The Rules of Tennis
Our weekly march through the ITF Rules of Tennis as presented in the USTA Friend at Court is currently in the middle of section 27, “Correcting Errors.” Today we are covering subsection “c.” As a refresher, this rule start outs with the general principle that once an error in respect to the Rules of Tennis is discovered, that all points previously played shall stand.
If a player serves out of turn during a standard game, the player who was originally due to serve shall serve as soon as the error is discovered. However, if a game is completed before the error is discovered the order of service shall remain as altered.
USTA Friend at Court, ITF Rules of Tennis, 27c
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.
If the number of points served by a player are less than a complete game, then the points stand and the player who was due to serve does so for the remainder of the game. The correct procedure seems horribly unfair if the wrong player serves and goes up 40 love before the error is detected. Even though more points would be played, it seems decidedly more palatable if the error was detected at a deuce score.
It is hard for me to get my head wrapped around how this error could happen in singles, persist for an entire game, and then subsequently be detected. To violate Order of Service in a single match, the same player would have to serve two consecutive games. I do not see how that could happen without an end change also being involved.
For singles this rule basically says that in singles you alternate serves even if you mess it up along the way. If you do mess it up and miraculously avoid a dispute in the game count, a player doesn’t get to serve a third consecutive game. That makes sense.
I have witnessed order of service get messed up in a doubles match with me (as captain) watching helplessly from the bleachers. In that case a player on my team served the first game of the second set and the teams failed to change ends after that game. After the ensuing game, the teams correctly had the score at an even number, so no end change and the player that served the first game also served the third game from the same end. In real life, the error was never detected.
To understand this rule, let’s slide into the alternate universe where the error was subsequently realized after the third game. At the conclusion of the third game, if someone had recognized and vocalized the error, how exactly has the order of service been altered? The logical sequence is for the players to switch ends since it is an odd game count and for the partner of the player who served the second game to serve the fourth game.
Now that I think about it, this is actually the way the scenario played out in my real life example, even though the error was never detected. Please indulge my engineer brain for a moment here… this is the first instance of a self correcting protocol that I have encountered when writing about the rules of tennis. Just smile, nod, and move on.
There are a couple of additional complexities associated with this particular rule. If a ball change was due when a complete game was served out of order, then the ball change is to be delayed by a game. Let me press the pause button here for another mini-rant. It blows my mind that this error could occur under the watchful eye of a chair umpire. I have never witnessed mid-set ball changes in the absence of an on-court official. I genuinely hope that this has never happened in real life.
Additionally, and somewhat humorously to me, is the case of whether or not a fault stands. If the opponent serves out of order, then a fault does not stand when the service order is restored to the other team. However, if the order of service was violated between partners, then the fault is inherited from the partner. That also makes intuitive sense.
See? All hell breaks loose when the Order of Service is violated. Let that be a lesson to us all.
@USTATexas sent out a tweet this weekend asking for challenging rule situations. I will confess that I immediately wondered if I was being trolled. In any case, I am definitely pointing them at this blog post to see if they can write about this rule any more coherently than I can.
- United States Tennis Association (2020) Friend at Court. White Plains, NY
