The Timing Of Calling A Let

[kylebarendrick]

This one is pretty easy. If you see a ball roll onto the court, you are supposed to call a let. If, for some reason, you choose not to call a let (even though you "shall") when you see the ball, then you don't get to claim you were hindered if you subsequently lose the point.

Is there any doubt that is what the intention of the code is here?

 

[drakulie]

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

Cheers mate!

I'm always having fun on these boards. So many colorful characters.

 

[Cindysphinx]

This one is pretty easy. If you see a ball roll onto the court, you are supposed to call a let. If, for some reason, you choose not to call a let (even though you "shall") when you see the ball, then you don't get to claim you were hindered if you subsequently lose the point.

Is there any doubt that is what the intention of the code is here?

No doubt. As with most things, it's not the intent, it's the application to the facts that trips people up.

 

[thehustler]

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.

I'll have to find that tennis magazine issue to clarify what they said. I did post what I found out of the code earlier though. None of us were there other than you. The way it's described it sounds like it can go either way. It seems to be one of those things that we'll never really know for sure.

 

[JavierLW]

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:

You Sir are a moron. Look it up, should and shall mean the same thing, one is present tense and one is past tense. That is not debatable, that's what those words mean, no matter how you choose to use them in your own personal jargon.

Using examples where you clearly do not know what the words mean doesnt cut it.

And again you are a moron. You could forget to change ends, but that doesnt mean you go to tennis jail or anything, in fact according to the rules of tennis all points played in good faith stand so nothing happens to you at all except you continue to play on the wrong side.

You would not use "should" in any of those sentences because it's the past tense. (ie... should of been a rectangle) But apparently you would because you do not know the difference and just because people misuse should you think it has some special lesser meaning.

You dont make rules based on things that you "should of" done. And you dont write rules with your misuse of the word "should". (unless you are in grade school maybe and you dont know any better)

So your whole argument in this post is stupid, and seems to only be aimed at being annoying toward one person. Cindy's whole point is whether the opponents called let in a timely manner (and if by hitting the ball it is too late). The Code clearly states that if you wait too long you lose your right to call let so it's a legitimate question.

You can have balls roll thru your court all day long, and if nobody calls let, there isnt anything you can do about it. If they really intended for that to be an automatic let everytime then the rules should of (see past tense) said:

"If a ball rolls onto your court then a let will be played"

Or they can even say:

"If a ball rolls onto your court then a let shall be called"

The "shall" in the code for this rule just means that if you are going to call let, you shall do it right away as soon as you know the ball is there. And if you dont you lose the RIGHT to call it. So you have a "RIGHT" to call it, that doesnt make it sound like it's mandatory to me.

 

[rommil]

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.

This one.....

 

[drakulie]

If they really intended for that to be an automatic let everytime then the rules should of (see past tense) said:

"If a ball rolls onto your court then a let will be played"

Hmmm, OK> Once again, let's look at the following rule:

Rule 1: The court shall be a rectangle.

Using your logic to apply to the aforementioned rule; "If they really intended for the court to be a rectangle, then the rules should of (see past tense) said:"

"The court will be a rectangle."


Let's look at rule 18, "Foot Fault", and apply your logic. The rules states:

During the service motion, the server shall not:
a) Change position by walking or running,,,,,
b) Touch the baseline or the court with either foot; or
c) Touch the area outside the imaginary extension of the sideline line with either foot; or
d) Touch the imaginary extension of the center mark with either foot.
If the server breaks this rule, it is a "Foot Fault".

Using your logic to apply to the aforementioned rule; "If they really intended for the server to follow this rule, then the rules should of (see past tense) said:"

"During the service motion, the server will not:"


Once again, thanks for letting us all know the court doesn't have to be a rectangle, and the server doesn't have to stand behind the baseline because of the use of the word "shall"in the rules, rather than use of the word "will".

Like I said before, I could go on and on. In every instance using your logic, a player has the choice to follow, or not follow the rule. It's up to them. Only "moron" here is you.

 

[JavierLW]

Hmmm, OK> Once again, let's look at the following rule:

Rule 1: The court shall be a rectangle.

Using your logic to apply to the aforementioned rule; "If they really intended for the court to be a rectangle, then the rules should of (see past tense) said:"

"The court will be a rectangle."


Let's look at rule 18, "Foot Fault", and apply your logic. The rules states:

During the service motion, the server shall not:
a) Change position by walking or running,,,,,
b) Touch the baseline or the court with either foot; or
c) Touch the area outside the imaginary extension of the sideline line with either foot; or
d) Touch the imaginary extension of the center mark with either foot.
If the server breaks this rule, it is a "Foot Fault".

Using your logic to apply to the aforementioned rule; "If they really intended for the server to follow this rule, then the rules should of (see past tense) said:"

"During the service motion, the server will not:"


Once again, thanks for letting us all know the court doesn't have to be a rectangle, and the server doesn't have to stand behind the baseline because of the use of the word "shall"in the rules, rather than use of the word "will".

Like I said before, I could go on and on. In every instance using your logic, a player has the choice to follow, or not follow the rule. It's up to them. Only "moron" here is you.

Actually all points played in good faith stand. Whether you want to believe in that or understand what it means to the game of tennis is up to you.

YOUR WELCOME!!!

 

[drakulie]

^^^ Could you help me out???

I've been emailing the US Open insisting the court "should" be round. Could you email them and give them your logic behind this????

 

[JavierLW]

^^^ Could you help me out???

I've been emailing the US Open insisting the court "should" be round. Could you email them and give them your logic behind this????

The Code only applys to unofficiated matchs, which do not apply to the US Open. The US Open has a countless amount of officials who's job it is to make sure the courts are perfect, the lines are called, lets are called, etc....

If you dont know the difference between that and an unofficiated match then you are just being a moron.

The truth is (and you will never understand this) if two or four guys decided to go out and play on a round court and they shook hands when it was over, the match still counts. (all points played in good faith stand)

That's a little silly but it's true. There are far more less extreme examples of this (courts that have deformed nets, are the wrong size, etc....).

And in all your other moronic examples it's even more true. If you forget to switch sides at the right time, the point still counts. If you served out of turn, the point still counts. If you miss your chance to call let, and you win the point, the point still counts.

All points played in good faith stand.

There is no penalty for not calling let no matter what your definition of "shall" is.

 

[drakulie]

^^Thanks, I'm going to start serving from the net, and when my opponent complains that I can't serve from there, I'm going to give them your logic. And since I would have already served the ball, it would be too late for the receiver to complain since the point has already begun and ended. Since all points played in good faith stand. :roll:

 

[JavierLW]

^^Thanks, I'm going to start serving from the net, and when my opponent complains that I can't serve from there, I'm going to give them your logic. And since I would have already served the ball, it would be too late for the receiver to complain since the point has already begun and ended. Since all points played in good faith stand. :roll:

You dont think all points played in good faith stand?

Read the rules......

(and check your dictionary)

 

[drakulie]

^^I'm agreeing with you.

All points played in good faith stand, and since the rules don't say, I "will not" stand at the net to serve>>> that is exactly what I will do. >>> Stand at the net, and hit the serve straight into the ground causing the ball to bounce over the back fence. Once the ball touches the ground for the second time the point is over.

Perfect example of a point played in good faith.

 

[Taxvictim]

A little late with this one...

 

[JavierLW]

^^I'm agreeing with you.

All points played in good faith stand, and since the rules don't say, I "will not" stand at the net to serve>>> that is exactly what I will do. >>> Stand at the net, and hit the serve straight into the ground causing the ball to bounce over the back fence. Once the ball touches the ground for the second time the point is over.

Perfect example of a point played in good faith.

No it's not, it's a perfect example of why you dont seem to know the meaning of the words that you are spouting which seems to force you to come up with stupid examples.

If your opponent complains then the point was not played in good faith.

And they do not even have to just complain, they can start calling foot fault if you do that. Unlike in the OP's situation, there is a remedy for what happens if you foot fault. That's not the case for the let situation because by rule if you dont call let right away, you lose the right to, thus it's not a let and the point stands.

However if they let it go and dont say anything because you didnt really mean to serve right at the net, then the point still stands. Perhaps only someone like you would be moronic enough to do that though.

You can say it's cheating all you want until you are blue in the face, but TOO BAD, the point still stands.

What you dont seem to want to acknowledge is how you are full of it in the OP's example which is why you are wrong in the first place.

If you DO NOT call let, you lose your right to call let, and the point stands.

Not just because it was or wasnt played in good faith, but because by definition in The Code, that's the way it goes. (otherwise it would just say that it's an automatic let, not something you shall call as soon as you are aware of it)

 

[drakulie]

If your opponent complains then the point was not played in good faith.

But they can't complain. According to you, the server doesn't have to stand behind the baseline to serve, so the point was played in good faith.

And they do not even have to just complain, they can start calling foot fault if you do that.

Exaclty my point. They can't call foot faults.

With your logic, a player could do anything they want since the rules use "shall", which according to you means "should", not "will".

Again, the rule for foot faults states:

During the service motion, the server shall not:

According to your logic, this is the same as saying:

"During the service motion, the server should not", which means they shouldn't do it, but they can if they want to.


Again, thanks for re-defining the rules of tennis.

 

[JavierLW]

But they can't complain. According to you, the server doesn't have to stand behind the baseline to serve, so the point was played in good faith.



Exaclty my point. They can't call foot faults.

With your logic, a player could do anything they want since the rules use "shall", which according to you means "should", not "will".

Again, the rule for foot faults states:

During the service motion, the server shall not:

According to your logic, this is the same as saying:

"During the service motion, the server should not", which means they shouldn't do it, but they can if they want to.


Again, thanks for re-defining the rules of tennis.

If you actually used the word "should" properly then maybe you'd have a point, but you continue to misuse that word.

I dont know why you are being such a moron about this.

SHOULD IS A WORD YOU USE FOR THINGS IN THE PAST TENSE, YOU WOULDNT USE IT IN ANY SORT OF RULE!!!!!!!

You keep using it as some sort of suggestive version of Shall, but that's a misuse of the word.

Thus you sound dumb and you dont make a whole lot of sense. (except to the other dullards who commonly misuse the word should for shall)

 

[drakulie]

Thus you sound dumb and you dont make a whole lot of sense. (except to the other dullards who commonly misuse the word should for shall)

Not only have you re-defined the rules for us, but I see you are also a historical revisionist.

**YOU** are the one that argued the use of the word "should", to replace "shall".

Here is your argument:

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.

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.

Bottom line>>>>> the rules say "shall", which means you have to>>> not you "should".

END OF STORY.

PS: Stop telling people on these boards the leagues they play in are not USTA sanctioned.

 

[JavierLW]

Not only have you re-defined the rules for us, but I see you are also a historical revisionist.

**YOU** are the one that argued the use of the word "should", to replace "shall".

Here is your argument:




Bottom line>>>>> the rules say "shall", which means you have to>>> not you "should".

END OF STORY.

PS: Stop telling people on these boards the leagues they play in are not USTA sanctioned.

No, you are the one who brought the word "should" into this conversation and you continue to mis-use it.

I dont know what you mean by your PS. I suggest if your only point is to be a troublemaker that you keep your big mouth shut otherwise you're wasting everyone's time.

 

[drakulie]

No, you are the one who brought the word "should" into this conversation and you continue to mis-use it.

I already posted your quote where you bring in the use of the word "should".

Like I said, not only are you a historical revisionist, you have no idea how to comprehend what you read.

Lastly, stop telling people the leagues they play in are not USTA sanctioned.

 

[JavierLW]

I already posted your quote where you bring in the use of the word "should".

Like I said, not only are you a historical revisionist, you have no idea how to comprehend what you read.

Lastly, stop telling people the leagues they play in are not USTA sanctioned.

No, you are the one who brought the word "should" into this conversation and you continue to mis-use it.

I dont know what you mean by your PS. I suggest if your only point is to be a troublemaker that you keep your big mouth shut otherwise you're wasting everyone's time.

 

[baek57]

arguing over semantics is frivolous

 

[drakulie]

No, you are the one who brought the word "should" into this conversation and you continue to mis-use it.

Go learn reading comprehension, and stop being a historical revisionist.

 

[JavierLW]

I should of learned reading comprehension, and I should of stoppped being a historical revisionist.

I agree (10 chars)

 

[10sguy]

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.

No . . . in the case of an opponent yelling and hindering you as you are about to hit an overhead . . . you are NOT "obligated" to stop your swing. If you attempt the shot, you've taken your one chance. You either claim the hindrance (legitimately) or live with the result of your shot attempt.

 

[baek57]

No . . . in the case of an opponent yelling and hindering you as you are about to hit an overhead . . . you are NOT "obligated" to stop your swing. If you attempt the shot, you've taken your one chance. You either claim the hindrance (legitimately) or live with the result of your shot attempt.

anybody can call a let, including your opponent as you are lining up your overhead.

 

[Cindysphinx]

No . . . in the case of an opponent yelling and hindering you as you are about to hit an overhead . . . you are NOT "obligated" to stop your swing. If you attempt the shot, you've taken your one chance. You either claim the hindrance (legitimately) or live with the result of your shot attempt.

You are obligated to stop your swing if you wish to claim hindrance. If you feel you cannot stop your swing and you strike the ball, you can no longer claim a hindrance.

I don't think we disagree, 10sguy.

 

[kylebarendrick]

I think I'd phrase it differently. You can't call a let after you've lost the point. At the same time, if you call a let before or while striking the ball then you are not obligated to stop your swing. The point ended when you called "let".

If someone hits the ball and then immediately calls "let" (without obviously waiting to see what their shot did) I'll give them the benefit of the doubt. We don't all multitask very well and it is sometimes hard to deal with a ball coming towards you and making a let call at the same time. It isn't all that different than hitting a ball that landed beyond the baseline before calling it out.