Last week, a match between Frances Tiafoe and Milos Raonic at the National Bank Open generated a dramatic illustration of one of the more obscure rules of tennis. With Tiafoe leading the first set tiebreak game at 13-12, Raonic hit a ball that struck the net and careened almost straight up. It landed close to the umpire’s chair near the side of the court. Tiafoe sprinted up from behind the baseline to hit a winner past Raonic. Tiafoe’s momentum carried him into the net before his shot bounced twice on Raonic’s side of the court.
Both the Canadian crowd and Raonic thought that he won the point. As soon as Tiafoe contacted the net right under chair umpire Fergus Murphy, he started pleading his case that his shot had bounced twice before he touched the net. When Murphy called the point and set for Tiafoe, Raonic argued that there was no way that the ball bounced twice before Tiafoe contacted the net. The Canadian crowd was apoplectic.
In fact, both players were so eager to argue their side of the two-bounce case that neither was in a state to hear Murphy’s explanation of the rule that applied to the situation. It is straight out of the ITF Rules of Tennis, which means that it is universally applicable to all matches.
In a singles match played with a doubles net and singles sticks, the net posts and the part of the net outside the singles sticks are permanent fixtures and are not considered as net posts or part of the net.
ITF Rules of Tennis, Rule 2, Permanent Fixtures (Excerpt)
In other words, what mattered in this case wasn’t when Tiafoe contacted the net, but where. Since this match was played using a doubles net and singles sticks, the part of the net outside of the singles sticks and the net post are permanent fixtures. The player can touch permanent fixtures without losing the point. For example, running into a side fence after playing a shot does not end the point.
Raonic did not agree with Murphy’s explanation of the rule, so he asked for the supervisor. Since the debate was over the interpretation of tennis law rather than a judgment call, his request was granted. Not surprisingly, since this one is straight out of the ITF Rules of Tennis, the supervisor agreed with Murphy. The point and the set were awarded to Tiafoe.
Interestingly enough, Murphy disclosed in his explanation that he had initially called the foul for touching the net on Tiafoe but quickly corrected it when he realized that it was outside the singles stick. A chair umpire cannot change their mind on the initial judgment call, but the interpretation of tennis law is fair game.
Both players agreed that Tiafoe’s shot had gone for a winner as well as the location where he had contacted the net. While they both wanted to argue whether the ball had bounced twice, it simply did not matter. This decision was based on different rule altogether.
I own a couple of sets of singles sticks and use them sometimes when preparing for national-level events where they are typically used. I occasionally see the sticks used in Sectional-level sanctioned play, but it is relatively rare. I suspect that most recreational players have never played a match with the sticks in place.
Additionally, I believe that singles sticks have to be in place for this rule to apply in a match. In their absence, the dividing point between the part of the net that a player can touch and the part that is prohibited is ambiguous. Consequently, this rules situation is unlikely to arise in recreational play.
This episode is yet another example of professional tennis players not understanding one of the basic ITF Rules of Tennis. However, I am willing to give Raonic and Tiafoe a pass in this case because this one is relatively obscure.
- Friend at Court: The Handbook of Tennis Rules and Regulations, USTA, 2023
- ITF Rules of Tennis, International Tennis Federation, 2023
- ITF Rules of Beach Tennis, International Tennis Federation, 2023
- 2023 USTA Adult Tournaments Ranking System, USTA hosted document, last viewed April 28, 2023.
- USTA Adult and Family Tournament, Ranking, & Sanctioning Regulations, USTA Regulation, as amended July 31, 2021. (Editorial note: Assumed to be current. This is the one off the USTA “About Adult Tournaments” page.)
- 2023 Official Grand Slam Rulebook, International Tennis Federation, viewed January 1, 2023.
- WTA Official Rulebook, WTA, 2023.
- ATP Official Rulebook, ATP, 2023
- 2023 USTA League National Regulations, USTA Resource Document, May 31, 2023.
Oh, have I been waiting for this to happen!
Use of singles sticks should be outlawed!
They are meant to replicate the net on a singles court – but, as you say in the article, there are only a very rew players who have ever played with a singles net across a court. The vast majority of us only ever see a singles net on show courts at the grand slams. At Wimbledon this year, Alcaraz managed to thread a ball below net height, between the umpitre’s chair and a net post into court for a winner… Something, I have always dreamed of doing since net cord umpires were made redundant. I never will, because it is so much more difficult with a doubles net.
I hate doubles sticks, not just for the reasons you state well in your article, but because they add complications to the rules and not just as in the incident you describe. If a ball strikes the top of the net and dislodges a singles dtick which falls to ground, the point has to be replayed. That is why Official’s thread singles sticks into the nets – so they won’t clatter to the ground…. and they have to be threaded so one stick is on the opposite side to the other….
If a serve hits the top of a singles stick before hitting the service court on the other side of the net, then the serve is adjuged to be a ‘fault’.
If a ball hits the net or net post during play, the point is lost – even though it may then bounce correctly into the opposing court.
Even at Grand Slams isn’t it unfair that players on outside courts have singles sticks yet the few people playing on show courts have the benefit of a singles net?
It seems tournaments only want to perpetuate them because a single stick creates a dead space where sponsors’ logos can be displayed… and that is revenue!