Last week I wrote about an unusual point where a ball in play bounced off one of the sensors used by the FoxTenn line calling system. It happened at Estoril during the semifinal match between Sebastian Korda and Francis Tiafoe. After a week of overthinking that occurrence, I want to revisit this rules interpretation and implications. Additionally, the Estoril tournament posted a video of it in the interim and this gives me the perfect chance to share out that clip.
The following tweet contains the video of the point as well as some of the communication between Tiafoe and the umpire.
Last week I mentioned that the ATP net signage is explicitly designated as a permanent fixture in the ATP Rulebook. That same document has FoxTenn specific provisions, but it is silent on the categorization of the sensors.
For reference, this is the exact wording of the net signage rule.
Case: The ball, while in play, hits the top of the ATP net signage and goes into the proper court.
ATP Official Rulebook, VII.S excerpt
Decision: ATP net signage will be considered permanent fixtures (other than the net, posts, singles sticks, cord or metal cable, strap or band) and will result in the loss of point.
In a singles match, the ATP net signage is outside of the singles sticks. Per the ITF Rules of Tennis, that part of the net is already a permanent fixture.
In a singles match played with a doubles net and singles sticks, the net posts and the part of the net outside the singles sticks are permanent fixtures and are not considered as net posts or part of the net.
Section 2, ITF Rules of Tennis, (Reprinted in the USTA Friend at Court.)
Unlike singles, in an ATP doubles match, the net signage is attached to a part of the net that is not defined as a permanent fixture. Consequently, it may be a safe assumption that the ATP rule exists primarily for doubles. In that case, the interpretation of tennis law for a ball that contacts the signage is less obvious. There are two broad situations where the scenario of net signage contact could occur.
The first is if a player struck a ball that clipped the top of the ATP sign on their own side of the net and subsequently landed in their opponent’s court. In that case, the net signage would be responsible for the ball ultimately landing in play. It is an intuitive interpretation that the player who was aided by the net signage should lost the point in this particular case.
The second scenario occurs if the ball tips the net and then contacts the net signage on their opponent’s site of the net before impacting the court. If there was no net signage and the ball simply trickled down the net, the player who hit the shot would be awarded the point per the rules of tennis. Designating the net signage as a permanent fixture changes the outcome in a way that is incongruent with the baseline rule. The player who struck the ball would lose the point.
I am not aware of any instance of this ever occurring in a real ATP match. I strongly suspect that if it did that the point would be (incorrectly) awarded to the player who delivered the shot. I also believe that it would likely pass without notice or comment. It would be a tough way to lose a point if the occurrence was ruled “correctly.”
The FoxTenn Sensor Categorization
In Estoril, the FoxTenn Sensors were placed only on one side of the net. The positioning of the sensors in Madrid was slightly altered for the ATP matches this week. In Madrid sensor on the singles line was located more under the net protruding equally on both sides. The doubles line sensor was left in the same location. The altered position changes the geometry but not the essence of the discussion in this post.
I have submitted a query to the ATP Tour asking whether the FoxTenn sensor is a part of the court, a part of the net, or a permanent fixture. It should be categorized as one of those three things. Clarifying the designation would simply the interpretation of the tennis rules.
If the FoxTenn sensor is categorized as a part of the court, and a ball strikes it after tipping the net as happened in the Tiafoe-Korda match, then the umpire made the correct call. Had Korda’s shot hit the FoxTenn sensor on his side of the court causing the ball to bounce straight up and over, then he would have lost the point if the sensor was considered to be a part of the court. It would be the same thing as the ball bouncing on the wrong side of the net before clearing it.
If the sensor is categorized as a part of the net, then the “bounce” off the sensor would not count as a bounce on the court. In that case, Tiafoe should have been awarded the point because the first time the ball struck the actual court surface, it was outside the singles court. Additionally, if Korda hit a shot that struck the sensor on his own side of the court and then cleared the net into Tiafoe’s court, then the ball would still be in play. I think that sensor as a part of the net is a less than ideal option.
Per the discussion last week, if the FoxTenn sensor is a permanent fixture, then Korda would lose the point since his ball struck a permanent fixture before it hit the court. That would be completely analogous to a ball striking the net signage on the way down on their opponent’s side of the net in an ATP doubles match. In that case, it would have been point to Tiafoe.
I will post an update if and when I hear back from the ATP on my question. To me the obvious answer is that the sensor is categorized as a part of the court surface. That decision solves a lot of issues and makes interpretation of tennis law much more straightforward.
- ATP Official Rulebook, 2022, ATP.
- Friend at Court: The Handbook of Tennis Rules and Regulations, USTA, 2022
