News

The Final Word: Coaching Matches

Have you ever had a dispute with a fellow player over a call on the court that you couldn’t settle? Or have you ever wondered why a certain ruling was made during a match you were watching? Maybe you’re just curious about how some scenarios, from the common to the ridiculous, are resolved.

The USTA constantly receives these types of questions from players and fans, so we figured it’s about time we provided a forum in which queries about rules can be answered. Thus, we present to you The Final Word.

Readers can send their burning questions about the rules of tennis along with their name and town to FinalWord@USTA.com. Each week, we will select submissions and supply the definitive rulings though a Q&A with USTA Director of Officials Richard Kaufman.

On to this week's questions and responses...

I captain a Men's USTA 4.0 league tennis team (2 singles contests 3 doubles contests per 'match'). Is there any circumstance under which coaching is permitted during a contest?

Daniel D. (from Stuart, FL)

KAUFMAN (on behalf of USTA Leagues): The USTA League Regulation reads:

3.03H Coaching. Coaching will be permitted during the rest period only if the scoring method for the championships level is the best of three tie-break sets and there is a 10 minute rest period between the 2nd and 3rd sets.

This regulation is repeated in the Mixed and Super Senior Division regulations.

One section, NorCal, has received a waiver to permit coaching during a USTA League match.

If a player is stung by a bee during play can she/he call a let? Is this a medical time out? A hindrance?

Michele H.

KAUFMAN One can have a Medical Time Out for a sting. If a bee stings a player during the middle of the point it is considered an unintentional hindrance and a let can be played. Play must be stopped at the moment of the sting. A player may not continue the point after the sting, eventually lose the point, and then claim a let.

I have picked through your Final Word column and found most of the answers to my questions, but not completely. I would like more clarification on a situation similar to one you have already addressed.

1. I hit a high ball to the opponent. Just as the ball was landing, the opposing net player called, "OUT". Her partner hit the ball. The net player then said, "IN." My partner and I quit playing the point when the initial call was made of "OUT." The opponents argued the net player was simply advising her partner to bounce the ball as it might be going out. She (or one of them) then called, "IN" to indicate that the ball was good and she had returned it and to continue playing. I think the answer was that it was our point. With an "OUT followed by an "IN" call, there was a discrepency on the call and the point is our point.........I think. I think once the opponent calls the ball OUT, the play is dead. Regardless of whether the ball was truly out or in. (We replayed the point because 3 of us could agree there was some confusion and also because the net player, the disagreeable 4th, became so hostile.) Who got this point or what action should have been taken?
2. If the opponent calls a ball OUT before it bounces, and it lands IN, the ball is good and it is our point. Regardless of what happens next. Correct?
3. If the opponent calls the ball OUT before it bounces, it lands IN and she returns it for a "winner" but we had quit playing the point because of the OUT call, who gets the point?
4. If the opponent calls the ball OUT before it bounces, and it lands OUT. What is the call? In other words, is the opponent penalized for calling a ball before it actually lands? (I think a kind warning is in order (which is what I gave during the set changeover) but then what if those early calls continue? What is the final ruling? When I hear "OUT" called, I assume the point has ended and stop playing. (In this case, the person was not communicating with her partner and using OUT as a substitute for "Bounce It", she was celarly calling the ball OUT....just calling it before it landed. I also suggested to opponents during set changeover that it would be better to use the terms BOUNCE IT or WATCH IT rather than OUT in communicating with her partner in order to avoid any further misunderstandings.
5. If the opponent/receiver calls a serve IN and the partner disagrees, the receiver returns the ball, the server hits the ball rather than stopping play (perhaps by setting down her racket), what is the call?

Thank you for any light you can shed!

Pam P. (from Mercer Island, WA)

KAUFMAN: This is always an interesting case.

First, despite what some people think, there is no rule that says you cannot say 'out' or other words of communication to your partner, especially when you are at the net and the ball is coming in your direction or the ball has not come close to landing on the court. And because such communication would invariably occur long before the ball has bounced, the claim that this could be mistaken for a line call is not really valid if everyone is paying attention. (Communicating by screaming or yelling is not permitted at any time and could be deemed a hindrance no matter when it occurs.)

The only time confusion can occur is in the case when a player says 'out' or another form of communication to his/her partner standing at the baseline at the time when the ball bounces. One player is in the position to make a return of the ball and did so. In that case, saying "leave it" or "NO" would be preferable to saying 'out'. However, any word used when the ball lands on the ground or close to the ground when your partner hits the ball could be construed as a call.

If a player yells "out” at the moment or close to the moment their partner played the ball, I think it can hinder the opponents. If this is the case,
and the return was a weak return or the ball did not go into the opposing court, the returning team loses the point. If the return is strong and the best the opponents could have done was to keep the ball in play, then a let should be played. This is assuming that the players stopped play. If the players who may have been confused by the communication or call continue to play the point, they may not then claim the point due to hindrance after the entire point has been completed. If a player believes that they were truly hindered, they MUST stop.

You offer a number of scenarios and it does depend on when the communication came from the opponents. The best thing to do is keep playing the point if there is some question on whether there was a call or just communication. If the ball has not come very close to landing in or out and the players communicate, claiming hindrance is not really justified. Players should not be penalized for communicating when the ball still has a way to travel before landing on the court.

When partners disagree on a call the benefit of doubt must go to the opponents. If an out call was made (not communication) then play has stopped.
Again, if the return was a weak return or the ball did not go into the opposing court, the returning team loses the point. If the return is strong and the best the opponents could have done was to keep the ball in play, then a let should be played.

I was in our club doubles final today, and a return of serve hit the score card and bounced on the court. Our opponents did not play the ball because they assumed it was out. Who wins the point?

Scott G.

KAUFMAN: Technically, the scorecard that is attached to the post really should not be there, according to the Rules of Tennis. If it is there, and a ball hits it, it is considered a permanent fixture, and the player or team that hit the scorecard loses the point.

After my partner hit a very good return, another tennis ball came rolling onto our court. Neither one of our opponents called a let. Our opponent gave us the point because he said he felt his partner did not have a chance of getting to the ball we just returned. His partner said he was wrong. A let is a let, even though his partner felt he would not have gotten to the ball. What do you think? Should we have replayed the point? We wanted to, but our opponent's partner said no, so we got the point.

Rolando M.

KAUFMAN: If you have no chance for a ball and a ball rolling onto the court would have made no difference, do the right thing -- give the point to your opponents.

One can always make a case that a player could have made some play on the ball when this happens. Technically, players may call a let if the point had not been completed when the hindrance of the stray ball from another court arrived. However, a good sport knows if they had a play or not, and a good sport knows the difference between a legitimate hindrance and taking advantage of a situation.

Past Articles:

Back