The Rules of Tennis
Alternate scoring methods were covered in great detail during this site’s initial march through the ITF Rules of Tennis in early 2020. However, there are a couple of nuances to the format in one of the appendices that deserve additional attention. I am guessing that both situations are relatively unknown to recreational tennis players.
The first rule is directly from the ITF and is only applicable for mixed doubles.
In mixed doubles, the player of the same gender as the server shall receive the deciding point. The players of the receiving team cannot change positions to receive the deciding point.
ITF Rules of Tennis, USTA Friend at Court, Appendix V
While I play a lot of mixed doubles, to the best of my recollection I have never actually played a no-ad scored mixed doubles match. In fact, the first time I became aware of the rule was when the “Umpire I Gave Birth To” first started playing high school tennis and was occasionally placed into the mixed doubles slot in her team’s lineup. At first glance, the rule makes intuitive sense.
The presumption in tennis is that the receiving team will always choose the stronger receiver on the deciding point. In fact that is exactly what they should be trying to do. However, the gender-to-gender serving rule also implies that it isn’t fair to always have the stronger receiver return the serve, which is puzzling.
I frequently play tournament matches with the “Fiend at Court Spousal Unit.” In the unlikely event that we ever play a future match with no-ad scoring format, it would be our tactical preference to have me receive each deciding point. I am a better returner and he is an imposing figure at the net. I would hate this rule in that situation.
The other no-ad scoring detail is related to a deciding point that has to be replayed for some reason. This rule comes courtesy of a USTA comment which means that it is only applicable for competition in events sanctioned by that organization.
When a Deciding No-Ad point is replayed, the receiver or receiving team may not change the choice of court to which the server must serve.
USTA Comment V.1 to the ITF Rules of Tennis, Appendix V
Choosing a court for the deciding point is an irrevocable decision. The best scenario I can think of where this rule would be applicable is convoluted. If a doubles point was being replayed due to a third party hindrance, there is a chance that the receiver was injured in the process For example, an umpire wanders onto the court during a point and the receiver collides with them.
The fact that a USTA comment exists suggests that there has been controversy over whether a team is allowed to change the receiving court in the past. I firmly believe that the USTA Comments all originated from a real debate that occurred during a match that escalated throughout the organization.
Has anyone ever seen that rule come into play out in the wild?
- United States Tennis Association (2021), Friend at Court: Handbook of Rules and Regulations, White Plains, NY
A third party does not have to be a person causing a hindrance. A ball rolling onto the court from another court or rolling back onto the court from the back fence could cause injury to a receiver during a hindrance. An umpire should never ‘wander’ onto a court while a point is being started or played. Any time a player is injured there is no allowance that anyone else can take his or her shot in either serving or receiving although the partner will probably try to cover during the point play.