An engineer overthinks tennis in a daily journal.
I can’t decide if I am more disappointed or relieved that no one called me out for the “Damn You Autocorrect” item in my training plan indicating that I would watch matches by Chris “Every” in addition to Steffi Graf to study their technique. Probably everyone knew who I meant anyway.
1 response
In physics, critical mass is the smallest amount of material needed for a chain reaction. The concept of critical mass is a useful analogy for participation in tennis tournaments. Enough players have to enter an event in order for it to be held. Additionally, players typically will not enter tournaments if they assume or are concerned that the draw might not make.
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