USTA Comments on Order of Receiving
The USTA issued two comments against the ITF Order of Receiving rule. Today we revisit USTA comments in the context of these two enhancements.
An engineer overthinks tennis in a daily journal.
The USTA issued two comments against the ITF Order of Receiving rule. Today we revisit USTA comments in the context of these two enhancements.
I am fundamentally disturbed that I am spending more days on Order of Receiving than on Order of Service. The universe is out of balance. I’m laying the blame for this squarely on the doorstep of COVID-19 and the global pandemic.
A case ruling associated with Order of Receiving sends us off into an alternate universe of three person doubles. This can only end with a Code Violation.
I am primarily regarded as a singles player. As an introvert, I am wired to enjoy the solitude and isolation of playing singles. This placesRead More
The Match Tiebreak is the usage of a tie-break game in place of a final deciding set. As a substitution for a set, it is clearly a new set thus both Order of Service and Order of Receiving in doubles can be modified by either team.
I have a reverence for the Order of Service, almost regarding it a basic sacrament of tennis. It provides a rhythm and cycle to tennis not unlike the ebb and flow of the tides.
What is a permanent fixture in tennis? What happens when a ball strikes the net post and subsequently lands in the correct court?
4 responsesThe rules keep getting shorter and shorter. The next section of the USTA Friend at Court/ITF Rules of Tennis is another “definition” rule used toRead More
After I swiped at the USTA/ITF yesterday for including a redundant sentence in “Change of Ends,” the Friend at Court immediately comes back at meRead More
The players shall change ends at the end of the first, third and every subsequent odd game of each set. Unfortunately, the ITF had some mansplaining to do.
4 responses