The final Case Decision in the “Role of Court Officials” section of the ITF Rules of Tennis is mysterious in a couple of ways. First, imagining how the scenario could even happen requires significant mental gymnastics and I am unable to find any evidence that it has ever actually occurred. Additionally, the interpretation of tennis law seems straight forward which leaves me wondering why this Case is even included.
Case: A ball is blown back over the net and the player correctly reaches over the net to try to play the ball. The opponent(s) hinders the player from doing this. What is the correct decision?
Decision: The chair umpire must decide if the hindrance was deliberate or unintentional and either awards the point to the hindered player or order the point to be replayed.
Appendix VI, Role of Court Officials, Case 8 ITF Rules of Tennis, USTA Friend at Court
This Case Decision is also oddly specific in describing the ball as blowing back over the net. Excessive spin on the ball can create the same effect even in indoor matches.
For the scenario to occur, players on both ends of the court must necessarily be close to the net. A YouTube compilation video, “21 UNIQUE Tennis Shots That Bounced Back Over The Net!,” has a couple of points that end with players in a position where a physical hindrance was possible. The reflexive move is to actively avoid the racquet swing path. To do otherwise would be the height of stupidity.
The ITF Rules of Tennis are clear that a player may reach across the net to strike a ball if it has first bounced on their own side. It is separately well documented that intentional hindrance is a loss of the point and unintentional hindrance means that the point is replayed. Specifying what happens when these two rules are exerted in combination seems… extraneous.
Next Wednesday we will move into the next section of Appendix VI, “Ball Mark Inspection Procedures.”
Will really look forward to reading your research!
The cited example is unusual but a similar case encouraged me to research rules and become an umpire!
Playing a doubles match on a very windy day, our opponents threw up a very short lob which bounced on our side of the court and was blown back over the net. The ball would have bounced outside the lines, but my alert partner, raced around the net and hit the ball, before it bounced a second time, within the lines on their side of the court. The rally continued and we eventually won the point but all stood there wondering if what took place was within the rules.
We determined it was, because my partner did not tread on their ide of the court and di not touch the net or net-post.
In ITF the example, my issue is the ‘hindrance’. If a player is hindered from hitting the ball, should not the person hindering be penalised? Should it matter whether the hindrance is ‘deliberate’ or ‘unintentional’?
If a player stands there and prevents me from hitting the ball, isn’t that just as bad as someone sticking their racket in the way of my swing?
I very recently played that same (legal) shot for the first time in my life. “Hot Shots: Playing a Ball Past the Net” provides the details. Seeing those unusual shots in the wild brings me such joy. To actually hit one myself was next level.
The Rules of Tennis defines both intentional and unintentional hindrance. Your questions on the hindrance aspects actually may explain why the rule is in there in the first place: to establish that a player can hinder another by merely standing on their own side of the court.
I have a theory that the majority of the Case Decisions stemmed from real life scenarios. Some day when I have more time I intend to try to trace back to the origins. Everybody needs a hobby.