Does this make me a bad person?

[jonnythan]

This in the Code:



So what you think is above-and-beyond sportsmanship is actually not.

Hah. You got me there. They don't say you have you invite him out for a beer with the rest of the guys though. So there's that.

 

[spot]

That's a comment and not a rule.

Wow. A perfect end to the thread.

 

[jonnythan]

Wow. A perfect end to the thread.

Except that wasn't the end of the thread!

What have I said, specifically, that is so abhorrent? I've never had anyone complain at all about the way I make calls during matches. I am exceedingly fair and even-handed as well as courteous and kind to my opponents.

I guess the guys I play here don't expect me to give them all sorts of free points. If they're 20 minutes late they know they've lost the match, and if I was 20 minutes late I'd know I lost the match.

Maybe it's just a different culture. We play by the rules around here. Everyone knows it and everyone agrees to it, with very few exceptions.

 

[leroy_sunset]

/end

for real

 

[jmnk]

That's a comment and not a rule. But OK it wasn't a great example. Use the one of catching the ball then. I let my opponent give it to me but then I take it from my opponent. No rules violated but it is very poor sportsmanship for me to enforce.

I can't use the ball catching case as an example of cheating because taking the point after the opponent caught the ball in flight, even the one going obviously out, is --not-- against the rules. No one ever argued that in this thread.

the example with not correcting the server when he did not know he was entitled to the first serve is an example of cheating, and of breaking the rules. That is obviously way worse than not displaying sportsmanship.

 

[jonnythan]

I can't use the ball catching case as an example of cheating because taking the point after the opponent caught the ball in flight, even the one going obviously out, is --not-- against the rules. No one ever argued that in this thread.

the example with not correcting the server when he did not know he was entitled to the first serve is an example of cheating, and of breaking the rules. That is obviously way worse than not displaying sportsmanship.

It was an example of displaying poor sportsmanship while following the rules by not fairly applying them. Cheating came after. I'd rather we stopped using that word for this discussion anyway.

See post 413.

 

[jmnk]

Hah. You got me there. They don't say you have you invite him out for a beer with the rest of the guys though. So there's that.

I'd like to see this one. The opponent caught the ball obviously going out on the match point, therefore you enforce the rule, claim the point, and the victory in a tight match. than shake hands and cordially invite him to share a beer or two. And than you proceed to praise him for his good shots, making fair calls, and being friendly during the match - while he is thinking what kind of a person would claim such a point. that would have been highest comedy.

 

[jonnythan]

I'd like to see this one. The opponent caught the ball obviously going out on the match point, therefore you enforce the rule, claim the point, and the victory in a tight match. than shake hands and cordially invite him to share a beer or two. And than you proceed to praise him for his good shots, making fair calls, and being friendly during the match - while he is thinking what kind of a person would claim such a point. that would have been highest comedy.

On match point? Really? Anyone who would catch an out ball on match point deserves to lose anyway. If my opponent got upset at that, he's an enormous moron. If he didn't get upset, I'd still invite him out.

 

[jmnk]

It was an example of displaying poor sportsmanship while following the rules by not fairly applying them. Cheating came after. I'd rather we stopped using that word for this discussion anyway.

See post 413.

you are confusing me. I've just quoted you the rule that you broke in that scenario - therefore it is --not-- following the rules. I thought even you admitted that.

 

[jonnythan]

you are confusing me. I've just quoted you the rule that you broke in that scenario - therefore it is --not-- following the rules. I thought even you admitted that.

Which rule did I break? I'm getting lost.

It should be immediately obvious to anyone that you can apply the rules and still display poor sportsmanship. We're arguing over whether I've provided a good example of it or not.

 

[jmnk]

On match point? Really? Anyone who would catch an out ball on match point deserves to lose anyway. If my opponent got upset at that, he's an enormous moron. If he didn't get upset, I'd still invite him out.

what does it matter whether it is match point or not? You are going to claim the point anyway. The person catching the ball would be thinking, obviously wrongly when playing against you, that it is reasonable (even thought technically not per rule) to catch a ball going obviously out. Are you implying that applying the rules somehow depends on the score?

 

[jonnythan]

The person catching the ball would be thinking, obviously wrongly when playing against you, that it is reasonable (even thought technically not per rule) to catch a ball going obviously out. Are you implying that applying the rules somehow depends on the score?

No, the rule never depends on the score. How stupid the opponent is does. If he goes the whole match without catching an out ball and decides to do it the first time on match point, he's about a thousand times dumber than the guy who catches the first out ball of the match.

 

[jmnk]

Which rule did I break? I'm getting lost.

in the scenario described in your post #413 you broke the following:

here it is. You broke the following:

"USTA Comments on Correcting Errors
USTA Comment 27.1: Errors as to Ends, Sides, Rotation, and Service
Order, Etc. The general guiding philosophy regarding any mistakes made by
players in failing to change ends, serving from wrong ends, serving to the
wrong court, receiving from the wrong court, etc., is this: Any such error
shall be rectified as soon as discovered but not while the ball is in play, and
any points completed under the erroneous condition shall be counted."

Applying the above to your scenario;
1. you knew that the opponent was serving to the wrong court because you knew he should have been serving second serve to the 'previous court end'.
2. you knew that yet did not correct the error as soon as discovered.

You provided that example (in post #413) to show a case where one can cheat but not break the rules. So I've found you a rule that you broke to illustrate that cheating does mean you broke the rule(s).

It should be immediately obvious to anyone that you can apply the rules and still display poor sportsmanship. We're arguing over whether I've provided a good example of it or not.

yes, of course. we have a perfect example for that. The very scenario OP described and you keep defending as if it was not poor sportsmanship.

 

[jonnythan]

That's fine, I already allowed that it was a bad example. The "call an out ball on your opponent even if he allowed you to have one" doesn't break a rule though. It's just being a jerk by applying a rule.

 

[jmnk]

so that is really the end of this thread? It was a fun discussion after all...

 

[tennis tom]

Kudos to all participants, EPIC!. Congratulations to the OP for starting it, whether right or wrong. I quit reading long ago--ran out of popcorn. This was the Isner-Mahut, 80-78, of threads. It exemplified the best 3 out of 5, no tie-breaks, play-on though weary and delusional, spirit of the game.

Cheers

 

[floridatennisdude]

Kudos to all participants, EPIC!. Congratulations to the OP for starting it, whether right or wrong. I quit reading long ago--ran out of popcorn. This was the Isner-Mahut, 80-78, of threads. It exemplified the best 3 out of 5, no tie-breaks, play-on though weary and delusional, spirit of the game.

Cheers

Haha, yea! 24 pages on catching an out ball. Darn good stuff. Someone start a thread on repeatedly catching your service toss. Oh, wait.

 

[Brian11785]

Played a mixed doubles league match last night and thought of this thread.

My partner and I (we met in lessons two years ago) have been improving pretty quickly the past couple of months; this is our first season after moving up to 3.5 mixed doubles, and we're going to finish around .500. Good enough for me.

We're playing a team that I am assuming is a mother-son team. She plays like someone who has taken a lot of lessons over the years and he looks very self-taught--better than her, but with definitely non-textbook technique.

Anyway, after being close early on, we win the first set 6-2. In the second set, they decide that they are going to return from different sides. I am serving the first game. First point, I double fault to the woman. Second point, I ace the guy. They consult with each other for a minute and ask if they may switch back to their original positions. They've never played the sides that they switched to, made the decision on a whim and are immediately regretting it.

Since it was only two points into the set, and I'd rather not play with unnecessarily bitter opponents, we agreed. But it did creep in my head.....WWJTD ("What would jonnythan do?") :???:

 

[Cindysphinx]

They asked to switch receiving sides? In the middle of a set in a league match?

: boggles :

I can see that I have been going about it all wrong. Say I DF. In the past, I would suck it up. Now I will just ask if I can have another serve.

 

[r2473]

Someone start a thread on repeatedly catching your service toss. Oh, wait.

this is a darn effective tactic to use against a good returner. really messes with their timing.

of course that assumes it doesnt mess with your own timing on the serve

 

[floridatennisdude]

this is a darn effective tactic to use against a good returner. really messes with their timing.

of course that assumes it doesnt mess with your own timing on the serve

Not sure if you detected my sarcasm.....
http://tt.tennis-warehouse.com/showthread.php?t=431568

 

[r2473]

^^i figured you must have been referring to a past thread.

still, it is an easy and effective way to frustrate a returner. it really works. and there is no way anyone can accuse you of doing it on purpose AND make it stick.

 

[Govnor]

Played a mixed doubles league match last night and thought of this thread.

My partner and I (we met in lessons two years ago) have been improving pretty quickly the past couple of months; this is our first season after moving up to 3.5 mixed doubles, and we're going to finish around .500. Good enough for me.

We're playing a team that I am assuming is a mother-son team. She plays like someone who has taken a lot of lessons over the years and he looks very self-taught--better than her, but with definitely non-textbook technique.

Anyway, after being close early on, we win the first set 6-2. In the second set, they decide that they are going to return from different sides. I am serving the first game. First point, I double fault to the woman. Second point, I ace the guy. They consult with each other for a minute and ask if they may switch back to their original positions. They've never played the sides that they switched to, made the decision on a whim and are immediately regretting it.

Since it was only two points into the set, and I'd rather not play with unnecessarily bitter opponents, we agreed. But it did creep in my head.....WWJTD ("What would jonnythan do?") :???:

Now that is funny! I played today and actually stopped a ball waaaay out so I wouldn't have to chase it. I play a lot more recreationally than in official games (this was one), so I do make mistakes like this, sometimes. Anyway, I thought of this thread immediately!! I of course gave the guy the point, but had a chuckle to myself.

 

[woodrow1029]

Common (tennis) sense is also the basis for the OP claiming the point. I sided with the OP's action in the interest of keeping things clear and simple. If we start down the road of saying that it's ok to do certain things which are technically against the rules, but should be obvious and that we'll do or allow them in the interest of being kind to our opponents, then things can get unnecessarily complicated, imo. On the other hand, if we all just play it straight, by the rules, then this precludes lots of future contentious situations.

One might view the OP's action as being overly nitpicky or a bit *****ish, but it was a league match, and apparently there was no prior agreement that it was ok to catch balls that are going out (obviously or not), and, as I mentioned in a previous post, what's obvious to one side might not be obvious to the other side. Best to just play it straight, by the rules, imo.

The OP's opponent made a mistake. He acknowledged that he made a mistake. He lost the point. One point. He learned an important lesson (at least wrt what to expect from the OP) at little cost.

Bottom line, imo, you can be a bit of a **** in a tennis match and still be a good person.

What would I have done in a similar situation as the OP? I probably would have given the point to the opponent. But in the opponent's situation, I definitely would not have expected the OP to concede the point, and wouldn't have thought any worse of him if he claimed the point.

This post is a very good one!

Players can concede points despite a roving official's ruling.

I believe Woodrow once told us that a player cannot overrule an official's ruling under the PPS (Point Penalty System).

Last year at Districts, one of my singles players had a ball roll onto the court mid-point. My player hit a "winner," but the official called a let. The opponent waved off the official's let call and awarded my player the point out of sportsmanship.

The official refused to let the opponent award the point to my player. The players called the referee, who said the obvious: Of course the player can decide to award the point if she felt the ball rolling onto the court was not a hindrance and felt she had no play on the ball.

I believe what I said was that a player cannot overrule an official on a code violation under the PPS. A player cannot refuse to accept a point penalty, game penalty or default resulting from a code violation or time violation.

In the situation you mentioned, like the referee ruled, it's obvious that the players can concede the point.

You make a good point there. But in a match where you have a chair umpire, you may also have ball-kids doing the fetching, spectators retrieving on the other side of the fence, more than one can of balls, and the ump might have a few balls in his pocket to substitute for lost or ruptured balls.

It would pose an interesting situation, let's say, if you only had an ump and no other folks and this same situation occurred and the ball was OBVIOUSLY WAY OUT and no birds were flying over-head and the winds were calm--OH, WOODROW!

If you have a chair umpire, and a player touches the ball or catches the ball before it lands, the chair umpire is going to call a "touch", and award the point to the opponent. That's the job of a chair umpire, to make all of those calls. This is irregardless of whether there are ballkids or not.

When there is a roving official, if a player catches the ball, if the opponent doesn't say anything, then it's a different story. If the opponent says to the roving official, "he caught it, isn't that my point?" The official would award the point, as the official can't say, well yeah normally, but in this case where there are no ballkids, we will let it slide.

There are a lot of matches played with a chair umpire, and no ballkids or line umpires.

I'm just wondering if a player is actually allowed to overrule a line judge or an umpire.

I don't think so, but I don't know the official rule(s) pertaining to this.

If players can overrule calls by linespeople, then that would seem to affect the integrity of the game. I certainly wouldn't bet on any match where players were allowed to overrule line calls.

I think he is referring to amateur tournaments.

In pro matches where there is an official keeping score, I don't think you can overrule the official except in cases where the player calls a ball touching himself and the official didn't see it. However you can't overrule a call on a ball touching your opponent or your opponent catching an out ball.

Actually, on line calls and touches and other foul shots, the player can overrule the umpire's (line or chair) call. However, if a player admits that he touched the ball, or the ball was in, or something like that, the chair umpire has to ask the player, "Are you conceding the point?" The reason is that the umpire makes all the calls. The player is well within his right to tell the other player or the umpire that the umpire made a mistake, but then still take the point and not concede it to the opponent. On an "OUT" line call, if the player concedes that the ball was in, he does not get to replay the point, even if he had a play on the ball, as he normally would if the chair umpire overruled the call. If you concede the point, you lose the point.

 

[leroy_sunset]

On an "OUT" line call [by a line judge], if the player concedes that the ball was in, he does not get to replay the point, even if he had a play on the ball, as he normally would if the chair umpire overruled the call. If you concede the point, you lose the point.

Interesting. Line judge calls it out, no chair overrule -> you can say it was in, and still take the point, because otherwise you have to concede it. That is a silly rule.

 

[jonnythan]

Interesting. Line judge calls it out, no chair overrule -> you can say it was in, and still take the point, because otherwise you have to concede it. That is a silly rule.

You can't say your own ball was in and take the point. You can only say your opponent's ball was in and concede the point. He was talking specifically about overruling an out call on your side of the court to say it was in and therefore concede.

 

[hcelizondo]

For me it is quite simple and I'll give a "foreigner" point of view here: The next paragraph pretty much explains the main difference between the code and the rules.

(taken from) http://www.britishtennis.com/newtotennis/rules/code.shtml

1. Before reading this pamphlet you might well ask yourself: Since we have a book that contains all the rules of tennis, why do we need a code? Isn't it sufficient to know and understand all the rules?

9. All players being human, they will all make mistakes, but they should do everything they can to minimize these mistakes, including helping an opponent.
So yes the opponent OP's made a mistake catching the ball. In my case first I would've warned my opponent to not to catch the ball (specially when the match was getting close to an end) and probably at that point it would've been a good idea to discuss the possibility of stopping those balls or letting them go to the street no matter what, but just taking a point like that...it's a piece of crap

And why do we need a code? because we usually don't have umpires in amateur or even some times semi-pro matches. that's why using examples of pro's matches is completely out of context here.

As I can see the USTA is transforming the code into a set of rules trying to make it more "user friendly" and this is a big mistake (I've just read it on the usta web page). The OP and joony are missing the real intent and spirit of the code. That's why this sport was once called the "white" sport. The whole thing here is fairness, the code is just a tool to help you to make fair decisions. If you guys use it to claim cheap points and cheap wins, honestly shame on you, and you shouldn't be playing this sport period.

Rules are rules and those should be followed letter by letter, the code is a different thing IMO.

 

[floridatennisdude]

^^^this guy gets it

 

[hcelizondo]

And answering the original question. You may not be a bad person, but you are not a good tennis player. and I'm not talking about skills or how well you may hit the ball.

 

[West Coast Ace]

OP, I'm on your side.

But get a partner who doesn't miss easy overheads!

 

[goober]

Actually, on line calls and touches and other foul shots, the player can overrule the umpire's (line or chair) call. However, if a player admits that he touched the ball, or the ball was in, or something like that, the chair umpire has to ask the player, "Are you conceding the point?" The reason is that the umpire makes all the calls. The player is well within his right to tell the other player or the umpire that the umpire made a mistake, but then still take the point and not concede it to the opponent. On an "OUT" line call, if the player concedes that the ball was in, he does not get to replay the point, even if he had a play on the ball, as he normally would if the chair umpire overruled the call. If you concede the point, you lose the point.

I am still unclear on this. You are talking about line calls and touches on yourself. But to me those are completely different from the OP. Since you quoted me- Are you saying if a player catches a ball in officiated match with a chair umpire, his opponent can still conceded the point to the player catching the ball ? To me that makes no sense. If that is the case why can't you concede the point to your opponent in almost any circumstance- completely whiffing on a 2nd serve, hitting the fence on a groundstroke or even hitting the ball into the net?