Many years ago, my daughter was playing a junior tennis match when her opponent so badly mishit a second serve that it landed outside the fence. My daughter went to retrieve it, only to return to the court and encounter the bizarre scenario of her opponent trying to claim the point. Her argument was that my daughter had not called the serve out promptly, even though the ball was very obviously out.
As it turns out, she kind of sort of almost had a valid point.
Audible or visible calls. No matter how obvious it is to a player that an opponent’s ball is out, the opponent is entitled to a prompt audible or visible out call.
USTA Friend at Court 2026, The Code, Principle 15
My daughter had indeed failed to render a call on the ball. Fortunately, an official eventually interceded and sorted it out in her favor.
This week, our sequential walkthrough of The Code brings us to Principle 15, which establishes that players are entitled to a call even when there is little doubt about where the ball landed.
There is not much ambiguity in the language of Principle 15. Seeing a ball land out and knowing that it was out does not complete a player’s self-officiating responsibility. The opponent is entitled to know that the call was made, which requires some form of communication.
Principle 15 does not require players to yell. In fact, it does not require them to say anything at all. The call can be audible or visible, so an appropriate hand signal accomplishes the same purpose. What matters is that the opponent receives a prompt indication that the ball was called out rather than being left to infer that decision.
I follow that practice even when the call seems almost comically unnecessary. If an opponent wildly scuds a ball several feet beyond the baseline, I wait for it to bounce and then quietly call it out or give a visible signal. I once had an opponent tell me that doing this was obnoxious, apparently interpreting the call as unnecessary emphasis on how badly the ball had missed.
I disagree. I am not shouting “OUT!” across the court, pumping my fist, or otherwise turning the call into a celebration. I am simply completing the call required by The Code. The fact that everyone involved probably knew where the ball was headed does not make it out before it bounces, nor does its eventual landing several feet beyond the line eliminate the requirement to communicate the call.
The word “prompt” is also important, although my daughter’s junior match demonstrates the danger of stretching it beyond reason. Tennis happens quickly, and players frequently make calls while doing something else. A racquet may already be moving toward the ball when it lands, or a player may reflexively make contact while simultaneously recognizing that the ball was out.
A match at USTA Texas 18+ Sectionals a few weeks ago provides another vignette. I was watching a singles match when the server double-faulted on the first point of a game. From my position on the sideline, the second serve appeared obviously long. The receiver called it out audibly and also signaled out with her hand as her racquet reflected the ball back into the net.
The receiver then won the next point, at which time the players discovered that they disagreed about the score. The receiver had it at 0-30. The server believed it was 15-15 because she claimed the receiver had missed the return of the second serve on the previous point.
An argument followed. The receiver correctly explained that she had called the serve long. The server responded with self-righteous indignation that you cannot decide a full point later that an earlier ball was out. This is a case where what she was saying about the rule is absolutely true. However, it was also irrelevant based on what had actually happened.
The receiver had not retroactively changed her initial call. She had made the call when the serve landed, both audibly and visibly, exactly as Principle 15 requires. Her racquet subsequently contacting the ball did not erase the call. Fortunately, a roving official had witnessed the entire sequence and confirmed that he had both seen the signal and heard the out call. The score was upheld at 0-30.
That incident illustrates both the value and the limitations of Principle 15. A clear audible or visible call eliminates reasonable ambiguity about whether a player called the ball out. It provides everyone on the court with information necessary to understand when the point ended and why. What it cannot guarantee is that an opponent will hear the call, see the signal, remember what happened, or agree with you later.
Perhaps that is why I continue to make calls on balls that seem far too obviously out to require them. I would rather provide information that nobody needed than create uncertainty that could have been avoided. Sometimes that means quietly signaling out after an opponent misses the baseline by several feet. Nobody needs to interpret that as commentary on the quality of the shot. It is simply the procedure.
Principle 15 has also been remarkably stable. The 2001 version of The Code is substantively the same, with the intervening changes largely reflecting the move toward gender-neutral language. Unlike the philosophical changes we recently encountered in Principles 12 and 14, there is no historical evolution to dissect here. Players were entitled to a prompt audible or visible call 25 years ago, and they remain entitled to one today.
There is probably a useful lesson in the fact that such a simple principle has remained necessary. Self-officiated tennis depends on players communicating decisions rather than assuming that everyone else reached the same conclusion. An obvious ball still needs a call, and making that call consistently removes one potential source of legitimate disagreement.
It will not, unfortunately, insulate you from crazy people.
- 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.)
