I have just leaved another thread to revive some interesting moments. Maybe adults give some reaction. The speech is about official rules of tennis 2004 supported by International Tennis Federation (ITF). 1. Sometimes I see some PROS in order to return a ball grounding a little far from the point they stand throw a racquet in order to hit the ball with flying racquet. Is is show off or they don't know the rules ? Do you know what will happen if they succeed and hit the ball back? Nothing. Answer: Player loses point according ITF rules 2004, Section 24: (i) IF the ball in play touches the racquet when the player is not holding it. So, PROS, don't throw racquets ! Even if you hit the ball back, you loses. 2. Everybody heard that if your string is broken a let is not called. But I couldn't find the proof in ITF 2004 rules and I sent them a letter about. 3. By the way, if string is broken then from that moment your racquet doesn't comply with the rules about racquets because according to ITF 2004, Appendix II (a) " The stringing pattern must be generally uniform ...". Hence, you wouldn't have rights to continue to play. And I'm for counting such a point as lost point. Anyhow according rules players may have right to continue or may not to have such a right according event organisers . ( Section 4, Case 4). 4. If your racquet is broken not deliberately but accidentally. Why not to call a let ? What is your guilt? Isn't it manufacturer's guilt, the same as in the case when a ball is broken ? But don't answer that this is your personal gear ? What else ? I didn't start playing with broken racquet from the beginning, it was broken in the middle of play. Can you find answer in ITF rules 2004 ? 5. Do you know that we are discussing here a lot, but according rules 2004 , Appendix 4, Section : "Score in a set" there is already short = 4 games sets ? And this is an official ITF rules of tennis. Please, any comments must be done according "official rules 2004" if you can deduce something from them, not based on what you were teached or heard or what you know as a result of experience. Here I'm touching the problem of " completness" of the Rules of Tennis 2004. In other words, everything what we know must be possible to deduce from those rules. Isn't ?