The ITF has ultimate authority over the Rules of Tennis. Regional sanctioning organizations can petition the ITF for rule changes, which the ITF can either accept or reject. This relationship was discussed in “The ITF, USTA Overlord” in the earliest days of this project.
An alternative to an official rules change, regional sanctioning organizations issue comments about the rules. The comments are rules or clarifications that are only applicable to that sanctioning organization. The USTA has inserted two such comments against the Order of Receiving section in the ITF Rules of Tennis
USTA Comment 15.1
On the first point of a set, may a doubles team position both players on the deuce side of the court?
Answer: Yes, but the server is entitled to know which member of the receiving team is going to receive the first point of a set.
USTA Friend at Court, ITF Rules of Tennis, USTA Comment 15.1
To be clear, a doubles team may position themselves anywhere that they wish, as long as they are both on their own side of the net. As such, I was aware that the partners could position themselves behind the same receiving court. I have never seen a team actually attempt it, but I have discussed it conceptually on a couple of occasions.
The serving team has the right to force the receiving team to declare which player is the designated receiver. I was completely unaware of that part of the rule. It is an important distinction when thinking through why the receiving team might attempt this tactic.
I would assume that this positioning might be to intentionally fluster the serving team or to otherwise create a distraction. In related news, we will most certainly revisit this scenario in the “Hindrance” section, but that is a rule for a future day.
Receiving serve from this configuration is sub-optimal court positioning, to say the least. Imagining a potential scenario where a team would want to do it, I would propose a match when one team has a dominate server and the receiving team is desperately attempting to manufacture a service break in the first service game.
Positioning both players behind the receiving court would greatly increase the chances that the first service point was returned into play. There is significantly less court to cover for both players returning from that configuration. If this tactic managed to generate a double fault, it could be repeated on the subsequent point. I would place this tactic in the “desperation” category.
At a minimum, it could generate an argument about the rules which might set the tone. Don’t do that kids. Tennis is supposed to be fun.
USTA Comment 15.2
May a doubles team switch its receiving order at the beginning of any set or Match Tiebreak?
Answer: Yes.
USTA Friend at Court, ITF Rules of Tennis, USTA Comment 15.2
Making changes in the Match Tiebreak was discussed in detail in “Order of Service and the Match Tiebreak.” As stated in that essay, it is almost always a bad idea for the serving team. It should come as no surprise that it is also almost always a bad idea for the receiving team. There simply are not enough points in a match tie-break game to be making changes that may take some adjustment time.
Finishing Shots
This concludes discussion on the Order of Receiving rule. Tomorrow is the last day of March and will be the customary monthly introspection. The next rule in the hopper after that is “The Service.”
- United States Tennis Association (2020) Friend at Court. White Plains, NY
