Does calling "out" and changing call to "in" create a hindrance in doubles

[OrangePower]

What you still not getting is that those QAs posted by USTA official is as a clarification to the Code.

Essentially you are still not getting the differece between communication and linecall. The word "out" does not matter, what really matters is the "timing" of the call. Only someone who was present on court at the time can really tell whether it was a "communication" or a "line call".

By the way, a "cheater" can also be someone who stopped playing the point, trying to claim the point, by piggy back on an obvious communication between opponents. And the fairplay can also be "continue playing the point" if you were not really distracted.

This above is of course the correct answer.
Trying to read The Code like IRS tax rules is not going to work. The Code is written a set of guidelines for fair play, to be applied by people who understand this and are seeking fair play. It requires all parties to be honest, since much of it is dependent on context and intent.

 

[SavvyStringer]

Well... we were not given the point. Our opponents said that they were communicating to each other and that there is no rule that states this is a hindrance. Unfortunately, we let our guard down when the "out" call was made.

You can't call "out" or "back" those are out calls and your point. I screwed up a few times like that when I first started playing trying to tell my partner to get back behind the ball and watch it because it was going to be close. Now if communicating with my partner I call "bounce it" or "watch it". Out and Back result in the other teams point.

 

[Robzilla]

It's NOT Hindrance because it's their team's turn to hit the ball. You can make any sound or noise or communication you want when it's your teams turn to hit the ball...

The question would be whether telling your partner that the ball is going to be "Out" is the same as calling it "Out". You are not really supposed to call the ball Out before it lands anyway...

If it does count as "calling it Out", and then suddenly you change your mind, then YOU LOSE THE POINT, because nowday's if you make a bad call you lose the point...

It's probably best not to use the word "Out" when you are communicating to your partner that you think the ball is going out. Even if it doesnt count as "calling it", I have seen it cause a few disagreements.

The issue is... We can't determine whether they were calling it out or communicating. Since the ball was in flight (apprx 12in before the baseline), and our opponents called "out" - I have to assume that they were communicating. When the ball landed on the baseline the call was changed to IN. They continued play - stating that they were communicating and not calling the ball out. The OUT call was a distraction to us, but totally within the rules when communicating to your partner. IMO.... the rules should be changed. If you say the word "OUT" and change your call in "IN", you lose the point. Bounce it, leave it, NO.... are better when communicating to your partner.

 

[Morch Us]

Arguably the baseline player does not have to "change" anything if it was not a line-call and communication, just play the ball and continue. Anyway, I guess you know what to do next time.

the call was changed to IN.

 

[JavierLW]

The issue is... We can't determine whether they were calling it out or communicating. Since the ball was in flight (apprx 12in before the baseline), and our opponents called "out" - I have to assume that they were communicating. When the ball landed on the baseline the call was changed to IN. They continued play - stating that they were communicating and not calling the ball out. The OUT call was a distraction to us, but totally within the rules when communicating to your partner. IMO.... the rules should be changed. If you say the word "OUT" and change your call in "IN", you lose the point. Bounce it, leave it, NO.... are better when communicating to your partner.

I agree, at the least the word "Out" should be understood to mean you are calling the ball out.

People do make Out calls too early sometimes even though it's wrong. So I would not necessarily assume that it's "Communication" at that point.

At least in my experience not too many people use that word for "Communication" and in almost every case when a person has a habit of doing so, they seem to get spoken to by either their partner or it causes a issue because of the confusion involved.

I think enough people would say to them "don't use that word for letting your partner know it's going out" enough that it should be a rule.

But there is no such rule at present, and I would not assume they are communicating necessarily. It's one of those things that you can piece together fine after the fact, but in the heat of the moment, I think the key thing for me would be that I dont hear that word being used very often UNLESS it's a line call so it's natural that it's going to stop the opponents from moving.

(I guess one thing is Tennis is an International sport and maybe customs and words used vary from location to location so it may be hard to limit out a particular word or gesture)

 

[Robzilla]

Arguably the baseline player does not have to "change" anything if it was not a line-call and communication, just play the ball and continue. Anyway, I guess you know what to do next time.

Yes, I'm good - lesson learned : )
And to be clear... the baseline player never said anything. His partner made the initial OUT and IN calls. Obviously, he thought the ball was going out and didn't want his partner at the baseline to hit the ball. Only after the ball hit the baseline did he change his call to IN.

 

[Robzilla]

I agree, at the least the word "Out" should be understood to mean you are calling the ball out.

People do make Out calls too early sometimes even though it's wrong. So I would not necessarily assume that it's "Communication" at that point.

At least in my experience not too many people use that word for "Communication" and in almost every case when a person has a habit of doing so, they seem to get spoken to by either their partner or it causes a issue because of the confusion involved.

I think enough people would say to them "don't use that word for letting your partner know it's going out" enough that it should be a rule.

But there is no such rule at present, and I would not assume they are communicating necessarily. It's one of those things that you can piece together fine after the fact, but in the heat of the moment, I think the key thing for me would be that I dont hear that word being used very often UNLESS it's a line call so it's natural that it's going to stop the opponents from moving.

(I guess one thing is Tennis is an International sport and maybe customs and words used vary from location to location so it may be hard to limit out a particular word or gesture)

Yes... I agree.

 

[Morch Us]

Haha. It is probably time USTA should do some standardization on "keywords". For example... for line calls.... they should make some changes and do not allow "long" "wide" etc keywords.... the only keyword for line call needed is "OUT". Once that is done, probably they can prohibit using the "OUT" keyword for "communication".

Irrespective of any rulings... it still make a lot of sense to practice proper words in communication (like.. bounce).

 

[Cindysphinx]

Willeric, I agree with you. Their response was... since the ball was still in the air (it was inches from the baseline) - they were just communicating to each other and not making an official call. Their "official" call was IN after the ball hit the court.

The key information is in this post.

Say you want to tell your partner not to hit a ball out of the air, so you say "out" just as the ball is about to bounce. Say your partner takes your advice and let's the ball bounce and then plays it.

No experienced player in that situation then calls "IN!" Doesn't happen. We don't make "in" calls during points, only "out" calls.

That one fact means the person who said "out" was in fact making a premature out call, so when he realized the ball was actually in he had to clarify for his partner (and perhaps for your benefit as well) that it was in.

That means we are in "changing a call from out to good" territory, not "partners may communicate while the ball is moving toward their side of the net" territory.

 

[Robzilla]

The key information is in this post.

Say you want to tell your partner not to hit a ball out of the air, so you say "out" just as the ball is about to bounce. Say your partner takes your advice and let's the ball bounce and then plays it.

No experienced player in that situation then calls "IN!" Doesn't happen. We don't make "in" calls during points, only "out" calls.

That one fact means the person who said "out" was in fact making a premature out call, so when he realized the ball was actually in he had to clarify for his partner (and perhaps for your benefit as well) that it was in.

That means we are in "changing a call from out to good" territory, not "partners may communicate while the ball is moving toward their side of the net" territory.

So... what is your ruling?

 

[J_R_B]

Care to give a few examples beyond the "out" call/non-call we are discussing here?

Instead of "out" if someone said "let it go" or "let it", that could certainly be construed as a let call and stop playing without any context as to which way the ball was traveling or how close it was to bouncing.

 

[Cindysphinx]

So... what is your ruling?

I meant that this is a situation of a player changing his call from out to in, NOT a situation where partners were communicating.

In general, the indoor courts around here are very noisy. If my opponents felt that my bounce it call was an out call (or misheard anything, really), I think the gracious thing to do is play a let rather than squabble about who said what, where, and why. In all the time I've been playing, I've only had to play a couple of lets for this sort of thing.

 

[MisterP]

I meant that this is a situation of a player changing his call from out to in, NOT a situation where partners were communicating.

In general, the indoor courts around here are very noisy. If my opponents felt that my bounce it call was an out call (or misheard anything, really), I think the gracious thing to do is play a let rather than squabble about who said what, where, and why. In all the time I've been playing, I've only had to play a couple of lets for this sort of thing.

In general we don't call the ball out before it lands either. But in the case that someone does, and then sees it land in, it's probably not a bad idea to announce that fact to your partner. As someone watching from the other side of the court, I would have not stopped play even with the "out!" call because I would have seen that the terrible call preceded the ball landing.

Personally, I would have to see this point to know what the right thing to do is. Because it has everything to do with how the players react. I've seen it happen both ways: call gets reversed and we play on, or call gets reversed and we award the point for a bad call.

I did have someone catch a ball before it landed WHILE calling it "out" in the air. It was going to be close and I gave him hell for a couple of weeks on that one.

 

[stapletonj]

Care to give a few examples beyond the "out" call/non-call we are discussing here?

"LOOK OUT MIKE!" (Where you are mike)

"LOOK! UP IN THE SKY! IT'S A BIRD, IT'S A PLANE, IT'S FEDERERMAN!!!!"

"DUCK! THERE'S A TERRORIST ABOUT TO SHOOT YOU!!!"

For me.... SSSNNAAKKEE!!!!!

 

[Morch Us]

1. "communication" vs "line call"
2. "hindrance" vs "laziness/tiredness"
3. "rule" vs "etiquette"
4. "fair play" vs "taking advantage"
5. "social" vs "competitiveness"

A lot of them are subjective, and defines your tennis personality.

 

[Dartagnan64]

It was a let. The call was close enough to the time the ball bounced for the opponent to misconstrue it as a line call. Replay the point.
And advise the opponent that its better to use terms such as "leave it" or "bounce it" instead of the common line call terminology.

Not sure why this board has to get so huffy about etiquette and rules some time. There are plenty of grey areas in the Code. So when you ht one of those grey areas, it's pretty simple to just replay the point. It's not a life or death thing. It's just tennis.

 

[Cindysphinx]

In general we don't call the ball out before it lands either. But in the case that someone does, and then sees it land in, it's probably not a bad idea to announce that fact to your partner. As someone watching from the other side of the court, I would have not stopped play even with the "out!" call because I would have seen that the terrible call preceded the ball landing.

Personally, I would have to see this point to know what the right thing to do is. Because it has everything to do with how the players react. I've seen it happen both ways: call gets reversed and we play on, or call gets reversed and we award the point for a bad call.

I did have someone catch a ball before it landed WHILE calling it "out" in the air. It was going to be close and I gave him hell for a couple of weeks on that one.

If you call the ball out before it lands, that is a call and the point is over. This is so even if you then call it in.

This is one reason why people don’t make in calls — the point ended with the out call. And if someone makes an in call, we are justified in concluding that they were not being truthful when they denied making a call because there is no need to say anything if they made no out call.

 

[stevenymets]

It's NOT Hindrance because it's their team's turn to hit the ball. You can make any sound or noise or communication you want when it's your teams turn to hit the ball...

The question would be whether telling your partner that the ball is going to be "Out" is the same as calling it "Out". You are not really supposed to call the ball Out before it lands anyway...

If it does count as "calling it Out", and then suddenly you change your mind, then YOU LOSE THE POINT, because nowday's if you make a bad call you lose the point...

It's probably best not to use the word "Out" when you are communicating to your partner that you think the ball is going out. Even if it doesnt count as "calling it", I have seen it cause a few disagreements.

Is this true regarding only being able to hinder an opponent audibly when the ball is traveling to the opponent, I had no idea. So taking an extreme situation, I hit a lob, and the other team decides to scream at the top of their lungs the full flight of the ball, and after the bounce of the ball, right up to the moment they hit it back, then they stop screaming, that isn’t a hindrance? There is an actual rule that states this, or is this just people’s opinion based on what would be logical?

What about if in the above scenario one of the guys receiving the lob runs to the net waving his arms, right up to the moment they hit the ball, is this also not a hindrance?

I thought you could hinder an opponent at any time if you do something to interfere with them, regardless which way the ball is going. Admittedly I don’t know the rules as well as many here, so this isvan honest question. If someone could reference the rule without a lot of hassle, I would love to see it.

 

[Morch Us]

https://www.usta.com/content/dam/usta/pdfs/Friend at Court.pdf
page#56
(Hindrance Issues - #34 Talking when ball is in play).

I thought you could hinder an opponent at any time if you do something to interfere with them, regardless which way the ball is going.

If someone could reference the rule without a lot of hassle, I would love to see it.

 

[Angle Queen]

https://www.usta.com/content/dam/usta/pdfs/Friend at Court.pdf
page#56
(Hindrance Issues - #34 Talking when ball is in play).

Talking when ball is in play.
• Singles players should not talk during points.
• Talking between doubles partners when the ball is moving toward them
is allowed.
• Doubles players should not talk when the ball is moving toward their
opponent’s court.
• When talking interferes with an opponent’s ability to play a ball, it is a
hindrance.

emphasis mine

The Friend At Court suggests talking while the ball is traveling away from you is discouraged, it's only a "should" and the fourth sub-point is the more overriding one: that when talking/shouting does interfere, regardless of the timing of it, it's still a hindrance. If I seem to recall, we had a big thread about it a few years ago as it became somewhat of an issue in our "Mid-At1antic" section.

And, I'll give you a good example I saw while watching another team's match with an arch-enemy. Team A sends up a weak lob. Before the net man on Team B hit his OH, he said (loud enough for me as a spectator to hear), "I'm gonna nail your [explicative starting with A]." This was was not some friendly, smack-talking match between long-time combatants. Even though Opponent A turned his back, said nailing was indeed executed, although missing just a bit north. A kidney suffered, instead of his A. Might sound funny, explained as such, but it wasn't funny at the time and the match clearly deteriorated. I left because they stopped playing tennis; it was target practice. Any guy who can hit that target, can put the ball where his opponents can't return it. "Hit em where they ain't."

Turning a back to escape the repercussions of your partner's poorly executed lob is standard fare, but the timing and vitriol of the opponent's "warning" raised it to the level of a 'hindrance." IMHO, of course.

As to the OP's original scenario, I've been on both sides literally. When we made the untimely and incorrect "out" call, it was followed by "Oh crap, that was in. Nice shot. YOUR point." When the ones hearing the "out" call but then play continued, we said, "Oh crap, we should have kept playing." It was just one point in a full two-set match. And as always, it's better to be here (playing) than home doing housework. LOL.

 

[stevenymets]

https://www.usta.com/content/dam/usta/pdfs/Friend at Court.pdf
page#56
(Hindrance Issues - #34 Talking when ball is in play).

This is very helpful, thanks for posting! It strikes me based on @Angle Queen post (and the actual rule) that, in what I would guess would be pretty unique circumstances, it is possible to hinder an opponent even when the the ball is coming to you. Again, that would be pretty unique, however, it does strike me based on the OPs discription, that they were hindered, whether their opponent was communicating or actually making a call.

 

[Morch Us]

Obviously using foul language may come under a policy violation under USTA. But it will be extremely difficult to argue specifically "hindrance" in this scenario. If you allow such extremely subjective "hindrances", people can pretty much argue hindrance for anything & everything happening on court.

Ohh yea, that lemon yellow t-shirt you are wearing is so distracting when you run to get the ball, so maybe I can call that a "hindrance"? Ohhh... how about that hotty mixed partner of yours, is so distracting for me, and affects my ability to play, so that should be a "hindrance" as well... correct? And yea, you swing your racket in a wierd way, that it is so distracting.... you farted when playing.... you are dropping sweat all over the court......

Anyway regarding the expected usta conduct policy is below.
https://www.usta.com/en/home/about-...safe-play-conduct--policies---guidelines.html

Anyway the point is, the more advanced level you play, the less you get distracted from anything. You will eventually reach a point where, even when the ball is travelling towards you, you don't get distracted by your opponent waving hands, or yelling something. And it is totally OK for you to continue playing the point and finish it, if you can concentrate on the task.

"I'm gonna nail your [explicative starting with A]."

the timing and vitriol of the opponent's "warning" raised it to the level of a 'hindrance."

 

[TahoeTennis]

If an opponent calls out and the ball is actually in, the opposing side can immediately call a hindrance (if they want to be a dick) but they have a right to either stop, replay or win the point according to the code.

 

[kylebarendrick]

If you call the ball out before it lands, that is a call and the point is over. This is so even if you then call it in.

This is one reason why people don’t make in calls — the point ended with the out call. And if someone makes an in call, we are justified in concluding that they were not being truthful when they denied making a call because there is no need to say anything if they made no out call.

I can see the logic - especially if the player wasn't very experienced. Assuming that the initial utterance of "out" was meant to mean "let it bounce, I think it is going out", then the subsequent yelling of "in" would mean "I was wrong, it landed in, you need to hit it". This could all be communication. As others have noted, "out" isn't considered a magic word by the USTA and saying it doesn't automatically end the point. At the same time, I use "bounce" instead to avoid just such an argument.

In this case, and per the USTA's Q&A, I agree that this should have been a let. The opponents insisted that they were communicating and lacking any other evidence I think you are forced to take them at their word (they should concede the point if the intent really was to make an out call). The call was clearly made close enough to the ball bouncing that it hindered the OP and his partner, so just play it over. No hard feelings and problem solved.

 

[willeric]

I can see the logic - especially if the player wasn't very experienced. Assuming that the initial utterance of "out" was meant to mean "let it bounce, I think it is going out", then the subsequent yelling of "in" would mean "I was wrong, it landed in, you need to hit it". This could all be communication. As others have noted, "out" isn't considered a magic word by the USTA and saying it doesn't automatically end the point. At the same time, I use "bounce" instead to avoid just such an argument.

In this case, and per the USTA's Q&A, I agree that this should have been a let. The opponents insisted that they were communicating and lacking any other evidence I think you are forced to take them at their word (they should concede the point if the intent really was to make an out call). The call was clearly made close enough to the ball bouncing that it hindered the OP and his partner, so just play it over. No hard feelings and problem solved.

How do you make an "out" call if calling out doesn't mean the ball is out and play should stop? I have always used the word "out".

 

[Morch Us]

Whoever is making the out call stops first.

How do you make an "out" call if calling out doesn't mean the ball is out and play should stop? I have always used the word "out".

 

[Gemini]

Willeric, I agree with you. Their response was... since the ball was still in the air (it was inches from the baseline) - they were just communicating to each other and not making an official call. Their "official" call was IN after the ball hit the court.

They're incorrect. Any declarative call that would bring the point to conclusion is in fact an official call. The opponent that claims to have been communicating to his partner was informing his partner of the status of the ball. The partner in turn AFTER the ball hit the ground made a follow-up communication/call (on the ball's status). They disagreed. They lose the point.

Also, it seems strange that someone would supposedly be warning his partner that a ball was going to be out when that partner's only option to play the ball would be on a groundstroke. I personally only warn my partner when he/she has a chance to take the ball out of the air. The claim of "I was just communicating.." is pretty bogus because there would have been no need to warn your partner off on a groundstroke. Just let the ball bounce and then call it out.

My point in all of that is that you don't get the right to make an audible in/out judgement of the ball, then change your mind after the bounce and continue playing the point. You lose the point. Nevermind worrying about a hindrance.

 

[kylebarendrick]

They're incorrect. Any declarative call that would bring the point to conclusion is in fact an official call. The opponent that claims to have been communicating to his partner was informing his partner of the status of the ball. The partner in turn AFTER the ball hit the ground made a follow-up communication/call (on the ball's status). They disagreed. They lose the point.

Also, it seems strange that someone would supposedly be warning his partner that a ball was going to be out when that partner's only option to play the ball would be on a groundstroke. I personally only warn my partner when he/she has a chance to take the ball out of the air. The claim of "I was just communicating.." is pretty bogus because there would have been no need to warn your partner off on a groundstroke. Just let the ball bounce and then call it out.

My point in all of that is that you don't get the right to make an audible in/out judgement of the ball, then change your mind after the bounce and continue playing the point. You lose the point. Nevermind worrying about a hindrance.

Two scenarios are relatively straightforward. (1) If the ball bounces and then a player yells "out" that is clearly making a line call. If either the player or their partner then decide it was in, they lose the point. (2) If right after the opponent hits they ball (say it is just crossing the net) a player yells "out", then that is fairly clearly communicating to their partner that they should let it bounce. If they then yell "in" after it bounces, that most likely means "hey I thought it was going out but it actually landed in so you need to hit it". Neither of these scenarios should be confusing to anyone. I'll fully agree that using "out" instead of something like "bounce" is a poor choice, but USTA has ruled it legal.

The tricky part, which seems represented by the OP, is yelling out just before the ball bounces. To some degree, you have to take the guy's word for it that he was communicating with his partner. If he was actually making a line call, then the only sporting thing for him to do would be to concede the point. In any event, assuming the player sticks to his story that he was communicating, then it would be appropriate to play a let as the late communication did hinder their opponents. I wouldn't let them get away with it again, though, because you are correct that there is no good reason to be yelling "out" at that point.

 

[Cindysphinx]

There is only thing I disagree with, Kylebarendrick. Yes, people warn their partners that the ball is likely going out ("no," "bounce," "leave it"). What you do not typically hear is anything more once the ball lands in. If the partner is handling the situation well, she will bounce the ball and then return it. So there is no reason for any sort of "in" call from either player.

Honestly, I do not think I have ever heard anyone follow up a "bounce it" advisory with a line call of "in." Has anyone else heard such a thing outside of people goofing around at the local kiddie park? Usually, the player who said "bounce it" on an in ball is just grateful that the partner did not let the ball go and played it to keep the point going. And by then the ball is on its way to the opponents, so the player should not be shouting "in" or anything else.

That's why I think the "in" call is a dead give-away that the player said "out" to make a call, and the player cannot change that call without loss of point.

Now, if the player wants to lie about his intentions, there is nothing to be done and it is not worth the squabble to convince him otherwise.

 

[kylebarendrick]

There is only thing I disagree with, Kylebarendrick. Yes, people warn their partners that the ball is likely going out ("no," "bounce," "leave it"). What you do not typically hear is anything more once the ball lands in. If the partner is handling the situation well, she will bounce the ball and then return it. So there is no reason for any sort of "in" call from either player.

Honestly, I do not think I have ever heard anyone follow up a "bounce it" advisory with a line call of "in." Has anyone else heard such a thing outside of people goofing around at the local kiddie park? Usually, the player who said "bounce it" on an in ball is just grateful that the partner did not let the ball go and played it to keep the point going. And by then the ball is on its way to the opponents, so the player should not be shouting "in" or anything else.

That's why I think the "in" call is a dead give-away that the player said "out" to make a call, and the player cannot change that call without loss of point.

Now, if the player wants to lie about his intentions, there is nothing to be done and it is not worth the squabble to convince him otherwise.

I've heard it - more often than not at lower levels. That's why I can at least come up with the scenario. Not often and I wouldn't do it.

Sent from my Pixel 2 using Tapatalk

 

[Gemini]

There is only thing I disagree with, Kylebarendrick. Yes, people warn their partners that the ball is likely going out ("no," "bounce," "leave it"). What you do not typically hear is anything more once the ball lands in. If the partner is handling the situation well, she will bounce the ball and then return it. So there is no reason for any sort of "in" call from either player.

Honestly, I do not think I have ever heard anyone follow up a "bounce it" advisory with a line call of "in." Has anyone else heard such a thing outside of people goofing around at the local kiddie park? Usually, the player who said "bounce it" on an in ball is just grateful that the partner did not let the ball go and played it to keep the point going. And by then the ball is on its way to the opponents, so the player should not be shouting "in" or anything else.

That's why I think the "in" call is a dead give-away that the player said "out" to make a call, and the player cannot change that call without loss of point.

Now, if the player wants to lie about his intentions, there is nothing to be done and it is not worth the squabble to convince him otherwise.

Right, Cindy. And that's where my issue lies. From the OPs account, the one partner who was supposedly communicating to his partner was communicating out on a ball that had ZERO chance to be played before it bounced and was fractions of a second from hitting the court anyway.

 

[DE19702]

The interesting thing is that everyone is focusing on the "out" call but the hinderance was the "in" call because it was made when the ball was traveling to the other side and was intended to be heard by the opponents. I would play a let, but if push came to shove, the opponents have a reasonable argument.

 

[Gemini]

The interesting thing is that everyone is focusing on the "out" call but the hinderance was the "in" call because it was made when the ball was traveling to the other side and was intended to be heard by the opponents. I would play a let, but if push came to shove, the opponents have a reasonable argument.

According to the OP's account, the ball actually wasn't traveling to the other side of the net yet. The moment the ball hit the line, the same player that called the ball out then supposedly made an official call that the ball was in. His partner then returned the ball in play.

As for focusing on the out communication/call versus in call, I'm no sure you can separate the two in my opinion. It's a cause and effect situation. Had he not been making an out call in the first place, he wouldn't have felt compelled to correct himself with an in call.

 

[DE19702]

The OP said his partner was on the baseline when he hit the ball that landed on the baseline. How can he say "in" in the split second between the ball hitting the baseline and his partner hitting the ball?

 

[Gemini]

The OP said his partner was on the baseline when he hit the ball that landed on the baseline. How can he say "in" in the split second between the ball hitting the baseline and his partner hitting the ball?

Because that's what happened according to the original post. We don't know how much time lapsed between the ball hitting the line and his partner returning the ball in play. We only know the following. The one opponent "communicated" out fractions of a second before the ball contacts the court then immediately makes an in "call" as the ball contacts the court on the line. The opponent's partner as a result of the in call continues play by returning the ball in play. All of this may have happened fairly quickly but those are the sequence of events.