On March 3, this project moved into Section 7 of the Rules of Tennis, as presented in the USTA Friend at Court. It is a one sentence rule regarding the number of sets required to complete a match. When I first arrived at this topic I wondered how I was going to stretch it out into a single full length post. 10 days later I am wondering how much longer it will take to wrap it up. One thing is certain, actually talking about the rule probably the best way to drive this topic to completion.
While the rules of tennis are fairly straight forward and compact in the main body, the appendices are extensive, convoluted, and the place where all hell breaks loose such as shortened scoring and other alternative formats. This brings us to the topic of the match tie-break.
There are two rules in Appendix V regarding the match tie-break, which is essentially using a tie-break game in lieu of a final set. Typically this would be used in a best-of-three set match because it just wouldn’t make sense in best-of-five. The match tie-break game can be played as the first to either 10 or 7 points. In USTA league play first to 10 is the de facto standard. It is also the usual selection for tournaments that use the match-tie break game in lieu of the third set.
Not surprisingly, there are some nuances to this rule, and these are included as a note attached to Appendix V.5, which is the 10 point version of the rule. These notes would certainly also apply to the 7 point variation which is presented in Appendix V.4. This is another place where the structure and organization of the Rules of Tennis could definitely be improved.
The first couple of notes regard the order of service, which is continued into the first serve of the match tie-break. In other words, the player or team that was to serve the next game if the match had continued with a full third set will be the first to serve in the tie-break game.
Additionally, when a tie-break is used in lieu of a set, doubles teams may change the order of service and receiving courts may be altered, as it also may be at the start of a new set. From a strategic perspective, I assert that implementing either of these changes is almost always a horrible idea. Just because a rule exists, doesn’t mean that the rule has to be exercised, kids.
The third note in Appendix V.4 launches my engineer brain into overdrive via the use of the word “shall.” In systems engineering requirements, there is a strict vocabulary and the use of that word connotes something that is absolutely required. For cases where the word “should” is used,that is a “nice to have” in requirements engineering vernacular.
So the wording of V.4, “before the start of the match tie-break there shall be a 120 seconds set break,” delights me. I have played countless matches where there was agreement to launch straight into the match tie-break with no set break whatsoever. In all of those cases we were violating the rules of tennis. Probably this amuses me more than it should.
The final rule is that there should be no change of balls before the start of a match tie-break even if a ball change is due. My first thought was that this rule exists to once again remind the masses that we are not a part of the privileged elite who get to play under frequent ball changes. On further reflection, I think that the rule is there to save event organizers the $2.50 for each can of balls that would only be used for a few points in tournament play.
That final note would also save one of the players from having to sprint up to the tournament desk to effect the change of balls in precisely 120 seconds. Because that’s a shall, doncha know.
There is one more scoring variation rule in Appendix V, but it is not related at all to scoring and thus is oddly placed within the rules. I have made an executive decision to defer discussion on that topic until this project arrives at a more logical point for it.
This concludes discussion of Section 7, “Score in a Match.” Looking ahead, Section 8 is “Server and Receiver.” Two and a half months into this project, I am finally ready to move into the actual playing of the game. Almost. In a preview that will shock no one, I have one topic that I want to loop back on and potentially another mid-month meta reflection to touch on first.
- United States Tennis Association (2020) Friend at Court. White Plains, NY
