An engineer overthinks tennis in a daily journal.
An ITF Case ruling indicates that if a player accidentally breaks a string that he can continue to play with the racquet unless doing so was specifically prohibited by event organizers. This begs the obvious question why does it have to be accidentally?
The fact that the Friend at Court actually attempts to constrain the hitting surface of the racquet falls in the “isn’t that cute” department for me.
How the racquet might be a tiny ITF rebellion against one of the stipulations imposed when they assumed stewardship of “The Rules of Tennis.”
Today we come to the first of two places in the Friend at Court where material changes to the ball are covered. May a player cause a ball to become wet by using the ball to wipe perspiration from the player’s body?
Exploring the question of why red seems to be associated with regular duty or clay courts eventually leads to Penn.
2 responses
Today I am exploring the possibility that I may have possibly once won a point due to a faulty rules interpretation from a USTA official.
2 responses
My engineer brain took one look at the ITF ball specification table and all the “WTF” synapses simultaneously fired off. Fortunately, the ITF provides a very detailed description of the testing process.
No discussion of the ITF rules and standards for the tennis ball can be complete without discussing the hubbub surrounding the controversial introduction of a new ball at the French Open in 2011.
My engineer brain is fascinated with how things are made. The process for manufacturing tennis balls is complex to the point that I was astonishedRead More