Last week, we began an examination of Principle 14 of The Code, which addresses disagreements between doubles partners over calls. If one partner calls a ball out and the other sees it good, the disagreement is resolved in favor of the opponents. Principle 14 then ventures into an area where The Code does not usually spend much time by offering advice on how the partners should handle the correction.
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 sentence is more specific than it initially appears. The partners are supposed to discuss the mistake quietly, and the player who made the original call is supposed to concede the point. Neither step affects the outcome because the preceding language in Principle 14 has already established that the opponents receive the favorable call. Instead, the procedure recognizes that the players still have a doubles partnership to manage after the mistake has been corrected.
My usual practice is fairly close to what The Code recommends. When I have concerns about a partner’s call, I generally walk over and speak to them quietly rather than discussing it across the court. However, our examination of Principle 14 has exposed a flaw in how I sometimes conduct that conversation.
If I did not see the ball clearly, I will often ask my partner whether they are sure about the call. That is an appropriate question because my partner may have had a much better view. I may have seen enough to wonder whether the ball was out without having seen enough to make a call myself. In that situation, I am looking for information.
The situation changes when I clearly saw the ball good. Asking my partner whether they are sure may feel less confrontational, but it also misrepresents what I know. I am no longer uncertain about the call. My partner and I have reached different conclusions, and Principle 14 has already told us that our disagreement means the ball is good. “I saw that ball good” is probably the more appropriate thing to say.
There is still good reason to say it quietly. Announcing disagreement across the net provides no additional information necessary to resolve the call. The opponents need to know that the call has been changed, but they do not need to participate in the conversation that gets us to that point. Keeping that exchange within the partnership also reduces the likelihood that a simple correction turns into a debate involving everybody on the court.
There is a practical advantage to The Code’s recommended approach of letting the person who made the original call concede the point. My partner retains some ownership of the original call as well as its correction. They may have made a mistake, but I have not publicly taken the decision away from them. Assuming everyone follows the procedure, our opponents still receive exactly what Principle 14 says they are entitled to.
This scenario is much more complicated in league tennis, where a doubles partnership often exists within a larger team. Your partner may be someone you practice with regularly or expect to play with again. A captain and teammates may also be watching a match whose result affects the standings. Correcting your partner under those circumstances can feel different from doing the same thing during an otherwise inconsequential match.
Of course, none of those circumstances changes the call. Principle 14 explicitly places giving the opponents the benefit of the doubt ahead of avoiding hurt feelings. The instruction to handle the correction tactfully appears to recognize the interpersonal consequences without allowing them to dictate the outcome.
That is probably the useful balance in this part of Principle 14. There is no competitive reason to embarrass your partner when correcting the call, and there is no sportsmanship reason to preserve an incorrect call merely to avoid embarrassing your partner. Quietly providing the information and allowing them to concede the point accomplishes both objectives without asking either one to yield to the other.
One sentence of Principle 14 remains. The current version says that when an out call is changed to good, Principle 12 still applies. Readers who remember our previous posts dissecting Principle 12 may already have some idea where this is headed.
The 2001 version of Principle 14 handled that situation differently. Next week, we will compare the two versions and examine another example of how The Code has changed its approach to correcting an erroneous out call.
- 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.)
