Mid-Atlantic players...Verbal hinderance rule will cost you the point

Cindysphinx

G.O.A.T.
If a tree falls in the forest but no one is around to hear it, does it make a sound? :)

If a player makes an incomplete out call (starts to hold up a finger and yanks it down or makes a partial verbal out call that comes out as a grunt), that shouldn't be a "lose point if you change your call" situation. That's because these "call interruptus" situations aren't calls. If the opponents don't hear it and keep playing, then the call stands. If they did think they heard an out call and it hindered them, then it is a hindrance situation.

JMHO. Wondering what Woodrow would say . . .
 

spot

Hall of Fame
If a tree falls in the forest but no one is around to hear it, does it make a sound? :)

If a player makes an incomplete out call (starts to hold up a finger and yanks it down or makes a partial verbal out call that comes out as a grunt), that shouldn't be a "lose point if you change your call" situation. That's because these "call interruptus" situations aren't calls. If the opponents don't hear it and keep playing, then the call stands. If they did think they heard an out call and it hindered them, then it is a hindrance situation.

JMHO. Wondering what Woodrow would say . . .

I think that if you make a noise to call it out then you have made a call. You can hope that the opponents didn't hear it but if they did and you admit that you made the noise then I think the point is theirs if they wish to claim it. Personally I just would give the benefit of doubt to the other team if I know that I did make noise that could have been considered an out call.

For me it is different if the opponents want to claim that a grunt was actually an out call. This is a situation where the person actually was trying to make an out call and did make noise but changed their mind halfway through it and the opponents did hear the aborted call.

And absolutely it would be the same if you were pointing up and then changed your mind. Once you make the call then change your mind then the opponents are entitled to the point if they were aware of it.
 

Jack the Hack

Hall of Fame
I think that if you make a noise to call it out then you have made a call. You can hope that the opponents didn't hear it but if they did and you admit that you made the noise then I think the point is theirs if they wish to claim it. Personally I just would give the benefit of doubt to the other team if I know that I did make noise that could have been considered an out call.

For me it is different if the opponents want to claim that a grunt was actually an out call. This is a situation where the person actually was trying to make an out call and did make noise but changed their mind halfway through it and the opponents did hear the aborted call.

And absolutely it would be the same if you were pointing up and then changed your mind. Once you make the call then change your mind then the opponents are entitled to the point if they were aware of it.

To be clear on a few things from my example:

  • My partner made no signals with his hand or finger indicating in or out.
  • The utterance he made sounded kind of like an "uh..." followed by a quick step forward from the service line toward the net to play the next ball.
  • The serve was clearly in. The server knew it, his partner knew it, I knew it, my partner knew it. There was no doubt when I hit my return that the point was on, and there was no doubt or hesitation when the opponent cut across and tried to crush the volley.
  • Claiming that the aborted call/grunt was a hinderance after you've already decided to play the ball and subsequently missed your shot is weak at best, and poor sportsmanship at worst.
  • We were more than fair by playing a let. However, if we had followed the Code as it is written, the match was over and we won.
 

spot

Hall of Fame
The utterance he made sounded kind of like an "uh..."

I would absolutely give the point the opponents in that situation. If I said the "Uhhhh" part of Out then I would have to offer the other team the point. It doesn't matter that you got the return in- your team changed the call. If the server was that clearly in then your partner shouldn't have been tempted to call it out and he should be more careful in the future. I don't think that is an hindrance issue- I think that is your partner changing his mind on a call which 100% entitles the other team to the point and there is no provision for only doing so if play stops immediately.

Your partner admitted he made a sound to call the ball out. The other team heard the call. The other team is entitled to the point.
 

kylebarendrick

Professional
Spot - you are absolutely correct except for one thing. They didn't indicate any problem with the grunt until after they missed a volley and lost the point (and match). You simply don't get to wait until a point is over to say "gee, you hindered me three shots ago".
 

spot

Hall of Fame
Spot - you are absolutely correct except for one thing. They didn't indicate any problem with the grunt until after they missed a volley and lost the point (and match). You simply don't get to wait until a point is over to say "gee, you hindered me three shots ago".

Its not a hindrance- it is a changed call. He tried to change the call before he said anything but didn't manage it. Once the people ask if he called the serve out and the player admits that he was in the process of doing that but changed his mind then the point can be claimed by the team that is serving. Once you intentionally make a call to call it out but make a sound that could be interpreted as an out call then it is over. If you wish to lie and claim that you weren't calling the serve out or try and say that you didn't start to call it out then that is your choice.

On calls that are changed there is no provision for making only half a call or that the opponents need to say something immediately. If you call a serve long and the opponents hear you do so then they can claim the point. If you want to avoid this situation then wait until you see a serve out before you call a serve out.

Lets put it this another way. Lets say that you call a ball out quietly and your opponent couldn't tell whether you called it out or not. He swings away when the return gets to him but puts the ball right into the net. The ball is out and the other team gets a second serve- it does not matter that he played the point out because he wasn't sure what you called. You called it out and the point is over no matter what happens after. The point could go on for several shots by the other players on the court but it is absolutely irrelevant. If you call it out quietly or call it out but try to stop halfway through it doesn't matter- you called it out.
 
Last edited:

Jack the Hack

Hall of Fame
Spot,

As I stated before, my partner didn't call the ball out and then change it. He grunted a sound like "uh..." and then immediately moved forward when he saw the ball had landed in. ("Uh..." does not rhyme with "Out" in my part of the country.) Everyone on the court knew the ball was in and proceeded to play the point in good faith.

Under the Code and per common sense... how can our opponents make any claim to have actually won the point when they missed three shots later? Especially when everyone on the court knows that the serve was clearly in (unlike your example), and continued to play?

Here are the relevant portions of the Code that talk about this:

2. Counting points played in good faith. All points played in good faith stand. For example, if after losing a point, a player discovers that the net was four inches too high, the point stands. If a point is played from the wrong court, there is no replay.

[The point should have stood as resulted - a missed volley and our point -because everyone played on in good faith.]

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.

[My partner did not call the ball out and then correct it. He stopped himself from saying any word, and made no physical gestures with his hand indicating an out call. Furthermore, our opponents played on, and we won the point when they missed. However, under the spirit of this provision, this is why we played a let... which our opponents were not entitled to.]

18. Prompt calls eliminate two chance option. A player shall make all calls promptly after the ball has hit the court. A call shall be made either before the player’s return shot has gone out of play or before the opponent has had the opportunity to play the return shot. Prompt calls will quickly eliminate the “two chances to win the point” option that some players practice. To illustrate, a player is advancing to the net for an easy put away and sees a ball from an adjoining court rolling toward the court. The player continues to advance and hits the shot, only to have the supposed easy put away fly over the baseline. The player then claims a let. The claim is not valid because the player forfeited the right to call a let by choosing instead to play the ball. The player took a chance to win or lose and is not entitled to a second chance.

[If our opponents truly thought that my partner had called the serve out, then they should have stopped immediately and questioned it. By continuing to play, they acknowledged that the ball was in, and can't rightly claim the point three shots later when they miss.]

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.

[A hinderance is actually what our opponents were claiming. They were saying that the "uh" sound a couple shots earlier was the cause of them missing the volley. Since these did not happen simultaneously, there was no possible hinderance to claim.]

Bottom line, we had actually won the match right there, but were too nice and made a mistake by playing a let. However, I suppose that it was better to make an error on the side of sportsmanship... although, I still maintain that it's not sporting to try to claim a point after you know you've legitimately lost it.
 

spot

Hall of Fame
Under the Code and per common sense... how can our opponents make any claim to have actually won the point when they missed three shots later?

Because your partner thought hte ball was going out and made an auditory call that they heard. That is it- your partner called it out but changed his mind halfway through. He fully admitted this. The point should go to the opponents. If they wish to play a let they are being exceedingly generous. If your partner clearly knew the serve was in then he shouldn't have started to call it out.

My partner admitted that he had grunted when I hit my return, because he had initially thought the serve was going out... and started to call it, but it hit the line.

These are his words. Started to call it- made an audio call that your opponents heard. Point goes to your opponents. If he wishes not to lose points like that in the future then he should refrain from calling serves out before they hit the line. Or change his mind before saying something to call it out.

I just don't get where you are coming from at all. He thought it was going out. Your opponents are expecting that he may make a call. He said something to call it out that your opponents heard. It is flat out cheating to try and claim the point after that in my opinion. He started to call it out and the opponents heard it. Do you think that it would be different if he stopped 90% of the way through his call? 35%? There is no provision in the code for what percentage of the call needs to be made for it to count. He literally was calling it out and changed his mind after he started.

I also think its pretty ridiculous for you to try and say that the serve was obviously in when your partner thought it was going out and started to call it out.
 
Last edited:

dcdoorknob

Hall of Fame
I agree with Jack.

If the opponents want to claim the point, they better stop the point at the time. You can't play out the point, then go back if you happen to lose and then try to claim a hinderance 3 shots back. I can't think of any rule in tennis that allows this sort of thing, and this is no exception imo.

It's similar to when in the pros, if a player thinks a ball that was called in was actually out, they have to stop the point right then to challenge. If they don't stop right then, they don't get to claim the point even if the ball is proven to be out after the point is over. You don't get two bites at the apple (playing out a point, then going back and claiming the point based on something that happened mid-point that you chose to play through in the moment).
 
Last edited:

spot

Hall of Fame
How much of the call has to be made before it counts? What about things that are just ambiguous? My rule is simple. if you start to call it out and the opponents hear you then the point is theirs. Once they have to try and decide what you were saying then then they have already been affected.
 

dcdoorknob

Hall of Fame
How much of the call has to be made before it counts? What about things that are just ambiguous? My rule is simple. if you start to call it out and the opponents hear you then the point is theirs. Once they have to try and decide what you were saying then then they have already been affected.

Any portion of an out call could conceivably count, so long as the opponents don't continue playing the point. Nobody is saying that the opponents have no right to claim the point if they do so immediately.

Once they continue playing though, they don't get to claim the point anymore, their only way to win the point is to actually win it.

Take it to the extreme: Let's say a player makes a FULL call "OUT! NO I MEAN IN!" in the middle of the point. The opponents obviously can take the point right then and there, and it would be completely appropriate. However, if they choose to continue playing the point to it's completion, then they can't go back and take the point after the point ends if they lost it.
 
Last edited:

spot

Hall of Fame
Any portion of an out call could conceivably count, so long as the opponents don't continue playing the point. Nobody is saying that the opponents have no right to claim the point if they do so immediately.

Once they continue playing though, they don't get to claim the point anymore, their only way to win the point is to actually win it.

Take it to the extreme: Let's say a player makes a FULL call "OUT! NO I MEAN IN!" in the middle of the point. The opponents obviously can take the point right then and there, and it would be completely appropriate. However, if they choose to continue playing the point to it's completion, then they can't go back and take the point after the point ends if they lost it.

I think that this is the crux of the argument and you have it 100% incorrect. If you did all of that- they hit the next shot and put it in the net then they would unquestionably still win the point. Once you call it out the point is done. Once you change your mind on a call the other team wins the point.

Look at it from a first serve position. You are at the net and make a quiet call that no one else hears. The point is played out by the other members on teh court who are unaware of your call. No matter what else happens on the court- that call stands and it would be a second serve. Once the call is made then nothing else matters.
 

dcdoorknob

Hall of Fame
I think that this is the crux of the argument and you have it 100% incorrect. If you did all of that- they hit the next shot and put it in the net then they would unquestionably still win the point. Once you call it out the point is done. Once you change your mind on a call the other team wins the point.

Look at it from a first serve position. You are at the net and make a quiet call that no one else hears. The point is played out by the other members on teh court who are unaware of your call. No matter what else happens on the court- that call stands and it would be a second serve. Once the call is made then nothing else matters.

That's fine, but you're the one that's wrong according to the rules as I understand them though.
 

spot

Hall of Fame
That's fine, but you're the one that's wrong according to the rules as I understand them though.

How do you figure that by the rules you are allowed to change your mind on a call without losing the point? The rules are explicitly clear that changing your call makes you lose the point. It doesn't matter whether you get the shot back in- the point is over.
 

schmke

Legend
This one is tough. The receiving team will say no call was made, so there is no call to change. The receivers partner thought it was going out and began to make a noise but never made an out call. If the servers were hindered by the noise, calling a hinderance is the proper call but that would have to be done immediately and not after the servers missed a shot.

The servers will argue that the noise was an implied out call given the timing of it and so it is a call change and they should win the point.

So a key question is what exactly the noise was and was the timing/volume/sound made genuinely interpretable as an out call? Key to this will be how out calls were being made throughout the match and if what was heard was consistent with this.

Note that the returners could argue that even if the servers interpreted the noise as an out call, they are responsible to stop play immediately to claim the point rather than complete it and have 2 chances at winning the point.
 

spot

Hall of Fame
This one is tough. The receiving team will say no call was made, so there is no call to change.

In this situation the receiving team explicitly said that they started to call it out and changed their mind on the call. That changes everything. Once they actually speak to call it out and the receiving team hears it then the point is over. It is not up to the serving team to determine what percentage of the out call was actually said.

I completely agree that if they said they were trying to say something else other than an out call that hindrance would need to be called. But once a team admits they were calling it out and the other team heard it hten the point is over.
 

dcdoorknob

Hall of Fame
How do you figure that by the rules you are allowed to change your mind on a call without losing the point? The rules are explicitly clear that changing your call makes you lose the point. It doesn't matter whether you get the shot back in- the point is over.

The rules are also very clear that if you claim a point based on any type of actions by the opponent, you have to do it right then and not after you try to continue to play out the point.

The opponents have the right to claim the point, but they have to do it right then and not later.

The rules also state that a player loses the point when they hit the ball out, but in a pro match with line judges, if a player thinks their opponent hits the ball out but it is called in, they have to stop the point right then to challenge. If they continue to play the point and lose it, then they lose the point even if after the point it is shown that the questionable ball was indeed out. The player who hit the ball out wins the point because the opponent didn't stop the point when he believed he should have been entitled to the point. It's the same principle here. You either stop the point right when the infraction occurs or you give up your right to claim the point based on that infraction.
 

spot

Hall of Fame
The rules are also very clear that if you claim a point based on any type of actions by the opponent, you have to do it right then and not after you try to continue to play out the point.

Not about calling it out. Once you call it out the point is over no matter what else happens. Again- if you call out a first serve and no one else hears you and plays the point out in good faith- it doesn't matter what team wins the point because the point has been called over and it would be a second serve. Once a point is called out there is nothing in the rules that lets you change your mind- the point is over.
 

Sup2Dresq

Hall of Fame
I once played a guy in the mid-atlantic section who instead of grunting while he hit would say his shot selection (example: slice.. slice.. ).
 

dcdoorknob

Hall of Fame
Not about calling it out. Once you call it out the point is over no matter what else happens. Again- if you call out a first serve and no one else hears you and plays the point out in good faith- it doesn't matter what team wins the point because the point has been called over and it would be a second serve. Once a point is called out there is nothing in the rules that lets you change your mind- the point is over.

We're going in circles. I still think you're wrong. You still think I'm wrong. Maybe Woodrow (former ATP chair umpire) will show up and clarify things. If not, oh well.

There is no disagreement as long as the opponent stops play immediately though. Which would be the natural thing to do if the point is over anyways.
 
Last edited:

JRstriker12

Hall of Fame
Not about calling it out. Once you call it out the point is over no matter what else happens. Again- if you call out a first serve and no one else hears you and plays the point out in good faith- it doesn't matter what team wins the point because the point has been called over and it would be a second serve. Once a point is called out there is nothing in the rules that lets you change your mind- the point is over.

FYI - http://assets.usta.com/assets/1/15/2013_Friend_at_Court.pdf

From the code- section 17:

Prompt calls eliminate two chance option. A player shall make all calls
promptly after a ball has hitthe court.Acall shall bemade either before the player’s return shot has gone out of play or before an opponent has had an opportunity to play the return shot.

Prompt calls will quickly eliminate the “two chances to win the point”
option that some players practice. To illustrate, a player is advancing to the net for an easy put away and sees a ball from an adjoining court rolling toward the court. The player continues to advance and hits the shot, only to have the supposed easy put away fly over the baseline. The player then claims a let. The claim is not valid because the player forfeited the right to call a let by choosing instead to play the ball. The player took a chance to win or lose and is not entitled to a second chance.


If the player who called the ball out continues to play the point after the out call, he or she can't later claim the earlier out call if they lose the point. The player needs to make the call and stop play immediately.
 

spot

Hall of Fame
OK... I'll just to back to this quote from the USTA when they made the rule change that changing a call from out to good means that the team that changes the call loses the point. Nothing about changing the call if only part of "No" got spoken. It explicitly says that it is a hindrance.

However starting in 2011, the USTA Tennis Rules and Regulations Committee has determined that any call on a serve or in a rally corrected from out to good is loss of point to the player or team that corrected the call, even if the ball is put back into play. An out call on any ball (on a serve or in a rally) that is corrected to good is considered to have created a hindrance to play and it is loss of point due to this hindrance.

I just don't see how anyone could think that starting to call a ball out and changing your mind does not constitute correcting the call. They were making a call and changed their mind.
 

dcdoorknob

Hall of Fame
Right, it is considered a hindrance, as your cited rule states. The opponent has the right to stop play and claim the point once this happens.

But you still have to call a hindrance as the opponent as soon as it happens. You can't play out the rest of the point and then call the hindrance retroactively if you lose the point. That's the entire argument.
 

Cindysphinx

G.O.A.T.
I just don't see how anyone could think that starting to call a ball out and changing your mind does not constitute correcting the call. They were making a call and changed their mind.

The problem we are having here is that calling balls out (or making no call because it was in) is not a continuum. There is no such thing as an "almost decided to call it out" call. You are either calling it out or you are not. It is one or the other.

If a player makes an exclamation that is not a clear audible/visual, intentional "out" call, then there has been no call. Instead what we have is an exclamation.

If a player makes an exclamation that hinders the opponent, then the proper rule to apply is the Hindrance Rule. This means the opponents must stop play and claim the point if they were actually hindered, or keep playing and take their chances.

The opponents may stop and say, "Did you call that out?" If the answer is "Yes, but I changed my mind," then it is point to the opponents. If the answer is "No, I just made a sound," then the reply should be, "Your sound sounded like an out call, and that is why we stopped playing. We were hindered, so we are claiming the point." Or offer a let if you are feeling generous.

That's my opinion, ITAOW (In The Absence Of Woodrow).
 

spot

Hall of Fame
Right, it is considered a hindrance, as your cited rule states. The opponent has the right to stop play and claim the point once this happens.

But you still have to call a hindrance as the opponent as soon as it happens. You can't play out the rest of the point and then call the hindrance retroactively if you lose the point. That's the entire argument.

That isn't what they said.

An out call on any ball (on a serve or in a rally) that is corrected to good is considered to have created a hindrance to play and it is loss of point due to this hindrance.

Loss of point. Not loss of point if the hindrance is called in a timely fashion. I just think it is ridiculous that people here are falling back to the hindrdance rule when 99% of players have never called hindrance in their lives for something that happens regularly. The rules simply don't allow you to change your mind once you speak up to call something out.

Cindy- I fully agree that in other situations that a hindrance would actually ahve to be called. But in this situation the person admitted they were calling the ball out. Once you start calling the ball out then the ball has been called out if the opponent hears you. Once again- if you don't think this then let me know what would take?

No is final? Naaaah is playable? Ouuuuuu? Ahhhh? For me it is absolutely simple- If you speak up to call it out and the other team hears you then the right thing under the code is to admit that you were calling it out, concede the point, and be more careful about calling lines the next time.
 
Last edited:

dcdoorknob

Hall of Fame
You're surprised that people are using the hindrance rule when the rule you yourself quoted says that it "is considered to have created a hindrance to play"?

Really?

Ok, I'm done. Have a nice day.
 

Jack the Hack

Hall of Fame
The problem we are having here is that calling balls out (or making no call because it was in) is not a continuum. There is no such thing as an "almost decided to call it out" call. You are either calling it out or you are not. It is one or the other.

If a player makes an exclamation that is not a clear audible/visual, intentional "out" call, then there has been no call. Instead what we have is an exclamation.

If a player makes an exclamation that hinders the opponent, then the proper rule to apply is the Hindrance Rule. This means the opponents must stop play and claim the point if they were actually hindered, or keep playing and take their chances.

The opponents may stop and say, "Did you call that out?" If the answer is "Yes, but I changed my mind," then it is point to the opponents. If the answer is "No, I just made a sound," then the reply should be, "Your sound sounded like an out call, and that is why we stopped playing. We were hindered, so we are claiming the point." Or offer a let if you are feeling generous.

That's my opinion, ITAOW (In The Absence Of Woodrow).

Cindy, you are spot on!

Spot, well... you are spot off. :)
 

Cindysphinx

G.O.A.T.
Cindy- I fully agree that in other situations that a hindrance would actually ahve to be called. But in this situation the person admitted they were calling the ball out. Once you start calling the ball out then the ball has been called out if the opponent hears you. Once again- if you don't think this then let me know what would take?

What does it mean to "Start calling the ball out"? I say there is no such thing. Either you call a ball out by lifting a finger or saying "Out" or "No" with intent to call it out, or you do not.

Now. Let's imagine that you are calling the service line and you get halfway through the process of calling a ball out. For instance, you make an utterance ("Ooooouu") or lift your non-dominant hand but not raising your finger. In your head, you are thinking, "That ball is out. Wait, no, it clipped the back of the line."

In that instance, you need not surrender the point for changing your mind. The reason is that *you did not make an out call at all.* That you planned to make an out call but changed your mind in the nick of time does not require you to give the point to your opponent.

As I said, you would still have a problem with hindrance if the opponents thought your sound or gesture was an out call.

No is final? Naaaah is playable? Ouuuuuu? Ahhhh? For me it is absolutely simple- If you speak up to call it out and the other team hears you then the right thing under the code is to admit that you were calling it out, concede the point, and be more careful about calling lines the next time.

You should "admit you were calling it out?" That is not what the Code says. The Code says, "A player who calls a ball out shall reverse the call if the
player becomes uncertain or realizes that the ball was good."

That means you must make an actual call. Not only that, the Code seems to cover situations where the reversal happens after the call, not uncertainty over whether to make a call at all.

So. If you make an audible or visual out call and then reverse it, point to opponent. If you made a sound or started to gesture but changed your mind, you can hope like heck that the opponents didn't hear you. If they did hear you and stop playing, you hindered them and it is point to opponent. If they did not hear you or decided to keep playing, game on.

I think all of this makes perfect sense. I have played matches where an opponent made a sound or took one hand off the racket to make a call but thought better of it. The onus was on me to decide whether they were making a call. Usually, I just play on, which means I wasn't hindered. They didn't make a call, I wasn't hindered, play on.

What has never happened is the opponent starts waving her hands and says, "I was starting to call that ball out but I decided not to call it out, so you can have the point."
 

spot

Hall of Fame
What has never happened is the opponent starts waving her hands and says, "I was starting to call that ball out but I decided not to call it out, so you can have the point."

I have done that. I started to call a ball out. Got through the "Ouuuu" of Out and because I was changing a call after I had already spoken up then the point went to the other team even though my partner got the return back in play. I think it would be cheating to not to do so since I didn't change my mind before saying something. Once the other team has to determine whether I was going to finish the call that I started then they have clearly been affected and they deserve the point because it was my fault for starting to call it out before it actually was out.

Seriously... I can't understand how you think that the other team wouldn't be affected by someone trying to call the ball out and stopping halfway through. They specifically wrote a rule to give the other team the point when you change your mind after making a call.

Again- if someone calls a first serve out quietly and no one is sure whether it was an out call or not then it doesn't matter if the rest of the point is played out in good faith or who wins the point- If they admit that they were calling it out then nothing else matters and it would be a second serve. If they admit that the serve was in and they called it out then the point would go to the serving team.
 
Last edited:

Cindysphinx

G.O.A.T.
I have done that. I started to call a ball out. Got through the "Ouuuu" of Out and because I was changing a call after I had already spoken up then the point went to the other team. I think it would be cheating to not do so. Once the other team has to determine whether I was going to finish the call that I started then they have clearly been affected and they deserve the point because it was my fault for starting to call it out before it actually was out.

If you made an out call, then you did the right thing.
 

Cindysphinx

G.O.A.T.
Seriously... I can't understand how you think that the other team wouldn't be affected by someone trying to call the ball out and stopping halfway through. They specifically wrote a rule to give the other team the point when you change your mind after making a call.

You are missing the point.

The issue is whether a halfway, unclear, incomplete call is a call. I say it is not, which is why the "change your mind" rule does not apply at all.

They also wrote a rule saying that you cannot hinder your opponent and must surrender the point if your utterance, gesture etc. actually hinders them. That rule is on point. You admit as much when you talk about how the other team is affected by the incomplete call. The issue is one of hindrance.
 

spot

Hall of Fame
If you made an out call, then you did the right thing.

I made half a call that I knew was ambiguous and I knew that it was unfair to the other team. It was my mistake- just like it was the mistake of the net person for the situation we are talking about. My opponents should not be disadvantaged by my mistake... obviously they deserve the point. It doesn't matter what percentage of the Out call or the No call I got through. I started to make the call- they heard the call. They shouldn't have to wait to see whether I am going to finish the call before they believe I am calling it out.

And again- it is different for situations where you are saying one thing that they might interpret as calling it out. THis is someone TRYING to call it out and stopping after they have already spoken.
 
Last edited:

schmke

Legend
I made half a call that I knew was ambiguous and I knew that it was unfair to the other team. It was my mistake- just like it was the mistake of the net person for the situation we are talking about. My opponents should not be disadvantaged by my mistake... obviously they deserve the point. It doesn't matter what percentage of the Out call or the No call I got through. I started to make the call- they heard the call. They shouldn't have to wait to see whether I am going to finish the call before they think I am calling it out.

You are making assumptions that they heard your half a call and that if affected them. If you choose to give up points because you assume things like this, that is your right. But the rulebook does not ask or expect you to assume that a sound you make is both heard and then interpreted as a call or hinders the opponent in any way. It is up to the opponent to acknowledge that they heard it and it hindered them and then it is their point.

I don't think we are arguing that the opponent isn't entitled to the point, we are debating the reason, which I and others believe is the hinderance rule, not the change your call rule.

But of course, if you know (not assume) that your sound was enough of a call that was consistent with how you've been making calls all day so that it actually constitutes making a call (not thinking about it or intending to or some nearly inaudible start of a strange sound), then you would be right, you actually changed your call in this case because you made a call.
 

spot

Hall of Fame
But of course, if you know (not assume) that your sound was enough of a call that was consistent with how you've been making calls all day so that it actually constitutes making a call (not thinking about it or intending to or some nearly inaudible start of a strange sound)

I know what I said was loud enough to hear. I know that what I intended to do was call it out so any noise that they heard would be 100% Compatible with an out call because that is the call I intended to make. It would be cheating to not give them the point after I changed my mind and changed the call. And the only remedy I needed was to make sure of an out call before I called it out which is what people are supposed to do anyway so I really don't see the downside of interpreting the rule this way.

I guess to me the benefit of the doubt should go to the team doing nothing wrong and the disadvantage should go to the team that caused the problem by starting an incorrect call and stopping it halfway through.

I am genuinely curious how far the call would have to go before you think that it would count even if the other team didn't call hindrance. If someone said "Out! Never mind- IN!" but the other team put the ball in the net in confusion do you really think that the point was played in good faith so the opposing team would lose the point?
 
Last edited:

schmke

Legend
I am genuinely curious how far the call would have to go before you think that it would count even if the other team didn't call hindrance. If someone said "Out! Never mind- IN!" but the other team put the ball in the net in confusion do you really think that the point was played in good faith so the opposing team would lose the point?

No, that is clearly an out call! No debate there. And yes, I guess we are debating at what point the line is crossed from "thinking" out to "calling" out. To me, a barely audible "oof" isn't an out call. If the other team does hear it and is distracted, that is a hinderance. If it is a louder "Ouuuuuuuu" that fades and is accompanied by any sort of hand signal, that is an out call being changed.
 

spot

Hall of Fame
No, that is clearly an out call! No debate there. And yes, I guess we are debating at what point the line is crossed from "thinking" out to "calling" out. To me, a barely audible "oof" isn't an out call. If the other team does hear it and is distracted, that is a hinderance. If it is a louder "Ouuuuuuuu" that fades and is accompanied by any sort of hand signal, that is an out call being changed.

So "Ouuuuuuu" that fades and is not accompanied by a hand signal isn't an out call? "Noooooo" that does fade away would be a definitive out call? "Naaaaaa" would mean that it is OK to play on? To me the line is very clear- if you intend to call something out and they hear you then it doesn't matter if you stop partway through- the call was made and you should concede the point. ONce the other team has to try and guess whether it was an out call or not they have already been affected. I really don't see the downside of interpreting the rules this way. If people wait until they are sure to make a call then this is a non-issue and I don't think the rules should be interpreted to give people more ability to start to call lines before they are sure.
 

schmke

Legend
if you intend to call something out and they hear you then it doesn't matter if you stop partway through

Exactly, no argument here. The key point is they have to hear you and they have to tell you that. They do that by stopping the point and claiming a hinderance. They can't try to win the point by playing it and then if they don't, go back and have a second shot at winning the point through hinderance too.

For example, say this is a first serve. They continue the point, the return is a sitter waiting to be put away, but they miss it. They clearly weren't going to go with an out call because they were going to win the point and an out call would result in a second serve that perhaps would put them at a disadvantage. Only when they miss do they suddenly decide they heard something. This is the two bites at the apple the rules specifically speak to.

And no, I'm not going to go all technical on them and say they were playing the point if the returner returns the serve and the serving team catches it on their racquet or hits the volley out into a corner or into the net to get the ball out of the way. As long as they are indicating they heard an out call or were hindered immediately even as they are hitting the ball that's fine with me.

If people wait until they are sure to make a call then this is a non-issue

Completely agree with this too.
 

Cindysphinx

G.O.A.T.
There is a difference between "changing your call" and "changing your mind about making a call."

Once you understand that, the rest is easy.
 

Cindysphinx

G.O.A.T.
They can't try to win the point by playing it and then if they don't, go back and have a second shot at winning the point through hinderance too.

Exactly.

Imagine this. First serve. Returner's partner (who normally makes clear audible calls) thinks it is going long and says "Ooouu." Decides it was in and so doesn't finish his call.

Serving team hears the sound. They see the returner take a cut at the ball and return it. Server volleys the return and keeps coming in. Both teams continue playing 10 shots in the point that ends on the returner hitting an overhead winner.

The serving team turns to the returner's partner and says, "Did you call that serve out?"

Returner's partner says, "I thought it was going out so I started to call it, but it was in so I decided not to call it out."

Server then says, "Well, you changed your mind so that's our point. It's 15-love."

Doesn't that feel wrong? Do we really want people cross-examining other people at the conclusion of long points about whether the serve was in?
 

spot

Hall of Fame
Doesn't that feel wrong? Do we really want people cross-examining other people at the conclusion of long points about whether the serve was in?

In what world does that feel wrong? How is that any more wrong than asking someone if they called a let or if they called a serve back when it isn't clear? THe person admits that they were calling it long. Point is over.
 

spot

Hall of Fame
There aren't 2 bites of the apple once one team calls a ball out. The point is over and nothing else matters. The rules of tennis do not allow you to change your mind on a call whether it is while you are calling a ball out or after.

I can't understand how anyone would think this is unfair to the person who called a ball out before it hit the line.
 
Last edited:

corbind

Professional
Had a recent twist on this in a 4.5 USTA match. Opponent says to us between points - "If you guys talk during the point again I'm going to call a let..."

We had no idea what he was talking about, because we didn't say anything! It is an indoor facility and there is noise from the viewing balcony, so maybe that was it. OK, whatever, move on.

Then later in the set my partner put up a short lob, said "BACK" and the guy put the overhead away. I jokingly told him I wanted a let because my partner talked.

After the match I got email from the opponent's partner apologizing that his partner was such a dick.

:shock::shock::shock:
 

storypeddler

Semi-Pro
There aren't 2 bites of the apple once one team calls a ball out. The point is over and nothing else matters. The rules of tennis do not allow you to change your mind on a call whether it is while you are calling a ball out or after.

I can't understand how anyone would think this is unfair to the person who called a ball out before it hit the line.

Well, clearly a team couldn't continue playing the point for several more shots as Cindy described and then, after losing the point, go back and claim it based on what they thought they heard a half dozen shots ago. If you begin to make an out call and utter part of it before catching yourself, but what you did verbalize hinders your opponent, then that opponent has every right to stop play and claim a hindrance. You can debate all night about whether it constitutes a hindrance or not---but the opponent cannot keep playing the point and then complain only after losing the point. That would be the same as playing an out serve and when your opponent returns your return for a winner, you argue that the serve was out so the point he just won doesn't count after all. Can't be done. You call it out or you play it, but you can't have it both ways. Same thing here. You don't get two chances at the point.
 

roman40

Rookie
Exactly.

Imagine this. First serve. Returner's partner (who normally makes clear audible calls) thinks it is going long and says "Ooouu." Decides it was in and so doesn't finish his call.

Serving team hears the sound. They see the returner take a cut at the ball and return it. Server volleys the return and keeps coming in. Both teams continue playing 10 shots in the point that ends on the returner hitting an overhead winner.

The serving team turns to the returner's partner and says, "Did you call that serve out?"

Returner's partner says, "I thought it was going out so I started to call it, but it was in so I decided not to call it out."

Server then says, "Well, you changed your mind so that's our point. It's 15-love."

Doesn't that feel wrong? Do we really want people cross-examining other people at the conclusion of long points about whether the serve was in?
If you continued to play the point, it doesn't matter what you've heard, you've surrendered your right to call hindrance. If you think there was a hindrance, you've got to call it immediately, or at least right after you hit the ball.
 
Top