Doubles Etiquette Question

[hector]

I hit a slice serve out wide. The ball was definitely not long but looks like it hit the line bordering the alley. The reterner plays the ball; the returner's partner who standing pretty close to the opposite alley at the net calls the ball wide. Is this standard practice? Given his position I have no problem if he calls a ball long but don’t see how he can call a ball wide. Shouldn’t that call be the returners?

 

[zzzbrianxxx]

It is the returner's responsibility to call the ball wide, and the partner's responsibility to call the ball long. In regards to rallies, it is more acceptable for the partner to make the call, because it can sometimes be difficult for the one playing the ball to make the call (ie. When you've been lobbed and you're running to the baseline).

 

[equinox]

It's the returners responsibility to call the sideline and T-line, his partner should call the service line.

 

[hector]

It's the returners responsibility to call the sideline and T-line, his partner should call the service line.

That is what I thought. When I came to the net I mentioned this to the guy at the net. He went ballistic. The situation disintegrating very quickly and he walked off the court. He mentioned that he has two eyes and know what he say. I mentioned that what he saw from that angle may not be what actually happened and that is why he should not make the call.

 

[boxingguy]

From The Code:

25. Service calls in doubles. In doubles the Receiver’s partner should call
the service line, and the Receiver should call the sideline and the center service
line. Nonetheless, either partner may call a ball that either clearly sees.

(italics inserted)

 

[Owen0501]

When playing doubles, should you be watching watch your playing partner is doing, or what the opponent is doing (for your own positioning) and listening out for a 'switch' call from your playing partner?

 

[Solat]

From The Code:

25. Service calls in doubles. In doubles the Receiver’s partner should call
the service line, and the Receiver should call the sideline and the center service
line. Nonetheless, either partner may call a ball that either clearly sees.

(italics inserted)

if the ball lands on your side of the net you get to make the call, doesnt matter which partner makes it as long as one does. Everyone is correct in the idealism of who should call what. But this law is pretty solid

 

[hector]

if the ball lands on your side of the net you get to make the call, doesnt matter which partner makes it as long as one does. Everyone is correct in the idealism of who should call what. But this law is pretty solid

I think you are not taking into account why the first statement is mentioned since the second rule overrides the first. I believe the first statement sets a precedent that the players are also supposed to take into account the geometry of their location vs. the ball. As I mentioned before, a ball that looks out from the opposite side of the court may actually be in and therefore it is hard to justify the net man making a call.

If you think about it why not let my net man make the call. Doesn’t he have a better vantage point then the other net man?

My style of sportsmanship in doubles is to applaud all good shots and not to question my opponents calls but for some reason I just found this past incident slightly cheesy.

 

[Bagumbawalla]

If there is no pattern of abuse, don't make an issue of it. It is their call if the ball is on their side.

If a pattern develops of them calling balls in their favor, do no play them again.

If it happens during a tournament, ask for an observer to stand by and insure honesty.

 

[Sagittar]

If there is no pattern of abuse, don't make an issue of it. It is their call if the ball is on their side.

If a pattern develops of them calling balls in their favor, do no play them again.

If it happens during a tournament, ask for an observer to stand by and insure honesty.

exactly what i think too ..

 

[hector]

If there is no pattern of abuse, don't make an issue of it. It is their call if the ball is on their side.

If a pattern develops of them calling balls in their favor, do no play them again.

If it happens during a tournament, ask for an observer to stand by and insure honesty.

There was not a pattern of abuse but it is sort of annoying. One player has a good line of sight and plays the ball. The other player has a terrible angle and makes a call.

A few weeks back I was playing doubles with my wife and I thought a serve to her was wide. After the point, I mentioned to her that I thought it looked wide but it is her call to make.

I just see it as bad sportsmanship or a lack of understanding. So often when watching pro match live I think a linesman has blown a call only to see on the replay that his call was right.

My rule of thumb is that there are calls I can make and calls I cant depending upon location.

In this case I just think his line of sight was so bad I find it hard to believe he made a call and in effect overruled his partner.

Once again I stress that had the reterner called the ball out I would not have thought twice about the call

 

[travlerajm]

It's only an issue if you saw it clearly in. If you did, then politely tell your opponents that you saw it in, and ask them they are certain about the call. The player on the opposite side has every right to call the far sideline, but only if he sees it clearly.

 

[batakdepores]

Jumping the gun?

Hi Hector,

Based on your post, you served wide, the returner hit the return, and the partner called the serve wide. You immediately tell him of your knowledge of the "rule" which of course the tone of how you tell him is not known. Let's just assume, out of good sportmanship, that you told him nicely.

I have had my partner call serves wide/long when I'm the returner and vice versa. Why do I do so? Because I see it out, simple as that. I would not lose my mind if someone challenge it, but if someone challenge my call only for the fact that my angle (according to them was bad), or I'm second in the line for the call, then tough, because I don't cheat and I don't call "out" if I just "thought" a ball is out, I call "out" when I see it out and have no doubt that it is.

In addition to that, I'm backed by the rule as boxingguy inserted:

From The Code:

25. Service calls in doubles. In doubles the Receiver’s partner should call
the service line, and the Receiver should call the sideline and the center service
line. Nonetheless, either partner may call a ball that either clearly sees.


Now back to the situation you experienced. You stated that there is no "pattern" of bad calling, clearly since you are the server, you have no case. First he is your opponent, which gives him the right to call out. Second, you're probably farther from the ball than he is, so it's your "definitely not long" (which may be wide) versus his "out". Even if you think it's "definitely not long AND not wide", you can only challenge it, but telling him it's his partner's turn to call is just misleading or wrong all the way. Based on the code alone, you can be called having a less than perfect sportmanship, because you came on to him quoting HALF of the tennis rule, omitting the fact that the returner's partner (since it is also his side of the court) can call what he sees is out. Had you seen a pattern of "questionable" call from the same guy, then you may have a case. But it's not so and perhaps you owe him some kind of apology, that is, if you're that good of a sport, which I assume you are.

Later.

 

[hector]

Hi Hector,

Based on your post, you served wide, the returner hit the return, and the partner called the serve wide. You immediately tell him of your knowledge of the "rule" which of course the tone of how you tell him is not known. Let's just assume, out of good sportmanship, that you told him nicely.

I have had my partner call serves wide/long when I'm the returner and vice versa. Why do I do so? Because I see it out, simple as that. I would not lose my mind if someone challenge it, but if someone challenge my call only for the fact that my angle (according to them was bad), or I'm second in the line for the call, then tough, because I don't cheat and I don't call "out" if I just "thought" a ball is out, I call "out" when I see it out and have no doubt that it is.

In addition to that, I'm backed by the rule as boxingguy inserted:

From The Code:

25. Service calls in doubles. In doubles the Receiver’s partner should call
the service line, and the Receiver should call the sideline and the center service
line. Nonetheless, either partner may call a ball that either clearly sees.


Now back to the situation you experienced. You stated that there is no "pattern" of bad calling, clearly since you are the server, you have no case. First he is your opponent, which gives him the right to call out. Second, you're probably farther from the ball than he is, so it's your "definitely not long" (which may be wide) versus his "out". Even if you think it's "definitely not long AND not wide", you can only challenge it, but telling him it's his partner's turn to call is just misleading or wrong all the way. Based on the code alone, you can be called having a less than perfect sportmanship, because you came on to him quoting HALF of the tennis rule, omitting the fact that the returner's partner (since it is also his side of the court) can call what he sees is out. Had you seen a pattern of "questionable" call from the same guy, then you may have a case. But it's not so and perhaps you owe him some kind of apology, that is, if you're that good of a sport, which I assume you are.

Later.

At the time, I did not know what the official rule was concerning out calls on serves. I asked the net man if he saw the serve as being long. He said he saw it wide. My actions were based on common sense. I believe that he may have seen the ball out but I also believe that from that angle what he saw and what may have happened may be two different things.

The rule book seems to support the position that in general that call should be made by the returner. Why do you think that is so? Maybe because ……

 

[boxingguy]

A few weeks back I was playing doubles with my wife and I thought a serve to her was wide. After the point, I mentioned to her that but it is her call to make.

Hector- you can't go wrong if you follow The Code:

"8. Ball that cannot be called out is good. Any ball that cannot be called
out is considered to have been good. A player may not claim a let on the basis of not seeing a ball. One of tennis’ most infuriating moments occurs after a long hard rally when a player makes a clean placement and the opponent says: “I’m not sure if it was good or out. Let’s play a let.” Remember, it is each player’s responsibility to call all balls landing on, or aimed at, the player’s side of the net. If a ball can’t be called out with certainty, it is good."

In the situation with your wife, neither of you could clearly call it out. Therefore it was good. End of story.

"I thought a serve to her was wide" indicates uncertainty. If there is uncertainty, it is good.

If you think a ball is out, it's good. It's only out if you can call it out with certainty.

I think I'm a good looking guy. Doesn't necessarily mean I'm a good looking guy.

 

[hector]

Hector- you can't go wrong if you follow The Code:

"8. Ball that cannot be called out is good. Any ball that cannot be called
out is considered to have been good. A player may not claim a let on the basis of not seeing a ball. One of tennis’ most infuriating moments occurs after a long hard rally when a player makes a clean placement and the opponent says: “I’m not sure if it was good or out. Let’s play a let.” Remember, it is each player’s responsibility to call all balls landing on, or aimed at, the player’s side of the net. If a ball can’t be called out with certainty, it is good."

In the situation with your wife, neither of you could clearly call it out. Therefore it was good. End of story.

"I thought a serve to her was wide" indicates uncertainty. If there is uncertainty, it is good.

If you think a ball is out, it's good. It's only out if you can call it out with certainty.

I think I'm a good looking guy. Doesn't necessarily mean I'm a good looking guy.

I think you misunderstood my point. I saw the ball clearly out but believe that the call of the serve being wide should be left to the returner as he has the best line of sight. I let her know what I saw but also that this call is her responsibility and not to count on me to make it for her.

The reason I used the term "thought" is because without shot spot that is all one can assume given the angle that I was observing from.

Have you ever been at a pro match and sat by the alley? Many serves look out which are actually good. This experience reinforces my belief that it is absurd except in special situations for the net man to call a serve wide.

 

[Trinity TC]

Calling lines isn't easy and you have to accept the opposing net person's call even if you think they are not in a position to call the line. It is a team effort and not a "clear cut, either or" situation as the player returning the ball can in some cases be more proccupied in returning the ball rather than calling the lines. There is a lot of grey area in the rules and common sense can go out the window at times.

You stated that you aren't comfortable calling that shot out in the same situation. Many people are...which is their perogative and within the rules although pretty bold on their part. It might have been cheesy to you but obviously it wasn't to them. C'est la vie as it was within the rules even if it was bad form.

I make that call if I clearly see the ball out and my partner has missed the call for whatever reason...but I can't in good conscience call a wide serve out if it's less than two or three inches out.

 

[Thud and blunder]

What if, in Hector's initial scenario, receiver nets the ball before receiver's partner makes their call? Would this violate the 'two bites of the cherry' rule/guideline, or is it a litle different in doubles? Obviously, in singles, it's pretty cut and dried.

Is it reasonable to expect a call before receiver plays the ball? I think so, but I've had this situation causing some bad blood a few times...am I being unreasonable / too exacting, or am I right?

 

[Amone]

I always play the ball before I make my calls. I usually can't think of the word by the time I hit, but I'd play it regardless, or make the call as I hit it. That way, if someone challenges me, I can always offer to replay the point; after all, I could hit the ball, the point was only over because of a line call.

 

[Thud and blunder]

That's bad practice. Firstly, there are no replays, ever. Second, the code explicitly rules out netting a ball and then calling it out.

 

[boxingguy]

I think you misunderstood my point. I saw the ball clearly out but believe that the call of the serve being wide should be left to the returner as he has the best line of sight. I let her know what I saw but also that this call is her responsibility and not to count on me to make it for her.

Hector - Use the Code . . . The Code is good . . .

25. Service calls in doubles. In doubles the Receiver’s partner should call
the service line, and the Receiver should call the sideline and the center service line. Nonetheless, either partner may call a ball that either clearly sees

18. Prompt calls eliminate two chance option. A player shall make all calls promptly after the ball has hit the court.

I did misunderstand the doubles situation with your wife.

"either partner may call a ball that either clearly sees", "A player shall make all calls promptly after the ball has hit the court."

You clearly saw the ball out. You promptly call it out. End of story.

 

[hector]

Hector - Use the Code . . . The Code is good . . .

25. Service calls in doubles. In doubles the Receiver’s partner should call
the service line, and the Receiver should call the sideline and the center service line. Nonetheless, either partner may call a ball that either clearly sees

18. Prompt calls eliminate two chance option. A player shall make all calls promptly after the ball has hit the court.

I did misunderstand the doubles situation with your wife.

"either partner may call a ball that either clearly sees", "A player shall make all calls promptly after the ball has hit the court."

You clearly saw the ball out. You promptly call it out. End of story.

Why does the rule book start out by specifying that the returner should call the wide balls? You really are dense. Yes, in exceptional circumstances, the net man may call the ball wide but in general he should not. If it is close, he truly is not in the position to make the call and if it is very wide why would the returner miss the call?

Does the umpire overrule the linesmen every time he disagrees with a call? If so why have linesmen. Do linesmen overrule each other? Likewise in a match each player has a responsibility. If the returner chooses not to call wide balls that is his purgative but why should I have to deal with a smaller service box?

 

[lude popper]

I hit a slice serve out wide. The ball was definitely not long but looks like it hit the line bordering the alley. The reterner plays the ball; the returner's partner who standing pretty close to the opposite alley at the net calls the ball wide. Is this standard practice? Given his position I have no problem if he calls a ball long but don’t see how he can call a ball wide. Shouldn’t that call be the returners?

In this case, the returner should have cheated, not the returner's partner.

 

[boxingguy]

Why does the rule book start out by specifying that the returner should call the wide balls? You really are dense. Yes, in exceptional circumstances, the net man may call the ball wide but in general he should not. If it is close, he truly is not in the position to make the call and if it is very wide why would the returner miss the call?

Does the umpire overrule the linesmen every time he disagrees with a call? If so why have linesmen. Do linesmen overrule each other? Likewise in a match each player has a responsibility. If the returner chooses not to call wide balls that is his purgative but why should I have to deal with a smaller service box?

Hector - It appears I have unwittingly managed to antagonize you. If anything I posted has insulted you, I sincerely apologize. I assure you that was not my intention in any way.

The reason why I so strongly advocate using The Code is that for my tennis friends and me, it regularly prevents dilemmas such as the ones you describe.

If I may post from the preface of The Code:

"What is written here constitutes the essentials of The Code, a summary of
procedures and unwritten rules that custom and tradition dictate all players
should follow. No system of rules will cover every specific problem or situation
that may arise. If players of good will follow the principles of The Code,
they should always be able to reach an agreement, while at the same time
making tennis more fun and a better game for all. The principles set forth in
The Code shall apply in cases not specifically covered by the ITF Rules of
Tennis and USTA Regulations.
Before reading this 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? There are a number of things not specifically set forth in the rules that are covered by custom and tradition only. For example, if you have a doubt on a line call, your opponent gets the benefit of the doubt. Can you find that in the rules? Further, custom dictates the standard procedures that players will use in reaching decisions. These are
the reasons we need a code.
—Col. Nick Powel
Note: The Code is not part of the official ITF Rules of Tennis. It is meant to be used as a guide for unofficiated matches."

I have found The Code to be very useful, and I believe it does add to the enjoyment of the game. That's why I have referred to it in this thread.

The last thing I want to do is insult someone who likes tennis enough to be on this board. If I did, again, I am sorry .

 

[zapvor]

um...the Code is when you dont tell on your friend who's cheating with his girlfriend when you and her are having a chat.

 

[hector]

Hector - It appears I have unwittingly managed to antagonize you. If anything I posted has insulted you, I sincerely apologize. I assure you that was not my intention in any way.

The reason why I so strongly advocate using The Code is that for my tennis friends and me, it regularly prevents dilemmas such as the ones you describe.

If I may post from the preface of The Code:

"What is written here constitutes the essentials of The Code, a summary of
procedures and unwritten rules that custom and tradition dictate all players
should follow. No system of rules will cover every specific problem or situation
that may arise. If players of good will follow the principles of The Code,
they should always be able to reach an agreement, while at the same time
making tennis more fun and a better game for all. The principles set forth in
The Code shall apply in cases not specifically covered by the ITF Rules of
Tennis and USTA Regulations.
Before reading this 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? There are a number of things not specifically set forth in the rules that are covered by custom and tradition only. For example, if you have a doubt on a line call, your opponent gets the benefit of the doubt. Can you find that in the rules? Further, custom dictates the standard procedures that players will use in reaching decisions. These are
the reasons we need a code.
—Col. Nick Powel
Note: The Code is not part of the official ITF Rules of Tennis. It is meant to be used as a guide for unofficiated matches."

I have found The Code to be very useful, and I believe it does add to the enjoyment of the game. That's why I have referred to it in this thread.

The last thing I want to do is insult someone who likes tennis enough to be on this board. If I did, again, I am sorry .

My bad, I was getting very annoyed because you were continually quoting the code yet in my opinion misrepresenting it. I appologize for getting out of line. This is what I should have written

Rule 1:Service calls in doubles. In doubles the Receiver’s partner should call
the service line, and the Receiver should call the sideline and the center service line.

Rule 2:.Nonetheless, either partner may call a ball that either clearly sees


It seems as though Rule 2 overrides rule 1 so why is Rule 1 mentioned?

Notice in Rule 1 the word “should” is used. This implies a responsibility and also that it is the norm for the returner to try to make a best efforts attempt to make the call. In my situation, either the returner thought the ball was good or decided let the net man make the calls and only wanted to focus on the return. In either case I am getting the short end of the stick.

Notice in rule 2 the word “may” is used as opposed to “must”. This choice of words in Rule 2 coupled with Rule 1, I interpret as making it clear that the net man should only make the wide call under special circumstances. Rule 2 leaves the possibility open that the player at the net sees the ball wide but chooses not to call it.


When I confronted the player in question his response was, “I have two eyes I know what I saw.” However Rule 1 makes it clear that he does not have the best line of sight and it is the primary responsibility of his partner. Rule 2 gives him the possibility of overruling his partner but in my opinion, “I know what I saw” on a close call is not a valid enough reason. Since if that were the case the rule would be

In doubles, either player should call the call the sideline and service line.

So why does Rule 2 exist? It is for the special unforeseen situation such as the returner slips and cannot make the call or a similar situation. It is there to deal with the exceptional circumstance not your average play and especialy not for a close call.

 

[batakdepores]

Hector,

I understand where you are coming from, but let's just see it from my perspective for a moment.

You serve, you thought it was definitely not long (thus your instinct tells you the returner should see whether it was wide better than his partner).

The returner, there is a good chance that he may see your serve as wide, but he's only 75% sure so, being a good follower of the code and being too busy trying to return your serve(thanks boxingguy), he will not call it out.

The returner's partner, sees it out, call it immediately, also following the code.


If it's not the partner, who is "second in line" to claim to have a better angle, you who claim it's definitely not long (yet leave the possibility of being wide), or him who is assumingly closer to the ball and definitely better angle than you, the server? I say it's him. However, there is another person on the court who can see it better, that is your partner, if he/she is at the net AND paying attention at where the ball lands. Sadly, all that doesn't matter, because rule two override the first one if the partner sees the ball out. The second part of the rule was set because the possibilities of my example (of the returner) above.

This is not even about whether the ball is out or not. Hector is merely raising the issue of 'who got the better angle'. He is not questioning the CALL, he is questioning why the partner is calling the ball wide, EVEN if he sees it wide. That is what is wrong with this situation, as far as I'm concern.

Whoever it is who sees it out, only the returner and his partner who can call it, and he did. That is why I asked you on my initial reply whether your partner sees the ball in or out, not that it makes any difference. I'm just curious.

 

[hector]

Hector,

I understand where you are coming from, but let's just see it from my perspective for a moment.

You serve, you thought it was definitely not long (thus your instinct tells you the returner should see whether it was wide better than his partner).

The returner, there is a good chance that he may see your serve as wide, but he's only 75% sure so, being a good follower of the code and being too busy trying to return your serve(thanks boxingguy), he will not call it out.

The returner's partner, sees it out, call it immediately, also following the code.


If it's not the partner, who is "second in line" to claim to have a better angle, you who claim it's definitely not long (yet leave the possibility of being wide), or him who is assumingly closer to the ball and definitely better angle than you, the server? I say it's him. However, there is another person on the court who can see it better, that is your partner, if he/she is at the net AND paying attention at where the ball lands. Sadly, all that doesn't matter, because rule two override the first one if the partner sees the ball out. The second part of the rule was set because the possibilities of my example (of the returner) above.

This is not even about whether the ball is out or not. Hector is merely raising the issue of 'who got the better angle'. He is not questioning the CALL, he is questioning why the partner is calling the ball wide, EVEN if he sees it wide. That is what is wrong with this situation, as far as I'm concern.

Whoever it is who sees it out, only the returner and his partner who can call it, and he did. That is why I asked you on my initial reply whether your partner sees the ball in or out, not that it makes any difference. I'm just curious.

As I mentioned before if the returner chooses to focus on the return he is not following the Code, which uses the term "Should", which implies obligation.

If the call is so close that that the returner is 75% sure I don’t think in that type of situation the net man should be jumping in with a call and I believe the Code supports my position.

As I mentioned before, I will often see a serve as being very wide which is actually good when sitting across from the service line at a pro tournament. Have you ever had this experience? If not then check out what I am saying next time you have a chance.


Both my partner and I thought the ball looked in.


The net man in question believed that anything he sees he calls and that is not what the rules imply and there lies the problem.

 

[batakdepores]

Hector,

At least you satisfied my curiousity as far as whether your partner see the ball in or not. My next question is, why didn't he/she challenge the call?

I still see this situation as black and white, Hector. The code did not support your position, because you are simply challenging his angle of calling, regardless whether his call is right or not, or the ball in or out.

The second part of the code clearly override the first one if the partner clearly sees. Now I will give you credit by saying that his call might be off, but it is not against the rule for him to call. You might be better off asking the returner whether he saw the ball in or not, but then it's also in double's practice that you don't override your partner's call in front of your opponent.

However, in this case, the only right thing for you to do was to CHALLENGE the call, not to questioned who called it. Therefore, you were in the wrong to question the partner in such "you don't have a good angle" manner. The right phrase, which I learn from the guys here, is "Are you sure about your call?"

I've seen many wrong calls, but tennis is a gentlemen's sport backed by the code. Like you mentioned, this was a one time thing, there was no pattern of that guy with bad calling, so why do you technically call him a liar? Remember, there is a difference between honest call mistake and a patterned deliberate mistake. If he did make this one mistake, challenge his call, and that's it. Don't call him out saying that he can't possibly make that call while he can, he did, and did it within the rule.

Are you the only one on this thread that still questioned why there was a second part of the code on this particular matter?

 

[psp2]

I think you misunderstood my point. I saw the ball clearly out but believe that the call of the serve being wide should be left to the returner as he has the best line of sight. I let her know what I saw but also that this call is her responsibility and not to count on me to make it for her.

The reason I used the term "thought" is because without shot spot that is all one can assume given the angle that I was observing from.

Have you ever been at a pro match and sat by the alley? Many serves look out which are actually good. This experience reinforces my belief that it is absurd except in special situations for the net man to call a serve wide.

There are NO special situations for the netman to make a wide call if he/she CLEARLY sees the ball wide. You really need to accept the rule.

As for your statement about the returner having the best line of site is only partially applicable. The returner is more focused on making a return and may not have the best line of sight.

If the netperson clearly saw the serve wide, accept it and move on.

 

[hector]

Hector,

At least you satisfied my curiousity as far as whether your partner see the ball in or not. My next question is, why didn't he/she challenge the call?

I still see this situation as black and white, Hector. The code did not support your position, because you are simply challenging his angle of calling, regardless whether his call is right or not, or the ball in or out.

The second part of the code clearly override the first one if the partner clearly sees. Now I will give you credit by saying that his call might be off, but it is not against the rule for him to call. You might be better off asking the returner whether he saw the ball in or not, but then it's also in double's practice that you don't override your partner's call in front of your opponent.

However, in this case, the only right thing for you to do was to CHALLENGE the call, not to questioned who called it. Therefore, you were in the wrong to question the partner in such "you don't have a good angle" manner. The right phrase, which I learn from the guys here, is "Are you sure about your call?"

I've seen many wrong calls, but tennis is a gentlemen's sport backed by the code. Like you mentioned, this was a one time thing, there was no pattern of that guy with bad calling, so why do you technically call him a liar? Remember, there is a difference between honest call mistake and a patterned deliberate mistake. If he did make this one mistake, challenge his call, and that's it. Don't call him out saying that he can't possibly make that call while he can, he did, and did it within the rule.

Are you the only one on this thread that still questioned why there was a second part of the code on this particular matter?

No one called anyone a liar or even implied it. My confronting my opponent helped to clarified our own views as to what is correct tennis etiquette. His position while technically within the rules is not in the spirit of it and I believe is in bad form. He believes that he should call every ball as he sees it. The code is explicit that this is not the case. Note

Service calls in doubles. In doubles the Receiver’s partner should call
the service line, and the Receiver should call the sideline and the center service line.


When you play doubles do you call every ball when you are at the net? Do you at least concede that from certain angles a ball that looks out may actually be in? And that you should at least take into account your location before making a close call?

My views on this issue were based on common sense which you seem to be sadly lacking.

 

[batakdepores]

No one called anyone a liar or even implied it. My confronting my opponent helped to clarified our own views as to what is correct tennis etiquette. His position while technically within the rules is not in the spirit of it and I believe is in bad form. He believes that he should call every ball as he sees it. The code is explicit that this is not the case. Note

Service calls in doubles. In doubles the Receiver’s partner should call
the service line, and the Receiver should call the sideline and the center service line.


When you play doubles do you call every ball when you are at the net? Do you at least concede that from certain angles a ball that looks out may actually be in? And that you should at least take into account your location before making a close call?

My views on this issue were based on common sense which you seem to be sadly lacking.

You're right, you didn't call him a liar. Let's make it simple, shall we?

He called it, you disagree. Then challenge the call. PERIOD.

Any other way, you are in the wrong.

It's his call against your challenge, which you didn't make, so accept the fact that it is out. This is as common sense as I can make it. If you choose not to accept the rule/code, then you will continue to have problems or create problems on the court.

And I honestly wish you good luck.