Rules question: is “let it!” a hindrance
- Thread starter Connor35
- Start date
You are (or were) a professional umpire, right?
This would be my initial reaction, except for one thing. The unwritten rule that states your opponents ARE OBLIGATED to carry on and b!t8h like women if they feel they were "cheated". Far easier to give them the point.
Rattler
Hall of Fame
Yes I was.
If it was a friendly match giving them the point is far easier, I agree.
Although something happens to rec player’s minds when play matches that count. It was a USTA match, right?
They all turn into jailhouse lawyers with a loose grasp of the rules. So many are ready to argue and fight for ‘perceived’ slight or advantage. Experts in making mountains out of mole hills.
I don’t care if they whine and cry and feel cheated or whatever. Or feel they are obligated to act like petulant spoiled children.
The ball was moving towards them and they communicated. That is not a hinderance.
You know what it is? It’s part of the game.
So are bad or questionable calls that people will debate endlessly.
Take the good with the bad, adjust and get on with playing. Everyone who’s ever played had been on the wrong side of a rule, or an interpretation of one.
I would disagree with your call, but regardless, as the OP mentioned, the real solution here is to never say "let" or "out" on court unless you're making a call. Say "bounce it" or "watch it" or "leave it" or something like that and you can avoid any controversy before it arises.
Rattler
Hall of Fame
My advice is to stop looking at the USTA code as a defense against triggering, or not upsetting anyone in the woke world he now live in. It wasn’t written with that intention. The rules were also not written to be weaponized.
For example I played a doubles match the other evening and the receiver in the ad court hit a return winner off of a serve that was easily 6 inches out. He didn’t have a good look at it, and his partner choked on a call.
What should we have done? Three of us all saw the serve long.
The receiver wanted the point, felt he was cheated.
Actually said, he wasn’t giving mulligans that a call had to be made. Inferring that it was our mistake his partner didn’t make the call and it was somehow our fault that we were not following the benefit of the doubt rule. But there was no doubt that the ball was out.
Do you see how ridiculous this is?
For example I played a doubles match the other evening and the receiver in the ad court hit a return winner off of a serve that was easily 6 inches out. He didn’t have a good look at it, and his partner choked on a call.
What should we have done? Three of us all saw the serve long.
The receiver wanted the point, felt he was cheated.
Actually said, he wasn’t giving mulligans that a call had to be made. Inferring that it was our mistake his partner didn’t make the call and it was somehow our fault that we were not following the benefit of the doubt rule. But there was no doubt that the ball was out.
Do you see how ridiculous this is?
Connor35
Professional
We agree. And like I said we won easily. I was asking because my partner said I got the rule wrong.
But when a player loudly yells "LET" and barely says "it go" , and says "it go" as the ball is going toward the opponent, I'm still convinced I was right.
Both @jimmy8 and @Rattler seems to
(a) ignore my partners verbal reaction caused the opponents to immediately stop playing which falls under rule 34 "Any talking that interferes with an opponent’s ability to play a ball is a
hindrance." and
(b) ignore that "it go" was said as the ball was traveling toward our opponents which violates rule 34 "Doubles players should not talk when the ball is moving toward their opponent’s court."
Rattler
Hall of Fame
Still not a hinderance, you are applying the rule too rigidly.
Difference between letter of the law and spirit of the law.
The communication, in the facts you presented, happened as the ball was coming towards you, just because you reacted and in a split second hit the ball back as you partner was saying “..it go.” In the same breath, does not automatically make it a hinderance.
Difference between letter of the law and spirit of the law.
The communication, in the facts you presented, happened as the ball was coming towards you, just because you reacted and in a split second hit the ball back as you partner was saying “..it go.” In the same breath, does not automatically make it a hinderance.
Last edited:
Connor35
Professional
Rules don't work in spirit. Rules only work according to the letter of the law.
The one opponent immediately and quite evidently stopped playing upon hearing LET (which was seconds after the serve).
His partner immediately recognized it and brought it up.
I'll do the same thing (which was give away the point) next time.
Rattler
Hall of Fame
I think the spirit of the rule is to concede the point in this case; something they said made their opponents stop playing.
I think the spirit of the rule would be to play it when, say, you throw up a bad lob and tell your partner to watch out. Yes, you're talking while the ball is traveling towards your opponents, but I can't imagine that ever making your opponents stop playing the point. So, in the spirit of the rule, that should NOT be called a hindrance.
But in this case, something they said did make their opponents stop playing, plus they used a word that is also considered a call, so while I would expect most of the time that the opponents would just continue to play, that's not what happened in this instance. If the opponents were able to play the shot, or at least make an attempt at it, then he could/should keep the point. But since it did make his opponents stop playing, I think the spirit of the rule says that he correctly conceded the point.
You guys just hit on the core issue
I'm firmly in @Rattler camp, but I know it's a battle I can't win. And fighting the battle (engaging) is losing the battle. Better to just give your "jailhouse lawyer opponents" what they want and avoid the pointless and endless b!t8h fest.
The real problem I have with the "jailhouse lawyers" is this. They aren't consistent in their application (they are only consistent in arguing for their self interest). Meaning, if "letter of the law" wins them the point, that's what they argue. They won't hear any "spirit of the law" arguments. The rule is written as it is. It's rigid. The point is therefore mine.
But if "spirit of the law" suits their self-interest next time, they change gears and argue the exact opposite.
Last edited:
Funbun
Professional
This is correct; that's why I just catch balls that fly before they hit the ground because it's obvious they're going out; that's the spirit of the law.
ichaseballs
Hall of Fame
so the ball has to be coming towards you for you to yell things out to your partner.
in most doubles matches there are constant "hindrances" going on.
mostly never called unless it is egregious, or obviously trying to be distracting.
in this case, a player mishearing the word "let" and stopping play.
if it is your partner, lose point. opponent said it, play the let.
also, don't say the words "out" or "let" during play.
i keep it to "you, mine, bounce, help"
in most doubles matches there are constant "hindrances" going on.
mostly never called unless it is egregious, or obviously trying to be distracting.
in this case, a player mishearing the word "let" and stopping play.
if it is your partner, lose point. opponent said it, play the let.
also, don't say the words "out" or "let" during play.
i keep it to "you, mine, bounce, help"
Last edited:
Wow, I feel like I should pay you for posting this. It's the perfect example.
1) If you argue the rule like @Rattler this is a typical response. Common sense doesn't prevail. Instead, we start on the road to "endless, pointless argument". "Oh ya, well what if I do XXX. If you don't go with my call, I'm warning you. I'll start making lot's of really stupid calls and engaging in lots of arguing and gamesmanship. I'll make the match miserable"
2) But this this example is great, because it's actually a "test" I'll run sometimes early in a match to see how much my opponent likes to argue. I'll catch an obvious out ball. If they start arguing and quoting the rule, I know what type of person I'm dealing with. Someone that doesn't play by "common sense", but will "weaponize" the rules (letter of the law) to gain any advantage they can (but mostly what they want to do is start an argument about ANYTHING).
3) When I run this "test", it gets even funnier. Because I'll always just call the score 0-15 without any comment. Point is yours. The person will never just take the point. They'll have to argue and lecture for a while. Then they'll almost always refuse to take the point, but warn me that "next time" the point is theirs. Which shows of course that all they really want to do is argue. And unfortunately, there are lots of people that come the the court in this mindset. You pretty much can't play a match without them arguing no matter what you do. With these guys, you never say much and just agree with them no matter what they say.
I would agree that the spirit of the rule would be that you can catch an obvious out ball and still take the point. But I think the spirit of the rule in this case is different; I think it basically says that you can't mess up your opponents by saying something. In this case, they said something and messed up their opponents.
I could understand an argument saying the spirit of the rule is to play a let, since it was an accident, but you also aren't supposed to play lets unless necessary, so I'd still say that the point should be given to the opponents due to hhindrance.
Connor35
Professional
This sort of gamesmanship seems to say more about you than what you can learn from them.
Sure, you can play this game forever ("you're the gamesmanship guy, I'm just trying to play". No, you're the gamesmanship guy"). And that's pretty much the reality of these situations.
I know if the guy doesn't say anything when I catch a ball sailing into the fence, he's probably not going to try and "trip me up" later in the match with some "letter of the law" rule he arbitrarily decides to enforce. It puts me at ease that I don't have to be on my guard too much like I do when I'm playing the "lawyer". And if he does say something, it costs me a (meaningless) point, but it buys me information.
I bet I know what reaction you'd have to me catching the ball
. Against you, I'm going to play my side as close to the letter of the rule as I can. But as you can probably tell, I don't care if you catch balls sailing into the fence, say "out" or "let it go" to your partner in doubles or anything else. I'm not the cat waiting for the mouse to make a mistake. I'm a "common sense" "spirit of play" "spirit of the rule" guy. That's how I play my side of the ball. But I allow my opponent to play his side any way he wants to. If he's a "letter of the law" "cat watching the mouse" guy, I just need to be careful. But I don't have to "retaliate". I can call my side "free and easy".I prefer to just avoid any controversy before it starts. Playing with friends I'll catch a ball going out and don't really care what I say, but in an match, especially against someone I don't know? Why bother? For all I know I could be playing a huge stickler for the rules or the most casual player around: regardless, I'm not going to say "out" or "let" in any context other than making a call, I'm not going to catch a ball going out, I'm not going to foot fault, I'm not going to do anything against the rules. It's really not that hard to play that way, and it avoids all arguments other than line calls completely.Sure, you can play this game forever ("you're the gamesmanship guy, I'm just trying to play". No, you're the gamesmanship guy"). And that's pretty much the reality of these situations.
I know if the guy doesn't say anything when I catch a ball sailing into the fence, he's probably not going to try and "trip me up" later in the match with some "letter of the law" rule he arbitrarily decides to enforce. It puts me at ease that I don't have to be on my guard too much like I do when I'm playing the "lawyer". And if he does say something, it costs me a (meaningless) point, but it buys me information.
I bet I know what reaction you'd have to me catching the ball
I don't care if my opponent catches a ball that's clearly going out or foot faults a little something similar. But I also don't understand why you would do it when it's so easy to just not do those things.
I'm pretty sure you're doing this just to argue / "make me look bad", but that's fine. I'm sure you know what I'm saying. But I'll play along and clarify.
If I suspect my opponent might be the kind of person that is going to try try to start an argument (or steal a point) by enforcing the "letter of the law", I'd like to know that early in the match. On a non-critical point. Then I'll know to be extra careful so as to not give him too many reasons / opportunities to do it. I don't want to learn this about my opponent on break point / set point / match point.
Do you think most people consistently call foot faults? Starting from the first serve of the match? Or do most people (who actually call footfaults) "wait" to do it on a critical point (after setting up the expectation that they aren't going to call small foot faults)? See, I like to "ferret" these guys out early. To me it makes sense (if I suspect them). Maybe it just seems like gamesmanship to you. That's fine. To me, potentially "springing" these calls on critical points is gamesmanship (that I want to avoid).
By the way, nice to know you are a "spirit of the rule" kind of guy. I'm sure we wouldn't have any problems.
Sure, you can play this game forever ("you're the gamesmanship guy, I'm just trying to play". No, you're the gamesmanship guy"). And that's pretty much the reality of these situations.
I know if the guy doesn't say anything when I catch a ball sailing into the fence, he's probably not going to try and "trip me up" later in the match with some "letter of the law" rule he arbitrarily decides to enforce. It puts me at ease that I don't have to be on my guard too much like I do when I'm playing the "lawyer". And if he does say something, it costs me a (meaningless) point, but it buys me information.
I bet I know what reaction you'd have to me catching the ball
One of the troubles with "spirit of the rule" is that it can go both ways. Isn't part of the spirit of the rules to not distract your opponent during play? If so, which interpretation of the 'spirit of the rules' do you apply?
True, it depends on who you're playing with. But I think it's pretty easy to tell if a guy is just being a d**k and yelling out during the point to distract his opponent or just playing the game. It's why tennis is gentleman's game. But if you're playing with guys who think it's "cool" to be a d**k (trying to "win the mental battle"), then you have no choice but to play "letter of the law" with these guys. But truthfully, I've played with few if any d**ks in all my years of playing. I've certainly played with guys that love to start arguments, but if you refuse to engage and don't escalate the situation, they usually lose interest and stop doing it (they start to feel like idiots).
Yeah, I had that conversation with a friend relatively recently, he noticed he had a habit (or wanted to start?) grabbing balls so they don't go all the way to the back fence (this was for pickleball, but the spirit of the question is the same). I said I wouldn't care one way or the other if I were playing someone and they grabbed a ball that was obviously going out. But I wouldn't do that myself, because I wouldn't want to get into that habit.
With respect to the statements (read: the calls during play that are being discussed), I'm sure I've played against people who have used the phrase "let it go" many times but I don't think I've realized it because it's mostly come out letitgo, essentially one word and said at the same volume. I'm not going to be a stickler about that word being used, even if I realized they said the word "let". But "let" is a call that can be made any time, and if someone says loudly "let" with either a quiet, or a trailing off, or a non-existent "it be", to me they called a let and if they did so for no reason it should be the opponents point. I'd give it to the opponents if it were my side that did that, and I'd expect the other side to do so (perhaps after a bit of 'what just happened?' confusion). A call of 'out' is a bit different, as one could argue it couldn't be a call until the ball bounced--but I'm sure we've all seen some players do exactly that--intend the 'out' to be a call before the bounce. I've generally been fine with that as well when it's pretty obvious--they're at the baseline and the ball is past them and still hasn't bounced, for instance. But the guy who's at the net who makes the call because the ball had a lot of height and velocity (but unrecognized by the opponent a lot of topspin) who doesn't even turn to watch the ball--well, luckily for that opponent and the tenor of the game the ball did in fact go just a bit long (but likely a lot less long than my opponent thought).
And to add: I'm sure there are players out there who have some issues with their hearing, so something that may be audible to most people may not be heard by all, which is why I stipulated that the words should be roughly at the same volume.
Last edited:
socallefty
G.O.A.T.
I believe you, but most self-taught rec players foot fault because they can’t stop their front foot from moving forward and touching the line - it is a problem with transferring body weight forward in a non-textbook way. So I‘ve watched players complaining about opponent’s springing forward and egregiously footfaulting, but when you watch their own motion, almost everyone at lower levels steps on the baseline often. This is why calling footfaults in rec doubles becomes fraught with danger because often when the opponents look at the other team that called them, they find them footfaulting often and can make retaliation calls that are accurate. This is why it has become socially acceptable to ‘let sleeping dogs lie‘ and not call footfaults in rec doubles.
Definitely in a social/friendly match I'd expect a little bit of ragging on the person who said that and the point would get replayed. In a more official competition (USTA match), which is where all the things I said in the later message, I'd expect a little more strict adherence to the rules. I haven't been in the situation of an utterance like some of the cases above, but I've accidentally made an 'out' call on a serve that was actually in (it dipped a bit more than I expected and my mind started to make the call before the bounce) and I've immediately conceded the point. In a social match, I'd probably expect a discussion to arise, with the other team not wanting to take the point and wanting to replay the point, and my side wanting to concede the point.
And thankfully I also haven't run across too many DBs out there on the court either. A few here and there, but for the most part most are as honest as they can be with regards to their play (lack of gamesmanship), line calls, and so on.
Connor35
Professional
Sure, you can play this game forever ("you're the gamesmanship guy, I'm just trying to play". No, you're the gamesmanship guy"). And that's pretty much the reality of these situations.
I know if the guy doesn't say anything when I catch a ball sailing into the fence, he's probably not going to try and "trip me up" later in the match with some "letter of the law" rule he arbitrarily decides to enforce. It puts me at ease that I don't have to be on my guard too much like I do when I'm playing the "lawyer". And if he does say something, it costs me a (meaningless) point, but it buys me information.
I bet I know what reaction you'd have to me catching the ball
And you’d be wrong.
I would say “that’s fine, but anything remotely close please let bounce” And leave it at that.
Remember I’m the OP who gave the point away.
And my regular partner thinks I call lines too liberally for the other team, continuing rallies when he’d stop them.
And I’ve been given a sportsmanship pin by an opposing captain this year for, amongst other things, calling a shot of mine out when he fanned on a volley but didn’t see my shot sail wide.
Connor35
Professional
So you agree it’s a gentleman's game.
But you blatantly break clear, fundamental rules, then if someone points out you broke a rule, it helps you identify that they’re a jerk?
Do I have that right?
Last edited:
I know, I was baiting you. See how funny I am
. Everything you've said tells me you are mainly a "spirit of the rule" guy. But I also know you like to argue Yup, you got it right. Which is why I choose to catch a ball going well out as my test. It's "black and white" that I'm wrong and the point is my opponents (by the letter of the law). But we all know that nobody will really take a point if you catch a ball that was going into the back fence for example (spirit of the law). So if you do, it tells me something about you and what your tendencies might be about future "rules violations".
Easy, quick, effective test.
Connor35
Professional
I know, I was baiting you. See how funny I am
Yup, you got it right. Which is why I choose to catch a ball going well out as my test. It's "black and white" that I'm wrong and the point is my opponents (by the letter of the law). But we all know that nobody will really take a point if you catch a ball that was going into the back fence for example (spirit of the law). So if you do, it tells me something about you and what your tendencies might be about future "rules violations".
Easy, quick, effective test.
I’ll stick by my original diagnoses that that says more about you than the person who takes the point. Especially if actually used as a “test”.
I’ve never felt the need to “test” my playing partners.
The troublesome ones are sufficiently rare you can deal with on an as needed basis.
Fair enough.
99.99% of the time, I play tennis with a smile on my face. I'm the Carlos Alcaraz of tennis in that respect. Which makes it really hard for my opponent to "play angry" against me. So 99.99% of the time, I have a good experience playing tennis with anybody.
My test isn't done in the "spirit" of meanness". And my opponent can "feel" that.
socallefty
G.O.A.T.
I was taught that gentlemen played by the rules. The rules are fair and there is no reason to break them. When in doubt about breaking the rules, give the point to the opponent whether they argue about it or not. I am following my code of conduct and tennis rules because I want to be a gentleman - whether my opponents are jerks, on-court lawyers, saints, gentlemen etc. should not influence how I treat them or how I play by the rules. The OP did the right thing according to the rules and according to good sportsmanship etiquette which coincided in this case. I can’t believe there are 75 posts arguing about it and trying to convince him he should not have done what he did.
The problem is, much like golf, nobody outside of Touring Pros really play by the rules. If someone wants to "letter of law" you (just to start an argument), there always an opportunity.
I don't think that's true. I think most people do play by the rules, but you just use that as an excuse to not play by the rules.
I don't even care about their technique though. If your technique makes you go 6" forward from where you start, just start 6" behind the baseline. It's that simple and doesn't require any change in technique.
See, that's my point though. If I never do anything suspect, then it doesn't matter if my opponents are that kind of people or not. And I don't have to be extra careful on any point because I know I'm not going to do anything they might call out anyway. It's not that hard to do and avoids issues in the first place.
Yeah, I don't think we'd have any issues playing each other.
cks
Hall of Fame
The beauty of TTW
chatt_town
Hall of Fame
I'm just curious as to how your partner came up with this of all things they could say during a point. It just seems like he would have multiple people stopping in the middle of a point because he's using the word "let" when he could use other words like as you said "bounce". If the points at moving at any kind of pace at all the ball could have gone back and forth 2 times before he finishes that whole phrase. lol As for your question. I don't think it's a stop of play as long as he's saying it as you are hitting the ball but if he's finishing it as the ball is traveling back...yea technically I can see where they'd call that to stop him from using the phrase at all.
kylebarendrick
Professional
It really isn't about the spirit of the rules vs. the letter of the rules. It is about the people involved. The preface to the Code says:
"If players of goodwill follow the principles of The Code, they should always be able to reach an agreement..."
The key there is "players of goodwill". Among those players, someone can ask what happened (I was telling my partner to let it go), both sides would offer a resolution that favored their opponents, and they'd probably end up replaying the point over the misunderstanding.
Among other players (those without goodwill), you are better off giving them no excuse to take points from you.
"If players of goodwill follow the principles of The Code, they should always be able to reach an agreement..."
The key there is "players of goodwill". Among those players, someone can ask what happened (I was telling my partner to let it go), both sides would offer a resolution that favored their opponents, and they'd probably end up replaying the point over the misunderstanding.
Among other players (those without goodwill), you are better off giving them no excuse to take points from you.
Sure. The code also says that you must be 100% sure the ball is 100% out. Otherwise, just play it as in. Which means in practice, you should be playing lots of "out" balls to ensure that you never call a ball that caught a piece of the line "out". And lots of people actually play this way........until there is an "important" point. Or they feel like their opponent is "cheating" them. Then this "goodwill" goes out the window.
Look, if everyone really played in this "spirit of goodwill", then tennis would be fun. Nobody wants that.
Huh?!
time_fly
Hall of Fame
I was tempted to call a hindrance last night in a doubles match. I got a short high ball in the alley and as I was setting up one opponent yelled to the other “cover cross court! He’s going cross court!” And of course a shanked it. But I was the one who missed the bunny … I’ll own up to it.
socallefty
G.O.A.T.
You can call hindrance only if you stopped playing and didn’t attempt your shot. You can’t miss and then ask for a hindrance call per the rules.
socallefty
G.O.A.T.
I just realized that there could be two rule reasons why the OP’s team lost the point.
1. Partner said Let when OP was hitting the ball. Opponents stopped playing thinking it was a Let. There was no legitimate reason for a Let call and so the OP’s team loses the point because of illegitimate Let call.
2. Partner said ‘Let it Go’ with the ‘it Go’ words coming out after the OP hit the ball. Opponents stopped playing because of partner talking when ball was coming towards them which is a distraction. Loss of point for intentional hindrance of talking when ball is going towards opponents.
Either way, the point was lost for the OP’s team by rule as soon as the opponents stopped playing due to the words said by his partner.
1. Partner said Let when OP was hitting the ball. Opponents stopped playing thinking it was a Let. There was no legitimate reason for a Let call and so the OP’s team loses the point because of illegitimate Let call.
2. Partner said ‘Let it Go’ with the ‘it Go’ words coming out after the OP hit the ball. Opponents stopped playing because of partner talking when ball was coming towards them which is a distraction. Loss of point for intentional hindrance of talking when ball is going towards opponents.
Either way, the point was lost for the OP’s team by rule as soon as the opponents stopped playing due to the words said by his partner.
Connor35
Professional
The problem here is I've had [a jerk I used to play with] yell "GET BACK" to his partner precisely at the moment I was about to make contact.
And he 100% did it precisely then just to mess me up. So there really wasn't time to call a hindrance before I made contact.
Like @time_fly , I just let it go and won the match. And afterward told him it was bush.
Similar threads
