Every Wednesday, this site examines a rule or governing principle that shapes how tennis is actually played. We are currently working through The Code in the USTA’s Friend at Court, comparing the current language with the 2001 edition where the differences warrant closer examination. For the past two weeks, we have been looking at Principle 14, which addresses disagreements between doubles partners over calls. We have established that the opponents receive the benefit of the doubt and examined the recommended procedure for quietly correcting a partner. This week, we turn to the final sentence of the principle, where the historical comparison reveals a substantive change in what happens after an incorrect out call is reversed.
Several weeks ago, our examination of Principle 12 uncovered one of the first substantial changes in The Code that we have encountered during this walkthrough. The 2001 edition allowed a point to be replayed under certain circumstances when an incorrect out call was reversed. The current version generally awards the point to the opponents. Principle 14, which we have been examining for the past two weeks, provides another opportunity to see how that change affected the rules.
Most of Principle 14 has remained familiar. The 2001 version required doubles partners who disagreed about a call to give their opponents the benefit of the doubt. It explicitly said that doing so was more important than avoiding the possibility of hurting a partner’s feelings, and it recommended quietly telling the partner about the mistake and allowing that player to correct the call. The language has been modernized, but those expectations remain substantially intact.
The final sentence is now materially different. In 2001, Principle 14 concluded with “If a call is changed from out to good, the point is replayed only if the out ball was put back into play.” Our current 2026 edition is different:
Partners’ disagreement on calls. On any call, always give your opponents the call that most benefits them. (Code 6) For example, if one partner calls the ball out and the other partner sees the ball good, the ball is good. It is more important to give opponents the benefit of the doubt than to avoid possibly hurting a partner’s feelings. The tactful way to achieve the desired result is to tell a partner quietly of the mistake and then let the partner concede the point. If a call is changed from out to good, the principles of Code 12 apply.
USTA Friend at Court 2026 , The Code, Principle 14
That cross-reference may look like a minor editorial change to anyone who has not previously dissected Principle 12, as we did a few weeks ago. However, the modern version of that principle says that a player who reverses an out call loses the point. The point is not replayed. Consequently, the remedy available to doubles partners who correct an erroneous call has changed along with the underlying rule.
Suppose my partner calls a ball out while I clearly see it land on the line. I have already returned the ball into the opponents’ court, perhaps because I was still playing when my partner made the call. Under the 2001 language, the fact that the ball was put back into play could allow us to replay the point. Under the current version, our disagreement establishes that the ball is good, and the reversed out call costs us the point.
The older rule was attempting to account for the circumstances of the rally. If the ball had been returned into play, there was at least a possibility that the point could have continued without the incorrect call. A replay offered a way to restore the opportunity that had been interrupted. If the ball had not been returned, the opponents received the point.
There is an understandable appeal to that approach. If a player makes a mistake, immediately corrects it, and has already returned the ball into the proper court, replaying the point can seem like a reasonable way to handle the situation. The problem is that the original state cannot actually be restored. The opponents may have stopped moving when they heard the out call. The return may have been affected by the interruption. Even if the ball landed in the proper court, nobody can know exactly what would have happened had the call never been made.
The current rule removes much of that uncertainty from the decision. Once the out call is reversed, the point goes to the opponents. No one needs to determine whether the return was playable or whether the rally would probably have continued. The consequence flows from the incorrect call itself.
When we previously examined Principle 12, I concluded that the change reflected two different approaches to fairness. The 2001 version required players to come to agreement on the probable continuation of the point in question, while the current version requires no such consensus. Principle 14 reinforces that interpretation because the same change now appears in another part of The Code. The obligation to correct the call remains, but the remedy no longer depends on whether the ball was returned into play.
To put a finer point on the consequences, under the older rule, correcting a partner’s out call could sometimes result in a replay, but under the current rule, the correction generally means conceding the point. That makes the decision to speak up to make the correction potentially more costly, particularly in a league match where competitive and social dynamics come into play.
Principle 14 does not leave room for those factors to influence the decision. If one partner clearly saw the ball as good, they are expected to correct the call regardless of whether doing so costs a point. The previous two posts explored the interpersonal difficulty of that obligation. The historical comparison adds another dimension because the modern remedy removes the possibility of a replay that might once have softened the consequences of correcting a partner.
In terms of fairness, I am not convinced that either approach is necessarily better than the other. The difference is that the current rule avoids the uncertainty of deciding how an interrupted point would have continued. That eliminates further debate and ensures consistent outcomes.
The bottom line is that the change we identified under Principle 12 was not isolated. Principle 14 carries its new philosophy into the rules governing disagreements between doubles partners. A player reading only the current wording might see a simple cross-reference, but comparing the editions reveals a substantive change in how an incorrect call is resolved.
That is one of the reasons I have found the historical comparison exercise useful. Many of the differences between the 2001 and 2026 editions are editorial. Occasionally, however, a small wording change reflects a different approach to administering the game. Principle 14 is another example of why those differences deserve more than a cursory reading.
- 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.)
