Yesterday in “Doubles Only: Order of Receiving in Tennis,” ambiguity in the wording of Section 15 of the USTA Friend at Court/ITF Rules of tennis was highlighted. Not surprisingly, this rule is adorned with one case ruling and two USTA comments. Unfortunately, none of those are related to the ambiguous points of the rule.
Case 1: Is one member of a doubles team allowed to play alone against the opponents?
Decision: No
USTA Friend at Court, ITF Rules of Tennis, Rule 15
The thought exercise of how a three player doubles match would play out in an alternate universe where this case study doesn’t exist is fun. It also makes it apparent why playing a match without two complete teams doesn’t work at all.
On receiving games, the single player team would only have a valid receiver on half of the points, from either the ad or deuce side. It might be tempting to assume that there would be a lot of aces to the uncovered side, but I have to admit that I would probably find a way to double fault to that court. That assistance would be necessary for a solo player team to win a receiving game.
On service games, presumably the present member would elect to serve first. This is a subtle variation of the opening vignette of the “How NOT to treat your Mixed Doubles Partner” video published a few years ago from Essential Tennis. Theoretically, the single player team could win that game.
The second service game from the team with the solo player could not be executed. Putting the ball into play is an impossibility. Per the letter of the rule, that game would start with a time violation on the first point. Time violations are a topic for the distant future, but for the purpose of this discussion two time violations cannot be called until an intervening point is played. The penalty for the first time violation is a warning. The match would be stuck at this point.
Excessive delay after a time violation would shift over to Code Violations. The penalty for code violations is a point for the first offense, a game for the second offense, and default for the third offense. The farce of a match, again played in the alternate universe where playing a doubles match missing a player, would culminate in a Code Violation default.
I would not have the patience for this. I would also note that the same end could be achieved much faster with other Code Violations. Racquet abuse or profanity would be much more satisfying ways to achieve that inevitable termination.
Tomorrow I will tackle two obvious questions about this Case Ruling. First, why does it even exist? Second, why was this case ruling inserted into the rules at this particular location?
- United States Tennis Association (2020) Friend at Court. White Plains, NY
