jm1980
Talk Tennis Guru
Please show me where in the rules does it state that a point ends with a ball hitting a specific part of the net.
Question for the Rules Experts?
- Thread starter travlerajm
- Start date
Rattler
Hall of Fame
jm1980
Talk Tennis Guru
Here are the rules of tennis, show me the exact section of the rules where it says what you think it says.
Hint: You are mistaken. No such rule exists.
Rattler
Hall of Fame
jm1980
Talk Tennis Guru
The rules define a good return in section 25. Section 25a very clearly states that a ball hit into the net is still a "good return", provided it hits the ground within the correct court.
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); or
b. After the ball in play has hit the ground within the correct court and has spun or been blown back over the net, the player reaches over the net and plays the ball into the correct court, provided that the player does not break Rule 24; or
c. The ball is returned outside the net posts, either above or below the level of the top of the net, even though it touches the net posts, provided that it hits the ground in the correct court; except as provided in Rules 2 and 24 (d); or
d. The ball passes under the net cord between the singles stick and the adjacent net post without touching either net, net cord or net post and hits the ground in the correct court, or
e. The player’s racket passes over the net after hitting the ball on the player’s own side of the net and the ball hits the ground in the correct court; or
f. The player hits the ball in play, which hits another ball lying in the correct court.
socallefty
G.O.A.T.
In spite of what some posters are trying to imply, there is nothing in the rules which says a net touch has to be caused by a player’s action, that a player has to touch the net rather than a net touching the player or that a point ends when it hits the net below the tape. The rule just says you lose the point if you touch the net when a point is live and a point is live when hit by the opponent into the net until it bounces once on their court.
There is no fairness to the opposing player that should be considered when interpreting rules which is what the OP‘s question is about. In social play, many players wouldn’t want to win a point this way, but that is more related to being fair in etiquette and not related to rules interpretation. If I were the OP, I would not take or replay the point because I lost it according to the rules. If I were the OP’s opponent, I would offer to replay the point based on etiquette rather than taking the point according to the rules.
There is no fairness to the opposing player that should be considered when interpreting rules which is what the OP‘s question is about. In social play, many players wouldn’t want to win a point this way, but that is more related to being fair in etiquette and not related to rules interpretation. If I were the OP, I would not take or replay the point because I lost it according to the rules. If I were the OP’s opponent, I would offer to replay the point based on etiquette rather than taking the point according to the rules.
Last edited by a moderator:
Rattler
Hall of Fame
jm1980
Talk Tennis Guru
You do not know if the ball isn't going to clear the net until it has bounced.
This means the point is technically still live until the ball actually hits the ground.
Last edited:
Rattler
Hall of Fame
Riiiiight, the ball hits the center of the net is still live. That’s taking a technicality into the ridiculous.
jm1980
Talk Tennis Guru
Be that as it may, but the ball hitting the net well below the tape, and it being physically impossible for it to climb over doesn't change anything, if we go by the letter of the rule.
What if we were playing on clay on a windy day and some of the clay was blowing in the air. The clay was on the surface and part of the court when the point started and even when the ball was struck. The ball touches some of the grains of clay that are blowing in the air prior to hitting the fence on the fly.
Isn't it fair to say that the ball hit "the court" before hitting the back fence? Nowhere in the rules does it state that the court can't rise up and touch the ball. We just assume that the ball must drop and touch the court, but it doesn't say anything about that in the rules. If it does, show me exactly where that is written.
jm1980
Talk Tennis Guru
I think we have to start with an agreed-upon definition of what the "ground" is, and parts of the court surface blown into the air aren't actually part of the court.
Is it more ridiculous than a server winning the point by shanking a serve that strikes the returner's partner on the foot? Rules that are ridiculous technicalities still need to be enforced, don't they?
Rattler
Hall of Fame
I’ve already clearly stated that the spirit of the law/rule holds precedence over the letter.
It’s why we have judges, trials, referees
You can disagree all you like
It’s the gestalt/basalt conundrum of interpretation. As vacuous as that may seem to some.
Rattler
Hall of Fame
Completely different situation.
Show me that in the rules.
If it had hit those exact grains of clay and they hadn't blown up, would the ball have been out? Then why is my ball out, just because these grains of clay changed position? When did they cease being part of the court? Again, show me in the rules the exact moment this occurs. If it's not explicitly stated in the rules, I'm taking the point because to me, the ball "hit the court". And you can't prove me wrong.
Rattler
Hall of Fame
This argument is akin to a jail house lawyer grasping at straws for an appeal
He could be right on a technicality, but it’s still B.S.
Yes, but my aim here isn't really to take the point. My aim here is to make my opponent so f'in miserable listening to my nonsense, that he just wants to leave. Then he's much easier to beat. It's called "winning the mental battle".
Rattler
Hall of Fame
jm1980
Talk Tennis Guru
I suppose we'll have to agree to disagree here. But to me that is clear abuse of power, and a contravention of what is actually in the rulebook.
The rules say the ball is in play until one of the point-ending scenarios in section 24 materializes. Hitting a ball into the net, in and of itself, is not one of the point-ending scenarios. But touching the net is.
jm1980
Talk Tennis Guru
I see what you're doing here, but this is insanity and not even worth a serious response.
Whereas no reasonable interpretation of section 24 and 25 lead to a ball hitting the net immediately ending the point. Quite the contrary -- section 25a explicitly allows hitting a ball into the net
The problem begins when those tasked with enforcing the rules do not know what they actually say, and choose to go with very their own interpretation of the rules, if not outright inventions -- such as the ball hitting the net immediately ending the point. Which again, directly contradicts section 25a of the Rules of Tennis.
Last edited:
Rattler
Hall of Fame
Did you happen across the part were questions of fact lies with the oncourt/roving/or chair umpire and questions of rules and how they are applied in given situations lies with the referee and their decision is final?
That’s not an abuse position, rather it’s an exercise of one.
BTW officials who don’t know the rules, and know them well, don’t get hired twice nor do they last long.
jm1980
Talk Tennis Guru
That in no way guarantees the rules are being applied correctly. It just means you're up the creek without a paddle if the official misapplies or misunderstands the rules
I don't know about that. You have umpires at the professional level making officiating mistakes with alarming frequency. Presumably the cream of the crop when it comes to tennis officiating, yet they are allowed to continue working despite the mistakes
Last edited:
In both situations, a player hit a ball that has zero chance of becoming a good shot. In one case, it is ridiculous to call it call it a live ball, while in the other case it is not ridiculous? Seems confusingly arbitrary to me. Would you be OK if an umpire refused to award the point to the server who hit the returner's partner's foot, because the umpire judged that it was not in the spirit of the rules?
travlerajm
Talk Tennis Guru
It seems I’ve stumbled upon a case that’s not covered by the rules, and so no one is going to win any arguments either way. I’m going to ask my friend who’s father was a longtime umpire in pro matches.
anarosevoli
Semi-Pro
You can't even say if the ball or the net hit the player first. If the ball did, it's like a shot through the net and has to be treated like it - losing the point. If the net did, it would be a let: Net flying fast into a player is obviously not what the not touching the net rule's intention is. In no case it's a point for the player shooting into the net. And because nobody can decide if the ball or a part of the net touched the other player first, the point should be given to the player who had 100% chance of winning the point. (analog to Hawk-Eye correction of wrong linesman's out call: Point would not have technically ended at the moment of the wrong call, but is still being awarded if the other one had no chance to get to it, replay only if the other one had a chance).
stapletonj
Hall of Fame
Sometimes, and I agree it is RARE, the jailhouse lawyer wins.
Rattler
Hall of Fame
In the serve case you brought up the ball crossed over the net, presumably. In the original post it didn’t and had no chance of crossing over the net, period.
Dodging or not dodging a wild serve is materially different.
Rattler
Hall of Fame
With such little faith in officials and most likely other players it’s a wonder you even play tennis at all. As sardonic as that comment comes off, I’m being dead serious.
travlerajm
Talk Tennis Guru
Would the poll responses be different if the ball had passed thru a hole in the net before it hit me?
Rattler
Hall of Fame
That’s a thru, aka a foul shot.
travlerajm
Talk Tennis Guru
The cream of the crop when it comes to pro tennis players make unforced errors with high frequency, yet they are allowed to continue working despite their mistakes.
travlerajm
Talk Tennis Guru
I have submitted my question to my friend who’s dad is an ex professional USTA / ITF / ATP / WTA umpire. Awaiting response.
I stand by my previous assessment. Traveler, by rule, loses the point, but his opponent should relinquish the point.
A point is not ended by the ball hitting the net; it is ended by: 1) the ball bouncing anywhere outside of the opponents court, 2) the ball bouncing inside the opponents court and then bouncing a second time before being struck, 3) the ball striking a player, or 4) the ball hitting a permanent fixture. None of those have happened in this scenario at the time traveler comes in contact with the net, so the point is technically still in play, despite there being essentially zero possibility of the ball going in.
There is no rule that distinguishes between touching the net and being touched by the net, so you have to follow the rules as closely as you can; there was contact with the net, so he loses the point.
This would be similar to a lob or shank going really high in the air, the person on the receiving end of the shot walking back towards the fence to use a towel or whatever, and the ball hitting them on the way down. They are by the fence so the ball was clearly going out, but the ball hit the person before bouncing, so it was still in play. Technically, that person loses the point. The person who hit the shot though should, in the spirit of the game, relinquish the point, because they clearly did not hit a "good shot" to use the language from previous posts.
A point is not ended by the ball hitting the net; it is ended by: 1) the ball bouncing anywhere outside of the opponents court, 2) the ball bouncing inside the opponents court and then bouncing a second time before being struck, 3) the ball striking a player, or 4) the ball hitting a permanent fixture. None of those have happened in this scenario at the time traveler comes in contact with the net, so the point is technically still in play, despite there being essentially zero possibility of the ball going in.
There is no rule that distinguishes between touching the net and being touched by the net, so you have to follow the rules as closely as you can; there was contact with the net, so he loses the point.
This would be similar to a lob or shank going really high in the air, the person on the receiving end of the shot walking back towards the fence to use a towel or whatever, and the ball hitting them on the way down. They are by the fence so the ball was clearly going out, but the ball hit the person before bouncing, so it was still in play. Technically, that person loses the point. The person who hit the shot though should, in the spirit of the game, relinquish the point, because they clearly did not hit a "good shot" to use the language from previous posts.
I don't understand why "no chance of landing in the correct court" and "no chance of crossing over the net" are materially different? They both mean "no chance of becoming a good shot" which is materially the same.
There are several ways for you to win the point even after you hit a ball that has no chance of crossing over the net. One, the ball could go around the side of the net and land in. Two, your opponent could reach over the net and touch the ball before it hits the net. Three, your opponent could touch your side of the court before the ball hits the net. Four, the opponent's body or racket could touch the net before the ball hits the net.
esgee48
G.O.A.T.
@Rattler is a certified official and yet the disagreement continues over who won the point. The area is gray and not spell out explicitly because of the described incident, but the whole intent is to get the ruling right, which is ball has not been returned in a good manner over the net. For the incident as described, 25A applies cuz the ball went into the middle of the net, not as over the net. Any other 'what if' etc is irrelevant. For me, the spirit of getting the ruling right is Trav won the point. 24 does not apply since the ball did not go over the net.
travlerajm
Talk Tennis Guru
Here is the reply from my buddy’s dad, who was a professional umpire, but retired for 20 years:
“I think you lose point, even though opponents shot didn't go over net.
I had this happen in chaired match. Wind blew net hit players foot.”
“I think you lose point, even though opponents shot didn't go over net.
I had this happen in chaired match. Wind blew net hit players foot.”
Last edited:
Let's simplify the scenario and stipulate that the following happens in this exact sequence:
- Player B's ball hits the net well below the net cord; the ball ricochets away
- Player A touches the net
- Player B's ball lands on the ground (on player B's side of the net)
This is the OP's scenario, without the red herring of whether he touched the net or the net touched him.
Let's consider also the following similar scenario and sequence:
- Player B hits a bad lob that takes off sailing over the back fence
- Player A touches the net
- Player B's ball lands in the parking lot
I would argue that by rule the point in the second scenario goes to player B, since player A touched the net before the ball was dead.
I suspect most would agree.
So then the point in the first scenario should also go to player B, since player A touched the net before the ball was dead.
To be otherwise, one would have to claim that the ball was dead as soon as it hit the net rather than only once it hit the ground.
However this claim is not supported by the rules.
You definitively do not have to hit the ball over the net to win the point. You don't even have to *hit* the ball the win the point. If you swing at your opponent's good shot and completely whiff, drop your racket and fall on your face, with no partner to back you up, you can still win the point. If your opponent touches the net before the whiffed ball bounces twice, you win.
Rule 24 always matters. A point is never over until someone loses the point by one of the methods under rule 24. The only exception maybe is if a hindrance is called, which is covered separately. That aside, a tennis point is a race between two opponents for who loses the point first. Sometimes it is a very close race, and in those cases, the details matter.
Of course, this was always the right answer in spite of all the gesticulating from some posters.
I think the interesting question to ask is, how many people would actually take the point after slamming the ball into the net?
I know I wouldn't.
If the wind blows the net 18 inches, isn't there a "broken equipment rule" that covers this? 18 inches is a very large amount for a net to move. If someone is going to call a touch on a net that moves 18 inches, you could think of all sorts of odd scenarios of nets in "questionable condition" that result in "touches".
If I played an opponent that called a "touch" and took a point on a net that moved 18 inches, we'd definitely be stopping the match until the net was fixed. No matter how long that took. In this situation you'd be risking losing a point every time you came to net.
travlerajm
Talk Tennis Guru
Or what if there was a hole in the net large enough for the ball hit by Player B to squirt thru, and then it hit Player A before touching the ground?
That’s fundamentally no different than what happened to me, other than that in my case the ball touched me thru the undamaged mesh openings.
Rattler refers to something called a "thru". So I assume this is covered somewhere in the rules? I suppose in this case you could take the point and force your opponent to search the code for as long as it took him to find the "thru" rule.
I suppose in theory you could take every point and say you aren't relenting until your opponent produces the exact rule in the code that grants him the point. It would take me an hour to win a point after hitting a Service Ace probably if my opponent did that.
Rattler
Hall of Fame
Still a thru
travlerajm
Talk Tennis Guru
So the ball deflecting the net and touching me thru the undamaged net mesh opening is still a thru?
jm1980
Talk Tennis Guru
That is indeed covered by the rules - the same section 25a stipulates the ball must go over the net. If your shot goes through the net, you lose the point.
The rules also pretty clearly state a serve that lands in the correct service box, and your opponent does not return to the correct court, means you win the point.
That's precisely what I'm getting at. The rules very thoroughly cover almost every possible scenario of how one loses the point, including 24k, "The player deliberately and materially changes the shape of the racket when the ball is in play." What is notably absent from the "Player loses point" section is hitting the net. However, hitting the net is in the "good return" section
The rules literally spell out you are allowed to a hit ball at the net, yet the argument persists.
Similar threads
