First Serve or Second -- You Decide

[NTRPolice]

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.

If it can be determined that an out call was in fact made, then it's a second serve. It would only be a first serve if the returners felt like the server was delayed significantly between their first and second serves.

It cannot be a hindrance because any hindrance call must be made in a timely manner and before any attempt on the ball is made. It would not be in the best interest of the game to decide which hindrances cancel out based on order of occurrence. Since multiple people on different sides of the net were talking and play continued on for several shots, any claim of hindrance should be thrown out.

 

[OrangePower]

If it can be determined that an out call was in fact made, then it's a second serve. It would only be a first serve if the returners felt like the server was delayed significantly between their first and second serves.

Agreed. The point however is that there is no scenario here where it would be an automatic 1st serve by rule. Only a first serve if returners felt that their actions caused a significant delay between serves (or contributed to it). For example, if they in hindsight realized that while they made the out call, perhaps they were not clear enough when making it.

It cannot be a hindrance because any hindrance call must be made in a timely manner and before any attempt on the ball is made. It would not be in the best interest of the game to decide which hindrances cancel out based on order of occurrence. Since multiple people on different sides of the net were talking and play continued on for several shots, any claim of hindrance should be thrown out.

Hindrance would be if in fact there had been no out call. The sequence of events as I understand it was returner played the return, server played it back, then returner started a conversation during the next shot. So server (or server's partner) could at that point have called the hindrance.

 

[Dartagnan64]

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.

This begs the question of not whether the call was made, but was it made clearly, as specified in the rules. If the other 3 people are questioning it, obviously the call was not made clearly enough. Is there a specific rule that indicates what is to be done when there is a grey area in the clarity of the call.

A non-call is easy, hindrance by both parties, play a let.
A clear call is easy, second serve as the server should have never played the returned ball.
But the unclear call is the conundrum. The simplest and most equanimious solution is to replay the point as a let and inform the offending line caller to speak up in the future and for all players to play out a point without conversing unless said line caller does actually speak up.

 

[MisterP]

First serve. And if you get the chance, finish a high volley to the ad side player's feet with some stank on it.

 

[silentkman]

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?

First, First, First

 

[JavierLW]

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.

Wow, you really are not making much sense.

The CODE is EXACTLY what we use, "we" being tennis players in the United States that actually play any sort of organized tennis and actually try to follow some set of rules rather then making them up....) when there is no official. It is not just a USTA or USTA League thing, although the USTA is the "official" sanctioned body in our country and it's naturally where we go to look this stuff up.

If we follow your method (just reading the ITF rules), then I dont have to call your balls IN if I dont see them because that's in the Code too. (it's not mentioned at all in the actual rules part) I'll just call everything OUT because "we are not playing a USTA match and we are not using the CODE".

Trust me, anyone who knows what they are talking about knows that if there is a delay between serves, it's up to the receiver to grant a first serve.

The reason why we have "The Code" is because in most cases we do not have Officials. And they want to more or less say EVERYONE in the whole world in using the same "Rules" (the ITF Rules), no matter if you are playing on a playground, or in the Finals at Wimbledon.

In the Finals at Wimbledon, players do not grant first serves. The Official does.

That's where the Code comes in for the rest of us.

Comprehende?

 

[shamaho]

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.

seconded! lol