LET - me be specific

[jc4.0]

Happened again today. Was playing mixed doubles, and I was serving at add-in. during this point, I hit a clean winner hard into the corner, no way that ball was coming back - but just as the ball hit the dirt, my opponent says "wait a minute..." and holds up her hand. We're all like, "what?" And she says she's calling a let. I look over and there is a ball sitting about eight feet outside the doubles side line, across from the net. In other words not in the court at all, and not moving. Both of our opponents in fact were at the baseline, so nobody was anywhere near this "let" ball.

I know the rule is, 'anybody can call a let' - but let's be real. My question is, when is a "let" really not a let at all - in other words, doesn't the ball have to be within a couple feet of the court, at least, to be called a let? Doesn't it have to be rolling dangerously close to active play? Or can it just be sitting there, not hindering play in any way? nevermind that my team had already won the point - I wouldn't have minded the let call, if the ball in question was rolling toward anyone.

We replayed the point, but I felt a bit cheated.

 

[Mick]

you got robbed of that point.

 

[sphinx780]

If it was there and not moving when the point started, you got robbed is right.

 

[jc4.0]

If it was there and not moving when the point started, you got robbed is right.

The ball may have moved into its position during the point, I'm not sure - it was so far outside the court when it STOPPED moving several feet beyond the outside doubles line, that I personally would not have called a let regardless. We just replayed the point to be good sports, and in fact won the point again.

 

[BravoRed691]

The ball may have moved into its position during the point, I'm not sure - it was so far outside the court when it STOPPED moving several feet beyond the outside doubles line, that I personally would not have called a let regardless. We just replayed the point to be good sports, and in fact won the point again.

Were there partitions between the court? I dunno the official rule or what the official call would be but it does sound like they robbed you guys. But it is her call if it was within the partitions (if there were any) and if the ball did indeed move onto that spot during the point...

Sounds like one of those situations where she was technically right but it was an unnecessary call...did it look like she had a reasonable play on it? If she did then ok, but if she didn't then i would feel jaded too..

Br

 

[ian2]

Was the stray ball moving ACROSS the court DURING THE POINT?

 

[Cindysphinx]

Good lord -- *Again?*

This same scenario comes up in 99% of your posts: "Just as I blasted a winner that my opponents couldn't possibly reach even if they had lacrosse sticks, they called a let!"

Who are these bozos you play with? How come they never seem to know the rules and are constantly robbing you of points like this?

Cindy -- envious of anyone who has the luxury of playing on courts with 8 feet of space outside the doubles sideline

 

[sureshs]

Just LET it be and move on

 

[teAlexis]

Speaking of balls rolling onto courts. What if someone say overhits on the next court "often" and the ball rolls to the back fence (theirs) and starts to roll to the fence behind us. Do we always have to stop play? It's aggravating when we just made an awesome shot only to see our opponent pointing to that yellow ball rolling along the fence. Nowhere near the lines of the court itself.

 

[jc4.0]

Good lord -- *Again?*

This same scenario comes up in 99% of your posts: "Just as I blasted a winner that my opponents couldn't possibly reach even if they had lacrosse sticks, they called a let!"

Who are these bozos you play with? How come they never seem to know the rules and are constantly robbing you of points like this?

Cindy -- envious of anyone who has the luxury of playing on courts with 8 feet of space outside the doubles sideline

I have mentioned this situation exactly twice. Do you have an itty bitty problem with math?

And this scenario is different from the other one - I have a legitimate question here, and would appreciate serious discussion points rather than snide remarks. Y'know, you are constantly posting whiny, nit-picking rules disputes on your own threads. Looks like you play with just as many bozos as I do.

JC -- happy to be playing in gorgeous south florida, where we can enjoy outdoor tennis year round, on beautiful, expansive clay courts.

 

[jc4.0]

Was the stray ball moving ACROSS the court DURING THE POINT?

No - that's why I think the let should not have been called. The ball stopped several feet outside the lines of the court, and was not hindering play at all. Besides, the point was really over. Even if I was wrong and my opponent miraculously returned the ball - the point should have continued until it was over. That "let" ball was not going to be in anybody's way, clearly.

This is a way that some players use to get a replay, when they know they're behind in the point, or have actually lost it. It's one tick away from "cheating" in my book.

 

[athiker]

If it was there and not moving when the point started, you got robbed is right.

Sounds right to me. I even recall a Tennis Channel Lovitz thing where an item was left on the net but since it was there before the point started everyone implicitly agrees it is not a distraction.

However if it was rolling towards the court during the point a case could be made for a let even if it stopped 8 feet short. The fact that it caught the other players eye as it was rolling towards the court could be considered distraction enough. That player noticed it, had to start to judge if it was going to become a hazard and that right there required their attention away from the point at hand.

As described however, the point was lost regardless, then fair play suggests your opponents should have simply yielded the point (again unless watching the ball prevented them from moving into defensive position to handle your shot!).

 

[athiker]

BTW...I think that is one of the reasons that anyone can call a let. Its hard to know what is happening in the other person's mind and the code is based on an assumption of good sportsmanship and fair play by all involved...perhaps a false assumption in some matches. :|

 

[gmatheis]

No - that's why I think the let should not have been called. The ball stopped several feet outside the lines of the court, and was not hindering play at all. Besides, the point was really over. Even if I was wrong and my opponent miraculously returned the ball - the point should have continued until it was over. That "let" ball was not going to be in anybody's way, clearly.

This is a way that some players use to get a replay, when they know they're behind in the point, or have actually lost it. It's one tick away from "cheating" in my book.

had to change this ... i just reread your post and you said they called the let after you hit your "winner" and it had even landed in ... yeah sounds pretty weak to me ... glad you got the point in the replay.

 

[tennis tom]

Cindy -- envious of anyone who has the luxury of playing on courts with 8 feet of space outside the doubles sideline

JC -- happy to be playing in gorgeous south florida, where we can enjoy outdoor tennis year round, on beautiful, expansive clay courts.

CAT FIGHT!

 

[tennis tom]

It sounds like from the info given, that you got screwed. There was this ass-hat that I had the misfortune to play with in pick-up games who would call a let if there was a ball rolling in his direction from another hemisphere. He was a retired engineer and rigid in every way, but not a bad-hearted guy, just very rigid, like you want a concrete hiway bridge to be, but not a tennis match.

Some people are so focused on seeing and being seen, they pay more attention to the goings on the courts next to them then their own--that's a good time to fast-serve them--helps them to regain their focus.

There's a basic concept in tennis, to do whatever it takes to move the game along, otherwise the match drags on with no rhythm and becomes a drag--anyone up for chess?


If I see a ball rolling, I'll track it and if it's no danger to anyone, I'll be silent--but if it may cause an injury, I'll stop play--unless I want the person to step on it--the sound of a femur cracking is supposed to be quite a loud sound.

 

[Cindysphinx]

I have mentioned this situation exactly twice. Do you have an itty bitty problem with math?

And this scenario is different from the other one - I have a legitimate question here, and would appreciate serious discussion points rather than snide remarks. Y'know, you are constantly posting whiny, nit-picking rules disputes on your own threads. Looks like you play with just as many bozos as I do.

JC -- happy to be playing in gorgeous south florida, where we can enjoy outdoor tennis year round, on beautiful, expansive clay courts.

Oh, dear. I was actually taking your side instead of siding with your bozo opponents.

I guess I won't make *that* mistake again.

Cindy -- thinking JC's thread count that can fairly be classified under "My opponents stole a point from me!!" is a whole lot higher than two

 

[Spokewench]

It's a hard call to make sometimes. I know that I have seen a ball rolling towards the court and really thought it might be a problem so I called a let to have the ball stop rolling and it was really not a problem. This hasn't happened much but occasionally out of concern for me and mine or the opponents safety I have called lets that probably were not really needed, but it was a judgment call at the time. So, maybe this was the same thing that happened to your opponent, she sees out of the corner of her eye while waiting to receive a ball rolling towards her side of the court, calls a let and realizes it has now stopped rolling?

Or maybe she was cheating, who knows? It is a sometimes a judgment call.

 

[kylebarendrick]

Still, even if you saw the ball and called the let, once you realized that your opponent had hit a winner you should concede the point. I don't think there is any excuse not too.

What would you say? "Gee you just hit a great shot that was a clear winner. Too bad I called 'let' right after you hit it. Take two."

If your opponent earned the point you give it to them.

 

[gameboy]

It is just tennis. For fun.

LET it go. You will be happier in the long run. I promise.

 

[dlk]

Gameboy, I see what you did there

I think the people who just relax and LET the players who think they're at Wimbledon have their calls, their lives will be longer. Sure it's a crazy call, if you too believe you're at the US Open, then confront the poor sportsmanship. I've played against people who purposely cheated at board games (once, twice, maybe thrice); good game man, you just beat at Monopoly three times in a row.

 

[SuperJimmy]

Yeah, I think you were robbed. But, it's situations like these where you just have to let it go. You're going to run into those uptight rulebook players that calls a let on every single little sound/movement that happens within a mile of the court. They can play lawyer tennis and you can stick with the real kind of tennis where people actually PLAY.

The worst let I have had called on me was back in high school @ #1 singles. My opponent was kept on the defensive for the majority of the point and calls a let after he hits a short ball. His claim: the sound of someone closing a car door distracted him (I was way closer and didn't hear anything). The car he pointed to was a good 30 feet away from the court, hidden behind a wind breaker that covers the entire fence...interestingly, the 'out' calls on the next court over or the 'come on' yells during the middle of the point from the crowd doesn't distract the guy...when he's winning...

Just curious...how do you blast an unreturnable ball to the corner if your opponents are playing two back? Were they playing like a new form of 'baseline I formation'?

 

[jc4.0]

Just curious...how do you blast an unreturnable ball to the corner if your opponents are playing two back? Were they playing like a new form of 'baseline I formation'?

That's a fair question. One was at the baseline - the one I hit toward was moving forward into no-man's land, so I hit behind her into the alley, to her weaker side (backhand). I would say she had no reasonable play on that ball, in fact she didn't touch it - but I would have been happy if we just completed the point, win or lose, rather than replay it, as my team was on the offensive.

 

[jc4.0]

Oh, dear. I was actually taking your side instead of siding with your bozo opponents.

I guess I won't make *that* mistake again.

Cindy -- thinking JC's thread count that can fairly be classified under "My opponents stole a point from me!!" is a whole lot higher than two

If your previous post was you "taking my side" it surely had a completely different tone to it. If I ever perceive that you are taking my side on any issue I'll declare it a national holiday...

JC -- thinking Cindy's posts can ALL be classified as "needy".