Rules of Tennis: Ball In Play
After I swiped at the USTA/ITF yesterday for including a redundant sentence in “Change of Ends,” the Friend at Court immediately comes back at meRead More
An engineer overthinks tennis in a daily journal.
After I swiped at the USTA/ITF yesterday for including a redundant sentence in “Change of Ends,” the Friend at Court immediately comes back at meRead More
The players shall change ends at the end of the first, third and every subsequent odd game of each set. Unfortunately, the ITF had some mansplaining to do.
4 responsesOnce the toss has been decided, the outcome cannot be changed. However, the choices each player/team makes can be later changed under certain conditions.
The fundamental truth about the choice of ends and service is that the selection really does not matter all that much. Due to the structure of the game, any advantage from playing from either end evens out over the course of a match.
Yesterday we discussed how ITF and the USTA have turned us all into degenerative gamblers via the mandatory casting of lots before each match starts. Today we turn our attention to the spoils of victory. Exactly what happens after the coin toss is executed?
Once upon a time, I gambled away the toss for choice of ends and service to my opponent prior to being assigned a court at a USTA Major Zone tournament. The side bet was on which of two other players in the draw would be the last to arrive for the first round matches. At the time, I considered the act to be brazenly outside of the rules.
Rule 8 of the ITF Rules of Tennis, as printed in the USTA Friend at Court, is titled “Server & Receiver.” This section essentially does nothing other than to define those two terms.
When I was looking for a media source of the events described in the “An Inconvenient Truth” post, I mentioned that a random twitter userRead More
While the rules of tennis are fairly straight forward and compact in the main body, the appendices are extensive, convoluted, and the place where all hell breaks loose such as shortened scoring and other alternative formats. This brings us to the topic of the match tie-break.
The US Soccer Federation shocks me. Not because blatant misogyny is a a clear problem for that organization, but rather because it is so deeply rooted that it is regarded as a valid legal claim. So what does this have to do with tennis?