Rules question

[winchestervatennis]

Today I was in the deuce court and hit a wide angle forehand that ran the opponent to the next court. He returned the ball then tangled with a player on that court. My partner put away an oh. After the point the opponent said he didn't call a let for the tangle, but asked if he could have (he admitted he didn't call let because he didn't know the rule).

So do you think he was entitled to call a let?

 

[beernutz]

Next time I'm hopelessly out of a point I will just run onto the adjacent court, get tangled up with another player, then call a let.

 

[S&V-not_dead_yet]

Not looking at rules, just using [potentially] common sense: no, he can't claim a let because the other court player was a "permanent fixture". Just as he couldn't claim a let if he ran into a fence/tree/ball machine, he can't claim it for running into a player. He just has to play around the fixture, whatever it may be. The only exception I can think of is if the other court player deliberately got in the way to hinder your opponent.

 

[S&V-not_dead_yet]

Next time I'm hopelessly out of a point I will just run onto the adjacent court, get tangled up with another player, then call a let.

Works great in MXDs, I hear.

 

[tennis tom]

He returned the ball then tangled with a player on that court.

Can you elaborate on how they became "tangled"?

 

[Tyler-James]

Don't be a jerk: just play a let if there is an injury risk by 'playing it out'. Give first serves when someone else's ball travels into your court before second serve. Win the game without any shenanigans.

 

[S&V-not_dead_yet]

Don't be a jerk: just play a let if there is an injury risk by 'playing it out'. Give first serves when someone else's ball travels into your court before second serve. Win the game without any shenanigans.

I almost always give my opponent a 1st serve if a ball comes on from another court; the only exception is if he hasn't been giving me any.

But for the scenario posed, I don't think I'm being a jerk for denying the let. I believe that if the positions were reversed and I tangled with the other player, I would not whine and plead for a let. I'd just accept the loss of the point and move on.

 

[esgee48]

Your opponent was off the court in someone else's court to play the ball. 2 things possibly wrong. He went outside the playing area and he became 'entangled' with another player on that other court. The other player on that court could call a let on his court since another person came on the court if they were in the middle of a point. The intruder cannot call a let. Being outside his own court to play the ball is very nebulous. I would argue he cannot legally hit the ball outside the normal playing area; which another court is not your playing area. If there was a fence there he could hit the fence, but he can't call a let if the ball pulls him into the fence. Same with any other permanent fixture such as netting, bench whatever. Once he made contact with the other person on the other court, he has made contact with a permanent fixture and can't call a let. Getting tangled up is his problem, not yours.

 

[winchestervatennis]

Can you elaborate on how they became "tangled"?

Well like I said he returned the ball first so my focus was on the ball. It looked to me like he ran into the other player and stopped his play, out of frustration methinks.

 

[MathGeek]

When I was more mobile, I often used to hit the fence on one side of the court and use my left hand to try and change direction more quickly and get back. It is hard to recover position when out that far.

But being unfamiliar with the exact rule here, I would be inclined to grant the let.

Facilities put two courts next to each other out of convenience and cost effectiveness for themselves. Since I am unaware of any specific rule excluding a player from the area marked with the boundaries of an adjacent court, I would tend to view the entire area as playable, should a live ball be in that area or that area simply be needed to execute a turn around. Since I am unaware of any specific rule describing players on adjacent courts as permanent fixtures, I would tend to view them as moving objects, which they are. I don't see why running into a player on an adjacent court is any different from stepping on a ball well wide of the normal playing area.

 

[S&V-not_dead_yet]

When I was more mobile, I often used to hit the fence on one side of the court and use my left hand to try and change direction more quickly and get back. It is hard to recover position when out that far.

But being unfamiliar with the exact rule here, I would be inclined to grant the let.

Facilities put two courts next to each other out of convenience and cost effectiveness for themselves. Since I am unaware of any specific rule excluding a player from the area marked with the boundaries of an adjacent court, I would tend to view the entire area as playable, should a live ball be in that area or that area simply be needed to execute a turn around. Since I am unaware of any specific rule describing players on adjacent courts as permanent fixtures, I would tend to view them as moving objects, which they are. I don't see why running into a player on an adjacent court is any different from stepping on a ball well wide of the normal playing area.

One way to look at it is what if the opponent runs into his own partner? He can't call a let, right? In that scenario, the partner is a permanent fixture [hopefully more mobile than the bench, of course].

I'm not sure if the USTA definition of "permanent fixture" addresses whether the object is moving. Prima facie, one would think "permanent fixture" means "not moving" but there may be other interpretations.

 

[tennis tom]

Well like I said he returned the ball first so my focus was on the ball. It looked to me like he ran into the other player and stopped his play, out of frustration methinks.

Given that the facts are uncertain here, if he stopped "out of frustration" I would not grant a let. It was his decision to stop. If the player he "tangled" with gave him a bear hug stopping him from continuing the point then maybe--spectator interference. I've had dubs partners or opponents go down on the court, but you keep playing the point--it's going to be over in a second or two and stopping play will not make much matter to their medical outcome. Otherwise, every time there is some seemingly out of the order occurrence happening about like a pick-up load of refuse being loudly dumped into a nearby dumpster, the Blue Angels buzzing the court in a salute to sectionals, a hot-chick streaking--anyone of a thousand things that could be used for a distraction, and an excuse to call a let at a key point. If the perp were more skilled, he should have used the player on the next court to push-off of with a handwave for an apology and gotten back to his point. It's hard to say since the details are not all here to the nature of the "entanglement" was there velcro or sex involved?--maybe players should start wearing Hero cams for instant replays.

 

[tennis tom]

Maybe tennis needs to emulate soccer to prevent dangerous collisions and "entanglements":

 

[S&V-not_dead_yet]

It's hard to say since the details are not all here to the nature of the "entanglement"

Good thing your opponent wasn't a quantum physicist: then he could have claimed entaglement even if he didn't touch the other court player:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quantum_entanglement

 

[JBH]

36. Let due to unintentional hindrance and loss of point due to deliberate 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.

IMO MathGeek is correct. Other players are not permanent fixtures. The other player is clearly inside the opponent's control. If this affected the opponent's ability to make the shot, a let could have been called.

 

[Mr.Lob]

Today I was in the deuce court and hit a wide angle forehand that ran the opponent to the next court. He returned the ball then tangled with a player on that court. My partner put away an oh. After the point the opponent said he didn't call a let for the tangle, but asked if he could have (he admitted he didn't call let because he didn't know the rule).

So do you think he was entitled to call a let?

The key here is your opponent "returned the ball". Should have called a let before playing the ball. To ask for a let, when completely out of the play, and opponents ready to smash an easy overhead winner, is being a jerk, imo.

 

[Cindysphinx]

We've had this question before. If your opponent runs into a person on another court, your opponent cannot call a hindrance. I believe Woodrow explained that people on other courts and spectators are permanent fixtures, so you run into them at your peril.

I believe, however, Woodrow also said that if the spectator or person deliberately interferes with a player, then it is a hindrance.

 

[Jonboy]

Any contact with players or balls from other courts interferring with play is a automaticlly a let. No debate really.

 

[winchestervatennis]

If feel pretty confident that was no deliberate hindrance, I think the other player was surprised the dude was force to her court and playing a shot.

We finished the point with my partner hitting an oh winner. The dude said he didn't call a let because of his ignorance of the rule but asked us if he COULD have. I said I didn't think so, but wasn't sure. The usta official showed up later and I explained the situation to him and he said the opponent could NOt call a let under the circumstances citing "permanent fixture"

 

[tennis tom]

...I think the other player was surprised the dude was force to her court and playing a shot.

Just as I suspected! His "entanglement" was an attempt to hook-up with the lady on the next court! He wants his cake and to eat it too. Did he get her phone # while he was linked to here?

 

[esgee48]

See what I said in post #8. You cannot call a let outside your court's playing area just because you were pulled off it by the angle. If you get tangled up, tough! This is like the 3rd or 4th question on this subject. Anything outside your normal court playing area is a permanent fixture like a fence, what not.

 

[Deleted member 23235]

Don't be a jerk: just play a let if there is an injury risk by 'playing it out'. Give first serves when someone else's ball travels into your court before second serve. Win the game without any shenanigans.

No one with a sense of sportsmanship would reasonably ask for a let after getting tangled, considering they were so out of the point.
Similary there have been *many* times in the past where I through up a short lob, and just before the impending (easy) overhead, a ball rolls through my court... presuming i didn't have a reasonable chance on the ball, I wouldn't call a let.

 

[MathGeek]

So do you think he was entitled to call a let?

Even at this point of the discussion, both the facts and the rules remain unclear, so in the case of ambiguity, it is hard to say I think he was entitled to call a let.

However, in the case of ambiguity in relation to either the facts or the rules, I don't think I would object to an opponent calling a let.

So I think the graceful approach would be not to call a let if on the team that experienced the entanglement, yet not to oppose a let if on the opposing team.

 

[MathGeek]

Anything outside your normal court playing area is a permanent fixture like a fence, what not.

The problem with applying this interpretation rigidly is there is no firm demarcation of the "normal court playing area."

I intentionally hit a lot of sharply angled shots designed to bring opponents well outside of what many would consider the "normal court playing area." If they are endangered by a ball or other interference out there, it would be unsporting of me to not allow a let, both because they are in some danger to continue play, and also because I intentionally hit a shot to put them there. "Permanent fixtures" don't move around and appear in new locations in the middle of a point. People and tennis balls do, as well as occasional stuff blown by the wind (ball cans being common).

 

[JLyon]

the player has no right to a let, he actually interfered with play on the other court, he was out of the playing area for the court, pretty cut and dry actually

 

[MathGeek]

the player has no right to a let, he actually interfered with play on the other court, he was out of the playing area for the court, pretty cut and dry actually

It is not cut and dry unless you can point to clear demarcations for what defines "out of the playing area for the court."

Can you?

 

[S&V-not_dead_yet]

It is not cut and dry unless you can point to clear demarcations for what defines "out of the playing area for the court."

Can you?

In indoor volleyball, you can't step into another court. In grass volleyball, running into another court was allowed.

In tennis, I've never run into someone else's court but I have crossed the imaginary dividing line between my court's "out" area and the adjoining court's "out" area.

I'll repeat my example: if the opponent had run into a trash can, could he have claimed a let? I think the answer is "no". The opponent is responsible for navigating around permanent fixtures. Does the answer change if the object was a living, mobile thing? I don't know. If it was a person and he deliberately got in the opponent's way, I'd be inclined to grant the let. If the other court person just happened to be there, I'm not so sure. As in the case of the trash can, isn't it the opponent's responsibility to navigate?

 

[beernutz]

36. Let due to unintentional hindrance and loss of point due to deliberate 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.

IMO MathGeek is correct. Other players are not permanent fixtures. The other player is clearly inside the opponent's control. If this affected the opponent's ability to make the shot, a let could have been called.

You got the right rule but somehow interpreted it backwards.
Players hindered by something outside their control are entitled to a let.
Therefore, players hindered by something inside their control (you wrote, "The other player is clearly inside the opponent's control.") are NOT entitled to a let.

 

[S&V-not_dead_yet]

You got the right rule but somehow interpreted it backwards.
Players hindered by something outside their control are entitled to a let.
Therefore, players hindered by something inside their control (you wrote, "The other player is clearly inside the opponent's control.") are NOT entitled to a let.

But I would think someone on an adjacent court is outside of the opponent's control. So is a trash can but I don't think the opponent can claim a let because he ran into a trash can. Likewise, I don't think he can claim a let for running into an adjacent court player.

 

[beernutz]

But I would think someone on an adjacent court is outside of the opponent's control. So is a trash can but I don't think the opponent can claim a let because he ran into a trash can. Likewise, I don't think he can claim a let for running into an adjacent court player.

Well I was going to further argue my side of the question but after doing a bit of digging I find that Woodrow, whose officiating knowledge vastly exceeds my own, has already weighed in on this scenario and he disagrees with my initial opinion. So in the spirit of the upcoming election I am flipflopping!

http://tt.tennis-warehouse.com/index.php?threads/is-this-a-legitimate-let.288894/

 

[MathGeek]

The opponent is responsible for navigating around permanent fixtures. Does the answer change if the object was a living, mobile thing? I don't know.

If it was a person and he deliberately got in the opponent's way, I'd be inclined to grant the let. If the other court person just happened to be there, I'm not so sure. As in the case of the trash can, isn't it the opponent's responsibility to navigate?

I agree. However, one cannot really know for sure whether the person with whom the opponent became entangled was deliberate or not. Being unsure of the facts, I would be inclined to grant the let if requested.

Further, being unsure of the rule, I would be inclined to grant the let.

For me, demanding an outcome in my favor requires a high degree of certainty of both the rules and the facts. Allowing an outcome in my opponent's favor is the better path when uncertain.

 

[S&V-not_dead_yet]

I agree. However, one cannot really know for sure whether the person with whom the opponent became entangled was deliberate or not. Being unsure of the facts, I would be inclined to grant the let if requested.

Further, being unsure of the rule, I would be inclined to grant the let.

For me, demanding an outcome in my favor requires a high degree of certainty of both the rules and the facts. Allowing an outcome in my opponent's favor is the better path when uncertain.

I like that approach. I would be inclined to agree. I guess it's akin to calling the ball "in" unless you're 100% sure it was out.

 

[esgee48]

He cannot ask for a let because he was the person on someone else's court. If someone ran into him on his court, he is entitled to a let. Get it straight, folks. If you chase a ball into someone else's court and get entangled with a bench, person, netting, whatever, you are not entitled to a let. I would also ask you folks to find out what is considered a normal playing area for a tennis court. Granted, the area can be narrower if courts are adjacent to each other, but then you know that the other court would be considered a set of permanent fixtures.

 

[bleach]

Today I was in the deuce court and hit a wide angle forehand that ran the opponent to the next court. He returned the ball then tangled with a player on that court. My partner put away an oh. After the point the opponent said he didn't call a let for the tangle, but asked if he could have (he admitted he didn't call let because he didn't know the rule).

So do you think he was entitled to call a let?

USTA Comment 26.7: If a player leaves the playing area to return a ball and is unable to make a play on the ball because of something or someone on an adjacent court (for example, a ball, chair, or person), is the player entitled to replay the point based on hindrance? No. Hindrance does not apply outside the playing area. The playing area is the area inside the fences or backstop. When there is a row of courts, the playing area includes the area between courts, but does not include any of the adjacent court or its doubles alley. Note that players’ bags and chairs located between courts are always permanent fixtures and no player on any court is entiled to a hindrance when encountering these objects.

 

[beernutz]

USTA Comment 26.7: If a player leaves the playing area to return a ball and is unable to make a play on the ball because of something or someone on an adjacent court (for example, a ball, chair, or person), is the player entitled to replay the point based on hindrance? No. Hindrance does not apply outside the playing area. The playing area is the area inside the fences or backstop. When there is a row of courts, the playing area includes the area between courts, but does not include any of the adjacent court or its doubles alley. Note that players’ bags and chairs located between courts are always permanent fixtures and no player on any court is entiled to a hindrance when encountering these objects.

Oddly that usta comment is in the 2014 version of Friend at Court but not in the 2016.

 

[bleach]

removed

 

[Tyler-James]

No one with a sense of sportsmanship would reasonably ask for a let after getting tangled, considering they were so out of the point.
Similary there have been *many* times in the past where I through up a short lob, and just before the impending (easy) overhead, a ball rolls through my court... presuming i didn't have a reasonable chance on the ball, I wouldn't call a let.

I wouldn't either. But, if I'm playing a match and two players in adjacent courts smash into each other on balls they would easily reach if either person wasn't there, I'm happy to call a let from the other side of the net.

There's little to be gained from arguing about the context of a match where we can never see the objective phenomena in question.

 

[newpball]

Gosh people, common sense please!

"I served, then tripped over my own legs and now I could not return the ball, can I get a let?"
"I played a ball, missed it while a player from another court farted, can I get a let?"
"I wanted to hit a ball but my racket slipped because I forgot to towel off the sweat, can I get a let?"
"I just lost the point, but I am a crybaby, can I get a let?"

 

[kingcheetah]

I've seen a guy call for a let because a ball went wide and hit the divider curtain before the second bounce (it angled off near the service line and he was behind the baseline.) The opponents weren't that generous

 

[Deleted member 23235]

I've seen a guy call for a let because a ball went wide and hit the divider curtain before the second bounce (it angled off near the service line and he was behind the baseline.) The opponents weren't that generous

my entire indoor game is based on the kicker out wide on the ad side into the net . works the first two times before they start moving the curtain before my serve.

 

[kevrol]

He can't call a let. You can only call a let for things that happen on your court.

 

[Startzel]

He cannot ask for a let because he was the person on someone else's court. If someone ran into him on his court, he is entitled to a let. Get it straight, folks. If you chase a ball into someone else's court and get entangled with a bench, person, netting, whatever, you are not entitled to a let. I would also ask you folks to find out what is considered a normal playing area for a tennis court. Granted, the area can be narrower if courts are adjacent to each other, but then you know that the other court would be considered a set of permanent fixtures.

Do you get a pet if someone runs into you?

Seems like the permanent fixture rule would apply both ways.

 

[jmnk]

Do you get a pet if someone runs into you?

Seems like the permanent fixture rule would apply both ways.

wait, so in some places they are giving out pets when they run into you? Are those cats, dogs, some other animals?

 

[Dartagnan64]

USTA Comment 26.7: If a player leaves the playing area to return a ball and is unable to make a play on the ball because of something or someone on an adjacent court (for example, a ball, chair, or person), is the player entitled to replay the point based on hindrance? No. Hindrance does not apply outside the playing area. The playing area is the area inside the fences or backstop. When there is a row of courts, the playing area includes the area between courts, but does not include any of the adjacent court or its doubles alley. Note that players’ bags and chairs located between courts are always permanent fixtures and no player on any court is entiled to a hindrance when encountering these objects.

This is clearly the most sensible answer, otherwise no one should play on courts with a fence on one side. Interior courts will give you twice the let opportunities if all you need to do is run onto the adjacent court near a player and yell "hindrance"