The Timing Of Calling A Let

[Cindysphinx]

I've been mulling something that happened in team practice this week.

Doubles. Opposing net player is moving forward for a tricky low volley. Ball rolls onto court from another court, entering doubles alley nearest her just as she was hitting. She dumps ball into net and says "Let!"

Now, I would need slow motion replay to know the exact timing of when she said the word "Let" and when she struck the ball. I know that I saw the ball and didn't have time to call let before she hit the ball. I am certain she did not call a let before she played the ball. She explained that seeing the ball out of the corner of her eye distracted her and caused her to miss the volley.

My partner and I were moderately irked (well, we would have been had this been a real league match). It seems to me that you either play the ball or call a let. It would also be OK to play the ball into the other court and then call a let as it is traveling (by then I would have been calling a let also). It was the "Oh, I missed that volley because of the ball rolling on the court so let me bail myself out by calling a let" aspect of it that was a problem.

Would you have replayed the point if you were me? If you were my opponent, would you have given up the point on the basis of the dumped volley?

 

[burosky]

If it were me, I would give the player the benefit of the doubt and play a let. If it were reversed, if I truly wasn't bothered by the ball I would not be calling a let in the first place. If for some strange reason I accidentally called a let, I will give up the point knowing that I made an error on the shot. Then again, that's just me. I'm sure there will be others who will view this as gamesmanship or something else.

 

[drakulie]

Cindy, no disrespect intended, but you would be well-suited to pick up a copy of the rule book.

 

[drakulie]

Doubles. Opposing net player is moving forward for a tricky low volley. Ball rolls onto court from another court, entering doubles alley nearest her just as she was hitting. She dumps ball into net and says "Let!"

Just to add to my previous post, it is poor sportsman ship to see the ball rolling onto the court, especially when your opponents can't see it, and **NOT** call a let.


Lastly, aren't you the one that just a few days ago posted the following???:

Just remember the Code says you have to give them the benefit of the doubt.

You should practice what you preach.

 

[wao]

i take it yallz two don't like each other (drakulie and cindy)?

I would not say that as the rule book clearly states that it is a let.

19. Lets called when balls roll on the court. When a ball from an adjacent
court enters the playing area, any player shall call a let as soon as the player
becomes aware of the ball. The player loses the right to call a let if the player
unreasonably delays in making the call.

 

[Tennisman912]

If it was social tennis I would let it slide and say the following: You can't have it both ways. If you stop playing and call a let fine, but you cannot hit your shot, miss and then decide you want a let. If you try to hit it, while it may be distracting, you still tried to play it and thus lose the point. In a real match I would not give a let. In a a simulated match (as a team practice should be unless you are just drilling), you really should play out points as if it was a real match and are certainly within your rights to not give them a let (in truth they should know better). I personally don't ever call lets unless the ball almost hits me. If one rolls across the court, you should be concentrating enough to ignore it. But that is just me. I have only seen this happen a couple of times in a match and once they realize you know the rules and will abide by them, they won't try this sad ploy in my book.

Now if you are not sure if they called the let first and then hit it, I would give them the benefit of the doubt but in practice this is rare. The bottom line is if they continue to play the point and don't stop play immediately, then miss, they lose the point. Pretty simple to me and should be a non issue.

Good tennis

TM

 

[Topaz]

I know that sometimes I have trouble getting my calls out of my actual mouth fast enough...for instance, I'll see a ball out, but it takes me a second to process and actually get the 'out' out! So, I would probably give the benefit of the doubt here.

 

[baek57]

suppose they hit the ball over the net, you would call a let anyways.

 

[Topaz]

suppose they hit the ball over the net, you would call a let anyways.

Hunh?

10char

 

[wao]

suppose they hit the ball over the net, you would call a let anyways.

??????????

 

[drakulie]

suppose they hit the ball over the net, you would call a let anyways.

Exactly. It goes both ways.

Fact is, once the OP saw the ball rolling onto the court, she should have called a let and that would have been the end of it.

Not only is it in the rules, but suppose the ball rolls onto the court, where the opposing player doesn't see it, steps on it and breaks her ankle??? It is everyone's responsibility to call a let once they see a ball or other object coming onto the court.

 

[autumn_leaf]

Hunh?

10char

i think he means that if they got it over b/c a ball is on the court it should be replayed anyways since the ball is prone to distract more than just the players on the ball's side.

i would redo it if a ball is on the court period even if it is avoidable, it's distracting and dangerous.

 

[Topaz]

Not only is it in the rules, but suppose the ball rolls onto the court, where the opposing player doesn't see it, steps on it and breaks her ankle??? It is everyone's responsibility to call a let once they see a ball or other object coming onto the court.

That happened to me once...only without the breaking of the ankle. I was playing a doubles final in a tournament, and ended up stepping on a ball that had rolled up behind me. I kind of danced around it, but didn't call anything because I was focused on the point, which me and my partner won. Then, our opponents called a let.

*blank look*

Grrrrr!

Now, had we known our rules, and had I had my handy dandy Code with me, I would have been able to tell them that they can't call a let after the point is over. But alas, this was before my study of the rules began!

Cindy, we had a lot of issues with this at Haines Point on the hard courts this past weekend...the courts are so close together, we were constantly calling lets!

 

[Topaz]

i think he means that if they got it over b/c a ball is on the court it should be replayed anyways since the ball is prone to distract more than just the players on the ball's side.

i would redo it if a ball is on the court period even if it is avoidable, it's distracting and dangerous.

Oh, gotya...I was reading that thinking...'isn't that the point, to hit the ball over the net!'. Heh heh.

 

[WBF]

That happened to me once...only without the breaking of the ankle. I was playing a doubles final in a tournament, and ended up stepping on a ball that had rolled up behind me. I kind of danced around it, but didn't call anything because I was focused on the point, which me and my partner won. Then, our opponents called a let.

*blank look*

Grrrrr!

Now, had we known our rules, and had I had my handy dandy Code with me, I would have been able to tell them that they can't call a let after the point is over. But alas, this was before my study of the rules began!

Cindy, we had a lot of issues with this at Haines Point on the hard courts this past weekend...the courts are so close together, we were constantly calling lets!

Wow...

I would have been *fuming* had they not called it and I stepped on it, but not calling, you stepping on it, and calling it after the point? Stunning.

I never understood the people who try to play through them. Not calling lets gets me mad.

 

[cak]

Why didn't you call the let? When I see a ball rolling toward my opponent I call a let so they won't step on it. And in team practice, I really, really, really don't want a team mate with out with a rolled ankle because I didn't call the let.

 

[Cindysphinx]

Why didn't you call the let? When I see a ball rolling toward my opponent I call a let so they won't step on it. And in team practice, I really, really, really don't want a team mate with out with a rolled ankle because I didn't call the let.

I thought I was clear. Perhaps I was not.

Let me quote myself: "I know that I saw the ball and didn't have time to call let before she hit the ball."

It was not a situation where I said, "Oh, hey. There's a ball. I'll ignore it because maybe we can win the point." I just didn't have time to call a let before she played the ball. After she dumped it into the net, there was no need to call a net, especially since she already called it.

So. The question is not whether the other three players are Bad People for failing to call a let. The question is whether the player who dumped the volley is entitled to a let.

 

[cak]

Let me quote myself: "I know that I saw the ball and didn't have time to call let before she hit the ball."

Sound like the timing was such she saw the ball and didn't have time to stop her swing while dancing around the ball, so yeah, if she saw it the same time you did, it's a let.

I would also say if by a miracle she did get the ball over the net I'd also call a let, as I would feel I couldn't hit it back toward her without endangering her.

 

[Cindysphinx]

I always call a let when a ball is on the court. FWIW.

But I do think the Code imposes on us a duty to stop our swing. Like if your opponent yells and hinders you as you are about to hit an overhead. You are obligated to stop your swing. I think the same holds for seeing a ball on the court.

 

[drakulie]

I just didn't have time to call a let before she played the ball.

Being that she has it tougher than you, as evidenced by the fact she is concentrating on the incoming ball, isn't it possible she didn't have time to call a let either?????

Shouldn't she get the benefit of the doubt?????

The question is whether the player who dumped the volley is entitled to a let.

Yes. Again, once the ball rolled onto the court>>> any one of the 4 players could call it. What is so complicated?????

Once the ball rolls onto the court, by rule, a let is played. Regardless if someone hit a winner, hit it long, hit it into the net, swung and missed, lost their shoe, got pregnant, etc, etc, etc...infinity. A let is played.

 

[Cindysphinx]

Being that she has it tougher than you, as evidenced by the fact she is concentrating on the incoming ball, isn't it possible she didn't have time to call a let either?????

Shouldn't she get the benefit of the doubt?????

Maybe. It was her statement that the rolling ball distracted her that makes this problematic. Something can't distract you if you didn't see it. Which means she saw it. So the only question in my mind is whether she has to stop herself from playing the ball. I think she does.

Yes. Again, once the ball rolled onto the court>>> any one of the 4 players could call it. What is so complicated?????

It's not complicated, dude. There were four players. Only one uttered the word "let." Doesn't that suggest to you that perhaps this happened rather quickly? Doesn't it also suggest that the player with the best view of the ball was the one closest to it, the player who dumped the shot into the net.

Once the ball rolls onto the court, by rule, a let is played. Regardless if someone hit a winner, hit it long, hit it into the net, swung and missed, lost their shoe, got pregnant, etc, etc, etc...infinity. A let is played.

False. You might wish to consult the rule, which was quoted earlier. **If you delay in calling a let, you lose your right to call it.** If she wants a let, she has to call it as soon as she becomes aware of the ball. If she was aware enough of the ball to be distracted, then I gotta wonder why she played the shot.

Which leaves us with the original question: If a ball distracts you (which means you saw it), can you play the ball and then immediately call a let?

I dunno. It struck both my partner and me as a bit questionable. Me, I would have conceded the point had I been her. Thereby giving my opponents the benefit of the doubt!

 

[10sjunkie]

OK, Cindy, I'm confused. Why is it that you expected your opponent, who is concentrating on the ball, to have enough time to call a let before she hit when you say that you didn't have enough time to call it?

 

[Cindysphinx]

OK, Cindy, I'm confused. Why is it that you expected your opponent, who is concentrating on the ball, to have enough time to call a let before she hit when you say that you didn't have enough time to call it?

Because the player playing the ball saw it before I did. I know this because she says it distracted her.

As far as her "concentrating on the ball," that is true of all four players, is it not? I can assure you that if I'm at net and you're about to hit a volley from close range, I'm concentrating pretty hard my own self.

The thing is, her shot looked like a real attempt to play the ball, not the twitch of a player who is trying to hold off. I think we all know the difference.

As I said, it was a close call, and we did grant her the let without argument. Had she said nothing about being distracted, I wouldn't have batted an eye over it. That statement, though, suggests a "two-bites-at-the-apple" problem.

 

[WBF]

Cindy: I think the timeliness implies that you can't see the ball, continue the point, lose the point, then call a let, or something similar. Something reasonably close like that, where you hadn't called it yet, seems more than timely enough. You don't need to not swing or stop your swing, although you can if you want to.

 

[Nellie]

Further to WBF, I think the rules/code speak of more than a one shot delay - so that if you/your opponent sees a stray ball, hits a shot, and calls a let, that is okay, but the let cannot be called after a second shot.

The rub in your situation is that if your opponent had hit a clean winner off the volley, you could have called a let and replayed the point anyway, so the point was effectively over, regardless of the outcome of her/his shot.

 

[Taxvictim]

I find it very difficult to stop a swing, even if I'm being distracted, and even if that distraction screws up my motion. For that reason, I would give the woman the benefit of the doubt that she was distracted during the shot, even if she couldn't get her body to stop the swing and utter "let" before making contact with the ball.

Maybe this is because the physical motions used in tennis are not being operated by your "logical" mind. Chasing down a moving object and beating it with a stick feels animalistic, like one of those apes at the beginning of 2001.

 

[Tarboro]

It sounds like the question is whether the opponent saw the ball and decided to hit the volley rather than calling a let. She will never admit it, of course, so it's rather academic.

If she saw the ball rolling and decided to play the volley anyway, then called a let because she missed it, that's not cool. If she played the point out but was planning to call a let in any case, then it's OK. If she had hit the volley over the net to you, it's your responsibility to call a let if she doesn't. Ultimately, there are plenty of bad calls that go either way in the average recreational match that are nobody's fault. As long as everybody calls them as they see them, I say it's live and let live.

 

[thehustler]

I remember reading back in one of the tennis magazines something about this situation. A let is not a get out of jail free card. If it was still rolling towards the court then it's not a let until it enters the court. You can't call a let for what you think might happen. The ball could hit the net post and bounce back the other way. I've made the mistake before of preparing to call a let when I see a ball roll into the court behind my opponent, only to see it stop in a spot that isn't near the court anymore. I only call a let when the ball first rolls into the court and is a distraction. I try to call a let as quickly as I can if it's a major distraction and I can understand your frustration. It looks like you have to give the benefit of the doubt for now.

 

[drakulie]

So the only question in my mind is whether she has to stop herself from playing the ball. I think she does.

No, she doesn't. Again, as I said on page 1, it would greatly benefit you to buy a rule book, or download one from the USTA site.

It's not complicated, dude.

Then why do you insist on complicating it????

There were four players. Only one uttered the word "let."

One is all it takes. Again, what do you fail to comprehend???

False. You might wish to consult the rule, which was quoted earlier. **If you delay in calling a let, you lose your right to call it.** If she wants a let, she has to call it as soon as she becomes aware of the ball. If she was aware enough of the ball to be distracted, then I gotta wonder why she played the shot.

Once again, **YOU** are wrong, so I STRONGLY, AS AVDISED EARLIER>>>> SUGGEST YOU PURCHASE A COPY OF THE RULE BOOK.

The Rules of Tennis:

The Let:
In all cases when a let is called, except when a service let is called on a second service, the whole point shall be replayed.

case 1: When the ball is in play, another ball rolls onto the court. A let is called.

http://dps.usta.com/usta_master/usta/doc/content/doc_13_4198.pdf?3/17/2006 4:40:53 PM


Are you getting this????? The rest of your post is rhetoric.

 

[burosky]

I've made the mistake before of preparing to call a let when I see a ball roll into the court behind my opponent, only to see it stop in a spot that isn't near the court anymore. I only call a let when the ball first rolls into the court and is a distraction.

If this is the case, wouldn't you say you were distracted because instead on focusing on the point you are playing your attention was on the ball that you thought would roll into the court behind your opponent?

 

[JavierLW]

Further to WBF, I think the rules/code speak of more than a one shot delay - so that if you/your opponent sees a stray ball, hits a shot, and calls a let, that is okay, but the let cannot be called after a second shot.

The rub in your situation is that if your opponent had hit a clean winner off the volley, you could have called a let and replayed the point anyway, so the point was effectively over, regardless of the outcome of her/his shot.

To further confuse the issue, keep in mind that if your opponent hits an obvious winner that you wouldnt of been able to play anyway, then it would be dirty to claim a let.

I think if you call let as soon as you see the ball though, you are right, it's a let, regardless if you happened to have followed thru on the ball or not. But there is a very small window of time that it could occur, if you wait too long then you are basically looking for two chances at winning the point.

However these things are always subjective which is why there is always going to be someone who wants a clear cut ruling on it. (otherwise you can argue all day until you are blue in the face as to whether the person called it timely or not)

Apparently "give your opponent the benefit of the doubt" is only in play when it favors the one who's quoting it.

It's not really about giving the benefit of the doubt anyway, it's about ruling in your opponents favor when you are not sure what happened. Either player in the OP could of done so.

(like when you think you might of reached over the net to hit the ball too early and you surrender the point because it's your call to make and you are not sure, something that Im sure certain people would never dream of "giving the benefit of the doubt" to their opponent in that situation)

 

[drakulie]

^^^Actually, it is not subjective. the rule clearly states if a ball rolls onto the court>>> IT'S A LET. PERIOD. END OF STORY.

Whether or not people **consistently** play by this rule (Ala Cindy), is a difffernet matter altogether. >>>>>> It's called ,"not playing within the rules". (AKA= cheating)

 

[JavierLW]

^^^Actually, it is not subjective. the rule clearly states if a ball rolls onto the court>>> IT'S A LET. PERIOD. END OF STORY.

Whether or not people **consistently** play by this rule (Ala Cindy), is a difffernet matter altogether. >>>>>> It's called ,"not playing within the rules". (AKA= cheating)

No, unfortuanately you are wrong about this one:

Your comment about:

"case 1: When the ball is in play, another ball rolls onto the court. A let is called. "

Was taken out of context. That is a USTA case, not a rule. And when it says "A let is called", it's implying that someone called let. (an official, a player, Chester the Cheesenugget vendor, etc.....)

If you would of included the rest of that statement, you'd see that it goes on to explain what happens in that situation. (if a ball rolls onto your court and let is called)

If you go back to the rules on page one (which is probally from the code since the main rules do not deal with players calling let on their own) you will see that it states:

1) If a ball rolls on your court, you "shall" call let as soon as you become aware of it.

2) If you dont call let in a timely manner you shall be punished by losing your right to call let.

So it's one of those ambigious code rules that says that you should do something but leaves the option there for what happens if you dont. (or by "shall" they just mean you shall call it right away, not that you "shall" call it everytime)

So in summary you are wrong. You dont have to call let if you see a ball roll on your court. And if you dont call it right away, it's no longer a let.

Im DEFINATELY not saying that you shouldnt call it though because you still should because it's bad form not too. Do you really need a rule for every single thing just to guide us on our quest of not being a total tool out there?

(although Ive been in matches like indoors where they were stupid and pulled the side curtains out so balls rolled thru our court like every 5 minutes or so and we got REALLY sick of calling let)

 

[drakulie]

^^Incorrect, again you are distorting the rule. I quoted the case to provide the ruling/example given by the USTA.

Again, The rule:

23. In all cases when a let is called, except when a service let is called on a second serve, the whole point shall be replayed.

End of story.

However, you also provided the "code". In it, the code as you already provided states:

19. Lets called when balls roll on the court.

When a ball from an adjacent court enters the playing area, any player SHALL call a let as soon as the player becomes aware of the ball. The player loses the right to call a let if the player unreasonably delays in making the call.

Note that the code, nor the rule states "should" or "could". It clearly states "shall".

The definition of shall:

Something, such as an order, promise, requirement, or obligation.


The second sentence in that code, "The player loses the right to call a let if the player unreasonably delays in making the call." is there to protect the integrity of the rule, so people don't take advantage of it.

For example, a point starts and immediately a ball from another court rolls onto the court, however, both players disregard the rule and continue playing out a 30 shot exchange. At the end of the point, one player wants to call a let.

Like I said, the rule and code are clear. If a ball rolls onto the court a let, by rule/code is supposed to played.

 

[Cindysphinx]

No, she doesn't. Again, as I said on page 1, it would greatly benefit you to buy a rule book, or download one from the USTA site.



Then why do you insist on complicating it????



One is all it takes. Again, what do you fail to comprehend???



Once again, **YOU** are wrong, so I STRONGLY, AS AVDISED EARLIER>>>> SUGGEST YOU PURCHASE A COPY OF THE RULE BOOK.

The Rules of Tennis:

The Let:
In all cases when a let is called, except when a service let is called on a second service, the whole point shall be replayed.

case 1: When the ball is in play, another ball rolls onto the court. A let is called.

http://dps.usta.com/usta_master/usta/doc/content/doc_13_4198.pdf?3/17/2006 4:40:53 PM


Are you getting this????? The rest of your post is rhetoric.

Uh, OK. Dude, you win. I had no idea you were like this, Drakulie. Hey, if it's that important to you, then let's all just view it your way. Really, I don't want to anger you further or cause you additional anxiety.

Or, like, meet your or anything. . . .

 

[drakulie]

Hey, if it's that important to you,

**You are the one that started this thread to get an answer to your question. If you can't handle the answer (provided by the ITF and USTA) because you are not going to get your way, then don't start a thread like this.

then let's all just view it your way.

Once again, Wrong! Last time I checked, I had nothing to do with the writing, or formulation of the rules of tennis. If you have a problem>>> contact the ITF, and USTA.

But again, this really isn't about the rules. This is about you trying to get justification from board members to bend the rules to make you feel better about cheating. If you want to play outside of the rules, then say so, and stop waisting everyones time.

By the way, you are welcome for me taking the time to not only provide you the link to the rules of tennis, which answers your question, but also taking the time to properly teach you the rules and how to interpret them.

Now do yourself, and everyone you play tennis with a favor, and purchase a copy of the rules, or print out the rules I provided for you.

 

[Cindysphinx]

**You are the one that started this thread to get an answer to your question. If you can't handle the answer (provided by the ITF and USTA) because you are not going to get your way, then don't start a thread like this.



Once again, Wrong! Last time I checked, I had nothing to do with the writing, or formulation of the rules of tennis. If you have a problem>>> contact the ITF, and USTA.

But again, this really isn't about the rules. This is about you trying to get justification from board members to bend the rules to make you feel better about cheating. If you want to play outside of the rules, then say so, and stop waisting everyones time.

By the way, you are welcome for me taking the time to not only provide you the link to the rules of tennis, which answers your question, but also taking the time to properly teach you the rules and how to interpret them.

Now do yourself, and everyone you play tennis with a favor, and purchase a copy of the rules, or print out the rules I provided for you.

Um . . . wow.

OK Drakulie. Really, Dude, you had me at "Once again, Wrong!" You are The Man. I'm a believer. Yep. Uh-huh. Couldn't be more convinced, that's me.

Now if you'll excuse me, I gotta go throw the deadbolt on the front door.

You can never be too careful . . .

 

[drakulie]

OK Drakulie. Really, Dude, you had me at "Once again, Wrong!" You are The Man. I'm a believer. Yep. Uh-huh. Couldn't be more convinced, that's me.

As evidenced by your posts in this thread, you will never be convinced because you want to hear this poor girl you played against cheated, when in fact>>> you are the one that played outside the rules.

People like you are always looking for excuses to blame someone else for their own shortcomings/faults.

Now if you'll excuse me, I gotta go throw the deadbolt on the front door.

You can never be too careful . . .

Typical of someone playing the victim card. Tyring to side track the discussion in a weak attempt to put the spotlight on something completely irrelevant. However, since you want to get personal, if anyone needs to lock their doors, it's your neighbors. You are the one that is clearly a cheat on a court, and your behavior suggests it's a reflection of who you are as person in society>>> always trying to shortcut, or scam innocent people.

 

[thehustler]

If this is the case, wouldn't you say you were distracted because instead on focusing on the point you are playing your attention was on the ball that you thought would roll into the court behind your opponent?

It would seem that way wouldn't it? But I wasn't. I try to be mindful of my surroundings while I'm playing. I have seen many tennis balls start to roll my way and then just stop well before they get to the court and I've made the mistake of calling a let when nothing happened. I didn't like saying I thought a ball was coming our way. I've realized until it's in the court it's not a let. Even if the ball stops short of the court and I lose the point I don't claim a let. I honestly think people know when a ball is rolling into the court and know if it will be a distraction or not. If it's just a few feet from you when you're preparing to hit a ball then I'm betting you see it and I'm just guessing here but a lot of people will try to use the let excuse if they miss the shot or hit one that sets up their opponent for a winner. I've also had a situation where the ball was rolling near the net as I was hitting a ground stroke at the baseline. At the last moment after I made contact I then noticed the ball. I've dumped the ball into the net and my opponent asks if I want a let. I tell them no since I had already hit the ball prior to me seeing it. Had I seen it prior to my shot I'd take the let, and perhaps if the shot had gone over my opponent would call a let due to him seeing it, but if I screw up like that there's no way I'm bailing myself out. It's just a cheap thing to do imho.

edit: I just did a search for the usta code and found this:

18. Prompt calls eliminate two chance option. A player shall make all
calls promptly after the ball has hit the court. A call shall be made eitherbefore the player’s return shot has gone out of play or before the opponent
has had the opportunity to play the return shot.
Prompt calls will quickly eliminate the “two chances to win the point”
option that some players practice. <b>To illustrate, a player is advancing to the
net for an easy put away and sees a ball from an adjoining court rolling
toward the court. The player continues to advance and hits the shot, only to
have the supposed easy put away fly over the baseline. The player then
claims a let. The claim is not valid because the player forfeited the right to call
a let by choosing instead to play the ball. The player took a chance to win or
lose and is not entitled to a second chance.</b>

19. <b>Lets called when balls roll on the court. When a ball from an adjacent
court enters the playing area, any player shall call a let as soon as the player
becomes aware of the ball. The player loses the right to call a let if the player
unreasonably delays in making the call.</b>

Now in reading this which I found at http://www.usta.com/rules/default.sps?iType=923&icustompageid=1122 I realize that I've been doing things pretty right on. In Cindy's case if the player made an unreasonable delay, which it sounded like she did in trying to get two chances to win the point then it's Cindy's point. These rules seem clear to me. She dumped the volley and used the let as an excuse to save her butt since she missed. I just don't see what the argument is anymore now that I've looked this up for myself.

 

[JavierLW]

^^Incorrect, again you are distorting the rule. I quoted the case to provide the ruling/example given by the USTA.

Again, The rule:

23. In all cases when a let is called, except when a service let is called on a second serve, the whole point shall be replayed.

End of story.

However, you also provided the "code". In it, the code as you already provided states:

19. Lets called when balls roll on the court.

When a ball from an adjacent court enters the playing area, any player SHALL call a let as soon as the player becomes aware of the ball. The player loses the right to call a let if the player unreasonably delays in making the call.

Note that the code, nor the rule states "should" or "could". It clearly states "shall".

The definition of shall:

Something, such as an order, promise, requirement, or obligation.


The second sentence in that code, "The player loses the right to call a let if the player unreasonably delays in making the call." is there to protect the integrity of the rule, so people don't take advantage of it.

For example, a point starts and immediately a ball from another court rolls onto the court, however, both players disregard the rule and continue playing out a 30 shot exchange. At the end of the point, one player wants to call a let.

Like I said, the rule and code are clear. If a ball rolls onto the court a let, by rule/code is supposed to played.

You're distorting the rule.

Rule 23, says nothing about whether or not you should call let, it's just saying when let is called, you replay the point. If you think that's the end of the story then you need to learn how to read.

There are quite a few different versions of what the word "shall" implies, look it up sometimes. And you cant just choose the one that suits your argument, it doesnt work that way.

Also you dont know what you are talking about when it comes to english as well. Shall is the present form of "should". Should is the past form of "shall". But yet you say that it purposely didnt use should. (but it used shall which means the same thing) Any more questions?

www.webster.com , look up words in the dictionary before you spout off about them.

Even if you were right about that, you still have:

The player loses the right to call a let if the player unreasonably delays in making the call.

So right there, that leads right into Cindy's question. I agree given the context if not enough time went by, she's probally making a big deal out of nothing as usual, but because of the above sentence you will always run into questions like that.

And because of the above sentance, it DEFINATELY does not mean you magically have a let everytime a ball rolls onto your court. You have to call let, and if you dont call let, nothing bad is going to happen to you except that you cant call it anymore. (unless someone breaks a ankle or something but that's a whole other issue)

 

[10sjunkie]

Now, I would need slow motion replay to know the exact timing of when she said the word "Let" and when she struck the ball. I know that I saw the ball and didn't have time to call let before she hit the ball.

I still don't see what the problem is. According to Cindy's original post, it happened very quickly. I don't see that there was an unreasonable delay, whether she hit the ball first or called let first. I know I have a hard time stopping a swing, especially if I am moving forward to hit. Having a second ball move into my field of vision is distracting. Replay the point.

 

[hoodjem]

It sounds, based on your description of what happened, that very little time had elapsed, and thus she should be allowed to call let after she hit the ball.

It sounds like the ball rolled onto the court, she was distracted, hit the ball into the net, and called let--all in the temporal space of two seconds or less.

If you admit that you "didn't have time to call let," then allow that neither did she. Case closed.

 

[Cindysphinx]

I remember reading back in one of the tennis magazines something about this situation. A let is not a get out of jail free card. If it was still rolling towards the court then it's not a let until it enters the court. You can't call a let for what you think might happen. The ball could hit the net post and bounce back the other way. I've made the mistake before of preparing to call a let when I see a ball roll into the court behind my opponent, only to see it stop in a spot that isn't near the court anymore. I only call a let when the ball first rolls into the court and is a distraction. I try to call a let as quickly as I can if it's a major distraction and I can understand your frustration. It looks like you have to give the benefit of the doubt for now.

I dunno, Hustler. I don't think it is necessary for the ball to roll into the painted area for a let to be appropriate (assuming I am understanding your point). If it comes anywhere where a player might step on it, the let seems justified to me.

It's a gray area, of course, as to how close the ball needs to be for a let to be warranted.

 

[Weedcutter]

After reading 3 pages of this, and having this happen to me, i am going to have to agree with Drakulie. Cindy seems immature, and her angsting over a legitimately called let is sad to say the least.

 

[Cindysphinx]

After reading 3 pages of this, and having this happen to me, i am going to have to agree with Drakulie. Cindy seems immature, and her angsting over a legitimately called let is sad to say the least.

Thanks for weighing in, Weedcutter.

 

[drakulie]

It's a gray area, of course, as to how close the ball needs to be for a let to be warranted.

In your case, you would have to sep on it, and break your ankle before a let would be justified. That's how close the ball needs to be.

 

[drakulie]

There are quite a few different versions of what the word "shall" implies, look it up sometimes. And you cant just choose the one that suits your argument, it doesnt work that way.

Also you dont know what you are talking about when it comes to english as well. Shall is the present form of "should". Should is the past form of "shall". But yet you say that it purposely didnt use should. (but it used shall which means the same thing) Any more questions?

Wow! OK. According to you, the use of the word "shall" in the rules could mean "should".

Let's see how this changes the rules of tennis:

Rule 1. The court shall be a rectangle....

According to your logic, this could be interpreted as "should" be a rectangle, but doesn't have to be. It could be a rectangle, triangle, circle, octagon, etc with any type of dimensions.

Rule 8. Server/Receiver; The players/teams shall stand on opposite sides of the net. ....

According to your logic, this could be interpreted as "should" stand on opposite sides of the net, but they don't really have to. :roll:

Rule 10. Change of Ends; The players shall change ends at the end of the 1st, 3rd, and every subsequent odd game of each set. ....

According to your logic, this could be interpreted as "should" change ends after game 1, 3, 5, 7, etc. but they don't really have to. They could change ends during a point. :roll:

I could go on and on.

Thanks for re-defining the game of tennis. I wasn't aware we should follow the rules, but aren't required to. :roll:

 

[Moz]

On a weird and irrelevant sidenote. My old company and the US government wouldn't agree on a contract and it took about 3 months to resolve.

My company wouldn't agree to anything that said shall and wanted every instance of the word changed to should. Or the other way round. Apparently there was a large impact legally.

 

[drakulie]

Apparently there was a large impact legally.

Of course. Just look at the difference in the rules of tennis when you substitute "shall" with "should".

 

[Moz]

Drak - you're not drinking enough these days if you're getting hung on this! :twisted:

Cheers mate!