Doubles: Receiving Net Player Reverses Self

[TimothyO]

The net player of the receiving team mistakenly calls a serve out stopping play and then reverses himself after his partner hits the ball while the ball is traveling to the other side.

Which of the following is correct?

A. Replay the point

B. The serving team is awarded the point

C. The receiving team is awarded the point if the serving team fails to continue play

We implemented option B because the net player of the receiving team effectively stopped play with the out call and because with option A it's quite possible for the receiving team to "fish" for a weak serve by simply calling serves out until they get one they like. However, one player involved insisted that the point should be replayed but was overruled by the other three.

 

[anubis]

The net player of the receiving team mistakenly calls a serve out stopping play and then reverses himself after his partner hits the ball while the ball is traveling to the other side.

Which of the following is correct?

A. Replay the point

B. The serving team is awarded the point

C. The receiving team is awarded the point if the serving team fails to continue play

We implemented option B because the net player of the receiving team effectively stopped play with the out call and because with option A it's quite possible for the receiving team to "fish" for a weak serve by simply calling serves out until they get one they like. However, one player involved insisted that the point should be replayed but was overruled by the other three.

If it were me, if the serve was an ace then it's the server's point. If the ball was hit back, then replay the point.

 

[g4driver]

http://www.usta.com/the_final_word_important_2011_procedure_change/

If you are in the USA, playing USTA tennis, the server gets the point. I have no idea what other rules state regarding this matter.



Prior to 2011, if the correction on a serve or in a rally was made immediately and the player returned the ball back into the court, then a let was played. However starting in 2011, the USTA Tennis Rules and Regulations Committee has determined that any call on a serve or in a rally corrected from out to good is loss of point to the player or team that corrected the call, even if the ball is put back into play. An out call on any ball (on a serve or in a rally) that is corrected to good is considered to have created a hindrance to play and it is loss of point due to this hindrance.

NOTE: The only exception is on the first or second serve that is a service let (i.e. the ball hits the net before it lands in the service box).
Let serves that occur on first or second serve and called out and are then corrected to good result in the replay of the entire point, thus a first serve to the server.

 

[g4driver]

If it were me, if the serve was an ace then it's the server's point. If the ball was hit back, then replay the point.

Not in USTA tennis. Server gets the point.

 

[schmke]

The net player of the receiving team mistakenly calls a serve out stopping play and then reverses himself after his partner hits the ball while the ball is traveling to the other side.

Which of the following is correct?

A. Replay the point

B. The serving team is awarded the point

C. The receiving team is awarded the point if the serving team fails to continue play

We implemented option B because the net player of the receiving team effectively stopped play with the out call and because with option A it's quite possible for the receiving team to "fish" for a weak serve by simply calling serves out until they get one they like. However, one player involved insisted that the point should be replayed but was overruled by the other three.

Per the code, the answer is B. But in recreational play A is often done.

 

[TennisCJC]

http://www.usta.com/the_final_word_important_2011_procedure_change/

If you are in the USA, playing USTA tennis, the server gets the point. I have no idea what other rules state regarding this matter.



Prior to 2011, if the correction on a serve or in a rally was made immediately and the player returned the ball back into the court, then a let was played. However starting in 2011, the USTA Tennis Rules and Regulations Committee has determined that any call on a serve or in a rally corrected from out to good is loss of point to the player or team that corrected the call, even if the ball is put back into play. An out call on any ball (on a serve or in a rally) that is corrected to good is considered to have created a hindrance to play and it is loss of point due to this hindrance.

NOTE: The only exception is on the first or second serve that is a service let (i.e. the ball hits the net before it lands in the service box).
Let serves that occur on first or second serve and called out and are then corrected to good result in the replay of the entire point, thus a first serve to the server.

Thanks, for this. I no longer play usta league but in Atlanta, the ALTA league changed to this same rule. I wondered if USTA had changed too. So, USTA changed the rule and ALTA just followed the USTA.

Personally, I liked it better before 2011 when if you changed the call from out to good and returned the ball, a let was played. Playing a let encouraged players to correct their call to good. The new rule discourages players from correcting their call to good because they will lose the point immediately if the do.

 

[g4driver]

Thanks, for this. I no longer play usta league but in Atlanta, the ALTA league changed to this same rule. I wondered if USTA had changed too. So, USTA changed the rule and ALTA just followed the USTA.

Personally, I liked it better before 2011 when if you changed the call from out to good and returned the ball, a let was played. Playing a let encouraged players to correct their call to good. The new rule discourages players from correcting their call to good because they will lose the point immediately if the do.

Bingo. You get it. Now you see people call "Back", or "Out" and never reverse their call. The most egregious calls being on clay when the ball takes a skid off the service line, rising about 5", and the returner standing by their "Out" call. Kinda tough to watch the returners teammates, giving you the look as they know their teammate missed the call. Tougher when the the returner makes a habit of calling those serves out and standing his/her ground. I've seen this from both sides. Having a teammate do this repeatedly to an opponent in singles and watching a doubles team have it done to them repeatedly. Our guy had just taken a lost to the guy, but we as a group knew his behavior had to be addressed and the Captain wanted him to know that 5 or 6 of his teammates witnessed his repeated "Out" calls, that were "In". Thankfully, he lost repeatedly, making the pain of his "Out" calls more bearable, and he moved away from the area after one season. lol

Some guys just call anything near a line "Out" and it sucks to play opponents like that, while other guys give you the benefit of the doubt more than 100% of the time. I have overruled opponents calling one of my shots "In" when I clearly had a better look and saw my call "Out", and I have had many opponents do the same for me. Always a pleasure to know you are playing someone who will overrule a ball that you play as "IN", when they clearly see it "Out".

 

[g4driver]

"An out call on any ball (on a serve or in a rally) that is corrected to good is considered to have created a hindrance to play and it is loss of point due to this hindrance."

How can you create a hindrance on a serve coming toward your partner, by yelling "OUT", but not create a hindrance by yelling "SHORT" on a short serve?

How can you create a hindrance on a server coming toward your partner by yelling "OUT", but not create a hinderance by yelling "OUT", "BOUNCE IT", "NO", on any point other than the serve as the ball is coming toward you and your partner.

Seems whoever wrote the part in italics didn't put much thought into that sentence before it was published. A female is either pregnant or she isn't. Impossible to have it both ways, but hey it's the USTA so this makes perfect sense to me. :shock:

 

[stapletonj]

because OUT is a call that ends a point. The other team hears that and stops playing.

Case in point - I smack one down the T. Receiver's partner yells, OUT!, I stand up and stop my s & v rush to the net. Receiver hits the ball, shouts "No -Good" and it dribbles over the net. Because I stopped running into the net, rather than being an easy putaway volley for me, it is a winner for you. There is NO WAY this should result in a receiver's point or even a let.

I smack a ball deep, you (other guys partner) yell "BOUNCE IT!!!" to your partner while the ball is still going towards him. Your partner, knowing that he is up against the tennis legend known as stapletonj, knows the ball is going to hit the line. Of course, it does, and he feebly hits the ball back, an obvious duck. Mighty stapletonj swoops down upon the duck and of course proceeds to dump it into the bottom of the net. (Do I know my own game or what?)

There is NO WAY I can claim to have mistakenly thought that you HAD called the ball out and I stopped playing. And there is NO WAY I should even get a let. BOUNCE IT is not a point ending call in anybody's book.

 

[gmatheis]

because OUT is a call that ends a point. The other team hears that and stops playing.

Case in point - I smack one down the T. Receiver's partner yells, OUT!, I stand up and stop my s & v rush to the net. Receiver hits the ball, shouts "No -Good" and it dribbles over the net. Because I stopped running into the net, rather than being an easy putaway volley for me, it is a winner for you. There is NO WAY this should result in a receiver's point or even a let.

I smack a ball deep, you (other guys partner) yell "BOUNCE IT!!!" to your partner while the ball is still going towards him. Your partner, knowing that he is up against the tennis legend known as stapletonj, knows the ball is going to hit the line. Of course, it does, and he feebly hits the ball back, an obvious duck. Mighty stapletonj swoops down upon the duck and of course proceeds to dump it into the bottom of the net. (Do I know my own game or what?)

There is NO WAY I can claim to have mistakenly thought that you HAD called the ball out and I stopped playing. And there is NO WAY I should even get a let. BOUNCE IT is not a point ending call in anybody's book.

This pretty much sums it up but I just want to add the following.

If you hit a shot that is so close to being out that your opponent calls it out and then reverses the call it's not fair to make you play the point over because a shot (or serve) that good means you are, more likely than not, in control of the point. It wouldn't be fair to have to start a point over that you likely had an advantage in because your opponent made a mistake with his "out" call.

So really the new rule is more fair , people just hate change.

 

[g4driver]

Both you guys missed my point-

I'll explain it in the am- Gnite

 

[sjoerdklarenbeek]

I believe that according to Dutch rules (KNLTB in the Netherlands), the point is replayed when a reversed call for the first time in the match. After that a reversed call is a point for the player who made the shot.

 

[McLovin]

"An out call on any ball (on a serve or in a rally) that is corrected to good is considered to have created a hindrance to play and it is loss of point due to this hindrance."

How can you create a hindrance on a serve coming toward your partner, by yelling "OUT", but not create a hindrance by yelling "SHORT" on a short serve?

How can you create a hindrance on a server coming toward your partner by yelling "OUT", but not create a hinderance by yelling "OUT", "BOUNCE IT", "NO", on any point other than the serve as the ball is coming toward you and your partner.

Seems whoever wrote the part in italics didn't put much thought into that sentence before it was published. A female is either pregnant or she isn't. Impossible to have it both ways, but hey it's the USTA so this makes perfect sense to me. :shock:

If I understand you correctly, this was recently changed in the rules (there was discussion of it somewhere here).

As the ball is coming towards you, you & are your partner are allowed to speak to each other so long as it is not intended to distract your opponent (e.g. "BOUNCE IT!", "NO!", "SWITCH!", etc.). But, it was recently decided that the one word OUT may be a distraction to your opponents as it is accepted as a line call.

This applies to any shot that is coming towards your side of the net. I have had partners say "GET UP!" on a short serve (people will sometimes throw in an underhand serve ala Chang to throw me off), and I believe that is 100% within the rules.

But the one word OUT is considered (rightly or wrongly) to signify "end of point".

 

[g4driver]

If I understand you correctly, this was recently changed in the rules (there was discussion of it somewhere here).

As the ball is coming towards you, you & are your partner are allowed to speak to each other so long as it is not intended to distract your opponent (e.g. "BOUNCE IT!", "NO!", "SWITCH!", etc.). But, it was recently decided that the one word OUT may be a distraction to your opponents as it is accepted as a line call.

This applies to any shot that is coming towards your side of the net. I have had partners say "GET UP!" on a short serve (people will sometimes throw in an underhand serve ala Chang to throw me off), and I believe that is 100% within the rules.

But the one word OUT is considered (rightly or wrongly) to signify "end of point".

Please remember this: when in doubt of a rule, use google. You were clear in your post you weren't sure by writing "If I understand correctly,..."

Here is the actual answer from Richard Kaufman, the USTA Director of Officials.

http://www.usta.com/Improve-Your-Ga...g_line_calls/?CategoryId=13306&Year=2013&pg=2


April 16, 2013

question from Marlene: Is it a hindrance to call the ball "out" to keep your partner from hitting an out ball? If your partner continues to hit the ball, is there a penalty?

KAUFMAN: Saying "out" at the moment the ball lands could be mistaken for a line call by your opponent, thus creating a hindrance. If you say "out" well before the ball lands, it should not be confused for a line call and thus does not result in a penalty if your partner plays the ball. Still, it is better to say "leave it" or "no" in case the ball is still in play because your partner ignored your communication.

Maybe I need to make a searchable PDF File with all these nice questions and answers? Or maybe the USTA might take it upon themselves to do it for us. :idea:

 

[McLovin]

Here is the actual answer from Richard Kaufman, the USTA Director of Officials.

http://www.usta.com/Improve-Your-Ga...g_line_calls/?CategoryId=13306&Year=2013&pg=2


April 16, 2003

question from Marlene: Is it a hindrance to call the ball "out" to keep your partner from hitting an out ball? If your partner continues to hit the ball, is there a penalty?

KAUFMAN: Saying "out" at the moment the ball lands could be mistaken for a line call by your opponent, thus creating a hindrance. If you say "out" well before the ball lands, it should not be confused for a line call and thus does not result in a penalty if your partner plays the ball. Still, it is better to say "leave it" or "no" in case the ball is still in play because your partner ignored your communication.

Maybe I need to make a searchable PDF File with all these nice questions and answers? Or maybe the USTA might take it upon themselves to do it for us. :idea:

Yes, but that question was posed in 2003. If I'm not mistaken, there was a question in a recent issue of Tennis Magazine (if not the latest issue, then the one before it) specifically about this.

The ruling was that saying 'OUT' was now considered a point-ending call. Let me see if I can dig it up.

Not trying to argue w/ you. Maybe I misunderstood the question/answer in the magazine.

 

[McLovin]

OK, couldn't find the Tennis Magazine Q & A, but did find this thread from 3 years ago:

http://tt.tennis-warehouse.com/showthread.php?t=349024#15​

beernutz provides the link, as well as the snippet about reversing 'out' calls, but essentially:

[p. 47] Code § 12 was revised so that when a player corrects an “out” call to “good,” the player always loses the point. This replaces the previous rule that allowed a let in some circumstances.

 

[g4driver]

because OUT is a call that ends a point. The other team hears that and stops playing.

Case in point - I smack one down the T. Receiver's partner yells, OUT!, I stand up and stop my s & v rush to the net. Receiver hits the ball, shouts "No -Good" and it dribbles over the net. Because I stopped running into the net, rather than being an easy putaway volley for me, it is a winner for you. There is NO WAY this should result in a receiver's point or even a let.

stapletonj,

Let me clarify my point. The rule changed in 2011. I am not arguing the rule, but rather the sentence: "An out call on any ball (on a serve or in a rally) that is corrected to good is considered to have created a hindrance to play and it is loss of point due to this hindrance."

This could have been worded much better IMO. Why not just make the rule An out call on any ball (on a serve or in a rally) that is corrected to good results in a loss of point to the team calling the ball "OUT". ?

In your example, you serve down the T, and the receiver's partner says "OUT" and the receiver says "No-Good" and plays the ball, hitting the net and dribbling over the net for a easy winner for you. The part you are missing is this: You won the point when the partners disagreed. There is no let, or need for anything else. Your point.

These are two rules in the server's favor: 1) the USTA 2011 rule change and 2) The Code - Partners' disagreement on calls.

http://www.usta.com/Improve-Your-Game/Player-to-Player/Rules/Ruling_on_a_serve/

14. Partners’ disagreement on calls. If one partner calls the ball out and the other partner sees the ball good, the ball is good. It is more important to give opponents the benefit of the doubt than to avoid possibly hurting a partner’s feelings. The tactful way to achieve the desired result is to tell a partner quietly of the mistake and then let the partner concede the point. If a call is changed from out to good, the principles of Code § 12 apply.

My point is this: If a server serves a ball, and the receiver's partner yell "Out", and the returner puts the ball back in play, yes, the serving team could be hindered, as the serving team stops play.

But what if the server is called "OUT" and the receiver make no play at the ball? How is the server hindered? He served and hears "OUT" and the ball hits the fence with the receiver just stands there. The ball wasn't put in play. Let's say the receiver's partner then overrules himself, and says "the serve was good". How was the server was hindered? The play stopped as soon as the ball hit the fence as the receiver never made a play.

I get the USTA says "The Server wins the point", but their is no hinderance in my example of a receiver who makes no play on the ball. The point stopped. Semantics, but certainly not a hinderance.

 

[g4driver]

Yes, but that question was posed in 2003. If I'm not mistaken, there was a question in a recent issue of Tennis Magazine (if not the latest issue, then the one before it) specifically about this.

The ruling was that saying 'OUT' was now considered a point-ending call. Let me see if I can dig it up.

Not trying to argue w/ you. Maybe I misunderstood the question/answer in the magazine.

The question was posted on April 6, 2013 about 17 months ago, not in 2003. I typed the date in wrong. Sorry for that.

 

[g4driver]

If you hit a shot that is so close to being out that your opponent calls it out and then reverses the call it's not fair to make you play the point over because a shot (or serve) that good means you are, more likely than not, in control of the point. It wouldn't be fair to have to start a point over that you likely had an advantage in because your opponent made a mistake with his "out" call.

I agree with you on this.

So really the new rule is more fair , people just hate change.

I don't agree with you on the change part. Some people hate change, not all people. Some people welcome change when things are better. I personally like the Coman TB, in singles and doubles.

I hate the fact, many guys don't hold their tongue and yell "OUT" on serves, that clearly hit the tape or a nail head and they stand their ground, because they know they lose the point if they correct themselves. :twisted: This is a small problem with the new rule. Some people want to win so badly, they have no problem hooking people. But then again, that is a much bigger issue than "Out Calls Corrected".

 

[McLovin]

My point is this: If a server serves a ball, and the receiver's partner yell "Out", and the returner puts the ball back in play, yes, the serving team could be hindered, as the serving team stops play.

But what if the server is called "OUT" and the receiver make no play at the ball? How is the server hindered? He served and hears "OUT" and the ball hits the fence with the receiver just stands there. The ball wasn't put in play. Let's say the receiver's partner then overrules himself, and says "the serve was good". How was the server was hindered? The play stopped as soon as the ball hit the fence as the receiver never made a play.

I get the USTA says "The Server wins the point", but their is no hinderance in my example of a receiver who makes no play on the ball. The point stopped. Semantics, but certainly not a hinderance.

Gotcha. You're arguing more the wording than anything else.

As far as your example, I'd say the receiver loses the point because they made no effort to play the ball (their choice), and you cannot hinder yourself. Not an official ruling, but that would be my take on it.

And I realize you are giving a very specific example, but trying to get at a general situation. Hard to do on a forum like TT...

 

[g4driver]

Gotcha. You're arguing more the wording than anything else.

As far as your example, I'd say the receiver loses the point because they made no effort to play the ball (their choice), and you cannot hinder yourself. Not an official ruling, but that would be my take on it.

And I realize you are giving a very specific example, but trying to get at a general situation. Hard to do on a forum like TT...

If my partner called the server's serve "OUT" and I make no call or play on the ball, and agree with him, how would we lose the point? The only way we lose the point is if my partner changes his initial call from "OUT" to "IN" , otherwise it is a second serve or a Double Fault.

 

[McLovin]

If my partner called the server's serve "OUT" and I make no call or play on the ball, and agree with him, how would we lose the point? The only way we lose the point is if my partner changes his initial call from "OUT" to "IN" , otherwise it is a second serve or a Double Fault.

Sorry, I was referring to latter part of the above statement, where partner calls it 'OUT', you make no play at it, but then you call it 'IN'.

In that situation, I believe the correct call is your opponents win the point, regardless of whether you returned the shot or not.

Obviously, an 'OUT' call on a 1st serve that is not disputed but you (or your partner if you made the call) remains and it is a 2nd serve.

 

[g4driver]

We are on the same page- just seems odd for the USTA to use the word Hinderance in the rule change about our calls corrected on serves -

KISS principle - Reverse a call, you lose the point. Period. Hinderance applies if a serve is returned after the out call is reversed, but there is no hindrance in my example.

Sometimes I wonder if the people who create these rules in a committee actually still play tennis -

 

[stapletonj]

How bout this....just equate the "O" word with the "N" word unless you are ending the point with a call. Just don't say it, not even if you are Eddie Murphy.....