Today we will dispense with the final Case Decision in the Hindrance section of the ITF Rules of Tennis. It is also an excellent case study for discussion on how seemingly arbitrary the hindrance rule can be at times.
Case 5: In doubles, where are the server’s partner and receiver’s partner allowed to stand?
Decision: The server’s partner and the receiver’s partner may take any position on their own side of the net, inside or outside the court. However, if a player is creating a hindrance to the opponent(s), the hindrance rule should be used.
USTA Friend at Court, ITF Rules of Tennis, Section 26
The way I would paraphrase this rule is as follows: A doubles team can stand any where in the court they choose and it is not a hindrance unless they actually create a hindrance.
In “Getting Pegged by the Serve… Again” I wrote about a match that the umpire I gave birth to played in the high school regional team tennis finals. Specifically, I indicated that the other team was attempting to deliberately create a distraction by crowding the center service box line. That scenario is the perfect backdrop for exploring where I think the line between hindrance is drawn.
In this case, the in addition to crowding the line, the other team’s non-receiving player was loudly squeaking her shoes during the service motion and moving around a lot while the serve was being delivered. Technically that is the very definition of hindrance. That call is unlikely to be issued in a scholastic team tennis environment, and indeed it was not.
Taking that scenario and tweaking it a little bit, had the players not been creating motion and sound, then I think that crowding the line is fine. So while a player can stand in a place meant to be distracting, but does nothing other than that, it is not a hindrance. Calling attention to it while the ball is in play or about to be in play, crosses the line.
I occasionally experience players crowding the line when I am serving in my matches. At the 5.0/Open level it does not disturb me at all. We are all big girls. If one of my opponents gets nailed when I try to hammer one down the T, then that is her fault.
It bothers me considerably more when playing someone that I am genuinely concerned that I might hit, who probably doesn’t have the reflexes or mobility to avoid some of the serves that scud off my racquet. I am not exactly known for my pinpoint accuracy.
I once handled this precise situation very obnoxiously in a combo league match where one team was crowding the line. When it got to the point in the match where I absolutely had to send at least one serve down the T, I loudly announced that the next serve was heading to that precise spot and that if I hit the crowding player it would be her fault.
My doubles partner laughed. The other team was befuddled. My serve wasn’t an ace, but it was a forced error on the return.
For the record, I do not think that announcing where you are going to put a serve is a hindrance. Other opinions may vary.
- United States Tennis Association (2020) Friend at Court. White Plains, NY
I played a match where the non-receiver stood at the net and leaned so far across as to block my view of the centre line as I was about to serve. I think this is an example of a player not only being a dick, but also ‘creating a hindrance’.
I disagree, especially after reading the above opinion from Ms Merklin. I feel it is still in the spirit of the game to crowd the service box your opponent’s aiming for, as long as you are not moving or making noise. I’d personally draw the line at stepping into the box but I don’t see why even that should be considered hindrance if the person is not moving or making a noise. I tend to only crowd the box at all when you are up against a server who is murdering your partner or is in such good serving form that every possible tactic has to be used to stand any chance of making a game of it.
And if you hit the up receiver it’s your point, so aim at the crowder.