Doubles Etiquette Question

[hector]

I am playing in a friendly round robin social tennis doubles thing, (no final score kept). One of the matches is pretty competitive and the score is close, everyone was playing hard and it was competitive. I hit a ball deep and my opponent was not sure if it clipped the line or not. He then asked his partner who also was not sure. They then ask us if we saw it. I said, “It’s on your side of the net you make the call, if you are not sure then it is good, that’s the rule”.

A few games later a ball is hit deep to me. I truly was not sure wither it was good or not, I looked at my partner who said it was clearly out and called the ball out. At this point one of our opponents asked me what I had seen. I told him as a team we had called it out and he should leave it at that. He insisted on knowing what I saw. I tried to explain to him that this was bad form on his part. It got quite heated, I explained since my partner called it out and I did not overrule him either I had to have seen it out or was not sure. His pressing the matter to me seemed wrong. What is the correct etiquette in this situation?

 

[spadesss]

your partner's call stands as you didn't see it. if both of you didn't see it or not one saw it, they your opponetns get the point.

 

[hector]

Maybe, I was not clear, my question was not wither are call should stand but rather the etiquette of my opponent asking me what I had seen? To me it seemed offensive.

 

[raiden031]

Maybe, I was not clear, my question was not wither are call should stand but rather the etiquette of my opponent asking me what I had seen? To me it seemed offensive.

Sounds like he disagreed with the call, which is ok for him to ask to make sure at least one of you was certain it was out.

 

[Kathy]

Well, we all know why they did it. Because you wouldn't let them get away with the first stunt they tried to pull. So, it was offensive.

Not so much asking you once what you saw. You can't blame them for hoping to encourage you to overrule your partner.

But insisting that you have no right NOT to tell him something in your head he demands to know is pretty rich. That arrogance gets beyond tennis into violating personal boundaries.

There's nothing wrong with letting your partner make the call when you aren't sure, provided that he is in position to make it. I think you did the right thing in standing your ground. That was a psychological powerplay.

It's best to minimize the chances of this occuring by having your partner's call come quick and sound sure, without you showing any signs of doubt. Because once you give your partner the call, you give up all judgement of it yourself.

But I doubt that would have have prevented this particular incident, and it sounds like that's how you handled it anyway.

Kathy K
www.operationdoubles.com

 

[Cindysphinx]

He insisted on knowing what you saw?

The answer is easy: "I didn't see it." Had you answered the question in that fashion, the broohaha would have likely been avoided.

All the tapdancing about overruling partners, explanations of etiquette and discussion of who can ask what questions of whom is beside the point.

 

[Kathy]

He insisted on knowing what you saw?

The answer is easy: "I didn't see it." Had you answered the question in that fashion, the broohaha would have likely been avoided.

All the tapdancing about overruling partners, explanations of etiquette and discussion of who can ask what questions of whom is beside the point.

Then he should lie?

Tapdancing?

Grouchy, eh?

 

[hector]

He insisted on knowing what you saw?

The answer is easy: "I didn't see it." Had you answered the question in that fashion, the broohaha would have likely been avoided.

All the tapdancing about overruling partners, explanations of etiquette and discussion of who can ask what questions of whom is beside the point.

Cindy, Cindy, Cindy, as usual you are truly clueless. On the court my job is not to make nice and smooth things over but rather to compete hard and follow the rules. If my opponent chooses to try to make a brouhaha it is not my responsibility pander to his feelings.

 

[spot]

No breach of etiquette at all for him to ask you if you were sure that the ball was out. If you had responded that you thought it may have clipped the line then the point is theirs. I think that the bad form was on you to be honest. You were the one accusing him of doing something wrong when he was just doing what he should. If there is a ball hit to the baseline and the net player calls it out then its not at all bad form to ask the baseline player if they are sure. If they respond "my partner called it out" or something then I generally take that to mean that they thought the ball clipped the line but didn't want to overrule their partner. If you didn't see it then say that, but your opponent did absolutely nothing wrong.

 

[hector]

No breach of etiquette at all for him to ask you if you were sure that the ball was out. If you had responded that you thought it may have clipped the line then the point is theirs. I think that the bad form was on you to be honest. You were the one accusing him of doing something wrong when he was just doing what he should. If there is a ball hit to the baseline and the net player calls it out then its not at all bad form to ask the baseline player if they are sure. If they respond "my partner called it out" or something then I generally take that to mean that they thought the ball clipped the line but didn't want to overrule their partner. If you didn't see it then say that, but your opponent did absolutely nothing wrong.

Wow, you proved my point in your argument while claiming to argue against my point of view. You should get a refund from whatever educational institution you attended.


At times the player on the baseline will not see the ball clearly and will differ to his partner if he is in a position to make a call. You’re jumping to the conclusion that in this situation the baseline player might have thought the ball clipped the line without saying anything probably is a reflection of your own ethics on the court.

 

[papa]

Well, we all know why they did it. Because you wouldn't let them get away with the first stunt they tried to pull. So, it was offensive.

Not so much asking you once what you saw. You can't blame them for hoping to encourage you to overrule your partner.

But insisting that you have no right NOT to tell him something in your head he demands to know is pretty rich. That arrogance gets beyond tennis into violating personal boundaries.

There's nothing wrong with letting your partner make the call when you aren't sure, provided that he is in position to make it. I think you did the right thing in standing your ground. That was a psychological powerplay.

It's best to minimize the chances of this occuring by having your partner's call come quick and sound sure, without you showing any signs of doubt. Because once you give your partner the call, you give up all judgement of it yourself.

But I doubt that would have have prevented this particular incident, and it sounds like that's how you handled it anyway.

Kathy K
www.operationdoubles.com

Good response. Its the same thing when you let/ask your opponent(s) to make the call - when you do, be prepared to accept whatever call they make.

 

[ssjkyle31]

I think this is similar to having the other players make the calls for you. You have the best vantage to make the call followed by you partner depending on the angle. I usually tell them my partner has the best angle to make the call.

 

[spot]

Hector- the point is that you got defensive when the opponent did exactly what they are supposed to do. If they thought the ball was in and the net player called it out, they are FULLY within their rights to ask the baseline player what they saw since they were closer. There is absolutely no good reason for you not to tell them what you saw. It wasn't at all bad form on your opponent's part to ask.

 

[Supernatural_Serve]

The appropriate behavior on the questioning team is to ask: Are you sure or certain of the call?

Not what did one individual see?

The rules call for the point to stand regardless whether the individual saw CLEARLY OUT or UNCERTAIN when a partner makes the call immediately on the spot CLEARLY OUT.

 

[ssjkyle31]

I learned to back up my partner on the calls unless it was total wrong.

 

[psp2]

Hector's at it again with his etiquette questions. Are you sure didn't accuse your opponents of being from the Middle East like you did the last time?

 

[LuckyR]

Cindy, Cindy, Cindy, as usual you are truly clueless. On the court my job is not to make nice and smooth things over but rather to compete hard and follow the rules. If my opponent chooses to try to make a brouhaha it is not my responsibility pander to his feelings.

Uummm... who is clueless? You clearly missed the boat on this one and turned a potential molehill into the mountain you described in your OP.

If you miss the social aspect that you went into some detail about describing, then later criticize an opinion, that you yourself solicited on that issue, then you, compadre, are a bit hypocritical, no?

If you are so sure that your original behavior was perfect, why create this thread?

Don't get me wrong, I completely agree with you (and Kathy) about your opponent's motivation, but rather than point out (in a mostly social match, by your description) what is and isn't the ruling in this case, it would be way simpler, easier and more social to say "I didn't see it well" as Cindy recommended, which is the truth BTW.

 

[hector]

Kathy seemed to be the only one that gets it.

Normally the baseline player would make the call. I did not see the ball as it came back quickly and was around my feet. I quickly asked my partner "did you see it" and he said loudly "clearly out". The game should have continued.

Now what was my opponent looking to find out by asking me what I saw?

Let’s look at the possibilities

A: I saw the ball good: then I would have called it good unless I am a cheater.

B: I saw the ball out: then I would have called it out unless I am a cheater.

C: I could not make the call and deferred to my partner: This is what happened and is the only possibility which does not make me a cheater.

Therefore what my opponent is really asking me is did you miss the call or are you a cheater. Now if I am a cheater I am going to tell him I missed the call and if I missed the call I am going to tell him I missed the call so there is no information he can gain by asking the question.

So then why is the question being asked? It is not really a question but rather an assertion disguised as a question. The assertion being that he somehow got hooked on the call and an implication that my inability to make the call had an unethical bent to it.

 

[Swissv2]

If you didn't see it, then say you didn't see it. Shouldn't say "OHHH UMMM, WELLL ERRR, yeah it was IN...no OUT...no...I dunno" <- cut that and just say "I didn't see it clearly, my partner has the right to call"

Indecision on ball placement in your side of the court only leads me to believe that the other side is a bit justified to question your calls. But the bottom line is don't try to lie about what you did/did not see. That clearly violates etiquette.

 

[rasajadad]

Cindy, Cindy, Cindy, as usual you are truly clueless. On the court my job is not to make nice and smooth things over but rather to compete hard and follow the rules. If my opponent chooses to try to make a brouhaha it is not my responsibility pander to his feelings.

Hector,
If you know what your job on the court is, why are you inquiring as to what we would do. (Plus, to insult posters whose answers you don't like?)

 

[LuckyR]

Kathy seemed to be the only one that gets it.

Normally the baseline player would make the call. I did not see the ball as it came back quickly and was around my feet. I quickly asked my partner "did you see it" and he said loudly "clearly out". The game should have continued.

Now what was my opponent looking to find out by asking me what I saw?

Let’s look at the possibilities

A: I saw the ball good: then I would have called it good unless I am a cheater.

B: I saw the ball out: then I would have called it out unless I am a cheater.

C: I could not make the call and deferred to my partner: This is what happened and is the only possibility which does not make me a cheater.

Therefore what my opponent is really asking me is did you miss the call or are you a cheater. Now if I am a cheater I am going to tell him I missed the call and if I missed the call I am going to tell him I missed the call so there is no information he can gain by asking the question.

So then why is the question being asked? It is not really a question but rather an assertion disguised as a question. The assertion being that he somehow got hooked on the call and an implication that my inability to make the call had an unethical bent to it.

While your post is correct, as to the motivation of your opponents (and BTW I think it is an simple enough call that all of your responders "get it"). As you will quickly learn, if you haven't already, you can't change other people's behavior. All you can do is either blunt or accentuate their impact. Your actual response did the latter, and if that was your intention, Mission Accomplished. If you are like a lot of folks in a social match, that want a low key, nonstressful game, Cindy (and I) have given you a well established way of doing that.

Good luck.

 

[Cindysphinx]

Then he should lie?

Tapdancing?

Grouchy, eh?

No, no grouchiness here. Hector said, and I quote: "I truly was not sure wither it was good or not,"

That means he did not see it. Lying would be claiming that he did see it when he admits he did not.

I think the situation is being needlessly complicated when it is in fact quite simple and common.

As for whether I'm clueless . . . I have never once had an on-court argument whereas Hector seems to have them with some regularity in what he describes as friendly matches, so I think I'm doing something right.

Honestly, Hector, you strike me as One Of Those People Who Is Always Spoiling For A Fight. The Code allows an opponent to ask if your team is sure of its call. There is no reason for you to assume that anyone is challenging your manhood, your integrity, your ancestry, your chastity or anything else.

The fellow asked a question he's entitled to ask. Answer it with four simple words ("I. Didn't. See. It.") and *move on already.*

 

[spot]

We all know there are are a lot of people who don't like to make bad line calls- but will also never overrule their partner even if they know they made a bad line call. And one of the prime times you see this is when the net player looks back and calls a ball out on the baseline that their partner is hitting. There is ABSOLUTELY nothing wrong with asking you what you saw on the baseline. You escalated it into a dispute when they were just doing what they should do.

 

[hector]

If you didn't see it, then say you didn't see it. Shouldn't say "OHHH UMMM, WELLL ERRR, yeah it was IN...no OUT...no...I dunno" <- cut that and just say "I didn't see it clearly, my partner has the right to call"

Indecision on ball placement in your side of the court only leads me to believe that the other side is a bit justified to question your calls. But the bottom line is don't try to lie about what you did/did not see. That clearly violates etiquette.

There was no indication. I immediately asked my partner who immediately called the ball clearly out.

 

[hector]

We all know there are are a lot of people who don't like to make bad line calls- but will also never overrule their partner even if they know they made a bad line call. And one of the prime times you see this is when the net player looks back and calls a ball out on the baseline that their partner is hitting. There is ABSOLUTELY nothing wrong with asking you what you saw on the baseline. You escalated it into a dispute when they were just doing what they should do.

The scenario you described is not the one that took place. I clearly asked my partner if he could make the call. This was clear to our opponents.

 

[LuckyR]

No, no grouchiness here. Hector said, and I quote: "I truly was not sure wither it was good or not,"

That means he did not see it. Lying would be claiming that he did see it when he admits he did not.

I think the situation is being needlessly complicated when it is in fact quite simple and common.

As for whether I'm clueless . . . I have never once had an on-court argument whereas Hector seems to have them with some regularity in what he describes as friendly matches, so I think I'm doing something right.

Honestly, Hector, you strike me as One Of Those People Who Is Always Spoiling For A Fight. The Code allows an opponent to ask if your team is sure of its call. There is no reason for you to assume that anyone is challenging your manhood, your integrity, your ancestry, your chastity or anything else.

The fellow asked a question he's entitled to ask. Answer it with four simple words ("I. Didn't. See. It.") and *move on already.*

...chortle...

 

[spot]

right Hector- its even worse than what I described. If your partner had called it "clearly out" right as it happened it would have a lot more validity. Instead you missed the ball- looked up to your partner after the point was over and then he said it was out. Your opponents absolutely have every right to ask you what you saw. YOU didn't even give them a clear answer of whether you saw it out or didn't see it- in your own words: "I explained since my partner called it out and I did not overrule him either I had to have seen it out or was not sure." Talk about weaselly language. It was your bad to escalate things. If you had just told them "I didn't see it" then it would have been completely diffused.

 

[hector]

No, no grouchiness here. Hector said, and I quote: "I truly was not sure wither it was good or not,"

That means he did not see it. Lying would be claiming that he did see it when he admits he did not.

I think the situation is being needlessly complicated when it is in fact quite simple and common.

As for whether I'm clueless . . . I have never once had an on-court argument whereas Hector seems to have them with some regularity in what he describes as friendly matches, so I think I'm doing something right.

Honestly, Hector, you strike me as One Of Those People Who Is Always Spoiling For A Fight. The Code allows an opponent to ask if your team is sure of its call. There is no reason for you to assume that anyone is challenging your manhood, your integrity, your ancestry, your chastity or anything else.

The fellow asked a question he's entitled to ask. Answer it with four simple words ("I. Didn't. See. It.") and *move on already.*

As I explained the question was not really a question but rather an assertion. My job on the court is not to coddle my opponents but to play hard and honestly.

Social tennis for me is about tennis not about making friends. Maybe I am using the term “Social Tennis” incorrectly. I am referring to a non tournament setting were the score is not reported for any purpose.

Tennis players who are looking for a good game without melodrama enjoy playing with me. I applaud good shots, play at the servers pace, rarely question calls and if I do it is done with tact, don’t hit woman at the net if possible, and am quite as a mouse on the court and refuse to chit chat while a set is going on.


People who come with their own “set of rules”, applaud errors, disrupt play, hit woman, etc do not enjoy playing with me.

 

[Cindysphinx]

My job on the court is not to coddle my opponents but to play hard and honestly.

Incorrect.

Your job is to follow the Code. The Code says this:

"Courtesy. Tennis is a game that requires cooperation and courtesy from
all participants."

Giving weasle, provocative non-answers to straightforward questions is not being cooperative.

"16. Opponent’s calls questioned. When a player geniunely doubts an
opponent’s call, the player may ask: “Are you sure of your call?” If the opponent reaffirms that the ball was out, the call shall be accepted. If the opponent acknowledges uncertainty, the opponent loses the point. There shall be no further delay or discussion."

All the "heated discussion" about what was good form or bad form seems foreclosed by the Code.

The Code. Embrace it and be happy.

 

[sureshs]

It has happened a few times to me in men's doubles. Two types of cases: we called the opposite way on the same ball (the ball was in the middle or somewhere quite visible to both of us). Then the in-call prevails. Other case is when one of us called it out and the other had a genuinely shocked look on his face or was about to hit the ball. We generally play the point again in that case. In all other cases, if I am silent when my partner makes an out call, I will just say "He called it out" with no further comment or discussions.

 

[sureshs]

Cindy, Cindy, Cindy, as usual you are truly clueless.

You should get a refund from whatever educational institution you attended.

Wow, you create a thread and ask a question, and then insult two well-meaning posters.

 

[hector]

Incorrect.

Your job is to follow the Code. The Code says this:

"Courtesy. Tennis is a game that requires cooperation and courtesy from
all participants."

Giving weasle, provocative non-answers to straightforward questions is not being cooperative.

"16. Opponent’s calls questioned. When a player geniunely doubts an
opponent’s call, the player may ask: “Are you sure of your call?” If the opponent reaffirms that the ball was out, the call shall be accepted. If the opponent acknowledges uncertainty, the opponent loses the point. There shall be no further delay or discussion."

All the "heated discussion" about what was good form or bad form seems foreclosed by the Code.

The Code. Embrace it and be happy.

Wow, another person with reading comprehension problems.

The opponent questioned me not my partner who made the call. The code stated he should have questioned my partner.

I am courteous but will not engage in stupidity or silliness. If you ask a loaded question you will get a loaded answer. My opponent did not like the fact that I did not make a call. Too bad.

Yes, my response does create some drama in the short run but in the long run it sets a good precedent. Act like a sportsman get treated with respect act like a brat nothing good will come of it.

For example the incident where an opponent hit my wife twice in the chest you chastised me for my response. Since then the man has been a perfect gentleman and has gone out of his way to hit with me. All is forgiven and we have a great time on the court.

People respect you if you do not act like a doormat and in the long run it is to everyone’s benefit.

You are a strange bird, on the one hand you see nothing wrong with as man pegging a woman twice in the chest on a floater and then use courtesy and sportsmanship to support your argument when it suits you.

I imagine you as one of those conniving, cheating gossiping country club women with bad plastic surgery and a snowshoe racquet.

 

[Lindros13]

He's a quick scenario along those lines: I was returning serve on a critical point (in doubles), and the serve landed in, but my partner (who was standing at the service line) called it OUT, immediately. The opponent net player made a funny face (symbolizing his disagreement). I made no expression or call whatsoever. Now, in my mind, I thought the serve was clearly in. BUT ALSO in my mind was the fact that my partner is standing right on the service line and can best see the call for the serve that came over the net somewhat fast. So I didn't say anything. NOW....here's the point: If our opponent asked my partner "are you sure?", he would probably have said "yes, I'm sure" (or who knows, maybe he wouldve said "no - let's replay", but they never asked). Now what would be the appropriate thing, if any, for the opponent to say TO ME since I never made any expression or call? If they asked me what I thought, I may have said let's replay the point -or- I may have said "I couldn't tell, my partner called it out" --- BUT, they never asked what I thought. Is it wrong to ask what I think or what I saw after my partner makes the call? I don't think it's wrong because I'm not sure what I would've said spur-of-the-moment. The proper etiquette and proper questioning seems interesting to me.

 

[LuckyR]

He's a quick scenario along those lines: I was returning serve on a critical point (in doubles), and the serve landed in, but my partner (who was standing at the service line) called it OUT, immediately. The opponent net player made a funny face (symbolizing his disagreement). I made no expression or call whatsoever. Now, in my mind, I thought the serve was clearly in. BUT ALSO in my mind was the fact that my partner is standing right on the service line and can best see the call for the serve that came over the net somewhat fast. So I didn't say anything. NOW....here's the point: If our opponent asked my partner "are you sure?", he would probably have said "yes, I'm sure" (or who knows, maybe he wouldve said "no - let's replay", but they never asked). Now what would be the appropriate thing, if any, for the opponent to say TO ME since I never made any expression or call? If they asked me what I thought, I may have said let's replay the point -or- I may have said "I couldn't tell, my partner called it out" --- BUT, they never asked what I thought. Is it wrong to ask what I think or what I saw after my partner makes the call? I don't think it's wrong because I'm not sure what I would've said spur-of-the-moment. The proper etiquette and proper questioning seems interesting to me.

I know it is controversial, but I agree with your original silence, since your partner was: 1- in a better position and 2- was clearly sure of his call.

As to asking you about your opinion: it would be completely reasonable to ask and if asked you should give your opinion (it was IN), with the caveat that you are not in as good a position as your partner. This would almost certainly fall into the "disagreeing partners" category and your team should give up the point.

 

[Lindros13]

I know it is controversial, but I agree with your original silence, since your partner was: 1- in a better position and 2- was clearly sure of his call.

As to asking you about your opinion: it would be completely reasonable to ask and if asked you should give your opinion (it was IN), with the caveat that you are not in as good a position as your partner. This would almost certainly fall into the "disagreeing partners" category and your team should give up the point.

So according to this scenario, if you're not in a good enough position to see, then you would still be forced to replay according to the "disagreeing partners" category. Seems twisted. You shouldn't have to lie, but maybe a different reply would be in order, so as not to force the re-play of point.

 

[cghipp]

Maybe these excerpts from the Code will be helpful:

11. Requesting opponent’s help. When an opponent’s opinion is requested
and the opponent gives a positive opinion, it must be accepted. If neither
player has an opinion, the ball is considered good. Aid from an opponent is
available only on a call that ends a point.

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

 

[spot]

Lindros- you are talking about the serve- in singles you call your own service line all the time. Its not like the line is ever obfuscated. If you saw the ball clearly in then the right thing to do is to admit it- if your return was in play then you do the point over, otherwise it is their point.

 

[LuckyR]

So according to this scenario, if you're not in a good enough position to see, then you would still be forced to replay according to the "disagreeing partners" category. Seems twisted. You shouldn't have to lie, but maybe a different reply would be in order, so as not to force the re-play of point.

Well, that isn't what you said originally. You didn't say you were "not in a good enough position to see", you said: "I thought the serve was clearly in. BUT ALSO in my mind was the fact that my partner is standing right on the service line and can best see the call for the serve that came over the net somewhat fast".

This is IMO 2 different things.

One is a description of your position and the other is a description of you and your partner's relative positions.

That is why I give you the pass on being silent originally. BUT, if asked IMO you are obligated to tell the truth. If you could not see the ball well, then say so, but you said you saw the ball in (admittedly from an inferior position).

Put it another way, say you and the server are playing singles. That ball is in, end of story. We all recognize that the line calling in doubles is more accurate. That is why it is OK to be silent in your OP.

 

[kylebarendrick]

For what it is worth, replaying the point isn't an option for a line dispute. The ball is either clearly out or it is good.

 

[Cindysphinx]

He's a quick scenario along those lines: I was returning serve on a critical point (in doubles), and the serve landed in, but my partner (who was standing at the service line) called it OUT, immediately. The opponent net player made a funny face (symbolizing his disagreement). I made no expression or call whatsoever. Now, in my mind, I thought the serve was clearly in. BUT ALSO in my mind was the fact that my partner is standing right on the service line and can best see the call for the serve that came over the net somewhat fast. So I didn't say anything. NOW....here's the point: If our opponent asked my partner "are you sure?", he would probably have said "yes, I'm sure" (or who knows, maybe he wouldve said "no - let's replay", but they never asked). Now what would be the appropriate thing, if any, for the opponent to say TO ME since I never made any expression or call? If they asked me what I thought, I may have said let's replay the point -or- I may have said "I couldn't tell, my partner called it out" --- BUT, they never asked what I thought. Is it wrong to ask what I think or what I saw after my partner makes the call? I don't think it's wrong because I'm not sure what I would've said spur-of-the-moment. The proper etiquette and proper questioning seems interesting to me.

Here's my take on it.

Regarding line calls, I either form an opinion that a ball was in or out, or I do not. There are many balls where I just don't have a good angle, am stretched wide, am too far away, or in this case am concentrating hard on the ball rather than the line.

If my partner is calling the service line and I am returning, I defer to her decision that a ball was long unless the serve was in by a country mile. She is more likely to be right than I am, as she is closer, has fewer distractions, and we have decided she is calling that service line for me.

In that case, my opponents are perfectly free to ask me whether I am sure of our team's call. I would reply: "I didn't see it." The phrase "I didn't see it" doesn't mean my retinas have spontaneously detached. It means that, for whatever reason, I didn't get a good enough look at it to say either way. There is no rule that requires both doubles partners to see a ball before it can be declared out; the rule deals with situations where both partners saw it but came to a different conclusion.

I guess that means I don't entirely agree with the suggested response of "I saw it in but I wasn't in a good position." That to me is a "dispute between partners" such that the point goes to the opponent. I'd go with "I don't know" (because of bad position). But if I was 100% sure that the serve wasn't long, I would say something to my partner and concede/reply the point.

Caveat: you have to be consistent on this. If you're frequently calling the service line and all of a sudden you go temporarily blind, that's not cool.

That my $.02.

 

[batakdepores]

Hi Hector,

We meet again in a controversial thread you have created. Situation-wise, I have been there. Why is this thread becoming two pages long? It is because it seems that you have form an opinion before you even created the thread and acknowledge only what agrees to your pre-formed answers.

To add to injury, whatever it is that you have toward Cindy (perhaps toward me for disagreeing with you on previous threads), it is so recommended to keep it to yourself. LuckyR as an unknowing third party (and a few others I'm sure) observes your unneccessary nastyness that only discredit anything you say in the future, no matter how right you are.

C'mon man, can you be courteous to anyone who disagrees with you off the court? I don't see in any sentence of Cindy's first response to deserve your reply back to her. I'm probably in agreement with you in the situation, but your defensive way is a turn-off.

... and watch how my cool tempered reply may get blasted.

 

[Budgerigar]

opponents enemy, never contradict partner.

 

[equinox]

It's against etiquette to Interrogate the opposition on there own calls. It's one action short of jumping the net to check a mark.

 

[hector]

Hi Hector,

We meet again in a controversial thread you have created. Situation-wise, I have been there. Why is this thread becoming two pages long? It is because it seems that you have form an opinion before you even created the thread and acknowledge only what agrees to your pre-formed answers.

To add to injury, whatever it is that you have toward Cindy (perhaps toward me for disagreeing with you on previous threads), it is so recommended to keep it to yourself. LuckyR as an unknowing third party (and a few others I'm sure) observes your unneccessary nastyness that only discredit anything you say in the future, no matter how right you are.

C'mon man, can you be courteous to anyone who disagrees with you off the court? I don't see in any sentence of Cindy's first response to deserve your reply back to her. I'm probably in agreement with you in the situation, but your defensive way is a turn-off.

... and watch how my cool tempered reply may get blasted.

You seem like a gunuiniely nice guy so I will explain my hostility towards Cindy.

If you notice Kathy from operation doubles thought that Cindy’s initial response was nonsensical and described Cindy’s tone as grouchy. For whatever reason Cindy has an axe to grind but is not man or woman enough to be upfront about it.

I do not take offense to her disagreeing with me but rather the way she goes about it. Using terms such as tap-dancing and weasel to describe my behavior are underhanded ways of being insulting.


When others disagree with me I argue my point of view as a means of getting deeper understanding. I have learned through this thread a little about how others think and react. This is good knowledge to have on and off the court.

 

[hector]

Well, that isn't what you said originally. You didn't say you were "not in a good enough position to see", you said: "I thought the serve was clearly in. BUT ALSO in my mind was the fact that my partner is standing right on the service line and can best see the call for the serve that came over the net somewhat fast".

This is IMO 2 different things.

One is a description of your position and the other is a description of you and your partner's relative positions.

That is why I give you the pass on being silent originally. BUT, if asked IMO you are obligated to tell the truth. If you could not see the ball well, then say so, but you said you saw the ball in (admittedly from an inferior position).

Put it another way, say you and the server are playing singles. That ball is in, end of story. We all recognize that the line calling in doubles is more accurate. That is why it is OK to be silent in your OP.

In my opinion this is some very bad advice. If you remain silent but when confronted say you thought the ball was good technically you are being dishonest and are not playing within the rules.

You have created a situation where you are forcing your opponent to question you each time your partner makes a close call, not a good situation.

My advice is take into account relative position. On a serve in doubles, if your partner is at the service line he has the best line of sight and also is not preoccupied with hitting the return. If the ball from your perspective is close (i.e. hits part of the line) go with your partners call. If you are confronted say it was close enough that I deferred to my partners call.

Now if you are 100% sure the serve was good, overrule your partner.

You and your partner have a responsibility to make the right call to the best of your abilities and should work as a team. Notice how in football, every now and then a referee will make a call and then another referee will come running over and overrule him. The two referees then have a quick chat and make a combined call. In doing this in tennis you are clearly letting your opponents know that you are a true sportman and everyone can focus on playing tennis.

 

[spot]

I can't at all imagine why someone might think that Hector would see a ball hit the line and say nothing even though his partner called it out. Yeah- no reason at all to ask him what he saw...

 

[vinouspleasure]

I have to disagree with you hector:

I am playing in a friendly round robin social tennis doubles thing, (no final score kept). One of the matches is pretty competitive and the score is close, everyone was playing hard and it was competitive. I hit a ball deep and my opponent was not sure if it clipped the line or not. He then asked his partner who also was not sure. They then ask us if we saw it. I said, “It’s on your side of the net you make the call, if you are not sure then it is good, that’s the rule”.

While your response is perfectly correct by the letter of the law, in a "friendly round robin social tennis doubles thing" the right answer is the truth. You either saw it in (your point), out (their point) or didn't see it (your point). Now lets take this one step further, its your club doubles tournament, scores are reported. What is appropriate here? Same thing.

The principle at play here is that you are not a professional, you are not playing for money, no one is trying to cheat, why not go for the fairest solution? You saw the ball out? call it out. What is the cost? You lose a point that you should have lost. What is the benefit? You have a reputation as an honest person and the respect of your opponents and your partner.

Lets take it a step further, you're at net, your opponent is pinned in the corner, you poke a volley into the open court that just misses the sideline. Your opponent calls it in because he has a bad view but you clearly see the ball out. Do you take the point? I hope not...

A few games later a ball is hit deep to me. I truly was not sure wither it was good or not, I looked at my partner who said it was clearly out and called the ball out. At this point one of our opponents asked me what I had seen. I told him as a team we had called it out and he should leave it at that. He insisted on knowing what I saw. I tried to explain to him that this was bad form on his part. It got quite heated, I explained since my partner called it out and I did not overrule him either I had to have seen it out or was not sure. His pressing the matter to me seemed wrong. What is the correct etiquette in this situation?

Again, while you are following the letter of the law, you should have defused the whole situation with "I honestly didn't see the ball". What is the cost to you? nothing. What is the benefit to you? Rather than getting into a heated discussion which nobody enjoys, you defuse the whole situation. How do you think the other guys feel about you now? How do feel about the other team?

Hector, ask me again when you are playing in the us open and I'll have a different answer for you.

 

[hector]

I have to disagree with you hector:



While your response is perfectly correct by the letter of the law, in a "friendly round robin social tennis doubles thing" the right answer is the truth. You either saw it in (your point), out (their point) or didn't see it (your point). Now lets take this one step further, its your club doubles tournament, scores are reported. What is appropriate here? Same thing.

The principle at play here is that you are not a professional, you are not playing for money, no one is trying to cheat, why not go for the fairest solution? You saw the ball out? call it out. What is the cost? You lose a point that you should have lost. What is the benefit? You have a reputation as an honest person and the respect of your opponents and your partner.

Lets take it a step further, you're at net, your opponent is pinned in the corner, you poke a volley into the open court that just misses the sideline. Your opponent calls it in because he has a bad view but you clearly see the ball out. Do you take the point? I hope not...



Again, while you are following the letter of the law, you should have defused the whole situation with "I honestly didn't see the ball". What is the cost to you? nothing. What is the benefit to you? Rather than getting into a heated discussion which nobody enjoys, you defuse the whole situation. How do you think the other guys feel about you now? How do feel about the other team?

Hector, ask me again when you are playing in the us open and I'll have a different answer for you.

I see you point of view in the extreme example. The statement that you quoted was for a specific situation and was not meant as an overall all inclusive rule. There may be exceptions to the rule but this was clearly not it.

The ball hits the base line. My opponent on the baseline has the best line of sight. His partner had the second best. My partner's and my line of sight are far inferior and in a close call by the laws of optics and geometry on the planet Earth we truly should not be making that call. Even if we acknowledged what we saw; there is a high probability that what we saw may not actually be a good indication of the ball being good or not. My opponents should realize that we are not in a position to make the call and should just concede the point and move on with life. Asking us what we saw is just moronic and petty. I want to play tennis not haggle over points with court time going for over $100 an hour in NYC.

Addressing the second point you brought up. I don’t really care what my opponent thinks of me. I am not looking to take long hot showers with him. In the future, should we play again, I hope that he will act in a professional manner and not waste time haggling for points.

I may seem very business like on the court. Some players really like this aspect of hitting with me and then there are some who are looking for the attention that Daddy never gave them.

 

[vinouspleasure]

Asking us what we saw is just moronic and petty. I want to play tennis not haggle over points with court time going for over $100 an hour in NYC.

ok, lets look at it from an outcome point of view. If you had taken my approach, you would not be spending time haggling with them. Your approach resulted in waste of time, loss of tempers. Which do you think would yield better results? Who cares who's right or wrong at $100/hour! At a $100/hour, I'm telling them whatever they want to hear. Here's how it would go for me:

opponent: "Did you see the ball in or out?"
me, running full speed back to the service line to return serve: "great shot, your serve"

My partner's and my line of sight are far inferior and in a close call by the laws of optics and geometry on the planet Earth we truly should not be making that call.

so true.

Even if we acknowledged what we saw; there is a high probability that what we saw may not actually be a good indication of the ball being good or not.

so true. But who cares? Its not the end of the world. Relax, its a friendly game, they want to know what you saw. So tell them and move on with your game and your life.

Addressing the second point you brought up. I don’t really care what my opponent thinks of me. I am not looking to take long hot showers with him. In the future, should we play again, I hope that he will act in a professional manner and not waste time haggling for points.

I may seem very business like on the court. Some players really like this aspect of hitting with me and then there are some who are looking for the attention that Dady never gave them.

IMO, the opportunity for a friendship far outweighs who saw what on a tennis court. And again, your hope that your opponents behave in a "professional" manner is misplaced as they are not professionals and you are not a professional. I suggest you hunker down and prepare for a lot of these incidents if that's your expectation.

I dunno, we have a guy on our team that has the same attitude. About fifty per cent of his matches have heated exchanges around line calls and rules. I haven't had an argument on the court in 10 years and I'm loving tennis...

 

[hector]

ok, lets look at it from an outcome point of view. If you had taken my approach, you would not be spending time haggling with them. Your approach resulted in waste of time, loss of tempers. Which do you think would yield better results? Who cares who's right or wrong at $100/hour! At a $100/hour, I'm telling them whatever they want to hear. Here's how it would go for me:

opponent: "Did you see the ball in or out?"
me, running full speed back to the service line to return serve: "great shot, your serve"



so true.



so true. But who cares? Its not the end of the world. Relax, its a friendly game, they want to know what you saw. So tell them and move on with your game and your life.



IMO, the opportunity for a friendship far outweighs who saw what on a tennis court. And again, your hope that your opponents behave in a "professional" manner is misplaced as they are not professionals and you are not a professional. I suggest you hunker down and prepare for a lot of these incidents if that's your expectation.

I dunno, we have a guy on our team that has the same attitude. About fifty per cent of his matches have heated exchanges around line calls and rules. I haven't had an argument on the court in 10 years and I'm loving tennis...

I found some of your comments very funny.

I probably will incorporate some of your suggestions.