An engineer overthinks tennis in a daily journal.
Today I am returning my attention to the post COVID-19 protocols implemented a couple of weeks ago at the “$Prize Money Austin UTR Open @ Austin Tennis Academy. ” Earlier this week I wrote about the ball hygiene practices implemented during that tournament in “Tournament Ball Safety Protocols.”
2 responses
Yesterday I wrote about how the financial and liability structures of the USTA and UTR was very likely a dominant contributing factor in the decisions the organizations made about the suspension of tennis tournament play under COVID-19. Today I am exploring how the independent nature of UTR creates an agility advantage for UTR event organizers.
To tie a bow on the Hindrance Section in the ITF Rules of Tennis, I want to share a video that the ITF published on Hindrance. I don’t know exactly when the video was made, but Tennis Australia posted it on YouTube in 2010.
As I have progressed through this project I have encountered rules and ITF Case Decisions that seem pretty straight forward at first glance. Sometimes as I start exploring such rules, complexity emerges that was not immediately apparent to me. Today’s ITF Case Decision is one of those instances.
The Hindrance section of the ITF Rules of Tennis as published in the USTA Friend at Court contains 5 Case Decisions. Today we are covering the first two that are just a tad bit inane. When a Case Decision exists, I take it to mean that it a response question or scenario that is escalated to the ITF on a recurring basis. The inclusion of the first two case decision may have arisen from sheer exasperation.
We have spend the past two days covering the first paragraph of the “Hindrance” section of the ITF Rules of Tennis as published by the USTA Friend at Court. Today we will move into the second paragraph of the rule which discussed unintentional acts and things outside the player’s own control.
Today I will continue to dwell on additional audible examples of hindering an opponent. The first is a clip between Maria Sharapova and Maria Kirilenko. I chose this example because it a good example of a non-verbal sound.
“Hindrance” is the next section of the ITF Rules of Tennis as published in the USTA Friend at Court. We have also reached the point where discussing and analyzing the rules becomes decidedly more salacious.
7 responses
Today I am shifting gears and announcing a little side project that I am embarking upon. Put another way, this little “Fiend at Court” side project now has a side project.
So many times in this project I have made a plan on how to cover material, only to veer off onto a rabbit trail or discover that I don’t have as much to write about a given topic as I anticipate. With that backdrop, let me outline my intended content over the next three days.