A couple of weeks ago at the Rothesay International in Eastbourne, a point during a match between Madison Keys and Leylah Fernandez had an unusual ending. It is a good opportunity to break down this point to examine how the mere existence of rules can influence play, even when they are not officially invoked.
On the first point of the second game during the third set, Keys hit a terrific serve out wide that Fernandez barely got her racquet on. It resulted in a return with a lot of backspin that was looped short. The ball barely cleared the net and immediately bounced back toward the Fernandez side. Keys showed great court awareness and was well-positioned to hit the ball as it crossed back over the net. Unfortunately, she whiffed on the shot, and the point went to Fernandez.
Keys stab at the ball was a little awkward, and I initially wondered if she thought she had to hit the ball while it was still on her side. Per the rules of tennis, a player loses the point if they strike the ball before it crosses the net. Some players have incorrectly internalized that rule to mean the ball can never be struck on the other side of the net, which isn’t the case. Even though Keys most likely correctly knows this subtle aspect of the rule, a temporary lack of clarity could have contributed to the miss.
The point is lost if:
h. The player hits the ball before it has passed the net.
USTA Friend at Court, ITF Rules of Tennis, Section 24
If the ball passes over the net, bounces on the correct court, and is carried back to the other side by some combination of spin or wind, first contact is allowed wherever the ball ends up. Because this ball had already bounced on the Keys side of the net, she could have legally hit it at any time before it bounced back on the Fernandez side.
Another official tennis rule is that players lose the point if they touch the net while the ball is still in play. The need to avoid that by quickly stopping her forward momentum may have contributed to Key’s lack of contact. In fact, she continues to actively avoid touching the net, even when bending over it in frustration over her failure to touch the ball.
The point is lost if:
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.
USTA Friend at Court, ITF Rules of Tennis, Section 24
Another complicating factor of this particular point is that Fernandez was charging toward the spot where Keys was probably originally planning to tap her shot had she made contact. The whiff may have happened when she looked up to check where Fernandez was, realized she needed to make an adjustment, and simply lost track of the ball.
It is an interesting situation because the outcome of the point was likely influenced by rules that weren’t actually invoked. That happens a lot in tennis but is rarely noticed. This particular scenario is also a cautionary tale of why being very familiar with the rules is important. Tennis requires making good snap decisions on crucial points, and understanding the esoteric aspects of the rules is a part of that.
I suppose you could say almost every point is influenced by rules that aren’t invoked though or any sport for that matter. For example, but if the server foot faults so severely that he serves one foot away from the net and just smashes the ball into the server’s box for an easy ace. Obviously this is an extreme example, but every player would do it if possible, but there’s rules for this type of action. It seems evident Keys knew the rules, and that she had to avoid touching the net while the ball was in play, which she wasn’t able to execute.
I want to go back to the second rule you cited here, as I’m unclear what the correct ruling is with a dampener coming off your racquet and touching the net during a point. I was wondering your thoughts. What we need to determine is if the dampener is part of the racquet. Is this said anywhere in the rules or glossary terms? It’s attached to the racquet, but is it really ‘the racquet’? The player isn’t carrying or wearing the dampener, so we can eliminate those. I think it boils down to if the dampener is considered apart of the racquet.
Another thing I think about with points like this is if Keys was successful in hitting the ball and not violating any rules continuing the point. But, her swing which would occur on Fernandez’s side of the net hindered Fernandez’s opportunity to hit the ball back. This is all hypothetically. Fernandez would have to be quite close to Keys for this to happen. I would think this could happen and be the case potentially. Fernandez deserves a chance to hit the ball back, and I feel like the umpire could deem Keys hindering Fernandez from doing this depending on her actions.