I struggled to come up with a succinct headline for this rule. Let’s head straight into the text and then break it down.
The point is lost if:
c. The player returns the ball in play so that it hits the ground, or before it bounces, an object, outside the correct court
USTA Friend at Court, ITF Rules of Tennis, 24.c
To be clear, this rule is NOT the permanent fixture rule. I can state that with absolute confidence because permanent fixtures are next in the list. There are three classic scenarios that are addressed. The first is the player hitting a ball that bounces on their own side of the court.
Here is clip of that occurring in a match between Francesca Schiavone and Lin Zhu. The umpire gets the call wrong and Schiavone… is not pleased. This is also another case of a YouTube clip with an incorrect title. It is not a double bounce, but rather the ball bouncing on the players own court before clearing the net.
Another instance of this happening was on a point between Roger Federer and Thomas Berych where Roger eloquently explains the physics of the spin off a ball that bounces down into the court. That clip also includes one of the announcers erroneously calling it a double bounce, but he is corrected by the other.
The other type of situation that this rule addresses is the ball striking an object that is not a permanent fixture, but is also not a hindrance. If the ball was to strike a bird or a squirrel, that would be a hindrance and a let would be played. An example of an object that is not a permanent fixture and also not a hindrance is an overhanging tree.
One of the clubs in my section hosts a Cat II National every Memorial Day weekend and that facility has a court with a beautiful overhanging tree. (Insert sad pause that COVID-19 has forced the cancellation of that tournament this year.)
When I play a match on that court, I generally try to mention the rule to my opponents before the match starts to make sure we are all on the same page. I have found that it is a lot easier to agree on the rule application before it comes up in an actual point.
While playing on that court, I have been involved with a point that involved a lob that cleared the tree and bounced in behind it. In that case it is like the tree isn’t even there. However, in my mind a ball that arguably might have cleared a branch, but strikes a squirrel that happened to be sitting on the branch would also be a lost point. It would be hard for me to advocate for hindrance from a squirrel that was minding his own business.
The final way a point can be lost per this rule is the most simple. The player hits the ball that bounces on the correct side of the net, but out. But where is the fun in writing about that?
