Let or not for erroneous line call during play

[wwwXpert]

Here's a question about rules on line calls during doubles match play.

My partner hit a deep lob over the opposing team that landed on the baseline. One of the players, named Wayne, on the opposing team yelled "out," but then told his partner to hit the ball back after realizing the lob was in. The ball that was hit back to us was an easy put-away, but both my partner and I stopped play because Wayne yelled "out" which disrupted the flow of play. We told him that the point could not continue after he called out and a "let" should be played, but Wayne insisted that we lost point because we didn't hit the ball back. I stated that when a line judge makes an incorrect call and corrects the call in the middle of a point, a "let" point should be played. Wayne said that he could tell his partner anything during a point even calling a ball out so it shouldn't matter. Even worse, he began to curse, yell and slammed his racquet on the net. He went on to scream at us for the audacity of telling him what he could and couldn't say during a point. We conceded the point because we didn't want to ruin the fun, but won the game and set anyway.

Were we correct to state that a "let" should have be played for the incorrect out call?

 

[jswinf]

We conceded the point because we didn't want to ruin the fun, but won the game and set anyway.

Were we correct to state that a "let" should have be played for the incorrect out call?

Doesn't sound like much fun with Wayne around.

You were certainly entitled to a let due to hindrance, being bothered by Wayne's vocalization. Could make a case that you were entitled to the point if the return was an "easy sitter," but you should have put it away just to strengthen your case. Maybe bounced it off Wayne.

 

[LuckyR]

Here's a question about rules on line calls during doubles match play.

My partner hit a deep lob over the opposing team that landed on the baseline. One of the players, named Wayne, on the opposing team yelled "out," but then told his partner to hit the ball back after realizing the lob was in. The ball that was hit back to us was an easy put-away, but both my partner and I stopped play because Wayne yelled "out" which disrupted the flow of play. We told him that the point could not continue after he called out and a "let" should be played, but Wayne insisted that we lost point because we didn't hit the ball back. I stated that when a line judge makes an incorrect call and corrects the call in the middle of a point, a "let" point should be played. Wayne said that he could tell his partner anything during a point even calling a ball out so it shouldn't matter. Even worse, he began to curse, yell and slammed his racquet on the net. He went on to scream at us for the audacity of telling him what he could and couldn't say during a point. We conceded the point because we didn't want to ruin the fun, but won the game and set anyway.

Were we correct to state that a "let" should have be played for the incorrect out call?

No. You should win the point outright. Wayne made an honest mistake, he was correct to have his partner hit the ball back (to prove your shot was not an outright winner, in which case you would win the point), if the return from his partner would have been an average or better shot, then a let would be played, but since it was a sitter, it is your point, you don't have to hit the ball.

 

[wwwXpert]

Doesn't sound like much fun with Wayne around... Maybe bounced it off Wayne.

Thanks... Some players are just horrible on and off the court. BTW, my partner smashed the next point at Wayne's feet and followed it with the requisite apology. The best retort is winning...

 

[r2473]

I guess this is why people have started yelling "bounce" instead of "out" to their partner.

I guess I would ask if it seemed to you as if "Wayne" was making a call or trying to communicate with his partner? Your thread title makes it sound like you heard it as a line call. I would think that means "Wayne" yelled "out" after the ball bounced. In that case, it should be your point.

If he was just communicating with his partner ("out" was yelled while the ball was still in the air), I would say a let should be played and the four of you should have come to an understanding as to what is acceptable with respect to communicating with partners.

Personally, I don't usually have a problem with one of the guys yelling "out" to his teammate while the ball is still in the air. I know they will not make "a call" until the ball bounces.

 

[ubermeyer]

why didn't you put the ball away

 

[mucat]

Wayne is a little cheater. Call all his shots out then correct it afterward

 

[Ash_Smith]

If he called it out and then corrected the call, it doesn't matter whether his partner hit a clean winner, a rally ball or anything else. You WIN the point regardless.

 

[fed_the_savior]

I think if he was talking to his partner, it's a let for hindrance. I'd like to see the exact rule on this though.

 

[Radicalized]

Here's a question about rules on line calls during doubles match play.

My partner hit a deep lob over the opposing team that landed on the baseline. One of the players, named Wayne, on the opposing team yelled "out," but then told his partner to hit the ball back after realizing the lob was in. The ball that was hit back to us was an easy put-away, but both my partner and I stopped play because Wayne yelled "out" which disrupted the flow of play.

Were we correct to state that a "let" should have be played for the incorrect out call?

USTA Friend on Court, page 54, The Code--Making Calls:

12. Out calls corrected. If a player mistakenly calls a ball “out” and then
realizes it was good, the point shall be replayed if the player returned the ball
within the proper court. Nonetheless, if the player’s return of the ball results
in a “weak sitter,” the player should give the opponent the point. If the player
failed to make the return, the opponent wins the point. If the mistake was
made on the second serve, the server is entitled to two serves.

USTA Friend on Court, pages 22-23, 26. HINDRANCE:

26. HINDRANCE
If a player is hindered in playing the point by a deliberate act of the opponent(
s), the player shall win the point.
However, the point shall be replayed if a player is hindered in playing the
point by either an unintentional act of the opponent(s), or something outside
the player’s own control (not including a permanent fixture).

USTA Comment 26.1: What is the difference between a deliberate
and an unintentional act? Deliberate means a player did what the
player intended to do, even if the result was unintended. An example
is a player who hits a short lob in doubles and loudly shouts “back”
just before an opponent hits the overhead. See Section 33 of The Code.
Unintentional refers to an act over which a player has no control, such
as a hat blowing off or a scream after a wasp sting.

USTA Friend on Court, pages 57, The Code--HINDRANCE ISSUES:

HINDRANCE ISSUES
33. Talking during a point. A player shall not talk while the ball is moving
toward the opponent’s side of the court. If the player’s talking interferes with
an opponent’s ability to play the ball, the player loses the point. Consider the
situation where a player hits a weak lob and loudly yells at his or her partner
to get back. If the shout is loud enough to distract an opponent, then the
opponent may claim the point based on a deliberate hindrance. If the opponent chooses to hit the lob and misses it, the opponent loses the point
because the opponent did not make a timely claim of hindrance.

**********
Regardless of whether there was a hindrance after the fact or not, the point should have been won (or at least replayed) by your team because of the incorrect out call.

 

[r2473]

because of the incorrect out call.

I'm still not clear if Wayne was calling the ball out or telling his partner the ball was out before it landed.

I sympathize with Wayne a bit. I don't play doubles often, but when I play, I often say "out" to my opponent during the point. If the ball lands in, we just continue playing the point. But I realize that people do make a big deal about this, so now everyone says "bounce"........which sounds really stupid IMO.......but that's beside the point.

In the situation as presented by the OP, I really question why he didn't just smash the sitter. Then (if what Wayne did bothered him), he could have asked Wayne not to yell "out" during the point.

The problem with opining on a situation that we are not witness to is that we will almost automatically sympathize with the OP. He will always present the situation in a manner most sympathetic to him.

Incidentally, if you watch professional tennis, the players always yell "out". I realize that they have linesmen making the calls, so the situation is different.

 

[Radicalized]

The rule is that you are responsible to call the ball on your side of the court as soon as possible. We can only go by how the OP describes the event, not what might have occurred. If this Wayne character "yelled" "out," the opponent can take that as a call and the above "rules" apply. It is his/her fault if the call is incorrect. And if any verbalization is made to intentionally confuse the opponent, it is a hindrance.

Of course, we don't know the specifics. Often when I hit a lob, I can't even see where it lands because the opponent is blocking the view as he attempts to track it down. I always say, "Let it go." Your opponent, who may be on the exact opposite end of the court has a reasonable expectation to a timely call so he/she can prepare for the return. If the ball is going to be close, one should be prepared to take the ball (or even hit it), and then call it out immediately if it happens to be out.

These are the necessities when no officials are involved. Also, no outside parties can make the call.

 

[r2473]

^^If Wayne was actually making an "out" call, then the point is simply over.

If the OP is nice, he could replay the point I guess, but I don't know why he would do that. Otherwise you could see this morphing into a tactic of sorts. On any tough shot, yell "out". When the ball lands in, return the ball, apologize, and say "Gee, I guess we will have to replay that one. Sorry".

 

[Radicalized]

It may help if we all define our terminologies. "Out!" describes the status of the ball in play. It is not a command/instruction for the partner, per se. Obviously, the partner understands what is implied, but perhaps we could all improve on this.

 

[fed_the_savior]

It may help if we all define our terminologies. "Out!" describes the status of the ball in play. It is not a command/instruction for the partner, per se. Obviously, the partner understands what is implied, but perhaps we could all improve on this.

If someone calls "out" before the ball hits the ground, I would think it was pretty obvious they were talking to their partner.

 

[Radicalized]

If someone calls "out" before the ball hits the ground, I would think it was pretty obvious they were talking to their partner.

I understand your point. I'm just considering how to alleviate these issues that arise on the board. I posted what I thought were the related "official" rules earlier. Last week, for example, the issue was about a receiver's partner standing in the service box. Unfortunately, not every situation is obvious--who sees it, where it hits, when the call is made, what perception the opponents have of the "call," etc... And as previously noted, the OP was limited in specificity. I don't need my opponent cursing me out and slamming the racquet. In so many of the posts, this is "where it goes" (at least in the description of poster). I wish I could call in "J011yroger" or one of the other "well-known" players on the board who plays doubles to see what he would do. I admittedly will say they have much more experience, and I would assume a better perspective regarding the OP. However, it isn't always the rules, but how you (or your opponent) like to interpret them. Then you have the on-court debate, which doesn't always go well.

 

[wwwXpert]

I'm not sure how my description could be expressed any differently to sway sympathy in one way or the other. Wayne yelled "out" when he thought my partner's lob landed out, but corrected his call. It wasn't his intent to distract us, but rather make an "out" call which was his mistake. As players, we immediately react to "out" calls when we hear them. Even his own partner stopped playing after he yelled "out" which is why he had to tell his partner to hit the ball back. In the context of the point, the "out" call became a hindrance because all the players were distracted and halted the natural flow of play. What Wayne should have done was admit his error which distracted everyone and allowed us to replay the point. Instead failed to see his own hindrance and expressed overt rudeness by uttering profanities, slamming his racquet on the net and refusing to shake our hands after losing the set. Keep in mind that my partner and I conceded the point to Wayne even though the point should have been replayed. We recognized how irrational and crazy he became and didn't want to ruin the fun of the match.

 

[r2473]

Wayne yelled "out" when he thought my partner's lob landed out, but corrected his call.

If he made an "out" call, the point is yours. Most often, everyone will choose to replay the point, if the "out" call was an honest mistake.

If it happens more than once or twice, I would just take the point.

But I'm with you, I would have probably just given the guy the point so I didn't have to listen to him anymore.

 

[jswinf]

I'm not sure how my description could be expressed any differently to sway sympathy in one way or the other. Wayne yelled "out" when he thought my partner's lob landed out, but corrected his call. It wasn't his intent to distract us, but rather make an "out" call which was his mistake. As players, we immediately react to "out" calls when we hear them. Even his own partner stopped playing after he yelled "out" which is why he had to tell his partner to hit the ball back. In the context of the point, the "out" call became a hindrance because all the players were distracted and halted the natural flow of play. What Wayne should have done was admit his error which distracted everyone and allowed us to replay the point. Instead failed to see his own hindrance and expressed overt rudeness by uttering profanities, slamming his racquet on the net and refusing to shake our hands after losing the set. Keep in mind that my partner and I conceded the point to Wayne even though the point should have been replayed. We recognized how irrational and crazy he became and didn't want to ruin the fun of the match.

You make a good case for a hindrance, no doubt about it. But a shot can't be called out until it lands. Anything said before the ball lands isn't really a "call", far as I'm concerned. Keep playing 'till they call it right.

 

[ProgressoR]

my gut feeling is that the idiot is right, he can say anything when the ball is on his side travelling towards them and nto towards you, before his team have hit the ball. The call "out" could be seen as communication with his partner rather than an outright call.

Anyway if he called it after it bounced, then the best thing would have been to play a let, but if he called it before it bounced as expressing his view to his partner to let it bounce as he thought it was going out, i think there is nothing wrong with that.

Murray had a thing in the USO where he hit the ball and as it was travelling to his opponent the opponent called allez or something, murray missed the next shot, complained, and ump told murray opponent can say anything after murray has hit the ball and the ball is the other guys side of the net and before he has hit the ball.

just my thoughts.

 

[Dilettante]

so now everyone says "bounce"........which sounds really stupid IMO

Sounds like a ******** soda commercial or something like that: "Refreshing Bounce: it keeps you going just by mentioning it"

 

[jswinf]

^^^They still make a good fabric softener sheet. "Why'd you hit that? It was going out! Didn't you hear me yell 'bounce'?" "Sorry, I just thought you were suffering from static cling."

 

[wwwXpert]

It's not as simple as making the line call before it lands, but rather making a bad call once it lands and then correcting the call because he realized it was in.