This week, our sequential march through The Code within the USTA’s Friend at Court has reached Principle 19. Throughout this exercise, we have compared the current edition of The Code with a 2001 reference version to see where the language has changed. Sometimes the revisions are relatively minor. Other times, a few additional words reveal something interesting about how the rules are intended to work.
In the case of Principle 19, I believe that the new wording establishes the primary intent rather than a clarification. That principle starts by identifying five circumstances in which a player must concede a point.
Touches, hitting ball before it crosses net, invasion of opponent’s court, double hits, and double bounces. A player must concede the point when:
• A ball in play touches that player;
• That player or that player’s racket touches the net or opponent’s court while a ball is in play;
• That player hits a ball before it crosses the net;
• That player deliberately carries or double hits a ball; or
• A ball bounces more than once in that player’s court.
The opponent is not entitled to make these calls. The principle of giving the opponent the benefit of any doubt applies.
USTA Friend at Court 2026, The Code, Principle 19
The list of violations is unchanged from 2001, but the current version includes two additional sentences at the end that are impactful. Although the original version already required players to concede these violations, it did not explicitly address whether their opponents were entitled to make the calls. The current language settles that question.
What is interesting is that there are circumstances where an opponent may be in a better position to make the call. For example, when a player lunges for a drop shot, they may not be certain if they got their racquet under the ball before the second bounce. The opponent may have a better perspective.
Under Principle 19, the responsibility belongs to the player attempting the retrieval. The opponent might have had an excellent view and may be completely convinced that the ball bounced twice. However, that does not give the opponent the authority to make the call.
There is a practical problem here. The player hitting the shot is concentrating on reaching the ball, not necessarily observing the precise relationship between the ball, court surface, and racquet. It is entirely possible for that player to believe their shot was legal while the opponent believes otherwise. Both may be acting in good faith.
The newer language clarifies who gets to decide, but it doesn’t guarantee that the person making the decision had the best view.
We have encountered similar assignments of authority elsewhere in The Code. Players make line calls on their own side of the net, even when an opponent believes the call was wrong. Principle 19 extends that responsibility to specific violations that result in the loss of a point. In some cases, the player must acknowledge something that would otherwise go uncalled.
That brings us to the second part of the addition, which invokes the principle of giving the opponent the benefit of any doubt. If I am the player retrieving the drop shot, and I am genuinely uncertain whether the ball bounced twice. I don’t get to resolve that uncertainty in my own favor simply because I am the person authorized to make the call. Principle 19 directs me back to Principle 6, which establishes that when there is doubt, my calls must favor the opponent.
However, my opponent’s belief that the ball bounced twice does not definitively create uncertainty on my part. If I know that the ball bounced only once before I made contact, I am entitled to make that call even if my opponent disagrees. Otherwise, the prohibition against opponents making these calls would have little practical effect.
I don’t read Principle 19 as prohibiting a player from asking about a possible violation. There is a difference between asking whether a violation occurred and announcing that it did and claiming the point. The text explicitly prohibits the opponent from making the call. It does not establish a blanket prohibition against discussing what happened.
Of course, asking a question can become its own form of gamesmanship. A player who repeatedly challenges an opponent’s judgment may be attempting to influence future calls rather than resolve a genuine uncertainty. We have encountered that problem elsewhere in this series, and I suspect most experienced players have seen some version of it.
What I find significant about the historical revision is that the USTA chose to make the allocation of authority explicit. From the wording alone, I can’t tell whether this changed how the principle was applied or simply clarified an expectation that already existed. In my experience, the expectation was already part of the culture. Either way, the newer language removes a potential source of disagreement about who gets to make the decision.
It also places considerable responsibility on the player who may have committed the violation. If my racquet touches the net during a point, I am expected to acknowledge it. If I am uncertain whether I reached a ball before its second bounce, that uncertainty is supposed to benefit my opponent.
Over the next several weeks, we’ll examine the five situations covered by Principle 19. Each has its own complications, and some of the technical distinctions are less obvious than they initially appear.
For now, I think the most interesting aspect of the revision is the degree of trust it places in players. The person who stands to lose the point has exclusive responsibility for acknowledging the violation. That arrangement works reasonably well when players understand their obligations and take them seriously. When they don’t, the opponent may have very little recourse within the ordinary confines of self-officiating matches.
The additional language makes the responsibility unmistakable. Whether players consistently fulfill it is another matter.
- 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.)
