Rules question: is “let it!” a hindrance

[Connor35]

USTA doubles match last night.
My partner is serving to Opponent 1. I’m at the net.
He serves, Opponent 1 rips a return right at me. High and hard.
My partner starts to yell ”Let it go”. It probably would've hit the back fence.
But by the time he yells ”Let it…!” It’s hit my racket and my volley is going toward Opponent 2.
Opponent 2, having only heard “Let” a second after his partner returned serve, stopped playing.
My shot landed in and was unreturned.
They pointed out that they stopped playing, hence my unreturned volley.
I conceded the point to our opponents believing yelling “let” when it was not a let was a hindrance.
My partner believes we can say (almost) anything we want as the ball is coming toward us.
(we won 4&1, not a big deal, just a curiosity)

What says the internet?

(and we both know he just should’ve said “bounce” or “bounce it”. Just looking for rules thoughts. If anyone can cite the rule, that’d be great.)

 

[cks]

My partner believes we can say (almost) anything we want as the ball is coming toward us.

True, but using words like "let" and "out" could confuse your opponents.

See rule 34 from "The Code"

34. Talking when ball is in play.
• Singles players should not talk during points.
• Talking between doubles partners when the ball is moving toward them
is allowed.
• Doubles players should not talk when the ball is moving toward their
opponent’s court.
• Any talking that interferes with an opponent’s ability to play a ball is a
hindrance.
For example, if a doubles player hits a weak lob and yells “get back” and the yell
distracts an opponent who is about to hit the ball, then the opponent may claim the
point based on a deliberate hindrance. If the opponent chooses to play the lob and
misses it, the opponent loses the point because the opponent did not make a timely
claim of hindrance.
For example, if a player yells after an injury or getting stung by a bee, this is an
unintentional hindrance that would entitle the opponent to claim a let.

 

[Connor35]

Thanks.

Between rule 34s “Any talking that interferes with an opponent’s ability to play a ball is a hindrance.”

and I also just saw this (Rule 36 below) it’s still ambiguous to me.


36. Let due to unintentional hindrance. A player who is hindered by an opponent’s unintentional act or by something else outside the player’s control is entitled to a let only if the player could have made the shot had the player not been hindered. A let is not authorized for a hindrance caused by something within a player’s control. For example, a request for a let because a player tripped over the player’s own hat should be denied.

 

[stapletonj]

Boy oh boy, here come the tennis lawyers!

IF your partner got out the let before you hit it, I don't think it was a hindrance. especially if he finished the phrase with the "it go"
There is a whole nother thread on saying "out"....

But I could see the argument if and when your partner said let and didnt finish until the ball had already bounced,,,,,

sometimes, maybe, unless our name is Djoker, we should just play a let in the interest of sportsmanship.

 

[Connor35]

Boy oh boy, here come the tennis lawyers!

IF your partner got out the let before you hit it, I don't think it was a hindrance. especially if he finished the phrase with the "it go"
There is a whole nother thread on saying "out"....

But I could see the argument if and when your partner said let and didnt finish until the ball had already bounced,,,,,

sometimes, maybe, unless our name is Djoker, we should just play a let in the interest of sportsmanship.

It happened so fast, hard return to me and I was hugging the net.
So I think he probably was finishing “let” as it hit my racquet and meekly trailed off the “it” as my volley was passing our opponent who was standing still.

 

[GrassCourtFan]

Yeah, in the situation, it really sounds like your partner called a let even though he didn't mean to. If he calls "let" as you're hitting the ball and then finishes the sentence as it's passing your opponents, it's far too late, there's no way for the opponents to know that he DIDN'T just call a let before it's too late for them to hit it.

 

[PRS]

Unfortunately you were correct in giving the point to your opponents. "Let," just like "out," is a call, and it made your opponents stop playing, even though that wasn't what your partner intended to happen. He also intentionally said "let it..." so the "unintentional hindrance" rule above would NOT qualify. If he got stung by a bee and said "ouch" so they stopped playing, that would be unintentional hindrance, but no outside force made him say anything; he actively chose to say something.

As you mentioned, if he had started to say "bounce it" or my preferred "watch it" and they stopped playing thinking you would let the ball go, that would be on them.

 

[ratherlosethanpush]

Let and out have very distinctive meanings in tennis.

Rule of thumb don't use those words or any other with distinct tennis meanings in other ways during the play of a point.

 

[Connor35]

Let and out have very distinctive meanings in tennis.

Rule of thumb don't use those words or any other with distinct tennis meanings in other ways during the play of a point.

Thank you for the response, but this is specifically the advice I asked not to get.
My original post acknowledges we should all say “bounce it” or the like.
My question is what is, according it to USTA rules, the correct call and resolution.

 

[socallefty]

A let call can happen at any time and so when your partner said ‘Let’, your opponents were right to stop playing. They probably thought a ball rolled onto the court to make your partner call Let. If he called Let for a reason that is not allowed by the rules, you do lose the point as your team stopped the point without a legitimate reason.

If your partner called ‘Out’ early, at least a case could be made that he was trying to communicate with you and not making a line call as it was well in advance of the ball bouncing outside the court - I would not recommend calling ‘Out’ early, but at least an argument could be made. In this case, a Let call can be made at any time and opponents are within their legitimate right to stop playing if they hear a Let call.

 

[jimmy8]

Why would you concede a let? A let is serve again, within the same point, not the next point.

 

[Connor35]

Why would you concede a let? A let is serve again, within the same point, not the next point.

Because it was not a let.
And so when he stopped play for no good reason, that requires us to concede the point.

 

[jimmy8]

Because it was not a let.
And so when he stopped play for no good reason, that requires us to concede the point.

I don't think it's required to concede the point. The returning side thought it was a let. The server actually said, "Let it go". The serving side didn't intentionally stop play. The serving side did nothing wrong, they are allowed to talk while the ball is traveling towards them. The point is actually the serving side's point, but they could allow a let and replay the point to be nice since the returning side legitimately misheard the server, although the timing of it should have told the returning side that it was not a let call. A let would be called right after the ball hits the net, not after the returner is finished with his return stroke.

 

[ratherlosethanpush]

Thank you for the response, but this is specifically the advice I asked not to get.
My original post acknowledges we should all say “bounce it” or the like.
My question is what is, according it to USTA rules, the correct call and resolution.

OK I was been polite, u called let, it wasn't you lose the point. Edit if your opponents claim a hindrance. If I stopped I would.

As both sides can call a let u could always try and claim you were calling a let, given the rest of the sentence used that wouldn't wash.

 

[socallefty]

I don't think it's required to concede the point.

If you call a Let without a legitimate reason, you lose the point and you don’t get to replay it. Otherwise, any player can call a Let on any point before they are about to lose it and ask for a replay. A legitimate reason for example is a ball rolling onto a court potenially endangering any of the players.

 

[jimmy8]

If you call a Let without a legitimate reason, you lose the point and you don’t get to replay it. Otherwise, any player can call a Let on any point before they are about to lose it and ask for a replay. A legitimate reason for example is a ball rolling onto a court potenially endangering any of the players.

Ok, is it illegal to use a sentence with the word "let" in it? Because they didn't call let. They alerted their partner to let it go because it was going out. I've heard let it go many times and never stopped play because of it. I've also never had an opponent stop play when let it go is said by my side. The returning side thought it was a let so you can play it as a let. The serving side never called let. You are very set on believing that the serving side intentionally misled the returning side by yelling, "let", then maybe you think they whispered "it go." I don't think that happened because the timing doesn't make sense and that would just confuse the serving side player at the net. Or maybe they planned that point ahead of time to deceive the returning side. Ok, I got you, the serving side should lose the point because they are dishonest, cheating people who yell "let" to deceive the opponent. Then why did they concede the point? Hmmm. I'm confused.

 

[socallefty]

Ok, is it illegal to use a sentence with the word "let" in it? Because they didn't call let. They alerted their partner to let it go because it was going out. I've heard let it go many times and never stopped play because of it. I've also never had an opponent stop play when let it go is said by my side. The returning side thought it was a let so you can play it as a let. The serving side never called let. You are very set on believing that the serving side intentionally misled the returning side by yelling, "let", then maybe you think they whispered "it go." I don't think that happened because the timing doesn't make sense and that would just confuse the serving side player at the net. Or maybe they planned that point ahead of time to deceive the returning side. Ok, I got you, the serving side should lose the point because they are dishonest, cheating people who yell "let" to deceive the opponent. Then why did they concede the point? Hmmm. I'm confused.

The reality is that his partner said Let and the opponents stopped playing with a legitimate reason to stop playing because opponent said Let. A Let can be called by any player at any time for a legitimate reason and so the timing of when he said Let does not matter. However the fact that there was no legitimate reason to call Let is by rule loss of point for OP’s team.

The OP asked a rules question and that is the rule. The fact that his partner meant to say ‘Let it Go‘ illustrates the danger of shouting ‘Let’ as part of a communication to your partner - if it is misinterpreted by your opponents and they stop playing, you lose the point by rule. You could say it is illegal to say Let on a court in the heat of action because if your opponents stop playing, you have no recourse. I applaud the OP for knowing the rule and accepting the loss of point in real time.

 

[jimmy8]

The reality is that his partner said Let and the opponents stopped playing with a legitimate reason to stop playing because opponent said Let. A Let can be called by any player at any time for a legitimate reason and so the timing of when he said Let does not matter. However the fact that there was no legitimate reason to call Let is by rule loss of point for OP’s team.

The OP asked a rules question and that is the rule. The fact that his partner meant to say ‘Let it Go‘ illustrates the danger of shouting ‘Let’ as part of a communication to your partner - if it is misinterpreted by your opponents and they stop playing, you lose the point by rule. You could say it is illegal to say Let on a court in the heat of action because if your opponents stop playing, you have no recourse. I applaud the OP for knowing the rule and accepting the loss of point in real time.

Ok, so it's illegal to say a sentence with the word "let" in it, gotcha. Or maybe the returning side should get hearing aids.

 

[Connor35]

Ok, so it's illegal to say a sentence with the word "let" in it, gotcha. Or maybe the returning side should get hearing aids.

The problem was the grayness here. It wasnt a high long lob where he had time to say "Let it go".
It was a rocket of a forehand right at me, who was hugging the net.


And as he *attempted* to say "LET IT GO" he pretty much trailed off since the ball struck my racquet and went into their half of the court after "LET"

So the loudest and most stressed portion was "LET" (it go).

 

[Purestriker]

The problem was the grayness here. It wasnt a high long lob where he had time to say "Let it go".
It was a rocket of a forehand right at me, who was hugging the net.


And as he *attempted* to say "LET IT GO" he pretty much trailed off since the ball struck my racquet and went into their half of the court after "LET"

So the loudest and most stressed portion was "LET" (it go).

Do you really even need to talk during a point to figure what is going to be long or not long? I get saying, you or yours but if you are so close to the net you cannot do anything but react defensively then being told it is out doesn't really matter.

 

[PRS]

Ok, so it's illegal to say a sentence with the word "let" in it, gotcha. Or maybe the returning side should get hearing aids.

It's not that it's illegal to say the word "let" at all, but it's the fact that saying "let" IN THIS CASE caused the opponents to stop playing. If you say "let it go" but your partner plays it and your opponents keep playing, then there's no issue. But the fact that, in this case, his partner purposefully said something (he meant to say "let it...") that caused (even unintentionally, as the goal of saying "let it..." was not to stop the point) the opponents to stop playing, by rule, is a point to the opponents.

If you read the rules already posted above, you are not allowed to say something that causes your opponents to stop playing. The exception is when you can't help but do something, such as saying "ouch" when being stung by a bee, in which case you play a let. But in this instance, saying the words "let it..." was intentional. It doesn't matter that he did not mean for his opponents to stop playing the point; it matters that it DID cause them to stop playing the point.

 

[jimmy8]

you are not allowed to say something that causes your opponents to stop playing. The exception is when you can't help but do something, such as saying "ouch" when being stung by a bee, in which case you play a let. But in this instance, saying the words "let it..." was intentional. It doesn't matter that he did not mean for his opponents to stop playing the point; it matters that it DID cause them to stop playing the point.

He intentionally said the words, but he didn't intentionally try to stop play.

 

[PRS]

He intentionally said the words, but he didn't intentionally try to stop play.

Rule 34 (see quote above) states "Any talking that interferes with an opponent’s ability to play a ball is a hindrance."

Rule 36, regarding unintentional hindrance, says:

A player who is hindered by an opponent’s unintentional act or by something else outside the player’s control is entitled to a let

The act of saying "let it..." was intentional and completely within the player's control. It doesn't matter what the intent behind saying "let it..." was. The opponent heard the word "let" and subsequently stopped playing. Therefore, they were hindered and deserving of the point.

 

[jimmy8]

Rule 34 (see quote above) states "Any talking that interferes with an opponent’s ability to play a ball is a hindrance."

Rule 36, regarding unintentional hindrance, says:


The act of saying "let it..." was intentional and completely within the player's control. It doesn't matter what the intent behind saying "let it..." was. The opponent heard the word "let" and subsequently stopped playing. Therefore, they were hindered and deserving of the point.

You are allowed to talk while the ball is moving towards you and is not a hindrance.

Again, saying the words was intentional, the intent behind saying the words does matter.

 

[PRS]

Where in the sentence "Any talking that interferes with an opponent’s ability to play a ball is a hindrance." does it say anything about exceptions for when the ball is coming to you or the intent behind the talking?

If you call a ball out before it lands, then it lands in, your partner plays it back, but your opponents don't continue the point, you lose the point. You could argue that you were telling your partner you thought it was going out, not making a call, but that doesn't matter; you still lose the point. What makes you think the same logic would NOT apply with the word "let" when it is also a call?

 

[jimmy8]

Where in the sentence "Any talking that interferes with an opponent’s ability to play a ball is a hindrance." does it say anything about exceptions for when the ball is coming to you or the intent behind the talking?

If you call a ball out before it lands, then it lands in, your partner plays it back, but your opponents don't continue the point, you lose the point. You could argue that you were telling your partner you thought it was going out, not making a call, but that doesn't matter; you still lose the point. What makes you think the same logic would NOT apply with the word "let" when it is also a call?

Look at post #2 above. You can talk while the ball is moving towards you. They said Let it go, not Let.

If someone says It's going out, and the other side thinks only Out was said, then they should buy a hearing aid.

 

[PRS]

Look at post #2 above. You can talk while the ball is moving towards you. They said Let it go, not Let.

If someone says It's going out, and the other side thinks only Out was said, then they should buy a hearing aid.

You can believe that if you want, but I think it's pretty clear. Hearing "let," especially right after the serve, is plenty of reason to at the very least hesitate a split second, which would be a hhindrance.

If you hesitate a split second due to hearing "let" or "out" then you are at a disadvantage on the point. If you continue to play anyway, you're more likely to lose the point, but you can't call hindrance because you played it. If you stop play after a brief hesitation, you call hindrance and win the point.

As tennis players, we have trained ourselves to react to hearing the words "let" and "out" in certain ways, so it's reasonable that saying one of those words during play could cause a brief, split-second hesitation, and therefore a hindrance.

 

[GrassCourtFan]

Look at post #2 above. You can talk while the ball is moving towards you. They said Let it go, not Let.

If someone says It's going out, and the other side thinks only Out was said, then they should buy a hearing aid.

They also said that the sentence continued past when OP hit the ball, so they were still talking when the ball was headed towards the opponents.

And that they didn’t finish the sentence, so they didn’t actually say “let it go”, just “let it”.

 

[johnmccabe]

Boy oh boy, here come the tennis lawyers!

IF your partner got out the let before you hit it, I don't think it was a hindrance. especially if he finished the phrase with the "it go"
There is a whole nother thread on saying "out"....

But I could see the argument if and when your partner said let and didnt finish until the ball had already bounced,,,,,

sometimes, maybe, unless our name is Djoker, we should just play a let in the interest of sportsmanship.

Hate tennis lawyers, as much as I hate pickleball... Sorry

 

[jimmy8]

You can believe that if you want, but I think it's pretty clear. Hearing "let," especially right after the serve, is plenty of reason to at the very least hesitate a split second, which would be a hhindrance.

If you hesitate a split second due to hearing "let" or "out" then you are at a disadvantage on the point. If you continue to play anyway, you're more likely to lose the point, but you can't call hindrance because you played it. If you stop play after a brief hesitation, you call hindrance and win the point.

As tennis players, we have trained ourselves to react to hearing the words "let" and "out" in certain ways, so it's reasonable that saying one of those words during play could cause a brief, split-second hesitation, and therefore a hindrance.

Hearing the word Let means you play the point over not win the point due to hindrance.

 

[Connor35]

Hearing the word Let means you play the point over not win the point due to hindrance.

But if I call “out” when it’s not out, you don’t replay the point (you might with your Saturday morning friends, but you don’t in a league). You concede the point for stopping it erroneously.

 

[jimmy8]

But if I call “out” when it’s not out, you don’t replay the point (you might with your Saturday morning friends, it you don’t in a league). You concede the point for stopping it erroneously.

Yes, out is different.

 

[PRS]

Hearing the word Let means you play the point over not win the point due to hindrance.

Not if there's no reason for a let. Just like calling the ball out, and then seeing the ball land in, doesn't mean the call is out.

Yes, out is different.

Why is out different? What are you basing that off of?

 

[jimmy8]

Not if there's no reason for a let. Just like calling the ball out, and then seeing the ball land in, doesn't mean the call is out.

Why is out different? What are you basing that off of?

Ok, he said let it go. The other side heard let. What was said and what was heard were different. He didn't say let with no reason, because he said let it go for a reason.

Out is different because he just said out with no other words, and then the ball landed in. The other side can claim the point because they can say they stopped playing because of the out call. Do I have to explain why let is different in the case of this thread's story? I hope not because I've already explained multiple times.

 

[PRS]

The other side can claim the point because they can say they stopped playing because of the out call.

That's the point. They can say the exact same thing with let.

 

[Connor35]

I think @jimmy8 has misheard the multiple times I’ve said that “Let” was shouted loudly as the ball was coming to me and “it” was said quietly trailing off as the ball was going to them. “Go” wasn’t really said much if at all.

 

[jimmy8]

I think @jimmy8 has misheard the multiple times I’ve said that “Let” was shouted loudly as the ball was coming to me and “it” was said quietly trailing off as the ball was going to them. “Go” wasn’t really said much if at all.

He still said Let it go.

 

[jimmy8]

That's the point. They can say the exact same thing with let.

Dude, take the totality of the situation. Out was said with no other words, out was said because he thought it was going out. Let it go was said because he thought it was going out not because he thought there was a let. Dude, why don't you think a little bit before typing.

 

[PRS]

Dude, take the totality of the situation. Out was said with no other words, out was said because he thought it was going out. Let it go was said because he thought it was going out not because he thought there was a let. Dude, why don't you think a little bit before typing.

So "out" was said because he thought it was going out. But "let" was said because he thought it was going out. One you say is a hindrance, one is not.

When you hear the word "out" or the word "let" said loudly by your opponent, regardless of whether any other words followed or not, you are going to hesitate, even if it's just for a split second. Therefore, it is a hindrance if you (being the person on the opposite team of the one that said "out" or "let") don't continue to play.

I'm sure you're still going to disagree, but I'm not going to respond to you any further regarding this issue. This was a good distraction for a little while today though, haha, so I guess thanks.

 

[socallefty]

When my opponent is about to hit a winner, I’m going to yell out ‘Let’ loudly and then ‘me win’ softly with a pause every time. According to some on this thread, it should be Ok and I should get a replay of the point every time as my intent was to say ‘Let me Win’ even if the opponent heard only ‘Let’ before he played his shot.

 

[jimmy8]

When my opponent is about to hit a winner, I’m going to yell out ‘Let’ loudly and then ‘me win’ softly with a pause every time. According to some on this thread, it should be Ok and I should get a replay of the point every time as my intent was to say ‘Let me Win’ even if the opponent heard only ‘Let’ before he played his shot.

You do that. Tell us how it goes afterwards.

 

[jimmy8]

So "out" was said because he thought it was going out. But "let" was said because he thought it was going out. One you say is a hindrance, one is not.

When you hear the word "out" or the word "let" said loudly by your opponent, regardless of whether any other words followed or not, you are going to hesitate, even if it's just for a split second. Therefore, it is a hindrance if you (being the person on the opposite team of the one that said "out" or "let") don't continue to play.

I'm sure you're still going to disagree, but I'm not going to respond to you any further regarding this issue. This was a good distraction for a little while today though, haha, so I guess thanks.

I say Let and then my opponent stops. I had no reason to say it. Point is theirs.

I say Let and then my opponent stops. I had a reason to say it. Point is replayed.

Do I need to go on?

 

[socallefty]

I say Let and then my opponent stops. I had no reason to say it. Point is theirs.

I say Let and then my opponent stops. I had a reason to say it. Point is replayed.

Do I need to go on?

There are tennis rules on when you can call a Let. Just you saying you had a reason for it when it it is not according to the rules is not going to get you a replay. In fact it is a gross violation of proper tennis etiquette to call Let or Out to communicate with your partner and you should be apologizing for your faux paux instead of demanding a point replay when the rules and tennis etiquette don’t support your position.

 

[jimmy8]

There are tennis rules on when you can call a Let. Just you saying you had a reason for it when it it is not according to the rules is not going to get you a replay. In fact it is a gross violation of proper tennis etiquette to call Let or Out to communicate with your partner and you should be apologizing for your faux paux instead of demanding a point replay when the rules and tennis etiquette don’t support your position.

You keep saying he called Let when he didn't. He called Let it go. Why don't you Let it go?

 

[Connor35]

You keep saying he called Let when he didn't. He called Let it go. Why don't you Let it go?

But you keep missing the point where I say my partner said "LET" loudly and emphatically and "It" as the ball was already headed back toward the opponents, and "go" barely-to-not-at-all.

 

[jimmy8]

But you keep missing the point where I say my partner said "LET" loudly and emphatically and "It" as the ball was already headed back toward the opponents, and "go" barely-to-not-at-all.

Ok, all they heard was Let. So what do you do when someone calls Let? Replay. Not give away the point.

If he only said Let then it was erroneous and you give away the point. But he didn't only say Let. So why would you give away the point? It's not illegal to say the word Let in a sentence during tennis, socallefty and others do not make the rules. I earlier sarcastically agreed with him about that, and I added on that they should get hearing aids to be a smartass.

 

[jimmy8]

But you keep missing the point where I say my partner said "LET" loudly and emphatically and "It" as the ball was already headed back toward the opponents, and "go" barely-to-not-at-all.

Ok, you gave away the point because Let was the only word said loudly and the only word said while the ball was traveling towards you. Let's just finish this thread now. He didn't have time to get the word It and Go in before time ran out and he said it softly or not at all. I guess that means he never said it and his intent was therefore deceitful somehow or his intent doesn't matter somehow. Whatever, I don't care, I guess I lose this argument. Let it go. Oh, wait, Let. Now let's replay this argument.

Conversation on court: Why did you say Let?

I said Let it go.

Oh, ok, then let's replay the point because I heard Let and stopped playing, but I could have reached that last ball.

Alternative conversation on court: Why did you say Let?

I said Let it go.

You said It after the ball was coming our way, that was too late, only Let counts because of your time limit, your intent to say a sentence is therefore negated, you should have known not to start that sentence with that limited amount of time, you should have calculated the speed of the ball and seen the direction of the ball and known it was going only to your partner at net, calculated that distance, calculated the time you have, then decide not to start that sentence, because I can calculate all that within 0.00001 second, you calculated way too slow, what's wrong with you, why are you so slow at calculating and making a decision, and then refraining from starting the sentence, you're slow, it's my point, you should quit tennis with your slow brain.

 

[Rattler]

USTA doubles match last night.
My partner is serving to Opponent 1. I’m at the net.
He serves, Opponent 1 rips a return right at me. High and hard.
My partner starts to yell ”Let it go”. It probably would've hit the back fence.
But by the time he yells ”Let it…!” It’s hit my racket and my volley is going toward Opponent 2.
Opponent 2, having only heard “Let” a second after his partner returned serve, stopped playing.
My shot landed in and was unreturned.
They pointed out that they stopped playing, hence my unreturned volley.
I conceded the point to our opponents believing yelling “let” when it was not a let was a hindrance.
My partner believes we can say (almost) anything we want as the ball is coming toward us.
(we won 4&1, not a big deal, just a curiosity)

What says the internet?

(and we both know he just should’ve said “bounce” or “bounce it”. Just looking for rules thoughts. If anyone can cite the rule, that’d be great.)

No

Opponents are gonna hear what they hear, or don’t hear. How is that you or your partner’s responsibility.


Short answer, it isn’t.

 

[jimmy8]

No

Opponents are gonna hear what they hear, or don’t hear. How is that you or your partner’s responsibility.


Short answer, it isn’t.

Please provide a short clarification because I don't understand your answer. Thank you!

 

[LOBALOT]

"Let it...." is a bit gamey and I would say trying to paint very close to the lines. I would find another phrase like the typical "bounce!"