Missed First Serve - What's The Rule?

[Cindysphinx]

I was playing a doubles match. Ten point Coman. I was serving at 0-1. I missed my first serve into the net.

I thought the ball was going to stay near the side curtain, but my partner saw it rolling back toward the court and thought it should be cleared. She went to clear it as I started my second serve. (I learned later that she said "Wait" but the bubbles are loud and I did not hear her). The opponent return the serve to me, but I didn't play it because my partner called a let when my serve bounced.

We discussed this at the net. Opponents' took the position that my serving the ball meant we were ready so the serve counts and we lose the point. I thought I should replay my second serve because a ball rolling onto the court during the service motion means you replay the serve. My understanding of the "readiness" rule is that the receiver cannot become unready once she has taken her ready position absent outside interference, but here the issue was not the receiver.

My partner and I conceded the point. I thought my opponents were wrong to take the point -- this sort of thing happens *all the time* in doubles, and people just play the serve over. I was sufficiently fired up about it that my partner and I buckled down and won the tiebreak. So no harm done, I guess.

Still. What is the rule, exactly? I have allowed the server to replay the interrupted serve countless times over the years in this situation. Am I being a sucker, and should I start insisting that the point is mine?

 

[Startzel]

You can't hit a second serve while the ball is still rolling.

 

[Cindysphinx]

You can't hit a second serve while the ball is still rolling.

Yes, but what happens if you do?

 

[S&V-not_dead_yet]

I thought the receiving team could claim they weren't ready [either player] but the serving team could not because it's the serving team that starts the point. For example, I can't imagine a server missing a serve and then claiming he/she wasn't ready. By extension, if the server serves when the partner is not ready, that's the fault of the server for not noticing. For example, I've observed numerous times when the server nets the first serve and, while his partner is clearing the ball, he serves his 2nd. Neither server nor partner can claim a replay even though the partner clearly wasn't ready because the server wasn't playing attention.

Then again, if I start my service motion and my partner gets attacked by a suicidal bee, I would expect we could restart the point.

You didn't mention whether your opponents saw the ball rolling onto the court.

Now, I understand you aren't guilty of this based on your character and description of this particular scenario. I think the "reasonable man" argument would call for a replay but technically I think your opponents were correct. I'm always about safety first and that includes my opponents.

 

[S&V-not_dead_yet]

You can't hit a second serve while the ball is still rolling.

Where in the rules does it state that?

From a practical standpoint, I don't care if the ball is rolling as long as it's rolling away from the court without much chance of bouncing off of something and coming back towards the court. Most everyone I know follows this rule of thumb.

And assuming your interpretation is correct, what if someone does hit a 2nd serve while the first ball is still rolling? Loss of point? Replay 2nd serve?

 

[Fedinkum]

In your circumstances, it seems all the faults were by your team. You served while your served ball was rolling, your partner interrupted play by the 2nd call (which I think the point should be awarded to the receivedr right there), and out of all these interruption, the receiver still made a good return. Seems pretty rough on the receiver to replay a point that they won fair and square.

 

[JBH]

If the extra ball was already in the area of play, you would loose the point under rule 26 case 4.
If the ball entered the area of play while the point is in play, the let call is correct as a hindrance and the point is replayed.

 

[Cindysphinx]

I thought the receiving team could claim they weren't ready [either player] but the serving team could not because it's the serving team that starts the point. For example, I can't imagine a server missing a serve and then claiming he/she wasn't ready. By extension, if the server serves when the partner is not ready, that's the fault of the server for not noticing. For example, I've observed numerous times when the server nets the first serve and, while his partner is clearing the ball, he serves his 2nd. Neither server nor partner can claim a replay even though the partner clearly wasn't ready because the server wasn't playing attention.

Then again, if I start my service motion and my partner gets attacked by a suicidal bee, I would expect we could restart the point.

You didn't mention whether your opponents saw the ball rolling onto the court.

Now, I understand you aren't guilty of this based on your character and description of this particular scenario. I think the "reasonable man" argument would call for a replay but technically I think your opponents were correct. I'm always about safety first and that includes my opponents.

Receiver's partner saw it rolling. Receiver did not.

I agree that we lose if the correct analysis is "readiness."

My feeling is that this situation is not governed by the "readiness" rule. My feeling is that it is governed by the "ball rolling onto the court while server is in service motion" rule. Any player can stop play for it if it is threatening to enter the field of play. I could have struck my serve and then shouted let for the ball rolling onto the court, assuming I made the call promptly. True?

 

[Booger]

lol ladies casual doubles getting real serious. It is their point, but 95% of the time you will be granted another 2nd serve. The other 5%, well, this world is full of people and not all of them are good sports.

Reminds me of a guy I know who always takes the point whenever his opponent catches his way, way long shots in the air before they bounce 8 feet beyond the baseline.

 

[S&V-not_dead_yet]

Receiver's partner saw it rolling. Receiver did not.

You said in your OP that your partner saw it rolling, not the receiver's partner.

I agree that we lose if the correct analysis is "readiness."

My feeling is that this situation is not governed by the "readiness" rule. My feeling is that it is governed by the "ball rolling onto the court while server is in service motion" rule. Any player can stop play for it if it is threatening to enter the field of play. I could have struck my serve and then shouted let for the ball rolling onto the court, assuming I made the call promptly. True?

I would tend to agree. Again, I tend to favor safety over winning a point.

 

[Cindysphinx]

If the extra ball was already in the area of play, you would loose the point under rule 26 case 4.
If the ball entered the area of play while the point is in play, the let call is correct as a hindrance and the point is replayed.

I think it was the latter.

Still, are you sure you have the correct rule? The Code says:

"30. Delays during service. When the server’s second service motion is interrupted by a ball coming onto the court, the server is entitled to two serves. When there is a delay between the first and second serves: • The server gets one serve if the server was the cause of the delay; • The server gets two serves if the delay was caused by the receiver or if there was outside interference. The time it takes to clear a ball that comes onto the court between the first and second serves is not considered sufficient time to warrant the server receiving two serves unless this time is so prolonged as to constitute an interruption. The receiver is the judge of whether the delay is sufficiently prolonged to justify giving the server two serves."

Does the italics part apply?

 

[Cindysphinx]

You said in your OP that your partner saw it rolling, not the receiver's partner.

Did I? During our discussion at net, the receiver was bewildered (hadn't seen the ball at all but had seen my partner scurrying over to alley to pick it up. Receiver's partner saw what was going on.

 

[S&V-not_dead_yet]

lol ladies casual doubles getting real serious.

Does that mean one has to be A) male; or B) playing at NTRP >= x to be allowed to ask such a question? I think it's a valid question, gender and NTRP notwithstanding.

Reminds me of a guy I know who always takes the point whenever his opponent catches his way, way long shots in the air before they bounce 8 feet beyond the baseline.

Does this guy have a hard time finding playing partners?

It would be poetic justice if the same opponent could call him for foot faulting [assuming he actually did FF]. Or penalize him for sitting down after the first game of a set. Or taking more than 24 [?] seconds between points. Or...

 

[JBH]

Receiver's partner saw it rolling. Receiver did not.

I agree that we lose if the correct analysis is "readiness."

My feeling is that this situation is not governed by the "readiness" rule. My feeling is that it is governed by the "ball rolling onto the court while server is in service motion" rule. Any player can stop play for it if it is threatening to enter the field of play. I could have struck my serve and then shouted let for the ball rolling onto the court, assuming I made the call promptly. True?

Yes, but neither you nor the receiver did so and continued play. It is then the responsibility of either your or receiver's partner to effectively communicate the presence of the other ball. If that was not done, then the situation is the same as an object already being in the area of play.
You need to answer that for yourself, but that's the indication in your original post "later I learned she said wait".

 

[S&V-not_dead_yet]

In your circumstances, it seems all the faults were by your team. You served while your served ball was rolling,

But she thought it was going to be OK but her partner disagreed.

your partner interrupted play by the 2nd call (which I think the point should be awarded to the receivedr right there),

It's OK to interrupt play if there is a ball rolling onto the court, isn't it? Even if the ball is from one's own court.

and out of all these interruption, the receiver still made a good return.

Which is irrelevant if play had been halted by the server's partner clearing a ball.

Seems pretty rough on the receiver to replay a point that they won fair and square.

If play had been halted, the receiver hasn't won the point yet. I guess Cindy could have just kept playing and told her partner to get her butt back onto the court but then she could have been called for a hindrance.

I think it's one of those "in between" scenarios that most people would resolve by replaying the point. Cindy's opponents clearly aren't most people so live and learn. Maybe there will come a time when Cindy's team can claim a point based on such a technicality: then we'll see how the opponents react. If they get indignant, just remind them of the original scenario.

 

[S&V-not_dead_yet]

Did I? During our discussion at net, the receiver was bewildered (hadn't seen the ball at all but had seen my partner scurrying over to alley to pick it up. Receiver's partner saw what was going on.

The receiver's partner saw the ball rolling onto the court and still wanted to claim the point? Sounds bush league to me.

 

[JBH]

lol ladies casual doubles getting real serious. It is their point, but 95% of the time you will be granted another 2nd serve. The other 5%, well, this world is full of people and not all of them are good sports.

Reminds me of a guy I know who always takes the point whenever his opponent catches his way, way long shots in the air before they bounce 8 feet beyond the baseline.

Just to be a hard cass since it's late.

In the first case, the point is replayed, so it is first serve rather than second.

In the second case, the rule states that if the ball is caught before bouncing, the player who catches the ball looses the point. That's to eliminate any ambiguity over the player visibly blocking the line position. Just don't catch it like the rule says perhaps.

 

[floydcouncil]

I was playing a doubles match. Ten point Coman. I was serving at 0-1. I missed my first serve into the net.

I thought the ball was going to stay near the side curtain, but my partner saw it rolling back toward the court and thought it should be cleared. She went to clear it as I started my second serve. (I learned later that she said "Wait" but the bubbles are loud and I did not hear her). The opponent return the serve to me, but I didn't play it because my partner called a let when my serve bounced.

We discussed this at the net. Opponents' took the position that my serving the ball meant we were ready so the serve counts and we lose the point. I thought I should replay my second serve because a ball rolling onto the court during the service motion means you replay the serve. My understanding of the "readiness" rule is that the receiver cannot become unready once she has taken her ready position absent outside interference, but here the issue was not the receiver.

My partner and I conceded the point. I thought my opponents were wrong to take the point -- this sort of thing happens *all the time* in doubles, and people just play the serve over. I was sufficiently fired up about it that my partner and I buckled down and won the tiebreak. So no harm done, I guess.

Still. What is the rule, exactly? I have allowed the server to replay the interrupted serve countless times over the years in this situation. Am I being a sucker, and should I start insisting that the point is mine?

So your partner called a "let"? For what?

 

[Cindysphinx]

The funny thing is that I suspect they would have wanted a let if returner had netted the return.

Wouldn't that have been rich? They net the return, (claiming my partner clearing the ball was a distraction) and I claim the point. They would still be howling about it.

 

[Cindysphinx]

So your partner called a "let"? For what?

For a ball rolling on/toward the court when the server was in her service motion. I guess.

 

[tennis tom]

...I thought the ball was going to stay near the side curtain, but my partner saw it rolling back toward the court and thought it should be cleared. She went to clear it as I started my second serve. (I learned later that she said "Wait" but the bubbles are loud and I did not hear her).

You should have waited to serve until the ball had safely stopped rolling. I see this all the time in rec tennis, players are so hyped up they don't have the patience to wait until the ball is safely cleared. This is also a big reason why balls are "lost", interrupting play on adjacent courts, asking them if they have your ball. Players don't bother tracking where the ball has wound up between serves and points: under a bench, into a bag (on the bench), up into a windscreen, in the padding around a light pole, etc., etc., .

I know as the server you're supposed to be watching the ball on the toss, but I would think that your peripheral vision would encompass that your partner was out of place after your serve. You gave your opponent's the opportunity to have two bites of the pie by not waiting to make sure your still rolling ball was properly cleared out of harm's way.

The rule you cited applies to a ball coming from another court, not your own serve. Have a discussion with your partner about shouting "WAIT" louder since you're playing in a bubble and it's hard to hear--maybe using a small megaphone. I'm sure she assumed you were watching out for her, while she scurried to clear the ball. Also, many players stand, wait and watch the a rolling ball that has the potential to come back; if they would jump on it right away it would take-up less time in the long run. Bottom line, playing indoors with curtains is not like playing outdoors with steel fencing. Curtains bottoms are always getting curled up changing their configuration allowing the ball to roll back onto the court.

Does anyone want to bet on how many pages this thread will go? I'm saying at least three. Cindy should wear a Hero cam while playing to accurately convey what happened. A picture tells a thousand words--at a discussion board it all becomes, "she said, she said".

 

[newpball]

I was playing a doubles match. Ten point Coman. I was serving at 0-1. I missed my first serve into the net.

I thought the ball was going to stay near the side curtain, but my partner saw it rolling back toward the court and thought it should be cleared. She went to clear it as I started my second serve. (I learned later that she said "Wait" but the bubbles are loud and I did not hear her). The opponent return the serve to me, but I didn't play it because my partner called a let when my serve bounced.

We discussed this at the net. Opponents' took the position that my serving the ball meant we were ready so the serve counts and we lose the point. I thought I should replay my second serve because a ball rolling onto the court during the service motion means you replay the serve. My understanding of the "readiness" rule is that the receiver cannot become unready once she has taken her ready position absent outside interference, but here the issue was not the receiver.

My partner and I conceded the point. I thought my opponents were wrong to take the point -- this sort of thing happens *all the time* in doubles, and people just play the serve over. I was sufficiently fired up about it that my partner and I buckled down and won the tiebreak. So no harm done, I guess.

Still. What is the rule, exactly? I have allowed the server to replay the interrupted serve countless times over the years in this situation. Am I being a sucker, and should I start insisting that the point is mine?

First of all I would like to applaud you and the players involved for immediately stopping the game and starting a good thorough discussion about this situation!
There is no point in wasting time playing some game of tennis when you can have a good discussion about rules, codes and situations!

 

[blakesq]

You need to be sure your partner is ready when you are serving. If she is not ready, that is your fault and you lose the point.

I was playing a doubles match. Ten point Coman. I was serving at 0-1. I missed my first serve into the net.

I thought the ball was going to stay near the side curtain, but my partner saw it rolling back toward the court and thought it should be cleared. She went to clear it as I started my second serve. (I learned later that she said "Wait" but the bubbles are loud and I did not hear her). The opponent return the serve to me, but I didn't play it because my partner called a let when my serve bounced.

We discussed this at the net. Opponents' took the position that my serving the ball meant we were ready so the serve counts and we lose the point. I thought I should replay my second serve because a ball rolling onto the court during the service motion means you replay the serve. My understanding of the "readiness" rule is that the receiver cannot become unready once she has taken her ready position absent outside interference, but here the issue was not the receiver.

My partner and I conceded the point. I thought my opponents were wrong to take the point -- this sort of thing happens *all the time* in doubles, and people just play the serve over. I was sufficiently fired up about it that my partner and I buckled down and won the tiebreak. So no harm done, I guess.

Still. What is the rule, exactly? I have allowed the server to replay the interrupted serve countless times over the years in this situation. Am I being a sucker, and should I start insisting that the point is mine?

 

[RetroSpin]

Had you been employing your tactic of moving around in the service box when your partner is serving?

 

[Cindysphinx]

Had you been employing your tactic of moving around in the service box when your partner is serving?

No, not much. This partner is six feet tall with a big serve, so there were floaters to pick off. I did do it a few times by starting near the center to tempt the DTL return and then breaking toward the alley, and I got two volley winners off of DTL attempts. But I didn't do it often enough to discern whether it helped.

 

[Mac_Attack]

I was playing a doubles match. Ten point Coman. I was serving at 0-1. I missed my first serve into the net.

I thought the ball was going to stay near the side curtain, but my partner saw it rolling back toward the court and thought it should be cleared. She went to clear it as I started my second serve. (I learned later that she said "Wait" but the bubbles are loud and I did not hear her). The opponent return the serve to me, but I didn't play it because my partner called a let when my serve bounced.

We discussed this at the net. Opponents' took the position that my serving the ball meant we were ready so the serve counts and we lose the point. I thought I should replay my second serve because a ball rolling onto the court during the service motion means you replay the serve. My understanding of the "readiness" rule is that the receiver cannot become unready once she has taken her ready position absent outside interference, but here the issue was not the receiver.

My partner and I conceded the point. I thought my opponents were wrong to take the point -- this sort of thing happens *all the time* in doubles, and people just play the serve over. I was sufficiently fired up about it that my partner and I buckled down and won the tiebreak. So no harm done, I guess.

Still. What is the rule, exactly? I have allowed the server to replay the interrupted serve countless times over the years in this situation. Am I being a sucker, and should I start insisting that the point is mine?

You got it right. Your opponent was ready to play and you were ready to serve. Your partner trying to call a let after you served the ball did nothing but create a hinderence as the ball was in your opponent's court. And because the serve was returned - even though you stopped - the point was played out in good faith. Being distracted by your partner's improper attempt to call a let does not itself warrent a let be played. It's just a point that you guys fouled up and rightly should have lost.

 

[stapletonj]

If the ball was already on your court when you started your service motion and your partner did not call out let before you struck the ball, their point.
IF the ball was off the court and rolled onto the court at any time AFTER you struck the ball, probably anybody could call a let.
If the ball is off the court rolling around, you started your service, the ball didn't make it onto the court, and your partner stopped to clear it because she was sure it was going to roll onto the court. their point.
OF course, your partner calling a "let" to clear a ball that she "saw rolling back towards the court" and "thought...should be cleared" AFTER you struck your second serve is probably a hindrance upon which they could claim the point.

I think the key, or a big factor, really is was the ball on the court when you started your motion ?
if it came on the court and was still rolling before you struck your serve, you are on pretty solid ground
(although "wait" and "let" are not the same word, but that is being too pendantic, I also don't want to reignite the "out" call war)

 

[stapletonj]

sportsmanship wise, if they burned a return at you that you may well have had trouble with, I would concede the point.
If they hit a lollipop that you just caught or tapped down, they should play a let.

 

[GrassCourtFan]

I don't know what the rule actually is, but sportsmanship-wise it seems like the server's team should concede the point there.

There was a miscommunication among the serving team - one person was ready to start the point, and the other was not. But it's the team's responsibility to ensure that both players are ready to start the point. If something happened AFTER the point begun (but before it's over) that led the net-player to call a let, then they should clearly call a 'let' and replay the point. But I don't think the serving team gets to serve and then say "wait, I guess we shouldn't have started that point, do-over". You either don't start the point, or you call a let if the situation warrants it.

 

[eelhc]

The funny thing is that I suspect they would have wanted a let if returner had netted the return.

Wouldn't that have been rich? They net the return, (claiming my partner clearing the ball was a distraction) and I claim the point. They would still be howling about it.

And what if you had hit a clean ace? Play the point over then?

Some questions....

Would it have killed you to make sure the ball is at complete rest BEFORE starting your 2nd serve?
If it's pretty loud where the match is being played, why didn't your partner hold up her racquet or yell let louder?
Do you not consider it unsportsmanlike calling a let because your team failed to clear your own missed serve?

 

[Nostradamus]

Yes, but what happens if you do?

you play the LET. serve that 2nd serve OVEr. if opponents are nice like me, I would let you have 1st serve over too. anyway, rule saids it is a LET

 

[eelhc]

you play the LET. serve that 2nd serve OVEr. if opponents are nice like me, I would let you have 1st serve over too. anyway, rule saids it is a LET

Maybe/Maybe not... Seems that this is ripe for abuse and falls into the “two chances to win the point” category. The team serving on a first serve miss can put the second ball in play and claim a let if they don't get a ace or poach...

 

[tennis_ocd]

You need to be sure your partner is ready when you are serving. If she is not ready, that is your fault and you lose the point.

I think this is it. /end

That said, receiver team (especially net player who saw what was happening) was bush in taking the point. Glad you won the breaker. As far as "server’s second service motion is interrupted by a ball coming onto the court," I interpret that as an outside ball. It can't be the server's own first serve due to not properly clearing your own ball.

 

[kevrol]

You can only call a let because of outside interference (ball rolling from another court.) This ball was not rolling from another court. It was your ball. You did not indicate that someone on another court rolled it back to you. If that was the case you'd be entitled to a let and a first serve. It's up to the server to ensure their partner is ready. You failed to do so and started the point. It's the opponent's point.

 

[Dartagnan64]

If your partner put up her hand and said "wait" and the other team saw it, they should have stopped play. Clearly she didn't make her intentions clear as at least two of the players, didn't halt play. The teaching point is for her to be more clear in halting play for an obstruction and for the server to pay more attention to the readiness of her partner.

That being said, since the server served in good faith and the returner replied in good faith, the point stands as played. Your partner had no right to call a let on a good serve for being "not ready". A let is for a ball entering the court or a net cord, neither of which occured.

All that being said, if it was social doubles, I'd have let the server re-serve a second serve. I don't like taking free points for confusion.

 

[RetroSpin]

No, not much. This partner is six feet tall with a big serve, so there were floaters to pick off. I did do it a few times by starting near the center to tempt the DTL return and then breaking toward the alley, and I got two volley winners off of DTL attempts. But I didn't do it often enough to discern whether it helped.

Perhaps you did it often enough to annoy them and make them less inclined to cut you some slack.

 

[tennis_ocd]

Curious as to a show of hands of how many will confess to returning a serve knowing that the server's partner was distracted -- not paying attention to what was going on. It's just giggles and grins but I know I've done it. (I mean 99% of the time I'll hold my hand up but sometimes the dark side takes over....)

 

[Doc Hollidae]

I don't get how someone can so frequently have sportsmanship issues on a weekly basis. It's a new issue every week. Next week's thread: "What to do after you blatantly hook someone?"

 

[eelhc]

If your partner put up her hand and said "wait" and the other team saw it, they should have stopped play. Clearly she didn't make her intentions clear as at least two of the players, didn't halt play. The teaching point is for her to be more clear in halting play for an obstruction and for the server to pay more attention to the readiness of her partner.

That being said, since the server served in good faith and the returner replied in good faith, the point stands as played. Your partner had no right to call a let on a good serve for being "not ready". A let is for a ball entering the court or a net cord, neither of which occured.

All that being said, if it was social doubles, I'd have let the server re-serve a second serve. I don't like taking free points for confusion.

The flipside is that I don't like getting a do-over on MY mistake/carelessness regardless of whether it was intentional or not. If I won the re-played point as a result, it would bother me.... both social and competitive matches.

 

[OrangePower]

Some common-sense observations (too lazy to look up all the associated rules):

1. Having declined to clear the errant ball before hitting the second serve, Cindy's team cannot then call a let due to that same errant ball.

2. Receiving team could have stopped play immediately upon hearing the let call (assuming they heard it), and claimed the point there and then, seeing as how Cindy's team had no basis for calling the let.

3. Receiving team could also have called a hindrance let themselves based on the errant ball.

4. Since receiving team played the return in good faith, the point stands as played. If Cindy made no play on the ball, her team loses the point, since there was no basis for her team to call a let at that point.

5. If the returning team clearly sees that Cindy stopped play, it would be a sporting gesture on their part to play a let anyway, but the rules don't require this.

 

[blakesq]

Curious as to a show of hands of how many will confess to returning a serve knowing that the server's partner was distracted -- not paying attention to what was going on. It's just giggles and grins but I know I've done it. (I mean 99% of the time I'll hold my hand up but sometimes the dark side takes over....)

Its not your responsibility to make sure server's partner is ready, if you are receiving.

 

[Dartagnan64]

Curious as to a show of hands of how many will confess to returning a serve knowing that the server's partner was distracted -- not paying attention to what was going on. It's just giggles and grins but I know I've done it. (I mean 99% of the time I'll hold my hand up but sometimes the dark side takes over....)

I've had a few times I was clearing a ball and my partner served a second serve over my head. i never even thought of calling a let or any such thing. Just kind of laughed to myself then rushed back to position. Fortunately the receiver didn't just drill it at me.

It's just a reminder that the server should always make sure everyone's ready before just going ahead and hitting. I always bounce the ball a few times. look up to see everyone'es in positon then enter my service motion. But I know people that have their second ball in the air while the first ball is still coming to rest. Those type of people I'll turn my back to and not make any attempt to return. Just fool with my strings for 5 seconds before turning around.

 

[tennis_ocd]

Its not your responsibility to make sure server's partner is ready, if you are receiving.

Fully agree. But do you ever eagerly play a return knowing the server's partner is busy replacing their dampener lol. Certainly not sporting yet amusing.

 

[S&V-not_dead_yet]

It's just a reminder that the server should always make sure everyone's ready before just going ahead and hitting. I always bounce the ball a few times. look up to see everyone's in position then enter my service motion. But I know people that have their second ball in the air while the first ball is still coming to rest. Those type of people I'll turn my back to and not make any attempt to return. Just fool with my strings for 5 seconds before turning around.

What do you do when the server is very quick to hit a 2nd serve and the returner is slow to get ready after a missed 1st serve? The returner has to play at the pace of the server but can indicate he's not ready. This is almost never a problem but in my group, there is one guy who barely waits between 1st and 2nd and another guy who needs about 5 seconds in between and, of course, they end up playing each other. Server feels like returner is trying to control him and returner feels like server is rushing him. "Can't we all just get along?"

 

[Dartagnan64]

What do you do when the server is very quick to hit a 2nd serve and the returner is slow to get ready after a missed 1st serve? The returner has to play at the pace of the server but can indicate he's not ready. This is almost never a problem but in my group, there is one guy who barely waits between 1st and 2nd and another guy who needs about 5 seconds in between and, of course, they end up playing each other. Server feels like returner is trying to control him and returner feels like server is rushing him. "Can't we all just get along?"

The returner has to play to the reasonable pace of the server. Immediately serving after a fault is not reasonable. As long as the returner makes no effort to return the ball, it's a let.
Quick serving is gamesmanship IMO and it's perfectly fine to react with your own gamesmanship as long as it fits the code. I'm not advocating walking to the bench, sipping some water, sitting down and toweling off. Just a quick turn around to adjust the strings for a 3 count, then turn and get ready. Just enough to let the quick server know he can't rush everything to try to catch you off guard.
Watch the pros, they don't do that quick serving BS. There's no need for it.

 

[tennis tom]

What do you do when the server is very quick to hit a 2nd serve and the returner is slow to get ready after a missed 1st serve?

You have to give the receiver a chance to get into the set position. You wait 'til they hit an ace, and then you say you weren't ready, that always slows them down.

 

[storypeddler]

I was playing a doubles match. Ten point Coman. I was serving at 0-1. I missed my first serve into the net.

I thought the ball was going to stay near the side curtain, but my partner saw it rolling back toward the court and thought it should be cleared. She went to clear it as I started my second serve. (I learned later that she said "Wait" but the bubbles are loud and I did not hear her). The opponent return the serve to me, but I didn't play it because my partner called a let when my serve bounced.

We discussed this at the net. Opponents' took the position that my serving the ball meant we were ready so the serve counts and we lose the point. I thought I should replay my second serve because a ball rolling onto the court during the service motion means you replay the serve. My understanding of the "readiness" rule is that the receiver cannot become unready once she has taken her ready position absent outside interference, but here the issue was not the receiver.

My partner and I conceded the point. I thought my opponents were wrong to take the point -- this sort of thing happens *all the time* in doubles, and people just play the serve over. I was sufficiently fired up about it that my partner and I buckled down and won the tiebreak. So no harm done, I guess.

Still. What is the rule, exactly? I have allowed the server to replay the interrupted serve countless times over the years in this situation. Am I being a sucker, and should I start insisting that the point is mine?

Based on the fact that your partner had called a play stoppage to clear the ball should carry the day. I have been in many matches where one guy and only one guy sees a ball rolling and stops play. The fact that you didn't hear her call it is irrelevant, I would argue. Any player can stop play to clear a rolling ball away. Whether they give you a first serve again or not is their call, but your second serve has to be allowed to be replayed.

 

[kevrol]

Whether they give you a first serve again or not is their call, but your second serve has to be allowed to be replayed.

Actually it's not. If your service motion is interrupted by a let you get a first serve.

 

[Dartagnan64]

Actually it's not. If your service motion is interrupted by a let you get a first serve.

Not if the hindrance is caused by yourself, which in this case it was her first service ball that hadn't been cleared. If the hindrance is caused by the opponent or an outside agency, then you get a first serve. This case it would have been a second serve for a let due to the server's ball rolling in the court.

But its moot if no one saw or heard the partner stop play. The point was played in good faith and the partner called a let, not for the hindrance of the ball in the court, but rather because she wasn't ready when the server served. That is not a let.

The lesson remains, be clear when halting play due to a hindrance. And server, look at the court once before you start your motion to be sure everyone is ready for play.

 

[r2473]

The funny thing is that I suspect they would have wanted a let if returner had netted the return.

Wouldn't that have been rich? They net the return, (claiming my partner clearing the ball was a distraction) and I claim the point. They would still be howling about it.

This post captures the essence many disputes, be they in a tennis match or driving in city traffic.

In other words, the very same set of circumstances will be interpreted in different (opposite) ways by the very same person, depending on which side they happen to find themselves in this particular instance. I've always found that to be an amazing ability that (most) people have.

The implication of this is obvious (at least to me). The person you are arguing with understands the facts but chooses to always interpret them to his/her benefit. As such, it does little good to argue in these situations.