An engineer overthinks tennis in a daily journal.
Today we celebrate moving into “A Good Return” in the ITF Rules of Tennis as published within the USTA Friend at Court. Sometimes in tennis vernacular, the word “return” is specific to the first shot after a service. However in the rules of tennis, the word return includes every shot after the service.
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?
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.
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.”
I feel compelled to note that I am not scouring the internet for clips of umpires missing calls. However, missed calls are the ones that tend to be captured and posted to YouTube, so that is generally what turns up in searches. Additionally, missed calls are usually great backdrops for more extensive discussions about the nuances of the rules. They are also fabulously entertaining.
The next part of the rule on how to lose a point contains extensive descriptions of the player and the net proximity. It is by far the wordiest of all the subsections contained in the “Player Loses Point” rule.
2 responses
I have discovered that it can be tremendously fun to conjure scenarios that break the rules of tennis. This is an unanticipated side effect of my systemic march through the USTA Friend at Court. The rule we have arrived at today is firmly in that category.
If it seems like I have already written about this rule, it is because I actually have. In “Permanent Fixtures, Again” I wrote a lot about how the ball striking a permanent fixture is a point loss. There is good reason for that. It is because the section we were covering at that time basically says the exact same thing.