Question for the Rules Experts?

[GAS]

why so angry

Quando eu falo com o trav você

 

[TennisOTM]

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?

It's interesting that rule 24 does not actually seem to cover the ball-through-the-net situation, am I wrong? If player A hits a ball that touches the net and travels to the opponent's side without going over, at what moment does Player A officially lose the point?

I would think that he doesn't lose the point until the ball hits the ground, because that would be consistent with the way other rules are stated, in which case the ball was still in play when you touched it. But I supposed rule 24 would have to be amended to make this clear.

 

[GrassCourtFan]

They'd lose the point when the ball goes through the net. Since once it does that, it doesn't matter what else happens - it might land on the ground, might hit an opponent, might hit a permanent fixture, who knows. But once it goes through the net the point's over, there's no way for them to hit the ball through the net and win the point afterwards.

 

[TennisOTM]

They'd lose the point when the ball goes through the net. Since once it does that, it doesn't matter what else happens - it might land on the ground, might hit an opponent, might hit a permanent fixture, who knows. But once it goes through the net the point's over, there's no way for them to hit the ball through the net and win the point afterwards.

That makes sense, but the rules don't say that anywhere, do they? There are other scenarios where the ball has zero chance to become a good shot and yet the point is not officially over.

 

[travlerajm]

Ball through the net is a very common occurrence in rec play. And when the hole is just below the net cord, it can lead to disputes.

 

[TennisOTM]

Ball through the net is a very common occurrence in rec play. And when the hole is just below the net cord, it can lead to disputes.

Yes, which is why it's somewhat strange that it is not listed as a way to lose a point under rule 24.

 

[cks]

Ball through the net is a very common occurrence in rec play. And when the hole is just below the net cord, it can lead to disputes.

I found two (2) items in Friend at Court 2024 that sort of cover this.

The Code
20. Balls hit through net or into ground. A player makes the ruling on a ball that the player’s opponent hits:
• Through the net; or
• Into the ground before it goes over the net

ITF Rules
1. THE COURT
The court shall be a rectangle, 78 feet (23.77 m) long and, for singles matches, 27 feet (8.23 m) wide. For doubles matches, the court shall be 36 feet (10.97 m) wide. The court shall be divided across the middle by a net suspended by a cord or metal cable which shall pass over or be attached to two net posts at a height of 3 and 1/2 feet (1.07 m). 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.

 

[TennisOTM]

Another relevant item is 25(a):

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 "provided it passes over" part ensures that the through-ball cannot be called a good return by this rule. Although this doesn't technically cover a through-ball that doesn't touch the net (if it goes through a gaping hole). And this still doesn't answer the question of the exact timing of when the point is lost.

Interestingly, there is a specific kind of through-ball that is a good return (I never knew this!):

25. A GOOD RETURN
It is a good return if:
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;

 

[socallefty]

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?

If only the ball touched you or the ball touched you before the net, I would consider it a “through ball“ and the point ended when it touched you as it went through the net. So then you would win the point according to the rules. Interesting hypothetical enhancement of a hypothetical situation.

But you said that you couldn’t tell if the ball hit you first or if the net hit you first. In this case you have to make a call giving the benefit of the doubt to the opponent and assume that the net touched you first in which case you lose the point. Just like you would call a ball in if you had some doubt if it landed 100% out.

 

[GrassCourtFan]

I found two (2) items in Friend at Court 2024 that sort of cover this.

The Code
20. Balls hit through net or into ground. A player makes the ruling on a ball that the player’s opponent hits:
• Through the net; or
• Into the ground before it goes over the net

ITF Rules
1. THE COURT
The court shall be a rectangle, 78 feet (23.77 m) long and, for singles matches, 27 feet (8.23 m) wide. For doubles matches, the court shall be 36 feet (10.97 m) wide. The court shall be divided across the middle by a net suspended by a cord or metal cable which shall pass over or be attached to two net posts at a height of 3 and 1/2 feet (1.07 m). 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.

Interesting. So assuming this is ITF rules, the answer is this cannot happen, because the ball cannot pass through the net if the net is legal equipment.

(That leaves open the question of what to do if it does happen, besides stopping play to fix the net. Seems like in that case it's just up to the umpire what to do with that point, and presumably any umpire would say that the person who hit a ball through the net loses the point.)

According to the code, that call has to be made by the players, and they're reasonably assuming that this CAN happen because rec players play on all sorts of poorly-maintained courts.

 

[jmnk]

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?

again, you are making up stuff. There are two cases: a) regular officiated match with proper equipment that is checked before the match, and b) recreational match when players themselves officiate, and where the equipment may be not up to standard.
in case a) it would be the umpire that would first need to decide whether 1) the net touched you while the point was still not over, or 2) the ball went through the malfunctioning net and the ball touched you. And that would be absolutely umpires decision based on his judgement. If he decides 1) - you lose the point, if he decides 2) you win the point (because the opponent did not make a proper shot as his ball went through the net.
In case b) you make a decision (as you are acting as an umpire) on whether 1) or 2) happened, and once the decision is made the outcome of the point follows.

This situation is actually _very distinguishable_ from what actually happened in your original story. There's no umpire in the world that would rule as per 2) (meaning that the ball only but not the net touched you since it was a perfectly fine net with no holes)

 

[jmnk]

Another relevant item is 25(a):

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 "provided it passes over" part ensures that the through-ball cannot be called a good return by this rule. Although this doesn't technically cover a through-ball that doesn't touch the net (if it goes through a gaping hole). And this still doesn't answer the question of the exact timing of when the point is lost.

Interestingly, there is a specific kind of through-ball that is a good return (I never knew this!):

25. A GOOD RETURN
It is a good return if:
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;

not quite. 25d talks about a ball touching or not touching a permanent object. Anything outside singles sticks is a permanent object. Since the ball did not touch anything it is a good return. It is not really a case of a 'through ball'

 

[jmnk]

Interesting. So assuming this is ITF rules, the answer is this cannot happen, because the ball cannot pass through the net if the net is legal equipment.

(That leaves open the question of what to do if it does happen, besides stopping play to fix the net. Seems like in that case it's just up to the umpire what to do with that point, and presumably any umpire would say that the person who hit a ball through the net loses the point.)

According to the code, that call has to be made by the players, and they're reasonably assuming that this CAN happen because rec players play on all sorts of poorly-maintained courts.

^^this

 

[Chalkdust]

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

So, imagine the ball hit out of the court, that has already travelled over the fencing, is dropping, and is just about to land on a parked car (but hasn't hit it yet).

I would postulate that any gust of wind capable of getting that ball blow back into play would also be able to blow the ball hit into the net over the net.

It's exactly the same scenario.

 

[travlerajm]

So, imagine the ball hit out of the court, that has already travelled over the fencing, is dropping, and is just about to land on a parked car (but hasn't hit it yet).

I would postulate that any gust of wind capable of getting that ball blow back into play would also be able to blow the ball hit into the net over the net.

It's exactly the same scenario.

 

[cks]

So, imagine the ball hit out of the court, that has already travelled over the fencing, is dropping, and is just about to land on a

When I read your comment, I could see Tom Hanks in Bachelor Party swinging for the back fence until you added "the car" part.

 

[jm1980]

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

Couldn't a strong gust of wind blow a ball hit into the net back over?

 

[stapletonj]

Welllllllll...

1. This super strong gust of wind would have to blow from the "receiver's side" back towards the "hitter's side".
2. It would also have to be blowing strongly UP from the ground, the force being strong enough, less than 33" from the ground, to literally lift the ball in the air, to get it up above the level of the net cord.
3. It would then have to be INSTANTLY followed (because the ball is now dropping towards below the net at 32 feet per second per second) by an EVEN STRONGER gust of wind in the OPPOSITE direction.
(strong enough to overcome the inertia created by the first super strong gust, but also to push the ball forward across the net, still above the net cord)

Even Jim Carrey would not say there is a chance. But, I can see it happening to Wile E. Coyote, Super Genius, when using the ACME Industries thermonuclear tennis racket. (btw - I am still receiving treatments from when I restrung this racket)

 

[travlerajm]

 

[onehandbh]

That’s the question. Hitting the net doesn’t end the point, because it’s technically possible for a ball to hit the net and still go over.

In swirling gale winds the ball can do all kinds of stuff.

My HS courts sometimes had crazy winds. I had fun dropshotting and the hitting slice lobs against the wind that would go past the baseline and then blow back into the court.

 

[Connor35]

No joke -- this happened to me Saturday!

Was playing on hardcourt and the net didnt 'pool' on the ground, it just barely touched the ground.

I was at the net and my partner hit a high short ball to the opponents service line. So I went RIGHT up to the net stood, just making myself big, try to make the opponent think

He tried to go cross court but his ball hit about halfway down the next, right near the middle of the net, maybe 6 feet left of me. But he's such a big hitter the base off the net pushed toward me and brushed the toe of my shoe.

(I admit I did not call a foul on myself)

 

[travlerajm]

I just sent a follow-up note to Laura (the contact email on the Stump the Ump reply) to ask if Rebel has had a chance to ponder this one.

 

[travlerajm]

No joke -- this happened to me Saturday!

Was playing on hardcourt and the net didnt 'pool' on the ground, it just barely touched the ground.

I was at the net and my partner hit a high short ball to the opponents service line. So I went RIGHT up to the net stood, just making myself big, try to make the opponent think

He tried to go cross court but his ball hit about halfway down the next, right near the middle of the net, maybe 6 feet left of me. But he's such a big hitter the base off the net pushed toward me and brushed the toe of my shoe.

(I admit I did not call a foul on myself)

It seems like it is probably something that happens in doubles every once in while, so the rules should cover it explicitly.

Especially in higher level pro doubles, where it’s standard sound strategy for a net player to stand extremely close to the net in the “dunker” position, and then move forward on the diagonal and meet the ball several inches behind the plane of the net, because his partner has lob coverage responsibility. If a dunk hit at an opposing player gets defended back into the net below the dunker, the dunker is often close enough to the net for this question to come up.

It would also happen in 8.0 mixed a lot, because the 3.5f usually needs to assume the net-hugging dunker position for best results.

 

[travlerajm]

Who wins the point?

This doesn’t seem to be clearly spelled out in the rules.

—-
Rebel Goode:

A. Ah, but it is. Rule 24.g.: The point is lost if "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”

 

[travlerajm]

Who wins the point?

This doesn’t seem to be clearly spelled out in the rules.

—-
Rebel Goode:

A. Ah, but it is. Rule 24.g.: The point is lost if "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 replied:

So to clarify… this means that if my opponent is standing less than a foot from the net, a legal way for me to win the point is to simply blast the ball at the middle of the net near my opponent so that the ball pushes the net into him?

Thanks!

 

[stapletonj]

I replied:

So to clarify… this means that if my opponent is standing less than a foot from the net, a legal way for me to win the point is to simply blast the ball at the middle of the net near my opponent so that the ball pushes the net into him?

Thanks!

OOORRRRRRR, I could have a Acme Industries, Wile E. Coyote model, super leaf blower and blow the net into his leg! j/k of course.

 

[Roforot]

Nothing so extreme happened, but at a tournament there was a dispute where one player thought the ball went through the net and the other disagreed. There was a small hole that was zip tied so it is possible the ball could have gone through it... I know you get to call the balls on your side of court, but which player calls the net?

 

[good_jello]

Has anyone addressed on what happens if the ball gets stuck in the net? Is the ball still live or is it the case that the first person who gets it out loses the point?

 

[JLyon]

Welllllllll...

1. This super strong gust of wind would have to blow from the "receiver's side" back towards the "hitter's side".
2. It would also have to be blowing strongly UP from the ground, the force being strong enough, less than 33" from the ground, to literally lift the ball in the air, to get it up above the level of the net cord.
3. It would then have to be INSTANTLY followed (because the ball is now dropping towards below the net at 32 feet per second per second) by an EVEN STRONGER gust of wind in the OPPOSITE direction.
(strong enough to overcome the inertia created by the first super strong gust, but also to push the ball forward across the net, still above the net cord)

Even Jim Carrey would not say there is a chance. But, I can see it happening to Wile E. Coyote, Super Genius, when using the ACME Industries thermonuclear tennis racket. (btw - I am still receiving treatments from when I restrung this racket)

Does not matter the ball has to hit in the court in order to be a legal shot, then the wind could push it back across net, but if the ball crosses the net plane it is not a legal shot until it hits the court in bounds, now player could volley out of the air, but otherwise not a legal shot until it hits the correct court, think of a high lob, crosses net plane 20-30 ft up but wind pushes back into same court where it bounces or wind pushes into a permanent fixture.