Would you give them the point?

[chatt_town]

Yea, along with Sharapova.....Everyone is talking about how you cause one with your mouth...what about these folks that use their feet? You know....the ones that give the appearance they are moving by running and scrubbing their feet real loud on purpose. That is clearly to distract you. I nailed a woman in the chest once for that nonsense. The ball was short and rather than her use her feet to get back....she shuffled them on the court to distract me. I simply drilled a forehand that caught her in the chest and then simply told her....I heard your feet and thought you'd ran to the baseline.....I clearly saw her standing at the net. She stopped shuffling her feet. lol

There is no doubt that what azarenka does could be called hindrance in a USTA league match.

 

[cknobman]

Yea, along with Sharapova.....Everyone is talking about how you cause one with your mouth...what about these folks that use their feet? You know....the ones that give the appearance they are moving by running and scrubbing their feet real loud on purpose. That is clearly to distract you. I nailed a woman in the chest once for that nonsense. The ball was short and rather than her use her feet to get back....she shuffled them on the court to distract me. I simply drilled a forehand that caught her in the chest and then simply told her....I heard your feet and thought you'd ran to the baseline.....I clearly saw her standing at the net. She stopped shuffling her feet. lol

I have come across a player or two that does that. In fact a came across one player that did it while I was serving. Right when I would toss the ball I would hear very loud squeaking from their feet. I guess they could have been legitimately moving their feet to get ready for their shot but the squeaking was absurdly loud and I felt that it was intentional.

 

[gmatheis]

That's bull$hit. "Get back" and back are two different things. If it were a problem, he would have done it the 5 or 6 times I did it in the first set or in the second. Something that's not a distraction to you in the first set can't all of a sudden become one in the 3rd set. That's been a poor sportsman. The words "get back" have never been used to call a ball out. I've heard tons of people over the last 10 years or so yell "get back" on a bad lob. What's the alternative? Stay quiet and let your partner get nailed between the eyes? I don't think so. The other thing is he turned to go after it and after taking one step decided this was a problem. Nah...You won't get a hindrance call on me in that situation. If you tell me that the first time I do it, I might buy into that, but not in the third set.

It doesn't matter if it is in the third set or the first set. Just because a person doesn't call you on it the first time you do it doesn't deny them the right to call you on it later.

Many people will put up with it for a while but finally get tired of you breaking the rules and finally call you on it.

The rules are pretty clear , why don't you just stop breaking them and you won't have to worry about it.

 

[luvn10is]

The 2011 FAC says:

"32. Talking during point. A player shall not talk while a ball is moving toward an opponent’s side of the court. If a player’s talking interferes with an opponent’s ability to play a ball, the player loses the point. For example, if a doubles player hits a weak lob and loudly yells at the player’s partner to get back and if the shout is loud enough to distract an opponent, then the opponent may claim the point based on a deliberate hindrance. If the opponent chooses to hit the lob and misses it, the opponent loses the point because the opponent did not make a timely claim of hindrance"​

That still seems pretty clear to me...

As I posted earlier, someone pulled out their copy of Friend at Court and this is what she read to us:

USTA Comment 26.1:What is the difference between a deliberate and an unintentional act? Deliberate means a player did what the player intended to do, even if the result was unintended. An example is a player who hits a short lob in doubles and loudly shouts “back” just before an opponent hits the overhead. (See The Code § 33.) Unintentional refers to an act over which a player has no control, such as a hat blowing off or a scream after a wasp sting.

Now, the above is ambiguous. However, had she kept scanning the code she would've come to 32 and the issue would've been settled. We clear now?

 

[spot]

luvn10is... for that portion of the code you read is explicitly stating that it shoudl be considered a deliberate act. How do you think that is ambiguous?

 

[luvn10is]

luvn10is... for that portion of the code you read is explicitly stating that it shoudl be considered a deliberate act. How do you think that is ambiguous?

My response was to kylebarendrick whose response was in response to one of my responses. You take it out of context.

 

[equinox]

"OUT" call ended the point.

Your partner either stands by the call (and cheats) or gives up the point for incorrect call or opposition claiming hindrance.

That said opposition claiming hindrance should do so in timely manner before hitting the ball / missing next shot.

But yeah incorrect call, opposition point.

 

[chatt_town]

No, that is clearly people trying to use the rule book to win a match. You know what bothers you and what doesn't. In 10 years that is the first time anyone has said that me telling my partner to get back was distracting them. The only way you will get a point from me doing that nonsense is it's a usta santioned match and the ref is standing there and sees it as distracting. I'll never have anyone do some nonesense like that and get away with it otherwise. People tell their partners all the time to get back. If the truth be told if you've played tennis for any length of time, you've told your partner to get back a time or two...So don't front. I say just play the game and if you are taking an @$$whipping...then just take it. It's not the end of the world. They were taking an beating that night in front of a bunch of their friends they had invited out. They needed one incident where they could pi$$ and moan about losing. There were no line call incidents because we were both putting away overheads through the middle of the court so this was the only chance to create drama...I quickly defused it and we finished dusting them off. Like I said...you won't ever get that call from me in a match. That's one rule you and usta can suck @$$ on. I won't risk one of my partner's being lit up with an overhead because I decided to play by the rules and let them get cranked. You have to use common sense in applying any rule and 99 percent of the people I've seen play have played like this only on this one instance I had someone try to to say it was a distraction...not to mention the fact he was saying it himself as we were bringing down the overheads in all 3 sets. They had invited a bunch of friends and they were getting taken to the wood shed that evening. So again...you play by that rule. I'll keep notifying my partner to get back and unless an official is standing there, you won't get the point unless you earn it.

It doesn't matter if it is in the third set or the first set. Just because a person doesn't call you on it the first time you do it doesn't deny them the right to call you on it later.

Many people will put up with it for a while but finally get tired of you breaking the rules and finally call you on it.

The rules are pretty clear , why don't you just stop breaking them and you won't have to worry about it.

 

[spot]

I'll keep notifying my partner to get back and unless an official is standing there, you won't get the point unless you earn it.

Or if the opponent calls hindrance and then they get the point there isn't anything you can do about it other than act like a huge baby about having to follow the rules. And I say this as someone who absolutely does tell my partner to get back in that situation- I just do it knowing that the opponent is entitled to claim the point if they feel like they were distracted.

 

[jk175d]

I recently played a match during which our opponents often loudly called "in" near the time that their ball bounced onto our court. Technically, the ball was not moving toward our court; it had already hit our court (and we were about to hit it back).

I realize that the other team is not allowed to call whether the ball is in or out on our side of the court; in each case, the ball was indeed in. My question is whether it would have been appropriate to stop play and call a hindrance when this happened.

I don't know if I would stop play and claim the point on a hindrance, but if it happened a couple of times I would definately ask them to stop yelling when the ball was on our side of the net.

To the OP, as soon as anyone yells "out", the point is over. Again, I might play through the first time and ask that they use a different word for their signals.

 

[chatt_town]

You call it what you want. I'm glad that 99 percent of the people that I play with and against don't act like twerps and just take their @$$whippings. I take mine as well. I also play by the rules within reason. Some of you kill me getting on here acting like you are hollier than thou. If you applied every single rule in every single instance that was in that book, you'd still be playing a match that you started the first day you ever played tennis. Again...you have to use some common sense in applying any rule. Those rules change every year anyway because some of them are stupid. This is one just hasn't come up yet. So like I said...you keep playing by it. I'll keep notifying my partner to get back. You should also play by the rule and not notify your partner..then once they are done having surgery to remove all the fuzz from their eye..you can point out to them and let them read the rule with the one good eye they have left that made you keep quiet while an over head was hammered into their eye.

Or if the opponent calls hindrance and then they get the point there isn't anything you can do about it other than act like a huge baby about having to follow the rules. And I say this as someone who absolutely does tell my partner to get back in that situation- I just do it knowing that the opponent is entitled to claim the point if they feel like they were distracted.

 

[Cindysphinx]

Relax. Warn your partner if you want. There is no need to scream. If you use a calm voice, your opponent will not have a problem.

 

[tennis_ocd]

I also play by the rules within reason.

It's the "within reason" part where things can get fun.

 

[gameboy]

Why would following rules make match go longer? Many of the rules shorten the game (like over-ruling your mistaken call).

 

[spot]

I also play by the rules within reason.

And to me this means you are perfectly OK with cheating. You don't get to pick and choose the rules that you are OK with following. If you want to pitch a fit because someone wants you to play by the rules that says a ton about you.

 

[chatt_town]

Trust me Cindy. You would have just had to be there. There was a lot going on other than tennis. We had just left their alta team 2 months prior. There was some bad blood there to begin with. Then he ran into us in a tourney and for a while he thought he had a chance of winning. So he invited everyone and their mother out. I never screamed for her to get back in the whole time we played....and like I said...he yelled it more than we did as were cranking overheads left and right. They are a bit older and had more problems getting out of the way. He had also been nailed like 3 times. On top of all of that we were running away with the third set. So he was looking for any reason to create drama when he realized he was fighting a younger team....a more fit team and just a better team in general. We were serving 4-1(forget score of game) but it was getting ugly. Like I said...he was just creating drama. So when he started for the lob and then stopped...I wasn't having any of it. I took the point...the game and eventually the match.

Relax. Warn your partner if you want. There is no need to scream. If you use a calm voice, your opponent will not have a problem.

 

[chatt_town]

You are right about that.

It's the "within reason" part where things can get fun.

 

[chatt_town]

Well they wouldn't in a perfect world...like on here where are discussing them...but if you don't believe me go out tomorrow and play some folks in doubles. Call every foot fault...every time someone reaches over the net...call a let or hindrance everytime you hear the other team's sneakers squeaking...or when a bird comes through the court...just to name a few and see how long you spend hashing that **** out. Like I said, you have to follow rules within reason. Played another team the other day where the woman was scrubbing her feet on the court as you I was trying to hit the ball to distract me. Rather than calling a hindrance...I just lauched a few at her head at the net. It was no longer a problem because she was at the baseline the rest of the evening. I didn't have time to stop the point and call a hindrance that I might or might not have gotten. It sounds good on here to say just call a hindrance but try enforcing it.

Why would following rules make match go longer? Many of the rules shorten the game (like over-ruling your mistaken call).

 

[chatt_town]

No, you got it backwards. Like I said....only an @$$ would try something like what he pulled. He invited people out and there were quite a few people out there. He was yelling get back the whole night and so were we....then in the third set when he's down 1-4..."ooooo i thought you meant back" on a serve that landed in the middle of the box. Yea....whatever...that's point...0-40. I am having none of it. Like I said...you along with anyone else that thinks that's okay...then you play like that...get your partner lit up like a christmas tree....I'm not doing that and again.....if you wait until the 1-4 in the third set...you won't get the point unless there is an official standing there. You can think what you wish about me. I really don't care. You don't pay for any of my tennis balls or the raquets I play with. Hopefully we don't run into each other and you leave up a short lob. If you do one of us are going to crank the overhead and then when we miss it will claim hindrance on for yelling get back and we will see how you respond because that is basically what he did. Once he turned and took took a step and realized he could not run the lob down...he then turned and claimed the hindrance. Nahhh...you don't get two chances to win the point with me.

And to me this means you are perfectly OK with cheating. You don't get to pick and choose the rules that you are OK with following. If you want to pitch a fit because someone wants you to play by the rules that says a ton about you.

 

[gmatheis]

Well they wouldn't in a perfect world...like on here where are discussing them...but if you don't believe me go out tomorrow and play some folks in doubles. Call every foot fault...every time someone reaches over the net...call a let or hindrance everytime you hear the other team's sneakers squeaking...or when a bird comes through the court...just to name a few and see how long you spend hashing that **** out. Like I said, you have to follow rules within reason. Played another team the other day where the woman was scrubbing her feet on the court as you I was trying to hit the ball to distract me. Rather than calling a hindrance...I just lauched a few at her head at the net. It was no longer a problem because she was at the baseline the rest of the evening. I didn't have time to stop the point and call a hindrance that I might or might not have gotten. It sounds good on here to say just call a hindrance but try enforcing it.

#1 - foot faults are only to be called when they are obvious and a warning has been given. And if someone is obviously foot faulting (as in taking an entire step into the court when serving) then why wouldn't you call them on it?
#2 - reaching over the net you call on yourself, not on another person.
#3 - sneakers squeaking is not a hinderance unless the person did it in an obvious attempt to distract you.

Playing by the rules doesn't take any longer

 

[chatt_town]

Horse poop....So tell me...who decides if it's obvious? I clearly see you are foot faulting but you throw a Roddick like tantrum when called for doing so. So I warn you and when you do it again and you are still in denial....what do we do? Remember now....there is no referee...but this is a league match. 2....yea you do call it on yourself but it's no different than the hindrance call. I say you did...you say you didn't. All I had to do was deny that I ever even said back when I clearly did....going on what you are posting here. As for number 3....that's what she was clearly doing....standing in place scrubbing her feet loudly.

#1 - foot faults are only to be called when they are obvious and a warning has been given. And if someone is obviously foot faulting (as in taking an entire step into the court when serving) then why wouldn't you call them on it?
#2 - reaching over the net you call on yourself, not on another person.
#3 - sneakers squeaking is not a hinderance unless the person did it in an obvious attempt to distract you.

Playing by the rules doesn't take any longer

 

[spot]

Horse poop....So tell me...who decides if it's obvious? I clearly see you are foot faulting but you throw a Roddick like tantrum when called for doing so. So I warn you and when you do it again and you are still in denial....what do we do? Remember now....there is no referee...but this is a league match. 2....yea you do call it on yourself but it's no different than the hindrance call. I say you did...you say you didn't. All I had to do was deny that I ever even said back when I clearly did....going on what you are posting here. As for number 3....that's what she was clearly doing....standing in place scrubbing her feet loudly.

You would think that the USTA would put out a pamphlet of guidelines or rules for how to resolve these kinds of situations when there isn't a referee present.

 

[woodrow1029]

You would think that the USTA would put out a pamphlet of guidelines or rules for how to resolve these kinds of situations when there isn't a referee present.

They do. It's in the Friend at Court and called "The Code". It's available online for free.

 

[chatt_town]

Yea, it is and I've seen people pull it out and it still take 15 or 20 minutes to resolve the issue. The book doesn't tell you how to deal with @$$holes. You have to figure that out yourself.

They do. It's in the Friend at Court and called "The Code". It's available online for free.

 

[spot]

Yea, it is and I've seen people pull it out and it still take 15 or 20 minutes to resolve the issue. The book doesn't tell you how to deal with @$$holes. You have to figure that out yourself.

You do realize that you are the @$$hole that isn't willing to follow the actual rules when they aren't convenient for you? Ignoring a rule that someone is 100% entitled to call you on is the definition of being an @sshole on the court. The fact that it takes you 20 minutes to read the code isn't justification for ignoring them.

 

[Cindysphinx]

They do. It's in the Friend at Court and called "The Code". It's available online for free.

Uh oh. Spot was being sarcastic.

Chatt, there's "following the rules," and there's "letting things go."

If you don't want to call a flagrant footfault because you just don't want to go there, then don't. If you decide to let it slide, this does not mean you are not following the rules.

If your opponent is an idiot who tries to wave her arms while you are hitting an overhead, you could call a hindrance. Or you can just put the ball away and not play with that pinhead again.

Your only obligation under the Code is follow the Code yourself. If you don't wish to take action when your opponent doesn't (perhaps because you want to save time), then you are free to do so.

 

[spot]

I think that footfaults are the perfect example of this. Probably 90% of rec players foot fault and most do it flagrantly. I've never called someone for a footfault and I don't think that I ever would. If someone were to call me for a footfault, I can think they were doing it for petty reasons but to me that doesn't give me justification for acting like a petulant child and simply ignoring the rule because it would be more convenient for me. Instead I'd just move back to make sure that I was no longer footfaulting since they are entirely within their rights to call me for it.

 

[chatt_town]

no, you obviously have a problem with reading. You don't get two chances to win a point with me. You don't turn to go for a lob and then see you can't get to it and then decide that you were hindered. That's bull$hit and no you wont get the point from mefor that anymore than you would if you play a ball close to the line and then decide when your ball is flying off the fence that mine was out. I think you need to think through what you are saying as opposed to attacking me. No one gets two chances at the point. it may say something about that in the rule book. i'll let Woodrow or whoever point it out if it's there. if it's not...I guess it's understood.

You do realize that you are the @$$hole that isn't willing to follow the actual rules when they aren't convenient for you? Ignoring a rule that someone is 100% entitled to call you on is the definition of being an @sshole on the court. The fact that it takes you 20 minutes to read the code isn't justification for ignoring them.

 

[chatt_town]

Cindy,

You bring up very valid points and that's exactly how i play. i generally only call balls out to get the points because that's how 99 percent of the points are earned. My biggest thing is and no one has addressed it is this. What does the book say about getting two chances at the point. An example could be use with this foot fault....Most big servers never believe their serves are back much less that they are foot faulting....i'd like to see how that turns out after they pound out an ace and you call a foot fault and try to take the point or even make them take a second serve after the ball has slid across the T. What most are saying here sounds good....but no one here would have allowed what the guy tried to do to me either. He couldn't retrieve the lob so he turned to basically tried to call a hindrance after he took a step to go get the lob. Nope...i wasn't having it and most of you wouldn't have either. Some here are just talking **** because it's convienent.

Uh oh. Spot was being sarcastic.

Chatt, there's "following the rules," and there's "letting things go."

If you don't want to call a flagrant footfault because you just don't want to go there, then don't. If you decide to let it slide, this does not mean you are not following the rules.

If your opponent is an idiot who tries to wave her arms while you are hitting an overhead, you could call a hindrance. Or you can just put the ball away and not play with that pinhead again.

Your only obligation under the Code is follow the Code yourself. If you don't wish to take action when your opponent doesn't (perhaps because you want to save time), then you are free to do so.

 

[spot]

no, you obviously have a problem with reading. You don't get two chances to win a point with me. You don't turn to go for a lob and then see you can't get to it and then decide that you were hindered. That's bull$hit and no you wont get the point from mefor that anymore than you would if you play a ball close to the line and then decide when your ball is flying off the fence that mine was out. I think you need to think through what you are saying as opposed to attacking me. No one gets two chances at the point. it may say something about that in the rule book. i'll let Woodrow or whoever point it out if it's there. if it's not...I guess it's understood.

I had a similiar instance. The wife and I were playing a couple and for 2 1/2 sets I'd been yelling "get back!" whenever I through up a short lob and she would retreat. Well...we are kicking their @$$ in the third so the guy serves and vollies on the deuce side to me. He's about 6'9 but the girl couldn't jump for anything...so I'd lob the ball over her head and the guy couldn't get situated to hit the overhead because He was too far in. So now he wants to stop play and say he heard "back" and thought I called the serve back. He really did it because he couldn't go in reverse to get that lob

In this situation he is 100% entitled to take the point. HIs partner hit the serve- you shouted back and he called hindrance without making a play on the ball. There are no 2 chances here as he DIDN'T MAKE A PLAY ON THE BALL. It would be different if he took the overhead and missed it. It would be different if his partner ran across and missed the ball and then tried to claim the point. He didn't make a play on the ball and called hindrance so you are just flat cheating if you don't give them the point since you broke the rules. Maybe he was being a jerk for claiming the point, but its a point he is allowed to take. You don't get to try and read your opponents mind- he called hindrance when you shouted out with the ball going toward him, he didn't make a play on the ball, it is his point to take. Its pretty ridiculous of you to try and say that it was such a short lob that you felt the need to yell at your partner to get back while also saying that your lob was so devastating that your opponents had no play on the ball.

 

[chatt_town]

well what would you do if they called the foot fault after they have clearly hit the ball and it's clearly going out. That's what I mean by two chances to win the point and that's what happened to me. I don't play like that. If you don't call it right when it happens I'm not going to let you decide to call something after you lost the initial chance to win the point by playing it and after it's about over you decide to pull out the rule book. I don't think you'd go for it either.

I think that footfaults are the perfect example of this. Probably 90% of rec players foot fault and most do it flagrantly. I've never called someone for a footfault and I don't think that I ever would. If someone were to call me for a footfault, I can think they were doing it for petty reasons but to me that doesn't give me justification for acting like a petulant child and simply ignoring the rule because it would be more convenient for me. Instead I'd just move back to make sure that I was no longer footfaulting since they are entirely within their rights to call me for it.

 

[chatt_town]

No, you are still not getting it...he was serving and volleying....he served...ran in and I took the serve and put it over his partner's head...he then turned and took a step to go get the lob and then decided it was too much and turned back and decided he thought he heard "back". He made a play on the ball when he turned and took a step in the opposite direction in which he was running...I don't know what you perceive to be making a play on the ball but just merely swinging at the ball is not to me the only way to make a play on the ball. Him turning and taking a step to go get it is making a play on the ball. You're busy trying to make me be wrong you are making **** up that I never said. I never said his partner served. I said he took a step to go get the lob. He was the one serving...and after he hauled @$$ in he tried to turn and go get the lob.....he's about 6'10 so once he got close enough I took and hit the lob where he couldn't get it(his backhand side) as I was in the deuce court. Now...I can't paint a better picture than that. lol

In this situation he is 100% entitled to take the point. HIs partner hit the serve- you shouted back and he called hindrance without making a play on the ball. There are no 2 chances here as he DIDN'T MAKE A PLAY ON THE BALL. It would be different if he took the overhead and missed it. It would be different if his partner ran across and missed the ball and then tried to claim the point. He didn't make a play on the ball and called hindrance so you are just flat cheating if you don't give them the point since you broke the rules. Maybe he was being a jerk for claiming the point, but its a point he is allowed to take. You don't get to try and read your opponents mind- he called hindrance when you shouted out with the ball going toward him, he didn't make a play on the ball, it is his point to take. Its pretty ridiculous of you to try and say that it was such a short lob that you felt the need to yell at your partner to get back while also saying that your lob was so devastating that your opponents had no play on the ball.

 

[dcdoorknob]

Taking one step towards a ball doesn't constitute making a play on the ball.

I'd be curious to hear exactly where that line is, if it is even officially defined (woodrow?), but I'm pretty sure that taking one step towards a ball doesn't cut it.

 

[chatt_town]

Sure it does...especially when you reverse your steps to go get a ball that was going in the opposite direction as you were going to begin with. it's no different than like I said playing a ball off the ground close to the line then after you see your ball flying out calling the ball you hit out. That's two chances at winning the point. now all this is up for interpretation of the rules and i deemed he had made a play for the ball and then decided the lob was out of reach so he then turns and says the nonsense he said....nope....not buying into it. You can play rule guide with a few others on here but at the end of the day....most of you play exactly the same way i do. You are just here talking. Most of you would raise all hell....i didn't i just simply told him you made a play on the ball and you don't get two chances at winning the point.

Taking one step towards a ball doesn't constitute making a play on the ball.

I'd be curious to hear exactly where that line is, if it is even officially defined (woodrow?), but I'm pretty sure that taking one step towards a ball doesn't cut it.