An engineer overthinks tennis in a daily journal.
I have been enjoying a fun diversion of reading about equipment that appears on the ITF Non-Confirming Equipment list. I think I would like to get my hands on some of these items and see if they really produced a material difference in play to the point of threatening the traditional skills required to play the game of tennis.
Today I am celebrating completion of the first month of my daily tennis essay writing exercise. To mark the occasion, I would like to spendRead More
An ITF Case ruling indicates that if a player accidentally breaks a string that he can continue to play with the racquet unless doing so was specifically prohibited by event organizers. This begs the obvious question why does it have to be accidentally?
How the racquet might be a tiny ITF rebellion against one of the stipulations imposed when they assumed stewardship of “The Rules of Tennis.”
Today we come to the first of two places in the Friend at Court where material changes to the ball are covered. May a player cause a ball to become wet by using the ball to wipe perspiration from the player’s body?
Today I am exploring the possibility that I may have possibly once won a point due to a faulty rules interpretation from a USTA official.
2 responses
My engineer brain took one look at the ITF ball specification table and all the “WTF” synapses simultaneously fired off. Fortunately, the ITF provides a very detailed description of the testing process.
No discussion of the ITF rules and standards for the tennis ball can be complete without discussing the hubbub surrounding the controversial introduction of a new ball at the French Open in 2011.
If you give an engineer some data in tabular form, she will probably put it into a spreadsheet and plunge into statistical analysis.