Etiquette

[thebuffman]

New poll is up to help add depth to this discussion. Please watch this video and proceed to vote if you will.

=========================================================

what i did is legal but is it ethical? my team is in a very competitive draw where every match counts. heck it might come down even to a count of "sets won". i was playing a doubles match yesterday against sub par opponents. my partner however has not played well all year. for instance after three rally balls, he will launch the ball into the back fence or wayyyy off court consistently. not a problem, this means that i just have to step up my game since i am more of a consistent striker.

so i say to myself that i have to be VERY aggressive and not allow ANYONE BUT ME to dictate the outcome of the game. i refused to passively allow circumstances to put it into the position of having to determine the game via tie breaker. in other words....I AM GOING RIGHT AT THEM. and thats just what i did. when they poked in their 2nd serve to me and their net guy maintained an offensive position (nose over the net), i smacked it right at him. when they lifted a flying duck i smacked it right at them. yeah, a few times i split the defense sending the ball through the hole for a winner but most of the time on short balls i hit it right at the man. i tagged one guy twice with the ball. one hit him in the groin and another hit him square in the chest. i apologized for the groin and said, "sorry man, i was aiming for your feet." the guy really stay calm but you could tell he was boiling mad the entire match. i am not sure if it was because i was rocket launching balls at him or because he felt that they were playing poorly. now i did over him telling his team after the match that "it could have went either way in the first set, we lost 4 deuce games. so we could have came out of that 4-0." i disagreed but it wasn't my forum to disagree in. but that may have explained his anger and very brief hand shake after the match.

anyway this leads me to my poll on this forum. is it unethical to do what i did? i mean i did feel bad after we took the match 3,1. especially knowing that some of those balls i could have went for clean winners instead of only focusing in on testing their net play. thoughts?

 

[Maui19]

How old are you?

 

[thebuffman]

age is in the mind

 

[baek57]

You could've hit clean winners but instead you're smacking balls at their balls. Sounds like a pretty ****** thing to do especially when you're winning 3 and 1.

 

[Tennishacker]

Bad sportsmanship.

When you said that you could of hit a clean winner but chose to hit at the guy, that says it all.

 

[eidolonshinobi]

Kinda mean I guess, there's no mercy in competitive doubles though.

 

[dozu]

next time, take dead aim at his head and knock him out.

 

[thebuffman]

yeah, you guys are right. which is why i felt bad. i hadn't played like that before but this time i thought, "what the heck, if my opponent want to stand 2 feet from the net then here ya go..." probably not the most ethical thing to do. i figured why risk wiffing on a winner when i could force them to error. it worked but like you all say, poor sportsmanship.

what is interesting though is the contradistinction of play between me and them. when my partner floated a ball to the net guy, guess what i did. step my inside foot to the outside line and get out of the way. i don't stand there waiting to get killed; i surrender the point. i learned after getting pegged 5x in one match last year. my partner was a pusher who floated a good 15 balls to the net guy and there i stood peering over my erect racquet poised in the ready position. that dude lit me the heck up. ha! now i learned how to get my overgrown tail out of the way.

 

[Manus Domini]

I've done similar thing as well. But generally at 2nd doubles level I don't hit the guy, they duck so it's a winner anyway. Actually, it's more like they open up the whole court for me to hit to with only one guy covering it. Why would I risk my opponent returning it if I could get a winner?

Almost did hit a guy once, but that was the point after he tried smashing it at me and failed. Then again, that's just karma.

but if you are gonna go up to net, you have to take the risk. And if your opponent goes up to net, he's saying "hey! please try pegging me if I give you an easy shot!"

 

[maverick66]

So you pegged bad net players in doubles?

I dont see the issue here. They could back up and play two back or move out of the way. So I see nothing wrong with how you played. If you get a sitter and they wanna stay there hit them so hard it says Penn on their ass.

 

[mightyrick]

Horrible sportsmanship. Honestly, after the third one, I'd tell you to go eff yourself and walk off the court. In doubles, you many better options on short balls.

Hitting a forehand at the netman from the baseline is one thing. Especially on a return. But almost all netmen have a chance at reacting to these balls.

But choosing to rip short sitters at someone who is 4 or 5 feet away from you is ridiculous. Especially when you easily have a cross court winner or a decent passing shot. Terrible.

 

[Larrysümmers]

I am with the Buffman on this one. On second serves if the netman is playing close to the net, i dont have a problem with going at him. if i go for an overhead and he his up to the net, i wont mind going at him, i try to aim at his feet though. if i get a shot, and i think my best option of winning the point, i wont mind to hit a volley into him
i expect the same done to me in competative doubs.. now if this was a social thing, well then i wouldnt aim for them, thats not cool.

 

[thebuffman]

I dont see the issue here. They could back up and play two back or move out of the way. So I see nothing wrong with how you played. If you get a sitter and they wanna stay there hit them so hard it says Penn on their ass.

not that i'm looking for an amen corner but this is exactly what i mean...verbatim.

i do feel like it is poor sportmanship to play this way and it was the first time i've ever done this. there was just too much riding on this outing and my partner, on returns, was even launching dinky 2nd serves into the back fence. if i played laid back and let the game come to me, they would have played 'keep away' from me and kept going to my partner. like i say he hasn't played well this year not even in practice. i haven't seen him sustain anything past a 6-ball rally yet. so i was definitely in KILL mode. i wanted to instill the fear of God in those guys. and i definitely had the eye of the tiger...bouncing up and down between points, rocking side to side, looking intimidating and fully energized while everyone else was playing that passive style doubles traditional of 3.5 players. i refused to be lulled into their playing style.

then i wiffed on 2 winners. i strung up a different configuration in my stick the night before which plays a bit more powerful than i am use too. at that point i was like, "okay, no more freebies. if they want to sit at the net, i will test their prowess." and i started ripping everything at them and they STILL wouldn't back up to the service line (SERIOUSLY?!!). i felt so bad that i even tried to give them a hint: before my partners 2nd serve, i would turn around and walk back to the service line preparing for the return of serve. why didn't they EVER do this? they NEVER went back to the service line, not even on their partner's 2nd serve. WOW.

so i did the unethical thing. and i agree with you all that it is most likely poor sportsmanship. if i had to do it again, quite honestly i would still go right at them. GET OFF THE FREAKIN NET DUDE! YoU R oN DefEnSe!! DUH!

 

[tennis_balla]

From a players perspective, I'd say if he's dumb enough to stand 2ft from the net thinking he'll bump volleys back then he deserves to get hit. From a coaches perspective, you should of gone around him if you had the chance.

 

[ProgressoR]

this is a no brainer.

In a competitive match, this is very fine. The only caveat I would put on it is if the net guy is incompetent and you feel a ball at him could hit him in the eye etc and he just cannot get out of the way because he is so uncoordinated, then might be worth thinking twice about this. Otherwise its fair game. He will get the message after two shots at him that this is they way it is, and he can decide to stay at the net (and thus cannot complain) or strategically withdraw and have a different game plan.

Every time i have had the ball drilled at me, if I fail to get it back i always chastise myself for not being quick enough to deal with it. If it hits me then its my fault I am slow. I have never ever expected the opponent to apologise and if he does I just wave it off, its not relevant.

 

[USERNAME]

HIT 'EM! If they stay close on the net on a short ball then they should know they're fair game. If you have a CLEAR opening you should hit there but if not do what feels best.

 

[dominikk1985]

From a players perspective, I'd say if he's dumb enough to stand 2ft from the net thinking he'll bump volleys back then he deserves to get hit. From a coaches perspective, you should of gone around him if you had the chance.

This. if you hit a sitter just go out of the way. I hate players who try to defend the net and even jump around to distract you when they hit an easy sitter. just go away and make it easy not to hit you. if you don't you practically force him to hit you.

However when you are already winning comfortably I would try to hit around them even if they are dump enough to stand at your face after hitting a sitter. you might lose a point or two more but you help the atmosphere.

Don't rip at the opponent when you win the sets like 6-1 or 6-2. just not necessary.

 

[nabrug]

At some (lower) levels you don't play at the netplayer like this.

But as the level is rising and the netplayer is also trying to poach more you are allowed to test him/her. A netplayer can never be offended if he thinks he can only punish all the easy (ever going) crosscourt balls and never get punished himself for a weak ball from his partner.

The whole thing what is completely wrong is to aim at the body. It is not aiming at the body. But playing towards to the body. In fact at the highest levels they play towards the direction of the hitting shoulder of the netplayer. That is the spot hardest to defend. The two goals here are to put the opponent in need of time or in need of space. And that is competely legitimate.
Although it looks like there is a narrow line between hitting at or towards the opponent it is a world of difference. You don't want to do that.

 

[mightyrick]

The whole thing what is completely wrong is to aim at the body. It is not aiming at the body. But playing towards to the body. In fact at the highest levels they play towards the direction of the hitting shoulder of the netplayer. That is the spot hardest to defend. The two goals here are to put the opponent in need of time or in need of space. And that is competely legitimate.
Although it looks like there is a narrow line between hitting at or towards the opponent it is a world of difference. You don't want to do that.

In baseball, a pitcher will throw a ball "inside", but that is far different than actually hitting a batter. In singles or doubles, if you have a short sitter, you have a ton of better options other than going right at the netman.

My problem with it is that when you are playing a game without regards to the safety of others on the court, then you don't deserve to be on the court. Legal or not.

It is also perfectly legal to elect to not stop play due to a stray "let" ball that might be behind your opponent's feet -- without their knowledge. Do you go ahead and do that? Simply because it raises your chances of winning? Without regards to the fact that they might break an ankle?

How about working on your game so that you don't have to risk people's safety in order to win?

 

[papa]

Well, I'm inclined to be with thebuffman but it does depend on the opponents and shot selection involved. For instance, if you have a overhead inside the service line and an opponent(s) inside the service line, its considered "bad form" to go right at them but it doesn't sound like this is the situation.

I've seen players go after others but watch out. If I feel a player is going after me, or partner, in an attempt to injure, I'll return the favor and I don't mean just once - they get it quickly. I don't recommend this but some players are a little "thick". I like aggressive play and I think thebuffman is in this category - or at least I hope he is.

 

[Manus Domini]

In baseball, a pitcher will throw a ball "inside", but that is far different than actually hitting a batter. In singles or doubles, if you have a short sitter, you have a ton of better options other than going right at the netman.

My problem with it is that when you are playing a game without regards to the safety of others on the court, then you don't deserve to be on the court. Legal or not.

It is also perfectly legal to elect to not stop play due to a stray "let" ball that might be behind your opponent's feet -- without their knowledge. Do you go ahead and do that? Simply because it raises your chances of winning? Without regards to the fact that they might break an ankle?

How about working on your game so that you don't have to risk people's safety in order to win?

Those are different. The net guy isn't gonna get severely injured from getting pegged, but someone tripping on a ball can. I won't hurt the netman, but hitting it towards him hard makes him think twice, and, like I said, it's usually a winner down the line anyway.

And if you do have a short sitter, why risk the opponent getting it back by not aiming at the netman? Been there, done that, didn't work out well.

 

[TimothyO]

It is also perfectly legal to elect to not stop play due to a stray "let" ball that might be behind your opponent's feet -- without their knowledge. Do you go ahead and do that? Simply because it raises your chances of winning? Without regards to the fact that they might break an ankle?

That happened to a friend in city finals on Friday (singles).

She was up 5-1 and cruising to an easy victory when a ball from another court rolled behind her. Neither her opponent nor the women on the court from which the ball rolled warned her (turns out those women were friends of her opponent). They watched the ball roll in, said nothing, and my friend fell on the ball. She could barely stand up, her leg was numb, and she loss the match 6-1, 1-6, 3-6. Her foot was bruised and swollen Friday night.

She was pissed and asked why nobody had warned her. The women from the other court said, "We didn't know what to say." She replied, "How about, 'There's a ball behind you!'."

As for hitting hard at the net player in doubles, it happens in my wife's league all of the time (ALTA, here in Atlanta). Teams deliberately probe for weak net players and when they find them, they hammer them with hard shots. This is true in women's doubles and mixed. She's better playing back (VERY disciplined high percentage shots) than net so she gets pinged a lot. She responds by staying a little further back. People generally aim for her feet but they don't hesitate forcing an error with a direct shot if that's their only available shot.

 

[mightyrick]

As for hitting hard at the net player in doubles, it happens in my wife's league all of the time (ALTA, here in Atlanta). Teams deliberately probe for weak net players and when they find them, they hammer them with hard shots. This is true in women's doubles and mixed. She's better playing back (VERY disciplined high percentage shots) than net so she gets pinged a lot. She responds by staying a little further back. People generally aim for her feet but they don't hesitate forcing an error with a direct shot if that's their only available shot.

BTW, I'm fine with going at the netman if you are at the baseline. In that situation, the netman has a chance to react -- either get out of the way or try to actually put a racquet on the ball.

The issue I have is with the short sitter. In that situation, the netman will not have time to react to the ball. Especially if it is an overhead -- which is effectively a serve from 6 feet away. That is a totally bush league play. A passing shot is so easy from that spot. There is zero reason to go to the body of a net man.

 

[arche3]

imo.... on a short sitter the netman should just move out of the way and not stand there hoping his presence will make the guy miss. Or if the netman is hoping to block it back expect he might get hit. I don't target the netman ever but I will target his right hip or his knees or feet if he chooses to stand there like a fool when I tee off on the ball. Personally most of the guys I play will not miss a sitter and if I just stood there I will be receiving a heater so I just get the h*ll out the way with my racket protecting my head. why stand there and get hit? And if you get hit I would think the next time you will move out of the way. If after 2 hits you still stand there maybe he has a screw loose?

 

[maverick66]

My problem with it is that when you are playing a game without regards to the safety of others on the court, then you don't deserve to be on the court. Legal or not.

I dont think I have ever said this to someone but you are to soft for tennis. Go play girls soccer. Seriously the safety of others. This hitting a ball at someone who is to dumb to get out of the way. If I was playing dubs with someone who has a horrible second serve I am moving to the baseline. This also helps take pressure off of their serve as they dont have to worry about me getting pegged anymore.

How about working on your game so that you don't have to risk people's safety in order to win?

So you wanna remove a perfectly good shot because you are a little girl?

I like aggressive play and I think thebuffman is in this category - or at least I hope he is.

Thats fine. I went after people all the time with pegs. I could not get mad when they came back at me. Its part of the game. Its guys that peg and then act all high and mighty when you go at them that I really target.

imo.... on a short sitter the netman should just move out of the way and not stand there hoping his presence will make the guy miss.

This is what is getting missed. The net player is just as responsible for him getting hit here. If its a bang bang play where he gets hit by a quick volley fine he isnt to blame. But a short pop up where he has a small chance to run to the side then he should.

 

[mightyrick]

I dont think I have ever said this to someone but you are to soft for tennis. Go play girls soccer. Seriously the safety of others. This hitting a ball at someone who is to dumb to get out of the way.

Girls soccer? You really think this comes down to how much pain I'm willing to take or not take? Or how much injury I'm willing to endure or not endure? Grow up.

I've played more than a few contact sports. All I am saying is if you have a choice, don't go for the cheap shot. I'm sorry, but a short sitter doesn't need to be hit right at the net man. The only excuse someone should have for doing that is purely accidental, IMHO.

I've played (American) football with people who have the mentality you are talking about. They take all sorts of head shots, cut blocks, clotheslining, or back-blocking. In soccer, they are intentionally going for the knees, going for the ankles. That play is dirty and it is ridiculous.

These are all cases of where players have to go for the cheap shot because they don't have the skills to execute the non-cheap shot. Call me whatever you want, but I don't play that way.

So you wanna remove a perfectly good shot because you are a little girl?

Nice logic. Is that what you really think? That I'm a little girl therefore I want to remove the shot? Or could it be that I'm not a little girl and I have other reasons as to why I think that shot is cheap?

It amazes me how many people on this board can't simply say... "I understand your point, but we'll agree to disagree."

 

[Power Player]

I used to always go right at someone if they came to net against me in singles. It was usually me being on the run though, not lining up a winner. I just wanted them to hesitate a split second before coming to net again.

In doubles, which i don't play a lot, I still prefer the alleys on a return. So If i need to rip a return right near their net guy, it is what it is. If I have a winner set up, I am probably not going to aim right for someone though..lol.

 

[HunterST]

I dont think I have ever said this to someone but you are to soft for tennis. Go play girls soccer. Seriously the safety of others. This hitting a ball at someone who is too dumb to get out of the way. If I was playing dubs with someone who has a horrible second serve I am moving to the baseline. This also helps take pressure off of their serve as they dont have to worry about me getting pegged anymore.



So you wanna remove a perfectly good shot because you are a little girl?



Thats fine. I went after people all the time with pegs. I could not get mad when they came back at me. Its part of the game. Its guys that peg and then act all high and mighty when you go at them that I really target.



This is what is getting missed. The net player is just as responsible for him getting hit here. If its a bang bang play where he gets hit by a quick volley fine he isnt to blame. But a short pop up where he has a small chance to run to the side then he should.

Wait... You run off the court when your opponent gets a sitter? lol

 

[mucat]

I think it is ok to aim at the netman as long as it is not an overhead.

 

[thebuffman]

Wait... You run off the court when your opponent gets a sitter? lol

dude i do exactly this. what's wrong with running out of the way? this is one of the first things i learned over at operation doubles. it is called "the move". every doubles player should know this tactic of GETTING OUT OF THE WAY. below is an excerpt from the site:

This tennis doubles lesson teaches you how to play the net safely — how to get out of the way when an opposing volleyer is hitting a shot.

Let's start with three simple tennis facts:
· One in three tennis shots is so far off target that it misses the whole court. So tennis shots are SCUDs, not smart-bombs.
· When you're at net in tennis doubles, you're in the middle of the opposition's target zone.
· The only purpose of every rule in any game is to ensure a level playing field. So the rules of tennis don't allow you to shrink the court your opposition must hit into. Ergo, your being in a spot doesn't take away their right to hit there.

Therefore, even if it were fair to make your opponents responsible for your safety, it wouldn't be wise, because they can hit you even while trying not to. As the old saying goes, If you can't take the heat, stay out of the kitchen. If you choose to position at net, especially anywhere near the Hole, you must be prepared for high-speed shots to come your way.
............................
But I always tell players, "If you ever get the feeling you're about to be hit, concede the point: Turn your back with a step toward the alley." That bears repeating: Turn your back with a step toward the alley. I call this the Move. It's a pivot turning your back to the shot as you step out of its way.
===============================

during our match, my partner floated a good 5 balls right to the net man. because i train my eyes on the net guy when my partner is hitting the ball, his big eyes let me know that my partner had hit a flaming duck. as soon as i saw the net guy load up, i performed the move and walked out of the way. i did this multiple times during the match because i am not about to get blasted by a ball all because my partner doesn't have good ball control.

what upset me though is that the opponents NEVER conceded any point. i concede 5 points but they don't concede NOTHING?! they don't even take a defensive net position on dinky 2nd serves?! ARE YOU SERIOUS? i was the best player on that court (and i say that from underneath a table), and i still would have my heels against the service line on my partners weaker 2nd serve. they would stand ready to volley as we all watch this floating ball loft its way over the net but yet they don't retreat. even after drilling 2nd serve returns at those guys, they still stood 2-3 feet from the net on their partner's 2nd serve. at first i tried to just pull it down the alley for a winner and hit 2 of those out. the 3rd one the net guy stuck his racquet up fast enough to protect the alley and hit a winner through the hole. that's when i was like, "enough. my partner can't sustain any rally past 3 balls and is launching 2nd serve returns to the back fence. i've already hit 3-4 winners long and we can't afford to lose this match. i can't continue to try hitting around these guys, i have to test their net play."


Te your way.

 

[dominikk1985]

I agree with that. It should be etiquette to not try to defend the net after a sitter.

no need to jump from the court, just go to the middle if the ball is at the sideline or to the sideline if the sitter is in the middle so that you open an alley where he can easily hit past you.

if he still hits you he is an *******, but too many players try to defend the net and even jump around after a sitter to distract the opponent and then wonder if the opponent hit them. that is also bad style.

don't make it hard on the opponent to not hit you.

 

[sureshs]

It is just low morals to hit at anyone, period. Even in a professional match. It is really not about etiquette or rules. Etiquette is for shaking hands after a match, etc., not hitting someone. That is just plain wrong.

Yesterday I hit an overhead smash and it accidentally went straight at the opponent, who managed to deflect it out of the court with his racquet shaft. If he had been hurt, I would have felt bad.

 

[TimothyO]

It is just low morals to hit at anyone, period. Even in a professional match. It is really not about etiquette or rules. Etiquette is for shaking hands after a match, etc., not hitting someone. That is just plain wrong.

Yesterday I hit an overhead smash and it accidentally went straight at the opponent, who managed to deflect it out of the court with his racquet shaft. If he had been hurt, I would have felt bad.

But isn't there two types of "intent" in hitting "at" someone, one a tactic and the other malicious?

A TOUGHER SHOT
Trying to hit a ball heading directly for one's body is tougher than hitting a ball to either side. You get "crowded" by the ball. This would seem to be a legitimate ball placement technique since you're making it tougher for an opponent to return the ball by hitting "towards" them instead of to their side. In fact, this raises the question "how close is hitting at someone?" Are you hitting at someone if your aim-point is 3' away? 2'? 1'?

INTIMIDATION THROUGH POTENTIAL INJURY
The other intent is to intimidate the opponent by hitting AT them for the purpose of making them fear bodily harm.

The result might be similar or even the same. The ball is hit towards/at an opponent. One might argue the level of power applied is part of the equation, or not.

But in singles I have hit towards an opponent (especially the feet) for the express purpose of making their shot more difficult, especially if they're good at volleys and charging the net. My intent isn't to hit them or aim for their body. Tactically it's no different than hitting to an opponent's backhand if you know he has a weak backhand. I'm trying to make their shot more difficult by crowding their stroke or volley.

The only time I've ever hit AT someone was in a doubles match when an opponent did a running commentary on any balls that I served out. He didn't just call "out" or "long". He went on and on about the ball being out: "Well that was out by a mile, not even close. At least 3 feet or more! You had one like that during the last game." After he ignored my suggestion for a simpler call a couple of "misplaced" serves directly at him quieted him down.

 

[baek57]

Yeah, take a step to the side and turn around so thebuffman can smash one into your back when you aren't even looking or defending yourself. Sounds like a real good plan.

 

[baek57]

But isn't there two types of "intent" in hitting "at" someone, one a tactic and the other malicious?

A TOUGHER SHOT
---
INTIMIDATION THROUGH POTENTIAL INJURY
---

I AM GOING RIGHT AT THEM.
i smacked it right at him.
when they lifted a flying duck i smacked it right at them.
on short balls i hit it right at the man.
i tagged one guy twice with the ball.
one hit him in the groin and another hit him square in the chest.
i was rocket launching balls at him
i could have went for clean winners instead

hmm, which one sounds like thebuffman?

 

[sureshs]

But isn't there two types of "intent" in hitting "at" someone, one a tactic and the other malicious?

A TOUGHER SHOT
Trying to hit a ball heading directly for one's body is tougher than hitting a ball to either side. You get "crowded" by the ball. This would seem to be a legitimate ball placement technique since you're making it tougher for an opponent to return the ball by hitting "towards" them instead of to their side. In fact, this raises the question "how close is hitting at someone?" Are you hitting at someone if your aim-point is 3' away? 2'? 1'?

INTIMIDATION THROUGH POTENTIAL INJURY
The other intent is to intimidate the opponent by hitting AT them for the purpose of making them fear bodily harm.

The result might be similar or even the same. The ball is hit towards/at an opponent. One might argue the level of power applied is part of the equation, or not.

But in singles I have hit towards an opponent (especially the feet) for the express purpose of making their shot more difficult, especially if they're good at volleys and charging the net. My intent isn't to hit them or aim for their body. Tactically it's no different than hitting to an opponent's backhand if you know he has a weak backhand. I'm trying to make their shot more difficult by crowding their stroke or volley.

The only time I've ever hit AT someone was in a doubles match when an opponent did a running commentary on any balls that I served out. He didn't just call "out" or "long". He went on and on about the ball being out: "Well that was out by a mile, not even close. At least 3 feet or more! You had one like that during the last game." After he ignored my suggestion for a simpler call a couple of "misplaced" serves directly at him quieted him down.

I suppose there are some gray area situations, but the OP said:

I AM GOING RIGHT AT THEM

 

[blakesq]

if it is a competitive match, it is perfectly fine to go AT THE NET PLAYER. The net player is not required to position himself at the net.

 

[mightyrick]

In fact, this raises the question "how close is hitting at someone?" Are you hitting at someone if your aim-point is 3' away? 2'? 1'?

IMHO, you are hitting at someone if you go outside of your abilities in terms of placement accuracy. For a pro, I dunno, that might be two feet. Others would probably know better than I. For a 3.5, the margin is might be four feet. It kind of is a personal judgment call.

In baseball, this happens all the time. Some pitchers will try to pitch threatening batters too deep to the inside. Beyond the accuracy of that pitcher. A batter might allow himself to get hit once -- maybe twice. But the next time, the batter is probably going to walk out to the mound.

 

[thebuffman]

so what does a person do when their opponents rush the net. you got two dudes inside the service line attacking you and the ball is a soft ball to your forehand. what do you do? i have watched professional tennis where the bryan brothers ripped the balls right at the net guys. the net guys would keep it in play and the bryans would keep ripping it. exciting to watch nonetheless. the bryans in some cases were not even at the baseline.

so i don't know. perhaps like someone was saying earlier that it depends on the level of play. perhaps ripping balls at the net guy in 3.5 rated play is amoral at best. i don't know. all i know is that i really wanted those guys to get off the net and to appear aggressive and intimidating. i had to be the one determine how this game would close and i was afraid to leave it in the hands of "team play".

interesting replies. it does have me thinking...

 

[maverick66]

interesting replies. it does have me thinking...

Has me thinking we got a good amount of soft men around here. These guys might be better suited for a good game of chess. Although I can see a few of them crying and saying its unethical when you take their queen.

 

[sureshs]

so what does a person do when their opponents rush the net. you got two dudes inside the service line attacking you and the ball is a soft ball to your forehand. what do you do? i have watched professional tennis where the bryan brothers ripped the balls right at the net guys. the net guys would keep it in play and the bryans would keep ripping it. exciting to watch nonetheless. the bryans in some cases were not even at the baseline.

so i don't know. perhaps like someone was saying earlier that it depends on the level of play. perhaps ripping balls at the net guy in 3.5 rated play is amoral at best. i don't know. all i know is that i really wanted those guys to get off the net and to appear aggressive and intimidating. i had to be the one determine how this game would close and i was afraid to leave it in the hands of "team play".

interesting replies. it does have me thinking...

Ripping balls at the net guy is something I also do when I can. However, there is a difference in hitting the ball hard within your ability, which at the 3.5 level should not cause much bodily harm, compared to taking a huge unnatural swing and bashing the ball, hoping that it either hits the guy or else it goes out. The second case is not acceptable.

Overhead smashes are a different story - I am always careful, because from my own experience I know that when my partner has thrown up a sitter, I have not always put myself in the matador position to avoid injury. I simply don't play that much doubles to have that in my muscle memory, and I should expect the same from others.

 

[blakesq]

suresh, that might be fine for ladies tennis. in men's competitive tennis, it is always acceptable to hit at the net guy.

Ripping balls at the net guy is something I also do when I can. However, there is a difference in hitting the ball hard within your ability, which at the 3.5 level should not cause much bodily harm, compared to taking a huge unnatural swing and bashing the ball, hoping that it either hits the guy or else it goes out. The second case is not acceptable.

Overhead smashes are a different story - I am always careful, because from my own experience I know that when my partner has thrown up a sitter, I have not always put myself in the matador position to avoid injury. I simply don't play that much doubles to have that in my muscle memory, and I should expect the same from others.

 

[sureshs]

suresh, that might be fine for ladies tennis. in men's competitive tennis, it is always acceptable to hit at the net guy.

As I said, depends on what "hit at" means. A controlled shot which could result in a volley in return, or some ball hit with maximum force in the guy's direction hoping to hit him or go out?

 

[baek57]

so what does a person do when their opponents rush the net. you got two dudes inside the service line attacking you and the ball is a soft ball to your forehand. what do you do? i have watched professional tennis where the bryan brothers ripped the balls right at the net guys. the net guys would keep it in play and the bryans would keep ripping it. exciting to watch nonetheless. the bryans in some cases were not even at the baseline.

so i don't know. perhaps like someone was saying earlier that it depends on the level of play. perhaps ripping balls at the net guy in 3.5 rated play is amoral at best. i don't know. all i know is that i really wanted those guys to get off the net and to appear aggressive and intimidating. i had to be the one determine how this game would close and i was afraid to leave it in the hands of "team play".

interesting replies. it does have me thinking...

first thing that comes to mind is a topspin lob.

 

[TimothyO]

In the book Winning Ugly the author notes that when facing an aggressive net player in singles he deliberately hit AT the opponent to intimidate him and keep him back.

 

[blakesq]

no, it doesnt matter. YOu seem to think a proper shot at the net player must be hit softly enough so that it "could result in a volley in return". I hit it hard enough to make it as unlikely as possible for him to be able to return it.

As I said, depends on what "hit at" means. A controlled shot which could result in a volley in return, or some ball hit with maximum force in the guy's direction hoping to hit him or go out?

 

[baek57]

no, it doesnt matter. YOu seem to think a proper shot at the net player must be hit softly enough so that it "could result in a volley in return". I hit it hard enough to make it as unlikely as possible for him to be able to return it.

I'm sure you think it's perfectly acceptable to hit a smash at a net player when there's plenty of open court to hit into for a clean winner. Just because it's technically legal to do doesn't mean you should do it.

 

[Manus Domini]

dude i do exactly this. what's wrong with running out of the way? this is one of the first things i learned over at operation doubles. it is called "the move". every doubles player should know this tactic of GETTING OUT OF THE WAY. below is an excerpt from the site:

This tennis doubles lesson teaches you how to play the net safely — how to get out of the way when an opposing volleyer is hitting a shot.

Let's start with three simple tennis facts:
· One in three tennis shots is so far off target that it misses the whole court. So tennis shots are SCUDs, not smart-bombs.
· When you're at net in tennis doubles, you're in the middle of the opposition's target zone.
· The only purpose of every rule in any game is to ensure a level playing field. So the rules of tennis don't allow you to shrink the court your opposition must hit into. Ergo, your being in a spot doesn't take away their right to hit there.

Therefore, even if it were fair to make your opponents responsible for your safety, it wouldn't be wise, because they can hit you even while trying not to. As the old saying goes, If you can't take the heat, stay out of the kitchen. If you choose to position at net, especially anywhere near the Hole, you must be prepared for high-speed shots to come your way.
............................
But I always tell players, "If you ever get the feeling you're about to be hit, concede the point: Turn your back with a step toward the alley." That bears repeating: Turn your back with a step toward the alley. I call this the Move. It's a pivot turning your back to the shot as you step out of its way.
===============================

during our match, my partner floated a good 5 balls right to the net man. because i train my eyes on the net guy when my partner is hitting the ball, his big eyes let me know that my partner had hit a flaming duck. as soon as i saw the net guy load up, i performed the move and walked out of the way. i did this multiple times during the match because i am not about to get blasted by a ball all because my partner doesn't have good ball control.

what upset me though is that the opponents NEVER conceded any point. i concede 5 points but they don't concede NOTHING?! they don't even take a defensive net position on dinky 2nd serves?! ARE YOU SERIOUS? i was the best player on that court (and i say that from underneath a table), and i still would have my heels against the service line on my partners weaker 2nd serve. they would stand ready to volley as we all watch this floating ball loft its way over the net but yet they don't retreat. even after drilling 2nd serve returns at those guys, they still stood 2-3 feet from the net on their partner's 2nd serve. at first i tried to just pull it down the alley for a winner and hit 2 of those out. the 3rd one the net guy stuck his racquet up fast enough to protect the alley and hit a winner through the hole. that's when i was like, "enough. my partner can't sustain any rally past 3 balls and is launching 2nd serve returns to the back fence. i've already hit 3-4 winners long and we can't afford to lose this match. i can't continue to try hitting around these guys, i have to test their net play."


Te your way.

If my partner hits a sitter, I don't turn around unless I know it's gonna be a hard shot. I'm not gonna just give away a possible dinker because I cry about it. But if it is a hardshot, I'll give you my back.

And if you hit me, guess what. You're getting hit. So whether you aim for me or not, I could care less, you're still the meal. And if my partner does give a sitter, aim for me. But I'm not gonna run like a little pansy from a 30 mph shot...

 

[blakesq]

Playing according to the rules is acceptable. I never invited my opponents to play at the net.

I'm sure you think it's perfectly acceptable to hit a smash at a net player when there's plenty of open court to hit into for a clean winner. Just because it's technically legal to do doesn't mean you should do it.

 

[thebuffman]

first thing that comes to mind is a topspin lob.

tried that and it landed 3inches past the baseline. one of the reasons why i went into kRaZY mode. these dudes were rushing the net after hitting soft floaters to no man's land. after i missed that lob, i was all set. :evil:

honestly though the problem was that i didn't know how to turn it twisted off.

If my partner hits a sitter, I don't turn around unless I know it's gonna be a hard shot. I'm not gonna just give away a possible dinker because I cry about it. But if it is a hardshot, I'll give you my back.

i don't concede the point on sitters. i concede the point on floaters. on sitters i recover behind the service line. when my partner floats a 8' high flaming duck to the net guy, i'm ghost. i paid dearly for that lesson and care not to repeat the class.