Opponent wants two serves after a fault; how would you respond?

[Orange]

In doubles, our opponent's first serve was a fault. A ball from the next court rolled behind her and came to rest at the fence. The server picked it up and tapped it back to the next court. Then the server's partner said, "You should take two serves."

In my view, she was not entitled to two serves because she was the cause of the delay, choosing to return a ball that wasn't on the court, and even then, it was not a prolonged interruption.

Fortunately, the server got her second serve in. What would you have done if her second serve had been a fault and she had prepared to serve a third serve?

The relevant Code section is:

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.

 

[jservoss]

Only if the ball rolling onto the court interrupted the second service motion should the server get a first serve.

 

[Orange]

Yes, I agree, and the second service motion was not interrupted. The rules do not allow a third serve in this case, and a doubles team cannot just decide to take a third.

My question is, what would you say to your opponents if the server started to take a third?

 

[Deleted member 293577]

I agree with you that she was not entitled to 2 serves. But I would have probably rolled my eyes and given it to her. What did your partner say at the time? In doubles it helps if both of you would have spoke up. I think if you had time to respond when her partner suggested she take 2 serves, then you should have spoken up at that time, not waited until the potential next serve. If you didn't protest initially, then it's kind of after the fact, and it implies that you assented to their actions.

 

[Don't Let It Bounce]

"The receiver is the judge of whether the delay is sufficiently prolonged to justify giving the server two serves."

This seems to be the bottom line. If it is an accurate quote of the rules, the only opinions that matter are those of you and your partner.

 

[Orange]

In this match, this was the second time that the opponents tried to take advantage of us. The first was reversing an out call and then playing the ball, which my partner accepted (I would not have). As a result, I would not be very inclined to let them have this. I hadn't thought of perceived acquiescence.

What words would you have said when I heard the partner saying to the server, "you should take two."?

 

[jservoss]

Yes, I agree, and the second service motion was not interrupted. The rules do not allow a third serve in this case, and a doubles team cannot just decide to take a third.

My question is, what would you say to your opponents if the server started to take a third?

Take the point. How is this even a question. With rules on your side they have no argument.

 

[RetroSpin]

Two serves.

If she had to leave the serving position and go to the back fence, that is a significant delay that justifies another serve. If the serve rolled in front of her and she just had to reach down and swat it back, that is not a delay, or if she had to wait momentarily as her partner retrieved it.

You can argue that she could have just ignored it and returned it after the point, and therefore she was the cause of the delay. I like to keep my side of the court tidy, without balls lying around, plus the other court may have needed it, so I can justify returning it as she did.

 

[RetroSpin]

I agree with you that she was not entitled to 2 serves. But I would have probably rolled my eyes and given it to her. What did your partner say at the time? In doubles it helps if both of you would have spoke up. I think if you had time to respond when her partner suggested she take 2 serves, then you should have spoken up at that time, not waited until the potential next serve. If you didn't protest initially, then it's kind of after the fact, and it implies that you assented to their actions.

I missed this. Certainly you have to speak up before she serves. Her partner cannot grant her a let. After he said something like that, you have to either say take two or second serve.

 

[anubis]

I would have politely told them that she does not get two serves, and then quote the rules as best as has been described here. But in the interest of being a non d-bag, say that she can take two serves if she likes.

Then if it happens again, you can say "remember that we discussed this already? You don't get two serves unless your service motion is interrupted. You get a 2nd serve only."

Be diplomatic and educational at the same time.

 

[skiracer55]

Tell your opponent...

...to stick it where the sun don't shine. I could care less what The Code says, this is blatant horse hockey...

 

[Cindysphinx]

Yes, I agree, and the second service motion was not interrupted. The rules do not allow a third serve in this case, and a doubles team cannot just decide to take a third.

My question is, what would you say to your opponents if the server started to take a third?

Opponent's Partner: "You should take two serves."

Orange: "Second serve."

Opponent's Partner: "What? No. A ball rolled on the court, so that's first serve."

Orange: "Actually, no. The time it takes to clear a ball isn't a big enough delay to justify a first serve. Besides, it's my decision and I say second serve. So second serve."

And so forth.

That said, I'm pretty generous about this sort of thing. Only if my opponents have already wrongfully denied me a first serve will I decide not to cut them a break.

Another interesting situation is this:

Server: "30-all." Tosses, misses first serve.

Receiver: "Hang on. It's not 30-all. It's 15-40."

Server's partner: "Um, well. She double-faulted, but then we won the next two points, then Sally put away that overhead. So 30-all is right."

Receiver: "Oh, yeah. OK. Second serve."

Man, I hate that.

 

[Attila_the_gorilla]

^^^^
Yeah there may be a bit of gamesmanship there.

This is why I think it's so important to pracice 2nd serves. I think next time we play amongst ourselves, I'll recommend that we play one serve only. That should give us good practice.

 

[MauricioDias]

In this case I go with the second serve only. If the other plyers think that it is unfair, depending on my humor ill let the first serve again and never play with them again, or I stop the match and go away.

This is a rule problem. If people really care about it, should know the rules. If they dont know the rules and still claiming, dont deserve respect.

 

[Orange]

Anubis and Cindysphinx, Thanks so much for your examples of the words to use. That is exactly what I was seeking (and the rest of the discussion has been helpful too).

Cindysphinx, in your example of a discussion about the correct score that the receiver initiates between the first and second serve, I believe that the whole point is replayed (that is, the server gets two serves) and this is not a matter of the receiver's discretion. It was a delay caused by the receiver, which is covered in Friend at Court:

USTA Comment 23.2: What happens when there is a delay between the first and second serves? If the delay is caused by the receiver (such as a broken string or contact lens problem), an official, or outside interference, the whole point is replayed. If the server caused the delay, such as when the server breaks a string, the server gets one serve.

 

[AtomicForehand]

I am always very generous about granting a first serve. I hope the courtesy will be returned, but it often isn't. Most of the time, people don't seem to know the rule. Sometimes they are just jerks. Even if they are jerks, I try to keep on being very generous about granting the two serves. Guilt is good for them.

 

[Overdrive]

4.5 GOATs never use the guilt tactic against their opponents..

 

[AtomicForehand]

4.5 GOATs never use the guilt tactic against their opponents..

Ah well. I am either not a 4.5, not a GOAT, or your statement is untrue.

 

[Spin Doctor]

My question is, what would you say to your opponents if the server started to take a third?

Nothing.

Seriously, is this worth creating a conflict with opponents? No wonder there are so many incidents discussed on this site. A lot of you seem to assume the worst of your opponents. Did you even think about the fact that she was stopping to do a favor for a neighboring court? You just immediately assumed that they were taking advantage of the situation. This sounds like a one time incident in a match. If it was something being done repeatedly then yes, I would discuss the rule with them.

 

[tennis tom]

...A ball from the next court rolled behind her and came to rest at the fence. The server picked it up and tapped it back to the next court. Then the server's partner said, "You should take two serves."

In my view, she was not entitled to two serves because she was the cause of the delay, choosing to return a ball that wasn't on the court, and even then, it was not a prolonged interruption.

It's so lame when "players" have to stop play for every ball that is rolling around anywhere on the planet interrupting play. In this case the ball presented no harm, coming to rest at the back-fence. Lame excuse to take two--lame, lame, lame. The folks on the next court can wait a moment and observe your point, they're the ones who hit it over there after all. Half the time club players are paying more attention to who is playing on the court next to them anyway, this way they'll have an even better, longer look.

 

[Chico]

I would be generous and just let her have first serve.

 

[stapletonj]

tennis tom -

if you would only quit wearing those tennis dresses, people wouldn't be staring at your court quite so much!

yuk yuk yuk

you walked right into that one my friend!

 

[tennis_ocd]

I would be generous and just let her have first serve.

ditto... unless it became a regular habit or I thought I was being gamed.

 

[Bdarb]

I would be generous and just let her have first serve.

I would stop, walk over to my bag, without saying a word I would pack my things and leave. That will show those no good extra serve takers!

 

[Turbo-87]

I would stop, walk over to my bag, without saying a word I would pack my things and leave. That will show those no good extra serve takers!

Would the people still left on the court be entitled to hold the court if you left?

 

[Bdarb]

Would the people still left on the court be entitled to hold the court if you left?

hahahah I don't care if their mother is holding the court!

 

[Bdarb]

I can't give this a dignified answer as it seems logical to me to do whatever the hell you want. You're asking for a ruling on a etiquette question in a social match.. DO ANYTHING WHO CARES. If you want to give them an extra serve (I would. what is this, wimbledon?) then do it, if you want to be a jerk and go get your rule book and let them know they're wrong do that too either is fine.

Basically do you want them to like you or not? If someone is preaching the rules to me, we probably aren't playing any more. I understand the rules and quite well, if there is a suspension of a rule temporarily, it's for a reason generally convenience. i.e. If a ball is nine feet out and I catch it and you inform me that it's your point, I will inform you that you are a d bag and we can continue.

 

[paul500w]

I normally am very nice and if that happen I would allow the 1st serve. If the something happen to me and they didn't allow it, then I get less nice. LOL

 

[Mongolmike]

Couple weeks ago in league combo play our opponents were arguing between themselves if I should or should not get 2 serves!

I'm serving (and serving well all match) to the higher ranked player. My first serve goes just deep and he blocks it back into the net on his side. The ball rolls back about 2 feet into his service box.

I check to see if he is ready, he is, and I toss the ball for my 2nd serve into the air.... as the ball is in the air and I am in the "trophy position" the other guy cries out "hold it!".

I stop my swing and let the ball drop, look up, and the partner scurries over to clear the stationary ball.

The returner and I make eye contact, I kinda tilt my head, and the returner says, "Take two." His opponent literally cries out... whails actually... "WHHHHYYYYY????"

The returner and the other guy start arguing whether I should get two or not... I turn my back and am chuckling to myself.

The ball clearer had been trying to mess with my serve rythmn all match, and I think his partner finally had enough of the gamesmanship.

You meet all kinds of people with all kinds of agendas on a tennis court.

 

[Orange]

This is a very interesting discussion to me because it seemed to me that the rule is clear, but people have varying opinions about how to respond.

I should have specified that this was a league match, not a social match, and we do not ever get to choose our opponents, either for that match or in the future.

I felt that our opponents were trying to take advantage of us by calling a previous ball out, then reversing themselves and continuing to play it, ultimately winning that point, and then by deciding for themselves to "take two" on the incident in question.

Perhaps the best approach would have been to say what anubis suggested, responding as soon as I heard the server's partner telling her to take two, allowing two serves this time but explaining the rule so it wouldn't happen again.

I hate to feel that someone is trying to take advantage of me, and I truly want to do the right thing if this ever happens again.

 

[kylebarendrick]

Best line I've heard (from a team mate): 'go ahead take two, take three, take as many as you need to get one in.'

The rule is pretty clear. Unless the server has started their service motion, the time required to clear a ball is not sufficient to warrant a new first serve. I do think people need to toughen up some. If you missed your first serve you should expect to be hitting a second serve, not looking for an excuse to try again. Singles players routinely have to clear balls between serves.

Either way, the custom here is to almost always grant a new first serve any time a ball comes on the court, even if it rolls directly to the receiver. So that's what I do.

 

[Cindysphinx]

I do think people need to toughen up some. If you missed your first serve you should expect to be hitting a second serve, not looking for an excuse to try again.

I *know!*

All of a sudden, all of these weekend hacks have such a meticulously honed service regimen that the slightest delay will make them DF.

Shouldn't we all be able to step up to the line at any time and wave in our sad little pathetic second serves?

 

[tennis_ocd]

Shouldn't we all be able to step up to the line at any time and wave in our sad little pathetic second serves?

A few guys just melt if ANYTHING interrupts their first to second routine.... feel like I'm playing games with them by just clearing the first ball knowing that if I take just a second longer than desired his second is done.