Point or Let?

[illzoni]

Doubles.
My son served his team's last service game of first set.

Second set, first service game for my son and his partner.
My son served his first serve for a winner.
The returner expressed frustration at missing the return.
The returner's partner then claimed my son wasn't allowed to serve first in the second set. He went on to claim he'd raised his racket before my son actually hit his serve.

They called an official over.
Only then did the returner claim to have attempted to stop my son from serving.
The official instructed them to play a let. My son was allowed to serve.

Was this compliant with the rules?
Was this fair?

 

[JLyon]

New set new service order first off, so your son was fine serving first
As for the let that is tricky and as an official would have to assume the opposing team is not lying and so a replay the point first serve would be warranted.
Now sounds more like gamesmanship and opposing team is lying to save face, but unofficiated match or official not on court then replaying of the point is consistent in this case

 

[kevrol]

Your son obviously should have been allowed to serve. Seems like a let was in order.

 

[illzoni]

I'm obviously biased, and feel...

1) The claim they'd attempted to stop the serve was false. When exactly must the receiving team stop play for it to be a let?

2) Even if they'd attempted to stop play in a timely fashion, it was not for a legitimate reason. They had no basis within the rules to stop play. They were wrong about the rules and shouldn't have been stopping play.

3) These players were abusing the system and continued to do so.

Thanks.

 

[wings56]

I'm obviously biased, and feel...

1) The claim they'd attempted to stop the serve was false. When exactly must the receiving team stop play for it to be a let?

2) Even if they'd attempted to stop play in a timely fashion, it was not for a legitimate reason. They had no basis within the rules to stop play. They were wrong about the rules and shouldn't have been stopping play.

3) These players were abusing the system and continued to do so.

Thanks.

Let's see here...
1. I would think at any point in the service motion, if there is an item of concern that needs attention, play can be stopped. It is up to the players to determine if the request was timely. More often than not, the receiver is given the benefit of the doubt that they were trying to call a let in a timely fashion.

2. It was a legitimate reason to stop play. Any concern over the rules should be handled immediately. Calling the official over is exactly what should have been done. Just as if there was a question over score, it needs to be handled immediately. The fact that they were wrong about your son being able to serve does not have any baring over their right to stop play to call an official.

3. Yes they were abusing the system. It sounds like they pulled a reverse Justine Henin (she held her hand up while Serena was serving and then denied having done so after Serena missed her first serve). They should have stopped play before the serve was hit or during the motion. Any time after that is unnaceptable.

 

[wings56]

To add to that... it sounds as if a let was not in order. The receivers lied to the official that they were requesting a let in the first place. Play should have continued at 15-love.

 

[JLyon]

To add to that... it sounds as if a let was not in order. The receivers lied to the official that they were requesting a let in the first place. Play should have continued at 15-love.

I agree with you but as an official, if they were not on the court it is a he said she said situation, the official unless they saw it can not determine if it was a poor call/gamesmanship or not unfortunately. One of the tough things about officiating in this situation.

 

[beernutz]

I am not an official but if I was one and was presented with this type of he said/she said scenario I think allowing the let would be the least objectionable option.

I would warn the receiving team at that time that they should demonstratively indicate when they want to stop a server from serving in the future and that they likely will not get the benefit of the doubt in the future.

 

[wings56]

I agree with you but as an official, if they were not on the court it is a he said she said situation, the official unless they saw it can not determine if it was a poor call/gamesmanship or not unfortunately. One of the tough things about officiating in this situation.

Absolutely. The official has to give the returner the benefit of the doubt. In this case, it was unfortunate.

 

[illzoni]

Thanks all. I fully agree with the explanations and the summation it's unfortunate.

 

[gmatheis]

This is where it pays to know the rules yourself.

If he could get the returner to admit that he attempted to return the serve then by definition he was ready and it's his point.

If the returner was not ready they must not make an attempt to return the serve.

 

[tennis tom]

Agree with you, you're son got hosed. Tournament players should know the rules. I'm assuming they're juniors so they unfortunately learned at your son's expense. If the opponent's were honorable and adhering to the "code" they would have thanked the official for the education and conceded the point. If they're over five, then their personalities are formed and they will be on their way to becoming 3.5/4.0 league players and maybe captains of strategy--or the ultimate achievement in modern tennis John Macenroes, a cush job at network tennis as a reward for bad behavior; and bring Mary Carillo along as part of the deal. Unfortunately, in your son's instance it can be chalked up to another rule--"Life is not fair." I buy your version of this scenario.

 

[mucat]

Did the returner actually try to return the serve?
If yes, then they were ready and the point should have counted.

 

[illzoni]

Yes, he did, and expressed frustration with his poor strike.

 

[RanchDressing]

I'm obviously biased, and feel...

1) The claim they'd attempted to stop the serve was false. When exactly must the receiving team stop play for it to be a let?

2) Even if they'd attempted to stop play in a timely fashion, it was not for a legitimate reason. They had no basis within the rules to stop play. They were wrong about the rules and shouldn't have been stopping play.

3) These players were abusing the system and continued to do so.

Thanks.

They probably were abusing the rules. They probably were cheating. But it was the first point of a new game. He got to serve again. Yes an ace is always important, but getting hung up on petty gamesmanship is far worse than even just losing that point. People do this to gain an advantage, and get in their opponents head.

If it were me, I'd try to focus on the next point and forget it happened. Once an official makes a call, bogus or not, you have to work with that. Arguing with them won't change a thing. Especially not after the match. Personally I'd be looking on ways to learn how to cope with that situation, rather than how my opponent wronged me. How to regroup, and refocus after an interruption. Just like in life, things aren't always correct, or fair.

 

[illzoni]

The boys handled things just fine. My son dropped that game, but they took the set.

 

[NTRPolice]

The first and most important thing is that parents/spectators do not get involved. Parents/spectators always think they need to get involved and this is wrong.

Second: In a match with no chair ump the players have to police themselves. Roaming officials only act like they are chair umps when they're really not. They will only call clear violations and the majority of the calls and call "weighting" are still done by the players. So, expecting a roaming ump to dictate a "reasonable pace" is unrealistic. A roaming up may time changeovers and "breaks" between sets, but they will not calculate time between points, lol.

The problem with this question is that no one can verify when the returners partner raised his hand in objection. A server is not allowed to serve the ball if the returner isnt ready (raising their hand). A returner must play at the pace of the server, as long as the pace of the server is reasonable. A player may not "raise his hand" and then attempt to play the ball, with probably the exception of protecting themselves from the serve.

 

[sundaypunch]

The boys handled things just fine. My son dropped that game, but they took the set.

That is great. The big picture is that it was a meaningless point at the beginning of a set. None of them knew the rules (which is common) but they figured out a way to move forward.

 

[eelhc]

What's your son's checklist/routine when serving? Scan the court for balls? Check the position of each player? Toss the ball without serving to check the position of the sun? Announce the score? Probably the most important is to hold up the ball until his opponent nods on the first serve of a new game?

I think his opponents got away with one... If the net man raised his racquet once your son went into his service motion he should have yelled/said something to make sure the let is called. Not after his partner hits it.