Hindrance: Unintentional Acts

We have spend the past two days covering the first paragraph of the “Hindrance” section of the ITF Rules of Tennis as published by the USTA Friend at Court. Today we will move into the second paragraph of the rule which discussed unintentional acts and things outside the player’s own control.

However, the point shall be replayed if a player is hindered in playing the point by either an unintentional act of the opponent(s), or something outside the player’s own control (not including a permanent fixture).

USTA Friend at Court, ITF Rules of Tennis, Section 26

For today I will confine discussion to unintentional acts that are within a player’s own control. On the surface this might seem to be a contradiction in terms. A couple of examples of hindrance in this category are a player’s hat flying off during the point, and a ball falling out of a player’s pocket.

It is important to understand that a player cannot create a hindrance on themselves. So for the two examples provided above, the player or doubles team that lost the hat or dropped the ball cannot invoke hindrance. However, the opposing team can make that call if they were distracted by flying apparel or ball.

This is where officiating procedure diverges a little bit from the actual content of the ITF Rules of Tennis. In officiated matches, the observed procedure is to replay the point following a first offense, but any recurrence is loss of the point. This is also documented in an ITF produced Officiating video listed in the references below.

I am struggling to understand how this common practice seems to be omitted from the content of the rule and any subsequent ITF Case Decisions or USTA comments. There is always the possibility that I just missed it in in my search through the rules.

I love a good mystery. The journey of discovery marches on.

1. United States Tennis Association (2020) Friend at Court. White Plains, NY
2. “Officiating Hindrance,” ITF Officiating Department, viewed May 25, 2020.