Every Wednesday, this site examines a rule or governing principle that shapes how tennis is actually played. We are currently in the midst of a sequential walkthrough of The Code, exploring one principle at a time as it appears within the USTA’s Friend at Court. This week, we move to Principle 11, which addresses what happens when a player seeks assistance on a call from an opponent.
Requesting opponent’s help. When an opponent’s opinion is requested and the opponent gives a positive opinion, it must be accepted. If neither player has an opinion, the ball is considered good. Aid from an opponent is available only on a call that ends a point.
USTA Friend at Court 2026 , The Code, Principle 11
One of the easiest mistakes to make when reading Principle 11 is to assume that requesting help is the same thing as requesting advice. It is not.
Advice is information that can be considered, weighed, and potentially discarded. Principle 11 does not describe that process. Instead, it describes something much closer to delegation. When a player asks an opponent for assistance on a point-ending call, they are voluntarily inviting that opponent into the decision-making process. The Code then imposes a very specific requirement. If the opponent gives a positive opinion, that opinion must be accepted.
That is stronger language than many players assume. The principle does not say the opinion should be considered. It does not say it should be given substantial weight. It says it must be accepted. The distinction is important because the alternative is absurd.
Imagine a player asking an opponent for help on a close call, and the opponent says that it was in. After that opinion is rendered, the asking player then decides that they disagree. At that point, the request served no meaningful purpose. The opponent was not being asked to help resolve the question but rather to validate a conclusion that had already been reached. Principle 11 tells players not to do that.
Once assistance is requested, the answer has to be binding. Otherwise, asking serves no other purpose than provoking an argument.
It is also important to note the distinction between requesting help and challenging a call. Principle 11 applies only when a player voluntarily seeks an opponent’s opinion. It does not apply when an opponent questions a call or insists that another player weigh in on the situation. That type of interaction involves pressure.
A player saying, “I honestly could not tell. Did you see it out?” is seeking assistance. An opponent asking, “Are you sure?” or “Ask your partner what she saw,” is attempting to influence a decision that has already been made. The Code treats those situations very differently because they arise from different motivations.
Personally, I have no problem asking an opponent for help and accepting the answer. If I ask, I consider myself bound by whatever response I receive, per The Code. At the same time, there are situations where I simply choose not to ask. Usually, those situations involve a breakdown of trust that occurred somewhere along the way. For example, if my opponent has repeatedly questioned balls that were clearly out or demonstrated poor judgment when making calls on their side of the net, I am understandably less inclined to seek their opinion.
Trust matters because the mechanism functions only when a player believes the answer will be provided honestly and competently. Once that belief erodes, the incentive to invoke the principle diminishes as well.
One recurring theme in the principles we have examined in this series is The Code’s bias toward closure over negotiation. Once a player voluntarily requests assistance and an opinion is delivered, the question is resolved, and the discussion is over.
Next week, we will examine a second aspect of Principle 11, which is what happens when neither player has an opinion. Spoiler alert: The Code does not leave that uncertainty unresolved.
- Friend at Court: The Handbook of Tennis Rules and Regulations, USTA, 2026
- Friend at Court: The USTA Handbook of Tennis Rules and Regulations, USTA, 2001. (Hardcopy.)
