Talk About Tennis 2.0

ti-amie wrote: ↑Tue Mar 26, 2024 11:54 pm Musetti's coach was talking to him the entire match and TC let us hear him. Not that it mattered because of course they were speaking Italian. And not that it affected the outcome of the match. Carlos won easily 3&3

meganfernandez wrote: ↑Wed Mar 27, 2024 12:14 am Hubie threw a racket! Wow, never thought I'd see him boil over. His foot hit the bottom of the net while sliding for a ball in the third-set tiebreak. He looked down when it touched, so I'm surprised he was mad at the chair for calling it. We couldn't see if the ball was already dead, but probably not. He didn't seem to be arguing whether he touched before or after the point was dead. And he has to know he touched the net.

I've always thought it was a silly rule, something that (in most cases) has no effect on the playability of the ball and confers no advantage on the player.

Same as when a live ball touches a player standing out of bounds before it hits the ground. I hate that the player loses the point. I've seen it happen where the player was running to cover the open court, the opponent shanked the ball so it went right to them, and the player couldn't contort their body fast enough to get out of the way. But they were standing several feet out, so the ball was several feet out while still in the air. In no way is it just that the player lost the point. It's so obvious. Patently unfair. And the rules can get that right.

ponchi101 wrote: ↑Wed Mar 27, 2024 2:19 pm

meganfernandez wrote: ↑Wed Mar 27, 2024 12:14 am Hubie threw a racket! Wow, never thought I'd see him boil over. His foot hit the bottom of the net while sliding for a ball in the third-set tiebreak. He looked down when it touched, so I'm surprised he was mad at the chair for calling it. We couldn't see if the ball was already dead, but probably not. He didn't seem to be arguing whether he touched before or after the point was dead. And he has to know he touched the net.

I've always thought it was a silly rule, something that (in most cases) has no effect on the playability of the ball and confers no advantage on the player.

Same as when a live ball touches a player standing out of bounds before it hits the ground. I hate that the player loses the point. I've seen it happen where the player was running to cover the open court, the opponent shanked the ball so it went right to them, and the player couldn't contort their body fast enough to get out of the way. But they were standing several feet out, so the ball was several feet out while still in the air. In no way is it just that the player lost the point. It's so obvious. Patently unfair. And the rules can get that right.

Neither rule is dumb. They have logical reasons behind them.
Imagine that you are playing doubles and you can touch the net. Well, nothing stops YOUR partner from stepping on the net and making it a little bit lower for your stroke.
Or.
You run into the net, and bring it down (accidentally). But, if you are allowed to touch the net, that would be a hindrance, and a point replay, when in reality, your opponent was not at fault.
Or.
You are very close to the net and ready for a volley. If you can touch the net, how about a little bringing it down with your non-racquet hand?

About being hit by the ball outside the lines. Same thing. If you are standing several feet out, sure, that is clear. But what if you are standing ON the line? The ball hit your foot, and you were right there? What is the call? Was the ball landing in or out? Well, it hit you, so you really can't tell. So, better make a rule that ensures that the grey areas are not there.
The rules of tennis are designed to make sure that grey areas are not there to be interpreted by the chair. So, it is always fair for both players.