Does this make me a bad person?

[jmnk]

my question was purposely open-ended.
All of the examples you cited (except the last one which is not sportsmanship but simply following the rules) are in fact nice gestures. the thing is that's all they are, gestures that don't 'cost' you anything. they have no bearing on the result whatsoever. They make one 'look' good, but they are so 'easy'.

My point being that the above is all nice and good - but I think sportsmanship is a bit more than that. And I think that is the essence of this thread, the OP did not want to go 'above and beyond' and show sportsmanship, he just took what was his regardless. that's cool, maybe he is not a bad person, but it was not sportsmanship either.

Well some of them cost me something - reversing an out call costs me the point. Admitting I tipped a ball when the opponent didn't know costs me the point. Admitting a ball touched me as it went long costs me the point. I do all those things too.

Sportsmanship, to me, is respecting the game, playing fairly and by the rules, and respecting your opponent.

The bolded part - if you do that in un-officiated match means it simply you are not a cheater. If you do not do that you would be a cheater. Again, some here simply argue that sportsmanship is going --beyond-- the rules, even if that benefits the opponent and not you.

 

[jonnythan]

The bolded part - if you do that in un-officiated match means it simply you are not a cheater. If you do not do that you would be a cheater. Again, some here simply argue that sportsmanship is going --beyond-- the rules, even if that benefits the opponent and not you.

The rules do not cover how you treat your opponent before and after the match. They don't cover when you should and should not celebrate a point.

What exactly are you looking for? Do you only consider something "sportsmanship" if you give points in violation of the rules?

Do you consider it impossible for someone to display good sportsmanship in an officiated match where the player isn't even allowed to make a call?

That's silly. A good sport plays fairly and treats their opponent with respect.

 

[jonnythan]

I shouldn't have put them in quotes, but it is basically what you said.

What does "respecting your opponent" mean to you? To what degree does this respect extend past the amount of respect required (if there is any required) by the rules? Is it an internal concept, or does this respect extend to actions?

I think sportsmanship is a loftier ideal than rule-following. Because the ideals of some encompass everything you've said sportsmanship means to you, plus more. The comparison between the Code and sportsmanship is similar to that of morality and law, I think. Just because a law is on the books, that doesn't make it inherently moral (slavery, anyone?). Just because a rule is part of the Code, that does not make someone's use of the rule inherently sportsmanlike.

See my previous posts. It means treating my opponent with respect in ways not required or covered by the rules. Apologizing if you hit them, being friendly before and after the match, congratulating them on a win or excellent shot, etc.

I too think sportsmanship is a great deal more than rule-following. You can follow the rules to a T but still be a galactic jerk. I also don't think that using a rule is automatically sportsmanlike.

That's why I say it's important not just to apply a rule, but to apply the rules fairly to both yourself and your opponent.

I believe there's a great deal more to good sportsmanship than simply following the rules. I resent your continued attempts to characterize my idea of sportsmanship as simply following the rules despite the fact that I've literally spent pages of posts explaining to you how my idea of sportsmanship is a great deal more than that.

 

[spot]

Jonnythan. I still think its hilarious how you don't see how bad this conversation has made you look. So let me rephrase this a bit. Are you saying that you think it is impossible for someone to exploit the rules of tennis in an unsportsmanlike way?

 

[jonnythan]

Jonnythan. I still think its hilarious how you don't see how bad this conversation has made you look. So let me rephrase this a bit. Are you saying that you think it is impossible for someone to exploit the rules of tennis in an unsportsmanlike way?

I literally just said the opposite of that.

 

[Brian11785]

I literally just said the opposite of that.

What in your eyes is an example of someone applying a valid rule in an unsportsmanlike manner?

 

[spot]

I literally just said the opposite of that.

So why don't you give us a few examples where it would be unsportsmanlike to enforce the rules?

 

[jonnythan]

So why don't you give us a few examples where it would be unsportsmanlike to enforce the rules?

It would be unsportsmanlike to enforce a rule unfairly. It's also not that you enforced a rule. A rule can be enforced in a rude or disrespectful manner. That would be very unsportsmanlike.

 

[jmnk]

The rules do not cover how you treat your opponent before and after the match. They don't cover when you should and should not celebrate a point.

not sure what you are trying to say here.

What exactly are you looking for? Do you only consider something "sportsmanship" if you give points in violation of the rules?

you do not give points in violation of the rules. You use proper judgement/common sense when interpreting the rules.

Do you consider it impossible for someone to display good sportsmanship in an officiated match where the player isn't even allowed to make a call?

where did that come from? I've already cited Petzschner example from US Open when he --could have-- display good sportsmanship in officiated match, but he chose to stick to what rules allowed him, and he didn't. Of course you can always display good sportsmanship when opportunity arises - but you need to want to do that. As they say; Where there's a will there's a way.

That's silly.

what's silly? Hoping that one follows common sense?

A good sport plays fairly and treats their opponent with respect.

.. and does not rely on technicality to win (to put it bluntly).

 

[spot]

It would be unsportsmanlike to enforce a rule unfairly.

WHy don't you give a couple examples of where someone could enforce a rule "unfairly" in an unsportsmanlike manner?

 

[jonnythan]

WHy don't you give a couple examples of where someone could enforce a rule "unfairly" in an unsportsmanlike manner?

You serve a fault to me. Your second serve is interrupted by a ball from another court. You say second serve and I don't correct you and you serve a double fault. Next game it happens to me and I say I get a first serve and explain the rule.

That would be unfairly using a rule to your advantage and be very poor sportsmanship.

 

[spot]

You serve a fault to me. Your second serve is interrupted by a ball from another court. You say second serve and I don't correct you and you serve a double fault. Next game it happens to me and I say I get a first serve and explain the rule. .

That is an example of cheating. The receiving team has to give the server a second serve. Or if you are saying that the second serve should have been automatic (say the point was started) then you would be cheating to not give a second serve at the time even if they didn't realize that they had one coming. They couldn't "double fault" without you cheating.

WHy don't you give a couple examples of where someone could enforce a rule "unfairly" in an unsportsmanlike way?

 

[jonnythan]

That is an example of cheating. The receiving team has to give the server a second serve. Or if you are saying that the second serve should have been automatic (say the point was started) then you would be cheating to not give a second serve at the time even if they didn't realize that they had one coming.

It's not cheating. I just didn't correct you. It's not a rule violation. It's just very poor sportsmanship.

 

[spot]

It's not cheating. I just didn't correct you. It's not a rule violation. It's just very poor sportsmanship.

It absolutely would be cheating to not tell someone that they had another serve if they thought they had doublefaulted. Thats no different than the opponents getting the score wrong in your favor and just going along with it. 100% cheating.

 

[floridatennisdude]

So we are playing a tough league match and throughout the course of the match I hit two serves and two overheads that catch the bank behind the court and bounce over the fence requiring our opponents to chase the ball down the street that runs behind the courts. Not a big deal but a pain to be sure.

Any who, we win the first set (6-0) and we are at 5-5 in the second when we break the opposing man. The break point is where the action happens ... I hit a good return that the server pops up to my partner. He goes to smash the ball but mishits it and the ball sails long but not before the server catches the ball in the air without thinking. We claim the point, walk to the other side and serve out the match .....

The other guy felt bad for doing it ... but this is where the question comes in. He claims he caught it to keep yet another ball from bounding over the fence.

Now I know the rules are clearly in my favor, and I will take the point every time I am playing in an official match. However in the grand karmic scheme, is this going to come back to haunt me ... should I have just let it go for the greater good?

Bumping the OP to clarify where a rule enforcement could be seen as unsportsmanlike. Dizzle felt guilty about doing it, hence he feared it was unsportsmanlike to do so. It is a matter of opinion as to whether enforcing the rule was unsportsmanlike.

I tend to think it was a little nit picky and unsportsmanlike. They had chased several balls down a hill outside of the court and didn't want to chase another. Looking the other way probably would have been a better sign of sportsmanship.

 

[jmnk]

That is an example of cheating. The receiving team has to give the server a second serve. Or if you are saying that the second serve should have been automatic (say the point was started) then you would be cheating to not give a second serve at the time even if they didn't realize that they had one coming. They couldn't "double fault" without you cheating.

WHy don't you give a couple examples of where someone could enforce a rule "unfairly" in an unsportsmanlike way?

It's not cheating. I just didn't correct you. It's not a rule violation. It's just very poor sportsmanship.

The cheating part is not 'not correcting the opponent'. The cheating is in explaining the rule in a way that makes the opponent think you are entitled to the first serve, and than taking that first serve. While in fact the rule is that it is up to him to grant you the first serve. It would be plain cheating.

 

[jonnythan]

It absolutely would be cheating to not tell someone that they had another serve if they thought they had doublefaulted.

I disagree but it doesnt matter. The code doesn't say you have to correct your opponent's mistakes. How about if I caught an out ball and let my opponent give me the point, but then he caught one and I took the point.

 

[jonnythan]

The cheating part is not 'not correcting the opponent'. The cheating is in explaining the rule in a way that makes the opponent think you are entitled to the first serve, and than taking that first serve. While in fact the rule is that it is up to him to grant you the first serve. It would be plain cheating.

It isn't up to him if you're interrupted while serving. It's automatic.

 

[spot]

I disagree but it doesnt matter.

It DOES matter because you the worst kind of rules lawyer- one that doesn't know the rules but you will try and go to the edge of the line.

If your opponent calls the score wrong in your favor and you do not correct them then you are 100% a cheater. If the server went over to the other side and was going to take a second serve when they were still entitled to a second serve then you would absolutely be a cheater for letting them proceed with an incorrect score.

The fact that you don't see this shows EXACTLY what sportsmanship means to you.

 

[jmnk]

I disagree but it doesnt matter. The code doesn't say you have to correct your opponent's mistakes.

Wait, did you really just say that?

How about if I caught an out ball and let my opponent give me the point, but then he caught one and I took the point.

what you mean what about it? The opponent is good sportsman and you are not. Isn't that obvious?

 

[spot]

It isn't up to him if you're interrupted while serving. It's automatic.

That depens on where in the service motion the interruption happens. Either way- if you think its automatic and you do not let them know that they had another serve coming then you are a cheater to let them call out the wrong score and not correct the error.

 

[jonnythan]

It DOES matter because you the worst kind of rules lawyer- one that doesn't know the rules but you will try and go to the edge of the line.

If your opponent calls the score wrong in your favor and you do not correct them then you are 100% a cheater. If the server went over to the other side and was going to take a second serve when they were still entitled to a second serve then you would absolutely be a cheater for letting them proceed with an incorrect score.

The fact that you don't see this shows EXACTLY what sportsmanship means to you.

I said it would be bad sportsmanship. I don't think it's a rule violation. Whether its cheating depends on hoe you define cheating so let's drop that word.

 

[spot]

The code doesn't say you have to correct your opponent's mistakes.

This really should be the end of the thread. This shows EXACTLY what kind of person you are.

 

[spot]

Whether its cheating depends on hoe you define cheating so let's drop that word.

Letting the opponents call out the wrong score and not correcting it because it is in your favor is pretty much the DEFINITION of cheating. I'm sorry that you don't like the word but thats absolutely what it is.

 

[jonnythan]

This really should be the end of the thread. This shows EXACTLY what kind of person you are.

Huh? I absolutely correct my opponents mistakes whether in my favor or theirs.

You wanted an example of bad sportsmanship while enforcing a rule. I gave you one. That's not something I would ever do.

 

[jmnk]

It isn't up to him if you're interrupted while serving. It's automatic.

oh, I see. So that is even worse. As Spot stated (quoted below) - you absolutely cheated. Not even close.

That is an example of cheating. The receiving team has to give the server a second serve. Or if you are saying that the second serve should have been automatic (say the point was started) then you would be cheating to not give a second serve at the time even if they didn't realize that they had one coming. They couldn't "double fault" without you cheating.

 

[jonnythan]

oh, I see. So that is even worse. As Spot stated (quoted below) - you absolutely cheated. Not even close.

I may have cheated but I dont believe I broke a rule. I was considering cheating as violating a stated rule.

 

[spot]

I may have cheated but I dont believe I broke a rule.

I seriously cannot believe that you do not think its cheating to FLAT STEAL points that you didn't earn. Do you think its cheating to try and argue against the correct score to get the opponents to give youpoints back? I don't see anything in the rules against it.

 

[jonnythan]

I seriously cannot believe that you do not think its cheating to FLAT STEAL points that you didn't earn. Do you think its cheating to try and argue against the correct score to get the opponents to give youpoints back? I don't see anything in the rules against it.

It is cheating. I meant it's not a violation of the rules.

 

[jmnk]

I may have cheated but I dont believe I broke a rule. I was considering cheating as violating a stated rule.

I'm at loss of words. i feel defeated by this logic........ i need few minutes to recover....

 

[jonnythan]

I'm at loss of words. i feel defeated by this logic........ i need few minutes to recover....

What logic?

Which rule do you think it violates?

It's certainly a very wrong thing to do but I know of no rule it breaks.

 

[Mauvaise]

It isn't up to him if you're interrupted while serving. It's automatic.

That is 100% incorrect. From The Code:

29. Delays during service. When the server’s second service motion is interrupted by a ball coming onto the court, the server is entitled to two serves.

When there is a delay between the first and second serves:
• The server gets one serve if the server was the cause of the delay;
• The server gets two serves if the delay was caused by the receiver or
if there was outside interference.

The time it takes to clear a ball that comes onto the court between the first and second serves is not considered sufficient time to warrant the server receiving two serves unless this time is so prolonged as to constitute an interruption. The receiver is the judge of whether the delay is sufficiently prolonged to justify giving the server two serves.

As for not correcting your opponents' mistakes, I believe in certain instances, it is written into The Code that you absolutely should correct an opponent's mistake. Especially when it comes to line calls:

13. Player calls own shots out. With the exception of the first serve, a player should call out the player's own shots if the player clearly sees the ball out regardless of whether requested to do so by an opponent. The prime objective in making calls is accuracy. All players should cooperate to attain this objective.

jonnythan, I'm completely on your (and the OP's) side with regard to claiming a point on a caught out ball, and on taking a win through retirement if your opponent gets injured through a non-deliberate act on your part. But you're dead wrong on the first serve issue and possibly dead wrong on not correcting your opponent's mistakes.


FYI - this is the exact rule on catching an out ball:

41. Catching a ball. If a player catches a ball before it bounces, the player loses the point regardless of where the player is standing.

From here: http://assets.usta.com/assets/1/15/2011FAC-Kaufman.pdf ***WARNING - OPENS LARGE PDF FILE***

 

[jonnythan]

The code you just quoted says it's automatic if the serve itself is interrupted. If the serve isn't interrupted but a ball has to be retrieved between serves it's at the receiver's discretion.

 

[Specialjustin]

I used to play the card game called 'cheat' but i won a quite a few games without cheating!

I thought i was quite good at it but now i'm not so sure. Was i cheating!?!

 

[spot]

I meant it's not a violation of the rules.

You are on a lonely island right now. I can't believe that you don't think its a violation of the rules to STEAL POINTS. Truly it shows what kind of person you are and how ridiculous you have been this entire thread. I'm just glad that we finally were able to get you to admit it to everyone.

 

[Mauvaise]

The code you just quoted says it's automatic if the serve itself is interrupted. If the serve isn't interrupted but a ball has to be retrieved between serves it's at the receiver's discretion.

You're partially correct. The server gets an automatic first serve if the interruption is caused by the receiver or by outside interference. However, I was basing my saying you are incorrect based on your scenario:

You serve a fault to me. Your second serve is interrupted by a ball from another court. You say second serve and I don't correct you and you serve a double fault. Next game it happens to me and I say I get a first serve and explain the rule.

The Code very clearly states that "The time it takes to clear a ball that comes onto the court between the first and second serves is not considered sufficient time to warrant the server receiving two serves unless this time is so prolonged as to constitute an interruption." And that *IF* it is going to be decided that it does constitute an interruption that it's "The receiver is the judge of whether the delay is sufficiently prolonged to justify giving the server two serves."


In your scenario - you were correct in letting your opponent take a 2nd serve if you didn't feel the interruption was prolonged. You were incorrect in claiming a 1st serve as it's your opponents to give, not yours to take.

 

[jonnythan]

You're partially correct. The server gets an automatic first serve if the interruption is caused by the receiver or by outside interference. However, I was basing my saying you are incorrect based on your scenario:



The Code very clearly states that "The time it takes to clear a ball that comes onto the court between the first and second serves is not considered sufficient time to warrant the server receiving two serves unless this time is so prolonged as to constitute an interruption." And that *IF* it is going to be decided that it does constitute an interruption that it's "The receiver is the judge of whether the delay is sufficiently prolonged to justify giving the server two serves."


In your scenario - you were correct in letting your opponent take a 2nd serve if you didn't feel the interruption was prolonged. You were incorrect in claiming a 1st serve as it's your opponents to give, not yours to take.

No. If he is interrupted in his second serve he gets an automatic first. It's only up to me if he is interrupted between serves by a ball from another court.

 

[jonnythan]

You are on a lonely island right now. I can't believe that you don't think its a violation of the rules to STEAL POINTS. Truly it shows what kind of person you are and how ridiculous you have been this entire thread. I'm just glad that we finally were able to get you to admit it to everyone.

Well then quote the rule it violates.

 

[jmnk]

You're partially correct. The server gets an automatic first serve if the interruption is caused by the receiver or by outside interference. However, I was basing my saying you are incorrect based on your scenario:



The Code very clearly states that "The time it takes to clear a ball that comes onto the court between the first and second serves is not considered sufficient time to warrant the server receiving two serves unless this time is so prolonged as to constitute an interruption." And that *IF* it is going to be decided that it does constitute an interruption that it's "The receiver is the judge of whether the delay is sufficiently prolonged to justify giving the server two serves."



In your scenario - you were correct in letting your opponent take a 2nd serve if you didn't feel the interruption was prolonged. You were incorrect in claiming a 1st serve as it's your opponents to give, not yours to take.

I think you misinterpreted the scenario, as I did when I was reading it. i believe jonnythan says the following.
1. first serve was out
2. while serving second serve (as in the ball in the air), another ball/something interrupted the server.
3. the server cleared the interruption and proceeded to serve --second serve--
4. per cited rule, since the interruption was during the service motion, it should have been the first serve automatically
5. the server did not know the rule
6. jonnythan knows the rule, but --does not-- correct the server when the server announced it is second serve
7. the serve is out
8. the server goes to add side to serve another point
9. jonnythan silently takes unearned point claiming that per rule he does not have to correct server's mistake and tell him the server was entitled to two serves, and right now he still has second serve
10. jonnythan agrees he is cheating
11. jonnythan claims he did not break any rule

so i have the following takeaways from this thread;
1. just following the rules is enough to be considered sportsmanlike,
2. it is possible to cheat and not break the rules.

(I never thought the second one is possible, but apparently it is).:roll:

 

[jonnythan]

so i have the following takeaways from this thread;
1. just following the rules is enough to be considered sportsmanlike,
2. it is possible to cheat and not break the rules.

(I never thought the second one is possible, but apparently it is).:roll:

Correct except you presumably meant not enough.

Thank you.

 

[jmnk]

so i have the following takeaways from this thread;
1. just following the rules is enough to be considered sportsmanlike,
2. it is possible to cheat and not break the rules.

(I never thought the second one is possible, but apparently it is).:roll:

Correct except you presumably meant not enough.

Thank you.

oh no. I did mean 'enough', exactly as stated in my post. Perhaps you did not detect the sarcasm here. You have stated over and over that merely following the rules is enough to be considered sportsmanlike behavior.

 

[jonnythan]

oh no. I did mean 'enough', exactly as stated in my post. Perhaps you did not detect the sarcasm here. You have stated over and over that merely following the rules is enough to be considered sportsmanlike behavior.

I have stated repeatedly the exact opposite of that. Following the rules is absolutely not enough.

I'm starting to think no one is even reading my posts.

 

[jmnk]

Well then quote the rule it violates.

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.

 

[jmnk]

[...]

Sportsmanship to me, is respecting the game, playing fairly and by the rules, and respecting your opponent.

I have stated repeatedly the exact opposite of that. Following the rules is absolutely not enough.

I'm starting to think no one is even reading my posts.

well, the way I read you previous posts (see the one quoted here), it is exactly what you are saying - just follow the rules. Perhaps with addition of some fluff that does not cost you anything but makes you look/feel good.

 

[jonnythan]

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.

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.

 

[r2473]

its just a damn shame you guys arent all in the same league / district

 

[jonnythan]

well, the way I read you previous posts (see the one quoted here), it is exactly what you are saying - just follow the rules. Perhaps with addition of some fluff that does not cost you anything but makes you look/feel good.

Selectively applying the rules is poor sportsmanship. Fairly and consistently applying the rules is good sportsmanship.

Sportsmanship covers a lot more than just when and how you apply the rules. It covers how you treat your opponents before, during, and after the match - the rules don't cover this at all. It covers the manner in which you apply the rules (it would be poor sportsmanship to laugh at your opponent when he catches a ball going out, for instance).

You can apply all the rules fairly and consistently and still be a huge jerk about it. You can selectively apply the rules and still be a good sport, though that's probably rather difficult.

My vision of a good sportsman is one who is friendly before the match. He shakes his opponent's hand and says "good luck." He warms him up fairly, not trying to hit winners. During the game he applies the rules fairly and expects the rules to be applied fairly to him as well. He helps his opponent out when they don't know a rule. He doesn't allow his opponent to give him points in violation of the rules. He congratulates his opponent on a particularly excellent shot. He is kind and friendly when changing sides, retrieving balls, etc. After the match he shakes his opponent's hand again and tells him that he played well. He plays cleanly. He doesn't cheat. He doesn't make excuses.

All of this encompasses a great deal more than simply following the rules. That's good sportsmanship.

 

[r2473]

^^ i think to be a good sport, you need to share your bcaa stash if all your opponent brought was sports drinks and water

 

[jonnythan]

^^ i think to be a good sport, you need to share your bcaa stash if all your opponent brought was sports drinks and water

Only if he's playing fasted

 

[Brian11785]

This in the Code:

PRINCIPLES
1. Courtesy is expected. Tennis is a game that requires cooperation and courtesy.
2. Points played in good faith are counted. All points played in good faith stand.
For example, if after losing a point, a player discovers that the net was four inches
too high, the point stands. If a point is played from the wrong court, there is no
replay. If during a point, a player realizes that a mistake was made at the beginning
(for example, service from the wrong court), the player shall continue playing the
point. Corrective action may be taken only after a point has been completed.
Shaking hands at the end of a match is an acknowledgment by the players that
the match is over.

So what you think is above-and-beyond sportsmanship is actually already part of the Code (thus, a required minimum?).