Rules question: Ball hitting the net and net hitting opponent's racquet

[Vinicius Tinti]

When playing doubles one opponent stays very close to the net.

I hit a very hard shot. My opponent puts his racquet as close as possible to the net. My shot hits and pushes the net till it touches my opponent's racquet. The ball bounces back into my court. The was shot clearly wouldn't cross the net.

According to my interpretation of ITF's rule the point shall be mine since the ball touching the net itself does not trigger 'Rule 24: Player loses point'.

Even if it had hit the below the net strap I still believe the point shall be mine.

 

[OrangePower]

If your opponent's racquet touched the net before the ball bounced back in your court, then the point is yours.
However, note that it is your opponent's call to make - whether he/she touched the net, and whether this occurred before the ball bounce.

 

[kevrol]

If your opponent's racquet touched the net before the ball bounced back in your court, then the point is yours.
However, note that it is your opponent's call to make - whether he/she touched the net, and whether this occurred before the ball bounce.

/thread

 

[Dartagnan64]

As sportsmen, you should both offer the other person the point. If it was umpired the point goes to the guy that hit the ball in the net.

I'd never take a point for hitting a ball into the net, forcing the net into another's racket unless an umpire forced me too. Just like I would never take a point for a guy catching one of my airmailed balls heading to the back fence. If the rule is stupid for the situation (doesn't afford anyone an advantage), I won't enforce it.

 

[kylebarendrick]

"as a sportsman I don't play by the rules of my sport". Sigh.

There is a huge difference between being unable to avoid touching the net and catching a ball that is sailing well long.

 

[Vinicius Tinti]

As sportsmen, you should both offer the other person the point. If it was umpired the point goes to the guy that hit the ball in the net.

I'd never take a point for hitting a ball into the net, forcing the net into another's racket unless an umpire forced me too. Just like I would never take a point for a guy catching one of my airmailed balls heading to the back fence. If the rule is stupid for the situation (doesn't afford anyone an advantage), I won't enforce it.

Being able to not touch the net is part of the game. If you chose to stay close to the net you are accepting the risk of touching it or hitting the ball before it crosses.
Being able to dodge a ball that would go out is also part of the game. Me too I would never take a point if my opponent catch the ball willing to catch it. Otherwise is my point.

I could only be sure that the ball has hit his racket because I hit downwards and the ball went back to my side upwards in a parabolic arc. Almost like someone feeding a ball to you without spin.

 

[esgee48]

I say this is a gray area that @woodrow1029 could answer. The point is over when the ball hits the net (not a net cord) or when the ball hits the ground on the rebound? Ball is definitely not legally returned into play when it hits the net. I think an Umpire or Referee would say point is over when the ball hits the net. It cannot go over the net at that point. Will wait for his ruling.

FWIW, there is another thread describing a similar situation and I have not seen @woodrow1029's reply there either.

 

[OrangePower]

I say this is a gray area that @woodrow1029 could answer. The point is over when the ball hits the net (not a net cord) or when the ball hits the ground on the rebound? Ball is definitely not legally returned into play when it hits the net. I think an Umpire or Referee would say point is over when the ball hits the net. It cannot go over the net at that point. Will wait for his ruling.

FWIW, there is another thread describing a similar situation and I have not seen @woodrow1029's reply there either.

No gray area... The point is NOT over when it hits the net, it is only over once it hits the ground.

From ITF rules of tennis:

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
RULES OF TENNIS 17
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);

Note that there is no difference between net, net posts, cord, or strap - all are considered part of the net and the point continues after touching any of them until such time as the ball lands out of the correct court, or hits a permanent fixture.

 

[gmatheis]

No gray area... The point is NOT over when it hits the net, it is only over once it hits the ground.

From ITF rules of tennis:

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
RULES OF TENNIS 17
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);

Note that there is no difference between net, net posts, cord, or strap - all are considered part of the net and the point continues after touching any of them until such time as the ball lands out of the correct court, or hits a permanent fixture.

or gets stuck and stops moving

 

[Dartagnan64]

"as a sportsman I don't play by the rules of my sport". Sigh.

There is a huge difference between being unable to avoid touching the net and catching a ball that is sailing well long.

No difference in my opinion. In both instances someone hit a shot doomed to failure and the opponent committed a minor foul before the point was officially over. I don't want to get bailed out of a terrible shot by a technicality. In my mind, i lost the point as soon as I hit it, so I'm more than willing to concede the point and inform the opponent that I could have claimed the point and he might want to stand a bit further back next time.

If someone hammers a winning smash and a stray ball rolls onto the court on the other side, i'm not going to call a let because it happened before the smash landed a second time. Most people think that's pretty lame in my circles.

 

[OrangePower]

No difference in my opinion. In both instances someone hit a shot doomed to failure and the opponent committed a minor foul before the point was officially over. I don't want to get bailed out of a terrible shot by a technicality. In my mind, i lost the point as soon as I hit it, so I'm more than willing to concede the point and inform the opponent that I could have claimed the point and he might want to stand a bit further back next time.

If someone hammers a winning smash and a stray ball rolls onto the court on the other side, i'm not going to call a let because it happened before the smash landed a second time. Most people think that's pretty lame in my circles.

I think there is a subtle difference, and that is whether the opponent is/was trying to gain an advantage by the behavior in question.

So if I hit a ball that is going long and my opponent casually catches it midair, I'm not claiming the point - opponent was not trying to gain advantage.
But if opponent is positioned inside the baseline looking to take balls early, and is unable to get out of the way of a shot going out, I will claim the point.

Likewise if an opponent hits an overhead and then absent mindedly ambles forward and touches the net before the ball is dead, I'm not claiming it.
But if he is deliberately standing super close to the net as a strategy, and as a result hits the net, I'm taking the point (his call to make though that he touched the net).

 

[Dartagnan64]

I think there is a subtle difference, and that is whether the opponent is/was trying to gain an advantage by the behavior in question.

So if I hit a ball that is going long and my opponent casually catches it midair, I'm not claiming the point - opponent was not trying to gain advantage.
But if opponent is positioned inside the baseline looking to take balls early, and is unable to get out of the way of a shot going out, I will claim the point.

Likewise if an opponent hits an overhead and then absent mindedly ambles forward and touches the net before the ball is dead, I'm not claiming it.
But if he is deliberately standing super close to the net as a strategy, and as a result hits the net, I'm taking the point (his call to make though that he touched the net).

I guess the situation for me is that in the OP's case the opponent didn't hit the net, the net hit him. So that's why I'm not inclined to take such a point. If the opponent is running to the net or swinging close to the net and hits it, that's a different story. But unexpectedly having the net hit your racket because someone pounded a ball into it is a unique situation that I'm sure the rule makers weren't even thinking about.

 

[MisterP]

I wouldn't be inclined to take the point if the ball hit below the net tape. But if it hit high on the tape, it's possible that the opponent's racquet moved the net to a degree that the ball couldn't pop up and over. Probably I'd concede the point. But not before making a big deal about him touching the net.

This is sort of like a situation I saw a few years back where a guy sailed a forehand that was headed for the middle of the back fence. My partner was standing 8 feet behind the baseline and the ball clipped his shoulder as it went by. Opponents insisted that it was their point, we couldn't really disagree. But, still kind of a bush league move.

 

[OrangePower]

I guess the situation for me is that in the OP's case the opponent didn't hit the net, the net hit him. So that's why I'm not inclined to take such a point. If the opponent is running to the net or swinging close to the net and hits it, that's a different story. But unexpectedly having the net hit your racket because someone pounded a ball into it is a unique situation that I'm sure the rule makers weren't even thinking about.

Yes, but think how close opponent's racquet must have been to the net in order for the net deflection to hit it. Couple of inches at most?
If you're going to have your racquet be that close to the net, you have to accept the risk of touching the net (or having the net touch you hehe).

 

[Dartagnan64]

Yes, but think how close opponent's racquet must have been to the net in order for the net deflection to hit it. Couple of inches at most?
If you're going to have your racquet be that close to the net, you have to accept the risk of touching the net (or having the net touch you hehe).

Which is why I'd likely give the opponent a warning first rather than rush to claim a point. It's not like most of us have ever seen that situation happen, so it's pretty flukey.

 

[Dartagnan64]

This is sort of like a situation I saw a few years back where a guy sailed a forehand that was headed for the middle of the back fence. My partner was standing 8 feet behind the baseline and the ball clipped his shoulder as it went by. Opponents insisted that it was their point, we couldn't really disagree. But, still kind of a bush league move.

Of course you can always counter claim this by saying, "the ball never touched me." since that's your call to concede. Counter bush league with bush league

 

[kylebarendrick]

Of course you can always counter claim this by saying, "the ball never touched me." since that's your call to concede. Counter bush league with bush league

Of course, one of the things you need to do in tennis is not let a ball hit you. My wife had a serve hit her foot while standing to receive it behind the baseline. There was no issue at all conceding the point even though the serve was over 10 feet out - it is her responsibility to get out of the way.

 

[Dartagnan64]

Of course, one of the things you need to do in tennis is not let a ball hit you. My wife had a serve hit her foot while standing to receive it behind the baseline. There was no issue at all conceding the point even though the serve was over 10 feet out - it is her responsibility to get out of the way.

Almost had that happen to me on Tuesday. Just managed to get my foot out of the way. Yes it pays to stay alert. But again that's a situation where I'd concede the point if it hit me, but would have trouble demanding the point if I was the server.

 

[golden chicken]

I have nothing to add to the discussion--I just want to comment that I can't imagine a circumstance where you'd be standing that close to the net with any part of your racket below or behind it.

 

[Toons]

Obviously, the net cord was not tightened to spec.

 

[Dartagnan64]

I have nothing to add to the discussion--I just want to comment that I can't imagine a circumstance where you'd be standing that close to the net with any part of your racket below or behind it.

I can see it happening. If I'm preparing to volley a ball coming my way, I'd be lining my racket with its trajectory, which in this case would bring it below the net cord. If there is no net strap and a loose lower net, a ball could move the net up to 12 inches. we had old crappy public courts like that growing up.

Personally I never stand that close to the net, but certainly have seen net huggers close enough for this to happen. They are also the ones that dubiously hit balls that haven't crossed the plane of the net yet. Maybe calling a point against them is a way to teach them that net hugging is risky.

 

[OrangePower]

I can see it happening. If I'm preparing to volley a ball coming my way, I'd be lining my racket with its trajectory, which in this case would bring it below the net cord. If there is no net strap and a loose lower net, a ball could move the net up to 12 inches. we had old crappy public courts like that growing up.

Personally I never stand that close to the net, but certainly have seen net huggers close enough for this to happen. They are also the ones that dubiously hit balls that haven't crossed the plane of the net yet. Maybe calling a point against them is a way to teach them that net hugging is risky.

Bingo!