Such tactics won't work now. Cell phone videos will capture this, and you will be disqualified for endangering an opponent. I have been a volunteer for many D1 doubles matches and the overhead smashes are scary. The correct procedure per the Code was to stop play and summon a referee.As stated, in a non-officiated match it is often pointless. But I will definitely shame the person mercilessly, and I mean mercilessly. I would make mention every time they did it because it is cheating, and I won't let them forget that. It reminds me of a college match I played many years ago, before on court refs were the norm in college matches. I was playing doubles at a big tournament at a large facility and our match was sent to the farthest court from the tournament desk. One of our opponents blatantly foot-faulted. My partner mentioned it right away saying we don't want to disrupt the match by having to walk back to the TD to get a ref and could the guy just back up a step. The guy continued to foot-fault the rest of the game. So, on the next game when it was my partner's turn to serve, he started walking to net before his first serve. I thought he was going to tell me something but instead he walked up to the net and slammed an overhead shot into the service court that then hit the fence and said loudly '15-love!' The opponents said, 'What was that?' My partner said, 'If you're going to foot-fault so am I'. On the next point my partner again started walking toward the net. The opponents then said, 'OK, OK, we get it'. There were no more foot-faults and we went on to have a good match. Foot-faulting is cheating, plain and simple. It doesn't matter 'if it's just a little' just like a ball 'just a little bit out' is still out. Foot-faulting a little is like being a little bit dead, it is what it is, cheating.
No, it is very logical and not funny at all. One is more visible and in your control than the other.Footfaulting a whole foot or more is generously excused but then arguing over tiny 1 centimeter worth line call.. that's one of the funniest things in rec tennis.
The hit ball was nowhere near anyone, so no one was endangered. Sometimes a strong statement is necessary.Such tactics won't work now. Cell phone videos will capture this, and you will be disqualified for endangering an opponent. I have been a volunteer for many D1 doubles matches and the overhead smashes are scary. The correct procedure per the Code was to stop play and summon a referee.
An interesting scenario to me is this. Say you are serving and you are a good server. You're hitting over 100 MPH with (heavy) spin, pulling the ball down into the court quickly. Your opponent is receiving your serves several feet behind the baseline. You hit a serve very close to the line that "dives down" hard a the last instant. Your opponent calls the serve "long". You both take a look and because the court is dirty and you are playing with brand new tennis balls, you can see the mark left by the ball and it is out by a tiny fraction.Footfaulting a whole foot or more is generously excused but then arguing over tiny 1 centimeter worth line call.. that's one of the funniest things in rec tennis.
The goal should always be to get the call right.An interesting scenario to me is this. Say you are serving and you are a good server. You're hitting over 100 MPH with (heavy) spin, pulling the ball down into the court quickly. Your opponent is receiving your serves several feet behind the baseline. You hit a serve very close to the line that "dives down" hard a the last instant. Your opponent calls the serve "long". You both take a look and because the court is dirty and you are playing with brand new tennis balls, you can see the mark left by the ball and it is out by a tiny fraction.
Question is, should your opponent have called the serve out? On the one hand, this seems easy. Of course he should have, it was out. He got the call right. But on the other hand, was he 100% sure it was 100% out? That would be impossible given this scenario. It would seem strange to argue as the server that your opponent shouldn't have made an "out" call here (the ball was out, he's right). But on the other hand, the rule (100% sure it's 100% out) says he shouldn't have made an out call (and he really just got lucky to make the right call here).
So what do you think? Would the server be justifiably upset at the call?
Hmmm, no, I wouldn't be upset at all. I understand he should make a call anyway risking being wrong. I don't see anything there to be upset about. We all understand we are not 100% sure when we make a close call.An interesting scenario to me is this. Say you are serving and you are a good server. You're hitting over 100 MPH with (heavy) spin, pulling the ball down into the court quickly. Your opponent is receiving your serves several feet behind the baseline. You hit a serve very close to the line that "dives down" hard a the last instant. Your opponent calls the serve "long". You both take a look and because the court is dirty and you are playing with brand new tennis balls, you can see the mark left by the ball and it is out by a tiny fraction.
Question is, should your opponent have called the serve out? On the one hand, this seems easy. Of course he should have, it was out. He got the call right. But on the other hand, was he 100% sure it was 100% out? That would be impossible given this scenario. It would seem strange to argue as the server that your opponent shouldn't have made an "out" call here (the ball was out, he's right). But on the other hand, the rule (100% sure it's 100% out) says he shouldn't have made an out call (and he really just got lucky to make the right call here).
So what do you think? Would the server be justifiably upset at the call?
The goal should always be to get the call right.
So in this case, all good.
One of the advantages of playing on a surface that leaves marks is that you can call it the way you see it, and then check the mark to confirm. And of course concede the point if you were wrong, or the mark is not conclusive.
On a court with no marks, you have to have a larger margin of certainty when making calls.
I guess the point is, there is no way you can be sure the serve I described is "100% sure it's 100% out" in "live play". Nobody can discern millimeters out on the service line when standing way behind the baseline. In fact, if you test it yourself, those balls will look in. So you're going against the spirit of the rule (and the spirit of play) to call a ball like that out (and you just got lucky that it was out). Sure, in the scenario I described, we can check the mark. But that's not too common on hardcourts (I just did it like this so I could say that we have confirmation of where the ball actually landed, just to set up the thought experiment). Normally there's nothing definitive to check, so we just have to go with the call made.Hmmm, no, I wouldn't be upset at all. I understand he should make a call anyway risking being wrong. I don't see anything there to be upset about. We all understand we are not 100% sure when we make a close call.
And if it's clay and leaves mark, we can double-check and go by that.
Look, I understand where you're coming from, and your intentions are good. But I think you are misunderstanding the intent behind the "100% sure it's 100%" rule of thumb.I guess the point is, there is no way you can be sure the serve I described is "100% sure it's 100% out" in "live play". Nobody can discern millimeters out on the service line when standing way behind the baseline. In fact, if you test it yourself, those balls will look in. So you're going against the spirit of the rule (and the spirit of play) to call a ball like that out (and you just got lucky that it was out). Sure, in the scenario I described, we can check the mark. But that's not too common on hardcourts (I just did it like this so I could say that we have confirmation of where the ball actually landed, just to set up the thought experiment). Normally there's nothing definitive to check, so we just have to go with the call made.
So to me, the goal isn't always to "get it right" in rec play. If you play by the spirit of the rule, you should be playing lots of out balls in every tennis match (depending on where you happen to be standing and how well you can see the lines).
Here's the other one that get's me. I was playing in doubles match a few weeks ago. Opponent hits a shot down the line past my partner that is really close to the line. My partner has no idea where the ball bounced. I'm on the other side of the court. So I look at the guy and ask him if it was in or out. He 100% knows because he hit the ball and was looking right down the line. But he not only refuses to make a call, he basically starts yelling at me for even asking him ("Not my call bro, you gotta make the call"). I just tell him that there is no way I can tell if the ball was in or out from where I'm standing, so I have to call it in (even if it was several inches out). But he knows for sure if it was in or out and could have easily made the right call.
Not too many years ago, asking your opponent to make a call on his own shot was pretty common. Basically you're saying "I couldn't see it clearly, so I'm going to have to call the ball in no matter where it landed. But if you want to call your own ball out (because you saw it out and it's good sportsmanship), go ahead and make the call.
I've also had scenarios like this where I've shrugged my shoulders and said "I can't call it out so your point" and had my partner get mad at me. And I just say "There's no way I could see where it landed for sure, so I have no choice. Sure, we are both "pretty sure" it landed out, but neither one of us actually knows, so we can't call it out". And lots of those times, the opponents know their ball was out (because they have a better view), but don't say anything and take the point.
Sounds like your opponent was acting like an a--hole. It's unfortunate.I was playing in doubles match a few weeks ago. Opponent hits a shot down the line past my partner that is really close to the line. My partner has no idea where the ball bounced. I'm on the other side of the court. So I look at the guy and ask him if it was in or out. He 100% knows because he hit the ball and was looking right down the line. But he not only refuses to make a call, he basically starts yelling at me for even asking him ("Not my call bro, you gotta make the call").
11. Requesting opponent’s help.
When an opponent’s opinion is requested and the opponent gives a positive opinion, it must be accepted. If neither player has an opinion, the ball is considered good. Aid from an opponent is available only on a call that ends a point.
An interesting scenario to me is this. Say you are serving and you are a good server. You're hitting over 100 MPH with (heavy) spin, pulling the ball down into the court quickly. Your opponent is receiving your serves several feet behind the baseline. You hit a serve very close to the line that "dives down" hard a the last instant. Your opponent calls the serve "long". You both take a look and because the court is dirty and you are playing with brand new tennis balls, you can see the mark left by the ball and it is out by a tiny fraction.
Question is, should your opponent have called the serve out? On the one hand, this seems easy. Of course he should have, it was out. He got the call right. But on the other hand, was he 100% sure it was 100% out? That would be impossible given this scenario. It would seem strange to argue as the server that your opponent shouldn't have made an "out" call here (the ball was out, he's right). But on the other hand, the rule (100% sure it's 100% out) says he shouldn't have made an out call (and he really just got lucky to make the right call here).
So what do you think? Would the server be justifiably upset at the call?
I am not hitting such serves, so you must be thinking of someone else.You're hitting over 100 MPH with (heavy) spin, pulling the ball down into the court quickly.
The goal should always be to get the call right.
So in this case, all good.
Does this mean you are calling foot faults every match you play (and multiple times). Or do you somehow play with people that never foot fault. Even though it's been said multiple times on this thread that, if you watch any rec match, you'll see that nearly everyone foot faults.This thread has descended into something else. There are no cameras on league match courts. If you see the ball out, call it out. If you don't, call it good. Simple. And foot-faulters and cheaters do so because they are weak, and people acquiesce to them way too much. They do nothing about it during the match, or worse quit the match, then run home and log on to this site and moan about it. When encountering players who do such you need to be strong and show you will not put up with it. If you get cheated or foot-faulted out of a match it is just as much your fault as your opponent's--you're just as weak, if not more so. You have a say, do so.
At least you're truthful. That's how EVERYONE calls foot faults. If you have the audacity to actually have a good serve and you're kicking your opponents ass, then you get called for a foot fault. Otherwise everyone "graciously' lets it go.It depends on the extent of the footfault and the power of the server.
This is all well and good. And as I argue above, this is what the code says you should do.No the goal is to provide the benefit of doubt to your opponent. That means calling out balls as in on occasion. Only referees have the obligation to get things as close to right as possible. Opponents should favour the other person. The reason for that should be obvious since we all have an inherent bias to favour ourselves and we must do everything we can to fight that bias. If we choose to favour the opponent, most likely we will be closer to "getting things right" than if we try to make the right call.
This is all well and good. And as I argue above, this is what the code says you should do.
But if you come to the court expecting your opponent to ACTUALLY do this, you're a fool. Yes, of course most people SAY they do this (we all like to look good when posturing to other members of the tennis community). But I know that the guys who posture the strongest ("I call balls in that are 3 inches out because I'm the most fair and generous person alive") are the ones that in reality, call the tightest lines.
The quiet guys are always the best. They really do give space on their calls and make sure they never make a bad call. But more importantly, this guy never says a word about other people making bad calls. He just plays every opponent as they come and adjusts his game accordingly. This is the guy that might get hooked 10 times in a match, never questions a call, never changes is friendly demeanor, and never says a bad word about anyone else (and also says he probably made a few bad calls in the match and apologizes). This is the guy you want to play with. And believe it or not, there are actually quite a few of these guys around. You just don't know it because they don't make any noise and draw attention to themselves.
And yes, I realize I contradicted myself (I did it on purpose). You really are a fool if you expect anyone to call lines like this, but there really are more people around that play tennis like this than you might imagine.
No. Providing benefit of the doubt to an opponent is not the goal.No the goal is to provide the benefit of doubt to your opponent. That means calling out balls as in on occasion. Only referees have the obligation to get things as close to right as possible. Opponents should favour the other person. The reason for that should be obvious since we all have an inherent bias to favour ourselves and we must do everything we can to fight that bias. If we choose to favour the opponent, most likely we will be closer to "getting things right" than if we try to make the right call.
And that goes not just for line calls but foot faults as well. And you'd have to sacrifice a point to make sure you were correct. For most of us, it's not worth it.
No. Providing benefit of the doubt to an opponent is not the goal.
The goal is to make the right call.
However, when there is any doubt, opponent gets benefit of the doubt.
Absolutely agree, often the opponent has the better look especially on down the line shots, and we should defer to them if they saw it.We can agree to disagree on that. I find that people who make it a goal to make the right call only get it right in their favour.
Edit: And if we were really trying to get it right, we would ask our opponent what they saw a whole lot more than we do.
I have mentioned this several times. You cannot be providing benefit of the doubt to an opponent all the time. The question is not whether you have a doubt, but whether he agrees that there is a doubt. I could always have no doubt, which he is not likely to believe. Or I could always have a small doubt which he could insist should be a big doubt. A rec player has to call every close ball in if he genuinely believes in giving the benefit of the doubt to the opponent.No. Providing benefit of the doubt to an opponent is not the goal.
The goal is to make the right call.
However, when there is any doubt, opponent gets benefit of the doubt.
Quite so.I have mentioned this several times. You cannot be providing benefit of the doubt to an opponent all the time. The question is not whether you have a doubt, but whether he agrees that there is a doubt. I could always have no doubt, which he is not likely to believe. Or I could always have a small doubt which he could insist should be a big doubt. A rec player has to call every close ball in if he genuinely believes in giving the benefit of the doubt to the opponent.
BTW, this is not a problem which can be "solved." Only solution is automation.
It is such a big problem that the company True Bounce claims its method of actually photographing the point of impact is superior to numerical calculations made by other systems. In other words, they claim cameras + prediction is inferior to camera actually catching the ball on the ground.Quite so.
In fact scientists and philosophers alike agree that one can never be 100% certain of anything.
So if one is being literal in needing to be 100% sure before calling a ball out, such a person would never make any out calls, ever, at all.
Of course in practice we interpret this to mean "out beyond a reasonable doubt", which is to some degree subjective.