Tennis had a feel-good moment of sportsmanship during the US Open Men’s Doubles final this year. Down 2-4 in the deciding set, Matthew Ebden hit a ball that grazed Rohan Bopanna’s arm before crossing to the other side of the net for an apparent winner. The chair umpire did not see the touch, nor did their opponents, Rajeev Ram and Joe Salisbury. Bopanna quickly stopped the point, conceding it to their opponents.
In addition to joining the chorus of people hailing Bopanna for his good sportsmanship, there are two rules-related angles to explore within this scenario. First, the US Open was running an experimental procedure for video review at this year’s tournament. This certainly would have been a reviewable situation. However, since the chair umpire and the opponents did not notice that the ball had touched Bopanna, it is unlikely that it would have been invoked.
Additionally, after watching replays of the point, it isn’t clear to me that it would have been reversed upon video review anyway. Bopanna’s touch did not visibly deflect the ball trajectory on the video shown on the broadcast feeds. It is possible that the video review system has alternate cameras, though I doubt it.
The other interesting aspect is what the rules actually say about a ball that hits a player’s doubles partner before crossing the net. This is yet another example of a rule that we all “know” that isn’t explicitly written down. I genuinely thought that this scenario was clearly covered within Rule 24, “Player Loses Point,” within the ITF Rules of Tennis. It isn’t.
The only place in the rules mentioning a ball that hits a player’s own partner comes within Rule 19, “Service Fault.”
19. SERVICE FAULT
The service is a fault if:
d. The ball served touches the server or server’s partner, or anything the server or server’s partner is wearing or carrying.
ITF Rules of Tennis, Rule 19 (Excerpt)
Rule 24, “Player Loses Point,” contains a few items that capture the spirit and intent of this scenario without explicitly mentioning the player’s partner.
PLAYER LOSES POINT
The point is lost if:
c. The player returns the ball in play so that it hits the ground, or before it bounces, an object, outside the correct court; or
i. The ball in play touches the player or anything that the player is wearing or carrying, except the racket; or
l. In doubles, both players touch the ball when returning it.
ITF Rules of Tennis, Rule 24 (Excerpts)
To me, the most definitive coverage is in Rule 24.c. In this case, the player’s partner is an object outside the correct court that is incidentally hit with the ball. However, the cleanest way to fix this omission would be to update Rule 24.i to include the player’s partner.
Next week, the weekly Wednesday rules focus of this blog will shift to the topic of stewardship of the Rules of Tennis under the ITF. That includes examining how petitions to update the rules are made and processed as well as a history of the evolution of the rules themselves.
This omission in the ITF Rules of Tennis, as revealed via Bopanna’s act of sportsmanship, is a great candidate for a rules update petition.
- ITF Rules of Tennis, International Tennis Federation, 2023
I’m a bit confused with what you wrote about the partner being an object outside the correct court. What is the correct court? Is it not all one court? Do they mean the opponents’ end of the court? Because to me my partner is not outside the correct court.
Per the (rather clunky) usage in the ITF rules, the correct court in this case, is on the opposite side of the net.