I won't address every point in replies to my last post, as I don't want this to get antagonistic and as they don't concern our main discussion; I'll let some of the condescending remarks go.
But I will touch upon these:
-"I've hit overheads....."...baseball players being expected to return your overheads, etc.
I never said or even implied anything like these; on the contrary, I clearly remember saying that the second bounce could occur miles away, as long as it didn't occur on the dropshotter's court (within the boundaries).
-as for "having a difficult time accepting this", look, I honestly don't care one way or the other. You failed to convince me because none of you ever made any argument explaining why I was wrong (the USTA Q & A page which you linked me to contains no explanation either)
Finally, you explained the rule; or, the correct interpretation of it. You could have done this much earlier.
Actually I figured out that I could be wrong, while writing my previous post, but wanted to wait till someone else brought it up. So, "twice consecutively" could mean, and apparently does mean, with the second bounce occuring anywhere. I interpreted it as meaning 'the second can be anywhere BUT the opponent's court', since once it landed on that court it would count as a return, the first bounce would be nullified and the ball would still be in play. Fair enough . But the rule does not in any way state this clearly. Therefore my earlier criticism regarding ambiguity still stands. You may not think it is vaguely stated, since you already may have witnessed an official decision, or are content with USTA's comment on that link, but the text of rule 24 can be interpreted both ways.
This brings me to a similar but more extreme case: what if player A hit a dropshot but it was blown back to his court without ever bouncing on player B's court? From player B's perspective, he never made a return and it bounced twice on player A's court (B couldn't return it before two consecutive bounces). I think it's obvious it would be B's point this time because the ball never bounced on his court. So having gone over the net is not enough. Fine. But where does Rule 24 or Rule 25 state this? it merely says "twice consecutively", there's no proviso regarding the first bounce. "return the ball in play" apparently covers this, I guess, but I'm stupid enough to think that when two players are volleying back and forth, without a single bounce, the ball is in play! This what I mean by the rule being not clear enough.
And one more case: same as the basic one but after the ball goes back over the net (one bounce on B's court), it touches player A. is this touching considered a bounce, or is A hindering B from returning it before the second bounce; what if the ball is in A's midcourt, where b can't reach it no matter what. What if the ball is blown back so fast that A can't evade it? A probably loses the point, even though the last incident would be a bit unfair. I know the rule about player touching ball, but how would it work in this situation?