Question for the Rules Experts?

[Chalkdust]

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.

There is no such thing as a "thru" AFAIK, at least not in the ITF rulebook.

However, there is mention of what is considered an appropriate net: "The net shall be fully extended so that it completely fills the space between the two net posts, and it must be of sufficiently small mesh to ensure that a ball cannot pass through it."

If the ball goes through the net, then the net is deficient. There may be some rules about what to do in the case of deficient equipment, but not in the ITF rulebook. I suspect they assume equipment is always adequate!

Perhaps some more rec-oriented organizations have supplemental rules about how to get around inadequate equipment.

Edit: @jm1980 is correct, ball must go 'over' the net. So I was not correct, the situation of a bad net is indeed covered by ITF rules.

 

[Rattler]

So the ball deflecting the net and touching me thru the undamaged net mesh opening is still a thru?

Sorry misunderstood. I was under the impression that the ball passed through the net and touched you

 

[Rattler]

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.

Yes you can hit the net; however, for it to be a ‘good shot’ the ball (after hitting the net) still must pass over the net. That is the depenent clause of what you posted yesterday and I highlighted by bolding the text.

 

[jm1980]

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.

My faith in the officials is shaken when an official produces an interpretation of the rules that completely contradicts what is actually written in the rulebook

That is not to say there aren't things open to interpretation, where a decision has to be made following common sense. Like, in a scenario like the one you posted earlier of a strong gust of wind blowing a tattered net into the player, I think the correct decision was made to not call the "net touch".

But the OP's scenario leaves much less room for interpretation

 

[jm1980]

Yes you can hit the net; however, for it to be a ‘good shot’ the ball (after hitting the net) still must pass over the net. That is the depenent clause of what you posted yesterday and I highlighted by bolding the text.

Yes, but the ball is still in play until the moment it actually bounces

So it becomes a matter of whether trav ran into the net before or after the bounce. If it was after the bounce it would have been trav's point, but that's doesn't seem to be in the case here

 

[Chalkdust]

Yes you can hit the net; however, for it to be a ‘good shot’ the ball (after hitting the net) still must pass over the net. That is the depenent clause of what you posted yesterday and I highlighted by bolding the text.

Yes, but the determination of whether the ball has passed over the net can only be made once the ball has hit the ground (or a permanent fixture).
Until then, it is like Schrödinger’s cat.

Now you could speculate that the ball could never have gone over the net given where it hit the net, but then the same argument can be used for a ball hit out way of the court but that has not yet landed... if the interim the other player touches the net, he loses the point, even though the ball could never have landed in.

 

[tennis3]

That's precisely what I'm getting at. The rules very thoroughly cover almost every possible scenario of how one loses the point,

Fortunately, I have never played anyone that doesn't use "common sense" when playing. I can't think of a single person I play that would take a point after drilling the ball into the net. And I'm thinking not many on this thread actually would either.

By the same token, when I encounter "argumentative types" on a tennis court, the rule is the same as anywhere else. Don't engage them. Just agree with whatever they say and don't get into an argument with them. Sort of the "Yes Dear" rule I guess.

 

[Chalkdust]

My faith in the officials is shaken when an official produces an interpretation of the rules that completely contradicts what is actually written in the rulebook

Not every carpenter is a good one, so why would you expect different from officials.

Even at ATP level there were a few recent bad misinterpretations of the rules that people were talking about.

 

[Chalkdust]

Fortunately, I have never played anyone that doesn't use "common sense" when playing. I can't think of a single person I play that would take a point after drilling the ball into the net. And I'm thinking not many on this thread actually would either.

By the same token, when I encounter "argumentative types" on a tennis court, the rule is the same as anywhere else. Don't engage them. Just agree with whatever they say and don't get into an argument with them. Sort of the "Yes Dear" rule I guess.

Absolutely right...
In the same spirit, I would never claim a point if my opponent clearly deliberately catches a ball about to hit the back fence on the fly.
On the other hand, if he was actually trying to get out of its way but could not, I would take the point.

So I think one does need to understand the actual rules, and then should elect to concede a point despite the rules when common sense would dictate.

 

[jm1980]

Fortunately, I have never played anyone that doesn't use "common sense" when playing. I can't think of a single person I play that would take a point after drilling the ball into the net. And I'm thinking not many on this thread actually would either.

I mean, I wouldn't take the point either because it's simply not worth the effort to argue with someone over it. I'd rather play tennis

But I would be conceding the point knowing the rules are on my side

And obviously this isn't something that would happen often enough to make a real difference

 

[Rattler]

I say let’s wait for Rebel’s opinion, since not only does he have that column but also authored a few USTA regulations.

 

[travlerajm]

I say let’s wait for Rebel’s opinion, since not only does he have that column but also authored a few USTA regulations.

Given the delay in receiving an email response, and given the obvious potential interest in the response (as this seems stumpier than most of these rules questions), I’m guessing that they will want to wait and publish the response in Tennis Magazine.

 

[Rattler]

Given the delay in receiving an email response, and given the obvious potential interest in the response (as this seems stumpier than most of these rules questions), I’m guessing that they will want to wait and publish the response in Tennis Magazine.

Well that would be great; however, Tennis Magazine no longer exists. They closed up shop a few months back, if not longer

 

[travlerajm]

Well that would be great; however, Tennis Magazine no longer exists. They closed up shop a few months back, if not longer

Like most magazines, it still exists in the afterlife on the inter web.

 

[Pass750]

Travler is not a troll in the classic sense of being an ahole, but his stories and situations on this site make him a 7.0 troll (in a mostly good way)!

 

[Rattler]

Travler is not a troll in the classic sense of being an ahole, but his stories and situations on this site make him a 7.0 troll (in a mostly good way)!

Besides being a remarkable sportsperson in this situation. Embarrassed and sorry I didn’t commend him earlier.

 

[TennisOTM]

I've made it clear that I think OP loses the point by the letter of the rules.

Would I actually demand the point if I was his opponent in an unofficiated match? No way.

If I was lucky enough to have the officiating services of @Rattler, would I argue with him about awarding OP the point? Also no way. I'd maybe ask his reasoning, then laugh about the bizarre situation, and move on.

If a different official awarded me the point, would I refuse to take it and concede? That's a tougher one. I'd certainly feel uncomfortable winning a point that way, but I'm also a rule-following personality, so I don't know.

 

[stapletonj]

Yes, but the determination of whether the ball has passed over the net can only be made once the ball has hit the ground (or a permanent fixture).
Until then, it is like Schrödinger’s cat.

Now you could speculate that the ball could never have gone over the net given where it hit the net, but then the same argument can be used for a ball hit out way of the court but that has not yet landed... if the interim the other player touches the net, he loses the point, even though the ball could never have landed in.

Not quite. the ball hit way out of court could be blown back into play by a strong gust of wind. A ball hit into the net, despite any spin, physically cannot climb up the net and go over. No matter if it is the loosest net inthe history of tennis or the tightest net in the history of tennis

 

[Rattler]

Well I’ve reached out to few others, whose opinion I respect and they are as divided as everyone in this thread. The umpires I reached out to are all currently working high level umpires.

One had the most interesting opinion, he stated that, as a referee, he could support each reasoning behind each ruling equally.

BTW it is 8 to 5 awarding the point to Travelerajm…of those who’ve responded.

 

[stapletonj]

I suggest we amend the rules at the next session of the International Tennis Legislature!

 

[travlerajm]

Well I’ve reached out to few others, whose opinion I respect and they are as divided as everyone in this thread. The umpires I reached out to are all currently working high level umpires.

One had the most interesting opinion, he stated that, as a referee, he could support each reasoning behind each ruling equally.

BTW it is 8 to 5 awarding the point to Travelerajm…of those who’ve responded.

This decidedly divided response is evidence that the rules need to be changed to cover this.

 

[88fingers]

You think we need a rule for something that never happened in a real match ? But "it could happen"
Not one post here says they have ever seen this happen playing real tennis. Don't forget the original poster was playing half court tennis.
We can start a new thread. Why don't we all think of things that have never happened and write rules for things that never will happen ?
or only happen once every 100 years.

 

[travlerajm]

You think we need a rule for something that never happened in a real match ? But "it could happen"
Not one post here says they have ever seen this happen playing real tennis. Don't forget the original poster was playing half court tennis.
We can start a new thread. Why don't we all think of things that have never happened and write rules for things that never will happen ?
or only happen once every 100 years.

We need an evacuation plan for when the local volcano erupts, so why not this?

 

[Pass750]

I can cite a rule as to why the opponent won the point, Travler touched the net before the point was over, thus he loses point. Can anyone who believes Travler won the point actually cite a rule as to why he won the point? Not all kinds of if ands or buts as to why Travler should win point. The game is based on rules, not coulda's , shoulda's and woulda's.

 

[jmnk]

This decidedly divided response is evidence that the rules need to be changed to cover this.

No they don't. I originally thought that some folks argue here for the sake of arguing. Nothing wrong with that on internet forum, I do it myself too.
But the fact that some apparently genuinely think and believe that @travlerajm actually is entitled to the point per rules in this scenario just blows my mind. Even after numerous clear examples that show how a player can still win a point even though his shot could not ever practically be called good if nothing else happened.....

 

[jm1980]

I can cite a rule as to why the opponent won the point, Travler touched the net before the point was over, thus he loses point. Can anyone who believes Travler won the point actually cite a rule as to why he won the point? Not all kinds of if ands or buts as to why Travler should win point. The game is based on rules, not coulda's , shoulda's and woulda's.

The one angle I can see an argument can be made for trav is, he didn't touch the net; the net touched him, therefore he doesn't lose the point.

Even though, of course, the rules don't really differentiate between touching the net, and being touched by the net. I suppose an argument can be made here, that in the spirit of the rules, trav is technically still on his side of the net, and wouldn't have touched it had the net not moved

We tried this the other day - I stuck out my racquet and had someone whack balls at the net. Even a properly tensioned net moves around quite a bit, I think you can get a good 6-8 inches of movement depending on where you hit it

 

[jm1980]

This isn't tennis of course, but we can draw some inspiration from volleyball, where a similar scenario is codified in the casebook:

11.07
After Team A’s first or second contact, the ball travels toward the middle of the net. A player from Team B places his hands near the net (on his side of the net) in the path of the ball. The ball contacts the net, which causes the net to contact the stationary hands of the Team B player. This action deflects the ball and affects the natural rebound of the ball from the net.

Ruling:
Since the player on Team B moved to place his hands in the path of the ball, the net touch in this action meets the USAV/FIVB interpretation of “interferes with play” and should be called a net fault by the Team B player

By a similar token, it can be argued trav contacting the net affected the natural path of the ball

What would make the OP's scenario more interesting is, what if the ball had hit the tape instead, causing the net to hit trav, and then the ball ricochets up but falls on his opponent's side? Does that change anything, for those who think it's trav's point?

 

[jmnk]

This isn't tennis of course, but we can draw some inspiration from volleyball, where a similar scenario is codified in the casebook:

11.07
After Team A’s first or second contact, the ball travels toward the middle of the net. A player from Team B places his hands near the net (on his side of the net) in the path of the ball. The ball contacts the net, which causes the net to contact the stationary hands of the Team B player. This action deflects the ball and affects the natural rebound of the ball from the net.

Ruling:
Since the player on Team B moved to place his hands in the path of the ball, the net touch in this action meets the USAV/FIVB interpretation of “interferes with play” and should be called a net fault by the Team B player

By a similar token, it can be argued trav contacting the net affected the natural path of the ball

Excellent example!

 

[travlerajm]

This isn't tennis of course, but we can draw some inspiration from volleyball, where a similar scenario is codified in the casebook:

11.07
After Team A’s first or second contact, the ball travels toward the middle of the net. A player from Team B places his hands near the net (on his side of the net) in the path of the ball. The ball contacts the net, which causes the net to contact the stationary hands of the Team B player. This action deflects the ball and affects the natural rebound of the ball from the net.

Ruling:
Since the player on Team B moved to place his hands in the path of the ball, the net touch in this action meets the USAV/FIVB interpretation of “interferes with play” and should be called a net fault by the Team B player

By a similar token, it can be argued trav contacting the net affected the natural path of the ball

What would make the OP's scenario more interesting is, what if the ball had hit the tape instead, causing the net to hit trav, and then the ball ricochets up but falls on his opponent's side? Does that change anything, for those who think it's trav's point?

This example is good. But “since the player on Team B moved to place his hands in the path of the ball” seems to be the reason for the ruling.

It’s implicit that the ruling of interference would not have applied if the player was stationary when the ball bounced off him through the net.

 

[jm1980]

This example is good. But “since the player on Team B moved to place his hands in the path of the ball” seems to be the reason for the ruling.

It’s implicit that the ruling of interference would not have applied if the player was stationary when the ball bounced off him through the net.

It literally says: "The ball contacts the net, which causes the net to contact the stationary hands of the Team B player", i.e.: the player's hands were stationary at the moment of contact

 

[travlerajm]

It literally says: "The ball contacts the net, which causes the net to contact the stationary hands of the Team B player", i.e.: the player's hands were stationary at the moment of contact

But it also says that he moved into the path of the ball.

 

[jm1980]

But it also says that he moved into the path of the ball.

Yes, but you also moved into the path of the ball, even if inadvertently

 

[travlerajm]

Yes, but you also moved into the path of the ball, even if inadvertently

The difference was that I was stationary from before that ball was launched off my opponent’s racquet.

In the volleyball case described, the report implies that the player actively moved into the path after the ball already had a path.

 

[stapletonj]

This isn't tennis of course, but we can draw some inspiration from volleyball, where a similar scenario is codified in the casebook:

11.07
After Team A’s first or second contact, the ball travels toward the middle of the net. A player from Team B places his hands near the net (on his side of the net) in the path of the ball. The ball contacts the net, which causes the net to contact the stationary hands of the Team B player. This action deflects the ball and affects the natural rebound of the ball from the net.

Ruling:
Since the player on Team B moved to place his hands in the path of the ball, the net touch in this action meets the USAV/FIVB interpretation of “interferes with play” and should be called a net fault by the Team B player

By a similar token, it can be argued trav contacting the net affected the natural path of the ball

What would make the OP's scenario more interesting is, what if the ball had hit the tape instead, causing the net to hit trav, and then the ball ricochets up but falls on his opponent's side? Does that change anything, for those who think it's trav's point?

YES, mostly because the ball striking the tape had a chance of going over , but I see your point.

 

[scmyers]

This is volleyball analogy doesn’t really have any similarities to OP scenario. This rule is for 1st or 2nd contact, which means team A still has an opportunity for 3rd contact that has been hindered by the Team B alteration of the path of the ball. There is a similar rule for 3rd (final) contact where if the same scenario happens where team A hits ball into net, and ball causes net to hit team B player it is Team B who wins the point because the ball didn‘t go over the net and team A has no more contacts.

 

[travlerajm]

No they don't. I originally thought that some folks argue here for the sake of arguing. Nothing wrong with that on internet forum, I do it myself too.
But the fact that some apparently genuinely think and believe that @travlerajm actually is entitled to the point per rules in this scenario just blows my mind. Even after numerous clear examples that show how a player can still win a point even though his shot could not ever practically be called good if nothing else happened.....

That’s a strong opinion considering that > 60% of the active professional umpires polled would have awarded me the point.

 

[Pass750]

That’s a strong opinion considering that > 60% of the active professional umpires polled would have awarded me the point.

According to the RULES, please explain to me why you win the point. 60% of active professional umpires ! ROFL, you are a masterful troll !

 

[tennis3]

I can cite a rule as to why the opponent won the point, Travler touched the net before the point was over, thus he loses point. Can anyone who believes Travler won the point actually cite a rule as to why he won the point? Not all kinds of if ands or buts as to why Travler should win point. The game is based on rules, not coulda's , shoulda's and woulda's.

Sure.

The Regulations specifically state that The Code shall apply to all matches except to the extent to which an official assumes some of the players’ responsibilities.

Thus, @Rattler ruling (if he is your match official) supersedes any rule you cite.

 

[travlerajm]

According to the RULES, please explain to me why you win the point. 60% of active professional umpires ! ROFL, you are a masterful troll !

I’m just re-reporting the poll results posted earlier in the thread, where 8 out of 13 umpires polled awarded point to player hit by ball thru the net.

Question for the Rules Experts?

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. There is no such thing as a "thru" AFAIK, at least...

tt.tennis-warehouse.com

 

[Pass750]

Sure.

The Regulations specifically state that The Code shall apply to all matches except to the extent to which an official assumes some of the players’ responsibilities.

Thus, @Rattler ruling (if he is your match official) supersedes any rule you cite.

Once again, please cite the rule other than some guy named Rattler thinks so!

 

[Rattler]

Once again, please cite the rule other than some guy named Rattler thinks so!

 

[tennis3]

Once again, please cite the rule other than some guy named Rattler thinks so!

That's the rule. And it's what @Rattler has been saying all along. The rule as written clearly says that

• The ball isn't officially "dead" until it comes off the net and lands on the court.
• The net touched @travlerajm before the ball touched the court
• Therefore, by strict reading of the rule, the point goes to Trav's opponent

But everyone knows that's not what the rule means. This is evidenced by the fact that most people said that they wouldn't take the point. Even if the rule says the point should be theirs. That's why @Rattler is paid to officiate and "interpret" the rule and apply it to the given situation. And that is why his ruling, as an official, supersedes a strict reading of the rule. That's just good officiating.

Same is true for the case he cites where the wind blew the net 18 inches and touched a player. The rule wasn't written to "take" points from a player that is under control, is not going to run into the net, but by some "freak" occurrence, the net blew 18 inches and touched him. Again, @Rattler is paid to understand how to apply the rule in the given situation. Which he did. And that is good officiating.

Applying the rule "as written" is safer. You can always give the exact arguments that you and your "colleagues" are giving. But to do that would be bad officiating IMO.

 

[naylor73]

I’ve been reading through the posts on this one for a while and thinking about my take on this situation. I would honestly think that if a player were standing close enough for the net to touch their body or racquet during a point, it doesn’t matter whether or not the net touched the player or racquet, or the player initiated the touch, the point goes to the opponent. I would think that’s the risk you take when standing close to the net.

 

[DCNJ]

That's the rule. And it's what @Rattler has been saying all along. The rule as written clearly says that

• The ball isn't officially "dead" until it comes off the net and lands on the court.
• The net touched @travlerajm before the ball touched the court
• Therefore, by strict reading of the rule, the point goes to Trav's opponent

But everyone knows that's not what the rule means. This is evidenced by the fact that most people said that they wouldn't take the point. Even if the rule says the point should be theirs. That's why @Rattler is paid to officiate and "interpret" the rule and apply it to the given situation. And that is why his ruling, as an official, supersedes a strict reading of the rule. That's just good officiating.

Same is true for the case he cites where the wind blew the net 18 inches and touched a player. The rule wasn't written to "take" points from a player that is under control, is not going to run into the net, but by some "freak" occurrence, the net blew 18 inches and touched him. Again, @Rattler is paid to understand how to apply the rule in the given situation. Which he did. And that is good officiating.

Applying the rule "as written" is safer. You can always give the exact arguments that you and your "colleagues" are giving. But to do that would be bad officiating IMO.

But 5 of 13 officials (queried by Rattler) would give the point to traveller.

And that's why I was asking about the rules as written and if Rattler would point out where he's basing the rule from, but he's been mute on that (except first to say there wasn't anything in there, and then later telling me there was and to google it). I'd like to learn, so as Rattler says, officials on the court don't have to explain, though that seems to me to be a bit of a bad attitude.

 

[Rattler]

But 5 of 13 officials (queried by Rattler) would give the point to traveller.

And that's why I was asking about the rules as written and if Rattler would point out where he's basing the rule from, but he's been mute on that (except first to say there wasn't anything in there, and then later telling me there was and to google it). I'd like to learn, so as Rattler says, officials on the court don't have to explain, though that seems to me to be a bit of a bad attitude.

Ok

It was 8 out of 13 who’s opinion was to award the point to travelerajm

It’s a grey area of the rule….

The rule I was siting about in court officials (chair umpire or roving umpire) having the final say on questions of fact…i.e. what happened on court. They also have the first ruling on interpretation and application of the rules.
The final say on interpretation and application of the rules lies with the tournament referee.

Also asking an official or a referee to “show me where in the rules!” Is not a duty of the umpire or referee, most would be happy to do it (myself included) when you’re no longer emotionally charged. If you’re in my face shouting, I’ll give my ruling and tell you the onus on knowing the rules lies with you.

Similar to the “ignorance of the law is no excuse” approach.

No one, and I mean no one wants to be screamed at. Certainly that is understandable?

 

[DCNJ]

Ok

It was 8 out of 13 who’s opinion was to award the point to travelerajm

It’s a grey area of the rule….

The rule I was siting about in court officials (chair umpire or roving umpire) having the final say on questions of fact…i.e. what happened on court. They also have the first ruling on interpretation and application of the rules.
The final say on interpretation and application of the rules lies with the tournament referee.

Yeah, I thought I might have got the 5 versus 8 switched around, but I didn't take the time to look back as the point I was trying to make was that there were a sizable fraction of knowledgable people who sided on either side.

And thanks--I was expecting that there'd be something about interpretations being under the purview of the officials (with I'm assuming some guidance about fairness and that the rules can't handle every situation that comes up)

 

[travlerajm]

I’ve been thinking more about how to interpret Rule 24g.

What if hypothetically the ball had touched me through the opening in the net mesh (while I was standing 6” from net), but the net itself didn’t touch me?

In that case, I would technically not have broken any rules causing me to lose the point.

This situation is indistinguishable from what actually happened, because I can’t really tell whether I was hit by both the ball fuzz and the net, or just the ball. So the same rule should apply.

If only the ball had touched me on my side of the net (but not the net), would that change folks’ opinions for their poll answers?

 

[anarosevoli]

I’ve been thinking more about how to interpret Rule 24g.

What if hypothetically the ball had touched me through the opening in the net mesh (while I was standing 6” from net), but the net itself didn’t touch me?

In that case, I would technically not have broken any rules causing me to lose the point.

This situation is indistinguishable from what actually happened, because I can’t really tell whether I was hit by both the ball fuzz and the net, or just the ball. So the same rule should apply.

If only the ball had touched me on my side of the net (but not the net), would that change folks’ opinions for their poll answers?

Nobody can see/decide if a part of the ball or a part of the net touched you first.

If the ball touches you first, it's very easy: At the moment it touches you the point is over. It has to be treated like a shot through the net - opponent loses point.

Nobody can prove that it was not the ball that touched you first. You made no movement toward the net, ball and net were flying into you. It would be absolutely stupid and funny to not give you the point. If it was clear that the net and not the ball touched you first, we could discuss a let.

 

[travlerajm]

Nobody can see/decide if a part of the ball or a part of the net touched you first.

If the ball touches you first, it's very easy: At the moment it touches you the point is over. It has to be treated like a shot through the net - opponent loses point.

Nobody can prove that it was not the ball that touched you first. You made no movement toward the net, ball and net were flying into you. It would be absolutely stupid and funny to not give you the point. If it was clear that the net and not the ball touched you first, we could discuss a let.

Exactly.

So if an umpire used this logic to award me (or another player in same situation) the point, there wouldn’t be much ground for the opponent to argue against it.

That is why I originally voted in the thread poll for my opponent winning the point, but upon careful reconsideration, I changed my poll answer and concluded that I won the point.

I wonder if others would change their answers too considering this logical common sense thought approach?

 

[Daniel Andrade]

3. Those crazy tennis courts with loose volleyball nets
4. Never happened

why so angry