If You Don't Know The Rules, You Probably Shouldn't Argue

[Cindysphinx]

Played doubles today, and we had two arguments over rules issues.

First issue: I missed my first serve. I hit my second, which landed in. As returner is hitting, a ball rolled onto the court. My partner called a let. I stepped up to serve and said, "First serve." Opponents said, "No, it's your second serve. You missed the first one, remember?"

My partner and I both explained that when a let is called during a point, the entire point is replayed, so first serve. The argument continued. Opponent then called to her captain on the next court: "Hey, Jane. If she missed her first serve, does she get another first serve if a ball rolls onto the court?"

All right. If you don't know to the point that you have to interrupt an ongoing match to ask a teammate, you need to defer to your opponents who claim they do know. And you might want to check your attitude, also.

The captain says I am right, and we go on to win the set. At the set changeover, the lady pulls out the FAC and starts flipping through it. Finally, she comes up to us and declares that she was right all along based on this:

The service is a let if:
a. The ball served touches the net, strap or band, and is otherwise good; or,
after touching the net, strap or band, touches the receiver or the receiver’s
partner or anything they wear or carry before hitting the ground; or
b. The ball is served when the receiver is not ready.
In the case of a service let, that particular service shall not count, and the server shall serve again, but a service let does not cancel a previous fault.

Ahem. We explain that this was not a "service let" because my serve was good. Instead, the following rule applies:

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.

She then argued that the bold part means it is a second serve because we had a service let. She said I was serving, there was a let, so that's a "service let." :face palm:

Well, OK. Anyone can make a mistake, right? She gets kudos for having the rules in her bag, I suppose. Her partner told her we were right, so she backed down.

A while later, my partner serves a first serve that strikes my racket and flies off the court. As my partner is getting ready to hit her second serve, the same lady says it is their point. "When the ball hits you, it's loss of point," she declares confidently. She saw this on Tennis Channel, that little series of commercials with John Lovitz.

Again, we squabble, and again she turns to her captain on the next court, who agrees with us. Despite the discussion, they don't offer my partner a first serve.

A little information is a dangerous thing. . . .

 

[jdubbs]

interesting that she didn't know the rules. I always take two if there's a ball on the court or other interruption.

The only arguing I ever see is on score, people don't call out the score, and then wonder why there's an argument about it. I always announce it loudly before serving. Those are the only arguments I see, never on the rules, though, that's unusual. And she was really wrong, too.

 

[dizzlmcwizzl]

Since being on TT I have a much improved understanding of the rules. As our teams "expert" I have been called to clear up issues many times. Usually however people get it right just by doing what they think is right.

 

[woodrow1029]

Good ones Cindy. Those are 2 pretty basic things that your opponent didn't know.

 

[Fuji]

Bahaha that's so hilarious about the service let! I've had someone try to pull the same crap on me, even though it was on a seoncd serve. A ball rolls onto our court during the same time my second serve was entering the service box. Sure enough they tried calling it a service let, but I informed them it wasn't. It was pretty comical to have them try and argue a moot point.

Overall, Kudos to you for knowing the rules, properly that is!

-Fuji

 

[ohplease]

I've offered to play two when people aren't sure. I've also called people out when they're clearly trying to pull something shady by giving in to their interpretations at the time, but putting them on notice that if they're proven to be wrong in even the slightest with a post match rules consultation, I'm filing grievances.

When confronted with real consequences, it's funny how willing people become to simply playing two in good faith again.

 

[fgbGirl]

lol, yes people can get creative about the rules sometimes. I'm usually a generous person when it comes to playing fair and calling close balls, etc. But when someone pulls stuff like that, it makes me stingy, and makes me enjoy beating them all the more.

 

[Thud and blunder]

"If you don't know the rules, you probably shouldn't argue.." Unfortunately, those most likely to argue are those who don't know the rules...cos if you do know the rules, there's a whole lot less to argue about...and so it goes...

 

[Maui19]

^^^I'm guessing that about half the people that argue don't know the rules.

 

[jht32]

People who are dumb don't know they are dumb

Those were funny stories Cindy. The sad part is not that your opponent didn't know the rules, it's that your opponent continues to try to defend her position when presented with the facts.

People who are dumb don't know they are dumb. It is the Dunning-Kruger effect.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning–Kruger_effect

 

[billsgwn]

Nice job Cindy. I had pretty much the same situation this weekend but my opponent didnt argue it too much, just questioned it.

 

[North]

Yeah - knowledge of the rules is inversely proportional to tendency to argue about the rules. To add insult to injury...... when (or if) you finally convince the rules-challenged bozo they were wrong, they then want to just replay the point completely if they lost the point because they didn't know the rule. It gets to be like dealing with 3rd graders.

 

[FedererBestTennis]

Exactly. If you don't know the rules, don't play the game! :roll:

 

[Douggo]

Funny - I just saw the Lovitz thing on hitting your partner with the serve. He must have changed his mind, because I'm sure he said it was a fault.