Doubles / 'out' warning to partner before ball bounce

[VaththalKuzhambu]

I stopped play today when opponent called 'out' to his partner before the ball bounced but the ball was eventually in and his partner played it. I mistakenly told them that the guy cannot call 'out' and should call 'bounce it' or something like it.

I was pretty confident in my reasoning until I came home and found this. This does not make sense. What is the norm for you guys?

http://www.usta.com/Improve-Your-Game/Rules/Rulings/Calling_the_ball_out/

Q. Does play stop in all cases of an "Out Call"? There are situations where a partner will tell his/her partner "Out" instead of "Bounce It" or "Let It Bounce" cautioning that the ball may be going out. If however, the partner plays the ball, instead of letting it drop, and makes a good return and their opponents don't play the return, is a let played?

A: First, despite what some people think, there is no rule that says you cannot say out' or other words of communication to your partner, especially when you're at the net and the ball is coming in your direction. And because such communication would invariably occur well before the ball has bounced, the claim that this could be mistaken for a line call is not legitimate.

The time confusion could occur is in your case when a player said 'out' or another form of communication to his/her partner standing at the baseline at the time when the ball bounced or was about to bounce. You were in the position to make a return of the ball and did so. In that case, saying "leave it" or "NO" would be preferable to saying 'out'. However, any word used when the ball lands on the ground or close to the ground when you or your partner hit the ball could be construed as a call. If a player yells "out” or some other form of communication at the moment or close to the moment the ball was played, it could very well hinder the opponents. If the opponents both thought that a call was made and both stopped, honestly thinking a call was made, then a let should be played since they did stop and honestly thought a call was made.

 

[ednegroni]

I just shout "leave it" to avoid confusion.

I've seen arguments turn violent because of a hindrance. If there isn't a referee officiating (and actually watching the play), whoever was guilty of a hindrance, must concede the point, and in some cases a let should be played.

It's almost as sensitive as a double bounce right before the ball was hit.

In any case, I've seen arguments over this:

1. Ball is hit, called "out" in the air.
2. Ball drops in and is played back.
3. Player(s) miss and claim the ball was called out and they stopped playing the point because of it.

Who knows if the original call actually made them stop playing the point, but things like this apparently bring the worst out of people.

 

[TahoeTennis]

I actually think this question was in the most recent TENNIS magazine. Actually there is a rule and if the side calls "out" while the ball is in the air, and the ball does land "in" the other team can stop play and get the point, since the team playing the ball made the wrong call.

 

[floridatennisdude]

I really thought that the rule was changed a couple years ago in self officiated matches that now dictate wrong calls are lost points instead of lets.

This whole scenario comes down to "when" the call was made to apply the current interpretation. If the call was made at or near the time the ball lands which causes opponent(a) to stop, the current rule on "wrong call" would apply. Communication before the ball lands is generally not applicable to the rule.

 

[KTM144sx]

I usually call "watch it" to avoid the confusion on a ball that is going long or wide.

 

[struggle]

"no" or "bounce" or "whatever"

"out" is an easy reason to lose the point pending the situation. too much grey area.

 

[spot]

I think that the USTA is right that a let is appropriate in that situation. But if they were to repeatedly keep doing it then I think you are entitled to call hindrance and take the point.

 

[Mongolmike]

I really thought that the rule was changed a couple years ago in self officiated matches that now dictate wrong calls are lost points instead of lets.

.

This is what I thought too... I thought "replays" are not allowed anymore. As has been said, safest way is to train yourself to say something other than "out"... bounce it, watch it, etc.

 

[gmatheis]

This is what I thought too... I thought "replays" are not allowed anymore. As has been said, safest way is to train yourself to say something other than "out"... bounce it, watch it, etc.

Replays are not allowed anymore for a changed call.

This is not a changed call, it is a question of hindrance. The rules do allow for a let to be played when a ball falls out of a players pocket or a hat falls off. These are all examples of hindrances caused by a player unintentionally, the same as a misunderstood communication too close to the time of the ball bouncing. So allowing a let in this situation is nothing new.

 

[VaththalKuzhambu]

This was not a league match yesterday and we just had a friendly argument. USTA's take on this is silly.
Regardless of the timing at which the opponent calls 'out', my body and brain will enter instinctively react to it and probably loosen up.

 

[dizzlmcwizzl]

I disagree .... If that excerpt from the USTA is still up to date I think it is a nice clarification. Unfortunately, I suspect that is an old statement and under the rules now you would lose the point.

If my opponent yells out well before it comes close to the line I will not confuse that for a call. That is just communication, and I certainly wont stop playing.

If however, if an opponent is making a line call (presumably when the ball is close to the line) if he yells out and then changes his mind and plays the ball that will clearly create confusion and he should lose the point.


To avoid this I usually yell bounce it .... but old habits die hard and an occasional early out call slips in.

 

[LuckyR]

This was not a league match yesterday and we just had a friendly argument. USTA's take on this is silly.
Regardless of the timing at which the opponent calls 'out', my body and brain will enter instinctively react to it and probably loosen up.

I don't doubt your truthfulness, but your over easily distractable situation does not increase your opponent's "hinderance" quotient.

I agree that something other than "out" is preferable as a preventative, but it is clear that saying: "out" specifically is not a violation.

Plenty of players can wrap their minds around hearing "out" before the ball lands, and continuing play.

 

[VaththalKuzhambu]

Plenty of players can wrap their minds around hearing "out" before the ball lands, and continuing play.

It is no measure of health to be well adjusted to a profoundly sick society.
-Jiddu Krishnamurti

 

[LuckyR]

It is no measure of health to be well adjusted to a profoundly sick society.
-Jiddu Krishnamurti

I agree with you that life (and tennis) is full of imperfections or "sick"nesses, but only the most fragile and naive can't/won't adapt to this reality and still thrive.

 

[eelhc]

I don't doubt your truthfulness, but your over easily distractable situation does not increase your opponent's "hinderance" quotient.

I agree that something other than "out" is preferable as a preventative, but it is clear that saying: "out" specifically is not a violation.

Plenty of players can wrap their minds around hearing "out" before the ball lands, and continuing play.

True... but there's a simple solution to this that avoids the grey area ("bounce it", "watch it", "let it go" etc, etc..). Plenty goes to all... so why not make a habit of it?

 

[LuckyR]

True... but there's a simple solution to this that avoids the grey area ("bounce it", "watch it", "let it go" etc, etc..). Plenty goes to all... so why not make a habit of it?

Perhaps you didn't see the second line in my post, I said that already...

 

[VaththalKuzhambu]

I agree with you that life (and tennis) is full of imperfections or "sick"nesses, but only the most fragile and naive can't/won't adapt to this reality and still thrive.

Is there a similar take on playing against cheaters?
Cheating is not uncommon in tennis and so one needs to adapt to this reality and improve their game to an extent where the opponent's cheating won't matter.

 

[chatt_town]

Sounds like a judgement call to me. I know I wouldn't give a point for telling my partner the ball is going to be out and then they play it because it is good. I mean you have to be logical. Having said that. I just generally yell "bounce" to cut down on confusion. Had that happen once to me in a match, but he lost the point because we had been saying out for 2 sets. He waits until 3rd set and 300 lobs later...one he didn't want to go get so he tried to stop play.lol This one was the one he chose to stop play on. lol

I actually think this question was in the most recent TENNIS magazine. Actually there is a rule and if the side calls "out" while the ball is in the air, and the ball does land "in" the other team can stop play and get the point, since the team playing the ball made the wrong call.

 

[floridatennisdude]

Replays are not allowed anymore for a changed call.

This is not a changed call, it is a question of hindrance. The rules do allow for a let to be played when a ball falls out of a players pocket or a hat falls off. These are all examples of hindrances caused by a player unintentionally, the same as a misunderstood communication too close to the time of the ball bouncing. So allowing a let in this situation is nothing new.

Re-read the OP. He did take the hindrance, but the usta interpretation said to call a let in the last paragraph in lieu of claiming hindrance. It could easily be interpreted as a wrong call in this scenario as well due to the choice of words by their opponent. It comes down to the subjectivity of when the call occurs which is always a matter of judgement.

 

[beernutz]

Replays are not allowed anymore for a changed call.

This is not a changed call, it is a question of hindrance. The rules do allow for a let to be played when a ball falls out of a players pocket or a hat falls off. These are all examples of hindrances caused by a player unintentionally, the same as a misunderstood communication too close to the time of the ball bouncing. So allowing a let in this situation is nothing new.

I agree. The calling of the let is completely within the hands of the opponents whether it is a ball coming out of a pocket, a hat flying off, or someone on the other team calling 'out' when the ball is very close to a line. The first two are unintentional and the second not so much but in either case the "offending" team cannot gain an advantage by what happened and it is up to the other team to decide if the point should be restarted.

 

[Orange]

The fact that the Q and A cited in the OP refers to playing a let when an out call is made close to the time the ball is played leads me to believe that this Q and A was written before the rule on "out calls reversed" was changed. I looked up the source of the OP's quote and found a similar Q and A, but there was no indication of when it was written. http://www.usta.com/Improve-Your-Game/Rules/Rulings/Calling_the_ball_out/

 

[Bionic slice]

to call or play or what to say

during a match there are a lot of close situations or calls where the ball could go in or out. I usually tell the person match, if i am playing a ball and its out, i will hit and see where it hit, if out, i yell out even if i hit the ball to give the match a fair shake.

 

[LuckyR]

Is there a similar take on playing against cheaters?
Cheating is not uncommon in tennis and so one needs to adapt to this reality and improve their game to an extent where the opponent's cheating won't matter.

Well, yes and no. Where I play true cheating is rare. Also the ability to tell if a call is true cheating or a mistake is nowhere near perfect. In the absence of certainty, personally I err on the side of assuming it is a mistake and therefore I agree that letting it go and being Zen about it all is best. OTOH in the extremely rare case of out and out cheating, a very logical argument can be made for cheating back, which I won't go into detail about but has been covered many times.

Of course your last statement is true. Though we should all be trying to maximize our games as a matter of course, not because we happened to run into a cheater the other day...

 

[zaskar1]

say "bounce" or "bounce it"

I stopped play today when opponent called 'out' to his partner before the ball bounced but the ball was eventually in and his partner played it. I mistakenly told them that the guy cannot call 'out' and should call 'bounce it' or something like it.

I was pretty confident in my reasoning until I came home and found this. This does not make sense. What is the norm for you guys?

http://www.usta.com/Improve-Your-Game/Rules/Rulings/Calling_the_ball_out/

Q. Does play stop in all cases of an "Out Call"? There are situations where a partner will tell his/her partner "Out" instead of "Bounce It" or "Let It Bounce" cautioning that the ball may be going out. If however, the partner plays the ball, instead of letting it drop, and makes a good return and their opponents don't play the return, is a let played?

A: First, despite what some people think, there is no rule that says you cannot say out' or other words of communication to your partner, especially when you're at the net and the ball is coming in your direction. And because such communication would invariably occur well before the ball has bounced, the claim that this could be mistaken for a line call is not legitimate.

The time confusion could occur is in your case when a player said 'out' or another form of communication to his/her partner standing at the baseline at the time when the ball bounced or was about to bounce. You were in the position to make a return of the ball and did so. In that case, saying "leave it" or "NO" would be preferable to saying 'out'. However, any word used when the ball lands on the ground or close to the ground when you or your partner hit the ball could be construed as a call. If a player yells "out” or some other form of communication at the moment or close to the moment the ball was played, it could very well hinder the opponents. If the opponents both thought that a call was made and both stopped, honestly thinking a call was made, then a let should be played since they did stop and honestly thought a call was made.

i think that the opponents can say that the communication was a hinderance, if they stopped play when
you called "out", and so a let should be played.

probably say "bounce it or no, or some other communication besides out"
can be better communication and not a hinderance to your opponents

z