Every Wednesday, this site examines a rule or governing principle that shapes how tennis is actually played. We remain 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. Over the past two weeks, we have examined two difficult tensions embedded in Principle 9. First, whether the player farther from the ball has the authority to make the call. Second, the interpersonal dynamics that arise when doubles partners have divergent perspectives.
Either partner may make calls in doubles. Although either doubles partner may make a call, the call of a player looking down a line is more likely to be accurate than that of a player looking across a line.
USTA Friend at Court 2026 , The Code, Principle 9
This week, we arrive at perhaps the most awkward consideration of all: What happens when the opposing team tries to pull your partner into the call? Anyone who has spent enough time playing doubles has likely seen some version of this exchange. One player makes a close call. The opposing team immediately turns to the partner and loudly asks some variation of:
“Did you see it out?” or “Do you agree with the call?”
At first glance, that interaction can seem perfectly reasonable. If both partners are permitted to make calls as defined in Principle 9, why shouldn’t the opponents ask whether the other player had a better look at the ball? The answer is complicated.
The moment the opposing team recruits a partner into the discussion, the interaction stops being purely about line-calling accuracy and turns into a form of social pressure. The partner is suddenly being asked to choose between supporting their teammate, contradicting them publicly, or appearing evasive in front of the other players standing at the net. If they agreed with the call, the choice is simple. If they did not or harbor uncertainty, that inquiry places them in an uncomfortable situation.
The awkwardness is amplified because doubles partnerships rely heavily on trust and cohesion. A partner who routinely undermines calls publicly may damage the team dynamic far more than a single missed call ever would. Even players committed to honesty can become defensive when they feel they are being pulled into a public arbitration exercise by the opposing team.
Personally, I also dislike being pulled into those exchanges when my own partner made the call. Even when the question is asked politely, it immediately creates social pressure and forces the non-calling partner into an uncomfortable position. Conversely, I genuinely respect opponents who may suspect I might not have agreed with the call but deliberately choose not to direct the interaction in my direction.
For that same reason, I rarely address the opponent who did not make the original call. In most cases, I may give them the look that says, “I know you probably didn’t see it that way either,” mixed with equal parts sympathy and a quiet hope that they will recognize that they need to help keep the situation from spiraling into additional questionable calls. Realistically, that is probably far more communication than can actually be transmitted through eye contact alone, but nevertheless, that is the intent.
That does not mean partners should remain silent if they genuinely saw the ball differently. Principle 9 explicitly permits either partner to make calls. However, there is a meaningful distinction between a partner voluntarily offering corrective information and an opponent attempting to extract it. Those are not the same interactions.
For example, in last week’s post, I described how I will discreetly ask my partner if they were sure, which sometimes prompts them to self-correct. The opportunity for that dynamic is lost when the other team immediately redirects the challenge to the non-calling partner. If that inquiry sparks a quiet consultation, that is publicly observable with no doubt about what is being discussed. That completely changes everything and all but assures that the call will not be reversed.
In my experience, the healthiest partnerships handle disagreement internally first. If there is uncertainty, the conversation should usually begin quietly between teammates rather than theatrically across the net. Once opponents begin appealing directly to the partner, the situation often escalates from rules administration to interpersonal positioning. And that escalation rarely improves anything.
There is also a practical reality here that players sometimes overlook. The partner being appealed to may not actually know. In doubles, especially, attention is fragmented. The net player may have been tracking the opposing player’s positioning rather than the ball’s bounce, which is exactly where they are supposed to be looking. The baseline player may have been screened off by their partner. One person’s silence does not necessarily validate or invalidate the original call, but rather simply reflects uncertainty.
These exchanges are fraught with peril. The discussion stops revolving around whether the ball was actually out and instead becomes emotionally charged. Once that happens, the original point is often unrecoverable.
The Code attempts to prevent this drift by maintaining a simple framework. Either partner may make the call. Both players remain responsible for applying the standards honestly. But the system functions best when partners are allowed to manage their own internal communication without external interrogation from across the net.
That may not always feel emotionally satisfying to the opposing team, particularly when they believe the partner had a superior perspective. In some cases, they may even be correct. However, self-officiated tennis depends on more than maximizing the accuracy of isolated calls. It also depends on maintaining workable relationships between partners and opponents throughout a match.
If players begin cross-examining their opponents after every close call, the match stops functioning like tennis and starts resembling a deposition. Recreational doubles is already dramatic enough without adding an element of litigation strategy to the format.
- 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.)
For readers who may be new to the organized tennis landscape, the Friend at Court is the USTA’s compendium of all rules governing sanctioned play in the United States. It includes the ITF Rules of Tennis, USTA Regulations, and additional guidance specific to competition in this country. The Code is nested within the Friend at Court. That section outlines the “unwritten” traditions, expectations, and standards of conduct that guide player behavior. The Code is the ethical framework that shapes how recreational and competitive players conduct themselves every time they step onto the court.
