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 14, which revisits now familiar territory. We previously spent considerable time under Principle 9 exploring what happens when doubles partners see the same ball differently. Principle 14 returns to that situation with more specific instructions about what happens next.
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
Principle 9 established that either doubles partner has the authority to make a call. Giving two people that authority inevitably creates the possibility that they will disagree. Principle 14 resolves that problem by referring back to Principle 6 and its requirement to give opponents the benefit of the doubt. If one partner sees a ball out and the other sees it good, the disagreement itself establishes the necessary doubt. The ball is good.
There is an important distinction between disagreeing with a partner and simply not having an opinion. If my partner calls a ball out and I did not see it clearly enough to make a call, there is no disagreement. My uncertainty does not invalidate what my partner saw. However, if my partner calls the ball out and I clearly saw it good, our team no longer possesses the certainty necessary to maintain the out call. We have two conflicting observations from players who are equally authorized to make the decision, and The Code resolves that conflict in favor of our opponents.
That sounds relatively uncomplicated when written on a page. Applying it during a doubles match layers in additional social dynamics. And when this scenario arises in a USTA League match, the situation is fraught with peril.
As I wrote when we examined Principle 9, I am loath to overrule one of my partners. A line call is ostensibly a judgment about where a tennis ball landed, but questioning a partner’s call can easily be interpreted as a judgment about the person who made it. Nobody particularly enjoys being told that they made a bad call, and hearing that from your own partner adds another layer to an already uncomfortable interaction.
Those dynamics become more complicated in team competition. Doubles partners may play together regularly, practice together, or remain teammates long after the match is over. There is an understandable instinct to support the person standing beside you, particularly when the opponents are already unhappy with a call. Publicly contradicting a partner can feel like breaking ranks at precisely the moment when the partnership is supposed to operate as a team.
Principle 14 explicitly acknowledges that tension, which is something I appreciate about the wording. Rather than pretending that correcting a partner carries no interpersonal cost, The Code says directly that giving the opponents the benefit of the doubt is more important than avoiding the possibility of hurting a partner’s feelings. The social consequences are recognized, but they do not change the disposition of the call.
That clarification also causes me to reconsider some of what I wrote under Principle 9. My usual approach when I question a partner’s call is to walk over quietly and ask whether they are certain. Sometimes they immediately confirm what they saw. Other times, the question is enough to make them reconsider and reverse the call themselves. I still think that approach works well when I am uncertain about my own view, because I am not substituting an unclear observation for a call my partner may have seen perfectly well.
Principle 14 describes a different situation. If I clearly saw the ball good, asking my partner whether they are sure is no longer really an inquiry into what happened. I already have an opinion, and our opinions conflict. At that point, my reluctance to contradict my partner cannot be allowed to preserve an out call that our team collectively cannot support.
The principle nevertheless leaves room for handling that correction with some tact. It recommends quietly telling the partner about the mistake and allowing the original caller to concede the point. That does not change the outcome, but it avoids turning an internal disagreement into a public confrontation across the net. Considering how quickly people can become defensive about line calls, there is considerable practical wisdom packed into that recommendation.
We will spend more time on that part of Principle 14 next week. For now, Principle 14 clarifies the boundary between supporting a partner and supporting an incorrect call. Doubles partners owe each other cooperation, but that obligation does not require pretending to see the court the same way. When they genuinely disagree, the benefit of that disagreement belongs to the opponents.
- 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.)
