A recent tweet from Rennae Stubbs highlighted Stefanos Tsitsipas doing something that the former tennis professional turned coach and commentator regarded as illegal. It is a good case study for another examination of the rules about intentionally distracting behavior. Before we dive in, here is the tweet with a short bootlegged clip of the point in question.
From that brief clip and the date when it was posted, I quickly came to the conclusion that it was from the Round of 16 match between Stefanos Tsitsipas and Nicholas Jarry at Halle. Additionally, it transpired during a 15-15 point as evidenced by a brief fraction of the score at the very end of what Stubbs posted. The detailed box score of that match revealed that there were only 10 points played at 15-15. I was able to track down the exact one pretty quickly from the on-demand replay.
All that was to confirm that there was no warning from the umpire or audible complaint from Jarry, who won the point. I now have my own bootleg clip of what happened, but I have elected not to post it because it doesn’t really reveal anything that was not in the original tweet from Stubbs.
The primary rule that applies in this situation is #26 from the ITF Rules of Tennis.
If a player is hindered in playing the point by a deliberate act of the opponent(s), the player shall win the point.
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).
ITF Rules of Tennis, Rule #26
While the ITF Rules of Tennis documents a few case decisions to guide the interpretation of hindrance, none really define whether waving your arms is intentionally distracting behavior.
The ATP Official Rulebook is also applicable since this scenario occurred during an ATP tour match. That source also quotes Rule #26 from the ITF Rules of Tennis, before adding additional definitions intended to distinguish between inadvertent or deliberate hindrance.
2) Inadvertent or Deliberate event. A distraction occurring on-court may be ruled inadvertent (unintentional) or ruled deliberate.
a) Inadvertent distractions may include the following (a “Let” may be called in these cases): a ball rolling onto the court; a ball falling out of a pocket; a hat falling off; or an involuntary sound or exclamation (ex. verbal reaction to an injury) from a player. Any player who created the hindrance must be advised that the next time play is stopped by the Chair Umpire because of that player’s similar actions; it shall result in a loss of point.
b) Any distraction caused by a player may be ruled deliberate and result in the loss of a point (intentional or unintentional). Deliberate is defined as the player meant to do what it was that caused the hindrance or distraction.
c) Care must be exercised to ensure rulings do not result in providing a player(s) with two opportunities to win a point.
ATP Official Rulebook, VII.F.2
The chair umpire made no call, so no additional rules pertaining to this scenario apply to the Tsitsipas-Jarry match. However, if this incident had occurred during a USTA-sanctioned event, “The Code” from the USTA Friend at Court would be the resource to guide rules interpretation.
35. Body movement. 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.
“The Code” from the USTA Friend at Court, Principle #35.
Whenever I review this rule, I instantly think of WTA doubles player Shuko Aoyama. I think that she has one of the best feints in women’s tennis. She moves with her feet, but her racquet is also involved when she is pretending to poach. I watch a lot of her matches and have never seen an umpire call that a hindrance. The following animated gif illustrates what she does.
The key difference between Tsitsipas’s arm waving against Jarry is that it wasn’t a feint. He waved his arms in an attempt to distract Jarry. It was not a plausible movement toward playing the ball. If the chair umpire had called hindrance on him, I think it would have been the correct call.
I suspect that if Jarry had missed the ball, that hindrance might have been invoked. We will never know.
- Friend at Court: The Handbook of Tennis Rules and Regulations, USTA, 2023
- ITF Rules of Tennis, International Tennis Federation, 2023
- ATP Official Rulebook, ATP, 2023
- 2023 Halle R16: Nicolas Jarry vs Stefanos Tsitsipas, tennisabstract.com, viewed July 1, 2023.
Thank you for writing about hinderances. It would be helpful to know the best way to handle these situations during a USTA sanctioned match. Most matches have no chair umpire and even if they do, it is my understanding that responsibility falls on the opponent to address the hinderance. If a ball falls out of the pocket or a hat falls off, it is the opponent’s responsibility to call a let. Then the second time that happens it is still the responsibility of the opponent and a point is awarded. But if it’s an intentional act of distraction, the opponent must call the player on her misdeed.
Is this correct?
Charlotte Hartsock
The way I would handle it in a USTA-sanctioned match is first to alert my opponent that a hindrance occurred. In my experience, a shocking number of players really do not understand the rules. I have had opponents offer to concede a point after being told they did something that could be construed as a hindrance. Alternatively, that first step might result in a disagreement over the rules or whether a hindrance was committed. Usually, that conversation is enough to attract increased scrutiny from the roving official and then the behavior either stops or is more likely to be called.
Fortunately, I have never directly experienced egregious recurring hindrance situations. However, I have suffered through many instances of that from the bleachers when my daughter was playing Junior tennis.