The Rules of Tennis
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.
Did you catch the plurality of that last sentence? Today we are covering not one, but two rules. Things are looking up!
If in error a tie-break game is started at 6 games all, when it was previously agreed that the set would be an “Advantage Set”, the error shall be corrected immediately if only one point has been played. If the error is discovered after the second point is in play, the set will continue as a “Tie-break Set”.
USTA Friend at Court, ITF Rules of Tennis, 27e
As a refresher, an “advantage set” is the way tennis used to be played before Jimmy Van Alen foisted the innovation of the tie-break set into tennis. I previously wrote about Jimmy Val Alen’s innovations in “Kicking VASSS,” and “Heading into a Breaker.”
In an advantage set, play continues until one player gains a two game margin to win the set. Arguably the most famous example of this was the 70-68 victory of John Isner over Nicolas Mahut at Wimbledon in 2010. That match precipitated a tidal wave of the elimination of the final vestiges of the advantage set still in use at Grand Slam events.
The error that occurs per the scenario in this rule is based on the unlikely event that players slated to play an advantage set, somehow manage to forget that fact at 6-6. I do not recall (and cannot find) an example of this actually occurring. This is also a great example of a challenging search engine query construction.
The correction of this error hinges on the understanding that there is no difference between the first point of a tie-break game and the first point of an ensuing game. Consequently, if the error was detected after only one point, then it can easily be corrected by switching back over to an advantage set. If two points have been played, then there would be an order of service error, and thus the correction is to play out the tie-break set.
I promised two for the price of one today, and I am delivering on that promise. What if two players were supposed to play a tie-break set and accidentally continued as an advantage set?” That’s the next rule in the section.
If in error a standard game is started at 6 games all, when it was previously agreed that the set would be a “Tie-break Set”, the error shall be corrected immediately if only one point has been played. If the error is discovered after the second point is in play, the set will continue as an “Advantage Set” until the score reaches 8 games all (or a higher even number), when a tie-break game shall be played.
USTA Friend at Court, ITF Rules of Tennis, 27e
This error seems more plausible in the modern context. The most likely way it could occur is by inadvertently by getting the game count wrong, and subsequently realizing the error. A tie-break game would be played at the first even number tied score after the error is detected.
I believe that the reason the correction points come at even numbered ties as opposed to odd is because that preserves equity in order of service. In doubles every player gains an extra service game. For singles both players have two service games, one from each end.
By my estimation, this is one of the more obscure rules codified in the rules of tennis. Obscure is nothing if not the hallmark of this site. In any case, dispensing with these two subsections puts us one week closer to the end of the horror show of the “Correcting Errors” section. I can see the light at the end of the tunnel.
- United States Tennis Association (2020) Friend at Court. White Plains, NY
