The Tennis Let
In all cases when a let is called, except when a service let is called on a second service, the whole point shall be replayed.
6 responsesEllsworth Vines Cuts Strings
When I first came across this snippet, I viewed it through my distinctly modern eyes. My tennis community involves a lot of players who are obsessive about playing tennis. I totally understand the insatiable desire to play the game.
1 responseMore on the Net-Cord Stroke
A mere two weeks after the stock market crash that heralded the start of the Great Depression, the Maryborough Chronicle in Australia carried an editorial on net cord strokes credited to the pseudonym “Court.” The author was strongly in favor of the net-cord shot being declared a let, though conceded that the majority of players preferred inaction on alteration of the rule.
The Net-Cord Stroke
This seems like a good time to inject a topic that is not in the ITF Rules of Tennis, but nevertheless is apparently debated from time to time. We have recently discussed the fact that if a service clips the net cord and falls in, then a let is played. On all other shots, a net-cord strike is basically tough luck. Once again… wait for it… we really don’t know why the distinction even exists.
Two Serves or Not Two Serves, That is the Question
In the “History of the Service Let” we discussed that there really isn’t a satisfactory reason recorded as to why the service let even exists. One speculative reason is that the rule is in place because the server already has too much of an advantage with two opportunities at first strike of the ball. This brings us to the obvious question as to why the server is granted two serves at all.
Service Let Approved Alternative Procedures
I am happy to report that the approved alternative scoring procedures pertaining to the service let are the only remaining scoring variations to cover. With this post, we have completed all the material in Appendix V of the ITF Rules of Tennis.
Additional Let Rules
In “Not Quite Ready to Receive” it was discussed that if the receiver is not ready then the serve cannot be called a fault. I missed the subtlety of the usage of the word fault in that coverage of the rule. It was clear that the serve cannot be counted against the receiver if the receiver is not ready. The nuance is that the serve cannot be counted against the server either if it does not fall in.
History of the Service Let
The first usage of the word let in lawn tennis appeared in 1878, but that was not specific to the serve, but rather outside obstruction or interference, such as “an obtrusive dog running across the court, or anything of that kind.” I need to pause here for a moment to note that containing such specific examples would certainly spice up the modern ITF rules of tennis.
The Let During a Serve
The word let, when used as a noun, is literally defined as “something that impedes: obstruction.” The idiom “without let or hindrance” is commonly used in British law to mean “without being interfered with.” With those two sentences this project has now covered the full spectrum of possible content gravitas, ranging from language arts on one end to funny YouTube videos on the other.
Not Quite Ready to Receive
A receiver who attempts to return the service shall be considered as being ready. If it is demonstrated that the receiver is not ready, the service cannot be called a fault.