Throwing the Racquet Again
If I was ever going to completely phone in my daily essay, today would be the day. That is because today’s case ruling was thoroughly covered in “Racquets gone Wild.” So what is different about this rule?
An engineer overthinks tennis in a daily journal.
If I was ever going to completely phone in my daily essay, today would be the day. That is because today’s case ruling was thoroughly covered in “Racquets gone Wild.” So what is different about this rule?
For me, some of the tennis rules are aspirational. Today’s ITF case decision falls firmly in that category. I simply do not have the athleticism to successfully violate this rule. In fact, if you ever see me even start to attempt this, just go ahead and call the ambulance. I am going to need it.
4 responsesI 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.
I am in the middle of a systematic march through the ITF Rules of Tennis as published in the USTA Friend at Court. In the course of doing this, I am encountering some of the ITF Case Rulings for the first time in my life. I had no idea that some of these scenarios had been codified into the rules. We have arrived at another one of those instances today.
Yesterday I described how I envision that the ITF case rulings were forged over pints of ale at the local pub. I think the case ruling from today was later in the evening of the same discussion.
I can recall exactly one dramatic instance of the racquet slipping from my hand when delivering a serve. On a very humid day, I lost my grip on the racquet on downward follow through of my service motion. It was like spiking a football after a touchdown. At no point was my racquet anywhere near the net.
Today we celebrate our arrival at the final way to lose a point outlined in “Player Loses Point” in the ITF Rules of Tennis. If you were planning on a celebration to commemorate the completion of this section, please put that on hold. There are still eight case rulings and two USTA comments associated with the “Player Loses Point” section remaining. By my estimate, we are at the approximate half way point for this topic.
Some rules don’t seem to have any practical reason to exist. This brings us to to the penultimate rule in the main body of “Player Loses Point.”
3 responsesNext up in the discussion of how to lose a point is throwing a racquet. The first image that springs to mind for me is a racquet abuse code violation, but this is an entirely different scenario. The point is lost if the ball in play touches the racket when the player is not holding it.
Losing a point is figuratively painful. Sometimes losing a point is literally painful. This brings us to the topic of a player losing a point due to direct contact with the ball. The actual wording of the rule makes this sound gentle and innocuous. The modern tennis vernacular for losing a point in this manner is “getting pegged.” If the ball was delivered with enough velocity, this is can also be known as the “Wilson Tattoo.”