Rule query - racquet across net rule

[Bobby Jr]

I played a doubles tournament match a couple of weeks ago and while I was at the net my partner hit an unfortunate shot right near the net - which the opposing net player could destroy. Since I was right there I crouched down and held my racquet out in front of my head right in front of the guy about to whack the ball.

He hit the ball on his side of the net but his follow through clipped me on the hand/racquet handle. He was quick to say it didn't matter as he'd struck the ball on his side and it was his follow through that came over the net - which I'd have no problems with except he made contact with me. I reasoned since his follow through had touched me on my side of the court he automatically loses the point. (and it certainly happened before his shot was dead at well)

I looked at a rulebook and can't find the rule which would clearly cover this. What is the rule? Is an opponent part of the "other side of the court" and automatically a point-losing touch?

 

[Bartelby]

No real knowledge of the rules, but if he's touched you then he's interfered with your ability to have a play on the ball, whether you had any real chance is irrelevant.

I'd say its your point. It must be a hinderance rule of some sort.

 

[Timbo's hopeless slice]

Paging Cindysphinx, Cindysphinx to the Adult League forum immediately please

 

[LeeD]

Ha ha, haven't played a tourney since 1978...
OP obstructed, by "sticking" his racket in front of him with no real idea of hitting the ball, and before opponent had time to strike his shot. Gotta let the opponent hit the ball before YOU swing, don't ya?
Sticking a racket out IS obstruction.

 

[Bobby Jr]

OP obstructed, by "sticking" his racket in front of him with no real idea of hitting the ball, and before opponent had time to strike his shot. Gotta let the opponent hit the ball before YOU swing, don't ya? Sticking a racket out IS obstruction.

So far as I know holding a racquet out in front of you (not waving it about) is no different to attempting a volley, even if I was trying to avoid being hit.* There is no rule which says you cannot try to get into position anywhere on your side of the court with your racquet ready.

In doubles I also thought the distraction rule was interpreted somewhat differently to allow for such things as partners communicating etc.

(* I'm not a fan of turning and running when you'd likely only get 2 steps before the opponents hit it)

 

[LeeD]

I hear your point, but....
You were in the opponent's swing path. Well, your racket. You obstructed his chances of getting a good swing at the ball, while you could not have been trying to hit the ball, you were there BEFORE he struck the ball.

 

[Bobby Jr]

I hear your point, but....
You were in the opponent's swing path. Well, your racket. You obstructed his chances of getting a good swing at the ball, while you could not have been trying to hit the ball, you were there BEFORE he struck the ball.

Yep, but surely on my side of the court I have complete rights to be anywhere I choose whatsoever? I can prepare/anticipate however I like as long as it's not a deliberate attempt at distraction - which my movement wasn't.

Likewise, anticipating where an opponent is likely to hit is a significant part of tennis - which is what I did by moving towards him - to cut off the angles (and of course reduce the chance of getting one between the shoulder blades ). Regardless of whether I had any realistic chance to hit the ball - I picked a move and took the risk position-wise, which doesn't seem substantially any different to making a move one way at the net when your opponent is about to hit the ball and could go either way. It happens all the time and hindrance is never called - so why would it be the case here?

I don't doubt hindrance could be a consideration but the fact he hit me, on my side of the net, in the process of hitting his shot could invoke a clear rule call, whereas hindrance would only be a debatable call.

A rulebook call on touching your opponent would seem a good first port of call here. I can't find it though.

 

[gmatheis]

This is a rather odd question that I don't think is covered explicitly in the rules. However there are some rules that may have some bearing.

from ITF rules:
Case 5: In doubles, where are the server’s partner and receiver’s partner allowed to stand?
Decision: The server’s partner and the receiver’s partner may take any position on their own side of the net, inside or outside the court. However, if a player is creating a hindrance to the opponent(s), the hindrance rule should be used.

from The Code:
35. Body movement. A player may feint with the body while a ball is in play. A player may change position at any time, including while the server is tossing a ball. Any other movement or any sound that is made solely to distract an opponent, including, but not limited to, waving arms or racket or stamping feet, is not allowed.

38. Injury caused by player. When a player accidentally injures an opponent, the opponent suffers the consequences. Consider the situation where the server’s racket accidentally strikes the receiver and incapacitates the receiver. The receiver is unable to resume play within the time limit. Even though the server caused the injury, the server wins the match by retirement.

So from the first two rules above you are actually hindering your opponent if your placement of the racket was meant either to distract him or get in the way of his swing, and even if it wasn't he could claim an unintentional hinderance and replay the point.

The last rule doesn't have much bearing here but it implies to me that hitting your opponent with your racket doesn't have any inherent penalty as long as it was done within the rules (i.e. slipping out of your hand is ok while intentionally throwing it not ok)

I did find a thread where it was discussed previously however it wasn't really settled.
http://tt.tennis-warehouse.com/showthread.php?t=160039

 

[gmatheis]

Yep, but surely on my side of the court I have complete rights to be anywhere I choose whatsoever? I can prepare/anticipate however I like as long as it's not a deliberate attempt at distraction - which my movement wasn't.

Likewise, anticipating where an opponent is likely to hit is a significant part of tennis - which is what I did by moving towards him - to cut off the angles (and of course reduce the chance of getting one between the shoulder blades ). Regardless of whether I had any realistic chance to hit the ball - I picked a move and took the risk position-wise, which doesn't seem substantially any different to making a move one way at the net when your opponent is about to hit the ball and could go either way. It happens all the time and hindrance is never called - so why would it be the case here?

I don't doubt hindrance could be a consideration but the fact he hit me, on my side of the net, in the process of hitting his shot could invoke a clear rule call, whereas hindrance would only be a debatable call.

A rulebook call on touching your opponent would seem a good first port of call here. I can't find it though.

OK you left that part out in your original post ... you said "Since I was right there I crouched down and held my racquet out in front of my head". If you moved toward him you did infact hinder him by getting in the way of his swingpath.

You tried to pull a bush league move and your opponent didn't let you get away with it. Good for him !

 

[Bobby Jr]

This is a rather odd question that I don't think is covered explicitly in the rules. However there are some rules that may have some bearing.

from ITF rules:
Case 5: In doubles, where are the server’s partner and receiver’s partner allowed to stand?
Decision: The server’s partner and the receiver’s partner may take any position....

from The Code:
35. Body movement. A player may feint with the body while a ball is in play....

So from the first two rules above you are actually hindering your opponent if your placement of the racket was meant either to distract him or get in the way of his swing..

I did find a thread where it was discussed previously however it wasn't really settled.
http://tt.tennis-warehouse.com/showthread.php?t=160039

For a start, those rules are about where a player is standing during serves. Ergo: irrelevant.

Secondly, let's just say they did apply, I wasn't hindering my opponent's swing, nor was that the intention - I was in my side of the court, preparing for what was a rather predictable shot to come (based on the ball he had been lofted). It wasn't a ploy to hinder him or his swing, rather preparation to hit the ball in what is probably statistically the most likely scenario for me to hit the ball - i.e. the closer your racquet is to the point of your opponents contact point the higher the chance you have of hitting it if all other factors are equal.

Thirdly, how can someone argue you hindered an opponents swing from your own court?

That said, the link you posted had one point which might be salient - regarding interfering with your opponent's shot, no matter what. Maybe that is the trump card which overrules all else.

 

[gmatheis]

For a start, those rules are about where a player is standing during serves. Ergo: irrelevant.

Secondly, let's just say they did apply, I wasn't hindering my opponent's swing, nor was that the intention - I was in my side of the court, preparing for what was a rather predictable shot to come (based on the ball he had been lofted). It wasn't a ploy to hinder him or his swing, rather preparation to hit the ball in what is probably statistically the most likely scenario for me to hit the ball - i.e. the closer your racquet is to the point of your opponents contact point the higher the chance you have of hitting it if all other factors are equal.

Thirdly, how can someone argue you hindered an opponents swing from your own court?

That said, the link you posted had one point which might be salient - regarding interfering with your opponent's shot, no matter what. Maybe that is the trump card which overrules all else.

#1 you WERE hindering his swing because any sane person now has to worry about hitting you/your racket and even if they dont care about you most people don't want to mess up their own racket.

and

#2 I don't believe for a second that you moved forward into your opponents followthrough path for any other reason than to disrupt his shot. There is no sane reason to get that close. You also conveniently left out that you MOVED FORWARD in your original post and made it sound like you were already there. To me this shows your intent to decieve people here so they would support you.

Bush league all the way ... I'm glad I don't play with you.

 

[Timbo's hopeless slice]

best way to avoid this in the future might be to ensure neither you or your partner hit such a hideous shot as to allow your opponent time to take a full swing at a ball so close to the net he can reach you on the other side!

in the event of such a shot being played, get the flock out of the way! (not as if you in any way deserve to win the point, is it?)

 

[Bobby Jr]

#2 I don't believe for a second that you moved forward into your opponents followthrough path for any other reason than to disrupt his shot. There is no sane reason to get that close.

Um... it is 100% the best way to avoid getting hit be the ball. Fact. If you are right in front of the point of contact with your racquet head in front of you it's almost impossible to get hit.

You also conveniently left out that you MOVED FORWARD in your original post and made it sound like you were already there.

I didn't conveniently leave anything out. I was already at the net. It took all of one step and crouch down to get to my final spot. You can hardly call that any significant movement.

To me this shows your intent to decieve people here so they would support you.

Why would I do that? I'd simply like to know if someone knows the definitive rule. I was being nice in refuting the examples you gave explanations when I could have just called you a muppet for not being able to discern between the section of rules on serving and the rest.

Bush league all the way ... I'm glad I don't play with you.

Nice one. Pulling out the truth suit right at the end here. Irrelevant to the topic but it sort of confirms the level of intelligence displayed in the rules examples from your previous post.

 

[Bobby Jr]

in the event of such a shot being played, get the flock out of the way! (not as if you in any way deserve to win the point, is it?)

For sure.. in situations like this where it happens so quickly I am certain turning and running massively increases your chance of being hit by the ball relative to doing what I did. You'd rarely have gotten 3 steps by the time the ball is hit when you turn your back and for some reason that in-itself seems to draw the opponent's aim closer to you.

Moving sideways would seem the way out here - a certain point loser if you're worried about being hit by the ball.

 

[RadicalMPfan]

I don't know the rule but would like to know. It sounds like a grey area so as long as he didn't intentionally try to hit you I dont see what the problem is. Did he try to smash the ball at you? what was his intentions?

 

[spot]

Your opponent is entitled to follow through across the net- if you choose to put yourself in position to obstrict his ability to make a legal shot then the opponent would be entitled to call hindrance on you.

Look at this in a slightly different fashion and this will become obvious. Think about if your partner hit a wicked dropshot that bounced on your opponents side and had so much backspin that it went back across to your side without touching it. Your opponent MUST reach across the net to hit the ball and even though it is your side of the net you must give them the opportunity to hit a valid shot.

 

[tennis tom]

Interesting situation, looking forward to the resolution. The shot was made , so I would say no hinder. The follow through is after the hit and doesn't effect the flight of the ball. I've done similar on a number of occasions, ducked down at the net and stuck my racket up in a desperation effort to block the ball back. No one ever called it a hinder, it's a legitimate attempt to return a ball in play. If my opponent's racket hit me, I wouldn't object since I was the one putting myself in harm's way. I could have chosen to move back, step aside or keep my racket down out of my opponent's swing path. To me it appears the point was played in good faith and could be quite exciting especially if one gets bonked on the head or the ball is returned for a blind winner. Often in doubles, partners rackets clash when both try to return a ball down the middle, it may be similar to that, inquiring minds want to know?

 

[AELTC]

I looked at a rulebook and can't find the rule which would clearly cover this. What is the rule? Is an opponent part of the "other side of the court" and automatically a point-losing touch?

The rule is 25.E:

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

According to rule 24.G your opponent does not lose the point for touching you:

24. PLAYER LOSES POINT
The point is lost if:
g. 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; or

To address your second question, I would consider the player as separate from court he or she is standing on.

 

[woodrow1029]

I don't think you would automatically get the point. I think though that if either one of you interfered with the other's chance of playing the shot, then you would replay the point. I don't see that as a deliberate hindrance situation where you could outright claim the point. But, if his legal follow-through hit you, and you didn't have a play on his winner, then it would be his point. If you interfered with him, and he missed the shot, I think you should replay the point.

 

[zcarzach]

I can't see where this would be a hindrance. The opponent chose to hit the shot in such a way that required an "over-the-net" followthrough. While this is his right you also have the right to stand where you choose on your side of the net, and to attempt to return the ball, and to protect your body from his shot. He made the shot, he wins the point, with no hindrance or other funny business involved.

 

[Cindysphinx]

Paging Cindysphinx, Cindysphinx to the Adult League forum immediately please

You had better page Woodrow. I have no clue.

 

[blakesq]

seems to me that if opposing player is in the way of the player's normal swing at a ball (even the follow through), then the player can certainly call a hinderance on opposing player, irrespective that the opposing player is on his own side of the court.

 

[zcarzach]

seems to me that if opposing player is in the way of the player's normal swing at a ball (even the follow through), then the player can certainly call a hinderance on opposing player, irrespective that the opposing player is on his own side of the court.

I'm not sure I agree. It seems that the person making the shot has the choice of any shot, including one that requires him to follow through over the net. The net player can stand anywhere he chooses and prepare himself for a potential shot to the gut (or worse). As long as the move into the opponent's swingpath wasn't intentionally done to hinder and wasn't done to intentionally cause the swinging racquet to hit him, the opponent's desire to slam the ball does not trump the net players right to stand where he chooses. Fair play, the opponent who made the shot gets the point.

 

[volleygirl]

seems to me that if opposing player is in the way of the player's normal swing at a ball (even the follow through), then the player can certainly call a hinderance on opposing player, irrespective that the opposing player is on his own side of the court.

No way on earth can I see that as being the right call. Should he just get off the court so he can continue his follow through?

 

[Wuppy]

I think the player who is reaching into the opponent's space is more at fault. I don't think you have a duty to avoid someone's swing path if that path comes into your side of the court.

Gotta let the opponent hit the ball before YOU swing, don't ya?

I don't think you do.

 

[mucat]

My bet is on your opponent. You partner hit a weak shot and it went pass the net. It is within the rule for your opponent to hit the ball on his side and he is allowed to swing pass to your side. Since you cannot interfere with your opponent, putting your racket in the direct swing path of your opponent is hindrance. What you are doing is not just trying to block the ball back, you are also blocking your opponent's swing.

 

[jk175d]

My bet is on your opponent. You partner hit a weak shot and it went pass the net. It is within the rule for your opponent to hit the ball on his side and he is allowed to swing pass to your side. Since you cannot interfere with your opponent, putting your racket in the direct swing path of your opponent is hindrance. What you are doing is not just trying to block the ball back, you are also blocking your opponent's swing.

someone send this one to tennis magazine for their rules feature.

I have on several occasions charged up to retrieve a dropshot only to be able to just get it enough to dink it over the net leaving me in a vulnerable position at the net with the opponent right there ready for the kill. Rather than turn and retreat (no time), I'll just crouch down below the net so I don't get hit and put my racquet up just in case. Three different outcomes have taken place. The most common is the guy just hits a controlled winner past my outstretched arm. But more than once my action though taken as a defensive stance not as a deliberate distraction, has indeed caused the opponent to rush or miss his easy sitter. My favorite was in a doubles match, the guy went hard right at me, the ball hit my racquet which I held up while crouching behind the net, and it went back to his court for a winner for me. I think I even had my eyes closed.

 

[jswinf]

Think about if your partner hit a wicked dropshot that bounced on your opponents side and had so much backspin that it went back across to your side without touching it. Your opponent MUST reach across the net to hit the ball and even though it is your side of the net you must give them the opportunity to hit a valid shot.

I'm pretty sure this is wrong. Once the ball goes back over the net the receiver is out of luck.

It's an interesting rule point, but I don't have much sympathy for OP's position. He certainly restricted his opponent's options, counting on normal humanity to avoid injury.

 

[user92626]

I side with spot and leed.

The OP pretty much obstructs his opponent's swing.

The right of playing a shot should preceed other secondary rules, ie OP's right to stand anywhere in his court, right?

 

[OrangePower]

I don't believe there is a hinderance either way, as long as the players were positioning themselves / making the shot as part of normal play, and not as a deliberate attempt to distract / hit the opponent with the racquet.

The player making the shot has the right to have his racquet pass over the net on the follow through. There is no rule that causes loss of point if the racquet hits the opponent.

The receiving player has the right to position himself anywhere within the court; however, by standing that close to the net, he assumes the risk of getting hit by racquet or ball.

So basically the point stands as played.

 

[woodrow1029]

I'm pretty sure this is wrong. Once the ball goes back over the net the receiver is out of luck.

It's an interesting rule point, but I don't have much sympathy for OP's position. He certainly restricted his opponent's options, counting on normal humanity to avoid injury.

He does have to give him the opportunity to hit the ball. Usually, if he interferes it is an unintentional hindrance and the point would be replayed. In rare occasions, it could be an intentional hindrance and loss of point if they deliberately got in the opponent's way.

 

[OrangePower]

Once the ball goes back over the net the receiver is out of luck.

No, that is not correct. The rule states that you cannot reach over the net to hit the ball out of the air (before the bounce) over your opponent's side of the court. However, after the bounce there is no restriction on where you can hit the ball, as long as you don't touch the net or step on the opponents' court. So after the bounce, you are perfectly free to reach over the net and hit the ball while it is in the air over the opponents' court.

 

[blakesq]

Hindering doesn't require that the person do something "intentionally". from the rules:

"26. HINDRANCE
If a player is hindered in playing the point by a deliberate act of the opponent(s), the player shall win the point. However, the point shall be replayed if a player is hindered in playing the point by either an unintentional act of the opponent(s), or something outside the player’s own
control (not including a permanent fixture)."

So, standing in the way of a swing, is a hinderance, it may be unintential, but it doesn't matter.

I'm not sure I agree. It seems that the person making the shot has the choice of any shot, including one that requires him to follow through over the net. The net player can stand anywhere he chooses and prepare himself for a potential shot to the gut (or worse). As long as the move into the opponent's swingpath wasn't intentionally done to hinder and wasn't done to intentionally cause the swinging racquet to hit him, the opponent's desire to slam the ball does not trump the net players right to stand where he chooses. Fair play, the opponent who made the shot gets the point.

 

[mucat]

Look at this in a slightly different fashion and this will become obvious. Think about if your partner hit a wicked dropshot that bounced on your opponents side and had so much backspin that it went back across to your side without touching it. Your opponent MUST reach across the net to hit the ball and even though it is your side of the net you must give them the opportunity to hit a valid shot.

I'm pretty sure this is wrong. Once the ball goes back over the net the receiver is out of luck.

It's an interesting rule point, but I don't have much sympathy for OP's position. He certainly restricted his opponent's options, counting on normal humanity to avoid injury.

http://www.usta.com/Improve-Your-Game/Player-to-Player/Rules/Reaching_over_the_net/

"If the spin or wind brings the ball back over the net to the side of the player(s) who hit the shot, the opponent(s) may then reach over the net and play the ball"

 

[zcarzach]

Hindering doesn't require that the person do something "intentionally". from the rules:

"26. HINDRANCE
If a player is hindered in playing the point by a deliberate act of the opponent(s), the player shall win the point. However, the point shall be replayed if a player is hindered in playing the point by either an unintentional act of the opponent(s), or something outside the player’s own
control (not including a permanent fixture)."

So, standing in the way of a swing, is a hinderance, it may be unintential, but it doesn't matter.

True, but the opponent would have to have stopped play immediately and not played the shot to claim hinderance. Since he didn't, the point is moot. The right guy won the point.

 

[jswinf]

He does have to give him the opportunity to hit the ball. Usually, if he interferes it is an unintentional hindrance and the point would be replayed. In rare occasions, it could be an intentional hindrance and loss of point if they deliberately got in the opponent's way.

No, that is not correct. The rule states that you cannot reach over the net to hit the ball out of the air (before the bounce) over your opponent's side of the court. However, after the bounce there is no restriction on where you can hit the ball, as long as you don't touch the net or step on the opponents' court. So after the bounce, you are perfectly free to reach over the net and hit the ball while it is in the air over the opponents' court.

http://www.usta.com/Improve-Your-Game/Player-to-Player/Rules/Reaching_over_the_net/

"If the spin or wind brings the ball back over the net to the side of the player(s) who hit the shot, the opponent(s) may then reach over the net and play the ball"

I was wrong.

 

[Cindysphinx]

True, but the opponent would have to have stopped play immediately and not played the shot to claim hinderance. Since he didn't, the point is moot. The right guy won the point.

If the thing that is hindered is your follow through, how can you stop before you hit the ball?

I say OrangePower is correct.

 

[dcdoorknob]

I don't believe there is a hinderance either way, as long as the players were positioning themselves / making the shot as part of normal play, and not as a deliberate attempt to distract / hit the opponent with the racquet.

The player making the shot has the right to have his racquet pass over the net on the follow through. There is no rule that causes loss of point if the racquet hits the opponent.

The receiving player has the right to position himself anywhere within the court; however, by standing that close to the net, he assumes the risk of getting hit by racquet or ball.

So basically the point stands as played.

I don't know what the actual, official rule is, but this definitely makes the most sense to me.

 

[Bobby Jr]

I don't think you would automatically get the point. I think though that if either one of you interfered with the other's chance of playing the shot, then you would replay the point. I don't see that as a deliberate hindrance situation where you could outright claim the point. But, if his legal follow-through hit you, and you didn't have a play on his winner, then it would be his point. If you interfered with him, and he missed the shot, I think you should replay the point.

Nicely reasoned Woodrow. Sounds like a good way to view it. Thanks.

 

[Bobby Jr]

I don't believe there is a hinderance either way, as long as the players were positioning themselves / making the shot as part of normal play, and not as a deliberate attempt to distract / hit the opponent with the racquet.

The player making the shot has the right to have his racquet pass over the net on the follow through. There is no rule that causes loss of point if the racquet hits the opponent.

The receiving player has the right to position himself anywhere within the court; however, by standing that close to the net, he assumes the risk of getting hit by racquet or ball.

So basically the point stands as played.

Also, nicely put. I agree with how you put paragraph 3 - outside of deliberate distraction attempt a player has a basic right to locate him/herself anywhere on their own side of the court.

Good stuff. Thanks for the thoughts.

 

[blakesq]

you call the hinderance as soon as you realize you are about to hit your opponent and you make an adjustment as to not injure the opponent.

haven't you ever run to hit the ball in doubles and your partner is in your way, and you have to adjust your swing or not hit the ball at all in order to NOT hit your partner? That happens to me relatively often, but you cannot call a hinderance on your partner, but you can call a hinderance on your opponent if the opponent is the one in the way.

If the thing that is hindered is your follow through, how can you stop before you hit the ball?

I say OrangePower is correct.

 

[zcarzach]

If the thing that is hindered is your follow through, how can you stop before you hit the ball?

I say OrangePower is correct.

As do I, since I said exactly the same thing earlier in the thread...

 

[onehandbh]

What if your opponent hits a high lob-like shot with A LOT of spin really goes quite a bit back over the net, and I jump over the net to reach the ball and hit it back into the net on his side.

Am I allowed to land on his side of the court before the point is over?

 

[Rattler]

What if your opponent hits a high lob-like shot with A LOT of spin really goes quite a bit back over the net, and I jump over the net to reach the ball and hit it back into the net on his side.

Am I allowed to land on his side of the court before the point is over?

No

 

[tennis tom]

...hell no...unless you're playing kangarooo tennis...

 

[stapletonj]

btw, hitter didnt HAVE TO follow through, he could've bunted the ball by just meeting it, or even flipped up a little mini lob over the net man there.

follow through over the net is legal, but my position is that you do it at your peril. if you hit your opponent, ground on his side, net, racket, etc., with said follow through, you lose the point.

If this were the case, can you see the gamesmanship where hitter WAY overfollows through so he can reach defender's racket?

receiver was not doing something SOLELY to distract (jumping and waving arms, etc.) and has the absolute right to stand and defend his court.

castle doctrine, stand your ground laws support this. (lol)

PPS - "mooning" your opponent when you have put up a duck is not only a hindrance, but can result in a trip to the proctologist. Dont ask me how I know.

 

[kylebarendrick]

follow through over the net is legal, but my position is that you do it at your peril. if you hit your opponent, ground on his side, net, racket, etc., with said follow through, you lose the point.

From the rules of tennis section 24 (player loses a point), they lose the point 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; or..."

Note that nowhere in the rules does it say that you lose the point if your racket touches the other player. If you can find a place where that rule exists, I would like to see it.

 

[stapletonj]

I agree that it is something of an untouched area where the rules do not explicitly state so.

Does it state that you cannot, with your follow through, smash the other players head with the racket with impunity, OR that the other player may yank your racket out of your hand with his free hand by grabbing the part that is on his side of the net while returning the ball with the other hand that has his racket? Best argument I know of for developing a 1 hand backhand. heh heh heh

 

[jm1980]

I have to agree with those who interpret this as an unintentional hindrance by the player who stood too close to the net and interfered with his opponent's shot. Players are entitled to follow through to the other side of the net, so you shouldn't be in the way

 

[Return_Ace]

Is the follow through technically part of the opponent's shot? Would that not be classed as finished once the ball has left the opponent's strings?

I'd actually lean the other way and say that the opponent whose follow through went over the net and hit the player's racket is in fact hindering the player's subsequent shot.