Last Wednesday’s post on Principle 2 of The Code noted that the text has remained largely consistent between the 2001 and 2025 editions of the USTA Friend at Court. That was technically true, but intentionally a little misleading. While nothing has been deleted between those versions of the code, a new addition has been made. “Shaking hands at the end of a match is an acknowledgement by the players that the match is over.” It’s a deceptively simple insertion that carries significant implications, both in spirit and in practice.
Points played in good faith are counted. All points played in good faith stand. For example, if after losing a point, a player discovers that the net was four inches too high, the point stands. If a point is played from the wrong court, there is no replay. If during a point, a player realizes that a mistake was made at the beginning (for example, service from the wrong court), the player must continue playing the point. Corrective action may be taken only after a point has been completed.
USTA Friend at Court 2025 , The Code, Principle 2
Shaking hands at the end of a match is an acknowledgment by the players that the match is over.
When my daughter was playing junior tennis, I once witnessed a situation that illustrates exactly why this clarification matters. On a nearby court, two players became confused about the scoring format in the tiebreaker that was played in lieu of a third set. There was a handshake when one of the players won the 7th point, rather than playing to 10 as mandated in the format. The parent of the losing player followed them up to the tournament desk, arguing that the match was not over. The official listened patiently and then explained that because the players had shaken hands, the match was officially over. There was nothing that could be done. The parent was livid, but the ruling was correct.
Beyond the good-faith foundation that underlies all of The Code, this detail reflects the logistical realities of tournament play. My mom used to run a large, high-stakes junior tournament. Long before a score is officially reported to the tournament desk, a well-run event will already be sending the next match to that court. If completed matches could be reopened after a handshake, it would disrupt scheduling, delay play, and create endless complications. Courts would have to be cleared, matches would have to be moved, and the tournament flow would be derailed. The handshake, then, serves as both a symbolic and practical boundary. It marks closure.
At the professional level, we have recently seen a reexamination of the handshake itself. In the wake of Russia’s invasion of Ukraine, many Ukrainian players have refused to shake hands with opponents from Russia and Belarus. Those matches are officiated, so the result is final regardless of whether a handshake takes place. Even at the recreational level, a match can end without that customary gesture. It takes a remarkable degree of ill will to reach that point, but when it happens, it underscores how much meaning is wrapped up in a simple act of civility.
Principle 2 reminds us that tennis depends on trust, good faith, and mutual respect. The handshake at the end of a match is the moment that seals all of those values at once. It says, “We may have battled, but we are in agreement.”
- Friend at Court: The Handbook of Tennis Rules and Regulations, USTA, 2025
- Friend at Court: The USTA Handbook of Tennis Rules and Regulations, USTA, 2001. (Hardcopy.)
