If I was ever going to completely phone in my daily essay, today would be the day. That is because today’s case ruling was thoroughly covered in “Racquets gone Wild.”
Case 6. A player throws the racket at the ball in play. Both the racket and the ball land in the court on the opponent’s side of the net and the opponent(s) is unable to reach the ball. Which player wins the point?
Decision. The player who threw the racket at the ball loses the point.
USTA Friend at Court, ITF Rules of Tennis, Section 24.
My first impression after encountering this case ruling was that it was a direct rehash of the rule discussed in “Racquets gone Wild.” That rule is included below for convenient reference.
The point is lost if:
j. The ball in play touches the racket when the player is not holding it.
USTA Friend at Court, ITF Rules of Tennis, Section 24.
The difference between the wording in 24.j and Case 6 is that the racquet does not have to actually touch the ball. That makes this case even more bizarre. Additionally, since the case ruling does not make it clear why the player lose the point, all I have at my disposal is my own speculation.
The bizarre scenario covered by this case ruling that makes it different from the rule in 24.j is that the player may have thrown the racquet at a ball that had already legally been struck and was destined to land in the opponent’s court.
I cannot imagine why a player would ever intentionally do that, so my brain gravitates to the racquet slipping from hand of the player during the follow through after the ball has been contacted. In that case the point would most likely be lost due to the racquet contacting the court while the ball was still in play. In other words before the second bounce.
The other reason the point could be lost would be a hindrance or intentionally distracting behavior, but that is a topic for future rules.
This one made my head hurt. Again, don’t throw your racquets people.
- United States Tennis Association (2020) Friend at Court. White Plains, NY
