Author Topic: help me out with this line dispute...  (Read 4337 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline Tennis4you

  • Administrator
  • Tennis God
  • ******
  • Posts: 24878
  • Gender: Male
    • Tennis4you
Re: help me out with this line dispute...
« Reply #20 on: September 14, 2008, 03:53:16 PM »
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; or
b. The player does not return the ball in play before it bounces twice consecutively; or
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;
or
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.

AND

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); or
b. 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! 



Ummm, Pacer plays tennis on such a high level it is not even funny, he knows the rules as do the rest of us.  You are wasting your time here as you are wrong.  Jamesdster is an official for USTA sanctioned matches, I am sure he will chime in here as well.  This is a well known rule, it is just the way it is.

Maybe you should look at rule 24b in a different perspective.  The opponent has to hit the ball before it bounces twice.  It doesn't matter where that second bounce is.  I have hit overheads that land in the court next door on the second bounce or over the fence into baseball fields.  Does that make it the responsibility of the court next door to play my shot or the baseball team behind?  If the opponent is not the reason that ball came back to the drop shotters side, the drop shotter wins the point.

I am sorry to say, but you are over complicating the rules.
« Last Edit: September 14, 2008, 03:55:15 PM by Tennis4you »
Good Luck on the Court!!!
Scott Baker
http://www.tennis4you.com

Offline Pacer

  • Tennis God
  • ******
  • Posts: 3537
Re: help me out with this line dispute...
« Reply #21 on: September 14, 2008, 06:05:20 PM »
 
I made no argument simply because it's pointless. Anyone who has ever in their lives played a sanctioned tennis event anywhere in the world knows this rule.

If player A hits a shot with so much backspin, that after it bounces ONCE into player B's court it then proceeds to go over the net back into player A's court. If player B is unable reach over the net to hit the ball before the second bounce, then player B has lost the point, period. It does not matter where the second bounce occurs.

The second bounce can land outside the doubles alley, the second bounce can hit the fence, a poll, it doesn't matter. Once the ball lands legally into player B's court, the point is in play and player B must hit the ball back into player A's court before the second bounce, in this case player B must reach into player A's court to make contact with the ball before the second bounce, if this does not happen the point is lost. You can argue until you are blue in the face, you're wrong. And it seems you have a difficult time accepting that. If you want to keep arguing your point then continue, I have no interest in arguing something so basic.

Also, this is Scott's site, and at least to me, it seems he's made it clear that he doesn't want anyone leaving this section mislead. So if you have an issue with the governing bodies rules, maybe you should start a thread in the tennis discussion section detailing your grievances.
Ralphie: I want an official Red Ryder, carbine action, two-hundred shot range model air rifle! <br /><br />Mrs. Parker: No, you\'ll shoot your eye out.

Offline Jamesdster

  • Tennis God
  • ******
  • Posts: 6399
  • Gender: Male
Re: help me out with this line dispute...
« Reply #22 on: September 15, 2008, 10:31:58 AM »
I don't have time to debate this right now, but Scott you are correct.  The person who hit the crazy spin wins the point.  You are dead on regarding being able to reach over the net and touch the ball before it lands.
I was at this casino minding my own business, and this guy came up to me and said, "You're gonna have to move, you're blocking a fire exit." As though if there was a fire, I wasn't gonna run. If you're flammible and have legs, you are never blocking a fire exit.  - Mitch Hedberg

Offline djinni9

  • Tennis Player
  • **
  • Posts: 62
Re: help me out with this line dispute...
« Reply #23 on: September 16, 2008, 05:04:24 PM »
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?

Offline Tennis4you

  • Administrator
  • Tennis God
  • ******
  • Posts: 24878
  • Gender: Male
    • Tennis4you
Re: help me out with this line dispute...
« Reply #24 on: September 16, 2008, 07:02:43 PM »
In your last scenario I think it would work probably one way.  You cannot touch the ball.  Not sure how you would differentiate between hindering player B from touching the ball and the ball being "out of play".  Never seen it happen in 20 years and may never see it happen.  The ball usually doesn't have enough backspin to go so far back in the court that player B doesn't have an initial shot to reach over the net.  We can let Jamesdster weigh in on this with his interpretation of the rules.

In your second to last case,if your shot never touches your opponent's side of the court you cannot win the point.
Good Luck on the Court!!!
Scott Baker
http://www.tennis4you.com

Offline djinni9

  • Tennis Player
  • **
  • Posts: 62
Re: help me out with this line dispute...
« Reply #25 on: September 16, 2008, 07:54:08 PM »
In your last scenario I think it would work probably one way.  You cannot touch the ball.  Not sure how you would differentiate between hindering player B from touching the ball and the ball being "out of play".  Never seen it happen in 20 years and may never see it happen.  The ball usually doesn't have enough backspin to go so far back in the court that player B doesn't have an initial shot to reach over the net.  We can let Jamesdster weigh in on this with his interpretation of the rules.

In your second to last case,if your shot never touches your opponent's side of the court you cannot win the point.

okay, that's what i thought too. as for the backspin all the way to midcourt, the case is hypothetical. it is possible, however unlikely. that's the point of rules, they have to cover extremely unlikely cases as well. i'm sure a sudden strong wind that blows a ball back to midcourt is at least as likely as the ball hitting a bird, which the rules happen to cover  :)

Offline Jamesdster

  • Tennis God
  • ******
  • Posts: 6399
  • Gender: Male
Re: help me out with this line dispute...
« Reply #26 on: September 17, 2008, 06:36:28 AM »
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?

That is actually a great question.  As highly unlikely as that is, my interpretation of the rule agrees with yours.  If the ball bounces back onto my court after my drop shot landed on your side of the court, and I somehow manage to touch it, I lose the point.  I'm going to run this past a couple of my officiating partners and see what they think.  But that is my viewpoint (and apparently yours.)
« Last Edit: September 17, 2008, 09:25:36 AM by Jamesdster »
I was at this casino minding my own business, and this guy came up to me and said, "You're gonna have to move, you're blocking a fire exit." As though if there was a fire, I wasn't gonna run. If you're flammible and have legs, you are never blocking a fire exit.  - Mitch Hedberg

Offline Tennis4you

  • Administrator
  • Tennis God
  • ******
  • Posts: 24878
  • Gender: Male
    • Tennis4you
Re: help me out with this line dispute...
« Reply #27 on: September 17, 2008, 08:40:29 AM »
I could see someone arguing that the ball was out of play if it hit you at the baseline and the other player was at the baseline. when the ball hit you.  Weird.
Good Luck on the Court!!!
Scott Baker
http://www.tennis4you.com

Offline Pacer

  • Tennis God
  • ******
  • Posts: 3537
Re: help me out with this line dispute...
« Reply #28 on: September 17, 2008, 02:16:12 PM »
If I'm understanding the question correctly. Player A hits a back spin drop shot that bounces once into player B's court, the ball comes back over to player A's court and while doing so hits player A. I'm assuming player A is in the forecourt and I'm pretty sure that would be a hindrance and player A loses the point. I've never seen or heard of this happening so I tried to relate this to other possible situations but nothing quite compares.

I can't really see this being replayed so I'm pretty sure player A loses the point, by preventing player B from making a play. But then you have to wonder what the verdict would be if player B had no play on the ball. If he clearly had no play, but the ball hits player A, is it still a hindrance, or would the point be replayed? Fun to think about those things, even though they are pretty unlikely. That's why we have the officials like Jamesdster who study and interpret the rules to lead us out of the dark. :))
Ralphie: I want an official Red Ryder, carbine action, two-hundred shot range model air rifle! <br /><br />Mrs. Parker: No, you\'ll shoot your eye out.

Offline Jamesdster

  • Tennis God
  • ******
  • Posts: 6399
  • Gender: Male
Re: help me out with this line dispute...
« Reply #29 on: September 18, 2008, 10:49:40 AM »
If I'm understanding the question correctly. Player A hits a back spin drop shot that bounces once into player B's court, the ball comes back over to player A's court and while doing so hits player A. I'm assuming player A is in the forecourt and I'm pretty sure that would be a hindrance and player A loses the point. I've never seen or heard of this happening so I tried to relate this to other possible situations but nothing quite compares.

I can't really see this being replayed so I'm pretty sure player A loses the point, by preventing player B from making a play. But then you have to wonder what the verdict would be if player B had no play on the ball. If he clearly had no play, but the ball hits player A, is it still a hindrance, or would the point be replayed? Fun to think about those things, even though they are pretty unlikely. That's why we have the officials like Jamesdster who study and interpret the rules to lead us out of the dark. :))

Good one Pacer.  You folks are in deeeeeeeep trouble if I am leading leading the way.   :innocent:
I was at this casino minding my own business, and this guy came up to me and said, "You're gonna have to move, you're blocking a fire exit." As though if there was a fire, I wasn't gonna run. If you're flammible and have legs, you are never blocking a fire exit.  - Mitch Hedberg