An engineer overthinks tennis in a daily journal.
Tie-breaker in lieu of a full third set has recently become the more common match format at Adult NTRP tournaments. As a result, many of my tournaments singles matches start with the umpire reminding us of that fact. I almost always make the joke that there is very little chance that I will accidentally play a third set of singles.
I finally catch a break in my slog through the “Correcting Errors” section of the ITF Rules of Tennis as published in the USTA Friend at Court. I have been struggling through horror after horror in this section. In previous weeks we have discussed errors that I am quite frankly challenged to understand how they could occur. Additionally, some of the recent corrections don’t always seem to be equitable to me. Today’s rules are a welcome respite.
I am continuing to encounter horror after horror in the “Correcting Errors” section of the ITF Rules of Tennis as published in the USTA Friend at Court. My only consolation is that after today there are only four additional subsections of this rule to cover. This section will all be over by Labor Day.
1 response
If a player serves out of turn during a tie-break game and the error is discovered after an even number of points have been played, the error is corrected immediately. If the error is discovered after an odd number of points have been played, the order of service shall remain as altered.
As previously discussed in “Rules of Tennis: Order of Service,” I have a near religious reverence for the Order of Service. In fact, I am appalled to see that it is not capitalized within the Correcting Errors section. Anything that impinges on the sanctity of the Order of Service makes me a little edgy.
During a standard game or a tie-break game, if the players are at the wrong ends of the court, the error should be corrected as soon as it is discovered and the server shall serve from the correct end of the court according to the score.
It seems weird to be writing about the rules of tennis after my extended tangent. Trying to remember that I had just wrapped up the “Hindrance” section was somewhat disorienting. Even the act of pasting the USTA Friend at Court reference into the footer of this post caused a new sensation. I wonder where the 2021 USTA publishing location will be, since the closure of the White Plains office was announced in the interim.
4 responses
To tie a bow on the Hindrance Section in the ITF Rules of Tennis, I want to share a video that the ITF published on Hindrance. I don’t know exactly when the video was made, but Tennis Australia posted it on YouTube in 2010.
Today we will dispense with the final Case Decision in the Hindrance section of the ITF Rules of Tennis. It is also an excellent case study for discussion on how seemingly arbitrary the hindrance rule can be at times.
3 responses
In “Ball Strikes Ball” I confessed that I may have made a rules based error when chastising the umpire I gave birth to for not clearing stray tennis balls off her court during her matches. Specifically, I mentioned that I carried a dog eared copy of the “ITF Rules of Tennis” in my bag as supporting evidence for my assertion that leaving balls on the court would result in a loss of the point.