Every Wednesday, this site examines a rule or governing principle that shapes how tennis is actually played. We remain in the midst of a sequential walkthrough of The Code, exploring one principle at a time as it appears within the USTA’s Friend at Court. This week, we move to Principle 10, which is remarkably short but surprisingly broad in its implications. Unlike some of the principles we have examined recently, this one has remained unchanged from the 2001 version of The Code that we have been using as a historical reference point. Apparently, it already said exactly what needed to be said.
All points are treated same regardless of their importance. All points in a match should be treated the same. There is no justification for considering a match point differently from a first point.
USTA Friend at Court 2026 , The Code, Principle 10
While it may be tempting to assume this principle is about line calls, it is actually considerably broader than that. It applies to every aspect of officiating, sportsmanship, and rule enforcement within a match. The bottom line of this principle is that the score changes the stakes, but it does not change the standard.
Anyone who has spent time around the sport has heard some variation of the complaint: “You can’t make that call on match point,” or perhaps, “Can you believe that the roving official called a foot fault in the tie-breaker?” Those reactions are understandable because important moments feel different. Crucial points carry emotional weight that many other points do not.
Principle 10 does not deny that reality. Rather, it insists that the significance of a moment does not alter the standards that govern it.
When a roving official calls a foot fault at a big moment, players often react as though the official created the controversy by choosing that particular time to intervene. In reality, the official did not create the foot fault. The player did. The only reason the call feels controversial is that the violation occurred at an important moment.
Principle 10 highlights an area where tennis can claim moral superiority over many other sports. In basketball, it is almost an article of faith that officials should “swallow the whistle” in the final minutes and let the players “decide it on the court.” Similar arguments routinely surface in both American football and soccer whenever a penalty or infraction occurs late in a close contest. The implication is that the importance of the moment should influence whether the rules are enforced.
In tennis, Principle 10 codifies the complete rejection of that idea. The rule remains the rule regardless of the score. There is no special exemption for dramatic moments or situations. In tennis, at least philosophically, the integrity of the standard takes precedence over the emotion of the moment.
The rules do not become more important because the point is important. Nor do they become less important because the consequences are more impactful. The same standards that governed the first point must govern the last. Viewed through that lens, Principle 10 is really a principle about consistency.
The Code is full of standards that require tennis players to act against their immediate self-interest. Principle 10 extends that same philosophy to the broader administration of the match. It rejects the idea that players or officials should maintain one set of standards for ordinary moments and another for consequential ones.
That is not always easy to accept. Yet, Principle 10 recognizes that consistency matters especially when it becomes difficult. Nobody needs a reminder to apply the rules when the outcome feels insignificant. The true test comes when the stakes rise, and the temptation to make an exception becomes strongest.
Next Wednesday, we will explore why Principle 10 creates one of the strangest tensions in self-officiated tennis.
- 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.)
