who wins the point?

Hi everyone! Today I received the following question via email and figured it would make for an interesting topic of discussion. Let us know what you think:

Quote:

---

In a recent match two incidents occurred in which all players were unsure of the rules.

1. Doubles play - team A were serving and got a ball in play to team B. During the point, a ball struck by team A bounced on team B's side of the court and then rebounded over the net to team A's side of the court. A player from team B, ran around the net, staying on the no-man's land between courts, and was able to reach the ball before it touched to ground and went out of play. This player returned the ball and the ball was then unreturned by team A.

At no time did the player from team B encroach on team A's court but the player did pass the 'extended' line of the net. There was no other way this player could have reached the ball, as it was now on the opposite side of the net but still in play.

Who's point is this?

2. Again in doubles play, a player on team A returned the ball to team B and the ball landed in court. After the ball had landed in team B's court the player from team A touched the net.

If the ball was still in play - had not bounced twice - the point belongs to team B because of the net violation. However, if the ball had bounced twice - is not longer considered to be in play - before the net was touched by the player, who gets the point?

---

Theanswer to the first question is I think should be an "unplayable ball". Have to redo the point.

For the second question I think the team who does the violation first losses the point.

1. I think it's team A's point. A player can not stick his racquet to opposite court, and his returning ball has to be over the net. It's team A's return that is too good. The only chance to team B is to reach the ball before it bounces back.

2. A player can not touch the net before the point is over.
:)

Hello everybody,


The answer is simple: In the first situation team A get's the point because a member of team B has crossed the netline.
That is a violation in tennis because even if they are not in the playzone if you cross the invinceble line of the net you are in violation.
What player B could is reaching his racket over the net and not touching and try to hit the ball while keep standing on his side and his racket can go over the net without touching.
This is allowed when a ball bounces back after it hitts the oponnent side.


Situation 2: If team player A hits the net before the ball hits twice than it's a voilation off team A.
Because if the ball hits the grounds once and team player B can not get the ball and player A hits the net before the ball bounces twice then it's a violation and point goes to team B.

So even if the ball is not in play if he does not bounce twice then you can loose the point if you touches the net no matter if ball is in play or not or if the player can not reach the ball if it not bounce twice then it's a violation.


Hope I was a help

Patrick

I think we're all in agreement on point 2. The point at which the ball goes out of play is when it bounces for the second time. The rule is quite clear - if A touches the net before this then B wins the point. Once the ball has bounced twicwe then it's irrelevant whrther A toyches the net or not.

Strictly speaking in example 1 Team A wins the point because B has gone past the level of the net. You do have to have rules in tennis and if they're there then you should stick to them. This point has probably only occured once in 50 years and it could be as long again before a similar one. It's such a "one-off" that I would hope common sense would prevail and all the players would agree to play a let. If A refuses then it is his point. This compares to the big dispute in the Roddick/Rusedski match at Wimbledon. Strictly by the rules the point was Roddicks but the umpire could have used some common sense and asked the players to play a let . Roddick could of course have refused and claimed the point but this could have averted what then transpired.

I have to fully agree with Chris.

www.tennisopinions.com