An engineer overthinks tennis in a daily journal.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
At the professional level, Rafael Nadal is the patron saint of slow play. Roger Federer has long been critical of Nadal’s pace of play, albiet it in the most gentlemanly way possible.
In tennis, the server has two chances to put the ball into play on each point. Today’s topic is the section of the Rules of Tennis that brings the concept of two serves into the game.
Without question, the two most painful times I have been struck by a tennis ball on the court were delivered courtesy of my own doubles partner. One of those was on my partner’s serve where I was hit so hard that the seams of the ball were clearly visible on the bruise. Fortunately that ball struck my butt, the most well padded part of my body. This brings us to the final way a service fault can be committed that I call fratricide.
We have been discussing the rules defining the service fault in tennis. The third in this series occurs when the serve hits a permanent fixture, a singles stick, or the net post before it strikes the ground. I have termed this type of service fault as “illegal contact.” It sounds so much better than another lap around the permanent fixture track.
5 responses
A whiff is when a player attempts to strike the ball in tennis, but fails to connect. This is not to be confused with a shank, which results when the ball connects with the racquet frame rather than the strings, scudding off in physics defying angles. There is nothing more ridiculous in tennis than the whiff.