A couple of weekends ago, I witnessed an interesting on-court controversy at the USTA Texas 40+ Mixed Sectional Championships. In tennis, if there is a dispute of something that happens during a point, the typical resolution is to replay it as a let. Ironically, that is also the case if the dispute was over whether or not a let was called.
In a match that I was scouting, the male partner delivered a serve, which was returned to his feet as he rushed the net. That ball was played up as a sitter lob to the other team, and they converted it into an overhead winner. At that point, the server exclaimed “I thought you called a let.” Debate ensued and an umpire was summoned to the court.
Once the official arrived, the server shifted his story to claim that he himself had called a let. It is a critical distinction, because it turned it into a “he said, she said” situation. The umpire can only rule on events that are personally witnessed or on interpretation of tennis law when all parties agree to the facts.
If a let was not called, then the point would have stood because it was terminated before any let was claimed. In that case, tennis law is clear. However, by claiming that he had made a let call that no one else heard, there was no option for the umpire other than to replay the point.
Interestingly enough, at no point did the server’s partner inject herself into the conversation. In fact she stood well apart from the conference at the net both before and after the umpire arrived. Neither the umpire nor the opposing players ever asked her to weigh in on the debate. It was visually apparent that she wanted no part of it.
It is ironic that the only course of resolution essentially accepts the argument taken by one side, but tennis is just that way sometimes.
Such drama! And intrigue! I’m dying to know how the match ended??
huh? the point was played, then the server thinks the receiver called a let when they won the point? What? Point stands. Play was already over when server ‘thought’ something. Anyway, lets need to be abolished as they just have in college tennis, to avoid this sort of thing. Why dont you write a column on why there are no lets in college play.
As an opponent in this case, you do just have to get on with the match. Arguing the case will prolong the delay in the game and distract from the match. The outcome of an argument cannot possible change the decision to replay the point and theer is no real alternative bt to get on with the match.
We then enter the realm of the possible retaliatory call… then it comes down to personal integrity.