Can You Call Your Own Shot Out?

[10nisne1]

Hello,

Here is a quick scenario: You serve a fast and flat serve right to the body of the receiver. Unfortunately, you as the server, clearly see the ball just a bit long for a fault. Even more unfortunate, the receiver somehow manages to slap a clear winner cross court, where you can't even react. The receiver does not call the serve out.

This happened very quickly (fast serve/fast return) and you are sure it wasn't intentional for the receiver NOT to call the serve out.

Do you, as the server, call the serve out? Or do you let the non-call stand since the receiver did not call the serve out?

I've been on both sides of the situation. Normally, if the server states that the ball was out, even though I didn't see the ball out as the receiver, I normally let the server rule.

Just curious what others might do in this situation.

Thanks,

10

 

[snark]

Hello,

Here is a quick scenario: You serve a fast and flat serve right to the body of the receiver. Unfortunately, you as the server, clearly see the ball just a bit long for a fault. Even more unfortunate, the receiver somehow manages to slap a clear winner cross court, where you can't even react. The receiver does not call the serve out.

This happened very quickly (fast serve/fast return) and you are sure it wasn't intentional for the receiver NOT to call the serve out.

Do you, as the server, call the serve out? Or do you let the non-call stand since the receiver did not call the serve out?

I've been on both sides of the situation. Normally, if the server states that the ball was out, even though I didn't see the ball out as the receiver, I normally let the server rule.

Just curious what others might do in this situation.

Thanks,

10

I believe, you are not allowed to call your serve out.

 

[ImAGrinch]

I believe, you are not allowed to call your serve out.

You are only allowed to call your own 2nd serves out to prevent the exact scenario described by the OP.

 

[snark]

You are only allowed to call your own 2nd serves out to prevent the exact scenario described by the OP.

That's right, thank you. You can call the second point out, thus giving up the point, but not the first serve.

 

[ImAGrinch]

That's right, thank you. You can call the second point out, thus giving up the point, but not the first serve.

I was wrong though about the scenario though. Its when the ball lands in and the returner rips a winner and the server decides his own serve was long. That is the scenario which the rule is meant to prevent.

 

[813wilson]

I'm curious. I've wanted to ask this question but didn't know where to put it.

I agree with the decision and scenario of the OP.

Slight twist - has anyone on the Pro Tour used a video challenge against themselves for the same reason?

 

[OrangePower]

You cannot call your own first serve out if the receiver got the ball back into play. You can however call your own first serve a fault if the receiver was not able to get it back into play, in which case you get a second serve. On a second serve or any subsequent shot, you can call your serve/shot out, thereby conceding the point.

Slight twist - has anyone on the Pro Tour used a video challenge against themselves for the same reason?

Yes, I've seen this. I don't remember the match though. Serve was originally called good, receiver seemingly hit a winner on the return, server challenged the call that the serve was good. Serve was actually ruled out on the replay, and server got a second serve.

 

[J_R_B]

You cannot call your own first serve out if the receiver got the ball back into play. You can however call your own first serve a fault if the receiver was not able to get it back into play, in which case you get a second serve. On a second serve or any subsequent shot, you can call your serve/shot out, thereby conceding the point.



Yes, I've seen this. I don't remember the match though. Serve was originally called good, receiver seemingly hit a winner on the return, server challenged the call that the serve was good. Serve was actually ruled out on the replay, and server got a second serve.

I don't know if it was the same play or not, but I remember that happening, too. I want to say it was Fed, but I'm not 100% sure about that. Anyway, it was clear from the replay that he was sure the serve was out because he stopped before the return was even hit and made no play for the return at all (although the return was a very good one and it was debatable whether he could have gotten to the return if he had gone for it or if he could have gotten anything on a reply).

 

[fotisutmost]

Slight twist - has anyone on the Pro Tour used a video challenge against themselves for the same reason?

Fed has challenged his first serve, as the return was a winner, and was right. I don't remember the exact match though.

 

[woodrow1029]

I'm curious. I've wanted to ask this question but didn't know where to put it.

I agree with the decision and scenario of the OP.

Slight twist - has anyone on the Pro Tour used a video challenge against themselves for the same reason?

Sharapova did this once when I was in the chair. Hit a serve near the far side line, and it was called in. Receiver hit a huge backhand down the line for a winner. Sharapova immediately challenged her serve, and she was right. It was out, second serve.

If Sharapova had made an effort to get to the return, or hit her next shot, she would not have been able to challenge it though.

 

[beernutz]

Here's one example of a challenged first serve (Roddick v. Monfils at 2010 Tokyo Open):
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0JDWxn6q-zc&feature=player_embedded

 

[fleabitten]

Sharapova did this once when I was in the chair.

Wait, you were in the chair? What chair? The lazy-boy? You piqued my interest with that first sentence; please tell us more.

 

[kimbahpnam]

Well, pros have challenged their own serve when they thought it was out so I guess there is a some sort of exception

 

[Big_Dangerous]

Wait, you were in the chair? What chair? The lazy-boy? You piqued my interest with that first sentence; please tell us more.

He was a chair umpire for many years...

 

[woodrow1029]

Wait, you were in the chair? What chair? The lazy-boy? You piqued my interest with that first sentence; please tell us more.

I have told a lot. You just weren't paying attention.

 

[Larrysümmers]

that must have been pretty awesome

 

[Taxvictim]

This reminds me of the thread where a tournament opponent served and then tried to call a foot fault on himself after the receiver hit a winning return.

 

[pabletion]

This reminds me of the thread where a tournament opponent served and then tried to call a foot fault on himself after the receiver hit a winning return.

Now this was hilarious.... Im totally going to use it!

 

[chatt_town]

I would think not....the reason is would you also call your own serve out if they had hit the return in the net. Most wouldn't. Now when I'm playing pickup with a friend we do help each other out on ground strokes or every now and then a bomb serve up the T that the receiver can't see, but that is pickup.

Hello,

Here is a quick scenario: You serve a fast and flat serve right to the body of the receiver. Unfortunately, you as the server, clearly see the ball just a bit long for a fault. Even more unfortunate, the receiver somehow manages to slap a clear winner cross court, where you can't even react. The receiver does not call the serve out.

This happened very quickly (fast serve/fast return) and you are sure it wasn't intentional for the receiver NOT to call the serve out.

Do you, as the server, call the serve out? Or do you let the non-call stand since the receiver did not call the serve out?

I've been on both sides of the situation. Normally, if the server states that the ball was out, even though I didn't see the ball out as the receiver, I normally let the server rule.

Just curious what others might do in this situation.

Thanks,

10

 

[Devilito]

it's cut and dry. You make all the calls on your side of the court period. Yes you can question the call and if the guy keeps doing it call a ref to supervise line calls if your opponent is blatantly making bad calls. But you cannot call your own serve out because it's on your opponents side of the court.

 

[jht32]

it's cut and dry. You make all the calls on your side of the court period. Yes you can question the call and if the guy keeps doing it call a ref to supervise line calls if your opponent is blatantly making bad calls. But you cannot call your own serve out because it's on your opponents side of the court.

The code says otherwise. From page 53 section of the code...

MAKING CALLS
13. Player calls own shots out. With the exception of the first serve, a
player should call against himself or herself any ball the player clearly sees
out regardless of whether requested to do so by the opponent. The prime
objective in making calls is accuracy. All players should cooperate to attain
this objective.

http://assets.usta.com/assets/1/UST...A/Document Assets/2007/02/09/doc_13_16051.pdf

 

[woodrow1029]

The code says otherwise. From page 53 section of the code...

MAKING CALLS
13. Player calls own shots out. With the exception of the first serve, a
player should call against himself or herself any ball the player clearly sees
out regardless of whether requested to do so by the opponent. The prime
objective in making calls is accuracy. All players should cooperate to attain
this objective.

http://assets.usta.com/assets/1/UST...A/Document Assets/2007/02/09/doc_13_16051.pdf

Exactly, so you cannot call your own first serve out.

 

[polski]

it's cut and dry. You make all the calls on your side of the court period. Yes you can question the call and if the guy keeps doing it call a ref to supervise line calls if your opponent is blatantly making bad calls. But you cannot call your own serve out because it's on your opponents side of the court.

You can't call a 1st serve out because it can be advantagous to the server to do so (return winner, etc). Any other shot, you may call out as there is zero benefit to a player that does this.

It's also referred to as sportsmanship.

 

[jht32]

it's cut and dry. You make all the calls on your side of the court period. Yes you can question the call and if the guy keeps doing it call a ref to supervise line calls if your opponent is blatantly making bad calls. But you cannot call your own serve out because it's on your opponents side of the court.

The code says otherwise. From page 53 section of the code...

MAKING CALLS
13. Player calls own shots out. With the exception of the first serve, a
player should call against himself or herself any ball the player clearly sees
out regardless of whether requested to do so by the opponent. The prime
objective in making calls is accuracy. All players should cooperate to attain
this objective.

http://assets.usta.com/assets/1/UST...A/Document Assets/2007/02/09/doc_13_16051.pdf

Exactly, so you cannot call your own first serve out.

Woodrow, I understand that you cannot call your first serve out. My contention is with Devilito's statement that you cannot call your first serve out just because it is on your opponent's side. You can call any of your balls out on your opponents side with the exception of the first serve.

You can't call a 1st serve out because it can be advantagous to the server to do so (return winner, etc). Any other shot, you may call out as there is zero benefit to a player that does this.

It's also referred to as sportsmanship.

Thanks polski, this was my point.

 

[dalekim24]

This is really an issue of sportsmanship. you can only call your serve out only if it benefits your opponent. In the case where your opponent hits a clear winner when you thought it was out, the server has to give the benefit of the doubt to the receiver since they are in charge of balls landing on his or her side of the court.

In the same way, the returner cannot hit the return and decide if it was in depending on the ball landing in or not. This is the biggest problem with calling your own games because the incentive influences the perception of the observer. Its not that the returner is trying to cheat, just that they want to win the point so badly and when unsure about the call, guess that it looked in for the most part.

 

[roundiesee]

Sorry to digress, but I once played a guy who was so sporting, he called his own shots out (even though some of them were in). When I protested, he would have none of it and insisted his shots were "correctly" called out! I wish most players were like him

 

[jc4.0]

Well the day we club players get "hawkeye" video replays for our matches will be sweet! But for now, you can't call your own ball out, serve or otherwise. It's annoying when someone plays an out serve, especially one that is CLEARLY out, but just like any other bad call, you have to eat it.

It's extremely windy in Florida this time of year and recently I hit a high roller on the defense that absolutely deserved to go out. But I made the mistake of saying "out - so out!" in disgust, just as a gust of wind blew my ball back into the court, where it neatly clipped the line and would have been a winner, but - Guess what? I gave up the point anyway, because I should have kept my big mouth shut. My comment was a hinderance to my opponent, who claimed that she stopped playing based on my utterance. She had every right to call me on it.

So it's a good rule of thumb - if its not your call, just keep playing until the point is officially done.

 

[Jeebs]

Fed has challenged his first serve, as the return was a winner, and was right. I don't remember the exact match though.

Cash challenged one of his own first serves which was called in at the Aegon Masters today and McEnroe went mental.

 

[woodrow1029]

Well the day we club players get "hawkeye" video replays for our matches will be sweet! But for now, you can't call your own ball out, serve or otherwise. It's annoying when someone plays an out serve, especially one that is CLEARLY out, but just like any other bad call, you have to eat it.

It's extremely windy in Florida this time of year and recently I hit a high roller on the defense that absolutely deserved to go out. But I made the mistake of saying "out - so out!" in disgust, just as a gust of wind blew my ball back into the court, where it neatly clipped the line and would have been a winner, but - Guess what? I gave up the point anyway, because I should have kept my big mouth shut. My comment was a hinderance to my opponent, who claimed that she stopped playing based on my utterance. She had every right to call me on it.

So it's a good rule of thumb - if its not your call, just keep playing until the point is officially done.

Once again, as usual, you completely miss the point. What you did was say "out - so out!" when the ball was still in the air. Completely different than what is being asked in this thread. And besides, if you clearly see a ball that you hit out, other than the first serve, you should call it out against yourself.

 

[jc4.0]

Once again, as usual, you completely miss the point. What you did was say "out - so out!" when the ball was still in the air. Completely different than what is being asked in this thread. And besides, if you clearly see a ball that you hit out, other than the first serve, you should call it out against yourself.

I'm not responding to the initial point made by the OP. Sometimes we bring up other issues, haven't you noticed? And - you apparently didn't read my post too well, as usual.

I admitted to a verbal hinderance and took my medicine (lost the point). My ball was meanwhile NOT out, at least not after the wind blew it back in during its flight across the court. I lost the point on hinderance, because I stupidly assumed it was out - not because it hit outside the lines. I always call my own out balls IF my opponent misses the call.

You're such a negative, grouchy person. You must have hemorrhoids the size of a Penn 4.

 

[jht32]

Well the day we club players get "hawkeye" video replays for our matches will be sweet! But for now, you can't call your own ball out, serve or otherwise. It's annoying when someone plays an out serve, especially one that is CLEARLY out, but just like any other bad call, you have to eat it.

It's extremely windy in Florida this time of year and recently I hit a high roller on the defense that absolutely deserved to go out. But I made the mistake of saying "out - so out!" in disgust, just as a gust of wind blew my ball back into the court, where it neatly clipped the line and would have been a winner, but - Guess what? I gave up the point anyway, because I should have kept my big mouth shut. My comment was a hinderance to my opponent, who claimed that she stopped playing based on my utterance. She had every right to call me on it.

So it's a good rule of thumb - if its not your call, just keep playing until the point is officially done.

The bolded part above is incorrect.

 

[jht32]

Once again, as usual, you completely miss the point. What you did was say "out - so out!" when the ball was still in the air. Completely different than what is being asked in this thread. And besides, if you clearly see a ball that you hit out, other than the first serve, you should call it out against yourself.

I'm not responding to the initial point made by the OP. Sometimes we bring up other issues, haven't you noticed? And - you apparently didn't read my post too well, as usual.

I admitted to a verbal hinderance and took my medicine (lost the point). My ball was meanwhile NOT out, at least not after the wind blew it back in during its flight across the court. I lost the point on hinderance, because I stupidly assumed it was out - not because it hit outside the lines. I always call my own out balls IF my opponent misses the call.

You're such a negative, grouchy person. You must have hemorrhoids the size of a Penn 4.

I'm starting to understand what "healthy discussions" with JC means now.

Woodrow, I hope your health improves as I hear that hemorrhoids can be a very painful medical condition.

 

[Cindysphinx]

Well the day we club players get "hawkeye" video replays for our matches will be sweet! But for now, you can't call your own ball out, serve or otherwise. . . .

So it's a good rule of thumb - if its not your call, just keep playing until the point is officially done.

Oh, wow. Wrong. So very wrong. Sadly, sadly inexcusably wrong.

If you see your ball is *out,* you should call it out (except first serves as discussed elsewhere in the thread).

Come on. You seem like a smart gal. Read the Code. Learn it, absorb it. That should make a lot of your problems disappear.

 

[AtomicForehand]

Come on. You seem like a smart gal.

JC is a woman??

 

[jc4.0]

Yes, I was wrong. It is sad; I may cry myself to sleep tonight. Of course "Some People" never admit to making a mistake - probably their only fault is being too humble.

At least I have a sense of humor - sadly lacking in so many of these posts!

 

[Cindysphinx]

JC is a woman??

Yes, I believe she is a 3.5-ish woman in Florida. Doesn't play league but plays social ladies and mixed.

 

[woodrow1029]

I'm starting to understand what "healthy discussions" with JC means now.

There is no such thing.

 

[woodrow1029]

I'm not responding to the initial point made by the OP. Sometimes we bring up other issues, haven't you noticed? And - you apparently didn't read my post too well, as usual.

I admitted to a verbal hinderance and took my medicine (lost the point). My ball was meanwhile NOT out, at least not after the wind blew it back in during its flight across the court. I lost the point on hinderance, because I stupidly assumed it was out - not because it hit outside the lines. I always call my own out balls IF my opponent misses the call.

You're such a negative, grouchy person. You must have hemorrhoids the size of a Penn 4.

Your post had nothing whatsoever to do with the question asked in this thread.

You also once again exhibit your childish behavior is what you did though.

 

[jc4.0]

In response to cindy, the 4.0 newbie (and who crowed about it for days after receiving the exhilarating news of her ascension to that exalted rank) I have been a 4.0 league player for 3 years now.

As for Woodrow - my guess is you're a 70ish old geezer who spends most of his days trying to "teach those young whippersnappers a lesson in manners". You seem very [FONT=&quot]knowledgeable[/FONT] , but your know-it-all attitude sucks. I'd much rather be a child.

Have you heard the saying "in the beginner's mind are all possibilities, in the expert's mind there are few"? You should take that to heart.

 

[woodrow1029]

As for Woodrow - my guess is you're a 70ish old geezer who spends most of his days trying to "teach those young whippersnappers a lesson in manners". You seem very [FONT=&quot]knowledgeable[/FONT] , but your know-it-all attitude sucks. I'd much rather be a child.

You consistently come onto these threads and give incorrect information, and people actually listen to you because some of your posts, while totally wrong, are actually well written. Then, other people need to go in and correct the incorrect information that you provide so that the people posting the questions know the right information.

For you to guess that I am a "70ish old geezer" obviously means that you definitely haven't seen the dozens of photos I have posted of myself and you definitely don't know what I spent 12 years of my life doing as a fulltime profession.

 

[jc4.0]

You consistently come onto these threads and give incorrect information, and people actually listen to you because some of your posts, while totally wrong, are actually well written. Then, other people need to go in and correct the incorrect information that you provide so that the people posting the questions know the right information.

For you to guess that I am a "70ish old geezer" obviously means that you definitely haven't seen the dozens of photos I have posted of myself and you definitely don't know what I spent 12 years of my life doing as a fulltime profession.

Usually people post photos that are from several years ago - I hope you are actually a virile, gorgeous hunk of a man age 27, for your sake - but I've not seen your photos, certainly haven't taken the time to research your illustrious career. I'm just basing my perception of you on what you write. I have also worked in the tennis profession from time to time.

What we're trying to do here (at least I believe) is to have fun, spirited discussions and get legitimate questions answered. It's folks like you that start getting personal, and that's cool - I can give as good as I take. I guess it just bugs me when someone thinks they are always right, when sometimes the answer isn't black and white. FYI That's why I prefer the term "discussion", rather than "Woodrow Lecture".

 

[woodrow1029]

What we're trying to do here (at least I believe) is to have fun, spirited discussions and get legitimate questions answered. It's folks like you that start getting personal, and that's cool - I can give as good as I take. I guess it just bugs me when someone thinks they are always right, when sometimes the answer isn't black and white. FYI That's why I prefer the term "discussion", rather than "Woodrow Lecture".

I never gave a lecture, I just pointed out the fact that you missed the point again, as you usually do. What to me was the start of things getting personal was your low class remark of, "You're such a negative, grouchy person. You must have hemorrhoids the size of a Penn 4." directed at me.

I do however make corrections when I make a mistake, or misinterpret a question directed here. People do value my opinions on the rules, as someone who knows who I am talking about regarding the rules, which is why there is a thread titled "Ask Woodrow1029" and not a thread titled "Ask jc4.0." When you have been in the chair for three US Open finals, maybe you will get such a thread too. Never have I made a comment to you as rude and offensive as the hemorrhoids remark!

 

[jc4.0]

I never gave a lecture, I just pointed out the fact that you missed the point again, as you usually do. What to me was the start of things getting personal was your low class remark of, "You're such a negative, grouchy person. You must have hemorrhoids the size of a Penn 4." directed at me.

I do however make corrections when I make a mistake, or misinterpret a question directed here. People do value my opinions on the rules, as someone who knows who I am talking about regarding the rules, which is why there is a thread titled "Ask Woodrow1029" and not a thread titled "Ask jc4.0." When you have been in the chair for three US Open finals, maybe you will get such a thread too. Never have I made a comment to you as rude and offensive as the hemorrhoids remark!

Here again you are being personal, and this is the same comment that started it all, that I always "miss the point" of every discussion. So wrong!!! Plus, you clearly have no sense of humor, and I hope your written persona isn't the way you view life in general, that would be terribly sad.

enjoy your "Ask Woodrow" thread - I wouldn't have the time. I'm sure that officiating for the U.S. Open was a fine experience, and I certainly respect that. As stated before, you seem to know a lot about the sport, but could you try to stop being so self-important? Is that even possible?

 

[woodrow1029]

I said usually, not in every single thread.

You expect me to have a sense of humor with you making comments like you do? By the way, an 11 year old would make the type of hemorrhoid comment that you made. I'm pretty sure you can be more mature than that.

 

[jc4.0]

I said usually, not in every single thread.

You expect me to have a sense of humor with you making comments like you do? By the way, an 11 year old would make the type of hemorrhoid comment that you made. I'm pretty sure you can be more mature than that.

I apologize for the hemorrhoid comment. I have a very sarcastic, crass, occasionally objectionable sense of humor, probably not even worthy of a school yard showdown.

 

[beernutz]

In response to cindy, the 4.0 newbie (and who crowed about it for days after receiving the exhilarating news of her ascension to that exalted rank) I have been a 4.0 league player for 3 years now.

As for Woodrow - my guess is you're a 70ish old geezer who spends most of his days trying to "teach those young whippersnappers a lesson in manners". You seem very [FONT=&quot]knowledgeable[/FONT] , but your know-it-all attitude sucks. I'd much rather be a child.

Have you heard the saying "in the beginner's mind are all possibilities, in the expert's mind there are few"? You should take that to heart.

You have the temperament and maturity down pat so you're well on your way.

 

[Cindysphinx]

My apologies, JC. On another recent thread, I thought you indicated that you do not play USTA league, so I took this to mean you are not in fact a computer-rated 4.0 player.

To Woodrow . . . say it with me:

"Sheez."

 

[ABtennis]

Hello,

Here is a quick scenario: You serve a fast and flat serve right to the body of the receiver. Unfortunately, you as the server, clearly see the ball just a bit long for a fault. Even more unfortunate, the receiver somehow manages to slap a clear winner cross court, where you can't even react. The receiver does not call the serve out.

This happened very quickly (fast serve/fast return) and you are sure it wasn't intentional for the receiver NOT to call the serve out.

Do you, as the server, call the serve out? Or do you let the non-call stand since the receiver did not call the serve out?

I've been on both sides of the situation. Normally, if the server states that the ball was out, even though I didn't see the ball out as the receiver, I normally let the server rule.

Just curious what others might do in this situation.

Thanks,

10

Can players play a ball that is blatantly out? In a doubles match the other day, I served a serve that was at least a foot out. The receiver ripped his forehand. My partner and I questioned the serve because we basically stopped playing. The receiver said it was his choice because it was a serve to his favorite shot and he chose to play it even though he basically conceded it was out. Is this allowed?

 

[10nisne1]

When you said "he basically conceded the ball being out", did he actually explicitly state the ball was out?

If he explicitly stated the ball was out, then the ball should have been a dead ball. If he only "implied" that the ball was out, well then that would be un-sportsman like, but technically you, the server, cannot call the ball out on your 1st serve as many responses to this thread had pointed out.

10

 

[kylebarendrick]

Any time I stop playing after I was sure my serve was out, only to see my opponent returning the serve and winning the point, I get mad at myself. I know it is their call and I know I have to keep playing unless they call it out.

One person's "blatantly out" is another person's "benefit of the doubt".