This one actually happened this past weekend at the men's collegiate national indoor tournament in Houston.
SCENARIO
In a men's DI doubles match, team A hits a return that is obviously going out. In fact, the ball was just mini-seconds from striking the back wall when a player on Team A turns and sees a ball rolling into the back corner of his court just up against the wall. He immediately calls a let before his ball strikes the back wall at the other end of the court.
What would you do?
1. Deny the let call since his return was in the air when he called a let.
2. Grant the let because the ball was still in play.
Note: There are two very strong and opposing sides in this issue. The resolution will be posted later this week.
9 comments:
Deny the let because (because of your description) the actions happened in an order that CLEARLY indicates team A was trying to gain an advantage with the let call.
Bottom line is you have to be fair. The ball was "behind" team A at the fence and the ball had already been struck.
OR, you could of dropped your clip board and called Official interference.
BACO
Although the code does not cover this with precise verbiage, and I wish it would, #17 and #18 seem to imply that you cannot get a second chance to win a point by calling a let. Even though the let call was valid, it would only suspend play from that point on, not for a ball already struck.
This type of issue does cause a lot of controversy, even in recreational play.
This exact circumstance is covered here: http://www.usta.com/Improve-Your-Game/Rules/Distractions-and-Interferences/Calling_a_let/
The answer is obvious - the ball about to hit the back wall is out, and the point is in favor of team B.
Is it not written..."On his own behalf, one may beseech the lord."? But you don't always get what you want. As described in this instance, the ball rolling onto the court played no role in Player A making the shot that was "mini-seconds away" from being out. Ergo, ipso facto, the return is out. Team B wins the point. Or maybe not.
no let, their ability to hit the shot into play was not hampered by the ball rolling onto the court and their shot was out
it is a let by rule.
It seems to me under the guidance
of good faith, it shoudn't be.
The player who hit the ball was attempting to use The Code, customs and traditions of tennis to gain an unfair advantage over his oponnet to cover his own mistake, which violates the spirit of tennis at its very foundation.
A Hebrew word perhaps describes this players actions as Chutzpah.
Chutzpah as an example, is demonstrated by a boy convicted of murdering his parents, who asks the Court of Justice to have mercy on him because he is an orphan.
Ruling, loss of point and Code Violation UnC or in this case,
Code Violation ChZ (Chutzpah)
I agree with Anonymous 2:14's answer. Did not hinder your ability to hit the shot. No Let!
The correct answer is: whatever the referee decided!
BACO's Friend
Post a Comment