Rule question -- Touching net

[rk_sports]

Opponent 1 hits the ball into net (trying a drop shot)
Opponent 2 come running from baseline to get to drop shot, in process cannot stop himself and touches the net after the ball hits the net.

My thinking is point is over (loss) for opponent 1 as soon as he hit the net.

However, opponent 1 is arguing that if the ball hit the tape it had a chance to go over,
but opponent 2 hitting the net did not give the ball the chance to come over, hence opponent 1 wins point!
-- whats the rule for this scenario?

(other scenario) I think opponent 2 loses the point if he touched net before the ball reached net.

 

[jservoss]

The ball is in play until it hits the ground or a permanent fixture other than the net.

In this case, if player 2 hit the net before the ball reached the ground, then player 1 wins the point.

 

[schmke]

Opponent 1 is correct.

The point is not over when the ball hits the net, it is when the ball bounces (and isn't in the court on opponent 2's side of the court of course) that the point ends.

 

[rk_sports]

ah!... funny thing was ... there was an older coach next court and he come over to help and he said point is over for player hit the net regardless of what happens on other side

Any of you remember the rule # for his scenario? thnx

 

[schmke]

ITF Rules of Tennis - http://www.itftennis.com/media/107013/107013.pdf

Page 10, section 24 covers when a player loses a point. Included in the reasons are:

c. The player returns the ball in play so that it hits the ground, or before it bounces, an object, outside the correct court;​

Key thing here is the point is lost when the ball hits the ground or an object outside the correct court. The net is neither of these so the ball is still in play after it hits the net but before it hits the ground.

Also:

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;​

We established above the ball is still in play, so when the opponent touches the net, they lose the point.

 

[jservoss]

Key thing here is the point is lost when the ball hits the ground or an object outside the correct court. The net is neither of these so the ball is still in play after it hits the net but before it hits the ground.

I believe the is one exception to this (but I could be wrong) and that is when singles sticks are used, the portion of the net outside of the singles sticks is considered 'out' and ends the point immediately.

 

[schmke]

I believe the is one exception to this (but I could be wrong) and that is when singles sticks are used, the portion of the net outside of the singles sticks is considered 'out' and ends the point immediately.

Correct. From the same document:

In a singles match played with a doubles net and singles sticks, the net posts and the part of the net outside the singles sticks are permanent fixtures and are not considered as net posts or part of the net.
​

 

[rk_sports]

^^ learned sumthin today! ... thanks!

 

[lostinamerica]

Correct. From the same document:

In a singles match played with a doubles net and singles sticks, the net posts and the part of the net outside the singles sticks are permanent fixtures and are not considered as net posts or part of the net.
​

Never been much of an issue. The only time I have seen singles sticks was at nationals.

 

[SystemicAnomaly]

ITF Rules of Tennis - http://www.itftennis.com/media/107013/107013.pdf

Page 10, section 24 covers when a player loses a point. Included in the reasons are:

c. The player returns the ball in play so that it hits the ground, or before it bounces, an object, outside the correct court;​

Key thing here is the point is lost when the ball hits the ground or an object outside the correct court. The net is neither of these so the ball is still in play after it hits the net but before it hits the ground...

We established above the ball is still in play, so when the opponent touches the net, they lose the point.

Still not sure about this. Is the ball really still "in play" if the ball hits the net on your own side and starts to fall? In badminton, the point is over (shuttle is not in play) once the the shuttle starts to fall on your own side after hitting the net.

Yes, Rule 24c states that "the point is lost if the player returns the ball in play so that it hits the ground or, before it bounces, an object, outside of the correct court;".

While the net is not a permanent fixture, it is still an object. I might argue that the part of the net on your own side is an object outside of the correct court. Therefore, the ball does not need to bounce for the point to be lost according to the wording of this rule.

OTOH, I've seen the ball hit the net tape and crawl over (due to topspin) and land in the correct court. This is normally considered to still be "in play". This would appear to be counter to my interpretation of Rule 24c. Woodrow, can you chime in on this?

 

[floydcouncil]

Still not sure about this. Is the ball really still "in play" if the ball hits the net on your own side and starts to fall? In badminton, the point is over (shuttle is not in play) once the the shuttle starts to fall on your own side after hitting the net.

Yes, Rule 24c states that "the point is lost if the player returns the ball in play so that it hits the ground or, before it bounces, an object, outside of the correct court;".

While the net is not a permanent fixture, it is still an object. I might argue that the part of the net on your own side is an object outside of the correct court. Therefore, the ball does not need to bounce for the point to be lost according to the wording of this rule.

OTOH, I've seen the ball hit the net tape and crawl over (due to topspin) and land in the correct court. This is normally considered to still be "in play". This would appear to be counter to my interpretation of Rule 24c. Woodrow, can you chime in on this?

OMG.. you're making it more difficult by introducing badminton, net as an "object" etc.

The net is part of the court. Period. (Let's not get singles sticks involved here.)

I hit a drop shot, the ball hits the net and (let's say) it double kisses the netcord and is going to fall on MY side of the net. HOWEVER, you run into the net BEFORE the ball falls onto my side. YOU LOSE THE POINT.

 

[SystemicAnomaly]

... The net is part of the court. Period. (Let's not get singles sticks involved here...

Is the net really part of the court? The first paragraph of Rule 1 calls out the court as a rectangle (of given dimensions). The 2nd paragraph says that the court is "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 ½ feet (1.07 m). The net shall be fully extended so that it completely fills the space between the two net posts... "

This, to me, sounds like the net is something the divides the court, not part of the court itself.

 

[spot]

systematic Anomaly- you are making this so complicated for no reason. There is nothing in the rules that says that the tape is considered different than the rest of the net. Obviously a ball that hits the tape is still in play- how on earth can you try and say that the net isn't in play even though the rules don't ever say that?

Lets say that You hit a wicked dropshot that has so much backspin that it comes back over to your side of the court. I reach over the net and smash it straight down- back into the net. Maybe the wind was pushing the net and ball back towards your side of the court. But I smashed it so hard that the ball hits the net on the way down, bounces up and gives you the opportunity to play it. Do you really want to say that you think that ball would be dead because the ball hit the net on your side of the court?

 

[gameboy]

It does not matter what you believe. The point is not over until the ball hits the ground. You touch the net before the bounce, you lose the point. There is no controversy or doubt here.

 

[SystemicAnomaly]

^ Can you answer the point to the wording in the rules that makes this clear?

systematic Anomaly- you are making this so complicated for no reason. There is nothing in the rules that says that the tape is considered different than the rest of the net. Obviously a ball that hits the tape is still in play- how on earth can you try and say that the net isn't in play even though the rules don't ever say that?

No, what I am trying to do is determine exactly what the rules say. Note that I did not say that the net is not in play.

Have you actually read the rules? To my mind the wording is not straightforward -- the way it is written is a bit clumsy and subject to interpretation. FC makes the claim that the net is part of the court (period). In reading Rule 1, this is not obvious.

I have seen the example that you use quite a few times (and have won the point on my opponent's backward bouncing drop shot a number of times). However, this is different from what I was saying.

I have already given a counter example to my interpretation. I am not looking for more examples. What I am looking for is an explanation of the rules as they are written. If my interpretation is incorrect, then please point to the wording in the rules that refutes what I am saying.

 

[SystemicAnomaly]

One problem that I have with the wording of Rule 24c is that it refers to the ball hitting an object. While permanent fixture has been defined in the Rules of tennis, I am not sure if "object" has been defined. I do not want to hear your definition of "object". I'm looking for a precise definition according to the Rules.
.

 

[schmke]

One problem that I have with the wording of Rule 24c is that it refers to the ball hitting an object. While permanent fixture has been defined in the Rules of tennis, I am not sure if "object" has been defined. I do not want to hear your definition of "object". I'm looking for a precise definition according to the Rules.
.

Your confusion is from how you are reading their commas. Without diagraming the sentence for you, what 24c is referring to is the ball hitting "something", which it then defines as the ground or any object, outside the correct court. If you hit the ball and it does either of those, you lose the point. The net is not outside the correct court so hitting the net does not lose the point per this rule (or any other rule, unless it hits outside the singles sticks which are then by rule permanent fixtures and hitting them would lose the point).

 

[SystemicAnomaly]

Your confusion is from how you are reading their commas. Without diagraming the sentence for you, what 24c is referring to is the ball hitting "something", which it then defines as the ground or any object, outside the correct court. If you hit the ball and it does either of those, you lose the point. The net is not outside the correct court so hitting the net does not lose the point per this rule (or any other rule, unless it hits outside the singles sticks which are then by rule permanent fixtures and hitting them would lose the point).

For sake of clarification, let's break Rule 24c into 2 distinct parts:

i) the point is lost if the player returns the ball in play so that it hits the ground outside of the correct court;

ii) the point is lost if the player returns the ball in play so that, before it bounces, it hits an object outside of the correct court;

I changed the word order slightly in the 2nd part so that it reads a bit easier. I believe that I have not changed the intent of the Rule. My point of contention is that the net (particularly the net on that player's side) is an object outside of the correct court. This is where you and I disagree.

Let me take this a bit further. I have seen worn nets where the ball has actually gotten stuck in the net. I would think that most of us would agree that the ball is not in play even tho' it has not bounced on either side of the net. Is there a separate rule this covers this situation?

I have also seen balls go thru a worn net and land in the correct court. Most of us would take that as a failure to successfully return the ball to the correct court (even tho' it has landed in the correct court). Is that also covered elsewhere?

Note: I am not referring to balls that go around the net. I am already aware that the ball can go around the net post (w/o going over the net) and land in the correct court. However, the ball cannot go between the net and the net post. On a proper net, there should be no gap large enough for a tennis ball between the net and the net post.

 

[schmke]

For sake of clarification, let's break Rule 24c into 2 distinct parts:

i) the point is lost if the player returns the ball in play so that it hits the ground outside of the correct court;

ii) the point is lost if the player returns the ball in play so that, before it bounces, it hits an object outside of the correct court;

I changed the word order slightly in the 2nd part so that it reads a bit easier. I believe that I have not changed the intent of the Rule. My point of contention is that the net (particularly the net on that player's side) is an object outside of the correct court. This is where you and I disagree.

Let me take this a bit further. I have seen worn nets where the ball has actually gotten stuck in the net. I would think that most of us would agree that the ball is not in play even tho' it has not bounced on either side of the net. Is there a separate rule this covers this situation?

I have also seen balls go thru a worn net and land in the correct court. Most of us would take that as a failure to successfully return the ball to the correct court (even tho' it has landed in the correct court). Is that also covered elsewhere?

Note: I am not referring to balls that go around the net. I am already aware that the ball can go around the net post (w/o going over the net) and land in the correct court. However, the ball cannot go between the net and the net post. On a proper net, there should be no gap large enough for a tennis ball between the net and the net post.

By your definition then, if you hit a ball that hits the net at all, you would lose the point as the ball has hit something that is outside the correct court. We know that isn't true, so your definition of the net being an object outside the correct court isn't correct.

To your other questions, yes, there are rules that say the ball must pass over the net if it touches the net, e.g. rule 25:

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);​

But I'm done reading the rules for you. Feel free to read them yourself. http://www.itftennis.com/media/107013/107013.pdf

 

[SystemicAnomaly]

... But I'm done reading the rules for you. Feel free to read them yourself...

Thanks for the feedback on Rule 25 but no need for the attitude. I have perused the rules quite a bit (but not comprehensively). Most players have not read them at all. I find the rules, as written, rather convoluted and confusing. For instance, Rule 24c would be much easier to understand if written similar to the way that I did in my previous post. Some terms, like "object", seem to be used in a sloppy manner. I find myself getting a headache (literally, not figuratively) when trying to read & interpret the rules as written (my convergence insufficiency doesn't help since it significantly limits how much I can read at one sitting).
.

 

[floydcouncil]

By your definition then, if you hit a ball that hits the net at all, you would lose the point as the ball has hit something that is outside the correct court. We know that isn't true, so your definition of the net being an object outside the correct court isn't correct.

To your other questions, yes, there are rules that say the ball must pass over the net if it touches the net, e.g. rule 25:

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);​

But I'm done reading the rules for you. Feel free to read them yourself. http://www.itftennis.com/media/107013/107013.pdf

Best post of the whole thread. I checked out while back. (double face palm included).

 

[SystemicAnomaly]

^ And yet you did not or could not back up your POV by citing the Rules. Have you actually studied the rules? I am not sure if you get it -- it was my intent to attempt to truly understand the wording of the rules not to complicate matters. I was hoping for a civil discussion on this. IMO, the Rules could be written in a more coherent, concise & precise manner. It should not take a lawyer or a Bible scholar to interpret them.

.

 

[floydcouncil]

^ And yet you did not or could not back up your POV by citing the Rules. Have you actually studied the rules? I am not sure if you get it -- it was my intent to attempt to truly understand the wording of the rules not to complicate matters. I was hoping for a civil discussion on this. IMO, the Rules could be written in a more coherent, concise & precise manner. It should not take a lawyer or a Bible scholar to interpret them.

.

I hope you can read my last post on this thread very carefully.

It's blatantly obvious that you do not understand the Rule of tennis. Several posters have tried to explain it to you very methodically and backed it up with pertaining rules from ITF Rules of Tennis.

You seem to nitpick about the net being an object causing you to misunderstand.

I'll say this: The Rules of Tennis and The Code DOES NOT and WILL NEVER contain exact rules for EVERY unforeseen situation mankind can have on a tennis court. Does that make sense? A perfect analogy is here: a lease agreement CAN NEVER cover every single possible situation that can arise between a landlord and a tenant. But lawyers do a good job of covering just about every base for their clients.

I suggest you read the above posts again with an open mind, and the scenario will be much clearer..

 

[SystemicAnomaly]

... It's blatantly obvious that you do not understand the Rule of tennis. Several posters have tried to explain it to you very methodically and backed it up with pertaining rules from ITF Rules of Tennis.

You seem to nitpick about the net being an object causing you to misunderstand...

No, it's you who do not seem to get what I am trying to get at. What I am doing is speculating (not misunderstanding) what the rules, as written, are really saying. We do not seem to be on the same wavelength at all. I have played the game for more than 40 years and already know most of the rules.

Quite a few details have changed over the years altho' the basic rules have pretty much remained intact. Note that there was a time where jumping on the serve was not allowed. It's been more than 30 years since I have studied the rules in depth. Back then I carried a booklet of the USTA version of the rules in my gym bag. If I recall correctly, that version of the rules differed quite a bit in format & wording from the rules according to the ITF. If memory serves, that USTA version of the rules seemed to be more straightforward than the current ITF rules.

What I am trying to do is to establish how the actual wording of the current rules pertains to the rules as we have come to know them. Most players, who have been playing for a while, have not actually read very much of the Rules as written and yet know much of what the rules are trying to say.
.

 

[gameboy]

It does not matter. You are the only one confused. Everyone else is perfectly fine with how the rules are stated and interpreted.

You can believe what you would like, just don't expect anyone to change the call.

 

[SystemicAnomaly]

It does not matter. You are the only one confused. Everyone else is perfectly fine with how the rules are stated and interpreted...

I guess you guys did not pick up the rules from what other have told you. Instead, you've all thoroughly read the ITF Rules of Tennis for yourselves and completely understood it all. I guess I'm just getting dumber in my old age since I'm having problems understanding the way the rules are written.

 

[gameboy]

You are correct in that assessment.