The next part of the rule on how to lose a point contains extensive descriptions of the player and the net proximity. It is by far the wordiest of all the subsections contained in the “Player Loses Point” rule.
The point is lost if:
g. The player or the racket, whether in the player’s hand or not, or anything which the player is wearing or carrying touches the net, net posts/singles sticks, cord or metal cable, strap or band, or the opponent’s court at any time while the ball is in play.
USTA Friend at Court, ITF Rules of Tennis, Section 24
The first part of the rule is an inventory of all things that constitute the player or items that the player is responsible for, which is anything the player is wearing or carrying. The second part of the description are things that cannot be touched by the player. This is generalized as “the net” but also includes the posts, and singles sticks.
The opponent’s court of play is also a part of this rule, but I am deferring discussion of that until discussion on an upcoming case ruling in this section.
The following point between Juan Martin Del Potro and Milos Raonic is the perfect backdrop for discussion of this rule. It is also a blown call by the umpire, which is the perfect time to remember that umpires sometimes make mistakes. We are all fallible. It is the essence of being human.
Raonic makes a hard run for a short ball and hits what looks to be a winner, but his toe slides into the net. The cameras captured his moment of realization that this had occurred. Yet, the umpire awarded the point to Raonic.
In the ongoing discussion it appears that he was aware that the net had been contacted, but ruled that it was when the ball was no longer in play. The last words in this rule are indeed “while the ball is in play.” In this case the ball would have been in play until the second bounce. Clearly Raonic touched the net long before the second bounce had occurred.
It appears that the umpire was looking down at the scoring tablet when the contact occurred and subsequently realized that the net was contacted, but after the point had concluded.
Preditably, Del Potro was not happy. At no point did he ask Raonic if he had touched the net or to concede the point. This is the only way to handle the situation in tennis played without an umpire. The way it would have played out, of course, is that the player who touched the net would have denied that the touch occurred at all and taken great offense that the other player had even asked the question.
To be fair, there are a lot of players in my orbit who would make this call on themselves. There are also a lot who would not. Personally, I generally don’t exhibit either the hustle or the speed to generate enough momentum to carry me into the net. As a consequence, I can’t recall a situation where this has ever come up for me.
- United States Tennis Association (2020) Friend at Court. White Plains, NY
A player loses the point because he/she touched the net if the touching occurs “at any time while the ball is in play.” It seems, therefore, that a ball should not have to bounce twice on the opponent’s court before the player may touch the net. For example, if a) a ball bounces once before the player touches the net and b) the opponent is nowhere near the ball or has fallen down and is unable to get back up, then the ball should not be deemed to be “in play” when the player contacts the net.
The ball is regarded as ‘still in play’ whether or not a player is near.
Think of the situation when a player catches a ball that will surely bounce first time beyond the baseline. Even though the ball will surely not make contact with the court, it is regarded as ‘still in play’ until it hits something outside the court and the player catching the ball, even though they are behind the baseline, loses the point.
Strange things do happen…. if a bird flies across the court and the ball hits it before a second bounce, a ‘let’ would be played. There are examples of this on YouTube….
How near a player is and whether they have a play on a ball is a matter of judgement and when officiating, it is best to limit those situations where judgement is called for.