|
22. Notwithstanding the ellipse theory, on courts which have tapes for lines, occasionally a ball will strike the tape, jump an inch, then leave a full ellipse. This is frequently the case with a hard service when the server will see a clear white spot appear on the service tape, only to have the receiver call "fault" and point to an ellipse an inch back of the line. To attain accuracy in such situations is difficult. The best that the receiver can do is to listen for the sound of the ball touching the tape and look for a clean spot on the tape directly between the server and the ellipse; if these conditions exist he should give the point to his opponent. Sometimes sound alone can be misleading, particularly when the hearer is some distance -- across the net or otherwise -- from the sound. Also, an inch and a half is about the maximum that a ball will jump off the tape.
23. In returning service the partner of the receiver should call the service line for him, with the receiver calling the center line and the side line, although either partner may make an out call on any shot (service or other) that he clearly sees out. It is difficult for the receiver, who is looking across the service line, to call with accuracy a shot that lands near that line. This is the reason why in singles a receiver will frequently find himself unsure of a serve and put it in play even though later it is determined that it was out.
24. Returning a service that is obviously out (accompanied by an out call) is a form of rudeness, and when the receiver knows that in making these returns he bothers the server it is gamesmanship. At the same time it must be expected that a fast service that just misses the line will frequently with justification be returned as a matter of self-protection, even though an out call is made. The speed of deliveries is such that if the receiver waited for a call before he started to make a return he would be overpowered. Probably the most difficult shot in tennis to call accurately is a hard flat service, aimed directly at the receiver, that hits within an inch of the service line in a grass court singles match.
24.1. Returning a first service that is obviously out without an out call in an attempt to catch an opponent off guard is cheating. At the same time, if the receiver in good faith gives the server the benefit of the doubt and returns an out ball, the server is not entitled to refuse the benefit of the doubt and ask for a let on the basis that since he saw the serve out the return caught him by surprise.
24.2. When the server causes a delay between the first and second serves, he has one serve to come. When there is a delay between serves that interrupts the natural flow of the match and when the delay is caused by the receiver or outside interference, the server has two serves to come. The receiver determines whether the delay has interrupted the natural flow of the match.
25. A USTA rule interpretation authorizes the receiver or his partner to call footfaults on the server after the server has been warned once and a request for an umpire has failed. This call should be made only when the caller is absolutely certain, with the footfaulting being so flagrant as to be clearly perceptible from the receiver's side of the net. While in doubles the partner of the receiver may be in a fair position to call a normal fooffault, in either singles or doubles the receiver himself would be able to make this call only in flagrant cases.
25.1. When you feel that your opponent, a netrusher, is footfaulting but his violations are not sufficiently flagrant for you to be sure and to call, the situation can be irritating. Compliance with the footfault rule is very much a function of a player's personal honor system. The plea that he only touches the line and doesn't rush the net is not acceptable. If he doesn't footfault when there is an umpire but does when there is no umpire, the time has come for him to examine his own sense of fair play to see if he is the type of person who will cheat provided he thinks he can go undetected or unpunished, and, if he is, to try to make a change. Habitual foot faulting, intentional or careless, is just as surely cheating as is making a deliberate bad line call.
26. Even if no ethics were involved, from the practical view it behooves a player to avoid footfaults. It is not uncommon in a match having officials for a chronic footfaulter to become so upset by the frequent footfault calls against him that his whole game disintegrates.
|
|
