An engineer overthinks tennis in a daily journal.
Since it is 2021, I started looking around for the updated USTA Friend at Court for the current year. As (eventually) confirmed by whoever is behind the USTA Officiating email address, it is not out yet. Long time readers of may recall that the 2020 rules discussion started out using the 2019 version of the USTA Friend at Court. There apparently is a little lag at the first of each year.
When reviewing posts from 2020, I had two realizations. First, I somehow still do not yet own a set of singles sticks. Second, I missed a subtle detail of the rule in my initial pass through that section. I wrote more than I would have anticipated about the singles sticks last year.
In the earliest days of this site, I posed the rhetorical question, “How do I not routinely carry a socket wrench in my bag to adjust net tension?” That quote came from “I just can’t handle the tension!” which was published on January 9, 2020 and discussed the rules around the proper tension for the net. At the time, I lamented that I had never seen a USTA umpire check the tension of the net prior to the match.
The final discussion point in the Rules surrounding the use of Player Analysis Technology is over how the allowability of various devices is litigated. Last week we discussed that the ultimate authority over these devices is the ITF. There are detailed policies and procedures that define how the determination is made.
The International Tennis Federation (ITF) asserts the authority over whether Player Analysis Technology is legal for use during sanctioned play. Section 31 of the ITF Rules of Tennis published in the USTA Friend at Court essentially boils down to specification of the policy and procedures. The definition of Player Analysis Technology is actually in an appendix to the rules, and was the subject of last week’s post.
1 response
The very last section in the ITF Rules of Tennis published in the USTA Friend at Court is “Player Analysis Technology.” Essentially that section of the rules indicates that player analysis technology that is approved must comply with the specifications in Appendix III. Flipping back and forth between the main body of the rules and the appendices is the rhythm of life when consuming the ITF Rules of Tennis.
Perhaps it is a sign of the season. As I write this final installment on the “Coaching” section of the ITF Rules of Tennis published in the USTA Friend at Court, I have a Christmas carol stuck in my head. More specifically it is the lyric “He’s making a list, and checking it twice…” from Santa Claus is Coming to Town.
It is a generally accepted practice that players can bring written notes to the court during a match. This is captured in a USTA Comment within the ITF Rules of Tennis published in the Friend at Court.
Some of the case decisions in the ITF Rules of Tennis published in the USTA Friend at Court remind me of conversations with my kids as they desperately searched for loopholes in parental rules and regulations. This was typically an endless barrage of “What if… But what if…”
This week’s Rules of Tennis topic focuses on the exceptions to the “no coaching” rule. Those special cases are codified directly into the ITF Rules of Tennis. Fundamentally, there are two situations when coaching is allowed. The first is during certain team events. The second is if a sanctioning body receives approval from the ITF to allow on-court coaching at specified events.