This week I learned that the procedures for inspection of ball marks to confirm or overrule line calls only apply during clay court play. Anyone who has played tennis on a hard court in Texas following a dusty windy day has experienced what I call “West Texas Clay.” It is pretty common around these parts to play on outdoor hard courts where the ball leaves a discernible mark. Additionally, depending on how indoor courts are maintained, tennis ball fuzz can also leave clear bounce marks on the court.
The rule is short and simple.
Ball mark inspections can only be made on clay courts.
Appendix VI, Ball Mark Inspection Procedures, ITF Rules of Tennis, USTA Friend at Court
I am slightly chagrined to confess that hard court ball marks are regularly inspected in the course of my recreational practice matches. I have definitely been on court when a team reversed a long service call after inspecting the mark and realizing that the ball clipped the line. Per a strict interpretation of the Rules of Tennis, a team overturning their own call after inspecting the mark is not allowed. Consequently the call cannot be overturned on that basis. That seems… wrong.
Of course in that scenario, the breakdown occurred with the “bad” line call. However, I also think that people genuinely sometimes miss calls that are made with complete confidence. Even though it is disallowed, I think that it is fine for a player to adjust their confidence level upon inspecting a mark to give the opponent the benefit of the doubt. Better late than never.
Last Monday, I highlighted a news story from the Boston Globe where Brad Gilbert wonders if the American men are at a competitive disadvantage because they do not play much on clay in Junior tennis. Gilbert’s theory is that clay forces players to develop defensive skills required to win matches against other players that cannot be simply overpowered.
I also wonder if Junior players who grew up on clay generally make more accurate calls. The reason for that is because on clay almost all close line calls come with instant feedback of accuracy. In theory, that should help train the eye to make better close calls. It feels intuitively plausible. I have no direct experience or data to support the idea, however.
For that reason, I think that it is beneficial for people to regularly inspect close calls when there is a mark available. That includes when playing on a non-clay court where inspecting the mark is prohibited. When doing so, all players should be aware that marks may only be inspected on clay in sanctioned play.
I do think this rule would be an interesting basis for a trick question for a tennis officiating quiz. Something like “A receiving player misses a return of a close serve. A mark of the ball impact point is clearly visible on the hard court. May the receiving player change the call to “out” after inspecting the mark?” I am not sure what the correct answer would be, actually.
Your posts are certainly provocative and in the light of the recent Roland Garros tournament where several ball mark inspections appeared to be carried out incorrectly! There were many cases of the wrong mark being ‘read’ and in most cases the Chair Umpire did not elicit the help of the Line Umpire to identify the correct mark. USTA Line Umpires are trained to not take their gaze from a ball mark until the score is called and USTA Chair Umpire’s are trained to ask ‘do you have the mark’ with the Line Umpire responding without taking their eyes off the ball mark to ensure they don’t lose sight of the correct mark.
Whilst I agree with you about balls leaving marks on dusty hard courts and even ‘clean’ hard courts with a rough surface can display ball marks, it is good to have a clear and decisive rule about ball mark inspections applying only to ‘soft’ courts.
In answer to your question, if the receiver plays a shot ‘in good faith’, misses the return, and later finds the ball was ‘out’, they lose the point.