For the past several months, I have been working sequentially through The Code, examining one principle at a time and occasionally comparing the current 2026 language with the version that appeared in the 2001 edition of Friend at Court. Through Principle 15, this arrangement was wonderfully convenient. Principle 15 in 2026 corresponded to Principle 15 in 2001.
I suppose it was inevitable that 25 years of revisions would eventually mess up what has so far been a tidy numerical alignment. Last week, we reached the current Principle 16, “Spectators never make calls.” In the 2001 edition, that was actually Principle 17. Before moving forward, I wanted to examine what happened to the principle that previously occupied the number 16.
As it turns out, it disappeared.
Opponent’s calls questioned. When a player genuinely doubts his opponent’s call, the player may ask: “Are you sure of your call?” If the opponent reaffirms that the ball was out, his call shall be accepted. If the opponent acknowledges that he is uncertain, he loses the point. There shall be no further delay or discussion.
USTA Friend at Court 2001, The Code, Principle 16
There is no equivalent standalone principle in the 2026 edition. However, I am not convinced that its disappearance represents much of a change in how players are expected to handle questionable calls. By this point in our walkthrough, most of the underlying logic has already been established elsewhere in the current text.
Principle 5 establishes that a player makes calls on balls landing on that player’s side of the net. Principle 6 requires players to give opponents the benefit of the doubt. Principle 8 tells us that a ball that cannot be called out is good. More recently, Principle 12 established that a player who becomes uncertain about an out call must reverse it, with the point going to the opponent.
Put those principles together and much of the 2001 Principle 16 becomes redundant. If I question an opponent’s out call and she remains certain that the ball was out, it remains her call to make. If my question causes her to realize that she is uncertain, the current version of The Code already tells us how that uncertainty must be resolved.
What has disappeared is the explicit procedure for getting from one of those places to the other. The 2001 version specifically directed a player to ask, “Are you sure of your call?” That phrase has come up several times during this series because it occupies an interesting place in self-officiated tennis. Sometimes it is a legitimate request for someone to reconsider a call. It can also become a running commentary on every close ball an opponent calls out.
The old Principle 16 placed an important constraint on the question. A player could ask when the player “genuinely doubts” the opponent’s call. It did not authorize players to challenge every close call, nor did it provide an opening to argue about what they thought they saw from the opposite end of the court.
The final sentence made that limitation even clearer: “There shall be no further delay or discussion.” That language makes “Are you sure?” a very narrow mechanism. You get to ask the question. If your opponent reaffirms the call, you accept it and continue playing. If the opponent acknowledges uncertainty, the point is yours. What you do not get is a debate over the location of the ball after the answer has been given.
Of course, there is a complication. A single questionable call is different from encountering what appears to be a pattern of them. At some point, a player may reasonably want an official involved rather than continuing to ask the same opponent whether she is sure.
The current version of The Code eventually addresses requesting officials during play in Principle 41. We are not there yet, and I am going to resist jumping ahead 25 principles to explore it. For purposes of the old Principle 16, I think it is enough to distinguish asking an opponent to reconsider a particular call from seeking officiating assistance when there is a larger problem. “There shall be no further delay or discussion” plainly shuts down continued argument between the players over that call.
This leaves me with an interesting question about what was actually lost when Principle 16 was removed. The outcome does not appear to have changed much because other principles now cover that territory. The opponent still controls calls on their side. Doubt still benefits the opponent. Uncertainty about an out call still requires reversal.
What disappeared was the script. The 2001 Code expressly told players that genuine doubt permitted one question, supplied the question, and then instructed them to accept the answer. The current version establishes the standards for making and reversing calls without providing that particular exchange as a separate principle.
I am not sure either approach is necessarily better. There is some value in explicitly telling players how to handle a common source of conflict, particularly because “Are you sure?” can so easily migrate from a legitimate question into repeated challenges. On the other hand, once the surrounding principles establish who makes the call and what happens when that person becomes uncertain, a separate provision describing the conversation may not add much.
Either way, the deletion has created one concrete consequence for me. My two editions of The Code are no longer numerically aligned. Last week’s 2026 Principle 16 was 2001 Principle 17. Assuming there are no other additions or deletions lurking ahead, current Principle 17 will correspond to old Principle 18, and so forth. I will now have to pay slightly more attention every time I make one of these historical comparisons.
Such is the life of a random tennis blogger.
- 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.)
