Tennis Random, Random (On Court)

[meganfernandez]

Had a little controversy in my USTA match yesterday. Curious what you guys think about this scenario:

Singles match (not that it would matter), my opponent hits a groundstroke that is going to be long. About 70-80% into its flight path, so shortly before it's about to bounce, a ball from the next court comes toward me in the air. I see it but don't call a let. My opponent doesn't know that I see it, so she calls a let about a second before her ball bounces (indeed out). She insists we replay the point and could not understand why I thought we shouldn't replay the point once she said "let."

USTA rules allow you to call a let on your opponent's court, but i think that's mostly for safety or maybe if it distracts your eye. (In college tennis, you can't do that.) I asked her if the other court's ball distracted her before she hit the ball, and she said no, she was just making sure I saw it and didn't get hit. I thanked her for her consideration and pointed out that I actually did see it and didn't call a let because her ball was going to be out, and since it was out and the let ball/call didn't affect the play at all, the point should stand. She was flabbergasted and said once she says "let," we replay the point, no questions asked. She called it in good faith, I'm sure. But I disagreed. Even after you call a let, you can assess the circumstances and decide if one player deserves to have the point replayed. The whole point of her "let" was to make sure I was safe, not to right a wrong in regard to the play/point. I don't know what the rule is technically for this gray area, but regardless, courtesy would dictate that you concede take that point.

It was a pivotal point. I was serving at 4-5, 5-all in a very tough, tight match. We replayed it (honestly I didn't care that much) and she won the point, the set and the match. Not because of that point, but still.

What would you have done if you were her or me?

I'm with you.

Thanks. That's all I wanted, obviously, some validation.

[JTContinental]

If were on her side, I think it would be a different story, but in this instance, I'm also with you.

[meganfernandez]

If were on her side, I think it would be a different story, but in this instance, I'm also with you.

Okay, I'll take it. But what would justify replaying the point? Any let call in good faith, regardless of the fairness of the circumstances?

BTW, I found the USTA rule. "When a ball from another court enters the playing area, any player on the court affected may call a let as soon as the player becomes aware of the ball." She wasn't affected. She was kind, but not affected. I guess I should have looked it up.

[JTContinental]

Only the letter of the law

It's suspect for sure, and would definitely bug me

[ponchi101]

Had the ball in play (in your match) landed in, you and her would have accepted the let. The ball was still in play as it had not landed.
I would have called the let.

[meganfernandez]

Only the letter of the law

It's suspect for sure, and would definitely bug me

I actually found the rule after you replied and i think the letter of the law was on my side. I just didn't whip out the rule book. We were having a fantastic match and getting along really well. We had played a few weeks ago, and same thing. After explaining myself, I quite quickly agreed to replay the point because it wasn't worth making a fuss about - we were having fun and having a great match. We kept discussing it for a while because I thought perhaps we were disagreeing on the actual events, not the rule. I was surprised that the conversation turned tense, and it happened so fast, which probably affected the whole dynamic and outcome. Oh well. I'll know for next time.

[meganfernandez]

Had the ball in play (in your match) landed in, you and her would have accepted the let. The ball was still in play as it had not landed.
I would have called the let.

That's not the rule, though. Someone has to be affected to trigger a replay. Also, a let can only be called when a ball is live and in play, so I think live/dead status is moot.

And yeah, had the ball landed in, that would be a different set of circumstances, which would call for a different evaluation.

[Deuce]

Had a little controversy in my USTA match yesterday. Curious what you guys think about this scenario:

....

The whole point of her "let" was to warn me, not correct an unfairness in the play. I don't know what the rule is technically for this gray area, but regardless, courtesy (and common sense) would dictate that she concede that point.

....

What would you have done if you were her or me?

You are right in that courtesy and common sense would dictate that she concede the point.
But, as we are all too well aware, rules and laws do not always implement courtesy, and certainly not common sense.

Were I in your position, based on your description of the incident, I'd have likely taken the very same position as you took.
Were I in your opponent's position, I would have very likely conceded the point.

What would a chair umpire have called, though? Would it come down to the chair umpire's judgment as to whether the incoming ball from the other court had any effect on the point that was being played on your court? Or is it as ponchi suggests - that a let is called, halting the point immediately, as soon as the errant ball is seen on your court?
Tough one. But ethically, I am definitely with you.

BTW, I found the USTA rule. "When a ball from another court enters the playing area, any player on the court affected may call a let as soon as the player becomes aware of the ball." She wasn't affected. She was kind, but not affected. I guess I should have looked it up.

^ The way I read that rule, "any player on the court affected" means that if THE COURT is affected, not if one of the players is affected. Another (and perhaps more clear) way of writing it would be "When a ball from another court enters the playing area, any player on the court where the errant ball lands may call a let as soon as the player becomes aware of the ball."

[dmforever]

It was your point. The surprise she showed was either disingenuous or purposeful bravado to try to prove something that she knew was wrong. It's exactly the same principle as a late line call not being allowed to affect the subsequent shot if it was out. You're a good sport. She isn't. Sorry you lost.

Kevin

[Fastbackss]

She can be correct and it still be a poorly executed judgment call from a timing and situational awareness perspective.

[meganfernandez]

She can be correct and it still be a poorly executed judgment call from a timing and situational awareness perspective.

Exactly.

As Deuce pointed out below, the language is vague - does "affected" modify/the court or the player? I'd say player because if it was court, then affected should be before court - "any player on the affected court." My god, if I have to diagram a sentence to resolve a tennis dispute....

I think the rule needs clarification and I'm going to ask the USTA. Just to know the rule.

Thank you all for your feedback and commiserating.

[meganfernandez]

"Footsteps of Federer" comes out today on Amazon. The author is my friend Dave Seminara, a travel and tennis writer. For a preview, and a fascinating look at how he put his Federer pilgrimage together, below is an interview on Jeff Sackman's podcast (he's the Tennis Abstract guy, and a rabid traveler like Dave). Any Fed fan will love this. It also has a lot of entertaining insight into how Dave reports his tennis stories. He tracks down people all over the world, and there's one insane story about how he reached the oldest Davis Cup player ever, who played for Togo. (His oldest record has been broken... and Dave found that guy, too.)

"Footsteps" has an interesting secondary story--Dave's return to the court himself. He has played all his life but two autoimmune diseases forced him to stop for many years. He finally got well enough to play again, and he wanted to do that on the same courts Federer played on. He intertwined his dual pursuits - learning more about Fed by seeing where he grew up, and rediscovering his own game - into a pilgrimage. His trip coincided with the Basel tournament, where he was the only English-speaking reporter, so he got all the first questions in the press conferences and asked Roger some off-the-wall stuff. Great read and a fascinating podcast.

http://tennisabstract.com/podcast/Tenni ... MsTZCzreGc

Book

[ponchi101]

Looks like a fun book. Congrats to your friend

[meganfernandez]

Looks like a fun book. Congrats to your friend

He mentions Colombia in the podcast. Says he saw many more RF hats there than in Switzerland - because the Swiss don't fawn over Roger or any athlete. They adore him and show it at the Basel tournament, but otherwise they don't reveal themselves to be RF superfans.

Listening to the podcast, I kept wanting to ask Suliso, "Is that true?" when Dave interpreted something about Switzerland's character and applied it to Roger. Like the fact that he's not outspoken about social/political issues, something he is sometimes criticized for - is that the famous Swiss neutrality, as Dave observes, rather than a calculated move by Roger to keep sponsors happy? Also not fawning over athletes as celebrities. He also evidently discovered Europe's tennis club system there. I guess he wasn't familiar with the setup of little clubs in small towns, and that clubs compete against each other at all levels. Germany and France have the same thing, and Dave wonders if other countries do, too. I'd think so. Dave also said tennis clubs have good restaurants and are relatively affordable places to eat in Switzerland.

One great anecdote from Sackman - he wore an RF hat in Switzerland and no one said a thing. But on the train to Belgrade, an older woman shook her fist at him and said, "Not Roger. Novak."

[Suliso]

Likely true. There are a couple of "tabloid stars" around here, but Roger is not one of them. He keeps a fairly low profile off court as do vast majority of rich people here.