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.
Case 1: Is an unintentional double hit a hindrance?
Decision: No. See also Rule 24 (f).
USTA Friend at Court, ITF Rules of Tennis, Section 26.
If I had been involved in authoring this case decision, it might had read more along the lines of “Of course not. What part of rule 24(f) do you not understand?” Additionally, I struggle to understand in what universe an unintentional double hit could possible impede or hinder a player’s opponent. In related news, a framed ball may be a distraction, but it is not hindrance.
Case 2: A player claims to have stopped play because the player thought that the opponent(s) was being hindered. Is this a hindrance?
Decision: No, the player loses the point.
USTA Friend at Court, ITF Rules of Tennis, Section 26.
Nice try, but no. As a general rule of thumb the player that stops the point loses the point. Faux concern over the welfare of the opponent or the potential that they are being hindered carries no weight. If a player’s opponent is being hindered, then it is up to that player to make the call.
I have never witnessed or heard about a player making a claim per the description of Case 2. Closely related, and at the risk of getting ahead of myself again, there is the phantom let call. The phantom let is when a player thinks that they see a ball on the opponent’s side of the court that actually isn’t there.
I have actually committed a phantom let call myself, conceding the point when I realized I was hallucinating that another ball had entered my court. What can I say? It gets really hot in Texas sometimes.
- United States Tennis Association (2020) Friend at Court. White Plains, NY
