Line calling incident today

[Jono123]

Ok, let's reverse the scenario. The receiver sees the ball as in, plays it and hits a winner. Server then calls his own serve as out and precedes to take a second. Good luck with that......

 

[S&V-not_dead_yet]

Ok, let's reverse the scenario. The receiver sees the ball as in, plays it and hits a winner. Server then calls his own serve as out and precedes to take a second. Good luck with that......

Before you reverse the scenario, do you first agree in the previous example that A) a rule exists for what was being discussed; and B) the server should have called his serve out?

Your example is different: in this case, the server cannot call his own serve out because it benefits him. He can call it out if it benefits the receiver [ie a 2nd serve that the receiver errs on the return].

Your exact question was sent in to Tennis Magazine's column and Rebel Good answered the way I outlined. It's a subtle point because most people stop at "The server cannot call his own serve out" without reading the caveat about "unless it benefits the receiver".

 

[socallefty]

Ok, let's reverse the scenario. The receiver sees the ball as in, plays it and hits a winner. Server then calls his own serve as out and precedes to take a second. Good luck with that......

Read the rule - it explicitly rules out making your own call on your 1st serve as it can benefit you. However if I see my first serve out and the receiver missed his return, I usually will call my own 1st serve out and take a 2nd serve as it is within the spirit of calling your own ball out when you see it clearly and it does not benefit me,

I wonder if other players are aware of this rule and would be willing to change their call if they clearly saw their own shot out. I just checked the USTA rule and it is as follows:

“Player calls own shots out. With the exception of the first serve, a player should call out the player’s own shots if the player clearly sees the ball out regardless of whether requested to do so by an opponent. The prime objective in making calls is accuracy. All players should cooperate to attain this objective.”

 

[tennis tom]

"should" is different from "must". It's EXTREMELY rare in the current era that players make calls against themselves--maybe 100 years ago.

 

[Deleted member 688153]

if they play it then I'll go with it

100% if they have the better view, it's on them. I don't think that's unreasonable. If I'm "going easy", I might mention it

 

[Deleted member 688153]

And it's on me to call their serve out if I see it, so all's fair and even.

 

[FIRETennis]

Most calls where I play are to the benefit of the player making the call not to the benefit of the opponent.
Very rare that someone is making calls with the idea of "the prime objective in making calls is accuracy".
They should hand these "rule books" of good faith at the tournaments. The amount of 'self benefiting' and blatant bad calls on purpose down to cheating is ridiculous.
I can't count the number of times I've lost close matches because I'm fair and all my close to the line and baseline shots are called out.
This second serve issue seems like a non-issue, you played it and did not make any calls. After the point, the serve had doubt but was not sure either. Point stands imo.

 

[FIRETennis]

How can the server ever have a "better view"?
We are talking 60 feet from the mark vs. less than 18 feet from the mark.
The server is 3x the distance to the ball compared to the receiver and the landing spot is usually masked by the net.
I've never run into a situation where the server says it's out but the receiver says it's good.

 

[socallefty]

Most calls where I play are to the benefit of the player making the call not to the benefit of the opponent.
Very rare that someone is making calls with the idea of "the prime objective in making calls is accuracy".
They should hand these "rule books" of good faith at the tournaments. The amount of 'self benefiting' and blatant bad calls on purpose down to cheating is ridiculous.
I can't count the number of times I've lost close matches because I'm fair and all my close to the line and baseline shots are called out.
This second serve issue seems like a non-issue, you played it and did not make any calls. After the point, the serve had doubt but was not sure either. Point stands imo.

Thankfully I play in a private club where people don‘t want to get a bad reputation in a closed social group, especially the 4.5+ players which is an even smaller clique - maybe less than 5% of the members. You will essentially find it tough to get invited to play socially by other members if you get a bad reputation as a line caller and you might as well leave the club in that case. I completely am aware that line calling in tournaments and public courts where strangers play each other often can be much more ‘iffy’. I also find that players behave better at my club when they are angry (in terms of not having outbursts) for the same reason - it was different when I was younger and played more tournaments and on public courts.

Also, I thought I made it clear in my OP that my opponent clearly saw his ball out and openly commented to me in a casual way that he was surprised I played the serve since it was out. The only reason he told me that he didn’t think he should change his call afterwards when I pointed out that he should in that case is not because he had any doubt that his serve was out, but because he was unaware of the rule and etiquette that deems that he should call his own second serve out if he saw it clearly even when his opponent does not question the call.

In any case, I didn’t argue much and just moved on to playing the next game - I explained the rule more clearly to him once the match was over after my service game so that he would know it in the future. I posted here for the same reason to make players aware of what the rule expects of them - it is not just an etiquette issue. If they choose to flout the rule, their opponent will never even know it as the opponent obviously played the ball because they were not sure it was out.

I hit a return in this case because I was 90% sure his serve was out, but had about 10% doubt as it was late afternoon on a cloudy day with light/shade effects from trees and the nearby clubhouse affecting my visibility on the court. While a server is further away, he can sometimes see the gap between a deep out serve and the service line from his point of view - for the receiver, the ball on a deep serve bounces between him and the service line and it can be harder to see the gap. When I am a spectator watching 4.5+ players play singles, I often see close out serves being returned as it is hard to tell if a fast serve is in or out if it lands just out - more common to see returners miss calls in this manner against their benefit than to see them cheat on calls.

 

[FIRETennis]

Thankfully I play in a private club where people don‘t want to get a bad reputation in a closed social group, especially the 4.5+ players which is an even smaller clique - maybe less than 5% of the members. You will essentially find it tough to get invited to play socially by other members if you get a bad reputation as a line caller and you might as well leave the club in that case. I completely am aware that line calling in tournaments and public courts where strangers play each other often can be much more ‘iffy’. I also find that players behave better at my club when they are angry (in terms of not having outbursts) for the same reason - it was different when I was younger and played more tournaments and on public courts.

Also, I thought I made it clear in my OP that my opponent clearly saw his ball out and openly commented to me in a casual way that he was surprised I played the serve since it was out. The only reason he told me that he didn’t think he should change his call afterwards when I pointed out that he should in that case is not because he had any doubt that his serve was out, but because he was unaware of the rule and etiquette that deems that he should call his own second serve out if he saw it clearly even when his opponent does not question the call.

In any case, I didn’t argue much and just moved on to playing the next game - I explained the rule more clearly to him once the match was over after my service game so that he would know it in the future. I posted here for the same reason to make players aware of what the rule expects of them - it is not just an etiquette issue. If they choose to flout the rule, their opponent will never even know it as the opponent obviously played the ball because they werent sure it was out.

In that case, I agree. Friends and club members behave much better with each other. I'm scarred due to all the tourneys I play
It's good you pointed out the rule to him that he can call his own second serve out.
Had a recent incident where an opponent volleyed and made contact on my side of the net and he thought he could do it as long as he didn't touch the net.... it's always good to point out some not so well known rules out.

 

[Jono123]

Most calls where I play are to the benefit of the player making the call not to the benefit of the opponent.
Very rare that someone is making calls with the idea of "the prime objective in making calls is accuracy".
They should hand these "rule books" of good faith at the tournaments. The amount of 'self benefiting' and blatant bad calls on purpose down to cheating is ridiculous.
I can't count the number of times I've lost close matches because I'm fair and all my close to the line and baseline shots are called out.
This second serve issue seems like a non-issue, you played it and did not make any calls. After the point, the serve had doubt but was not sure either. Point stands imo.

I tend to give players the benefit of the doubt when I play. If I'm clearly beaten and the call is marginal I will award it. I tend to find the opposition will reciprocate and it makes for a more enjoyable game. Its a recreational sport after all,

 

[S&V-not_dead_yet]

Ok, let's reverse the scenario. The receiver sees the ball as in, plays it and hits a winner. Server then calls his own serve as out and precedes to take a second. Good luck with that......

The possible scenarios of when the server can call his own serve out:

#serve in/out receiver action Server can call this serve out Why?
1 in irrelevant yes* Because it benefits the receiver
1 out winner no Because it would have benefitted the server
1 out error yes Because it benefits the receiver
2 in irrelevant yes* Because it benefits the receiver
2 out irrelevant yes Because it benefits the receiver

*There would be no reason for a server to call the server out when he saw it in but he's allowed to do so.

The scenario you mentioned is #2, the only one where the server cannot call his own serve out.

All of this makes sense when I consider if from the standpoint of "Cui Bono?" [who benefits]: The server can call it out if it benefits the receiver. The server cannot call it out if it would benefit the server.

The reason you can always call your 2nd serve out is that it will always benefit the receiver.

The reason you have to look further to call your first out is because it depends on what the receiver did next.

I'll leave the horse alone now.

 

[S&V-not_dead_yet]

How can the server ever have a "better view"?
We are talking 60 feet from the mark vs. less than 18 feet from the mark.
The server is 3x the distance to the ball compared to the receiver and the landing spot is usually masked by the net.

Distance isn't the only factor. As the server, you can see [theoretically] the service line [we're assuming it's the one parallel to the net], where the ball bounced, and the subsequent gap.

The receiver can see the ball but not the gap unless the gap is big enough to account for the width of the ball. If the gap is smaller, it will be swallowed up by the ball itself.

To prove it, place a ball two inches beyond the SL and look at it from the server's perspective then the receiver's perspective. You'll likely see different things.

I've never run into a situation where the server says it's out but the receiver says it's good.

It happens when the receiver hits a winner/forcing shot or when there is honest disagreement.

 

[tennis tom]

While a server is further away, he can sometimes see the gap between a deep out serve and the service line from his point of view - for the receiver, the ball on a deep serve bounces between him and the service line and it can be harder to see the gap.

YUP!

 

[Jono123]

Before you reverse the scenario, do you first agree in the previous example that A) a rule exists for what was being discussed; and B) the server should have called his serve out?

Your example is different: in this case, the server cannot call his own serve out because it benefits him. He can call it out if it benefits the receiver [ie a 2nd serve that the receiver errs on the return].

Your exact question was sent in to Tennis Magazine's column and Rebel Good answered the way I outlined. It's a subtle point because most people stop at "The server cannot call his own serve out" without reading the caveat about "unless it benefits the receiver".

Its a tricky one as the server, with the exception of the T, is not best placed to determine if it was in or out. I think the rule in the UK is the receiver makes the call. Point of etiquette, I would agree with you.

 

[FIRETennis]

Distance isn't the only factor. As the server, you can see [theoretically] the service line [we're assuming it's the one parallel to the net], where the ball bounced, and the subsequent gap.

The receiver can see the ball but not the gap unless the gap is big enough to account for the width of the ball. If the gap is smaller, it will be swallowed up by the ball itself.

To prove it, place a ball two inches beyond the SL and look at it from the server's perspective then the receiver's perspective. You'll likely see different things.



It happens when the receiver hits a winner/forcing shot or when there is honest disagreement.

Uhm, I definitely think in your example both serve and receiver would agree the ball as in if there is a gap.
The receiver would see that the ball is behind the service line then if the serve sees a 'gap'. Wouldn't seeing the ball from 18 feet be easier then rather than 60 feet?
I think problems exist when the ball is around/on the line. Receiver has a better view if it's just after the service line, whereas from the pov of the serve the ball might be 'one with the line'.
The server is probably just landing getting ready to do his split step... unless we talking waiter serves
The job of the returner is to look at the ball and return it. Shouldn't he be the one with the better focus?

 

[S&V-not_dead_yet]

Uhm, I definitely think in your example both serve and receiver would agree the ball as in if there is a gap.

Two people can honestly disagree. Even two people looking at it from the same viewpoint but for sure when they are at different viewpoints.

The receiver would see that the ball is behind the service line then if the serve sees a 'gap'.

I don't think he would if the ball was close enough to the line. Again, try the experiment: do you see exactly the same thing from both viewpoints?

Wouldn't seeing the ball from 18 feet be easier then rather than 60 feet?

Again, distance is not the only factor.

I think problems exist when the ball is around/on the line. Receiver has a better view if it's just after the service line, whereas from the pov of the serve the ball might be 'one with the line'.
The server is probably just landing getting ready to do his split step... unless we talking waiter serves
The job of the returner is to look at the ball and return it. Shouldn't he be the one with the better focus?

The whole point of the original thread was that it's both returner's and server's responsibility to ensure accurate calls. That might occasionally mean the server calling his own serve out to the benefit of the receiver.