An engineer overthinks tennis in a daily journal.
I distinctly remember the day when I realized that I had mastered the trick of catching the ball out of the air with my racquet. Casually snatching a ball out of the air with the racquet is the pinnacle of tennis cool for a budding tennis player. Doing so on a ball that is in play is a loss of the point.
I have discovered that it can be tremendously fun to conjure scenarios that break the rules of tennis. This is an unanticipated side effect of my systemic march through the USTA Friend at Court. The rule we have arrived at today is firmly in that category.
If it seems like I have already written about this rule, it is because I actually have. In “Permanent Fixtures, Again” I wrote a lot about how the ball striking a permanent fixture is a point loss. There is good reason for that. It is because the section we were covering at that time basically says the exact same thing.
The most simple way a point can be lost per this rule is the ball that bounces on the correct side of the net, but out. But where is the fun in writing about that?
I have been resisting the temptation to write about aspects of rules that are not introduced until later in “The Code,” but since that is where the widely recognized term double bounce appears, I am going to make an exception.
This project finally moves into my expert territory. Section 24 of the 2020 USTA Friend at Court is titled “Player Loses Point.” I would contend that there is no other player better equipped to cover this topic than me.
1 response
In all cases when a let is called, except when a service let is called on a second service, the whole point shall be replayed.
6 responses
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.