Last Wednesday, the post “Who Can Call a Let,” highlighted a controversial situation from a US Open doubles match involving CoCo Gauff and Jessica Pegula. I subsequently experienced a related scenario at the USTA Texas 40+ Mixed Sectionals. It is the perfect follow up for illustrating the rules as specified in the USTA Friend at Court. That document governs the majority of play in the United States, but not the US Open.
In our first match at Sectionals, my partner teed up to hit a sitter overhead… which he quite uncharacteristically missed. As his ball sailed long, a ball from an adjacent court rolled into my field of vision at the baseline well behind the net where my partner had played the shot. I gestured to the ball in irritation, mentally lamenting that it could have been a let situation.
That point ended the game and it was also a change over. The umpire approached us during this time period to chastise us for not calling a let. We were all polite and told her that we would all try to do better. There was no other way to respond. After the official departed, there was consensus between both teams that none of us saw the other ball before the point ended.
But what if we had?
The official guidance for this situation under USTA sanctioned play is within “The Code.” That document is not a part of the ITF Rules of Tennis, but rather a USTA specific amendment. The Code contains the “unwritten rules of tennis.” The following excerpt describes how any player may call a let.
Let called when ball rolls on court. When a ball from another court enters the playing area, any player on the court affected may call a let as soon as the player becomes aware of the ball. The player loses the right to call a let if the player unreasonably delays in making the call.
USTA Friend at Court, The Code, Principle 18.
Curiously enough, no player is obligated to call a let if the ball is not a distraction or a hazard. It is not compulsory to do so.
It is instructive to examine potential scenarios had the ball rolled into view a second or two earlier. I can state this with complete confidence: There is no way that I would have made the let call with my doubles partner hitting what was likely to be a clean winner.
Based on the geometry of the court, it would have been more likely for our opponents to notice the ball before we did. I can also state this with complete confidence: I would have been annoyed if they called a let as my partner was teed up for a sitter overhead. To me, that would have been a breach of tennis etiquette.
Another interesting thought exercise is what could have transpired if my partner had not missed the overhead, and our opponents successfully lobbed it back to the part of the court where the wayward ball had rolled. Per what is specified in The Code, I do not think that would have constituted an unreasonable delay. In that case the ball that was originally not a hazard or distraction, suddenly became just that.
I have no issue with the way that any of the players handled this situation. Similarly, I appreciate the well-intentioned lecture from the umpire, even though no player on the court actually saw the stray ball. In any case, I thought it was an interesting and relevant follow up to the post from last week.
The USTA code says if ball from another court rolls in to playing are. What if it was the players’ 1st failed serve ball that rolled in to their own court after hitting the fence? Can the opponent call a let even though itt’s the opponents mistake of not removing the 1st served ball?
No, because the ball wasn’t from another court.
Ineteresting issue.
Thing to remember that a ‘let’ is called to neutralize the point.
A ‘let’ cannot be used as a ‘get out of jail free’ card to be played when you are in a parlous situation.
An interesting comparison is when a hat falls off an opponet during a rally or a ball fall out of their pocket – or hair beads fall to the ground… in an unofficiated match, the opponents may decide not to call a ‘let’, especially if they have an easy put-away, taking the point rather than playing the point over with a warning to the player whose hat fell off, that if it happened again, they would lose the point. The player whose hat fell off, cannot call a ‘let’.
You’re correct with your last paragraph. But, a let actually can be used as a ‘get out of jail free card’ per the rule Teresa cited, though like she said in her article, it’s probably not always good tennis etiquette. Once a stray ball comes onto your court, it is legal for any player to call a let even if your opps are in complete control of winning the point immediately. Though everyone occasionally misses super easy shots, so technically nobody is ever ‘completely’ in control of winning a live point.
That seems quite odd for the umpire in this particular match to say anything about a potential let, let alone chastise the players. She was definitely overstepping her duties.
If the return from the overhead had been lobbed to the part of the court where the errant ball was, none of the players can call a let, it would’ve been too late. If the let is not called when the ball is first noticed, and play continues, the stray ball becomes a part of the court. An interesting thing to ponder is what happens if one of the players subsequently tries to clear the ball off the court. I believe a let can be called at that point.
You are assuming that all four players saw the ball, though. A let can be called when a player notices the ball for the first time, and my partner legitimately would not have seen it until then.
Absolutely corect!