I think we are way overdue in discussion of boundaries in tennis. Unlike other sports, tennis does not have a concept of out of bounds. For example, in basketball the player’s feet cannot touch the area outside of the court while the ball is in play. In soccer, the players feet may touch the area outside of the pitch and only the ball has to stay within the lines.
One restriction on player location in tennis is the location of service delivery as previously discussed in “Serving up the Tennis Service.” In addition, the player is not allowed to touch the opponent’s court at any time when the ball is in play. The definition of the court in tennis was previously covered in “Rules of Tennis: Ball Touches a Line.” The definition of the court in tennis is the area bounded by the lines of the court.
Case 4: Does a player lose the point if an imaginary line in the extension of the net is crossed before or after hitting the ball?
Decision: The player does not lose the point in either case provided the player does not touch the opponent’s court.
USTA Friend at Court, ITF Rules of Tennis, Section 24
Another way to phrase the question posed in this case is does the opponent’s court include all the area behind the net, or only the area previously established by the definition of the court. This case ruling makes it clear that the definition of the court is still the area contained between the lines. The rules are remarkably consistent.
As is my nature, I am prone to grouse from time to time at the repetition of some of the rules. To be candid, I think the redundancy is in response to how players read, or more precisely don’t read, the rules. I would wager that the majority of tennis players have never read the rules at all.
In modern technical writing, the definition of the court would be cross referenced or hyperlinked directly from the rule stating that if a player touches the other player’s court the point is lost. Such cross referencing was not a concept when the rules were originally composed.
I tried to find a clip of a player crossing the imaginary plane of the net. The best I could find is one that I had already used of Milos Raonic hitting a ball back into the net. In this instance, he crosses the plane of the net after striking the ball. There is a good chance that the ball is already out of play by the time he does so, but the distinction does not matter since it is permitted.
To state another obvious point, the court boundaries in singles and doubles are different. Since almost all modern courts are lined for both singles and doubles, this can lead to some confusion. If a player passed the invisible plane of the net and stepped in the double’s alley in singles, that would be permitted because the doubles alleys are not a part of the singles court.
I can’t imagine being fast enough or hustling enough for that distinction to matter.
- United States Tennis Association (2020) Friend at Court. White Plains, NY
