Yeah, that seems likely. I'm not opposed to getting rid of lets on serves to speed up play a tiny bit, but that kind of cheating is insulting to the sport.
What is the correct call?
- Thread starter mpnv1990
- Start date
Depends on who is sitting in the umpires chair. With some, I can return the serve and if I realize my return is going to be "out", I can challenge the serve before my return lands (provided I hit the return and make the challenge "all in one motion", LOL).
I don't understand the arguments that OP's opponent was "just making conversation" or "just an offhand comment."
Imagine this scenario: your opponent is at the net and you run in to get a short ball and manage to flick it past him. He turns to watch the ball land near the line and calls "out." You couldn't see it one way or the other and mentally accept that you lost the point.
Then, as you're both standing there near the net, about to get ready for the next point, your opponent mutters, "you know what, I think that shot might have caught the line."
You say, "oh ok, so, my point?"
Opponent says, "Oh no, I called it out, I'm just making conversation."
Are you all telling us that this would be acceptable??
I can see that OP's story is not exactly this, but I think it's pretty close.
Imagine this scenario: your opponent is at the net and you run in to get a short ball and manage to flick it past him. He turns to watch the ball land near the line and calls "out." You couldn't see it one way or the other and mentally accept that you lost the point.
Then, as you're both standing there near the net, about to get ready for the next point, your opponent mutters, "you know what, I think that shot might have caught the line."
You say, "oh ok, so, my point?"
Opponent says, "Oh no, I called it out, I'm just making conversation."
Are you all telling us that this would be acceptable??
I can see that OP's story is not exactly this, but I think it's pretty close.
That's a good hypothetical. I'd say that's different because the opponent MUST make that call in that scenario and is later admitting that he called it wrong. In the OP's post, the serving team MAY make the call on that serve (and presumably would only do so if they saw it out clearly enough to overrule the two people who had a better view and the incentive to call a ball out when it's so clearly put), and they did not really make the call. I think there's a big difference between making a call (which requires that you're sure it's out) and saying later that it looked like it was out from where he stood (which may assume that he had a bad view of it, for instance).
Maybe the better hypothetical would be the same point you describe, except that the opponent called it good and then later the guy who hit it said that he thought it was out. Do they reverse the call, or replay the point? Or maybe it depends on whether the guy who hit it is saying affirmatively that it was out vs saying it was a friendly call because he thought it may have been out? I think that nuance matters, but it's an interesting discussion.
But great hypo. Very interesting to think about edge cases like this.
The prime objectives of The Code are fair play and goodwill, as stated in the preamble and preface. The prime objective of the rules regarding making calls is accuracy. Let’s be specific about the language we use.
Your hypothetical isn’t relevant, it’s a completely different situation covered by a whole different rule. Under Rule 12, if the person making a call becomes uncertain, he shall reverse his call and give the point to his opponent.
TennisOTM, you evidently didn’t read this thread. Most are agreeing with me, the OP lost the point. Only a few insist on making the word “may” mean mandatory, which it never is in the English language. It’s either possibility or permission, never compulsory.
Once again - in The Code, the words “shall” or “should” are used when something is mandatory or strongly suggested. They could have just as easily said in Rule 26, “If the receiver plays a first service that is a fault and does not put the return in play, the server or server’s partner shall make the fault call.” They didn’t. The Code uses may instead of shall or should.
In case there’s any doubt about that, The Code then immediately makes it compulsory on second serves, “The server and the server’s partner shall call out any second serve that either clearly sees out.” (also Rule 26) If it were mandatory on first serves, shall or even should would have been used. Even interpreting “may” as permission does not, in any sense of the word, make it compulsory.
In fact, one could argue that the use of “should” instead of “shall” in Rule 13 means that calling your own balls out isn’t mandatory, just strongly suggested. I always call my own shots out when I see them, but never expect or demand that my opponents do.
I didn’t write the rules, but I do play by them. Please stop reading something into them that just isn’t there. The language is very specific. The writers of The Code have chosen to not make the call mandatory in this one instance and I just go by the rules.
OP’s opponent clearly wasn’t making a call. OP did not exhibit goodwill towards his opponent, even though opponent admittedly initiated the bad blood, so OP was in defiance of the real prime objective of The Code. He turned a game into an argument. Even then, his argument was wrong.
If you want to make first serve out calls mandatory by server’s side when unreturned, then lobby the USTA and ITF to change the code to “shall” in Rule 26 instead of trying to make it say something it doesn’t. While you’re at it, have them change Rule 13 from “should” to “shall”. That one I would agree with wholeheartedly.
Last edited:
kylebarendrick
Professional
The common situation among reasonable adults is that the server hits their first serve which misses, the returners attempt and fail to play it, and then the server's partner says something like "wasn't that serve out?" One of the returners replies "I thought so but was slow with my call". The server then says "I thought it was out too. Second serve" and everyone continues on with a friendly tennis match.
socallefty
G.O.A.T.
OP could have politely chatted with the server’s partner and told him that he could call the serve out if he saw it out and whether that was his official call. If the guy said Yes, it was definitely out, then he could have been told that by rule, he should call the first serve a fault and allow a 2nd serve return. However, if he said he wasn’t sure and just thought it might have been out, not much you can do but accept that you lost the point.
There many others on this thread who thought that result of OP's scenario should have been second serve. Many of those who thought OP lost the point provided a reason that was false, for example stating that the serving team is never allowed to call the first serve out. If we eliminate the votes that were accompanied by reasoning with undeniably false statements, I think you might be in the minority.
I don't think anyone is saying the word "may" means mandatory or compulsory. Because that sentence is describing the exception to the prior statement that says "Neither the server nor server’s partner shall make a fault call on the first service...", which is a negation of permission to make the fault call, it is reasonable to interpret "may" as the inverse of that, i.e. giving permission to make a first service fault call in the circumstances of the exception. I agree with you that it would be a leap to say that the language definitively implies compulsion. However, I think it is also a leap to say that the language implies that the serving team, clearly seeing the ball out, may choose not to make the fault call under the code. If that was the intention, it would have said "may or may not" or "may, if they choose," or something to that effect.
So without any clear language about the compulsory or non-compulsory nature of the serving team's choice in this particular circumstance, we are left to fall back on the stated prime objective for making calls: accuracy. Having clearly seen the first serve landing out, and upon the opponent missing the return, there is a clear outcome for achieving accuracy: second serve.
I agree with you here. This is more like a code of conduct than it is a set of mandory rules. It is normally unenforceable anyway - there is no way of reading someone's mind to know if they saw their own team's shot land out and failed to call it.
However, if the player admits out loud to clearly seeing the ball land out, and refuses to follow the code of conduct, then I can see why OP thought it was worth arguing. Whether or not you think it's distasteful or annoying to make an argument is a separate question.
a10best
Legend
Where? and when has this happened in college or satellite tournaments? Probably never.
And If they do, I doubt anyone follows that rule. If the receiver hits the service return in and dumb server says no, my serve was out. The server loses the point every single time unless the returner wants to replay it. Servers cannot call their own serve out or they also have the ability to call it in. It's the returner's call.
E.T.
Rookie
Exactly, call the lines on your side of the court. When my opponents call a ball out that I clearly saw land in, there is nothing I can do. This is such a weird thread. I can’t imagine screwing up my own line call and then somehow trying to act like my opponent owes me something.
The relevant lines of The Code have been pasted into multiple posts of this thread. You can read it for yourself here:
Whether players actually follow everything listed in there in practice is a separate question. A guideline that is often ignored doesn't change the fact that the guideline is there.
A server can absolutely call out their own serve, as you will see when you read this. They cannot call *in* their own serve if the returner called it out. They also cannot call out their own first serve if the receiver hits the retun in.
E.T.
Rookie
Sure, a server “may” call their own serve out if the returner plays it because they think it was in and mishits the ball. Anyone who is acting like they would do this in practice needs to get down off their high horse. Especially in doubles, where the returning team has a player who should be watching the lines. Give me a break.
MGArchitect
New User
Just to pile on and beat a dead horse some more. Remember the two keys to this - 1) On the first serve, you can call your own serve out, but only if the returner missed the return, thereby not allowing the returner to unfairly gain a point and you move to second serve. 2) On the second serve, you can call your own serve out, conceding the point to your opponent by a double fault. Both instances are you being fair to the returning team. By not calling your own serve out when you clearly see it out if these two cases, you are not playing fairly.
E.T.
Rookie
Again, saying you are being unfair by not calling your own serve out is just ridiculous. The opposing team can purposely return egregiously out serves in order to catch the serving team off guard if they stop playing and win points by doing so. Learn how to watch your own lines and accept responsibility for the outcome.
This is where your argument falls apart. It's specious to say that the goal of calling balls correctly somehow turns "may" from permissive to mandatory. That's your argument--that if the server sees it out, he/she is *obligated* to call it. But that's not what the rule says, and you're rewriting the rule to reach a result you want to reach. (Maybe you were the OP's partner who missed the call. Ha.) The rule says the server *may* call it out if the returner misses the return. It does not to have to say "may or may not" for that to be permissive and not mandatory, and I bet you won't find that language anywhere in any code anywhere. The fact is that the serving team is not obligated to call its own serve out, and a comment later that a serve looked out to them is not the same as calling it out, especially because the receiving team had the better view and the primary obligation to call it. Of course, as someone else pointed out, it often happens that a serving team may give the receiver another chance to call a ball that was clearly called wrong. But it's generally the receiving team's job to call balls on their side, and that rule doesn't say otherwise. So the serving team doesn't have to call its own serve out even if they think it was out. And in this case, I think the OP was wrong to insist on a replay (to make up for their own double error of not calling the serve correctly and then missing the return) when the serving team did not affirmatively make the call and take the second serve. There's no rule to justify that.
You're right that you cannot overrule your opponent when they call your shot out.
But if you clearly see your own shot land out, and your opponent doesn't call it out for some reason, that's different. Maybe your opponent screwed it up, maybe they didn't get a great look and were being very generous with the benefit-of-the-doubt principle, maybe they fell down and didn't see the ball land at all. In any of those cases, the code says that the right thing to do is to call it out on yourself.
The code is there to attempt to set a uniform standard for fair play and sportsmanship. There are a few who would call their own shots out even if that was not written in the code (I have played against such types). Most others probably think it is going too far to be that generous to an opponent who had every opportunity to call the ball out themselves. But that is what the written code says to do.
If you see your own shot land out and keep your mouth shut, there's nothing anyone can do. No one will ever know what you saw, so it's very easy to get away with violating this part of the code, and most probably wouldn't fault you too much, or at all. But if you explictly tell your opponent that your shot was out, and still take the point, that's pretty rough. At that point, you are flaunting your violation of the written code.
Last edited:
E.T.
Rookie
Well stated. People here are acting like it’s “violating the code” not to call your own serve out. Nowhere does it say that. It simply states you have the option to do so if you choose.
It’s bad form to flaunt it in front of your opponent after the fact though, I do agree with that argument.
MGArchitect
New User
Just to be clear, the "may" part is on the first serve. The code actually says "shall" on the second serve. Also, I definitely agree you about the conclusion of the point in the match in question. I might have pointed out what the code says, but it sounds like the point was already well concluded.
If the receiver plays a first service that is a fault and
does not put the return in play, the server or server’s partner may make the fault call. The server
and the server’s partner shall call out any second serve that either clearly sees out.
Just because your opponent is not playing fairly, does not mean that if you don't follow the code that you are yourself playing fairly.
I've never said that it's mandatory. I do think that it's a violation of the code to refrain from calling your team's shot out when you clearly saw it that way, in a situation where you are allowed to make that call. The purpose of this part of the written code is to identify the situations in which the serving team is or is not allowed to call their own serve out.
Is it *mandatory* to follow The Code? I'm not really clear. The Code is introduced by saying it is not part of the ITF Rules of Tennis, and it says it's "a summary of procedures and unwritten rules that custom and tradition dictate all players should follow."
In OP's story, I'm working on the assumption that the server's partner clearly saw the serve land out. We don't know for sure, all we have to go on is that he said the words "it was out." He also eventually agreed to replay the point, which he probably would not have done if he thought there was a chance the serve was in.
So when the serving team admits out loud that the serve out, the discussion is not really about "what do the rules say we must do?" it is more about "what is the right thing to do in this situation for fair play and accuracy?" By my interepration of The Code, it guides the answer to: second serve.
a10best
Legend
Well, that scenario is correct if your serve is fast and hard to see the spot. Are you referring to friendly practice matches at the park?
I cannot recall anyone allowing that in competitive rec. leagues or higher levels. You play the ball and that's it. If you don't you lose the point.
A clear foot out is a different matter. I surely won't take an ace if it's a foot out. When it's a 50-50 ball in or out it's better to just play out the point. That's normal, more fair and sportsmanlike instead of questioning each close serve you hit from the opposite side of the ct.
The only serves I don't mind seeing called out by the server and replayed are women's pro beach volleyball.
recreationalplayer
Semi-Pro
They should have kept their mouth shut but a point played is a point played regardless, in or out.
I played an official USTA league match where my opponent called multiple balls out on himself, though they weren't on the serve. They were close balls near the sideline that I thought were probably out but were too close for me to be certain. So I kept playing, but he stopped the point and gave it to me. I think he just had much better eyesight compared to mine.
I accepted the points because he was so confident that his shots were out. At the time it seemed strangely generous, I might even say annoyingly generous. But now that I know that it's in USTA's written code, it makes more sense.
I don't think anyone is saying a 50-50 / close ball should be interrogated by the player who hit the shot. We're only talking about the clear ones that the receiver, for some reason, didn't see well. Could be that it was a foot out, or could be that the player/team who hit the shot just got an especially good look at it.
Captain Crunch
New User
A couple of years ago, I played a co-ed UTR singles match against a woman who was basically a beginner and an acquaintance at the time. I'm a guy and can hit a pretty hard serve. By the looks of her glasses, her vision isn't (wasn't) great. She had no idea whether my hard first serves were going in or not. I called several of them out on myself that she was unable to return and took second serves. Match was 0&0.
Now for the funny part... she later became (and still is) a USTA Official.
I hope she got lasix…
E.T.
Rookie
I think if you’re playing against a much lower level opponent who obviously cannot see the ball and you’re going to kill them anyways, of course it makes sense to help them call their lines. Playing a competitive doubles match against similarly rated opponents, however, not so much.
E.T.
Rookie
I’ve had it happen way too many times where I stop playing because I know my serve was out, yet the other team returns it anyways and then says “oh, we saw it in” and they receive the point. Learn to call lines on your side of the court, especially in doubles where there are two of you to do it.
