The Quick Server Meets The Obvious-Fault Returner

Cindysphinx

Cindysphinx

G.O.A.T.
I was playing social dubs today in a bubble. This bubble has curtains all around each court, and there is a cement curb at the bottom of the curtain behind both baselines. As you might imagine, the ball will sometimes rebound off of the cement curb and roll back into the court rather quickly.

One player was what I would call a "quick server." If she missed her first serve, she would toss the ball before I even had time to shove the first ball under my skirt (!). One of the players was an "Obvious Fault Returner": Meaning she returned 100% of serves regardless of how far out the serve was.

Anyway, my Quick-Serving partner was serving. She serves to the Obvious Fault Returner lady. The serve is an obvious fault, but the Obvious Fault Returner lady returns it anyway instead of catching it. My Quick-Serving partner pays no attention to where this ball goes. I turn around and remain facing my partner, watching to see where the ball is going. As she is in her service motion (with me still facing her), I see the ball rebound and roll toward her feet. While the serve is in the air, I call a let and said "Second serve." Obvious-Fault Returner lady returns the serve into the proper court.

What is the correct resolution? First serve, second serve, double fault, point lost because my partner and I did not put the ball back into play because of the let call, or point lost due to hindrance?
 
Last edited:
Second Serve.

Seems like the fairest thing. The stray ball is caused by the returner so it's not fair for you to have to play the point out in that situation.

Any interruption is caused by your partner carelessly serving while a ball is rolling around so it wouldn't be fair to award you with getting to serve the first serve over either.
 
Let me get this straight. Your partner is so busy serving her second serve, she cannot wait 5 seconds to make sure the ball does not roll back onto the playing area? Your partner is a rude and inconsiderate player, and if you stop play because of your partner's rudeness, i think you need to lose the point. There is no reason that you partner cannot wait to make sure the returned ball stays out of the playing area.
 
Some people do things fast, however safety comes first. When I return off a quick server, I try to play at their pace for the most part but will raise my hand and stop play if the ball rolls back close enough to be tripped on. Safety first always.
 
I'd say you lost the point. The server was proceeding to serve with a ball on her side of the court. With that in mind you no longer had the right to call a let due to the loose ball.

I agree that preventing injury is the most important thing, so if it was me I'd concede the point after stopping play. Do that a few times and your partner might learn a lesson.
 
I agree with both Javier and Kyle although they're reaching different conclusions...they both make sense.
 
If you choose not to clear a ball on your side of the net and serve anyway you have lost the right to call a let.

I think for the sake of safety you should still call the let. But if the opponents want to claim the point then I think they are entitled to.
 
if the obvious fault returner or her partner did not call out or fault you lost the point because she returned the serve and you did not return her return(hope thats clear??)
otherwise its a let and seccond serve unless since its social dubs they decide to let you"take 2"
 
To my logic, since you called a legitimate "let" before the serve outcome was known, it should be a let, second serve. If the quick server was so quick that the serve outcome was known: service winner, ace, great return etc, then that would be too late and whatever the outcome of the point was should stand (assuming of course that the other team doesn't call a legitimate complaint about how quick the server is serving).
 
People who serve before looking around to observe if their doubles partner is ready, their opponents are ready, balls are still rolling behind themselves, or behind their opponents that may cause sprained ankles or broken legs, are either clueless, inconsiderate, narcissistic, not nice, bad people, pond scum--or all of the above.

Try at all costs to avoid being on the court with such anti-social types--sadly, in the course of trying to get one's daily hit in, they are not always avoidable. If you're not ready to play, put your arm up, say so, and don't be rushed. If that annoys your opponent, do it more.
 
LuckyR said:
To my logic, since you called a legitimate "let" before the serve outcome was known, it should be a let, second serve. If the quick server was so quick that the serve outcome was known: service winner, ace, great return etc, then that would be too late and whatever the outcome of the point was should stand (assuming of course that the other team doesn't call a legitimate complaint about how quick the server is serving).
Click to expand...

Yeah, that was kind of my feeling. A let before a point starts feels different from a let while a point has been going on a while.

Also, I think I get bonus points for calling the let promptly. I mean, say I had noticed the ball and elected to play the point with the ball on the court. After a few shots, my partner starts running toward the ball and I get worried for her and call a let. In that situation, I obviously lose the point.

Funny thing, though. The Obvious-Fault Returner was also a Quick Server. She would miss her serve, I would catch the ball and shove it under my skirt, and before I could put both hands on my racket the second serve was hitting the box. I dealt with this by catching the second serve, popping it back over the net to her and saying "Second Serve." This had no effect. Very annoying, that.
 
tennis tom said:
People who serve before looking around to observe if their doubles partner is ready, . . .
Click to expand...

Yeah, what's up with that? Here I am, facing the server. And she can't see that this must mean I am not ready? I mean, one thing I do when my partner is rushing me is I turn around and face them. This will halt most people instantly.
 
My understanding of the rules is that you can't call a let on your own bad housekeeping. In doubles "you" is a collective "you".
 
Let's muck this up some more:

Code 30: "Delays during service. When the server’s second service motion is interrupted by a ball coming onto the court, the server is entitled to two serves."

Notice that this doesn't specify that the ball must be from an adjacent court. Does this mean my partner should have gotten two serves?

One more thought on this: It could be said that my partner was willing to play the point with a ball on the court. It is clear that I was not. If one person on the team is objecting/calling a let for the ball on court, why isn't that good enough?
 
Last edited:
CIndy- because your partner is signaling that YOUR TEAM is ready to start the point by serving. To rectify this you need to look back at your partner with a hand up so she doesn't serve until the balls have been properly cleared to your liking. If she overules you and serves anyway then thats not something you can call a let for.
 
If your teammate is serving before you are ready- the remedy for that is to turn and hold your hand up- not to call a let.
 
Cindy, I think you are confusing this with when the ball hits the net on a serve. Anyone can call "net" who hears it on a serve, the receivers or the server's partner.

As someone else said, you are responsible for housekeeping on your side of the net. You can't penalize your opponents and give your partner another serve because she hit the ball into the net and it rolled back and she's not paying attention and doesn't care about you. Raise your arm and call time, as someone said, don't look back, it's dangerous, you may get a serve in the face.

Servers who don't observe what's going on before serving are just plain dumb. They don't see that the receiver may have moved in, back or sideways. Their partner may not be ready because they are putting the ball in their pocket and have not gotten into their set position. Stuff like this costs points, it only takes four points to win a game. If you give away one point due to something so preventable, that's 25% of the game--quite a nice gift to your opponents.

I often wonder what's wrong psychologically with players who are this manic--maybe they need to get their meds adjusted. Some article in Tennis Mag a long time ago said a good doubles team communicates 86 times in a match, that would drive me nuts, but this issue would be an excellent time to communicate with your partner either on the court or during the 90 second change-over. If she doesn't get it or takes offense, try not to play with her again.

As to "the ball coming onto the court...", to me, at least, and I think to anyone who plays the game, this means a ball from another court. If we have to argue the definition of this then, I think we will have to argue the definition of the word "is" also.
 
Last edited:
drakulie said:
Honestly..... get another partner. Your lucky she didn't hit you in the face with the serve when you turned around.
Click to expand...

Well . . .

:: steam comes out of ears ::

I did not care for these players. The Obvious Fault Returner was making me crazy. I mean, we are 3.5 players. No one is serving at warp speed here. Yet the OFR would chirp "Out!" and then bust the return. Which would rebound off of the cement or the steel door behind me so that I had to go fetch it.

To make it worse, the OFR was also a quick server her own self. She also complained about the slow pace of play (in social dubs, mind you) because she didn't like that my partner and I were experimenting with signaled poaches and suchlike and throwing off her game. She also called a ball out that her partner had called in, and then claimed the point anyway.

So yes. I will indeed find a new partner(s).

Still, I thought it was an interesting question about how you handle that freakish situation. :)
 
tennis tom said:
Cindy, I think you are confusing this with when the ball hits the net on a serve. Anyone can call "net" who hears it on a serve, the receivers or the server's partner.

As someone else said, you are responsible for housekeeping on your side of the net. You can't penalize your opponents and give your partner another serve because she hit the ball into the net and it rolled back and she's not paying attention and doesn't care about you. Raise your arm and call time, as someone said, don't look back, it's dangerous, you may get a serve in the face.

Servers who don't observe what's going on before serving are just plain dumb. They don't see that the receiver may have moved in, back or sideways. Their partner may not be ready because they are putting the ball in their pocket and have not gotten into their set position. Stuff like this costs points, it only takes four points to win a game. If you give away one point due to something so preventable, that's 25% of the game--quite a nice gift to your opponents. I often wonder what's wrong psychologically with players who are this manic--maybe they need to get their meds adjusted. Some article in Tennis Mag a long time ago said a good doubles team communicates 86 times in a match, that would drive me nuts, but this issue would be an excellent time to communicate with your partner either on the court or during the 90 second change-over. If she doesn't get it or takes offense, try not to play with her again.

As to "the ball coming onto the court...", to me, at least, and I think to anyone who plays the game, this means a ball from another court. If we have to argue the definition of this then, I think we will have to argue the definition of the word "is" also.
Click to expand...

Tom, I think you might be misunderstanding what was happening.

The returner hit the ball over the net back to our side. It rebounded quickly off of the curb behind both of us. I was turned around to see where this ball was landing and whether it was safe to continue. I was turned all the way around, not just looking back. You are correct that my partner should have seen this, of course.

Also, I think I am correct that any player can call a let for a ball rolling onto the court, and you are also correct that any player can call a service let.
 
The quick server is at fault here and the quick serving breeds Obvious Fault Returning. When I am facing a quick server I surely don't want their errant first serves rolling around on my side of the net when I know I am not going to be given even a millisecond to ensure I am safe from having balls underfoot. So even though it may be a violation of the code, those errant first balls are going back over the net for sure.
 
Regarding rules:
By starting her serve before allowing the previously returned ball to come to rest, your partner (and by association your doubles team) have implicitly accepted the playing conditions. Therefore, you would not be entitled to a let for any hinderance caused by that ball.
You could stop your partner before she attempted to serve. But the description seems to imply that she had already struck her second serve before you were able to call the let. Since you stopped play in an instance where you were not permitted to call a let, your team lost the point. But hey, it's social doubles, a second serve is fine.

Regarding etiquette:
If an obvious fault returner is not attempting to return the ball to me, I flat out ask them to stop hitting the ball when they know it is out. I do this for the same reason I don't let my opponents hit any serves when they insist on practicing their service returns during warm ups. It isn't the appropriate time for them to be practicing. If they won't stop, insist on clearing any hit ball (at a leisure pace).
When playing a quick server, I keep my hand up until I'm in my ready position and refuse to play any serves hit before that hand comes down. If they still don't get the hint, I don't pass balls directly to them and force them to walk and pick them up. That usually keeps them from serving before I am ready.

Passive aggressive for the win.
 
InsideOutBackhand said:
Regarding rules:
By starting her serve before allowing the previously returned ball to come to rest, your partner (and by association your doubles team) have implicitly accepted the playing conditions. Therefore, you would not be entitled to a let for any hinderance caused by that ball.
Click to expand...

This is not true. When any player becomes aware of a ball rolling onto a court, they may call a let regardless of where the ball came from. Each player individually gives up their right to call a let when they notice the ball but do not call a let. Cindy called a let as soon as she noticed the ball. After her partner served and backed up a few steps, if she noticed the ball for the first time, she could have also called a let.

If this annoys the opponents, they should ask the server to wait until the returned ball has settled down. If this annoys the server because OFR shouldn't be returning all the balls, they should ask the OFR to quit returning obviously out balls as stated in the code. After making these requests, in a tournament with roving officials, for example, the person who made the request would have a case if there were continued offenses to have their opponent receive a code violation for intentional stalling or unsportsmanlike conduct.

Sheesh, why can't people just think of other people. It's not that difficult. Definitely find new partners Cindy, quick servers and OFRs come just shy of hookers in my book for the annoying level.
 
Cindysphinx said:
Let's muck this up some more:

Code 30: "Delays during service. When the server’s second service motion is interrupted by a ball coming onto the court, the server is entitled to two serves."

Notice that this doesn't specify that the ball must be from an adjacent court. Does this mean my partner should have gotten two serves?

One more thought on this: It could be said that my partner was willing to play the point with a ball on the court. It is clear that I was not. If one person on the team is objecting/calling a let for the ball on court, why isn't that good enough?
Click to expand...


To my view the server is NOT entitled to two serves, since it was their haste to serve that caused the ruckus in the first place. Otherwise, I would have a 100% first serve percentage, every time I hit a serve into the net, I could quick serve and have my partner call a "let" and get two serves. Ridiculous.
 
Sherlock... you understand that everyone was aware that the ball was both served and returned right?

The server doesn't get a let because she decides to serve before the ball stops.
 
I can see Sherlock's line of reasoning. It is really a bit of a gray area to me here. The Code states the conditions that Sherlock described, but with the exception that it refers to a ball for an adjacent court. But I don't want to get to critical of it since the Code explains as more of a case example rather than a definition of the rule.

My major concern was that a ball or object lying on the players' side of the net before the point started could not be considered a hindrance. The rule says "lying". Is a ball still in motion considered lying? Not really sure, but I feel that the intent is all the same. I also consider serving without waiting for the previous ball to come to rest a deliberate act. A players' own action cannot be the basis for that same player to call a let or hindrance.

My interpretation based on the material available to me. But USTA officials (like Sherlock) may have been given additional briefs that could pertain to this scenario.
 
I played with people who do quick serves. Just YELL at them to stop so you can check the court for errant rolling balls, etc. Do it 4 times in a game and they begin to feel really stupid, especially if you call them on the quick serve. As far as Out Ball Returners, tell them not to do that or you will play the ball as in. If they continue, then it is against the code and they should lose the point. Have fun trying to enforce that though.

Back to your original question? Play a let, 2nd serve.
 
Having re-read the OP, and trying to make some sense of it, it seems the situation went down hill due to the inconsideration and lack of etiquette of the returner. If the serve is long, the receiver should do one of three things: catch the ball and pocket it, hit the ball into the net on his side or let it roll to the backstop behind them. They should NOT return it over the net because that is poor tennis etiquette, taking a practice swing like a Mulligan in golf. There's no reason the other side can't hit it back again for a practice swing of their own and it all goes down hill from there--why not just rally then?

Sometimes the serve is coming so fast and so close to the line that one must attempt a return while simultaneously realizing the serve was long. A good player can hit the ball back to the server or into the corner, without disrupting the server's rhythm. If the returner fumbles this and the ball ricochets all over the place, disrupting the server's rhythm, the receiving team should offer a let but aren't obligated to. In rec play with friends, the server should not try to hit a big first serve but just spin it in.

The situation went down hill when the dummy server, with no regard for her or her partner's safety, did not look back to see where the original dummy returner Mulliganned the ball to which ricocheted off the curb. (It's stupid to have hard walls or curbs like that surrounding tennis courts. Well designed courts, have a channel or slope at the back-stop for the ball to lodge in).

Since the ball did not come from another court, the serving team can't award themselves a let, only the receiving team has the discretion to do that. The server can give "the look" and ask "first or second serve?", but it's up to the receiver's to award it, not the serving team to give themselves one.

That said, I don't know if what I wrote makes any sense anymore--I think I'm losing my mind--can I take two? Good luck to anyone who is trying to follow this.
 
Last edited:
Uh, great, a meeting of two tennis 'minds'. For the first, the quick server ... I just slow their thing down. I just started playing a new guy in singles that is a quick server. Miss, out comes another ball and another serve faster than I imagined a man can do ... annoying at times. Like pop-pop. So he gets the back turn, has to be obvious or here comes another serve ... man does not get subtlety.

On the obvious fault returner, in doubles its easier than singles ... less confrontational for the partner to call for first serve again when the ball is boinging around, has to be collected ... following a missed first serve. In singles I will hit a few faults back to the dingaling then call out "first serve" ... when they demur, I explain WHY. Unless pure dolt, they get this.
 
I wouldn't lose any sleep about the "obvious fault returner" - this seems to be the rule rather than the exception almost everywhere I've played. I've forced myself to not worry about it and accept the resulting delay between serves. I do give "the look", though, when they "return" the ball into the next court and then stand and wait for the players there to send it back before getting ready to receive serve...
 
kylebarendrick said:
I wouldn't lose any sleep about the "obvious fault returner" - this seems to be the rule rather than the exception almost everywhere I've played. I've forced myself to not worry about it and accept the resulting delay between serves. I do give "the look", though, when they "return" the ball into the next court and then stand and wait for the players there to send it back before getting ready to receive serve...
Click to expand...

As I play more 4.0 and 4.5 players, I have observed that OFRs are more rare.

As a server, it bothers me some. When my partner is an OFR, it really bugs me. This is because I have told all of my players many times not to be OFRs, yet some continue to do it. I can't find a diplomatic way to tell them to knock it off during a match, so I suffer in silence and grind my teeth.
 
Cindysphinx,

Just my observation, but IMO you seem to play tennis with a bunch of high drama ladies.

I'm not judging you, but if the drama you write about on this forum occurred in my life on the tennis court, I would find other tennis partners. Life is too short to deal with drama day in day out, especially in a sport that is suppose to be fun. Occasional drama is understandable, but you seem to have more than occasional drama IMO.

One of my friend's wife told us last Saturday night, the women in her league have all sorts of drama. She said flat out, the women in her league have too much drama and it takes the fun out the game. She told me she's quieting the local ladies league because of the drama. That is unfortunate, because she's a good tennis player.

v/r

Greg
 
Yep, when there's drama I don't mind telling you guys about it. :)

Actually, that whole social match was anything but social. There was another spot of drama that occurred.

I started off partnered with one of my buddies with whom I have done clinics for years. She and I are trying to elevate our net play with more poaching. We are also trying to vary our returns so as to be less predictable. That is our "homework," so we decided to take this opportunity to practice.

Between service games, she and I would talk. Is the server going to S&V this game? Is the partner going to poach? Are we going to vary our returns? Ultimately, we decided to use signaled poaches. So we would line up, she would signal, I would say "OK" and then serve. Nothing special.

On a changeover, one of the Quick Servers showed clear irritation with this. She said, "You know, it's OK to take a bunch of time to talk during a real match, but it's not cool when we're just playing for fun." I gave her a puzzled look, and she said, "You guys can talk now. Go ahead and talk now if you need to talk."

My partner and I continued our signaled poaches and fakes etc., and we won the set easily. I next partnered with the cranky Quick Server, who is also a World Class Alley Camper. As we walked to take our positions on the court, she said, "You know, I don't see the pros doing all that stuff you guys are doing." Uh, wow.

So yeah, there can be some drama. I plan to stay away from the Quick Serving Alley Camper in the future because she is no fun.
 
I would simply tell the Alley Camper you and she have a different approach to the game, and that you don't enjoy being her partner since your playing style is incompatible with hers. It's honest, direct and it cuts out all the drama. Then go out and beat her down the middle when she's alley camping if you play against her. Do you really care what she thinks about you? I wouldn't.

I'm play singles for my men's team, but hit doubles when guys need a 4th. I tell my double's partner I like use simple signals (poach, stay, fake) and need to hear him acknowledge the signal before he serves. Yes, it helps to practice with a guy if they have never used signals, but they aren't hard to figure out. If the guy doesn't want to use signals, I play anyway, but prefer to play "chess" in lieu of "checkers". Signals just make doubles more fun and interesting IMO.

Last week, I played with a guy with a horribly slow first serve. He has good ground strokes, and his volley are good, but his serve was more of a 3.0 serve. Moving towards the net at an angle will unnerve many returners. It's just a fact. I could care less if my opponents approve of signals. We won his serve all but once.

I will give up the alley until I am burned consistently down the line. With 90% of the shots over the middle, the alley is low percentage tennis, especially with 3.5s. Alley camping is not a winning strategy with 4.0 players and above IMO. Most 4.0s I hit with, will drill low ground strokes down the middle for easy winners if one guy is camped in/near the alley.

You should care less if you're burned down the line once in a blue moon, if your are picking off easy points in the middle and holding your partner's serve.

The most important thing in doubles IMO is:

1) get your first serve in consistently,

2) to return the ball away from the net player when receiving. It's hard to break a team, when your partner hits the ball to the net player who picks it like a piece of low hanging fruit.

3) Knowing what you expect your partner to do and knowing what he expects of you, and then executing those expectations. Too many players are clueless of their responsibilities when playing doubles. They don't ask for help in a timely manner. Clear, concise communication between partners makes doubles much easier IMO.

Hope my thoughts make sense.

v/r

Greg
 
Last edited:
Cindysphinx said:
As I play more 4.0 and 4.5 players, I have observed that OFRs are more rare.

As a server, it bothers me some. When my partner is an OFR, it really bugs me. This is because I have told all of my players many times not to be OFRs, yet some continue to do it. I can't find a diplomatic way to tell them to knock it off during a match, so I suffer in silence and grind my teeth.
Click to expand...
Maybe tell them that they shouldn't do that and that you can show them where it says that in The Code. (I don't like to speak up either. It almost never works, but sometimes I'll experiment and give it a try anyhow. Next time I run into an OFR I'll say something, even though he'll probably think, "What an ass this guy is!")

I think part of the reason comes from what announcers say on televised tennis matches. A pro will not even try for a serve so the announcer says, "Always go after every serve. You never know how the linesman might call it." That's good advice for matches with linesmen and ball boys, but why return an out serve when you're the one making the call? Then, since there aren't ball boys, when they hit the out ball it rebounds around the court, or goes into the next court really delays the game.

Anyway, the point is, to anyone reading this who might believe that it's cool to return way out serves: that might be good for matches with features like umpires and ball retrievers, but in the 99.999% of matches that don't have that, hitting out serves makes you look like a doofus.
 
I think mostly OFRs just like to practice their return.

I discussed this once with a Career OFR, and I asked her why she did it. She said she did it just to give the ball back to the server. She said she thought she was doing them a favor. I explained why you shouldn't do this.

She still does it.
 
Cindysphinx said:
I think mostly OFRs just like to practice their return.

I discussed this once with a Career OFR, and I asked her why she did it. She said she did it just to give the ball back to the server. She said she thought she was doing them a favor. I explained why you shouldn't do this.

She still does it.
Click to expand...
Occasionally somebody chips the ball over the net, right to where I'm standing. That's unusual, but I'm flexible enough to be ok with that. If that's what she does, ok. But if they hit it away from the server, and hit it hard...that's not ok.
 
Just putting my votes in:

1. If the OFR made no call, the point should have continued. Whether you won the point or lost it should have been based upon where the return of service landed. In? You lose. Out? You win. No second serve should have happened. Cindy, I would LOVE to see you smash an OFR sitter back down the middle and claim the point. "No 'out' call? Then it was in and we win the point!" Maybe that would get her to call the faults. :)

2. As for the "let" call, I would think The Code would seek to protect everyone on the court whether they see a hazard or not. I have already called a let because a ball that was rolling out of play behind an opponent takes a crazy bounce or gets blown by the wind back onto the court. He may not have seen it and may have started serving, but it's still dangerous and should be a let. If the partner of a server sees something that the server doesn't, she should call the let, too. I don't buy the stuff about going into a service motion implicitly stating that court conditions are acceptable for all parties.
 
The simple way to stop this from happening is after your partner serves the 1st serve, step in front of her until the ball has been cleared. If your partner sees you standing there, more than likely the partner will not serve until you move out of the way. As far as the opponent who would return out serves, this is also a big no-no as far as I'm concerned, especially if they return the serve and then call "out" when they realize their return will be out. In actuality, even though it throws you off, they are doing you a favor because half of their returns will be out even though they called your "out" ball "in". Just realize that every ball coming back over the net may be playable and you'll get through it fine. Another way to stop it is to play their "out" ball and return it for a winner, because they thought it was out. If they complain, just say that you won't do it if they don't.
 
Last edited:
There are unfortuantely many club/rec players who, after you hit a strong service, and are on your way to the net, stand there statue like and say they called it long. You tell them you didn't hear the call and they insist they called it. Their partner is too much of a coward and just goes along with it. Or they'll say they pointed a finger instead of calling it out. You can argue with this form of cheater until the cows come home but they will just stand there with that dumb look on their face fully justified to themselves that they whispered "out" or pointed a limp finger indicating out. You can't be serve and volleying at a 100 mph and be looking for one of two partners to stick out a limp finger. I call this CHEATING! And they won't say it louder because they are just too lazy or narcissisctic to change their habits.

There's a reason in the pros, the officials LOUDLY yell "out" or "fault", simultanelulslly giving very clear hand signals. I'm breaking my ass to get to their false return while they have no realization (or care) that what thet did was rude and poor tennis etiquette--straight to purgatory--no beer!
 
If a serve is so far out that I don't bother moving for it then I point up rather than calling it out loudly. To me it just seems like poor etiquette to loudly call a ball out when everyone knows it was out. But on anything thats close enough where I actually swing then it definitely requires a verbal call.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

Cindysphinx
Surely there must be a rule against this
2 3
Replies
108
Views
14K
zaskar1
Z
Cindysphinx
First Serve or Second -- You Decide
2
Replies
56
Views
5K
shamaho
shamaho
F
Server thought she heard "OUT"
2
Replies
51
Views
6K
dr.freestyler
D
Dartagnan64
What is "Obviously Out?"
Replies
20
Views
740
Roforot
R
Cindysphinx
If You Don't Know The Rules, You Probably Shouldn't Argue
Replies
13
Views
2K
Douggo
Douggo
Back
Top