The plague of the opposing doubles partner who 'did not see !'

[josofo]

Not true. If its out, its out.

true


but what happens is


if u play some people will call every close call good and will give you 4-5 sort of close calls good.



some people will give you 2-3 "sort of close calls" then miss 1-2 good calls.


but the people that **** you off are the people that will miss 3-4 calls a match and maybe they will make up 1-2 calls with close calls.


so we are talking like 6-7 points between the people that call it in the spirit of the game to the people who are making 3-4 bad calls a match.


6-7 points can easily be a win or a loss

 

[spot]

It also verges on almost outright cheating if ignoring responsibility in an attempt, even mistaken, to gain advantage

Absolutely ridiculous. Do you really want to say that 2 back is "almost outright cheating"?

 

[sureshs]

The ball was out

 

[Larrysümmers]

i never watch the serve when im the net person. its my partners call, not mine. we trust each other with our calls so we never question eachother.

 

[dcdoorknob]

Man, I really appreciate my partner's help on the deep call when I'm receiving. I definitely play more out (long) serves in singles, just because I can't see that line very clearly so I have to play them as if they're in. In doubles I have a partner to help make more accurate line calls, especially in this case as they just have a clearly better angle on that line. Why wouldn't you want to utilize that?

 

[zcarzach]

true


but what happens is


if u play some people will call every close call good and will give you 4-5 sort of close calls good.



some people will give you 2-3 "sort of close calls" then miss 1-2 good calls.


but the people that **** you off are the people that will miss 3-4 calls a match and maybe they will make up 1-2 calls with close calls.


so we are talking like 6-7 points between the people that call it in the spirit of the game to the people who are making 3-4 bad calls a match.


6-7 points can easily be a win or a loss

You are right, which is why all line calls should be made as accurately as possible. There shouldn't be "somewhat close, so its in" or "I've given him some close ones, so this one is going to be out" calls. That is utter crap and isn't sportsmanship. If I hit the ball out, call it out. If its in, you had better, by God, call it in. When playing doubles, this means that the netman should make the service line calls, as they have a much better view of those serves. I cannot, for the life of me, understand why this is controversial....

 

[tennis tom]

Of course the receiver's partner should help with the calls. There are some serves within an inch or two of the service line that are impossible for the receiver to see because the line is blocked by the ball. This has been demonstrated here many times. It's everyone's responsibility to watch the ball at all times, if you don't watch the ball you are a spectator, not in the point and might as well sit down on the bench. Forget about watching for your opponent's poach, he may be faking and wrong. Look at your partner's return to judge where it's going and how well it was hit. Calling the sideline serve is suspect and best left to the receiver who has a better angle on that line--but if my partner receiving can't make the out call for some reason and I can clearly see it out, I'll make it. It has to be a clear space out about 2-3"s. Receiving teams who wait to make the call until they sense the outcome of their shots are CHEATERS! That's a LATE CALL. That's taking two bites out of the apple. Calls can be and should be IMMEDIATE. If you have to ruminate and look up to the sky for divine intervention before proclaiming a ball in or out, then don't drink or smoke pot before or during a match. I don't think this is conscious behavior. They have been cheating so long, it has become second nature, they don't even understand the concept. In polite clubby environment their peers will never call them on it--in a tournament they would be called on it, but it's highly unlikely this type of hack will ever play in a real tournament. Don't have business dealings with these types or let them babysit your children. According to "THE CODE" all players are responsible for getting the calls correct--but in this day and age who has ever heard of or read "THE CODE"?

 

[Cindysphinx]

I'm surprised there is even a discussion about something so simple.

If the returner's partner is standing near the service line, she has the better view of deep serves and should call the service line.

If the returner's partner does not wish to call that service line for any reason (playing two back, wants to start closer to net, just doesn't want to), then of course the returner should call the service line.

If this means the receiving team plays some out serves as good . . . this is not a problem. The serving team should assume all serves are in play unless they are called out. If I play opponents who are calling a bunch of deep serves as in, I am totally OK with that.

What I do not care for is what happened yesterday. I was receiving on clay. When I receive, I call the center sideline and the center line, and I want my partner to call the service line. Server serves to me up the T, I see space. I call the serve out. My partner overrules me and says the ball hit the center line. She points to a spot on the line that was *not* cleaned and looked like the rest of the line. (I saw a mark that was clearly out, but I cannot be sure that was the mark.)

Sorry, I say that serve was out because I saw space and it is my call to make. She shouldn't be calling that center line because she is not in a position to see the space I can see. And she definitely shouldn't be overruling me unless she is certain I made a bad call -- which she cannot be if I have the better vantage point.

 

[spot]

And she definitely shouldn't be overruling me unless she is certain I made a bad call -- which she cannot be if I have the better vantage point.

I couldn't disagree any more with this. There are plenty of times that your partner has a better vantage point but if you clearly saw the call wrong then you should absolutely overrule. There are some people that are simply bad at line calls even with the better vantage point.

 

[zcarzach]

True enough, but the instant there is a disagreement between the partners, your opponent will and should claim the point. That is why the returner should call wide, and only the netman should call long. No disagreements that way.

 

[tennytive]

I have the opposite problem.

I return serves that look 6 inches in to me and my partner calls them out.

Then you feel like a jerk cuz you don't want to argue with your partner, but you don't want the server to think you're hooking him either.

Many times with certain partners I'd rather they let me make my own calls on serves.

 

[zcarzach]

I have the opposite problem.

I return serves that look 6 inches in to me and my partner calls them out.

Then you feel like a jerk cuz you don't want to argue with your partner, but you don't want the server to think you're hooking him either.

Many times with certain partners I'd rather they let me make my own calls on serves.

That just shows you are an honorable player. You should absolutely argue with your partner in that situation. 6 inches should be clear, even to the other side, and an out call is absolutely unacceptable. Every time that happens, your opponent should get the point, and you should make it clear to your partner that it is his fault that your team lost the point.

 

[spot]

That is why the returner should call wide, and only the netman should call long. No disagreements that way.

What happened to getting the call right being the most important thing?

 

[blakesq]

You need to explain this to your partner. The non-receiving partner has a worse view of balls that are wide of the center-line, and should rarely call those, because the ball is between her and the line, so she cannot possibly tell if there is space between the ball and the line on close ones. However, once she disagrees with you, then the ball must be considered good, and you lose the point.

I'm surprised there is even a discussion about something so simple.

If the returner's partner is standing near the service line, she has the better view of deep serves and should call the service line.

If the returner's partner does not wish to call that service line for any reason (playing two back, wants to start closer to net, just doesn't want to), then of course the returner should call the service line.

If this means the receiving team plays some out serves as good . . . this is not a problem. The serving team should assume all serves are in play unless they are called out. If I play opponents who are calling a bunch of deep serves as in, I am totally OK with that.

What I do not care for is what happened yesterday. I was receiving on clay. When I receive, I call the center sideline and the center line, and I want my partner to call the service line. Server serves to me up the T, I see space. I call the serve out. My partner overrules me and says the ball hit the center line. She points to a spot on the line that was *not* cleaned and looked like the rest of the line. (I saw a mark that was clearly out, but I cannot be sure that was the mark.)

Sorry, I say that serve was out because I saw space and it is my call to make. She shouldn't be calling that center line because she is not in a position to see the space I can see. And she definitely shouldn't be overruling me unless she is certain I made a bad call -- which she cannot be if I have the better vantage point.

 

[tennis tom]

(I saw a mark that was clearly out, but I cannot be sure that was the mark.)

If you're not sure it was the mark how are you sure it was out?

How 'bout asking the server how they saw it, the server has the best angle view of the tee.

 

[zcarzach]

What happened to getting the call right being the most important thing?

The two are not mutually exclusive. My position is predicated on having honorable partners who can actually see (i.e. not calling a ball out that is 6 inches in). Getting the call right is more important than not wanting to argue with your partner.

Again, I'm stunned that this is controversial...

 

[tennis-player]

I struggle with that in singles. If I am a receiver, it is very hard to determine if the ball was in or out (long). I usually leave it in, and if I manage to return, a few times I had my opponents stop playing and say "it was not out? i thought it was long..." Umm, I make calls on my side of the court....

 

[spot]

Getting the call right is more important than not wanting to argue with your partner.

And if you are at the net and you see a ball on the sideline that you saw it hit the far line then its your responsiblity to call it good no matter what your partner saw. Not wanting to overrule your partner is not a license to cheat.

 

[tennis_ocd]

Absolutely ridiculous. Do you really want to say that 2 back is "almost outright cheating"?

Now you're just making up strawmen.

What does the code say? End of argument.

 

[zcarzach]

Not wanting to overrule your partner is not a license to cheat.

I agree with you 100%. Again, this is why guys should choose their partners more carefully. I wouldn't play, or at least play again, with a guy who made such a bad call on the sideline, that he forced me to make the call from a terrible position. If I can't trust my partner to play by the rules, he won't be my partner for long. There really is no excuse for a returner blowing a wide call, just like there is no excuse for a netman to blow a long call.

 

[Mauvaise]

Sorry, I say that serve was out because I saw space and it is my call to make. She shouldn't be calling that center line because she is not in a position to see the space I can see. And she definitely shouldn't be overruling me unless she is certain I made a bad call -- which she cannot be if I have the better vantage point.

What did your opponents say?

If it had been me, I would have claimed the point because you two had conflicting calls. Doesn't The Code say in that case the point goes to the opponents? Especially since you were not 100% sure which mark it was. Give the point to the opponents and then school your partner to keep her mouth shut on those calls in the future.

 

[spot]

Not wanting to overrule your partner is not a license to cheat.

I agree with you 100%.

Obviously not because you also believe

That is why the returner should call wide, and only the netman should call long. No disagreements that way.

This sure makes it sound like you are saying that while at the net even if you saw a ball hit the line while your partner called it wide you would not disagree with them.

 

[zcarzach]

Obviously not because you also believe

This sure makes it sound like you are saying that while at the net even if you saw a ball hit the line while your partner called it wide you would not disagree with them.

If I'm 100% sure I saw it hit the line, I would absolutely call the serve good, and I would ask my partner to be more careful with his line calls. If I'm not 100% sure, I would defer to my partner who has a better view of the situation. My previous point (about the returner only calling wide, netman only calling deep) assumes I'm playing with guys who can see the ball and who make fair calls (i.e. someone who wouldn't blow an on-the-line call like the one you suggest in your scenario). If my partner is a blind old man, or a cheater, I will make the calls as I see fit, partner's feelings be damned (I probably won't play with them again anyway so I don't really care. Sportsmanship trumps feelings). And I've never had a complaint on my calls, so I guess I call them as correctly as anybody can.

This isn't rocket science and you are making this a lot more difficult than it needs to be. Basic doubles here bud, trust your partner until you can't trust him. If a guy blows a call that badly, I can't trust him any more.

I'm not sure why, but you continue to cherry pick my responses to make it sound like I'm arguing with you, when we've basically been in agreement the whole time, excepting your whole hypothetical "can't call the line so I can watch the poach" advantage. You're obviously trolling, well done...

 

[jswinf]

She shouldn't be calling that center line because she is not in a position to see the space I can see. And she definitely shouldn't be overruling me unless she is certain I made a bad call -- which she cannot be if I have the better vantage point.

I don't really think we have a disagreement on this...

A couple evenings ago my partner was receiving serve, I was a foot or 2 behind the service line, maybe 6 feet over from the T.

A serve hit the center line, more toward the "in" edge that the "out" edge. My partner called it wide. I saw what I saw, so I disagreed and we gave up the point. He didn't like it much, but we dealt with it.

I agree that if I thought the serve might have just caught the "out" edge of the center line I would keep my mouth shut because the my view of the "space" of a just-out ball is blocked by the ball, like the receiver's view of a just-long serve. But I was in a wonderful position to see this particular ball.

I like the concept of line calls being a "team" responsibility in doubles, and if it's not a unanimous "out" then it's in, and either player who is sure they saw a disputed ball in should speak up.

After all, sometimes a player just blows a call. Maybe their mind was wandering or maybe their psyche was exerting too much control over their visual apparatus. (They wanted it to be out so they saw it that way.) Vision is a psycho-physical phenomenon and funny things can happen. If there's a partner present, an obviously "blown call" can certainly be corrected.

This is a pretty long thread given OP's point that the opposing partner who "did not see" is a plague. Agreed. It will at times be a pain in the butt and someone who won't contradict their partner's out call when they're sure it's wrong is a gutless wonder. (There have been times when partnered with an 83-year-old who makes some interesting calls, and gets fractious when contradicted, that I've bitten my tongue when he's not wrong more than 6 inches. Gutless is as gutless does. We're not playing for money or major titles, and he has some heart trouble...)

 

[zcarzach]

This is a pretty long thread given OP's point that the opposing partner who "did not see" is a plague. Agreed. It will at times be a pain in the butt and someone who won't contradict their partner's out call when they're sure it's wrong is a gutless wonder. (There have been times when partnered with an 83-year-old who makes some interesting calls, and gets fractious when contradicted, that I've bitten my tongue when he's not wrong more than 6 inches. Gutless is as gutless does. We're not playing for money or major titles, and he has some heart trouble...)

NO, NO, NO... you must correct him until he dies of a heart attack!!!

/kidding
//trying, like you, to bring a little levity into this troll fest.

 

[Mauvaise]

After all, sometimes a player just blows a call.

Ain't that the truth! For the most part I won't call shots wide in doubles if I'm on the opposite sideline. Unless they are CLEARLY out (meaning I am 100% sure I see red between the side line and the ball), and even then I call it immediately or I don't call it at all.

On Monday I called one - I was 110% sure I saw red. My partner over-ruled me immediately (she was behind the ball bounce) and said it was like 2 inches in. I don't know if the lights were bad, my glasses were smudged, or what, but I was SURE it was out. I felt horrible because I do try to call lines fairly, am known to overrule myself at times, and will give the benefit of the doubt to my opponent(s).

We gave the point to the other team right away (there was no question or comment from the other side of the net it all happened in a couple seconds) and I told my partner I was refraining from all side line calls for the night.

Damn my aging, human eyes!!

 

[tennis tom]

(There have been times when partnered with an 83-year-old who makes some interesting calls, and gets fractious when contradicted, that I've bitten my tongue when he's not wrong more than 6 inches. Gutless is as gutless does. We're not playing for money or major titles, and he has some heart trouble...)

It's time this gent graduates to croquet, the wicket doesn't lie.

 

[jswinf]

NO, NO, NO... you must correct him until he dies of a heart attack!!!

/kidding
//trying, like you, to bring a little levity into this troll fest.

Well, that would solve the problem for the future...:shock:

 

[jswinf]

It's time this gent graduates to croquet, the wicket doesn't lie.

What about a sticky wicket? (Whatever that is.)

 

[tennis tom]

What about a sticky wicket? (Whatever that is.)

You wipe them with a little Goof-Off and they're good as new.

 

[Cindysphinx]

If you're not sure it was the mark how are you sure it was out?

How 'bout asking the server how they saw it, the server has the best angle view of the tee.

My understanding about clay line calls is that if you see a ball as out but cannot find the mark, the ball is out.

Yes, we gave up the point because of conflicting calls. No need to ask server.

 

[ctromano]

In usta league play the "never" mentioned rule is when in doubt call it OUT... that is what drives me crazy, I have a fast-flat-up the T-serve on both sides & it gets called out every single time it's actually in, doubles especially, the 2 opponents on the other team are like speechless and say nothing until one of them says out, sometimes they argue but the call stands "out"... I serve slower during match play just so that i have a better chance of getting the right call and I don't go crazy.

 

[Wilson6-1]

Unfortunately, and in my experience, the bigger the serve, the more frequent questionable calls are made. In the worse case situations, I have had to place the serves inside the lines just to get a serve called "in".

I have always been lucky to have a big serve, so I experienced this a lot, even when I first started playing, so it doesn't bother me anymore. It did develop my placement quite a bit, but it was a frustrating learning experience.