Second serve hits ball in service box. My point?

[tennytive]

Maybe this has been discussed already, but I couldn't find it.

I'm serving. First serve is long and receiver lets the ball remain in his service box. I look at his partner to see if he's going to clear the ball but he leaves it there. Second serve hits the ball lying in the service box. We all laugh, and then I claim the point.

They say no, it's a let because the ball on the ground is a hindrance, just like if it had rolled from another court. I say no, a ball from another court is out of their control, but they both chose not to clear this ball so they lose the point.

Deaf ears, and there's two of them and one of me, so we play a let and I lose the point.

I looked at the rules of tennis but couldn't find anything that described this situation. Does anyone know the right call that should have been made?

 

[Govnor]

Sounds like this wouldn't have happened in a competitive game, no? It would have been cleared?

 

[jk175d]

Maybe this has been discussed already, but I couldn't find it.

I'm serving. First serve is long and receiver lets the ball remain in his service box. I look at his partner to see if he's going to clear the ball but he leaves it there. Second serve hits the ball lying in the service box. We all laugh, and then I claim the point.

They say no, it's a let because the ball on the ground is a hindrance, just like if it had rolled from another court. I say no, a ball from another court is out of their control, but they both chose not to clear this ball so they lose the point.

Deaf ears, and there's two of them and one of me, so we play a let and I lose the point.

I looked at the rules of tennis but couldn't find anything that described this situation. Does anyone know the right call that should have been made?

your point. It's their choice/responsibility to clear the court. ...But two of them one of you?

 

[Alchemy-Z]

It's your point.

Same as if a ball falls out of their pocket. It's not a let but your point.

They had control of the ball and chose to leave it.

 

[tennytive]

Thanks jk.

Yeah, two of them. Canadian or Australian doubles, whichever.

I know we're just talking about "practice", but I would like to know the rule in case there's a next time.

 

[Baxter]

The way I've always heard it is that they are resposible for the "housekeeping" of their side of the court. Your point. If someone did that I'd be aiming for that ball.

If a ball falls out of your pocket a let can be called if it's the first time.

 

[ChipNCharge]

I know we're just talking about "practice".

Talkin' 'bout PRACTICE, man! Not a game..Not a game...PRACTICE!

 

[blakesq]

The point is the server's because the receivers can choose to clear the ball or leave it, if the choose to leave the ball, then they have to deal with the consequences. The closest rule I could find on point was this:

"USTA Comment 24.2: What happens if the ball hits a player’s hat that
landed on the court earlier in the point? The ball remains in
play because the opponent did not ask for a let. When play continued after
the hat landed on the court, the hat became a part of the court. Therefore
when a ball hits the hat, it is treated in the same manner as if the ball had hit the court."

 

[Brian11785]

Talkin' 'bout PRACTICE, man! Not a game..Not a game...PRACTICE!

How'm I gonna make my teammates betta by PRACTICE?!

 

[floridatennisdude]

The way I've always heard it is that they are resposible for the "housekeeping" of their side of the court. Your point. If someone did that I'd be aiming for that ball.

If a ball falls out of your pocket a let can be called if it's the first time.

Yea, I tend to hit at a ball that the opponent chooses not to clear. Can't think of a time when I actually hit it. I definitely have seen opponents side step the ball to take a flailing swing.

 

[Setmatch45]

Your point for sure!

 

[Mongolmike]

It's my understanding that you can request the ball be moved too. I know you asked if they are ok with the ball there and they said "ok", but I'm pretty sure that before the point is started that you can request a ball be cleared on their side if it was a distraction to you. Otherwise, its your point all the way.

 

[Mongolmike]

Taking it a step further... if they choose not to clear the ball, then the point starts, and in the middle of the point they brush the ball out of the way (so the ball is rolling towards the net or the back or the sides), can you then call a let for distraction? (You are moving into position, look up and see a ball rolling as you are preparing to hit... isn't that a distraction?)

 

[Cindysphinx]

If the ball in play strikes the ball lying on the court, the opponents could have played it if they had known which ball was the ball in play. Unlikely, but that is the rule because the ball (or hat, or whatever) becomes a part of the court. If they can play it off the funky bounce, play on.

 

[North]

Rule 25, which says what is a good return, gives the example in Case 2 (the wording seems to indicate this might apply to anywhere in the point - not just the serve - not sure about that): "A ball in play hits another ball which is lying in the correct court. What is the correct decision?" Decision: "Play continues. However, if it is not clear that the actual ball in play has been returned, a let should be called."

So it gets treated just like any other ball & should have been your point if you opponent couldn't/didn't return the ball. The only point of contention is that it doesn't say who decides if it is clear (or not) that the actual ball in play was returned. I can see there being arguments about this lol.

 

[blakesq]

I think common sense dictates that you are in charge of your own side of the net. If you choose not to clear the ball from your own side of the net, then you suffer the consequences of a ball in play striking that ball.

Rule 25, which says what is a good return, gives the example in Case 2 (the wording seems to indicate this might apply to anywhere in the point - not just the serve - not sure about that): "A ball in play hits another ball which is lying in the correct court. What is the correct decision?" Decision: "Play continues. However, if it is not clear that the actual ball in play has been returned, a let should be called."

So it gets treated just like any other ball & should have been your point if you opponent couldn't/didn't return the ball. The only point of contention is that it doesn't say who decides if it is clear (or not) that the actual ball in play was returned. I can see there being arguments about this lol.

 

[pennc94]

I thought that a moving ball that strikes a stationary ball on the court can be either in or out. It depends on whether the moving ball ever touches the court. If the moving ball strikes the stationary ball, but does not hit the court, you need to see where the moving ball eventually lands.

 

[woodrow1029]

I thought that a moving ball that strikes a stationary ball on the court can be either in or out. It depends on whether the moving ball ever touches the court. If the moving ball strikes the stationary ball, but does not hit the court, you need to see where the moving ball eventually lands.

No. When it hits the ball lying on the court, that is considered the "first bounce".

 

[jonnythan]

So what is the rule if the opponent kicks the ball out of the way during the point? Can you call a let? Or is it an intentional hindrance?

 

[Taxvictim]

So what is the rule if the opponent kicks the ball out of the way during the point? Can you call a let? Or is it an intentional hindrance?

Since Woodrow has joined us, I would like to add to this question: what happens if a player kicks a stationary ball into the net while a ball is in play? I've seen that happen a lot when someone moves in.

 

[JLyon]

It's your point only if the opponent could not put the serve back in play. By leaving the ball on the court and stationary the opponent officially made the ball apart of the court for that point, thus they can not claim a let if the ball is hit during the point.

 

[JLyon]

Since Woodrow has joined us, I would like to add to this question: what happens if a player kicks a stationary ball into the net while a ball is in play? I've seen that happen a lot when someone moves in.

could be a hindrance, but only if the opponent calls it immediately.

 

[woodrow1029]

Since Woodrow has joined us, I would like to add to this question: what happens if a player kicks a stationary ball into the net while a ball is in play? I've seen that happen a lot when someone moves in.

could be a hindrance, but only if the opponent calls it immediately.

What JLyon said. To add onto it, it could be ruled either an unintentional hindrance replay the point if the player was running and accidentally kicked it, or an intentional hindrance loss of point if it was obvious that the player was just moving it out of the way.

In most cases, as an official, I think I would give the benefit of the doubt to the player kicking it and replaying the point the first time, as it (a) sometimes is hard to prove intent of what the player is doing, and (b) is dangerous lying in the court, and I feel that most opponents would be ok with replaying the point as long as the player was told they can't do that again.

 

[Local Girl]

We had that happen in a recent doubles match. The ball was falling out of a player's shorts so she caught it and tossed it to the net (she was 2 ft. away from the net). The opponent, at the same time had her back turned to the net running down a lob. The opponent hit the lob -- and it went long. She stormed to the net and asked where did the ball come from. When my player explained, she claimed the point as a hindrance, which unfortunately was match point. Shouldn't the point stand as played since the opponent did not call a let either before or while she was returning the lob? She questioned the errant ball after her shot went out.

 

[jonnythan]

We had that happen in a recent doubles match. The ball was falling out of a player's shorts so she caught it and tossed it to the net (she was 2 ft. away from the net). The opponent, at the same time had her back turned to the net running down a lob. The opponent hit the lob -- and it went long. She stormed to the net and asked where did the ball come from. When my player explained, she claimed the point as a hindrance, which unfortunately was match point. Shouldn't the point stand as played since the opponent did not call a let either before or while she was returning the lob? She questioned the errant ball after her shot went out.

Yeah you don't get two bites. You can't hit the shot and then call a hindrance after it goes long. Should have been your point.

 

[Taxvictim]

What JLyon said. To add onto it, it could be ruled either an unintentional hindrance replay the point if the player was running and accidentally kicked it, or an intentional hindrance loss of point if it was obvious that the player was just moving it out of the way.

We never call it as a hindrance because we agree it's just being moved for safety. I was curious if the rules considered it to be a net touch, thus ending the point, the same as if your hat fell off and hit the net.

 

[Local Girl]

We never call it as a hindrance because we agree it's just being moved for safety. I was curious if the rules considered it to be a net touch, thus ending the point, the same as if your hat fell off and hit the net.

That's a good point. Since the net touch applies to anything the player is wearing or carrying. But I think in this case, the initial cause was the ball falling from the player's shorts then her hand onto the court, which should result in a "let" if called immediately by the opposing team.

 

[bkpr]

Thanks jk.

Canadian or Australian doubles, whichever.

Heh, I'm Australian (and play with some Brits and New Zealanders) and we call it American doubles

 

[stapletonj]

absolutely your point.

actually had this happen yesterday in a drills session where we kind of kept score. several balls were strewn about the court, other guy hit a short ball that hit one of the "lying about" balls, but the ball bounced straight up while the lying about ball skidded along the ground. Of course, I was able to knock away the sitter for a winner....

followed of course by a shouted "VAMOS!!!!!"
and much bicep pumping, flexing and posing for the
ladies of the clinic..... (heh heh heh... hey, they said they were laughing WITH me, not AT me.....)

 

[SwankPeRFection]

Have a situation just like this during a friendly match. Except it was a volley from me that hit the other ball that was in the service box. I clipped the net on the first serve for a let and it bounced up and ended up about 1/3 of the way from the net. I served and volley'd on the next serve and then had another return that was an angle volley which hit the other ball and my friend couldn't get a racquet on. He probably could have gotten to the ball if he just stuck out his racquet, but I think he was looking for it to bounce to a certain place and the ball strike threw off the angle by about 90 degrees or so and he just just jab at the ball in the new direction. Anyway, I took the point and the game. He said he would have played a let if he would have been the one to hit the ball. I said that since he didn't bother to clean the court, that it was my point. You wouldn't be playing a let if the ball hit a leaf or a rock and bounced weird, why play a let when it hits the other ball. Move the stray balls. It's not like we argued, but it was the right call to make. I can't tell you how many times someone doesn't take a first serve ball out of the service box enough and I try to hit it with my second serve. I do the same when I receive and the opponent nets the first serve and it rolls back a bit into their service boxes. I generally try to hit for that spot on my return depending on who I'm playing and if I feel like forcing an error on them. If I'm playing someone who I know has good court sense and plays through points when a ball rolls on the court from the other courts without calling a let because they don't have issues navigating around those balls without tripping all over them like noobs, I go for that shot. If I'm playing someone who I don't want to trip all over themselves or know they'll try to call a hinderence or let because they miss my return because the other ball messed them up, I hit to the other side of the court to keep them safe.

 

[jk175d]

We had that happen in a recent doubles match. The ball was falling out of a player's shorts so she caught it and tossed it to the net (she was 2 ft. away from the net). The opponent, at the same time had her back turned to the net running down a lob. The opponent hit the lob -- and it went long. She stormed to the net and asked where did the ball come from. When my player explained, she claimed the point as a hindrance, which unfortunately was match point. Shouldn't the point stand as played since the opponent did not call a let either before or while she was returning the lob? She questioned the errant ball after her shot went out.

Yeah that sounds pretty bogus. Sounds like the lobbing player never saw the ball until after she hit her shot. And the ball by the time she saw it was stationary up against the net on her opponent's side? How can you call at let our hindrance in that situation?

Seems dubious, but if it was match point I guess she was likely to win anyway.

 

[Local Girl]

Yeah that sounds pretty bogus. Sounds like the lobbing player never saw the ball until after she hit her shot. And the ball by the time she saw it was stationary up against the net on her opponent's side? How can you call at let our hindrance in that situation?

Seems dubious, but if it was match point I guess she was likely to win anyway.

Yep, spectators say she couldn't have seen the ball rolling to our side of the net because she had her back turned.

If the point stood as played, the score would've been 9-6 -- up from 9-4. and we would've had the next two serves. I think the opponent figured my team was "coming back", and took the opportunity to win the match. It's too bad it turned out this way. My players are kicking themselves since in retrospect, they should've called me (the captain) to settle the dispute since this woman was the captain. Unfortunately, they got intimidated by her obnoxious behavior. Even her partner at the net didn't notice the ball -- she started asking, "what happened? what's going on?"

 

[jk175d]

Yep, spectators say she couldn't have seen the ball rolling to our side of the net because she had her back turned.

If the point stood as played, the score would've been 9-6 -- up from 9-4. and we would've had the next two serves. I think the opponent figured my team was "coming back", and took the opportunity to win the match. It's too bad it turned out this way. My players are kicking themselves since in retrospect, they should've called me (the captain) to settle the dispute since this woman was the captain. Unfortunately, they got intimidated by her obnoxious behavior. Even her partner at the net didn't notice the ball -- she started asking, "what happened? what's going on?"

I don't think a captain or any other player can get involved in a dispute on a court there aren't playing. Only thing that could have been done would have been too argue further, maybe ask how exactly the ball was a hindrance when she didn't see it until after she had hit the ball that went out. It's a bit like calling let when your opponent has a sitter, who wants to win a point that way?

 

[Local Girl]

I don't think a captain or any other player can get involved in a dispute on a court there aren't playing. Only thing that could have been done would have been too argue further, maybe ask how exactly the ball was a hindrance when she didn't see it until after she had hit the ball that went out. It's a bit like calling let when your opponent has a sitter, who wants to win a point that way?

In our district, captains are expected to settle on-court disputes if the players can't come to an agreement. I would've told her that she can only call a let/hindrance before or immediately after (before the ball bounces in the opposite court) she hits the ball. She can't wait to see if her shot goes in, then call a hindrance. You're right. It's bogus.

Just as an aside this was the match that would decide 1st place in the flight. We took 3 (of 5) lines in this match so my team is 1st in the flight (10-0) and the obnoxious captain's team is 2nd. :twisted: