I Got The Finger

[jc4.0]

I was playing singles with a friend the other day. I hit a shot close to her baseline, and she pointed "out" with her finger to indicate a bad shot. Then she hit the ball, and it landed in my court (not a big winner, just landed on my side). Of course seeing her "out" gesture I thought my ball was out and stopped playing before she hit it; didn't even try to play the ball. We were playing on clay, so I asked her if she was sure the ball was out. She said, "oh no, actually your ball was in so I played it." I thought we should replay the point, but she said it was her point, as she had made a legal shot. I countered that even if she didn't yell the word "out" - she had made the standard "out" gesture. She admitted that she had initially meant "out" but changed her mind at the last second. I gave her the point, to avoid an argument. But I still think we should we have replayed the point.

 

[quest01]

Oh well...

 

[Jim A]

its a hindrance

 

[Fedace]

Must replay that point or it is Your point. she made a deceptive call to confuse you. that is a violation of the USTA and code of ethics and Universal sportsmanship Law.

 

[Federer's cat]

Don't hit with women.

 

[Steady Eddy]

She really wanted that point badly. You can't point "out", then change your mind, and not believe it affects your opponent.

 

[Crusher10s]

Universal sportsmanship law????????????????



ROFLMAOOOOOOOOOOOOOO

 

[Grover Sparkman]

In a mixed-doubles match last week, the opposing woman double hit the ball, so my partner and I froze. The shot she hit obviously went out. So I moved over to serve my next serve and said "15-0' and she said "you mean 0-15?"

I said "no, you double hit the ball." She swore up and down that she didn't, and when asked, her partner (who is a great guy and I think highly of) said he wasn't paying attention.

Since the rule is that when there's a questionable call, you should err in favor of your opponent, so we let her have the point to avoid the argument. Still, it irritated me because it was obvious. My partner said it was obvious too.

Oh well, we won the match.

 

[Steady Eddy]

But you're allowed to double-hit if it's one continuous motion.

 

[scraps234]

Must replay that point or it is Your point. she made a deceptive call to confuse you. that is a violation of the USTA and code of ethics and Universal sportsmanship Law.

yep you must replay the point or it is yours... i guess it wasnt usta though but it is best to go by their rules...

 

[Grover Sparkman]

But you're allowed to double-hit if it's one continuous motion.

I did not know that. I was under the impression that a double hit (even on a continuous motion) was prohibited.

Learned something new.

 

[Cindysphinx]

In a mixed-doubles match last week, the opposing woman double hit the ball, so my partner and I froze. The shot she hit obviously went out. So I moved over to serve my next serve and said "15-0' and she said "you mean 0-15?"

I said "no, you double hit the ball." She swore up and down that she didn't, and when asked, her partner (who is a great guy and I think highly of) said he wasn't paying attention.

Since the rule is that when there's a questionable call, you should err in favor of your opponent, so we let her have the point to avoid the argument. Still, it irritated me because it was obvious. My partner said it was obvious too.

Oh well, we won the match.

Ha! We must have played the same opponent, because the same thing happened to me in my last match!

We were playing a woman who was very, very slow. We hit a ball that landed short in the court while she was at the baseline. That was Bounce No. 1. She began running forward. It bounced a second time. That was Bounce No. 2. It reached its apex of Bounce No. 2. This is when she hit it.

My partner and I had stopped playing, out of reflex more than anything else. I mean, the double-bounce was obvious. She was nowhere close to making a play on that ball. Her shot lands in, and we make no move to run it down.

She claims the point, and we flip out. "Sarah, that ball bounced twice!" "Really? I think I got there." "No way. Not even close." She asks her partner if she saw it, and partner says she didn't see. They continue to confer, wondering what they should do now. I said, "Well, you could ask us if we saw it clearly, but then you'd have to accept our opinion."

So she doesn't ask us (!). Claims the point, continues on. Fortunately, they lost the next point and the game.

Oh well. We won the match.

 

[PatrickB]

The joys of self-officiated tennis. In the case of the "well yes, I signalled out but then played it in", you play a let since her return was in (same as the Rule 12 discussion we had last week).

In the case of opponents who fail to call a double-bouce or (two-motion) double-hit on themselves and you stop play, there's nothing you can do since that's their call to make on themselves - the Code dictates that players call not-up, touch, double-hit, and violation of the plane of the net on themselves. :|

 

[Ska4lyfe]

You don't need to replay the point, it's yours. If they announce in any way that the ball is out and then change their mind the point is yours regardless of whether or not they keep the ball in play.

 

[kobe3pointer]

I did not know that. I was under the impression that a double hit (even on a continuous motion) was prohibited.

Learned something new.

Yup, He is right, double hit is fine as long it is 1 swing..

 

[royer]

You don't need to replay the point, it's yours. If they announce in any way that the ball is out and then change their mind the point is yours regardless of whether or not they keep the ball in play.

NOT TRUE!

If a player reverses his/her call from "out" to "in" and has kept the ball in play, the point should be replayed. Of course this is for the rare occasion during match when a player might make a bad call but immediately corrects it.

Are there exceptions? Yes. If you make an errant "out" call, immediately reverse your call to "in," BUT your return shot was a "sitter" to an opponent who is clearly in a position to put the ball away and win the point, then good sportsmanship should dictate that you concede the point to your opponent. After all, your opponent would pretty much have had you dead-to-rights and would have won the point anyway.

I've seen and experienced this in matches with roving linesmen watching. They have over-ruled an "out" call, but if the ball was returned (i.e. kept in play), the point was replayed.

Otherwise, you're getting a free point from an honest mistake that the "perpetrator" immediately and fairly tried to correct.

I'm almost certain that this is a written rule. Can anyone back me up on this?

Oh, and as far as the OP: Your opponent should have immediately and verbally corrected her mistake, and the point should have been replayed (unless she returned a "sitter"). Since she did not do that, her "finger gesture" could be construed as a hindrance, and you could claim the point. In this case I may have returned a finger gesture of my own! :evil:

 

[Ronny]

Don't hit with women.

ahahahha great advice

 

[Datacipher]

You seriously have a hard time understanding rules and regulations. This has been gone over ad nauseum in a previous thread by you, only a couple weeks ago:

http://tt.tennis-warehouse.com/showthread.php?t=262545

 

[jc4.0]

You seriously have a hard time understanding rules and regulations. This has been gone over ad nauseum in a previous thread by you, only a couple weeks ago:

http://tt.tennis-warehouse.com/showthread.php?t=262545

My previous thread concerned a serve that was called out by my doubles team, but which we then reversed; the point was awarded to the server. This thread concerns a base line call that my opponent called out, then hit the ball anyway and claimed the point. Two completely different scenarios.

And in any case - this thread is useful for discussing the rules, some of which are interpreted different ways by different players. Nothing to add? No need to reply.

 

[PatrickB]

I've seen and experienced this in matches with roving linesmen watching. They have over-ruled an "out" call, but if the ball was returned (i.e. kept in play), the point was replayed.

This is incorrect, and if a roving linesman had the point replayed, I believe that they did so incorrectly. If a player (or team's) out call is overruled to in *by an official*, they lose the point even if their return was in. In USTA tennis, if a player (or team) changes its *own* out call to in and returns the ball in the court, they get a let, but not if they're overruled by an official. I don't have my FAC at hand to look up the exact rule, but I'm quite sure about this (and I'm sure woodrow will correct me if I'm wrong. )

 

[PatrickB]

Quick followup: Friend at Court Comment VI.D-1 says:

The Roving Umpire shall:
...
7. Overrule a player’s line call only when in direct observation of that one
Court. When a Roving Umpire overrules a player’s out call, that player
loses the point. The Roving Umpire may not overrule as a result of a
player appeal.

 

[woodrow1029]

In a mixed-doubles match last week, the opposing woman double hit the ball, so my partner and I froze. The shot she hit obviously went out. So I moved over to serve my next serve and said "15-0' and she said "you mean 0-15?"

I said "no, you double hit the ball." She swore up and down that she didn't, and when asked, her partner (who is a great guy and I think highly of) said he wasn't paying attention.

Since the rule is that when there's a questionable call, you should err in favor of your opponent, so we let her have the point to avoid the argument. Still, it irritated me because it was obvious. My partner said it was obvious too.

Oh well, we won the match.

Not only is it a legal shot if it is done in one continuous motion as people have said already, but, also you don't have the right to make that call. Players make all calls on their side of the net.

 

[woodrow1029]

This is incorrect, and if a roving linesman had the point replayed, I believe that they did so incorrectly. If a player (or team's) out call is overruled to in *by an official*, they lose the point even if their return was in. In USTA tennis, if a player (or team) changes its *own* out call to in and returns the ball in the court, they get a let, but not if they're overruled by an official. I don't have my FAC at hand to look up the exact rule, but I'm quite sure about this (and I'm sure woodrow will correct me if I'm wrong. )

You're correct.

 

[jc4.0]

See my original post - this player did not hit the ball twice, she called the ball out, after one bounce, then hit the ball. She then changed her mind and said the ball had actually been in, so she played it after the out call. Different issue.

 

[woodrow1029]

I was answering another post in the thread.

In your situation, the point should have been replayed.

 

[royer]

The Roving Umpire shall:
...
7. Overrule a player’s line call only when in direct observation of that one
Court. When a Roving Umpire overrules a player’s out call, that player
loses the point. The Roving Umpire may not overrule as a result of a
player appeal.

Interesting, strange, and true. On at least two occasions, personally, I've had Roving Umpires rule "replay point" on missed calls in which balls were returned. Appears that you are correct, and they misjudged in those cases.

It seems strange to me though. I mean, in an unofficiated match if you make a call, return the ball, and correct your call, you play a let; but if an umpire makes the call (all else being identical) you lose the point even if you do return the ball. Do I have that right?

May be an unanswerable question, but why the contradiction in rules?

 

[royer]

Interesting, strange, and true. On at least two occasions, personally, I've had Roving Umpires rule "replay point" on missed calls in which balls were returned. Appears that you are correct, and they misjudged in those cases.

It seems strange to me though. I mean, in an unofficiated match if you make a call, return the ball, and correct your call, you play a let; but if an umpire makes the call (all else being identical) you lose the point even if you do return the ball. Do I have that right?

May be an unanswerable question, but why the contradiction in rules?

Here's a scenario to illustrate my point:

I'm playing in a league or tournament match and a roving umpire is watching a point. I call a ball out, return the ball into play, and correct my own call before the roving umpire does. We play a let, right? (Even if the umpire is standing there, he/she did not reverse my call, I did.)

In this case I can understand the rule because if the umpire is forced to correct the call, it implies that I had no intention of correcting the call myself. Still seems odd that a let wouldn't be played regardless. But, as you correctly pointed out, them's the rules.

 

[PatrickB]

If you're overruled, you've incorrectly failed to give your opponent the benefit of the doubt. If you correct yourself, you've done just the opposite.

 

[GeoffB]

It makes sense that you'd play a let here.

Another quick question - since this is a "hinderance", does it follow that subsequent "out" gestures that are corrected would lead to the loss of the point? In other words, if I gesture that a ball is out, then return it, I get a let the first time only, and that the next time I do it I lose the point - is that the rule?

 

[woodrow1029]

It makes sense that you'd play a let here.

Another quick question - since this is a "hinderance", does it follow that subsequent "out" gestures that are corrected would lead to the loss of the point? In other words, if I gesture that a ball is out, then return it, I get a let the first time only, and that the next time I do it I lose the point - is that the rule?

That is the procedure in the ITF futures. But not in USTA tennis.

 

[royer]

It makes sense that you'd play a let here.

Another quick question - since this is a "hinderance", does it follow that subsequent "out" gestures that are corrected would lead to the loss of the point? In other words, if I gesture that a ball is out, then return it, I get a let the first time only, and that the next time I do it I lose the point - is that the rule?

No. You would be calling a "hindrance" on a person that made the finger gesture and did not correct his/her call. If they corrected their call, then the point is replayed anyway, so there's no need to call a hindrance.

Having said that, making bad calls and correcting them numerous or many times throughout the match would be frowned upon (I think). However, according to the rules, I do not believe there is a "set" or specific number or limit in terms of the times you may do this during a match. One could see where an opponent continually making calls and reversing them (regardless of whether they get the ball back or not) would be a little aggrevating.