Another instance on the USTA website:
Pulled from this page, 2/3 of the way down on the page: http://www.usta.com/USTA/Global/Improve_Your_Game/Archive/Tennis_Tips/Rules_and_Line_Calls/Misc_Rules.aspx
I read this and I am not convinced:
"Q. I returned an opponent’s ball with a slice and the ball went over the net (barely), landed on her side of the court and bounced back on my side. My opponent was of course unable to return. I say it was my point. She argues. What say you?
A. It is your point. It is a rare, and great, shot. Enjoy it, because this happens so infrequently.
On another note, this would be the only instance when your opponent would be permitted to lean over the net and make contact with the ball on your side of the court, without physically touching the net of course."
This is hardly 'official'. The person answering this 'casually' has not truly understood the official rule; he/she is contradicting the rule. Notice that he/she never explains why it is their point. Methinks this does not refute my argument; sorry, Scott, but this is the only thing you have been able to come up with and you keep bringing it up again. I see you have no argument or explanation of your own, you're just relying on this flimsy tidbit.
Ok, finally, the OFFICIAL ATP 2008 RULEBOOK page 186 says:
24. PLAYeR Loses PoiNT
The point is lost if:
a. The player serves two consecutive faults; orb. The player does not return the ball in play before it bounces twice consecutively;
c. The player returns the ball in play so that it hits the ground, or before it bounces, an
object, outside the correct court; or
d. The player returns the ball in play so that, before it bounces, it hits a permanent fixture;
e. The receiver returns the service before it bounces; or
f. The player deliberately carries or catches the ball in play on the racket or deliberately
touches it with the racket more than once; or
g. The player or the racket, whether in the player’s hand or not, or anything which the
player is wearing or carrying touches the net, net posts/singles sticks, cord or metal
cable, strap or band, or the opponent’s court at any time while the ball is in play; or
h. The player hits the ball before it has passed the net; or
i. The ball in play touches the player or anything that the player is wearing or carrying,
except the racket; or
j. The ball in play touches the racket when the player is not holding it; or
k. The player deliberately and materially changes the shape of the racket when the
ball is in play; or
l. In doubles, both players touch the ball when returning it.
25. A GooD ReTURN
It is a good return if:
a. The ball touches the net, net posts/singles sticks, cord or metal cable, strap or band,
provided that it passes over any of them and hits the ground within the correct
court; except as provided in Rule 2 and 24 (d); orb. After the ball in play has hit the ground within the correct court and has spun or
been blown back over the net, the player reaches over the net and plays the ball
into the correct court, provided that the player does not break Rule 24
I see nothing here that proves me wrong; these are compatible with what I've been saying.
24 b clearly states a return must be made before two consecutive bounces. why else would they use the words 'twice' and 'consecutively'?
in our scenario the dropshotter's opponent never returned it; but the ball never bounced twice consecutively on his court. therefore, he has not lost the point.
the dropshotter, on the other hand, by leaving the backspinning ball to bounce twice on his court, HAS FAILED TO MAKE A RETURN. What part of this do you not understand?
As for 25 b, it merely says that in such a case the opponent can reach over the net to make a return. It DOES NOT say he MUST make a return this way.
Clear as day.
These are the only two rules that refer to this situation and they clearly prove what I've been saying all along.
Please indulge me with your own arguments and interpretation by sticking only to these official rules I have posted, not some short and casual Q & A session on USTA's page.
And Pacer, patting your buddy on the back telling him he's right...yeah, what great argumentation skills on your part. Well, Scott must be right then, if you say so!