What's the ruling on this?

[BiGGieStuFF]

Say I'm about to serve a 2nd serve. As I start the point I notice a ball on my side of the court. It must have been my 1st serve that rolled back in but stopped before I served. I just didn't notice it while because I was already in motion.

My opponent has already hit the return in the direction of the ball. I return his shot and right afterwards I pick up the ball and put it in my pocket because I didn't want to trip on it. Opponent stops the point and calls a let.

Is he able to call a let since the ball was already on the court? He said watching me pick up the ball was a hindrance and a let should be called.

It didn't matter to me. I was more than happy to replay the point but I just wanted to get verification on this in case it does happen in the future.

 

[greg_in_atl]

I am pretty sure that he can call the let for the reason that he gave -- the presence of that ball on the court (anywhere on the court, i.e., in his field of vision).

On the flip side, I don't think you (the server) could have called a let because it was incumbent on you to clear the errant 1st serve ball from play before you started your motion for your 2nd serve.

So, I think you did the right thing.

 

[BiGGieStuFF]

I am pretty sure that he can call the let for the reason that he gave -- the presence of that ball on the court (anywhere on the court, i.e., in his field of vision).

On the flip side, I don't think you (the server) could have called a let because it was incumbent on you to clear the errant 1st serve ball from play before you started your motion for your 2nd serve.

So, I think you did the right thing.

Yeah my thought was that the ball was already on the court and he saw it as well so he couldn't call a let since the ball was already there but if me picking up the ball caused a hindrance I could see where he can call a let.

 

[Sakkijarvi]

I concur with the previous post, leave it alone, no let call allowed by opponent. Although he may have been able to call a let when you first served?? But not after the rally continued since the ball was already there.

You pick it up, he can call a let.

 

[Topaz]

If the ball bothered your opponent, he should have asked you to pick it up before you hit your second serve. I don't think he can call it after the rally started, though I'm not sure.

 

[BiGGieStuFF]

I concur with the previous post, leave it alone, no let call allowed by opponent. Although he may have been able to call a let when you first served?? But not after the rally continued since the ball was already there.

You pick it up, he can call a let.

Yeah i had to pick it up.. I didn't want to risk tripping and I knew I couldn't call a let for myself since it was already on the court so I just risked picking it up and the worst that could happen is that a let or i would lose a point. better than losing my ankle.

 

[goober]

I am not sure if he can call a let because that wasn't deliberate hindrance. In fact if anything it put you at a disadvantage. If you dove or fell down going after a ball, could he call a hidrance because he was watching you and it distracted him? If you did funky wind up on your serve which you hadn't done all match could he call a hindrance because he was watching your windup? I would say in all cases no hindrance can be called.

 

[origmarm]

For me the opponent can call a let.

He could ask you to clear the ball before you served. If you have served and you leave the ball as is, then he has no right to call a let, however if the ball in play hits the ball on the court during the point, he wins the point. If you stoop to pick up the ball during the point I believe he can call a let but its grey. This is not a situation that is described in rules/code that I can think of

Personally I feel its a legitimate call, however I would be unlikely to make it as I feel you put yourself at a disadvantage and I would just use in the point. If my opponent made it I would not argue with it

 

[Joeyg]

Let. Once you stopped to pick up the ball.

 

[Cindysphinx]

No let for your stopping to pick up a ball, tie your shoe, pick up your dampener, kick a stick off the court etc. You can do any unorthodox thing during a point that you want, and that doesn't justify a let due to hindrance/distraction unless you're doing it to distract (waving arms, stamping feet).

If a ball is just sitting on the court (because both players opt to leave it there), neither player can change his mind and call a let later during the point.

If both players decide to leave a ball there and it later comes into play (wind, someone kicking it during a point), any player can call a let.

If it rolls there during your service motion, opponent would have to call a let then before return is struck and give you two serves. If he doesn't call it, he can't change his mind later.

I am pulling every word of this out of my backside. I don't think the Code is all that clear . . .

 

[CAM178]

He started the point by returning the ball, plain and simple. Sounds like he didn't like his return, so he called a BS let.

That would be like me calling a let because my opponent's shoelace is flying around and 'distracting' me.

 

[tennis-n-sc]

First, anyone can call a let.

Second, if both players knew the ball was on the court prior to the second serve, neither player can call let for the ball being on the court. It has, in effect, become part of the court, a permenant fixture. By the same token, when you began the point knowing the ball was on the court and then retrieved the ball while the point was in play, at the least a let should have been called. More likely a hinderance should be called since the act of retrieving the ball was deliberate, but probably not intended to hinder the opponent. This is a disruption of play easily avoided by removing any stray balls from the court prior to serving first or second serve.

 

[CAM178]

By the same token, when you began the point knowing the ball was on the court and then retrieved the ball while the point was in play, at the least a let should have been called. More likely a hinderance should be called since the act of retrieving the ball was deliberate,

Are you being serious? If so, dude, I would LOVE it if a player takes the time during a point to retrieve a ball. At what level is this where someone has the time to pick up a ball during a point and continue the point? If someone does that at my level, they can kiss the point goodbye. My opponent might as well stop and bake a cake.

No offense, but think of the time this takes. That's all I'm saying. This could only apply at 4.0 (bad 4.0, at that) and below.

 

[tennis-n-sc]

Well dude, I believe the question was "What is the ruling?". Not what would you have done from your lofty level of a good 4.0 or higher. And, yes, from a position of proper ruling, I would stand by my statement. Except, I believe there would be an argument for a hindrance rather than a likely hinderance call.

 

[BiGGieStuFF]

Are you being serious? If so, dude, I would LOVE it if a player takes the time during a point to retrieve a ball. At what level is this where someone has the time to pick up a ball during a point and continue the point? If someone does that at my level, they can kiss the point goodbye. My opponent might as well stop and bake a cake.

No offense, but think of the time this takes. That's all I'm saying. This could only apply at 4.0 (bad 4.0, at that) and below.

it didn't take much time at all. I picked it up when the ball bounced near it. I slicked my backhand and on the follow through picked it up and did a 360 to get back into the court. I had no problem setting up for my forehand when he called the let.

 

[CAM178]

Well dude, I believe the question was "What is the ruling?". Not what would you have done from your lofty level of a good 4.0 or higher. And, yes, from a position of proper ruling, I would stand by my statement. Except, I believe there would be an argument for a hindrance rather than a likely hinderance call.

Man, I was not trying to do the old 'in my ivory tower' thing. I was just being realistic. If I took the time to pick up a ball, the point would be over. Even if I could hit the ball, I would be so badly out of sync and position that I would have no chance.

I mean no offense. Please do not be so sensitive. It was just a speed equation, that's all.'

And I didn't even think about a slice (as posted above), as some slice shots can really slow down the point.

 

[origmarm]

First, anyone can call a let.

Second, if both players knew the ball was on the court prior to the second serve, neither player can call let for the ball being on the court. It has, in effect, become part of the court, a permenant fixture. By the same token, when you began the point knowing the ball was on the court and then retrieved the ball while the point was in play, at the least a let should have been called. More likely a hinderance should be called since the act of retrieving the ball was deliberate, but probably not intended to hinder the opponent. This is a disruption of play easily avoided by removing any stray balls from the court prior to serving first or second serve.

Agree entirely with this.

To answer Cam I don't think this is something that should really ever happen in a point and I would certainly never do it but at the same time the OPs question was whats the ruling not was it a good idea (for the record no ) hence the response. Still I don't think you would see it in practice above a certain level for the reasons you suggest

 

[cak]

Okay, from my 3.5 level, I've picked up balls at my feet while doing volley drills, and didn't miss a volley. Maybe it's tougher if you are tall, but for us folks close to the ground anyway the impressive part is getting is shoved into your shorts before the next ball.

As for the call, I have no idea. I am easily distracted ("Look, Hawk!") so I don't tend to call hinderences on anything, or it'd be pretty much on everything.

 

[CAM178]

Okay, from my 3.5 level, I've picked up balls at my feet while doing volley drills, and didn't miss a volley. Maybe it's tougher if you are tall, but for us folks close to the ground anyway the impressive part is getting is shoved into your shorts before the next ball.

As for the call, I have no idea. I am easily distracted ("Look, Hawk!") so I don't tend to call hinderences on anything, or it'd be pretty much on everything.

Yeah, but that's during drills, not during a match when someone has just returned a serve. Big difference.

Again, I'm just discussing, not arguing.

As for the call, I would accept the let, as at that point I would have no choice. As long as he gives me my 1st serve, we're good. I would further add to my opponent 'If you call a let again, I am either going to take the point, or we will get an umpire out here for the remainder of our match.'

Or you could just drop your racquet and tell Officer Barbrady that you want to call shenanigans on your opponent. Ha.

 

[Cindysphinx]

Where in the Code does it say players are justified in calling lets if opponents do something weird that is not intended to distract?

If we go back to the question a few weeks ago about my teammates who called a let when the opponent fell, the consensus here was that no let should have been called. So are we saying that falling isn't a distraction/hindrance but picking something up is?

Cindy -- who thinks nothing of knocking sticks or acorns off the court with her racket in the middle of points

 

[CAM178]

Cindy -- who thinks nothing of knocking sticks or acorns off the court with her racket in the middle of points

LOL. . . I thought I was the only one who does this!

 

[tennis-n-sc]

Man, I was not trying to do the old 'in my ivory tower' thing. I was just being realistic. If I took the time to pick up a ball, the point would be over. Even if I could hit the ball, I would be so badly out of sync and position that I would have no chance.

I mean no offense. Please do not be so sensitive. It was just a speed equation, that's all.'

And I didn't even think about a slice (as posted above), as some slice shots can really slow down the point.

No offense taken. I also don't know why anyone would try to retreive a ball in the middle of a point.

 

[tennis-n-sc]

Where in the Code does it say players are justified in calling lets if opponents do something weird that is not intended to distract?

If we go back to the question a few weeks ago about my teammates who called a let when the opponent fell, the consensus here was that no let should have been called. So are we saying that falling isn't a distraction/hindrance but picking something up is?

Cindy -- who thinks nothing of knocking sticks or acorns off the court with her racket in the middle of points

Well, going out on limb here, but falling down is seldom intentional. Ball retreival in middle of point is viewed a little differently. Unless, of course, it was unintentional, such as knocking sticks, acorns, or wooly worms off the court with a racket during a point.

 

[Supernatural_Serve]

I think the opponent can call a let and its justified. Imagine if you had kicked the ball intentionally (what I do sometimes, and nobody says anything) or not and it rolled aggressively toward the net, how about if it bounded over the net.

To me, the act of making contact with a 2nd ball with ones body or racquet, etc. is cause for a let.

But, then again, its not a cause for a let when a ball strikes an errant ball on the court, and one can still play the intended ball while the other one rolls around on the court all it wants and yet, that's not cause for a let.

So, it depends on who is more persuasive or easy going on the court.