“Hindrance” is the next section of the ITF Rules of Tennis as published in the USTA Friend at Court. We have also reached the point where discussing and analyzing the rules becomes decidedly more salacious.
If a player is hindered in playing the point by a deliberate act of the opponent(s), the player shall win the point.
USTA Fiend at Court, ITF Rules of Tennis, Section 26
I am still puzzling out exactly how to work through the contents of this rule and associated Case Decisions. In the traditional organizational style of the ITF, many of the Case Decisions have already been covered to some degree in the context of other rules. At the same time, I could probably spend days solely on the basic rule statement provided above.
For anyone who has ever played racquetball, the concept of hindrance is more obviously understood. That is because both players occupy the same playing space. In racquetball, one player blocking another player’s path to the ball is a hindrance. Also in racquetball, “hindrance” is frequently called by the hindering player, roughly roughly translating into “please don’t bludgeon me with your racquet” in that context.
In tennis, since the players are on the opposite ends of the court, physical hindrance is rare. It is instructive to provide some examples. Up first is making a deliberate sound to hinder a player’s opponent. In case it isn’t obvious from the previous sentence, sound is essential for appreciating the hindrance in the following clip.
In the middle of a long rally against Gonzalo Lama, Robin Haase grunts in such a way that sounds similar to a linesman making an out call. In fact, since he has not grunted at any previous point during the rally it is clear that this is exactly what he was attempting to do. The umpire correctly awards the point to Lama.
What Haase would have been going for in this case is for Lama to be distracted into a miss or stop playing the point all together. It is a sneaky underhanded thing to do. Perhaps he didn’t realize that audio/video recording was active for that match.
In the very first sanctioned USTA match that the umpire I gave birth to played, I was forced to stand by silently while her opponent repeatedly committed egregious examples of poor sportsmanship including hindrance. The “out” sounding grunt was front and center of the behavior. As a consequence, hindrance is not only a rule that I have personally witnessed, but one from which I actually still bear the emotional scars.
Fasten your seat belts, we are going to be spending a few days exploring the nuances of the Hindrance section.
- United States Tennis Association (2020) Friend at Court. White Plains, NY
Player from another court was running in direction of my partner who was pulled wide to return an angled ball
The 2 players were off of their respective courts into the area between the two courts
My partner was running fast toward the other player who was running toward her. I yelled “stop!” to prevent a collision. I stopped playing and started over toward my partner who I thought would be injured
I stated to the opponents “let’s replay the point”
One insisted “no, it is our point! “
She didn’t offer any reason for her position. I said that I stopped play to stop a potential injury (and a person running toward our court. It was a hinderance. Opponent said” you can’t call it. Your partner has to call it”. My partner didn’t see the other person running toward her
Long story short: we gave them the (game) point in order to deescalate and get on with the match.
I’ve researched this issue. I have concluded that the point should have been replayed.
Your thoughts?
Thx
It is an interesting scenario that isn’t addressed directly by the rules. There are really three points of consideration. 1) Are impending/near collisions by players on adjacent court a valid hindrance? (yes) 2) Can any player on the court claim a hindrance (yes) and 3) was a hindrance actually called? The only claim that would support your opponent’s refusal to replay the point is if the hindrance wasn’t called promptly. Usually in recreational play I would expect a little latitude in that regard, but player attitudes and behavior varies widely.
Thanks for sharing! I will probably turn it into a full rules post at some point in the future.
I yelled“Stop” immediately
It was a ball league match
I recently was playing doubles my partner was serving I was at the net after my parter served the ball I did a fake pouch. The returner hit the ball in the net and called hindrance he said he heard my feet I’m not sure if my feet made any sound or not it was not my intention to make any sound just to try to get him to hit the ball down the line. Is this hindrance? This rule is very vague.
This is covered in section 35 of “The Code” in the Friend at Court. “A player may feint with the body while a ball is in play. A player may change position at any time, including while the server is tossing a ball. Any other movement or any sound that is made solely to distract an opponent, including, but not limited to, waving arms or racket or stamping feet, is not allowed.
Any sound that is a result of your movement is legal. A sound made without movement is not.
This is one of the trickiest rules for me. The terms “hindered” and “deliberate” just seem far too subjective to be meaningful (without an umpire).
I also suspect that the vast majority of hindrance calls result from an umpire decision. I am going to get into player communication in doubles at some point within this section which is probably the most challenging area for interpretation.