I am happy to report that the approved alternative scoring procedures pertaining to the service let are the only remaining scoring variations to cover. With this post, we have completed all the material in Appendix V of the ITF Rules of Tennis.
“No Let” RULE
This alternative is play without the service let in Rule 22.a whereby a serve that touches the net, strap or band is in play.
USTA Friend at Court, ITF Rules of Tennis, Appendix V
Looking into my crystal ball, I can imagine a future where this becomes the standard in tennis. NCAA Division 1 adopted this rule for the men several years ago. At the time, the stated reason was to save time. The real reason was because some players would systemically negate their opponents aces by claiming a let. At that level, the serve is delivered with such velocity that it doesn’t appear to be flagrant.
I once witnessed this phenomenon on an adjacent court while watching the umpire I gave birth to play a tournament match. In that case it was a girls singles match and the serves in question were not all that fast. It was egregious.
I have both practiced and played with this rule in conjunction with Fast4 tournaments. The ATP tour has also experimented with this rule at the Next Gen finals and in some of the challenger level tournaments. It speeds up play and can turn otherwise dead time into an exciting dive to get the point started. I kind of like that variation.
At the discretion of the sanctioning body, when playing doubles using Short Sets in combination with No-Ad scoring and the No-Let rule, either player on the receiving team is permitted to return a serve that touches the net, strap or band and lands within the correct service box.
USTA Friend at Court, ITF Rules of Tennis, Appendix V
There are a lot of caveats associated with this one that seem to be overly restrictive. I believe that this rule also originated with Fast4 and that the ITF wanted it to be clear that this variation was only for that format, without actually naming the format.
That being said, I am totally into this rule with a nod to Bill Watterson and his immortal creation “Calvin Ball.” It completely violates the “Order of Recieving” rule, but for inexplicable reasons I find that I do not mind that fact all that much.
This officially concludes coverage of the service let rules. However my crystal ball has revealed that there is one more loop back upcoming with yet another oddly located ITF Case Ruling. I also have at least one rabbit trail that needs to be explored before I can dive into the next section of the rules.
- United States Tennis Association (2020) Friend at Court. White Plains, NY
