Is this a hindrance?

[OrangePower]

Played a non-USTA ladder match this morning.

On one point, my opponent was at the net, I hit a lob. While the ball was in the air a seagull (or some other large bird, what do I know) flew overhead, maybe 20 feet above my opponent who was setting up to hit a smash. The ball did not touch the bird (didn't even come close), and the bird was too high up to be in the way of my opponent.

My opponent stopped playing and claimed we should play a let due to him being hindered by seeing this large bird flying overhead.

I agreed to a let since he clearly stopped and did not play the ball. Plus the match was played in good spirits and opponent is a good guy.

But what's the rule in this situation?

 

[beernutz]

Played a non-USTA ladder match this morning.

On one point, my opponent was at the net, I hit a lob. While the ball was in the air a seagull (or some other large bird, what do I know) flew overhead, maybe 20 feet above my opponent who was setting up to hit a smash. The ball did not touch the bird (didn't even come close), and the bird was too high up to be in the way of my opponent.

My opponent stopped playing and claimed we should play a let due to him being hindered by seeing this large bird flying overhead.

I agreed to a let since he clearly stopped and did not play the ball. Plus the match was played in good spirits and opponent is a good guy.

But what's the rule in this situation?

Friend at Court 2013 actually has this example case:

Case 3: A ball in play hits a bird flying over the court. Is this a hindrance?
Decision: Yes, the point shall be replayed.

It would have been nice if they'd address whether a low-swooping bird that did not make contact with the player, ball, or court could also be a hindrance because imo this is a much more common occurrence than a ball actually hitting a bird. I've been playing over 40 years and I've never heard of such a thing but the USTA feels the need to explicitly address this possibility?

To me the overhead bird is a gray area because you could argue that according to the bolded part this section of the Code random unintentional events outside the player's control can cause hindrances:

36. Let due to unintentional hindrance. A player who is hindered by an
opponent’s unintentional act or by something else outside the player’s control is entitled to a let only if the player could have made the shot had the player not been hindered. A let is not authorized for a hindrance caused by something within a player’s control. For example, a request for a let because a player tripped over the player’s own hat should be denied.

I guess your opponent could argue that the bird did hinder him and that it was outside of his control. Since hearing things such as talk can be considered hindrances I would argue that seeing things like birds overhead could also be hindrances. Where does it stop though? The sun, which is out of my control, was in my eyes so I can call a hindrance?

 

[OrangePower]

^^^^

Yeah I'd seen that example from friend at court. In my case it was clear that the ball didn't hit the bird (my opponent and I were both in agreement on this).

Agreed it's a grey area - that's why I'm interested in what people think

Personally I don't think it should qualify as a hindrance. But the match was being played in a very friendly spirit and really one point isn't important enough to argue over.

Then again I also don't think talking or noises from outside the court should be considered hindrances, unless being done specifically by one person's supporters to try distract the opponent. But I know some people disagree.

 

[Fusker]

I'd give a hindrance if he had a play on the ball and stopped right away. That's the key - if I hit a great lob and the guy was doubtful to make a play, I'd think the hindrance was rather dubious.

I've also given out a few hindrances/first serves for really loud obnoxious things happening in the middle of a guys toss for example. I had one case where the guy on the public court next to me was a foul-mouthed idiot - screamed "mother-effer" right as my opponent was in the middle of his serve. I basically offered him a re-serve in a way that the moron on the other court could hear.

 

[jswinf]

I could go either way. I think by rule the bird-watcher has no recourse, but in a friendly match, doing a replay seems reasonable.

It's got me thinking, though, of an important junior's match with one player repeatedly bothered by a diving bird, while up in the stands the other player's dad is trying to hide the electronic controller in his lap...

 

[struggle]

kinda shatters my ploy during summer night time tennis under the lights of throwing up high lobs in hopes of enticing the bats to chase the ball down to my opponents side.

 

[Topspin Shot]

Assuming he didn't attempt to play the ball, and you didn't have the advantage in the point, I believe he can call a let.

 

[struggle]

Assuming he didn't attempt to play the ball, and you didn't have the advantage in the point, I believe he can call a let.

it's a slippery slope. what about that distracting airplane way up in the sky?

i understand, but where does the madness end?

 

[gmatheis]

it's a slippery slope. what about that distracting airplane way up in the sky?

i understand, but where does the madness end?

Exactly ....

Can you call a hindrance because the sun went behind a cloud while the ball was in the air? I really don't think so ... so a bird just being in your field of view is not a hindrance.

A bird that flies right through the court area, so low that you even flinch would be different.

 

[dcdoorknob]

I've called a hindrance/let before when some horsefly started biting my calf in the middle of the point.

Not for a bird in the sky though. I have been distracted by one and missed the shot (my fault) but I didn't call a hindrance.

 

[Tennisguy3000]

The clouds moving is a hindrance for me... Jk

 

[sureshs]

These kinds of problems are just beginning. Soon there will be drones flying overhead. At the start of a match, I will order a new racket from Tennis Warehouse and it will arrive via drone at the next changeover. The drone will drop me the racket from a wire and I will just pluck it and sign the confirmation on the iPad which will also be dangling from the wire. I may also rent a drone to watch the lines and make foot fault calls from way up there.

 

[struggle]

^^^^^ funny2me

 

[Clintspin]

No this is not a legit hindrance. This sort of stuff has been addressed in the rules questions part of Tennis Mag. What if you about to serve and a car alarm goes off behind you or a police car turns on the siren. You have to play through these distractions. Of course you can do what you want in a friendly match and there would be nothing wrong with playing it over.

 

[NumbersGuy]

No chance of a hindrance (hindrance awards the hindered player the point), though I think you meant to ask whether a let could be called. No chance of that either. Very similar to when you think a ball from another court may come onto yours, but it doesn't, and the tennis gods have long ago ruled that you can't call a let for that.

 

[mucat]

What if it is a dragon?

 

[beernutz]

What if it is a dragon?

There should be a hindrance exception for mythical or extinct flying creatures surely.

 

[tenniscasey]

Seems to me this is no different from requesting a let because you saw a clown walking behind the fence 10 feet behind your opponent and you got distracted.

I'd probably allow such a let or a "bird overhead let" if an opponent asked for it, since I try to assume the best about people's motives, but I'd never ask for one. If you're that easily distracted, tennis probably isn't for you.

 

[OrangePower]

I'd probably allow such a let or a "bird overhead let" if an opponent asked for it, since I try to assume the best about people's motives, but I'd never ask for one.

Yeah that pretty much sums up how it actually happened. I was surprised he stopped playing and asked for a let, but I know the guy and don't doubt his motives, so was ok to play a let.


As a side note I do now have some good ideas for next time my team is deep into the playoffs and needs some help... drones, baby, drones

 

[newpball]

Played a non-USTA ladder match this morning.

On one point, my opponent was at the net, I hit a lob. While the ball was in the air a seagull (or some other large bird, what do I know) flew overhead, maybe 20 feet above my opponent who was setting up to hit a smash. The ball did not touch the bird (didn't even come close), and the bird was too high up to be in the way of my opponent.

My opponent stopped playing and claimed we should play a let due to him being hindered by seeing this large bird flying overhead.

I agreed to a let since he clearly stopped and did not play the ball. Plus the match was played in good spirits and opponent is a good guy.

But what's the rule in this situation?

Honestly sometimes I cannot believe what people come up with as a hindrance. I know tennis is supposedly a soft sport but this is softer than oil.

"Oh, the gate made a sound, I am hindered"
"Oh, a bird flew over, I am hindered"
"Oh, your partner moved his arm during serve, I am hindered"
"Oh, he coughed, I am hindered"

Sheesh come on folks, even the old ladies during teatime croquet are stronger than that.

 

[cincyMike]

Honestly sometimes I cannot believe what people come up with as a hindrance. I know tennis is supposedly a soft sport but this is softer than oil.

Amen......