The Rules of Tennis
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.
The “Correcting Errors” section in the USTA Friend at Court starts out with the general principle that once an error is discovered that all points previously played shall stand. This is followed up with nine lettered subsections of specific procedures on how to correct errors once detected.
During a standard game or a tie-break game, if a player serves from the wrong half of the court, this should be corrected as soon as the error is discovered and the server shall serve from the correct half of the court according to the score. A fault that was served before the error was discovered shall stand.
USTA Friend at Court, ITF Rules of Tennis, 27a
The first phrase in this error correction procedure, “During a standard game or a tie-break game” begs an obvious question. Is there a scenario during a tennis match where a player serves that isn’t in a standard game or a tie-break game? Inquiring minds want to know.
This rule has to be understood in the context of the general principle that all points previously played shall stand. It is hard for me to imagine a scenario in which this discrepancy could occur that did not also involve some disagreement on the score. That would trigger an entirely different rules precedence.
The most likely scenario I came up with is in a tie-break game. As an example, if a player incorrectly served the second point of a tiebreaker to the deuce court, that point played would stand if the point was played out. If the error was detected immediately after the second point, the third point would also be served to the deuce court. This is explicitly stated in the rule, “… the server shall serve from the correct half of the court according to the score.”
I have seen this error corrected incorrectly in this specific scenario by having the player serving the third point to the ad court to “balance out” the mistake. It makes logical sense to do so. It’s just not within the rule.
There is a lot of shenanigan wiggle room with this rule. In doubles, a serving team or receiving team could line up on the deuce side to see if their opponents would autopilot into playing the point in that configuration. They could then “discover” the error to gain a second point to the same court. This would potentially be an advantage if one receiver was stronger than their partner.
I do not think that I have witnessed the scenario the error was detected and corrected following a fault on the first serve. I am pretty sure that if this were to transpire, that there would be a lengthy discussion which would probably be enough of a delay to grant two serves, again under a different rules precedence.
Who knew that correcting errors could be this fun.
- United States Tennis Association (2020) Friend at Court. White Plains, NY
Sorry, I didn’t make the situation clear. We all agreed the point played should stand….won by the server. But, after all agreeing that the score called, 40-30, should have been 30-15, the server said they won the game because we played the point
This is awesome! I am probably going to turn this scenario into a full post in the near future. There are some subtle nuances here. If everybody is in agreement that the score was called wrong, then the score should be 40-15. Just as points played in good faith cannot be expunged, they cannot be conjured up either due to a scoring error.
HOWEVER, if the serving team was still insistent that the score was 40-30, then playing the next point constitutes acceptance of the score. When umpires are summoned to a court for disputes of this nature, the procedure is to roll back the score to the place where both players/teams agree. Playing a point following an announced score is usually interpreted as consensus.
What is different in this case is the subsequent agreement that the score was 30-15. That overrides the tacit acceptance of playing a point under the temporarily agreed to but later determined to be incorrect score.
Server called score 40-30…served and won the point. Opponents said score was 30-15 and, after recalling previous players, both teams agreed that the correct score was 30-15. But server said they won the point because opponents played the point. Opponents said they played because it was so fast they were thinking it through.
Per the rules the point stands.