First Serve or Second -- You Decide

Cindysphinx

G.O.A.T.
I was playing a league match recently against two women I know. Both teams are at the top of the division, so it was an important match.

My partner and I were stronger and my partner was serving for the match at 15-all when the following happens.

Partner serves first serve that looked possibly deep. No gesture or audible call from receiver's partner at net. Returner plays the ball. As it is traveling toward my partner, returner says, "Was that in?" Returner's partner says nothing (that I could hear, anyway). My partner hits the ball and says, "What's going on?" Returner then says, "Are we playing?" and hits the ball again.

I stopped the point and said, "Hold up, hold up. You guys can't have a conversation while the ball is traveling toward the other side. Did somebody make a line call?"

Returner's partner says, "Yes, I called the serve out."

I said, "OK, well nobody heard you." She tossed a ball to my partner and said, "Second serve."

I said, "Shouldn't that be first serve? That was a pretty big delay between first and second serve."

She hesitated and said, "No, second."

My partner got her second serve in, God bless her, and she served out the match.

OK, show of hands. First serve or second?
 

WhiteOut

Semi-Pro
Actually I say you win the point at most, or first serve at least. No second at all. That was a healthy serving of Bravo Sierra by your opponent. If I was your opponent in that circumstance I would have just given you the point for my being an idiot.
 

Captain Ron

Professional
I would always give a first serve in such a situation. I think it's up to your opponent to award a first serve. IMO they should have.
 

OrangePower

Legend
By rule, second serve.

Returner's partner called the 1st serve out. Well, at least she claims she did, and that's all you can go by. It would have been better had she been more obvious with her gesture or louder with her audible, but still if she called it out, and her partner did not contradict her, then it is ruled out.

If she did not call it out then it is server's point, due to hindrance on the part of receiver during a live point.

Who knows if in fact she did or did not call it out, but you can only go by her word. So, second serve.

Now if I was receiver's partner I would feel bad about not having made the call in an obvious enough manner, and I would offer a 1st serve. But there is nothing requiring that, other than being nice.
 

OrangePower

Legend
@OrangePower, the argument is that there was a delay between first and second caused by the receiving team, for returning the ball over the net twice.
Let's take receiver's partner at her word (as we must), and this assume that the ball was called out in a timely manner (by receiver's partner).
Receiver returned the ball, but that by itself does not constitute enough delay to warrant a first serve. Receiver returning an out ball is a common enough occurrence.
So, going by the book, the delay was thus initiated by the server's team, when server made the next shot, and thus cannot be the justification for a 1st serve.

As I said I personally would have offered a 1st as receiver's partner because I would feel bad that my call was not obvious enough (which is a subjective judgement call), but this is not required.
 

Dartagnan64

G.O.A.T.
First serves are offered when the delay was caused by the receiving team. This scenario is a bit nebulous since both parties seemed to have a play in causing the delay. It would likely take a legal team of a dozen lawyers to determine blame in this case.

As a receiving team, if my call was not clear enough to be heard by the time the server hits the ball back, I'd be offering a first serve. Normally if I call out and the server still seems to be lining up to hit another shot, I start yelling OUT OUT OUT in a very loud voice. I certainly don't let a rally go on in confusion as long as this one did.
 
Your point, the returner's partner is a LIAR!--none of the three others on the court heard an out call, let alone her own partner, who was closest to her. Let me reiterate : she's a LIAR!

Ladies tennis--"So much drama."
 

eelhc

Hall of Fame
I was playing a league match recently against two women I know. Both teams are at the top of the division, so it was an important match.

My partner and I were stronger and my partner was serving for the match at 15-all when the following happens.

Partner serves first serve that looked possibly deep. No gesture or audible call from receiver's partner at net. Returner plays the ball. As it is traveling toward my partner, returner says, "Was that in?" Returner's partner says nothing (that I could hear, anyway). My partner hits the ball and says, "What's going on?" Returner then says, "Are we playing?" and hits the ball again.

I stopped the point and said, "Hold up, hold up. You guys can't have a conversation while the ball is traveling toward the other side. Did somebody make a line call?"

Returner's partner says, "Yes, I called the serve out."

I said, "OK, well nobody heard you." She tossed a ball to my partner and said, "Second serve."

I said, "Shouldn't that be first serve? That was a pretty big delay between first and second serve."

She hesitated and said, "No, second."

My partner got her second serve in, God bless her, and she served out the match.

OK, show of hands. First serve or second?

Neither.

Since you stopped the point and pointed out correctly that they can't have a conversation when the ball is traveling to your side of the court... You in fact called a hindrance... and since the conversation was intentional, your team wins the point.

The way I would have played it is to call the hindrance and offer your opponents to replay the point... A let so 1st serve.

How well do you know these people?
 

Cindysphinx

G.O.A.T.
Welllllll . . .

Remember when I posted about the two women who played slowly to run out the clock in a timed match and drive us insane? Remember -- my partner was late and we suffered a 3-game penalty but still won the first set in a tiebreak and won the second set something like 6-1?

It was those ladies. And even though I have been teammates with one and captained the other, I wouldn't say this match did much for the friendship.
 
Yeah, I think you should win the point.

They did not make a call - "was that in?" is not an out call! (In fact, it's pretty clearly indicating uncertainty, which means the ball should be considered in.) Following, they clearly kept playing the ball for more shots, as evidenced by the returner hitting the ball back and asking "are we playing?" until you stopped the point. But they were talking to you or each other, which is a hindrance, so it should be your point.

They had two real options. They had to either call the ball out - i.e. make the call clear. If someone didn't hear, then you don't keep playing the ball, keep repeating "I called it out already, it was out" to make sure nobody continues playing the point. Or, they had to make no call, and play the ball normally. You don't get to have a conversation in the middle of the point about whether the first ball was out - that's a hindrance, and loses the point.

In a friendly match, I'd probably give (or expect to take) a first serve instead of losing the point on a hindrance, but definitely not a second serve.
 

jmnk

Hall of Fame
well, you stopped the point in progress. Apparently there may/may not have been a conversation going on since none of the other three players complained. Judging from the description your partner was talking while the ball was traveling toward the opponents. I'm not sure why you would be getting a first serve, and definitely not the point.
 

Dartagnan64

G.O.A.T.
Neither.

Since you stopped the point and pointed out correctly that they can't have a conversation when the ball is traveling to your side of the court... You in fact called a hindrance... and since the conversation was intentional, your team wins the point.

The way I would have played it is to call the hindrance and offer your opponents to replay the point... A let so 1st serve.

How well do you know these people?

Since both sides were talking while the ball was moving away from them, the hindrance was mutual.

Not sure there's a scenario in the code that covers conversations by both sides of the net during a point. A let seems like the appropriate act and a first serve.
 

eelhc

Hall of Fame
Since both sides were talking while the ball was moving away from them, the hindrance was mutual.
Not sure there's a scenario in the code that covers conversations by both sides of the net during a point. A let seems like the appropriate act and a first serve.
After the first instance of hindrance (immediately after the return) the point is over. No possibility of second occurrence.
 

Dartagnan64

G.O.A.T.
After the first instance of hindrance (immediately after the return) the point is over. No possibility of second occurrence.

Only if you call it immediately. Once you play a ball after a hindrance its no longer considered a hindrance. Cindy didn't stop play until both parties were clearly involved in a conversation.

You can't go and say, "You know when that ball rolled into the corner of the court 7 hits ago? Yeah that's a hindrance so let's play a let."
 

JavierLW

Hall of Fame
I was playing a league match recently against two women I know. Both teams are at the top of the division, so it was an important match.

My partner and I were stronger and my partner was serving for the match at 15-all when the following happens.

Partner serves first serve that looked possibly deep. No gesture or audible call from receiver's partner at net. Returner plays the ball. As it is traveling toward my partner, returner says, "Was that in?" Returner's partner says nothing (that I could hear, anyway). My partner hits the ball and says, "What's going on?" Returner then says, "Are we playing?" and hits the ball again.

I stopped the point and said, "Hold up, hold up. You guys can't have a conversation while the ball is traveling toward the other side. Did somebody make a line call?"

Returner's partner says, "Yes, I called the serve out."

I said, "OK, well nobody heard you." She tossed a ball to my partner and said, "Second serve."

I said, "Shouldn't that be first serve? That was a pretty big delay between first and second serve."

She hesitated and said, "No, second."

My partner got her second serve in, God bless her, and she served out the match.

OK, show of hands. First serve or second?

If we pretend that they really called it out, then it's up to them to determine whether it's a first or second serve. (by their judgment as to how long the delay is)

But from the sound of it she lied, even her partner didnt hear a call and was confused. By rule you are not allowed to call your own first serve out, so with no call on their end that is a live ball. In which case you stopped the point which amounts to a LET or a warning for Hindrance (which is basically what you did), which means replay the point.

But of course if people are dishonest and are going to lie there isnt much you can do. Its not a surprise they insist on it being second serve on top of it all. You are lucky to get out of it with the win.
 

JavierLW

Hall of Fame
Since both sides were talking while the ball was moving away from them, the hindrance was mutual.

Not sure there's a scenario in the code that covers conversations by both sides of the net during a point. A let seems like the appropriate act and a first serve.

I dont think you can take the point for hindrance on the first occasion anyway. It's basically a warning and is just as good as a Let. Either way you would reply the point.
 

eelhc

Hall of Fame
Only if you call it immediately. Once you play a ball after a hindrance its no longer considered a hindrance. Cindy didn't stop play until both parties were clearly involved in a conversation.

You can't go and say, "You know when that ball rolled into the corner of the court 7 hits ago? Yeah that's a hindrance so let's play a let."

There are rules and reasonable application of rules. The rules on hindrance do not say "immediately". They say as "as soon as possible". What's soon as possible in this case? This is why I personally would offer to play a let (after clearly establishing the my opponents hindered on the play) and asked the OP "How well do you know these people?". Given the history with these ladies... I personally would not cut them any slack.

There's been plenty of instances where the point is deconstructed afterwards. Most often is the instance where the ball hits the scorecard, the players play out the point and then ask what is the rule.
 

Cindysphinx

G.O.A.T.
You can take a point the first time you are hindered. Trouble is, who was actually hindered? My partner made her shot, returner made her shots, I wasn’t hitting. Can I call hindrance in doubles if I’m not hitting?
 

eelhc

Hall of Fame
You can take a point the first time you are hindered. Trouble is, who was actually hindered? My partner made her shot, returner made her shots, I wasn’t hitting. Can I call hindrance in doubles if I’m not hitting?

The rules do not specifically mention who can make the call but why not? Are you not playing (moving, splitting, etc), if you are not hitting the ball?

Again... As I have asked... it's important what you know of your opponent(s). Given the history here... I would argue tooth and nail and use the vague, grey areas in the rule book to my every advantage. The fact that your opponents did not offer to play a let after the point progressed on a weak/no call tells me volumes about what type of people they are. I'm not going to cheat... but they ain't getting an inch from me.
 

JLyon

Hall of Fame
Would lean towards 2nd serve, since player is claiming she called the ball out, now it gets tricky since both teams were hemming and hawwing and the receiving team played the ball a second time. So with that said a 1st serve would be appropriate. The receiving team should have confirmed the call before hitting the 2nd ball and since they did not and there was confusion then let is appropriate. Now if receiver would have said the ball was good and they were playing then serving team loses the point since they stopped play.
 

brettatk

Semi-Pro
I would always give a first serve in this situation but it's really up to the discretion of the returners. Just like if you've served a first serve fault and then a ball comes over from the other court before you are able to serve your second serve. After the ball is returned to the other court most people would tell you to take a first serve but there are many out there that would not.
 

J_R_B

Hall of Fame
I would always give a first serve in such a situation. I think it's up to your opponent to award a first serve. IMO they should have.
I agree with this. I would have given a first, as would other reasonable people, but I don't think you're going to win an argument that it's mandatory.
 

Dartagnan64

G.O.A.T.
If we pretend that they really called it out, then it's up to them to determine whether it's a first or second serve. (by their judgment as to how long the delay is)

I think the out call is irrelevant in this case. It wasn’t heard and two players were playing the point in good faith. But there was hindrances so a let is the most agreeable solution that both parties can agree on.
Replay the point which means first serve.
 

eelhc

Hall of Fame
I would always give a first serve in this situation but it's really up to the discretion of the returners. Just like if you've served a first serve fault and then a ball comes over from the other court before you are able to serve your second serve. After the ball is returned to the other court most people would tell you to take a first serve but there are many out there that would not.

No... not up to the discretion of the returner. Rule 23 says in this case the entire point has to be played over including the first serve.

23. THE LET In all cases when a let is called, except when a service let is called on a second service, the whole point shall be replayed.
Case 1: When the ball is in play, another ball rolls onto court. A let is called. The server had previously served a fault. Is the server now entitled to a first service or second service?
Decision: First service. The whole point must be replayed.
 
Last edited:

time_fly

Hall of Fame
I would always give a first serve in this situation but it's really up to the discretion of the returners. Just like if you've served a first serve fault and then a ball comes over from the other court before you are able to serve your second serve. After the ball is returned to the other court most people would tell you to take a first serve but there are many out there that would not.

Generally if there's a break in the action between the first and second serve for any other reason than dealing with the first serve ball, it should be first serve again. The borderline case in my mind is the one where the returner retrieves the first serve ball and then fumbles it to create another delay.
 

Cindysphinx

G.O.A.T.
Any traction with the idea that the Code says players are entitled to audible/visual call, and returning team must make their out call promptly?

I think what really happened is that the receiver's partner started to make a call and then tried to stop mid-call but she made a sound. She then kept quiet, hoping everyone would just play the point. Her partner heard the aborted call, which caused her to ask the question. And on it went.

So it should have been point to serving team (when player changes her mind on a call) or hindrance (late call, talking while ball was on its way to the serving team not once but twice).

I think this is a fascinating rules question. I wish Woodrow were in the house.
 

Dartagnan64

G.O.A.T.
The only issue that makes it a fascinating rules question is that the opponent lied. 3 people did not hear an audible out call or see a visual sign yet she claimed to have made one. If I make an out call and then players appear to be continuing play, I repeat my out call in a louder voice and raise my hand to ensure all are aware of the call. I think everyone would do that. Her silence was damning.

So what is the rule for catching your opponent in a clear lying situation?
 

kylebarendrick

Professional
No... not up to the discretion of the returner. Rule 23 says in this case the entire point has to be played over including the first serve.

23. THE LET In all cases when a let is called, except when a service let is called on a second service, the whole point shall be replayed.
Case 1: When the ball is in play, another ball rolls onto court. A let is called. The server had previously served a fault. Is the server now entitled to a first service or second service?
Decision: First service. The whole point must be replayed.

Except that no let was ever called in this case.
 

brettatk

Semi-Pro
No... not up to the discretion of the returner. Rule 23 says in this case the entire point has to be played over including the first serve.

23. THE LET In all cases when a let is called, except when a service let is called on a second service, the whole point shall be replayed.
Case 1: When the ball is in play, another ball rolls onto court. A let is called. The server had previously served a fault. Is the server now entitled to a first service or second service?
Decision: First service. The whole point must be replayed.

That's not even what I said. In my case the ball was not in play yet. Try to stay with me here. I serve a first serve and it hits the net. Before I can sever my second serve an errant ball comes from the court next to us. The returner takes a moment to hit it back to the other court. It might take 20 seconds or so. Technically I'm not entitled to a first serve but the majority of people would say take first serve. All I said is that there are some that would not give you a first serve and that it's up to their discretion.
 
Last edited:

JavierLW

Hall of Fame
No... not up to the discretion of the returner. Rule 23 says in this case the entire point has to be played over including the first serve.

23. THE LET In all cases when a let is called, except when a service let is called on a second service, the whole point shall be replayed.
Case 1: When the ball is in play, another ball rolls onto court. A let is called. The server had previously served a fault. Is the server now entitled to a first service or second service?
Decision: First service. The whole point must be replayed.

That rule is for when the "ball is in play". Once the ball is returned, it is in play and any LET after that will result in a reply of the whole point.

If we take the LiarLady's word for it, the ball was never "in play" because she "called it out".

Thus it goes down to where what Cindy is asking about, what happens when there is a disruption between the first and second serves (not while the ball is actually in play). There is a disruption between serves. It is the receiver's call in this instance to determine if the disruption is sufficient or not to give their opponent a first serve (read more rules).

Unfortunately, the rules and the Code are written with the idea that you have two honest Opponents playing the game in good faith. They will always fall short when you meet liars or dishonest people. It is interesting that she wouldn't even give Cindy's team first serve, but cant be too surprising.
 

JavierLW

Hall of Fame
I think the out call is irrelevant in this case. It wasn’t heard and two players were playing the point in good faith. But there was hindrances so a let is the most agreeable solution that both parties can agree on.
Replay the point which means first serve.

That's kind of sketchy because there are times when a person does call it out and nobody notices. They are "supposed" to be obvious about it but there is no punishment for not doing it (other then causing confusing situations such as this).

So almost anytime you encounter someone who claims they called it out, you'd almost have to take them at their word for it. You couldnt just disregard it every time.

(and there is no official around to make a judgement call on that usually)
 
So almost anytime you encounter someone who claims they called it out, you'd almost have to take them at their word for it. You couldnt just disregard it every time.
Well I beg to disagree respectfully of course, I term these phantom calls. When the ROS's partner doesn't hear it--and they are standing maybe 10-15 feet from them, they are NOT calling it loud enough! Sometimes they will say they pointed the serve out with their finger--I'm watching the ball and not their limp weak little finger--CALL it OUT LOUD & CLEAR--stick your arm up and loudly call it too. Or, they may think they called it--or then may have whispered it to themselves--or they are gaming, taking two bites of the apple, which the code says is unfair. If ALL three other players, including his partner say they didn't hear a call, the perp needs to change their errant ways and call it louder--if they called it at all--to be charitable, maybe they are delusional and need the services of a good sports psychologist to help them fix their problem--maybe club members can chip in and pay for a session.
 

eelhc

Hall of Fame
That rule is for when the "ball is in play". Once the ball is returned, it is in play and any LET after that will result in a reply of the whole point.

If we take the LiarLady's word for it, the ball was never "in play" because she "called it out".

Thus it goes down to where what Cindy is asking about, what happens when there is a disruption between the first and second serves (not while the ball is actually in play). There is a disruption between serves. It is the receiver's call in this instance to determine if the disruption is sufficient or not to give their opponent a first serve (read more rules).

Unfortunately, the rules and the Code are written with the idea that you have two honest Opponents playing the game in good faith. They will always fall short when you meet liars or dishonest people. It is interesting that she wouldn't even give Cindy's team first serve, but cant be too surprising.

That's just an example they used to illustrate. Look at just the rule...

THE LET
In all cases when a let is called, except when a service let is called on a second service, the whole point shall be replayed.

There is only ONE situation when the whole point is NOT played over, a service let on the 2nd serve. All other let calls, the entire point is played over including the first serve.
 

kylebarendrick

Professional
That's kind of sketchy because there are times when a person does call it out and nobody notices. They are "supposed" to be obvious about it but there is no punishment for not doing it (other then causing confusing situations such as this).

So almost anytime you encounter someone who claims they called it out, you'd almost have to take them at their word for it. You couldnt just disregard it every time.

(and there is no official around to make a judgement call on that usually)

And sometimes the receiver's partner calls the serve out just by lifting a finger. Of course, since nobody is looking in her direction, nobody knows that she made the call. At that point they need (as others have suggested) to start yelling "out out out" until play stops.
 

JavierLW

Hall of Fame
Well I beg to disagree respectfully of course, I term these phantom calls. When the ROS's partner doesn't hear it--and they are standing maybe 10-15 feet from them, they are NOT calling it loud enough! Sometimes they will say they pointed the serve out with their finger--I'm watching the ball and not their limp weak little finger--CALL it OUT LOUD & CLEAR--stick your arm up and loudly call it too. Or, they may think they called it--or then may have whispered it to themselves--or they are gaming, taking two bites of the apple, which the code says is unfair. If ALL three other players, including his partner say they didn't hear a call, the perp needs to change their errant ways and call it louder--if they called it at all--to be charitable, maybe they are delusional and need the services of a good sports psychologist to help them fix their problem--maybe club members can chip in and pay for a session.

There is a difference between what people SHOULD do and what they do and what the rules entail. I am not talking about what they SHOULD do.

Just because you are passionate about something doesn't make it so.

I grew up playing outside tennis in High School for the High School tennis team. When the ball goes out, we yell out very loudly:

OOOOOOOOOWWWWWWTTTTTTTTT!!!!!!!!

To the point where if you are the one hitting the ball out and you are not used to this it can be annoying because not only do you feel bad that you hit it out, now you have to hear this loud crazy yell on top of it, almost insulting you that you hit the ball out.

Later when I was an adult, I started playing indoor club tennis with both high school juniors and adults. Almost EVERYONE where I was at just used the point the finger thing to indicate it was out. I was the only one actually yelling "OUT". (but I kept doing it anyway) Sometimes these clubs were just one big building of 10 open courts and you could hear me all over the entire building. I'll admit it, I never heard anyone else do this.

Once in awhile, I meet seniors where if you hit the ball out, they wont call it. They just assume you should know it's out. I very much disagree with this however, but it's no fun trying to argue with them if you try to steal the point. (just dont play them)

My point is everyone has their own standard. And there is no rule about what happens if they dont meet yours.

But in this case, the person obviously didn't make the call really, but then lied about it. What are you going to do? Call them a liar? Go get an official? Sit and argue about it for another 10 minutes? You dont have too many good choices in these situations. (other then what happened which was they let it go and won the match anyway....., which is obviously the best outcome)

(you should always think in terms of what you should do, since you have absolutely no control over the other humans no matter how passionate you are about WHAT THEY SHOULD DO.....)
 

JavierLW

Hall of Fame
That's just an example they used to illustrate. Look at just the rule...

THE LET
In all cases when a let is called, except when a service let is called on a second service, the whole point shall be replayed.

There is only ONE situation when the whole point is NOT played over, a service let on the 2nd serve. All other let calls, the entire point is played over including the first serve.

It's in the CODE on page 40:

"When there is a delay between the first and second serves:

•The server gets one serve if the server was the cause of the delay;
• The server gets two serves if the delay was caused by the receiver or if there was outside interference.

The time it takes to clear a ball that comes onto the court between the first and second serves is not considered sufficient time to warrant the server receiving two serves unless this time is so prolonged as to constitute an interruption.

The receiver is the judge of whether the delay is sufficiently prolonged to justify giving the server two serves."

Anything that has to do with how you deal with an un-officiated match where the players are the officials is usually in the Code. (in the US anyway, not sure about other areas)

If this was a match with an official, it would be the official's judgement, but the Code is not about all that.
 

JavierLW

Hall of Fame
And sometimes the receiver's partner calls the serve out just by lifting a finger. Of course, since nobody is looking in her direction, nobody knows that she made the call. At that point they need (as others have suggested) to start yelling "out out out" until play stops.

Right, I have seen that a few times. It happens, and I dont think normally it's a big deal. Usually everyone just acknowledges that it was called out and play moves on. (especially when all four people maybe SAW IT GO OUT)
 

Dartagnan64

G.O.A.T.
4. All “out” or “fault” calls should be made promptly after the ball has bounced and must be loud enough for the opponent to hear.

Yes the only time to stick a finger up is on an out call on a point ending shot. For first service calls, "out" should be said clearly and loudly. I'm a bit of a low talker so sometimes I can't be heard well which is why I've encountered Cindy's scenario on occasion. I make sure to immediately raise my voice if it appears people are continuing to play the ball.
 

NTRPolice

Hall of Fame
Okay.

I believe the biggest determining factor for the ruling were the words "Was that in?" being said. To me, this indicates doubt. You do not play lets for corrected out calls on serves, unless the serve has hit the net. A corrected serve call is now settled the same way as a regular corrected call, through point forfeiture.

Here are the facts I used:

-The returner played the serve
-The returner asked "Was that in?"
-The returner asked "Are we playing?"
-The returners partner claimed to have called the ball out.
-No claim was made of seeing the ball called in.
-The rally continued for multiple shots

Conclusion: Only one person thought the ball was out; the returners partner. The serving team did not claim to have seen the ball called in, however, such a claim in this case would lead to doubt over whether or not it was possible to see or hear an out call. There was no apparent claim of seeing the ball called in; this leaves reason to believe they didnt/couldnt see or hear an out call as well. Because the returner continued to play in the rally, did not actually confirm the out call in a reasonable amount of time, nor did the returners partner interject to stop the point from continuing several shots, I believe there was sufficient enough doubt over the line call to justify point forfeiture by the receiving team.

I dont think hindrance has anything to do with it. If the ball was called out, then any hindrances which may have occurred would have happened after the ball was dead. If the ball was called in, both teams participated in the "discussion" by continuously playing shots and in vocalization, that no timely or effective call of hindrance could be made.

The fact that it was a critical point should have no effect on the judgement, however, during key points like this, people need to make sure they take the time to play "accurate tennis". This means clear line calls, clear score calls, no foot faults, no misbehavior, ect.
 

eelhc

Hall of Fame
It's in the CODE on page 40:

"When there is a delay between the first and second serves:

•The server gets one serve if the server was the cause of the delay;
• The server gets two serves if the delay was caused by the receiver or if there was outside interference.

The time it takes to clear a ball that comes onto the court between the first and second serves is not considered sufficient time to warrant the server receiving two serves unless this time is so prolonged as to constitute an interruption.

The receiver is the judge of whether the delay is sufficiently prolonged to justify giving the server two serves."

Anything that has to do with how you deal with an un-officiated match where the players are the officials is usually in the Code. (in the US anyway, not sure about other areas)

If this was a match with an official, it would be the official's judgement, but the Code is not about all that.

OP Said League Match... Nothing about USTA. The CODE would not apply unless it was a USTA match. But I assume that they are playing by ITF rules.
 

OrangePower

Legend
Let's turn things around a little as a thought exercise. Let's say returner's partner raised a finger to indicate a long serve, and that both server and server's partner saw it, but pretended like they didn't see it. Receiver returned the ball as a continuation of her motion although she did see the ball out (but didn't call it herself since she has agreed with her partner that receiver's partner should call the service line).

Server continues the act by hitting the next shot, so that her partner can stop the point and claim a let and a first serve. Seeing the server continue the point, returner would have been perplexed leading to the question of whether the ball was in or not (asked out of confusion regarding the situation, not because returner has any actual doubt).

Of course I'm not suggesting this is what happened. But it illustrates why an automatic let and 1st serve is not mandated. If it were, server and her partner could use such a tactic whenever a 1st serve is called out but still returned into play (which happens fairly often). Pretend you didn't hear/see the call, then after the ensuing confusion claim a let and a 1st serve.

So: Either the out call was made, or it was not. If it was made, 2nd serve. If it was not made, point to server (based on hindrance). And you have to go by the word of the returners.

Now, it would be nice of returners to offer a 1st served based on the confusion of the situation. But not by rule.
 
Top