Latest Posts

Ultimate Stocking Stuffer List for Tennis Players (2024 Edition) Secrets of Winning Tennis The USTA Encourages Double Dipping The Speed Ladder Tennis Beyond the Headlines: November 18, 2024 A Balanced Diet: Healthy Tennis Engagements A Balanced Diet: Better Nutrition for Better Tennis

The Rules of Tennis

Last Wednesday’s “The Rules of Tennis” post drew a couple of comments that compel me to follow-up. In case you missed it, an umpire called hindrance against Daniil Medvedev for apologizing to Alexander Bublik during a point in Toronto. This site’s (somewhat) sequential march through the rules of tennis has yet to reach the section of the USTA Friend at Court about talking during a point. Because it is current and relevant, we will jump ahead. It is a case where the written rule diverges significantly from how it is normally carried out in USTA sanctioned matches.

Just in case you somehow missed it, ATP TV edited and released a humorous video summary of the point in question.

The ITF Rules of Tennis contains a description on hindrance. However, neither that definition nor any of the ITF Case Rulings cover players talking during the point.

If a player is hindered in playing the point by a deliberate act of the opponent(s), the player shall win the point.

ITF Rules of Tennis, Section 23. (Reprinted in the USTA Friend at Court 2021)

USTA Hindrance Regulations

For players under the USTA regulation, talking as a hindrance violation is in “Part 2 — The Code.” That section is the player’s guide to fair play and the “unwritten rules” of tennis. The fact that the unwritten rules of tennis are written in The Code, warrants that precise ironic observation.

The USTA Friend at Court clearly states that The Code is not a part of the ITF Rules of Tennis. Additionally it directs that players must follow The Code, except to the extent to which an official assumes some of their responsibilities.

34. Talking when ball is in play.

Singles players should not talk during points.

Talking between doubles partners when the ball is moving toward them is allowed.

Doubles players should not talk when the ball is moving toward their opponent’s court.

Any talking that interferes with an opponent’s ability to play a ball is a hindrance.

For example, if a doubles player hits a weak lob and yells “get back” and the yell distracts an opponent who is about to hit the ball, then the opponent may claim the point based on a deliberate hindrance. If the opponent chooses to play the lob and misses it, the opponent loses the point because the opponent did not make a timely claim of hindrance.

USTA Friend at Court, The Code, Principle 34.

There is a double standard between singles and doubles players when it comes to talking. It is generally frowned upon during singles play, but allowed during certain conditions in doubles. However, I am guessing that the prohibition of speaking when the ball is traveling toward the opponents in doubles is news to a lot of tennis players.

The example provided in The Code is what most doubles players are instructed to do. Warning your partner of the impending “Wilson tattoo” due to your own weak lob is exactly how doubles players are expected to communicate with each other.

My friend Greg relayed a story about a time when this exact scenario was enforced at USTA League Sectionals during one of his matches. He hit a weak lob and warned his partner, only to have his opponent catch the ball and claim the point. There was an umpire on hand who upheld the claim. After reviewing The Code, I can understand why. It was enforced exactly as the “unwritten rule” is recorded.

I would also observe that the first two principles in The Code are “Courtesy is expected” and “Points played in good faith are counted.” I probably would have argued that the prig who made that call was neither courteous nor playing in good faith.

ATP Tournaments are outside USTA Regulation

ATP tournament matches are under the authority of the ATP Official Rulebook. As discussed last week in “A Hella Hindrance in Toronto“, speaking is defined as an intentional act in that source. The umpire followed the standard outlined in the ATP Official Rulebook when the call was made.

It is maddening, but it was the correct call. It is just a call that might not be consistently made under similar circumstances.


  1. United States Tennis Association (2021), Friend at Court: Handbook of Rules and Regulations, White Plains, NY
  2. ATP Official Rulebook, 2021.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *