rescinding a let call, what are the rules?

[Delano]

I had a strange situation in a league match, want to know if anyone knows the official rule on this.

In the middle of a point, during a baseline rally, I saw a ball rolling behind my opponent, so I held my hand up to signal a let. I then realized that I had made a mistake, that the ball I had thought was rolling onto our court was actually behind the fence, so I put my hand down and returned the shot in, deep up the middle. There was no clear scoring possibility for either of us. My opponent caught the ball in his hand and asked why I had indicated a let. I told him that I had erroneously believed that a ball was coming onto the court, but this had turned out not to be the case, so I had put my hand down and continued playing.

He said he should get to claim the point because I had rescinded my let call (though I had returned the shot). I said we should replay the point, because the point was neutral when he caught the ball and ended the point. I definitely don't think I should get to claim the point, since I'd agree that when I raised my hand, I indicated that play should stop.

Nothing really in the code about this. Anyone know what the rule would be here? Thanks.

 

[JavierLW]

I had a strange situation in a league match, want to know if anyone knows the official rule on this.

In the middle of a point, during a baseline rally, I saw a ball rolling behind my opponent, so I held my hand up to signal a let. I then realized that I had made a mistake, that the ball I had thought was rolling onto our court was actually behind the fence, so I put my hand down and returned the shot in, deep up the middle. There was no clear scoring possibility for either of us. My opponent caught the ball in his hand and asked why I had indicated a let. I told him that I had erroneously believed that a ball was coming onto the court, but this had turned out not to be the case, so I had put my hand down and continued playing.

He said he should get to claim the point because I had rescinded my let call (though I had returned the shot). I said we should replay the point, because the point was neutral when he caught the ball and ended the point. I definitely don't think I should get to claim the point, since I'd agree that when I raised my hand, I indicated that play should stop.

Nothing really in the code about this. Anyone know what the rule would be here? Thanks.

We'd need woodrow for this one I guess.

But there is no rule for what happens if you mistakenly call let.

Once you call let, the point ends. You cant "rescind" it in the middle of the point, that much is certain.

I think if you follow precedent in how other rules work, you called let in good faith and made an honest mistake.

So it's not bad to just play the point over in that case. (it's far better then awarding any points either way for something that wasn't earned, or "rescinding" the let in the middle of the point)

 

[Geezer Guy]

We're all amateurs playing a gentlemens sport. An honest mistake was made - just apologize and replay the point.
If your opponent is being an ass and wants to claim the point, let him. You DID make a mistake, and if he wants to be a jerk, he'll have to answer to karma eventually.

 

[Delano]

We're all amateurs playing a gentlemens sport. An honest mistake was made - just apologize and replay the point.
If your opponent is being an ass and wants to claim the point, let him. You DID make a mistake, and if he wants to be a jerk, he'll have to answer to karma eventually.

What you suggest is a good guiding principle... but technically, you don't necessarily have to give up a point if you make a mistake. The classic example is in doubles: you call a serve out, and then you realize you blew the call and say the serve was in. Unless the service was a winner or your partner's return was an easy sitter, you replay the point (btw, I think this is only the case for the *first* missed call, subsequent bad calls would be a loss of point, but I'm not sure about that).

That's why I emphasized in my original post that the point was completely neutral when my opponent caught the ball. While I don't see anything specifically about this in the code, I suspect that my opponent could claim a hinderance when I raised my hand to indicate a let. I guess the question is - does that hinderance lead to a loss of point on my part, or do we replay the point?

Also, an erroneous let call may be considered a different thing from a blown line call, because the line call is technically completely under your control, whereas an errant ball is not.

So this is a tough one for me... yeah, it'd be nice if woodrow chimed in here...

 

[West Coast Ace]

JavierLW is right. Once let is called, play stops. No point is awarded - you can't assume someone was going to hit a winner. Don't be bullied into handing over a point. Apologize for messing up. If he gets huffy, remind him it was his ankle ligaments you were concerned about.

 

[Cindysphinx]

I think what you have is a hindrance.

OP did something distracting that interfered with opponent's ability to play the point. Opponent caught the ball rather than attempting to play the ball despite the distraction. Opponent therefore wins the point due to hindrance.

I had something similar (well, sort of similar) happen recently in a social match of doubles. My partner hit a sitter fairly close to the net, and opposing net player lets it bounce up high as he is moving forward to put it away. My partner and I were backpedaling and setting up to perhaps get a racket on the shot and keep the point going.

Suddenly, opponent stops moving and holds up both hands. We thought he was stopping play for some reason (ball rolling on court?). Opponent then lowered his hands and played a soft groundstroke. Both of us had stopped playing and did not attempt to return the shot because we thought he had called a let, although we probably could have reached it. My partner said something like, "What's up? Why did you stop?"

Opponent replied "Nothing." We looked at each other. Why had he raised both hands in the international signal for "Stop!"? Was he hoping to fake us out or something? If so, isn't that a hindrance?

Eh, whatever. It was a social match. We let it go.

Still, I don't see how you can do things that cause your opponent to think you are stopping the point or making a call when you are not. So I say OP loses the point in this case.

 

[West Coast Ace]

Still, I don't see how you can do things that cause your opponent to think you are stopping the point or making a call when you are not. So I say OP loses the point in this case.

We can agree to disagree. He, validly and with reason, did stop the point - he just didn't know that you can't restart one. Play a let.

I hope you 'educated' that clown in your example.

 

[Cindysphinx]

We can agree to disagree. He, validly and with reason, did stop the point - he just didn't know that you can't restart one. Play a let.

I hope you 'educated' that clown in your example.

Nah, it was a social match. Whatever.

Regarding OP, you have a good point. I don't think, however, that OP called a let validly and with good reason. OP erred, and I think if you call a let in error you lose the point. Otherwise, folks could call lets in error all the time to their advantage.

Still, I'd always play a let when anyone makes a mistake. For instance, if my opponents stop playing because they hear a loud out call on another court and think I made the out call, I would play a let.

 

[jmnk]

What you suggest is a good guiding principle... but technically, you don't necessarily have to give up a point if you make a mistake. The classic example is in doubles: you call a serve out, and then you realize you blew the call and say the serve was in. Unless the service was a winner or your partner's return was an easy sitter, you replay the point (btw, I think this is only the case for the *first* missed call, subsequent bad calls would be a loss of point, but I'm not sure about that).

Are you suggesting that you can call a serve out, than check the mark/confirm otherwise and decide it was in, --and-- you want to replay the point rather than conceding the point? At least you are saying that it would only apply on the first bad call......
Well, not according to the rules I'm accustomed to.

 

[woodrow1029]

In an unofficiated match, I would say replay the point.

With a chair umpire, the player that mistakenly called the let would lose the point.

 

[Delano]

Are you suggesting that you can call a serve out, than check the mark/confirm otherwise and decide it was in, --and-- you want to replay the point rather than conceding the point? At least you are saying that it would only apply on the first bad call......
Well, not according to the rules I'm accustomed to.

I wouldn't have thought so either, but this is from "the code"

http://dps.usta.com/usta_master/sitecore_usta/USTA/Document Assets/2008/05/29/doc_13_22409.pdf

12. Out calls corrected. If a player mistakenly calls a ball “out” and then
realizes it was good, the point shall be replayed if the player returned the ball within the proper court. Nonetheless, if the player’s return of the ball results in a “weak sitter,” the player should give the opponent the point. If the player failed to make the return, the opponent wins the point. If the mistake was made on the second serve, the server is entitled to two serves.

This rule is why I thought we should replay the point. Because we were just exchanging baseline shots up the middle, and nobody had the advantage, I figured that this would be a case of a mistaken call, except that it was an erroneous let, rather than a missed line call.

 

[Chadwixx]

You had the best intentions at heart, its not like he had a short overhead or something. Once you call a let, its a let, unless your doing it alot.

"The classic example is in doubles: you call a serve out, and then you realize you blew the call and say the serve was in"

Thats up to your opponent, technically you lose the point. Much like calling a shot out before it lands that happens to land in.

Can you even call a let with a chair?

 

[jmnk]

I wouldn't have thought so either, but this is from "the code"

http://dps.usta.com/usta_master/sitecore_usta/USTA/Document Assets/2008/05/29/doc_13_22409.pdf

12. Out calls corrected. If a player mistakenly calls a ball “out” and then
realizes it was good, the point shall be replayed if the player returned the ball within the proper court. Nonetheless, if the player’s return of the ball results in a “weak sitter,” the player should give the opponent the point. If the player failed to make the return, the opponent wins the point. If the mistake was made on the second serve, the server is entitled to two serves.

This rule is why I thought we should replay the point. Because we were just exchanging baseline shots up the middle, and nobody had the advantage, I figured that this would be a case of a mistaken call, except that it was an erroneous let, rather than a missed line call.

@Delano - you know what - I stand corrected. While it does seem strange to me that you indeed can call a ball out, correct yourself, and replay the point - it is what the rule you cited says. I would have never thought so. It seems wrong on so many levels: a player made a bad call (it in itself is a bit questionable as obviously the ball must have been really, really close, in fact so close a player overruled himself), called it out (wouldn't that be considered a hindrance in itself?) - and yet the point is to be replayed? Oh well, you learn something every day.

 

[duketennisgal]

@Delano - you know what - I stand corrected. While it does seem strange to me that you indeed can call a ball out, correct yourself, and replay the point - it is what the rule you cited says. I would have never thought so. It seems wrong on so many levels: a player made a bad call (it in itself is a bit questionable as obviously the ball must have been really, really close, in fact so close a player overruled himself), called it out (wouldn't that be considered a hindrance in itself?) - and yet the point is to be replayed? Oh well, you learn something every day.

The reason you can replay the point is because you returned the ball. If the ball is a clean winner or you hit a sitter to the opponent, it's their point. I think it's a good rule, especially on clay courts. If you watch pro tennis you know that the palyers are wrong about calls often, well jus imagine how often it happens with us regular players. Many times you see a ball and call it out but as soon as you call it out you realize it was good.

You have to make your calls immediately so sometimes mistakes happen. There are plenty of times when I realize I played an out ball, but because I didn't call it quick enough I don't take the point. When you are trying to call something as soon as it bounces mistakes happen.

 

[Chadwixx]

Im thinking this is a usta specific rule because ive never heard of it and have played alot of tournaments/matches.

People could call anything close out because anything close would be a good shot putting them on defense for the rest of the point (close to the lines opening up the rest of the point).

"Nonetheless, if the player’s return of the ball results in a “weak sitter,” the player should give the opponent the point"

A weak sitter is an opinion, if i were the player who made the bad call i would never say i hit a weak sitter, while i would always claim a weak sitter from the other end. I also dont understand the using of the word "should", it leaves it way to open.

This rule basically tells people to call anything close out. I have no idea why the usta would write this.

 

[Delano]

Im thinking this is a usta specific rule because ive never heard of it and have played alot of tournaments/matches.

People could call anything close out because anything close would be a good shot putting them on defense for the rest of the point (close to the lines opening up the rest of the point).

"Nonetheless, if the player’s return of the ball results in a “weak sitter,” the player should give the opponent the point"

A weak sitter is an opinion, if i were the player who made the bad call i would never say i hit a weak sitter, while i would always claim a weak sitter from the other end. I also dont understand the using of the word "should", it leaves it way to open.

This rule basically tells people to call anything close out. I have no idea why the usta would write this.

I don't like the rule much either. Fortunately, I've never seen it abused, though it certainly leaves the door open for abuse by someone who is looking to game the rules (the subjectivity around a sitter is one problem, and what about shots that aren't clear winners/sitters but still put one player into a strong advantage position?). If I blew a close call mid-point, I'd concede it rather than invoking this rule.

I'm not quite as opposed to the rule as you are because I do think it has its place where all people are playing in good faith (for instance, the doubles scenario I described above). I've noticed that in friendlies, people often to do this on missed service calls.

Even without this rule, though, I think that by holding my hand up, I would at most be guilty of a hinderance (because I didn't catch the ball, my opponent did). Here's the rules on that from the code:


34. Body movement. A player may feint with the body while the ball is in
play. Aplayer may change position at any time, including while the server is
tossing the ball. Any other movement or any sound that is made solely to dis-tract an opponent, including, but not limited to, waving the arms or racket or stamping the feet, is not allowed.

35. Lets due to hindrance. A let is not automatically granted because of
hindrance. A let is authorized only if the player could have made the shot had the player not been hindered. A let is also not authorized for a hindrance caused by something within a player’s control. For example, a request for a let because the player tripped over the player’s own hat should be denied.

So my opponent could claim that by raising my hand, I distracted him in a way that was not related to playing the point, and he had the right to catch the ball and claim a hinderance. I think it would be a bit of a stretch to compare raising my hand in a mistaken let call to waving my arms, but the code does say that this "is not allowed". Unfortunately, the code doesn't indicate if you should play a let or claim the point. The only guidance I can see on this is in section 37 on grunting... "Depending upon the circumstance, this could result in a let or loss of point."

So it looks like a hinderance can result in either a let or a loss of point, and it's a judgement call. I think a lot of this would be based on whether you view what I did (the erroneous let call) as a "deliberate hinderance".

 

[Cindysphinx]

It's not a USTA rule. It's the Code, which governs unofficiated matches.

It's an OK rule, I think. It does encourage people to 'fess up to their mistakes.

There are a lot of people who don't understand it, though. They think that if you change your call, it is always their point.

 

[JavierLW]

Im thinking this is a usta specific rule because ive never heard of it and have played alot of tournaments/matches.

People could call anything close out because anything close would be a good shot putting them on defense for the rest of the point (close to the lines opening up the rest of the point).

"Nonetheless, if the player’s return of the ball results in a “weak sitter,” the player should give the opponent the point"

A weak sitter is an opinion, if i were the player who made the bad call i would never say i hit a weak sitter, while i would always claim a weak sitter from the other end. I also dont understand the using of the word "should", it leaves it way to open.

This rule basically tells people to call anything close out. I have no idea why the usta would write this.

These items in the code like I said assume that both people are honest and that mistakes are made in good faith.

Various examples of how someone could cheat or better yet how you would dishonestly cheat do not really prove them any more or less useful.

They are meant for how to deal with a match when there is no official there. If someone wants to be dishonest about it, there are all sorts of problems with being in that situation already and it's obvious there really is no recourse....

So no, the "rule" in the code does NOT say anything of the sort about how you should call anything close out. Just someone who plans on cheating and has no respect for their opponent would take advantage of that.

 

[athiker]

I'm glad the serve erroneously called out issue came up...I had been wondering about that one.

I agree w/ Javier...judging rules or the code by whether they can be gamed or abused by a dishonest player is problematic. A dishonest player will simply call the serve out, as well as any other close ball he can get away with, and not reverse his call to begin with. The issue of calling a let or awarding a point on a reversed call would never even get a chance to come up!