rules question

[justinmadison]

After the serve hit the net and before it touched the ground the returner took it out of the air and hit the ball back across the net and onto the court. The server claimed the point because the ball did not touch the court on the opposing side. The returner claimed it was a let and should be replayed.

What is the correct call?

 

[blakesq]

its a let as soon as it hits the net. If it lands in, you play it over, if it lands out the server gets a second serve, or loses the point if it was the second serve. Since the opponent hit it before it hit the ground, then the server gets to re-serve that serve, but its not an automatic point.

After the serve hit the net and before it touched the ground the returner took it out of the air and hit the ball back across the net and onto the court. The server claimed the point because the ball did not touch the court on the opposing side. The returner claimed it was a let and should be replayed.

What is the correct call?

 

[polski]

The rule is: the ball is in until it lands out.

Since the opponent didn't let it bounce out, the serve is considered in. Since it touched the net first, the point gets played as a let & that serve gets repeated.

I must admit, I am surprised that the returning team didn't argue it should be a fault. Most people that don't know the correct rule would argue that way.

 

[beernutz]

It is interesting (and confusing) that the returner did what they did knowing that the serve would be replayed instead of possibly having it be a fault.

 

[jc4.0]

two rules in question

The returner must let the ball bounce before hitting it, he can't volley a return. So first of all the returner in this case is a wanker. Since you couldn't say for sure whether the ball would have been in (let or not) I think the decision would be to give the server at least one more serve, and tell the wanker-returner to step back behind the service line, letting the serve hit the court before hitting it next time; and present him a laminated copy of the code.

 

[Nellie]

The rule is: the ball is in until it lands out.

Since the opponent didn't let it bounce out, the serve is considered in. Since it touched the net first, the point gets played as a let & that serve gets repeated.

I must admit, I am surprised that the returning team didn't argue it should be a fault. Most people that don't know the correct rule would argue that way.

Not meaning to split hairs, but I think a better way to think about it is to say that the serve is never good (under the Code and not under ITF rules) when the serve touches the net. You just happen to get a let, by definition when the net serve also happens to bounce in (e.g., by touching a receiver).

 

[polski]

The returner must let the ball bounce before hitting it, he can't volley a return. So first of all the returner in this case is a wanker. Since you couldn't say for sure whether the ball would have been in (let or not) I think the decision would be to give the server at least one more serve, and tell the wanker-returner to step back behind the service line, letting the serve hit the court before hitting it next time; and present him a laminated copy of the code.

I don't know about being a wanker, but definately an idiot. By them touching it, you get the serve over again regarless of how far out it could land.

 

[justinmadison]

The returner was just goofing around really and forgot it was a “match”. The same as catching a ball before it bounces when it is way way long. When he hit the ball it had carried off the net almost to the baseline. (It was a big serve) The server was looking for an argument and found a pretty good excuse.

 

[Alchemy-Z]

what if you are playing doubles and it skips off the net and hit's your partner before it hits the ground?

Is it counted as in?

and they get 1st serve again?

 

[JLyon]

what if you are playing doubles and it skips off the net and hit's your partner before it hits the ground?

Is it counted as in?

and they get 1st serve again?

Yes it would be considered a let