose the point.

I would rather have someone making calls after the bounce (and hit) than just calling it out before the bounce (or sooner than they could possibly react after seeing the bounce). I had opponents last night just calling everything out that they thought was going out before the ball even bounced, and they were wrong a few times.

 

[Turbo-87]

I have done this. I agree that as long as you call it immediately and your call isn't based off whether your return shot will go in or not, it is fine. I would always rather get ready to hit a fast deep ball back than let it go in and wish I tried. I always call them right away when the ball hits my string. I think a person is more likely to call a close ball like that out if they do nothing about it.

 

[tennis tom]

Sure it's right, as the others have said just do it immediately, loudly and with conviction.

 

[Govnor]

Well, here is the question. Were you 100% sure? If you were, then you can call it out, if not, you cannot. Doesn't matter that you were putting yourself in position to return it.

 

[Fintft]

Well, here is the question. Were you 100% sure? If you were, then you can call it out, if not, you cannot. Doesn't matter that you were putting yourself in position to return it.

About the 100%, I hate balls that are just outside the line, but might have clipped/touched the line...Not talking about serves, but passing shots, that you have more time to see clearly...

 

[tennis tom]

About the 100%, I hate balls that are just outside the line, but might have clipped/touched the line...Not talking about serves, but passing shots, that you have more time to see clearly...

Oh that's easy, if it's a league match then: "When in doubt, call it OUT!". Or, if you're playing by the rules, when you're not sure, the benefit of the doubt goes to your opponent.

 

[Rorsach]

I'll call it out and check the mark afterwards. If the ball happens to be in, it's the opponents point.

That's the advantage of red clay.

 

[darrinbaker00]

Oh that's easy, if it's a league match then: "When in doubt, call it OUT!". Or, if you're playing by the rules, when you're not sure, the benefit of the doubt goes to your opponent.

I call balls out that are two feet in, and at 6'4" and 245 pounds, I dare my opponents to correct me. :twisted:

 

[Fintft]

Oh that's easy, if it's a league match then: "When in doubt, call it OUT!". Or, if you're playing by the rules, when you're not sure, the benefit of the doubt goes to your opponent.

You caught me lol If I think that only hawk eye could tell if the ball touched infitisimally, then I tend to call it out....

 

[Fintft]

I'll call it out and check the mark afterwards. If the ball happens to be in, it's the opponents point.

That's the advantage of red clay.

Yeah but we only get green clay during summer (and red clay only during my yearly or so visits to Europe - we only have indoor bubble with red clay in the city, here in Canada).

 

[Fintft]

I call balls out that are two feet in, and at 6'4" and 245 pounds, I dare my opponents to correct me. :twisted:

Well, I'm only 6'2" and 220 pounds so...Joke aside I feel guilty at times, b/c I'm pretty sure that only a hawk eye could tell if the balls were totally out and not touching the lines at all. But like Nadal I'm pretty good at judging that if it's lateral ball (i.e. a passing shot and not a ball at my feet).

 

[sureshs]

When it's that close to the line, it's better to hit the ball to be safe and then make the call if you see it landed out. You don't want to leave it only for it to land in and lose the point.

Excellent point. It recognizes that there could be a delay when someone decides if a ball is in or out, and that does not mean he has to call it out every time because the delay implies that he is not sure. It goes to the heart of the calling it out issue that arises so often on this forum. Even Hawk Eye goes through a period of time when it does not know if the ball is in or out - the time spent in its computers. It is not correct to think that humans will process stuff faster.

 

[Fintft]

^^^^
It is an excellent advise to hit it first, but as for calling, most of the times I end up not calling at all, since in that situation, it would be very hard to see where the ball had landed, after all...

 

[r2473]

Oh that's easy, if it's a league match then: "When in doubt, call it OUT!". Or, if you're playing by the rules, when you're not sure, the benefit of the doubt goes to your opponent.

This is incorrect. The call is also going to depend heavily on the score.

What you want to do is call the ball out on important points only. On unimportant points, you actually want to play balls that you clearly see out. In this way, you show that you are being "more than fair" to your opponent.

 

[sureshs]

This is incorrect. The call is also going to depend heavily on the score.

What you want to do is call the ball out on important points only. On unimportant points, you actually want to play balls that you clearly see out. In this way, you show that you are being "more than fair" to your opponent.

And you accumulate creds for honesty because you called the ball in on unimportant points, and trade the creds to make dishonest calls on crucial points!

I am loving this idea. The crucial factor here is to keep a straight face when making those out calls.

 

[tennis tom]

And you accumulate creds for honesty because you called the ball in on unimportant points, and trade the creds to make dishonest calls on crucial points!

Yes this was a tactic espoused by Arthur Hoppe in his book "THE TIDDLING TENNIS THEOREM".

 

[Fintft]

Yes this was a tactic espoused by Arthur Hoppe in his book "THE TIDDLING TENNIS THEORY".

Good stuff!

 

[darrinbaker00]

Well, I'm only 6'2" and 220 pounds so...Joke aside I feel guilty at times, b/c I'm pretty sure that only a hawk eye could tell if the balls were totally out and not touching the lines at all. But like Nadal I'm pretty good at judging that if it's lateral ball (i.e. a passing shot and not a ball at my feet).

Excellent point. It recognizes that there could be a delay when someone decides if a ball is in or out, and that does not mean he has to call it out every time because the delay implies that he is not sure. It goes to the heart of the calling it out issue that arises so often on this forum. Even Hawk Eye goes through a period of time when it does not know if the ball is in or out - the time spent in its computers. It is not correct to think that humans will process stuff faster.

Someone please correct me if I'm wrong, but doesn't HawkEye have a margin of error of four millimeters?

 

[LeeD]

Nothing is perfect in life.
Players accept the correctness of Hawkeye because it's the best system so far to judge close line calls.
Is a tried linesman who plays at the 4.0 level more accurate?
And we/you can call the ball out anytime, but it's a reflection of our personality and life's traits.
If you don't see it out, it must be good.
If you close your eyes when your opponent's ball lands, you cannot call it out, can you?

 

[tennis tom]

What you want to do is call the ball out on important points only. On unimportant points, you actually want to play balls that you clearly see out. In this way, you show that you are being "more than fair" to your opponent.

This excellent strategy is expanded upon in Arthur Hoppe's "TIDDLING TENNIS THEOREM":

"Now then, let us turn our attention to the critical problem of calling your opponent's shots in or out. The initial imperative is to make an outrageous call in your opponent's favor during, if possible, the first game. Try to pick a shot to call good that is at least four inches out. If he is such a good sport that he disputes your call, you know you have him. Simply say you clearly saw it good and there's no room for argument. This not only enhances your aura of good sportsmanship, but raises questions about your eyesight which you can turn to your advantage in the later, crucial stages of the match. But what about the intermediate stages? Whenever possible, attempt to get your opponent to call his own shots. For example, you are running for a ball that lands precisely on the line you and miss it. 'Sorry,' you say, 'I couldn't see that at all. Was it in or out?' Your opponent, of course, saw it good, which it was. But should he say, 'It was good,' he is in the position of calling shots in his favor on your side of the net—a major violation of tennis ethics. As you have already established your good sportsmanship, he will be most reluctant to be outdone in such deportment. Therefore, the most he will generally say is, 'Well, I thought it was good, but let's play the point over.' The first time you have him in this position, you should reply, 'Oh, no, if you thought it was good, play it good,' and proceed quickly to the next point. He will now feel guilty and will henceforth hesitate to call his good shots good, insisting the point be replayed. The second, third, and fourth times this occurs, agree after considerable protest to replay the point. Following the fourth time the ball lands on or near the line, having firmly established your reputation for good sportsmanship and bad eyesight, simply call it out.

 

[r2473]

^^ The guy wrote the book on "how to be a dick"? He must be so proud.

 

[tennis tom]

^^ The guy wrote the book on "how to be a dick"? He must be so proud.

Actually he's deceased. Here's a hint: satire.

 

[directionals]

I always call them right away when the ball hits my string.

Good points. I'm gonna always make the call right away when the ball hits my string. My hesitation was not about whether the ball was out or not. I was sure it was out. My hesitation was about whether I could call it out after I had already struck the ball. That hesitation was just roughly 1 second and the then ball hit the net. Lesson learned.

 

[West Coast Ace]

Well, here is the question. Were you 100% sure? If you were, then you can call it out, if not, you cannot. Doesn't matter that you were putting yourself in position to return it.

That's how I was taught and the policy I use - not sure you and I have much company in that regard though. Have played with too many people who will ponder calls for 10 seconds before rendering their verdict.

 

[sureshs]

Someone please correct me if I'm wrong, but doesn't HawkEye have a margin of error of four millimeters?

You are way off. It is only 3.6 millimeters.

http://unseededandlooming.wordpress...all-marks-why-hawkeye-on-clay-is-unnecessary/

 

[MauricioDias]

^^ The guy wrote the book on "how to be a dick"? He must be so proud.

hahahahahahahaha great comment

 

[tennis tom]

^^ The guy wrote the book on "how to be a dick"? He must be so proud.

hahahahahahahaha great comment

Actually he's deceased. Here's a hint: satire.

..........