Question for the Rules Experts?

Who wins the point if my opponent’s shot hits me from other side of the net?

  • 1. I win the point because my opponent erred into the net.

  • 2. Opponent wins point by pounding the ball into the net, causing net/ball to hit me before the ball

Results are only viewable after voting.
travlerajm

travlerajm

Talk Tennis Guru
Today I was playing a singles point.

Opponent hit a drop volley with underspin that landed very close to the net.

I charged forward and poked the ball over the net, but was trying to avoid having my momentum carrying me into the net.

The outside of my right leg was about 6 inches from the net. As I was trying to regain my balance without touching the net, my opponent tried to slap the ball flat right at me, but his shot hit the net about 18” above the court, pushing into the net and stretching it into my side of the court so that the ball (and probably the net mesh too) hit my leg.

Who wins the point? As I understand the rules, the point is not ended by the ball hitting the net, because the ball hadn’t hit the court on my opponent’s side of the net yet. So perhaps I lose the point because the net/ball touched my leg before the point ended (even though the only reason I touched the net was because my opponent erred into the net?

This seems like it could be one of those loopholes in the rules, kind of like in basketball when a player can inbound against the butt of an opponent to himself.
 
Last edited:
travlerajm said:
Today I was playing a singles point.

Opponent hit a drop volley with underspin that landed very close to the net.

I charged forward and poked the ball over the net, but was trying to avoid having my momentum carrying me into the net.

The outside of my right leg was about 6 inches from the net. As I was trying to regain my balance without touching the net, my opponent tried to slap the ball flat right at me, but his shot hit the net about 18” above the court, pushing into the net so that the net hit my leg.

Who wins the point? As I understand the rules, the point is not ended by the ball hitting the net, because the ball hadn’t hit the court on my opponent’s side of the net yet.
Click to expand...
I think you lose the point because your foot was touching the net when his shot was live before the shot he hit bounced on his court (after his net touch) to end the point. You can’t touch the net when a point is still live. Very rare situation.

More common is the situation where someone touches the net after their own shot and there is debate about whether the touch happened before their ball bounced twice in the court or once outside the court to end the point.
 
If the ball goes over the net, you have to wait for the bounce to determine whether it is a good or bad return. A ball hitting the middle of the net is by definition, a bad return and the hitter loses the point right then cuz the ball did not make it over the net. See ‘A good return’ rule 25.

I would say the net hit your leg, but by then the point was over since your opponent did not make a good return.
 
esgee48 said:
If the ball goes over the net, you have to wait for the bounce to determine whether it is a good or bad return. A ball hitting the middle of the net is by definition, a bad return and the hitter loses the point right then cuz the ball did not make it over the net. See ‘A good return’ rule 25.

I would say the net hit your leg, but by then the point was over since your opponent did not make a good return.
Click to expand...
I never heard of this rule that a point can be over after hitting a net without touching the ground after. I’ve seen so many instances where a net was too loose and balls hit hard well below the net tape bounced up over the net and landed on the opponent‘s court to keep the point going. If it were true, who makes the call on whether it is a ‘bad return’ that was too low and stops the point immediately - probably the opponent since the ball is on his side of the court and he likely didn’t make that call in this case.
 
esgee48 said:
If the ball goes over the net, you have to wait for the bounce to determine whether it is a good or bad return. A ball hitting the middle of the net is by definition, a bad return and the hitter loses the point right then cuz the ball did not make it over the net. See ‘A good return’ rule 25.

I would say the net hit your leg, but by then the point was over since your opponent did not make a good return.
Click to expand...
I don't see any definition of bad return in that rule.

Could you clarify or point me in the direction of the wording that rules thus out either explicitly or implicitly.

It doesn't seem congruent when people get hit on the fly Miles outside of the court and lose the point even though its obviously not landing it.

I accept there could be a difference between past the net and not, just can't find it.

I've seen balls hit the hawkeye net call thing that's basically on the ground that have ended up going over and been considered good in tournaments so I'm inclined to think it'd need to hit the ground our your own side 1st to be considered a dead ball similar to 2nd bounce on opponents side.

Edit: I would've thought rule 24 player loses the point would be more applicable. 24 c and d are probably the relevant bits and I don't see it hitting the net as automatically losing the point there. There may be a decision somewhere clarifying it but I can't find it in the basic rules I downloaded.
 
Last edited:
if the ball was still in play, meaning has not bounced twice or in the wrong court, then you would lose the point due to "touch" net hitting your leg.
As for the ball hitting the net, depends it if broke the plane of the net, even if it hit lower, but had not bounced in opponent court yet, still live.
 
JLyon said:
if the ball was still in play, meaning has not bounced twice or in the wrong court, then you would lose the point due to "touch" net hitting your leg.
As for the ball hitting the net, depends it if broke the plane of the net, even if it hit lower, but had not bounced in opponent court yet, still live.
Click to expand...
The ball definitely broke the plane, as I was standing with my leg 6” away from the net. The ball went well beyond the plane of the net as it hit the net and subsequently hit my leg as it stretched the net into my side of the court. Does that matter?

Most of the energy of the shot was dissipated by the net, so the impact of the ball/net on my leg did not hurt.
 
travlerajm said:
The ball definitely broke the plane, as I was standing with my leg 6” away from the net. The ball went well beyond the plane of the net as it hit the net and subsequently hit my leg as it stretched the net into my side of the court. Does that matter?

Most of the energy of the shot was dissipated by the net, so the impact of the ball/net on my leg did not hurt.
Click to expand...
You lost the point when the net touched your leg while the point was live. Whether the ball also touched your leg at the same time through the gaps in the net is not relevant as presumably the net touched you first or simultaneously.
 
mpnv1990 said:
You deserved the point there.
Click to expand...
But it’s sort of like if my opponent hit the ball toward the net post, and instead of going wide, it bounces off the net post and back into the court. My opponent didn’t deserve it but it counts. Could this be one of those?
 
travlerajm said:
But it’s sort of like if my opponent hit the ball toward the net post, and instead of going wide, it bounces off the net post and back into the court. My opponent didn’t deserve it but it counts. Could this be one of those?
Click to expand...
In the sense of an unlucky break, yes.

However, in your scenario, a legitimate case could be made that the point was over.
 
I don't think the rules address your situation directly. But I think 24.c applies in your case, at least tangentially:

24. PLAYER LOSES POINT
...
c. The player returns the ball in play so that it hits the ground, or before it bounces, an object, outside the correct court
...

the ball was not going to land in the correct court because of the net. It did not have the chance of going over because of how low on the net it was going to make contact. I suppose this would be different if hit higher up on the net and your leg affected the ability of the ball to pop up and over the net.

Also, it could be argued that this was not a "good return"

25. A GOOD RETURN
It is a good return if:
a. The ball touches the net, net posts/singles sticks, cord or metal cable, strap or band, provided that it passes over any of them and hits the ground within the correct court; except as provided in Rule 2 and 24 (d);

The ball was not going to pass over the net, therefore not a good return. Again, depending on what height on the net the ball made contact, if it had an opportunity to roll up over the net or not provided your leg was not there.

Thinking about this, in another hypothetical: say it's a windy day, the wind is blowing towards me generally, and I hit a drop volley with a lot of backspin that is going to bring the ball back over the net to my side, and suddenly a big gust of wind comes and blows the ball out of reach of my opponent, but also the bottom part of the net into my leg, should my opponent win the point because the net hit me, rather than me initiating contact with the net?
 
Last edited:
The net below the cable is also considered to be a permanent object. That means if you hit it, you lose the point. Hit a net post, you lose the point. Hit a fence on the fly. No one waits for the ball to bounce before saying 'OUT.'
 
GAS said:
3. Those crazy tennis courts with loose volleyball nets
4. Never happened
Click to expand...
I’ve been playing tennis for 35+ years, and this was the first time it’s happened to me.

In this case, my opponent and I were sharing a public court with two other players, and we were playing half-court straight-ahead points, which made the probability of the event perhaps 2 orders of magnitude higher, as my opponent had less court to hit into.

The probability was also increased by my opponent being a flat-blasting old-school doubles-skilled older player in his 50s - ex computer 5.0 who played D3 college, but was from oregon and now always plays tennis barefoot.
 
travlerajm said:
It seems we do not yet have a consensus ruling here.
Click to expand...
Every time I see one of these threads asking for "expert" advice, always lots of opinions, but never an "expert" who actually umpires matches. With all the activity and characters on this site, you would think an expert would emerge and provide an accurate and definitive answer. It makes for entertaining reading though.
 
esgee48 said:
The net below the cable is also considered to be a permanent object. That means if you hit it, you lose the point. Hit a net post, you lose the point. Hit a fence on the fly. No one waits for the ball to bounce before saying 'OUT.'
Click to expand...
You can hit a ball that hits the net post, if it bounces in the point is still live
 
  • Like
Reactions: cks
jm1980 said:
You can hit a ball that hits the net post, if it bounces in the point is still live
Click to expand...
True except when singles sticks are being used in which case the net and post beyond the singles sticks are permanent fixtures and the point ends when the ball touches them. Not related to this case, but wanted to clarify that rule.
 
travlerajm said:
I’ve been playing tennis for 35+ years, and this was the first time it’s happened to me.

In this case, my opponent and I were sharing a public court with two other players, and we were playing half-court straight-ahead points, which made the probability of the event perhaps 2 orders of magnitude higher, as my opponent had less court to hit into.

The probability was also increased by my opponent being a flat-blasting old-school doubles-skilled older player in his 50s - ex computer 5.0 who played D3 college, but was from oregon and now always plays tennis barefoot.
Click to expand...

Oh... so you were not even playing tennis when this didn't happen?
 
GAS said:
OK... I won't mention the 50yo guy playing barefoot then...
Click to expand...
Afterward, the other 2 players — a young Colombian gal from Bogota and her apparent American boyfriend, Carlos Moya’s doppleganger — asked us if we wanted to play doubles.

I played with the gal. We lost to Moya and barefoot guy 7-5.
 
socallefty said:
The etiquette on TTW is not to question any of the OP’s wild stories about his rec tennis and travel experiences because they are highly entertaining and we don’t want him to stop making them up reporting them.
Click to expand...
Everyone knows that all my reports are verifiably true. I lost my set of pickup doubles yesterday. But posting this from the ballard FedEx office to ship a box of raxx to one of my atp clients who, to my knowledge, currently has the longest active win streak in pro tennis. Going for 9th victory in a row tomorrow.
 
Can I send you some racquets for you to string in Kev/Zyex? I kinda want a couple racquets with permastrings. How much do you charge?
 
There are plenty of cases where the ball hits low on the net cord and somehow climbs over, so I would say if the ball has hit the let cord, then the let cord hit into you, you lose the point because the ball still
had a chance of going over.

I have never seen or heard of (nor can I imagine it being physically possible) of a ball being hit into the net 100% BELOW the let cord and managing to climb over, no matter how loose the net cord.
So, IMHO, the point is over before the net hits your leg. Your point.
 
stapletonj said:
There are plenty of cases where the ball hits low on the net cord and somehow climbs over, so I would say if the ball has hit the let cord, then the let cord hit into you, you lose the point because the ball still
had a chance of going over.

I have never seen or heard of (nor can I imagine it being physically possible) of a ball being hit into the net 100% BELOW the let cord and managing to climb over, no matter how loose the net cord.
So, IMHO, the point is over before the net hits your leg. Your point.
Click to expand...
Seems logical. But is that in the rules?
 
No set of rules or laws can foresee every possible situation.
Which is why we have legislatures and Judges for when it is real and serious.
For sport, especially rec. sport, you occasionally just have to go with the "spirit of the rule"
 
stapletonj said:
No set of rules or laws can foresee every possible situation.
Which is why we have legislatures and Judges for when it is real and serious.
For sport, especially rec. sport, you occasionally just have to go with the "spirit of the rule"
Click to expand...
So who among the TTW faithful do we appoint as Judge and Executioner?
 
travlerajm said:
Btw, I tried to give the point to my opponent. But he refused to accept it. He didn’t think he deserve it.
Click to expand...
I would say you technically lost the point, but your opponent also did the right thing by giving you the point. This is where the spirit of the game/rules come into play. Yes, technically you came in contact with the net before the point was finished, but you stopped yourself short of the net and the net hit you; you didn't hit the net. So, in the spirit of the game/rules, your opponent should (but doesn't technically have to) give you the point.
 
PRS said:
I would say you technically lost the point, but your opponent also did the right thing by giving you the point. This is where the spirit of the game/rules come into play. Yes, technically you came in contact with the net before the point was finished, but you stopped yourself short of the net and the net hit you; you didn't hit the net. So, in the spirit of the game/rules, your opponent should (but doesn't technically have to) give you the point.
Click to expand...
I appoint you as the official TTW rules czar.
 
  • Like
Reactions: PRS
Rattler said:
No

The net touched you. It happened because your opponent hit the ball, not because your momentum, stroke, or play caused you to touch the net. Therein lies the distinction.
Click to expand...
Yes. But where in the rules is that distinction?

What if the ball had hit the net cord and the impact caused the net cord to hit me while the ball popped upward?
 
travlerajm said:
Polling is neck-and-neck
Click to expand...
That very well may be. It just shows that folks on ttw do not know rules of tennis.
Hitting the ball into the net does not end the point. The point ends when the ball touches ground twice.
It does not matter if you touched the net because of your movement, or because wind pushed the net into you, or opponent's ball hitting the net made the net touch you. It does not matter if one _thinks_ and assumes that the ball after hitting the net has no chance of going over.
 
jmnk said:
That very well may be. It just shows that folks on ttw do not know rules of tennis.
Hitting the ball into the net does not end the point. The point ends when the ball touches ground twice.
It does not matter if you touched the net because of your movement, or because wind pushed the net into you, or opponent's ball hitting the net made the net touch you. It does not matter if one _thinks_ and assumes that the ball after hitting the net has no chance of going over.
Click to expand...
Yes. That is one interpretation of the rules. But it is not the only one. Until we hear from a usta umpire, the débate is unsettled.
 
There is nothing in the official rules that says you lose the point at the moment the ball hits the net. There are 12 listed ways to lose a point in Rule 24, and none of them says anything like "hitting the net below the net cord." You can lose the point at the moment the ball touches a permanent fixture, but there is no part of the net that is considered a pemanent fixture, unless it outside of singles sticks (that section is no longer considered "the net" according to Rule 2).

The ball is considered "in play" until the point is decided, i.e. until someone loses the point (there is no way to "win" the point, only to lose it). Therefore the ball was still in play when you touched the net, because your opponent had not yet lost the point at that moment.

By rule 24g you lose the point when "the player or the racket, whether in the player’s hand or not, or anything which the player is wearing or carrying touches the net, net posts/singles sticks, cord or metal cable, strap or band, or the opponent’s court at any time while the ball is in play."

I suppose it's possible an official could rule that "the player touches the net" is different than "the net touches touches the player." But in that case, because the ball also touched you, you lose the point by rule 24i: "The ball in play touches the player or anything that the player is wearing or carrying, except the racket."
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

M
Rules question: touching the opponents court
Replies
22
Views
7K
Wuppy
Wuppy
V
Rules question: Ball hitting the net and net hitting opponent's racquet
Replies
21
Views
3K
OrangePower
OrangePower
rk_sports
Rule question -- Touching net
Replies
26
Views
8K
gameboy
G
J011yroger
Rules question.
Replies
13
Views
980
onehandbh
onehandbh
J
rules question
Replies
9
Views
2K
JLyon
J
Back
Top