"I saw paint - OUT"

[qwanta]

OK, who came up with this concept of calling the ball out if "you see paint between the ball and the line"? I have played a number of players now who seemed to call every close ball out. Some of them were down the line shots on my part, so I had a good view of where the ball was hitting, and even in the cases where about half the ball was over the line, the ball was called out.
When pushed, the explanation: "Sorry, but I saw blue (or green, or whatever the court color), so I've got to call it out..."

Now it seems to me that, to make such a call, you have to catch the exact moment when the ball was at the bottom of its trajectory - and maximum deformation. But just like seeing the exact moment when a ball hits the strings of a racket, this is impossible for the human eye. So how come this is an accepted method of making line calls (at least around here)?

edit: sorry, should have mentioned that in each case the player making the call is 10ft+ away from the line.

 

[Turbo-87]

Are you serious?

 

[Mongolmike]

When you make a close call, in or out, explain what you are seeing... how is it different than what you described?

 

[Deleted member 23235]

Just presume all shots you hit that touch the line, are going to be called out. It's increased my your tennis enjoyment a million fold, and of course forces me to be more consistent by choosing less risky targets.

 

[qwanta]

When you make a close call, in or out, explain what you are seeing... how is it different than what you described?

I look at the ball from above, and use the approach from soccer.

Not all balls that intersect above the line actually touch it, but in this way I err on the side of caution.

I guess I didn't make my first post too clear, but what I see are players looking under the ball and calling balls like the 3rd from left out because they saw green UNDER the ball between the line and the ball.

 

[eelhc]

Just presume all shots you hit that touch the line, are going to be called out. It's increased my your tennis enjoyment a million fold, and of course forces me to be more consistent by choosing less risky targets.

+1

Only mental weaklings complain to TT about line calls....

 

[tennis tom]

OK, who came up with this concept of calling the ball out if "you see paint between the ball and the line"?

... and maximum deformation.

In tennis it's called "compression". Very simple, the ball either hit the line or it didn't, if not sure point goes to the opponent--no "Take two's". If they clearly saw a space between the line (that's the "paint") and the outside color, that's floated on with a wide trowel device, it's out. Some people have better developed vision and ethics then others. Even Shot-Spot has a plus/minus degree of error.

 

[Startzel]

I don't think you understand what they're saying. If they see paint between the edge of the ball and the line, the ball is out.

Doubt it has to do with what's under the ball.

 

[qwanta]

I don't think you understand what they're saying. If they see paint between the edge of the ball and the line, the ball is out.

Doubt it has to do with what's under the ball.

This is fine when the player is close to the line, but when someone is 10ft+ away from the line they're looking at the underside of the ball to make the call.

 

[Uncoil]

Accept your opponent's call and move on to the next point.

 

[eelhc]

This is fine when the player is close to the line, but when someone is 10ft+ away from the line they're looking at the underside of the ball to make the call.

I'm pretty sure no matter how far away they can't see the underside of the ball. But they are in fact in a better position than you to make the call since they can clearly see when the ball bounces/deflects off the ground. It's difficult looking at a ball moving away to see when it exactly hits the ground. Particularly on flat shots and slices.

 

[Mongolmike]

I look at the ball from above, and use the approach from soccer.

Not all balls that intersect above the line actually touch it, but in this way I err on the side of caution.

I guess I didn't make my first post too clear, but what I see are players looking under the ball and calling balls like the 3rd from left out because they saw green UNDER the ball between the line and the ball.

Problem with this is that your vantage point is often NOT from above, and certainly not in slow motion or stop motion. When you are 10'+ away from the ball, you are using the same criteria everyone else uses. What do you see in a micro second, and what does your brain compute. Then you make a verbal call.... same as everyone else.

Plus, I think the only time the ball compresses to such a degree that would make a difference is on the racquet face on a hard serve or full racquet swing. A ball skidding is IMO more likely that a ball compressing when it is hitting the court, unless it is a steeply struck overhead. The compression of a ball hitting the court on a normal rally has to be virtually un-noticable by the human eye in full motion.

 

[dblsplayer]

This is fine when the player is close to the line, but when someone is 10ft+ away from the line they're looking at the underside of the ball to make the call.

As a coach of mine said regarding close calls by the opponent "Just play better"

Of course my question is, how close are you when you question how someone can make a call from 10 feet away?

 

[r2473]

Just presume all shots you hit that touch the line, are going to be called out. It's increased my tennis enjoyment a million fold, and of course forces me to be more consistent by choosing less risky targets.

This is the answer

 

[qwanta]

As a coach of mine said regarding close calls by the opponent "Just play better"

Of course my question is, how close are you when you question how someone can make a call from 10 feet away?

Well I agree with playing better and not getting too hung up on the calls.
When you hit a ball down the line though and your eyes are roughly inline with the sideline, you have a very good view of whether the ball touches the line or not. A much better view than someone who is perhaps closer but 10ft+ perpendicularly away from the line. I've had matches where my opponent asks me to make the call in this situation based on my better vantage point.

When not looking down the line - 10ft+ away from it - I don't feel that anyone can make a 100% certain call just based on "seeing paint" between the ball and the line. To do so you'd have to see the ball at the exact point of max compression, and in my experience the human eye is not capable of this.

 

[qwanta]

Problem with this is that your vantage point is often NOT from above, and certainly not in slow motion or stop motion. When you are 10'+ away from the ball, you are using the same criteria everyone else uses. What do you see in a micro second, and what does your brain compute. Then you make a verbal call.... same as everyone else.

Plus, I think the only time the ball compresses to such a degree that would make a difference is on the racquet face on a hard serve or full racquet swing. A ball skidding is IMO more likely that a ball compressing when it is hitting the court, unless it is a steeply struck overhead. The compression of a ball hitting the court on a normal rally has to be virtually un-noticable by the human eye in full motion.

FWIW here's a video of a tennis ball being dropped on a driveway in slow motion:

I agree that the ball compression is too fast for the human eye, that's why I disagree with the concept of calling the ball out based on seeing paint if the player is 10ft+ from the line, you can't do it.

 

[Startzel]

Thankfully I play 95%+ percent of my matches on clay so the ball mark usually tells the true story.

 

[Moveforwardalways]

As posted above, getting worked up over line calls gets you nowhere. Just assume the line is out, especially for USTA league play.

Everyone misses a call now and again. It's really ok. Few here make a living playing tennis, and life goes on. Confronting someone about a call also leads to nowhere, because if you challenge someone on it and they back down and change their mind, they know you'll never believe them again and you will start challenging them on everything. Has this ever happened: Player 1 calls a close ball out. Player 2 says "what? Are you sure" and player 1 responds "no I'm not sure. In fact, I will give you the point since you made such a compelling case". Lol. No, never.

As an aside, in my experience the people who complain the most about lines are usually the worst offenders when it comes to calling close balls out.

 

[West Coast Ace]

...When pushed...

Translation: you questioned their call, probably with a tone of voice that reeks of 'cheater!' - what do you expect? A cave-in and 'oh, if you're that sure, from way over there and through the net, I'll give you the point?'

You should't be 'pushing' anyone. They call their side. Period. If you're sure you're getting hooked, do a search - there are plenty of threads on how to deal with it.

 

[qwanta]

Translation: you questioned their call, probably with a tone of voice that reeks of 'cheater!' - what do you expect? A cave-in and 'oh, if you're that sure, from way over there and through the net, I'll give you the point?'

You should't be 'pushing' anyone. They call their side. Period. If you're sure you're getting hooked, do a search - there are plenty of threads on how to deal with it.

Ha, I see I should have spent a bit more time on my original post, they were amicable matches. But, no it was more of an "Are you sure? It looked in from here" after hitting a second backhand down the line that clearly touched the line from my inline vantage point.

I guess what bugged me was the belief that "seeing paint" from 10ft+ perpendicular to the line is a 100% foolproof way of making line calls "Sorry, I saw green between the line and the ball, I have to call it out". Seeing green doesn't mean anything except at the precise point when the ball is touching the court, and is maximum compressed - the human eye cannot catch this exact point, so seeing green slightly before or slightly after this doesn't mean the ball was out.

Anyway, I guess this isn't a common experience here... I had the same thing happen with 2 different players a few weeks apart so thought I'd make a post about it, didn't mean to offend anyone.

 

[swizzy]

very close balls are called out when the opponent does not respect the game. tie goes to the runner in baseball. so i believe that if someone hits a ball that is gonna be close it is my job to get in position to hit that ball..if i don't it is on me and hats off to the opponent. winning is not everything. congratulating your opponent when they hit a great shot is the same thing as erring on the side that the ball was in.

 

[Maui19]

I play on clay most of the time. I am constantly surprised at the difference between how a ball "looks" as it nears a line, and the place where the ball leaves a mark. Routinely, balls that everyone thinks are in are found to actually land out, and vice versa. The conclusion of all of the guys I play with is that "seeing" balls in or out during play is quite unreliable, and when you play on hard courts, you need to give everyone the benefit of the doubt, and just play on.

This is rec tennis. There's no hawkeye to help with line calls, and you just need to accept the idea that NO ONE gets the calls right all (or even part) of the time.

 

[GatorTennis]

I have a fun call on clay. I was coming in off my serve on the Ad side and the return was cross court to my BH volley. I always aim about a foot inside the line because I'm just not good enough to paint lines. I stuck my volley, but it went wider than I wanted and cleaned the tape. We heard the snap/pop sound off the tape and knew it was in. They called it out and found a mark from what looked like a topspin shot that was about a foot away from where the volley landed. Meanwhile, I'm staring at about a 5 inch white mark on the tape. It's amazing how people can't even understand what the correct mark should look like from the shot hit. We moved on from the point. The other amazing part was how many of our calls got questioned the rest of the match. Like they were expecting us to have a makeup call.

 

[Mongolmike]

I look at the ball from above, and use the approach from soccer.

Not all balls that intersect above the line actually touch it, but in this way I err on the side of caution.

I guess I didn't make my first post too clear, but what I see are players looking under the ball and calling balls like the 3rd from left out because they saw green UNDER the ball between the line and the ball.

Ok, I saw the video about the ball being dropped and the compression... interesting. I stand corrected. Thank you.

But after I thought about it, that video of the ball drop actually undercuts your argument. Since the ball clearly does compress significantly on impact, there is no "looking under the ball" as you state above. They are seeing green/blue whatever, because they are seeing court between the compressed ball and the line.

Two people from 10 feet away can see the same ball hit VERY close to the line... one calls in, one calls out. Without video replay, who is correct?

 

[Mongolmike]

Seeing green doesn't mean anything except at the precise point when the ball is touching the court, and is maximum compressed - the human eye cannot catch this exact point, so seeing green slightly before or slightly after this doesn't mean the ball was out.

You state this like a player is making a call based on static photographs. Like they are making a call slightly before or after full compression. People don't freeze frame an image... like maybe they pushed the camera button a fraction too soon or too late....

People make calls more like a video... they are seeing the full before and after thru impact, and thru the complete ball contact they are able to see (generally, and with some degree of accuracy as we all agree) if the ball ever did or did not contact the line.

I'd suggest that if this happens a lot to you with different opponents... it may not be the opponents making bad calls or questioning bad calls, it might be you using faulty assumptions about what they saw or how they are viewing.

 

[eelhc]

very close balls are called out when the opponent does not respect the game. tie goes to the runner in baseball. so i believe that if someone hits a ball that is gonna be close it is my job to get in position to hit that ball..if i don't it is on me and hats off to the opponent. winning is not everything. congratulating your opponent when they hit a great shot is the same thing as erring on the side that the ball was in.

A very close ball that is out should be called out out of respect for the game. Who cares about baseball WRT this post. If it's out it's out. I think what you mean are balls too close to call. Every player should make line calls to the best of their ability but if there's any doubt on where the ball landed, then the point should be given to the opponent. It's also OK to ask the opponent for assistance... I've many situations where i turned around to chase down a lob but the ball bounces before I am in a position to see/hit it... I've asked my opponent for help and in many cases, have gotten the call.

Reading through the OPs post again, it's the fact his opponents are claiming having seen paint when challenged to substantiate the call. This is different than seeing paint and calling it out. Anytime paint is seen, the ball is out IMO.

 

[Startzel]

I have a fun call on clay. I was coming in off my serve on the Ad side and the return was cross court to my BH volley. I always aim about a foot inside the line because I'm just not good enough to paint lines. I stuck my volley, but it went wider than I wanted and cleaned the tape. We heard the snap/pop sound off the tape and knew it was in. They called it out and found a mark from what looked like a topspin shot that was about a foot away from where the volley landed. Meanwhile, I'm staring at about a 5 inch white mark on the tape. It's amazing how people can't even understand what the correct mark should look like from the shot hit. We moved on from the point. The other amazing part was how many of our calls got questioned the rest of the match. Like they were expecting us to have a makeup call.

This is the worst. I had it happen to me a couple weeks ago in mixed.

The best part the mark he circled was from a ball his partner had hit a few games prior that they accused me hooking them on.

 

[coloskier]

Accept your opponent's call and move on to the next point.

Got to agree with that one. In a league match last night, I had a guy call two shots that landed square on the sideline out, one was on a break point, the other a match point ace. Got on with it and I beat him anyway.

 

[Deleted member 23235]

another issue with compression on a hard hit ball.. is that the ball actually makes a long contact point (eg often 3-4in) before coming off the ground... so on close balls I suspect people "see" the ball as its coming off the ground (vs when it hits the ground).... even though they saw the out of bounds color between the ball and the line. another reason to give benefit of the doubt.

I'm sure I screw up calls, but for my own sanity I presume that others will call line balls in their favor. as. a kid I got into fights with my dad about line calls (even got grounded several times)... and eventually we stopped playing because of it... (later found that he just hooked everyone in line balls! not just me!)

 

[Moveforwardalways]

as a kid I got into fights with my dad about line calls (even got grounded several times)... and eventually we stopped playing because of it... (later found that he just hooked everyone in line balls! not just me!)

Haha. Now that is funny.

 

[floridatennisdude]

OK, who came up with this concept of calling the ball out if "you see paint between the ball and the line"? I have played a number of players now who seemed to call every close ball out. Some of them were down the line shots on my part, so I had a good view of where the ball was hitting, and even in the cases where about half the ball was over the line, the ball was called out.
When pushed, the explanation: "Sorry, but I saw blue (or green, or whatever the court color), so I've got to call it out..."

Now it seems to me that, to make such a call, you have to catch the exact moment when the ball was at the bottom of its trajectory - and maximum deformation. But just like seeing the exact moment when a ball hits the strings of a racket, this is impossible for the human eye. So how come this is an accepted method of making line calls (at least around here)?

edit: sorry, should have mentioned that in each case the player making the call is 10ft+ away from the line.

Frankly, paint between the ball and line is the precise definition of out.

Historically, I don't know who came up with this "saying". May have been, I don't know, someone ....that was making up the rules for a newly invented sport hundreds of years ago?

 

[TennisCJC]

Yea, I have always called the ball out if I see a color gap between the ball and the line. If I am looking up the line, any ball compression "issues" would be taken into account as I would have to see a color gap between the compressed ball and the line. If I am looking across the line, I still think it would be nearly impossible to see paint if the ball compresses and touches the line. Perfectly good method of making calls and I wouldn't have a problem if my opponent called my shots out if there was a color gap between the line and the ball.

 

[West Coast Ace]

Ha, I see I should have spent a bit more time on my original post, they were amicable matches. But, no it was more of an "Are you sure? It looked in from here" after hitting a second backhand down the line that clearly touched the line from my inline vantage point.

I guess what bugged me was the belief that "seeing paint" from 10ft+ perpendicular to the line is a 100% foolproof way of making line calls "Sorry, I saw green between the line and the ball, I have to call it out". Seeing green doesn't mean anything except at the precise point when the ball is touching the court, and is maximum compressed - the human eye cannot catch this exact point, so seeing green slightly before or slightly after this doesn't mean the ball was out.

Anyway, I guess this isn't a common experience here... I had the same thing happen with 2 different players a few weeks apart so thought I'd make a post about it, didn't mean to offend anyone.

I read them all. I stand by my opinion - and with the others. Unless you're playing someone who is well known for being a cheat, questioning a call is really not worth the energy - you're not a pro; it's not your livelihood. It's a game.

But you didn't 'upset' anyone - we just aren't buying what you're selling. And do some searching - we've been down this road before. You're not the first - and probably not the last.

Easy for you to say it was 'amicable' - you're not the guy being put on the spot to defend his call.

'Clearly' - yeah, you saw it better than him from 5, 6, maybe 7 times further away and through the net. Sure.

And yes, the gap (seeing paint) is the definition of out. As @floridatennisdude pointed out.

 

[paul500w]

I think the big difference here is that people don't understand that 99% out is 100% in. When in doubt call it IN, not OUT.

I look at the ball from above, and use the approach from soccer.

Not all balls that intersect above the line actually touch it, but in this way I err on the side of caution.

I guess I didn't make my first post too clear, but what I see are players looking under the ball and calling balls like the 3rd from left out because they saw green UNDER the ball between the line and the ball.

 

[JavierLW]

But in Tennis, the 3rd ball from the left could be out. Watch tennis on TV when they do a review with the HawkEye system, all it cares about is where the ball touches, it isnt looking at it from directly over the ball and it doesnt care if part of the ball happens to be over the line.

If someone is not sure because they didnt see it go out, it's IN. But if they actually saw that it was out, then they have a right to call it out. Now we are human beings and we dont all have super fast action lenses in our heads and 3 people might of seen something completely different depending on what frame they saw but you cant be that nitpicky about it. If someone actually saw it go out with their own two eyes (saw space between the line and the ball), you cant fault them for calling it out.

I look at the ball from above, and use the approach from soccer.

Not all balls that intersect above the line actually touch it, but in this way I err on the side of caution.

I guess I didn't make my first post too clear, but what I see are players looking under the ball and calling balls like the 3rd from left out because they saw green UNDER the ball between the line and the ball.

 

[Mongolmike]

I read them all. I stand by my opinion - and with the others. Unless you're playing someone who is well known for being a cheat, questioning a call is really worth the energy - you're not a pro; it's not your livelihood. It's a game.

.

I think you want to edit your 3rd sentence... didn't you mean to say "questioning the call is really NOT worth the energy"? Or is it a Freudian slip?

 

[TenS_Ace]

99% out is still "IN"...then ask yourself..does this shot affect my pay cheque?? If not...move on

 

[Rob_C]

The OP is right. If he hit a DTL shot, and he's still looking straight down that line, he has a better view of where the ball landed if the opponent was 10 ft away. Especially if the opponent was moving.

Vic Braden did a study years ago that confirms this. Also, Woodrow, the umpire who's a member here can confirm that with split officiating crews, if theyre short, they can use as few as two sideline officials. One official will call the entire sideline on each side. When calling serves, the official on the servers side calls the sideline, the one on the receivers side calls the center line, then moves to the uncovered sideline.

Theres info available online that confirms the linesperson positioning in cases where a full crew isn't available.

 

[Rob_C]

For an example of split crews in action check out the streaming of the USTA Challenger in Lexington this week. Why would they put the umpires in those positions if they couldn't call the ball accurately??

 

[West Coast Ace]

I think you want to edit your 3rd sentence... didn't you mean to say "questioning the call is really NOT worth the energy"? Or is it a Freudian slip?

Good catch. Edited.

 

[CurrenFan]

As an aside, in my experience the people who complain the most about lines are usually the worst offenders when it comes to calling close balls out.

Nope. Sorry. Not true

 

[Mongolmike]

Nope. Sorry. Not true

Well, sure. Not from YOUR point of view.

That's like the whole point, man. (In a Big Lebowski Jeff Bridges tone.)

 

[willeric]

Even more annoying than bad line callers, are players who always think they are getting a bad call. Played last night on clay against someone whose serve was 6" out and left an obvious mark. They spent the next 5 minutes arguing that that wasn't their ball mark and their serve hit the T. Oddly enough, this person is known by other players to make bad calls.

So it seems that players who make bad calls are the same who think everyone else is making bad calls on them.

 

[newpball]

This is fine when the player is close to the line, but when someone is 10ft+ away from the line they're looking at the underside of the ball to make the call.

Well, aren't you even farther away? So how can YOU tell?

 

[sureshs]

Even more annoying than bad line callers, are players who always think they are getting a bad call. Played last night on clay against someone whose serve was 6" out and left an obvious mark. They spent the next 5 minutes arguing that that wasn't their ball mark and their serve hit the T. Oddly enough, this person is known by other players to make bad calls.

So it seems that players who make bad calls are the same who think everyone else is making bad calls on them.

They are saying the same thing about you

 

[willeric]

They are saying the same thing about you

I'm sure. But when 3 out of the 4 players confirm the ball is 6" out, you got to wonder....

 

[West Coast Ace]

...One official will call the entire sideline on each side...

This isn't surprising and I'm sure is right - but doesn't apply. Those people are still impartial. And they're standing still. The OP is neither; he wants that ball to be in, he needs that ball to be in. The fact that he questions calls that aren't obviously hooks should tell you plenty.

 

[Rob_C]

This isn't surprising and I'm sure is right - but doesn't apply. Those people are still impartial. And they're standing still. The OP is neither; he wants that ball to be in, he needs that ball to be in. The fact that he questions calls that aren't obviously hooks should tell you plenty.

As well as his opponent was also moving, away from the ball, no less, wants that ball to be out; needs that ball to be out.

 

[newpball]

....you just need to accept the idea that NO ONE gets the calls right all (or even part) of the time.

Not if you name is John McEnroe!

 

[West Coast Ace]

As well as his opponent was also moving, away from the ball, no less, wants that ball to be out; needs that ball to be out.

But his opponent is closer and he gets to call the shots on his side. That is the way the game is played without lines people and a referee - if the OP doesn't like it, time to take up bowling.

Read his every 1st sentence: '...the concept of seeing paint between the ball and the line...' - that clearly defines an out ball. Yet the OP is questioning it.