kylebarendrick
Professional
I don't know, I consider more unfair to ask for a "do over" after your opponent made a legal shot.
Ruling on call reversal
- Thread starter jc4.0
- Start date
W
woodrow1029
Guest
#12 of the code is not there to protect the receiver from losing the point after correcting a call that he returned into play.
#12 is there mainly to protect the person that hits the unreturnable shot or serve. Otherwise, everyone could get aced, realize the serve was an ace, call it out, then correct their call and as you wanted to do in your OP, play a let.
#12 is there mainly to protect the person that hits the unreturnable shot or serve. Otherwise, everyone could get aced, realize the serve was an ace, call it out, then correct their call and as you wanted to do in your OP, play a let.
jc4.0
Professional
You have just made my point for me. If the serve is an ace, then I would have no problem at all giving the point up to the server. In this case the serve was no where near an ace. But according to the rule, I should have hit the return and we would have replayed the point. Unfortunately I called the shot honestly and therefore didn't try to hit it.
W
woodrow1029
Guest
But the rule isn't there for could've's and should've's. It's there only if you return the ball back in play and your return is not a weak sitter.
Cindysphinx
G.O.A.T.
"Ace" does not mean a serve that was 150 mph.
"Ace" means a serve that the returner did not return.
A person can be aced because they take the ready position and, for whatever reason, decide not to play the ball. Perhaps they were adjusting their wedgie, winking at a pretty girl, or *mistaken about whether the serve was going to clip the back of the line.*
You got aced, man. It's your fault and your partner's fault alone. Next time be more careful.
Oh, and suggest to all of these pros you have consulted that they read The Code. Sheez.
jc4.0
Professional
I beg to differ on your definition of ace. An ace is a serve that you cannot return - it's "too good". You didn't even have a play on the ball. I don't mind being aced, I have no ego about that - I will always say "great shot".
The pros make this distinction. We should make it in the amateur leagues as well, although we don't hit too many at 4.0 level.
We are discussing our interpretations of the code here - that's the whole reason for this thread. We have all read it. I think that a lively discussion is helpful. If you are just going to be negative and one-sided, then you should post somewhere else.
The pros make this distinction. We should make it in the amateur leagues as well, although we don't hit too many at 4.0 level.
We are discussing our interpretations of the code here - that's the whole reason for this thread. We have all read it. I think that a lively discussion is helpful. If you are just going to be negative and one-sided, then you should post somewhere else.
Cindysphinx
G.O.A.T.
I am not being negative. I am taking you at your word that you are really and truly hopelessly confused about something that is dead obvious, that happens with some frequency among honest people in unofficiated matches.
I mean, why did you ask the question if you didn't want the answer?
Good luck to you.
jc4.0
Professional
So your advice is that although my partner called the serve out, I should have hit the return? I really would like your opinion on this.
W
woodrow1029
Guest
In order for you to be able to play a let, yes.
It's great that your team corrected your call; however, if you don't return it, you lose the point.
When your partner calls the serve out, and you stop playing, your partner caused the hindrance. You can't get a let for something that your team is in control of. Thus, the rule is very fair.
Last edited:
W
woodrow1029
Guest
I am very aware of the differences between the USTA code, and the professional rules, in fact I am required to know the differences. It's a lot different when you are dealing with linesmen making an incorrect call and a player in an unofficated match correcting a call.
jc4.0
Professional
ok then I guess I take this to the court on Sunday - from now on I'm gonna return every serve, even if we both think it's out. Then if my return is a decent shot, we'll get another serve. I don't know - that just doesn't seem fair but it would be a legal advantage then, according to the code.
W
woodrow1029
Guest
Why would you want to replay the point if your return was a good one anyway? Now I just think this whole thread was as a joke.
jc4.0
Professional
This is a serious inquiry, not a joke. you have stated that if my team calls the serve out but return the shot anyway, then reverse the call it is a "replay". You stated that if we both call "out" and therefore do not return the serve, and then reverse the call we lose the point. Is that what you are saying? If so then I plan to return every serve, even if my partner calls out. That way, even though the point has ended, we will get another serve (IF the serve was not an ace). Right?
W
woodrow1029
Guest
If the serve is actually good, then yes.
jc4.0
Professional
ALRIIIIIIGHT!!! I finally have an answer that I can live with. thanks. It's so annoying the arguments we have about rules interpretations, and I'm sure it won't end here. I've seen similar situations to this with more than one resolution, sometimes not in my favor, but I usually just say, whatever, it's just one point. It's not gonna lose me the match!
Its against the CODE to return serves that are obviously out. It appears that you do not want to use common sense.
You may be right about this technically - which is probably the only thing that matters here in terms of reaching a practical decision.
But I actually think that the OP is making a valid point about the intention of the rule. The idea here is that when a team makes and reverses a bad call on a serve, the point should be replayed *unless* the point was essentially over anyway. So if I make and then reverse a bad call on a serve that was blasted by me, I should concede the point, as my bad call would not have influenced the outcome. Whereas if my return was good and the point was essentially neutral, we'd replay the point.
Here's the thing - at the high pro level, it's reasonable to assume that a serve that was not returned is a serve that couldn't be returned. It all happens so fast. But at the low amateur level, quite a bit of time can pass between a call and the actual service return. As a result, I can easily imagine situations where the point was neutral or even advantageous to the returning team even though the returning team hadn't put a racket on the ball. For instance, rather than blasting a return, I might just catch the slow bouncing ball and put it in my pocket.
Now if them's the rules, them's the rules. No point in arguing about it further. But I would say that this is a case where the intent of the rule doesn't quite square with the implementation of the rule.
There's a bad consequence to this as well - now the OP has an incentive to blast the ball back even after a call has been made. This is usually considered bad sportsmanship. For instance, if I have an easy slow sitter that my opponent calls out but is in question, I now have an incentive to drive it hard at the net man. After all, in the unlikely case that the call is reversed, I now have a basis for claiming that the point should be replayed. Whereas if I'd caught the ball in my hand and tucked it into my pocket, it would now be considered an "un-returnable" shot and I'd have to concede the point.
Last edited:
W
woodrow1029
Guest
The rule is there for unofficiated matches, meaning without officials. It's part of the code. It's intent is to prevent exactly what you just described. If a player were allowed to catch a serve that they called out, and the change their call and replay the point, people would do that very often on a serve that they can catch, but that they are not in a great position to hit the return. There is no question in the intent of the rule as it is written in the book.
W
woodrow1029
Guest
duplicate post.
Last edited by a moderator:
kylebarendrick
Professional
Again, the returning team is not hindered by the overturned call. They can't be because they are the ones that overturned the call and by rule you can't hinder yourself.
I have absolutely no problem saying, after making an "out" call, "You know, that landed in, your point". It doesn't matter to me at all that I could have returned the ball if I hadn't called it out since I'm the one that blew the call in the first place.
I have absolutely no problem saying, after making an "out" call, "You know, that landed in, your point". It doesn't matter to me at all that I could have returned the ball if I hadn't called it out since I'm the one that blew the call in the first place.
Well, sure, but I hope it's clear from my post that I wouldn't dispute that the letter and intent of the rules are in agreement in the case you described, where the ball is easy to catch but difficult to return.
I hope I'm not misunderstanding your post, but it seems like your scenario isn't exactly what I described - it's the absolute opposite of what I described - where the returner is catching an easy sitter serve that they clearly in a great position to hit. In this case, a player who blasts the return gets a replay, whereas a player who showed proper sportsmanship loses the point. To me, this is a case where the letter of the law doesn't match the intent.
W
woodrow1029
Guest
Even if the serve is easy to catch and to return, the code is crystal clear. The code is not there for could've's. In order to replay a point in an unofficiated match after you correct a call, the ball must be put back in play by you and your ball must not be a weak sitter for your opponent.
kylebarendrick
Professional
I think it is also an unrealistic scenario. There is no reason to blow a call on a ball that is weak enough and far enough out you have time to catch it. Nobody will complain if you return an out ball that is reasonably close to being in.
That's good to know, and fair enough. Still, I do think my point was misconstrued here - I never disputed the legality of the ruling. Instead, my point was that this seems to be a situation where the general principle behind the rule could be at odds with a strict (and indisputably accurate) application of the rules.
DownTheLine
Hall of Fame
I know in high school it would be the other teams point.
PatrickB
Rookie
Yes, but that's exactly why the unofficiated case is different from the officiated case - a team cannot hinder itself. If your partner interferes with your play on the ball, you cannot claim a let. If a linesperson interferes with your play on the ball, you potentially can.
[/QUOTE]
You can certainly argue that rule 12 should be changed, but it absolutely applies in this case. (Note that in ITA tennis this is different - if a team changes an out call to good, they lose the point regardless. I think rule 12 should be changed, too - to *that*.)
LuckyR
Legend
This difference (between making a call and reversing yourself and another person making a call and reversing himself) is the crux of the issue. As noted before, the official rules illogically don't account for the that very difference in an unofficiated doubles match (as opposed to an unofficiated singles match, which, of course is in the other category).
W
woodrow1029
Guest
Yes it does. Read Code 14 posted below. The last sentence of Code 14 states exactly that. A doubles team is considered a whole as in one unit. That is completely different from a neutral official calling the lines and making an erroneous out call.
14.
Partners’ disagreement on calls. If one partner calls the ball out and the
other partner sees the ball good, they shall call it good. It is more important to give
your opponents the benefit of the doubt than to avoid possibly hurting your
partner’s feelings. The tactful way to achieve the desired result is to tell your partner
quietly of the mistake and then let your partner concede the point. If a call is changed
from out to good, the principles of Code §12 apply.
your opponents the benefit of the doubt than to avoid possibly hurting your
partner’s feelings. The tactful way to achieve the desired result is to tell your partner
quietly of the mistake and then let your partner concede the point. If a call is changed
from out to good, the principles of Code §12 apply.
LuckyR
Legend
Well, yes and no. You are correct that the rulebook treats a doubles team as one person. However, since we all know two people are not, in reality, one person, there are going to be lapses in logic when someone (in this case a rulebook) decides to make a fallacy a reality.
Rule 14 (as far as the OP's situation is concerned) basically just says "see Rule 12". Rule 12, reads like it is for singles (in which case it makes logical sense). Hence the circular illogic of the OP's situation as it pertains to doubles.
BTW as I mentioned before I agree with you as to what the rules say (and therefore what the techincally "correct" ruling is), but although a tiny issue is a bad one for tennis. The rule should be changed.
How should the rule by changed LuckyR? Because, i think the rule is fine just the way it is.
W
woodrow1029
Guest
I just don't understand what you are saying. Code 14 does not say see Code 12. It says that if a doubles team calls a ball out and corrects it, then code 12 applies.
I think what you are saying is that the rule is correct, but that if the serve was an easy one to return and the receiver catches it, or lets it go by because the partner called it out, then you should be able to replay the point. That is where I don't agree with you. In an unofficiated match, that would leave way too much room for misinterpretation and misuse of the rule. The server could think their serve was an ace, the receivers would say no we would have gotten it. Not a fair way to do it.
I think what you are saying is that the rule is correct, but that if the serve was an easy one to return and the receiver catches it, or lets it go by because the partner called it out, then you should be able to replay the point. That is where I don't agree with you. In an unofficiated match, that would leave way too much room for misinterpretation and misuse of the rule. The server could think their serve was an ace, the receivers would say no we would have gotten it. Not a fair way to do it.
I was going to create a new post for this but I guess my situation sort of fits this thread....
We are receiving serve at 30-40. Our opponents hit a serve that is very close to the back line. My partner doesn't say anything and it's too close for me to call out. I groove a nice return right at the server's feet for a winner. As the server goes to retrieve the ball he asks his partner if his serve was in. I'd say a good 15-20 seconds has elapsed since my "winner" when his partner asks us if the serve was in. I said, "unless I'm sure it's out I play it and his serve was too close for me to call out." My partner says, "I think it might have been out go ahead and take 2 serves."
So rather than us be up 5-3 and serving we have to replay the point and of course we lose the game and go on to lose the set 7-5.
What should I have said if anything?
We are receiving serve at 30-40. Our opponents hit a serve that is very close to the back line. My partner doesn't say anything and it's too close for me to call out. I groove a nice return right at the server's feet for a winner. As the server goes to retrieve the ball he asks his partner if his serve was in. I'd say a good 15-20 seconds has elapsed since my "winner" when his partner asks us if the serve was in. I said, "unless I'm sure it's out I play it and his serve was too close for me to call out." My partner says, "I think it might have been out go ahead and take 2 serves."
So rather than us be up 5-3 and serving we have to replay the point and of course we lose the game and go on to lose the set 7-5.
What should I have said if anything?
jc4.0
Professional
In my opinion your partner should have not said anything and the point was yours. If you honestly thought the serve was in, and your partner didn't make an immediate call, you had to play it. If you were unsure of the serve call, in our out, and wanted to reverse it after your return, then the server takes two.
beernutz
Hall of Fame
First of all, your partner is an idiot and should keep his mouth shut in situations such as those. Regardless of what he thinks after the fact, the service return was played in good faith, no out call was made, and you should have received the point.
Whether the server or his partner think the serve was in or not is immaterial--they don't get to decide which first serves are in or not. The ONLY exception to that is if the receiver does not play the serve which was not the case here.
If this were the rule, it would be misused, no question about it. However, the "easy sitter" standard (point is replayed unless the return was an "easy sitter") is also subjective and could be misused as well. So ultimately, you can't get away from judgement calls in tennis.
I think that if the returning team were allowed to catch the ball or let it go by, and still replay the point on an out call that is reversed, then you'd have to have a very strict standard on what counts as a returnable ball. In other words, this rule would have to be one of those "beyond a reasonable doubt" things in favor of the server. It would have to be clearly, without question, an easily returned serve.
And yeah, ultimately I agree with you, I just don't see this working. I've seen enough disputes on the tennis court that I don't think a nuanced rule like this could work either
That said, I don't really like a rule that encourages the returner to crack a ball hard at the net player after an out call, even when there is plenty of time to just catch the ball. But under the rules, it sounds like this is the smart play.
LuckyR
Legend
I think it should be changed just as woodrow says in the post that follows yours. That is: if the returner calls the ball out and is overruled by his partner, then the server plays the point over. This is the standard when a chair overrules a linesman. The current rules of course, do not make this distinction.
The reason for the change is that without it, the returner's partner has no motivation to overrule his partner, who in good faith called an "in" ball, "out", since by doing so he unfairly rewards the server with an ace on a returnable ball.
PatrickB
Rookie
Except, again, in this case it's something external to the team that's hindering their play on the ball, not the team themselves "hindering" their play on the ball. If you were to allow that, then, as woodrow says, it would be greatly subject to abuse. For example, players would have an incentive to call every very tough serve *out*, have their partner correct them, and get a free look at another server. That is certainly not something to encourage.
Another alternative would be the ITA (collegiate) rule that if a player/team changes a call from out to good, then you lose the point, but that would discourage *partners* from correcting incorrect out calls, which is a something we don't in unofficiated matches but okay for ITA matches which frequently have officials on court to overrule incorrect out calls on appeal.
Personally, I now think the rule in the code makes the most sense - if a team corrects the call *and got the shot back in play*, they get a let (with the "weak sitter" caveat as the receiver's option). That way, you can't just call out on every tough serve and get a do-over when you're corrected and the partner still has incentive to correct incorrect out calls.
W
woodrow1029
Guest
As said above, the ITA way of doing it is one decent solution.
Also, another one that could be considered is the way it is at the ITF futures. The first time a player corrects a call and puts it back in play, they replay the point. Any ones after that one, they lose the point. Similar to a ball falling out of a pocket. The first time, replay the point, the second time they lose the point.
Also, another one that could be considered is the way it is at the ITF futures. The first time a player corrects a call and puts it back in play, they replay the point. Any ones after that one, they lose the point. Similar to a ball falling out of a pocket. The first time, replay the point, the second time they lose the point.
LuckyR
Legend
My guess the scenario you fear, is vastly over anticipated. By such logic the entire game of unofficiated tennis could be equally faulted since you could just call every single ball out and win every match, whoo hoo!!!
The guys I play with would rather cut off their arm than perform the mythical shennanigans you cite as fearing.
Or to put it another way, if I was serving and the returner let my returnable serve go by because he genuinely thought it was out, but was openminded and fairminded enough to take his partner's overrule, then crediting me with an ace would feel kind of funny. I didn't really serve an ace and I would feel a little guilty.
BTW, I do not disagree that if the serve in question is a true ace, the returners should lose the point.
Last edited:
PatrickB
Rookie
Ah, that's a nice idea. Thanks for the info.
PatrickB
Rookie
Sure, I agree that that *specific* scenario is highly unlikely - it was merely an illustrative extreme.
The bigger issue is the one at the heart of unofficiated matches - we want encourage people to give their opponents the benefit of the doubt on close calls. IMO, giving people free lets on *any* close call they call out incorrectly certainly doesn't encourage that. We want to encourage them to default to "in" and keep playing on tough calls, not default to "out", rely on their partner to correct them if they were wrong, and get a free do-over as a reward.Finally, I think we can assume that anyone who called *every* ball out would have a hard time finding a team, partner, or another match.
LuckyR
Legend
Sure, I agree that that *specific* scenario is highly unlikely - it was merely an illustrative extreme.
Finally, I think we can assume that anyone who called *every* ball out would have a hard time finding a team, partner, or another match.
I totally get what you are saying.
I guess it boils down to whether you consider the returner making a mistake as an anticipated event, where you would want his partner to correct this mistake (in which case my solution is better than the current rule, since it incents the partner to overrule the returner and get it right).
Or if you consider the returner's mistake unacceptable, so you want to overly penalize the returners so they "get it right the first time" and don't need the partner to overrule. Personally (and maybe this is my elderly eyes talking) I think honest visual mistakes on line calls happen all the time. So I do not think this way of looking at the issue is accurate. You may differ in your view of it.
kylebarendrick
Professional
The remedy in this case should always be in favor of the serving team though. It is the receiving team that made the mistake.
I guess part of this goes back to the question: is tennis a gentlemen's game? If it is, then you are obligated to overule your partner if they mistakenly call a ball out - regardless of who wins the point. If it isn't, then anything goes and all calls are suitable for gamesmanship. Which sport do you want to play?
I guess part of this goes back to the question: is tennis a gentlemen's game? If it is, then you are obligated to overule your partner if they mistakenly call a ball out - regardless of who wins the point. If it isn't, then anything goes and all calls are suitable for gamesmanship. Which sport do you want to play?
PatrickB
Rookie
Oh, visual mistakes happen all the time, especially calling your own lines when playing, and we do want to incent the partner to correct them.
It's a question of balancing incentives - you want to encourage partners to overrule incorrect calls and encouraging the returner to give the benefit of the doubt on his calls, too. The "always let" options encourages correction may be discourage benefit of the doubt from the returner. The "always lose point" option encourages the returner to give the benefit of the doubt in officiated matches and discourages partners from correcting calls, so is probably a bad option. The current "let if return in" rule tries to balance the two, and seems to be a reasonable attempt to do so - except now you encourage the returner to return *out* servers which is also something that some consider impolite.
In the end, this is the trickiness of designing rules, especially for unofficiated matches - there are lots of different incentives and customs that have to be considered and balanced, and no one is always happy with the tradeoffs the rules make, especially when they don't go your way in a match.
kylebarendrick
Professional
As I stated earlier in the thread, I don't think anyone complains about people returning "out" serves when they are close. It is the hard returns of "way out" serves (ball hits the tape, bounces high into the air and lands 10 feet long as an extreme example) that cause frustration for me. With that in mind, the idea that the rule encourages people to return out serves is a non-issue.
If the serve is close, return it. If the serve is clearly out and you have time to react accordingly, don't return it.
If the serve is close, return it. If the serve is clearly out and you have time to react accordingly, don't return it.
LuckyR
Legend
In theory you are correct. However in real life there are plenty of Gentlemen Tennis Players who would never dream of calling an "in" ball, "out", or even a "questionable" ball, "out". This would be a mistake of commission. But who would stay silent (a mistake of omission) on a ball their partner called "out" confidently and let go back to the fence, when they didn't actually see court between the ball and the line.
