No, this is not a pop quiz. I've compiled some situations that have been known to cause confusion or vehement discussions during tennis matches. As improbable as some of these scenarios may sound, I've seen all of them occur in ALTA play. So, for the sake of world peace and orderliness, be aware of these rules:
#1: You, a right-hander, and your partner, a left-hander, take the first set 6-4 after you scorch the opposition with four straight aces. It is now 1-0 in the second set as your partner goes to the service line. He takes one look into the blinding sun on his side and says, "I'll be tossing the ball right into the sun. You'd better serve first." Your opponents object, saying you must continue the rotation from the previous set. Who is correct?
Ans: You can serve first. When you begin a new set, only the serve order by team is carried forward, i.e. the last team to receive becomes the first team to serve. Either player on that team can serve first. This is a key point strategically, especially if (a) one of you holds serve much more frequently, or (b) one of you is looking into the sun or a blonde in a particularly provocative halter-top.
If you and your partner have about equal success serving, I'd suggest you decide during the warm-up which side each of you will serve from. Even if the sun or a provocative blonde is not a factor, a change in the background can affect your serve. This is especially true in an away match. So it's best to pick a side, get used to serving from that side, and stay there for the duration of the match.
By the way, since tennis courts are always built running north to south, the sun is always in an ad court, i.e. the southeast corner, on Saturday mornings. This can be a serious problem for a left-hander serving to the "sunny-side", while a right-hander should have no problem, as the sun will be over his shoulder when he serves. Don't overlook this fact when you determine who will serve from which side, as it can easily cost you a game or two. (Underhanded tip #1: if you have a lefty-righty team and your match gets postponed, try to schedule the make-up match for mid-afternoon. If the sun comes out and your opponents are both right-handed, one of them will have to serve into the sun. Who says you have to play fair?)
#2: One of your opponents is a left-hander who drove your partner crazy in the first set with wide serves into the ad court. Just before the left-hander starts serving to begin the second set, you and your partner have a ten-second discussion. You and your partner then switch sides, with you now playing the ad court. Is this allowed?
Ans: Yes, this is permitted. Of course, as soon as a serve is made, you must keep this arrangement for the remainder of the set. Although switching sides usually isn't such a clever idea, it might make sense if your current formation is clearly giving you trouble.
#3: It's 5-4, ad out, and your opponent just missed his first serve. You really like the situation, since you've been making good crosscourt returns all day, and now you can expect a nice fat second serve to obliterate. However, the server whispers a few words to his net man, and the net man then positions himself on the opposite side of the court, cutting off your crosscourt return. Is this a legal formation?
Ans: Certainly. The server's partner is allowed to situate himself anywhere on his side of the court, which means there really is no such thing as an "illegal formation". If you're not having any luck with the orthodox formation, i.e. server's partner in the service box directly opposite the opponent returning serve, then try something unorthodox. Here are two examples:
OK, maybe the preceding paragraph was a little harsh. I don't mean to suggest that you and your partner are doomed to failure if the two of you are both back and your opponents are both at the net. You are in a defensive formation which has one chief virtue: your opponents have nowhere to hit easy winners, since you have the backcourt well-covered. It's tough, but you can beat their game with (a) passing shots, though with two players at the net you'll need pinpoint accuracy; (b) reasonably deep lobs, though hitting good lobs is harder than most players think -- short lobs will make C players look like A players; (c) less than great net play by your opponents, frankly your best chance.
#4: Last week you spent $50 for a stringing job using natural gut. Now you are playing a match with the new strings, and early in the match a string breaks. (Aside: Why do we say "a string breaks" when there is really only one continuous string in the racket? Shouldn't it be "the string breaks"? Think about it.) Your opponents object when you tell them you have a second racket at home and can be back in ten minutes. Are you within your rights to stop the match for an equipment problem?
Ans: Your opponents' objection is valid -- this is too long a delay. However, a quick equipment change is permitted, which means you can borrow a spectator's racket. So have a teammate toss you his racket -- you get thirty seconds between points to make the switch. Some agreeable opponents may even suggest you hit a few practice shots to get the feel of the new racket, although the rules do state that play should be continuous after the match has begun, i.e. no more warm-ups.
Wait, stop the presses! A recent ALTA rules change now allows you three minutes to obtain a new racket when a string breaks. This rule applies to the ALTA league only -- the USTA rule is still thirty seconds. Also, the new rule applies to string breakage only. If you botch a sitter at the net and break your racket in a fit of churlishness, you are still limited to thirty seconds to get a replacement racket. That's assuming, of course, you can find a sucker who'll loan you his after you broke yours.
By the way, it's very possible that after borrowing a teammate's racket you will go on to play the match of your life. Please be advised that you have not made a serendipitous discovery. What typically happens when you borrow a racket is you stop worrying about winning, and for some reason most people play great when they aren't worried about winning. So if you win, don't attach any significance to this victory. Above all, don't go out and buy an exact replica of your teammate's racket -- in all likelihood, you will play just as badly with this new racket as you did with your old one.
As for what is meant by continuous play, here is the full and complete definition: (a) As was mentioned above, you have thirty seconds between points. (b) You are permitted ninety seconds when changing ends after the odd-numbered games; this is the best time to towel off or get some water. (c) You are allowed a ten-minute break between the second and third sets, if the match goes three sets. There is no ten-minute break between the first and seconds sets -- keep playing. Having said all that, let me add I've yet to see anyone at an ALTA match, stopwatch in hand, rigidly enforcing these time limits. I am also unaware of how a violator could be penalized for shamefully exceeding a time limit, beyond an admonition to play faster. In other words, don't get hung up about anything in this paragraph.
The rules recognize only two circumstances under which play can be interrupted. The first is: you are allowed "a bona fide toilet visit". That is a direct quote. (Only in something as dry and dead serious as a tennis rulebook can a writer use a phrase like "bona fide toilet visit" and not get laughed out of his tennis club.) The second is: in the event of an injury, you are allowed three minutes to determine if you can continue play. If you cannot continue, the other team can claim a win by forfeit. Hence, if your hunger for victory is that strong, you'd better act like you're not in excruciating pain. Also, if your partner is unable to continue due to injury, you cannot make a heroic attempt to win the match single-handedly. For example, if you are serving while up 5-4 in the third set and your partner then happens to die, you cannot leave your partner in a clump by the net and try to hold serve on your own. I know, it's a harsh penalty, but rules are rules.
#5: One of your opponents is clearly planting his right foot inside the baseline before he makes contact on his serves. His serve is nothing special, but you're a little annoyed by his blatant disregard for the rules on footfaulting. What, if anything, should be done about this?
Ans: We're getting into a dicey area when we discuss footfaults, maybe because a good 20% to 30% of ALTA players do it on at least half of their serves. Let me start with a story: Some years ago, my team had a player who was clearly footfaulting on virtually all his serves. Oh, sure, I pointed out his footfaults to him during practice, but, like every other player I've ever advised of footfaulting, he ignored me (although, unlike most players when they are told they footfault, he didn't tell me to kiss his you-know-what).
Well, the week came when this player came up against opponents who had the temerity to call footfaults on him. He became so flustered, he not only could not serve, he couldn't do anything else that day, and the match turned into a rout. The footfault calls were completely valid, of course, but that didn't stop any of us from thinking these opponents were engaging in brazen gamesmanship. In short, we didn't think the footfaulter had gotten his just desserts, we thought the other team had acted like jerks.
As luck would have it, the following season my partner and I faced the same two players that had so audaciously called footfaults against a teammate, and we took great pleasure in beating the pants off those guys. (The best part, I remember, was when the more contentious player missed a volley and threw his racket over the fence in disgust.) Forget about whether or not the footfault calls the previous season were legitimate, this was a very satisfying payback.
Getting back to the question: Yes, of course, everyone knows what a footfault is. Everyone knows a definite footfault when they see one. Many players footfault on a regular basis. And, you practically never hear anyone actually call a footfault. If you weren't asleep during the story I just finished, you know why -- footfaulting is kind of like driving over the speed limit: yes, there are rules against it, but, unless the violation is both obvious and severe, most people will regard an enforcement of the rules as more akin to harassment than an attempt to preserve orderliness. So, here's my advice on footfaulting: If you can get his serve back anyway, ignore it. If the footfault violation is minor and of no real advantage to the server (for example, the server's foot is coming down just before he makes contact), ignore it. If the opponent has a potent serve but he is blatantly footfaulting, maybe suggest to the opponent he take a step back so he can win fair and square. And, if a team has the audacity to call a footfault against you, move back a foot or so and beat the pants off those jerks.
#6: You hit a nice drop shot that an opponent returns with a stab volley 0.01 seconds after the ball has taken a second bounce. His return manages to clear the net. You call him for a double bounce, but your opponent says, "No way. It was a clean hit." Who gets the call?
Ans: Sorry, but it's his call, right or wrong. In defense of your opponents, a lot of these stab volleys actually do dig out the ball just before the second bounce, though it usually appears otherwise. So don't assume your opponent is a cheater or an arrogant pinhead. Maybe it really was a clean hit.
To be honest, this scenario comes up a lot less frequently than you might think. Probably the main reason you see it so rarely is because someone must make a lunging half-volley off his shoestrings while on a dead run, a shot that would tax Michael Chang. However, keep your racket ready just in case he's lucky enough to get the ball back. You should get a nice soft return that will be fun to smash into his kneecaps, after which he won't feel so lucky.
#7: A point ends when you race forward and knock off a sharply angled volley off a shallow lob. Your opponents call you for reaching over the net. It's true your follow-through clearly crossed the plane of the net, but you are pretty sure you were a few feet behind the net when you made contact with the ball, and you didn't touch the net. Who gets the call?
Ans: As with double bounces, the team making the shot gets the call. Hence, it is your call, and you should take the point if you are 99% sure the ball crossed the plane of the net before you hit it. In this situation, if you think the shot was legal, it almost certainly was -- assuming you weren't leaning forward awkwardly, your racket was approximately in line with your front foot when you hit the ball. That means if you managed to avoid running into the net, it is very unlikely you reached over.
You should also know that it is perfectly acceptable for your follow-through to cross the plane of the net. Contrary to what some players think, there is no rule that prohibits this.
#8: You are playing for the first time on clay courts, and as your knowledgeable coach cautioned you, the clay surface provided noticeably less traction than the hard courts you are used to. Early in the match, you slip as you back up for a high lob, your foot clearly sliding into the bottom of the net. You scramble back to your feet and run the ball down, playing it off the first bounce. However, your opponents blithely ignore the return and claim the point. Are they correct?
Ans: Yes, it is their point, since you touched the net during the point. Strictly speaking, it is your call, but in this case it is obvious that (a) you touched the net, and (b) you weren't aware you touched the net due to your fall. Your partner can help avert an argument here by telling you that, yes, you really did touch the net, but it was a nice effort anyway.
#9: While you are at the net, your opponent hits a low shot into the net cord, which slings the ball about four feet over your head. You take a desperate swing at the ball, catching it on the edge of your racket. The ball appears to stick to your racket as you complete your swing and propel the ball bola style into the open court. Is this a blatant example of what is commonly called a "carry"?
Ans: It used to be, but ain't no more. The rule was liberalized several years ago, and now you can't be called for a carry if you make one continuous motion, even if it appears your strings are coated with pine tar. As a result, you rarely see players get called for carries anymore, not legally anyway.
#10: Your partner is serving. You see that his serve has landed about a foot long and drop your guard, at which point your opponent zings a winner past your left ear. You ask "What gives?" and your opponents reply "Our point." Really?
Ans: Yes, really. It is up to your opponents, not you, to make the line calls -- all line calls -- on their side. So don't relax just because a serve appears to be just long. Some "sharpies" will play it. On the other hand, don't let them off scot free with an obvious late call, e.g. if they hit the return long, don't let them say, "Uh, sorry, serve was long." The sharpies are looking for a free swing, and they don't deserve one. To avoid "second chance" points, the call must be made instantaneously, not after the ball is seen heading into the fence, and so you can claim the point after a delayed call. (You may end up conceding the point anyway, especially if they give you a touching and contrite apology for the late call. Just make sure they only do it once.)
#11: You are awaiting your opponent's second serve at 40-all. Your opponent nonchalantly asks, "Ready?" and you say you're ready. Your opponent then, eschewing a normal service motion, dinks an underhand serve over the net as you stand there flat-footed. Granted, the serve was underhanded in an ethical as well as a physical sense, but was it legal?
Ans: Yes, this is a legal serve, and I've seen players try it. (It amounts to a "trick play", but if players love to see trick plays in football, why not in tennis?) Don't let this serve fool you. Objectively speaking, it is a weak serve that will be easy to attack, so think of it as a gift rather than a cheap trick.
#12: Hurricane Beulah is leveling Charleston even as you play, so maybe it's not so bad that all you have to deal with are wind gusts of up to 40 mph. Serving has become a definite challenge, however. On one of your serves, you take a mighty swing at the ball and miss it completely. Is this a fault, or do you get to replay the serve?
Ans: This is a fault. If, on the other hand, you make no attempt to hit a serve, i.e. you catch the ball or let it drop without swinging the racket, you can replay the serve. (Yes, I did tell one of you it was a let when you fanned a serve. That was incorrect -- it should have been a fault. I won't mention any names because the teammate who fanned a serve was not facing a 40 mph wind at the time.)
#13: Your opponent is not what you'd call a finesse player. Once, while serving to you, he shanks his serve way long and into the wrong court, hitting your partner on the fly. (Clarification: "on the fly" means the player is hit before the ball has taken a bounce, not that he has been hit on the zipper.) The server then claims it is his point. Is he correct? Do you dare argue with him?
Ans: Yes, it is his point. Even if a ball has no chance of landing in play, it must bounce or hit some obstruction before it is considered out. If the obstruction happens to be you or your partner, the other team gets the point.
#14: Your opponent hits a lob that is way long. You catch the ball before it bounces to keep it from bouncing over the fence and into the sewage treatment plant behind the court. Your opponents say, "Sorry, our point." Come on, really?
Ans: Your opponents have taken an extreme interpretation of the rule mentioned in the previous question, but the truth is they can claim the point. If it was me, I'd let you off with a warning, but your opponents are evidently traffic cops who give out tickets for doing 36 in a 35 mph zone. To avoid an argument, don't catch the ball until it bounces. (Some courts are on grounds where a ball which clears the fence will likely be lost forever, rendered unplayable, or a major nuisance to retrieve. When this is the case, make an agreement with your opponents before the match that catching obviously out balls will be permitted.)
#15: A ball from the neighboring court rolls onto your court just after you return your opponent's second serve. Your opponents call a let for the interference. The server then says, "First serve," and sets himself up for his patented rocket serve. You say, "Wait a second, it's second serve." Who is correct?
Ans: Your opponents are correct. Whenever a let is called, the point is replayed from the beginning, which means going back to the first serve if a let is called after a missed first serve.
If you think it is illogical to go back to the first serve, well your thinking is served by others, myself included. The argument to support the rule is that the interruption can adversely affect the server. OK, maybe that's true, but it's at best a maybe. In contrast, getting to retry a first serve is an indisputable advantage for the server. In my mind, it's about like allowing a football team to go back to first down because a dog happened to wander onto the field. That suggests underhanded tip #2: if you are about to make a tough second serve on a key point, send a pre-arranged signal to a teammate on the next court to knock a ball onto your court -- then you'll get to replay your first serve.
#16: A ball from the neighboring court rolls onto your court just as you are about to hit one of your famous overhead smashes. A let is called by your opponents, whereupon you execute your renowned in-your-face slam dunk overhead and adamantly claim the point. Is it your point, or do you replay it?
Ans: If contentious personalities exist on both sides of the net, a war is about to take place. Line calls undoubtedly rate #1 as a source of heated discussions during ALTA matches, but let calls finish a clear second. The problem is that a let call is invalid if the team has no reasonable chance to return the ball -- note the emphasis on reasonable. By throwing in that word "reasonable", the situation becomes a judgment call.
So what happens? For a minute or so, the match is suspended and The People's Court is in session, except there's no Wapner to settle the dispute. Even in the scenario just depicted, where an overhead is smashed for a winner, some players give you an argument, claiming they stopped playing when the let was called and so were not in position to defend the overhead. And, boy, it can get ugly. (God forbid you say something like, "With all due respect, sir, a cheetah on amphetamines couldn't have defended that overhead, much less a slugfoot like yourself.") So who gets the call? It depends on which side argues their case more forcefully.
#17: Your partner too hastily calls "out!" on a good first serve to you, then quickly says, "Oops, I mean good" as you make a solid crosscourt return. Your opponents glare at your partner. OK, now what?
Ans: It is understandable that a good, fast serve that lands close to the service line can lead to an incorrect call. When it happens, admit that the call was incorrect. When the correction is accompanied by a safe return, a let is authorized; if there is no return or the return lands out, the other team gets the point. If the return is a set up for the net man, expect a fight -- see the previous question.
Generally speaking, replaying points is condemned is weak and indecisive, which doesn't stop players from suggesting a replay when a point gets confused or an argument looms. You should be able to determine the winner of a given point by your knowledge of the rules and your innate sense of fair play, so the theory goes. However, the rules do prescribe a replay when an out call is corrected and is accompanied by a good return.
#18: Your opponent hits a solid groundstroke, pinning you on the baseline, and quickly joins his partner at the net. A second or so before you strike the ball, a close, personal friend in the stands yells "Lob it!". You do, in fact, snatch the point with an offensive lob that lands a foot from the back line for a clean winner. Your opponents immediately protest, saying the point must be replayed due to spectator interference.
Ans: The ALTA rules do state in big capital letters that "COACHING IS ILLEGAL". However, there is no specific penalty for this unsolicited advice, which is as it should be. The overriding fact is you made the shot -- guaranteed, if your lob had sailed long, the other team would have taken the point without any hesitation. The best way to handle the situation is: (1) tell the other team you were going to do that anyway, (2) tell your close, personal friend to shut up.
As for spectator behavior: it's fair to say there is some ham in all of us, and it's great to have some involved spectators to encourage us through a close, exciting match. Spectator support is one of the best motivators going, and without doubt this motivation is sometimes the difference between winning and losing. So yell to the limits of good etiquette. (To give an example of what I mean by that last statement: rowdy spectating is irrelevant and not too classy when the other team is getting killed, so contain the excess enthusiasm in a blowout!) Just remember that rule in large capital letters and refrain from comments of a strategical or instructional nature like "Serve to his backhand" or "Turn your shoulder more". Stick with comments like "Great serve!" and "Smash those wimps!".
A few more comments about spectator behavior: certainly we all relish the showers of adulation when we make a fantastic shot, even when we know in our hearts that the shot was pure, dumb luck. Applauding wise decisions is also a nice touch. For example, a player who lets a ball sail long rather than make an iffy volley off a too-hard return deserves to be congratulated for his restraint. ("Yeah, Eddie, way to watch 'em!") On the other hand, applauding double faults is kind of tacky, even when done as a tongue-in-cheek compliment, as in "Okay, Alex, you got yours!" Also, never say "Okay, good call!" when a ball very close to the line is called out. This can be unfair and manipulative, particularly if the call was in fact incorrect. The players have the right to resolve any questionable calls without undue influence from the peanut gallery. In fact, if a spectator for our worthy opposition applauds a bad call, I wouldn't mind if you turned to the spectator and said, "Your team applauds bad calls? How sporting!"
#19: You float back a short lob after your opponent makes a good, forcing shot. Seeing that your partner, standing at the net, is about to get pasted with an overhead, you say "Duck, partner!" Your opponent then proceeds to muff the overhead, knocking the ball over the fence and into the next zip code. The nettled opponent then says it is his point, claiming your statement distracted him and caused him to miss the overhead. Who gets the point?
Ans: You can claim the point. Your opponent is correct that talking while the ball is heading toward your opponents constitutes a hindrance. (Talking while the ball heads to your side is fine, but keep it simple: "Yours", "I got it", "Switch sides", etc.) However, if your opponent wants to claim a point for your hindrance, he must do it before he hits the ball, not after. Hence, he must catch the ball or let it drop to make the claim, in which case you can at least rationalize you saved your partner a fuzz sandwich. As soon as your opponent hits the ball, he relinquishes his chance to claim a hindrance. This, you will note, is another variation on the key rule that there are no "second chance" points -- see question #10.
#20: Your opponent misjudges your wicked slice serve, sending the return in the direction of the side fence. Certainly the ball is on its way out, but it happens to hit the net post and carom back into your court. Is the ball still in play, or is it your point?
Ans: Yes, this is a flukey shot, but, like a ball that hits the net cord, a ball that hits the net post is still in play. However, this rule in itself is not sufficiently confusing, so here is the rest of the story: (a) A serve that hits the net post is a fault, not a let. Of course, a serve that hits the net cord and lands in the correct service box is a let, not a fault. (b) Any ball that hits the scoring device attached to a net post is out.
#21: Your opponent snaps off a volley at such an extreme angle it carries into the neighboring court. The shot would be a sure winner at almost any level; however, you take off like Carl Lewis leaving the starting block, reaching the ball before the second bounce. Your shot goes around the net post, never more than two feet above the ground, and lands in your opponent's alley. Did you just pull off a spectacular coupe, or is it your opponents' point, since your shot did not pass over the net?
Ans: It's your point. A shot does not have to go over the net to be a good return. (Of course, a ball that goes under or through an opening in the net is considered out.) A ball that goes around the net post without hitting an obstruction is in play.
#22: Your opponent takes a mighty swing at an overhead, but mishits the ball off the top of his frame. The ball barely clears the net with a severe underspin, bounces once on your side, then bounces back over the net as all four players watch in amazement. Whose point?
Ans: Their point. To claim the point, someone's racket must make contact with the ball, and neither you nor your partner did this. (By the way, the hand holding the racket is considered part of the racket, so a ball that caroms off your knuckles is legal. I'm waiting for the day someone perfects this shot.) The fact that the ball bounced once on your side, then landed in play on their side, is irrelevant.
#23: Same scenario as the previous question, only this time you race forward, reach over the net as the ball crosses back to your opponents' side, and bounce the ball parallel to the net into the neighboring court. Still their point?
Ans: No, it's your point. The ball had already crossed the plane of the net, so the only relevant fact is that you hit the ball before the second bounce. You can't get called for reaching over the net in this situation.
#24: Your opponent smashes an overhead straight at you, the ball lodging itself in the throat of your racket. Thinking quickly, you run to the net and toss your racket into your opponents' court, the ball still stuck in the racket throat. Whose point?
Ans: Obviously it is their point. You're guilty of a carry in the most literal sense. However, this action always gets a good laugh and the spectators will greatly appreciate your fine sense of humor, so by all means do it.
#25: You return a serve down the line behind the net man for a clean winner. Your partner compliments you for a nice return. The server says "Wide!" Uh oh, now what?
Ans: I've saved the worst for last. Anyone who has watched at least a few tennis matches on TV is aware that line calls are an unending source of controversy. In those matches, linespersons are there to call the lines and get ejected when controversy arises. In other words, the linespersons are sacrificial lambs to appease the short-panted gods when they have been justifiably enraged by the error-ridden proclivities of us mere mortals. In ALTA matches, there are no linespersons, and so we must rely on the integrity of the players to keep the match from escalating into open warfare.
The key now isn't so much who gets the point, it's how to handle the situation. First, there is the issue of integrity as it applies to an ALTA match. In my opinion, integrity means you don't call a ball out if you think it may have hit the line. Be honest! On the other hand, when you get a bad call, you are within your rights to tactfully ask your opponent if he is sure about the call. Some players are fair enough to concede the point if you had a clearly better view of the shot, as is the case in the scenario for this question. Occasionally, a player will correct his partner's call, an action which is without doubt the epitome of integrity -- many players won't overrule their partner even on a ball that bounces ten feet in front of them. More often than not, however, your opponent sticks to his call, and, since players are responsible for their own line calls, they will get the point.
Some of these comments deserve elaboration. First, regarding the (spineless! cowardly!) players who never overrule their partner's calls: Don't be too hard on them. They are just trying to avoid dissention in the partnership. However, their thinking is short-sighted (and we could certainly say their vision is short-sighted if they can't call a ball that lands ten feet in front of them, oh, never mind). The truth is -- and this is an important point, so pay attention -- an overrule by you or your partner greatly enhances your team's credibility on other close calls. That overrule proves to your opponents and the spectators that you are calling the lines honestly. So, when your opponent corrects your call, don't give him a dirty look and blast your next serve between his shoulder blades. Instead, exit the situation gracefully with something like, "You had a better view, partner. The ball was good."
There is also the issue of when you have the right to question an opponent's call. Let's be honest here, it's a little ridiculous to claim your shot hit the baseline when you are looking across the baseline from seventy or eighty feet away and your opponent is right there. (Best line I ever heard to quiet an opponent questioning a baseline call: "Nah, you had to be there.") If you're going to start an argument, at least pick a point where you know a mistake has been made.
Now consider for a moment what happens after a disputed call. If the match is being played by four robots, the point is registered and play continues: case closed. However, ALTA matches are played between four humans, which means that nasty thing called human emotion enters into the picture. Ergo, the point is over, but it's not over -- there is still the possibility of retaliatory measures. In other words, the fun is just starting.
Now, I'm not one to advise you to resist your baser instincts and forgive your opponents for a ridiculous call. Heck, we're human beings, and our success as a species is partly due to our vindictive desire to make our enemies pay when they disrupt our complacent lives. So, if you want to retaliate, go ahead, but do it subtly. As the Wicked Witch of the West said, "...it's how to do it. These things must be done delicately."
A form of retaliation common seen is to blast the next ball straight at the head of the player who made the call. Frankly, not only is that juvenile, it usually costs you a second point. A reasonably savvy opponent is anticipating some form of retaliation, ducks when he sees the ball coming toward his head, and your shot goes long. (The guy may be myopic, but he knows how doubles is played.) Granted, his questionable call cost you a point, but now you've lost a second point by taking a silly, low-percentage shot. So don't do that. Conversely, if you're the one who made the controversial call, put yourself on red alert.
A somewhat better form of retaliation is to make a questionable call yourself on a ball close to the line, and here "close" can mean anything less than two feet from a sideline. The unspoken message is, "You made a bad call. I made a bad call. Tit for tat. Now let's get back to tennis, gentlemen." Okay, that's a reasonably civilized way to resolve the dispute, but it hardly conforms to our definition of integrity.
Is there a better way to satisfy our lust for revenge? I think so, and I'll describe it here. The beauty of this approach, you will soon see, is that it not only stays within the bounds of integrity, it frequently gets your team more than one point. All you have to remember is: "mind game".
Let's review the scenario. You hit a shot that you and your partner know is good, but an opponent calls it out from across the court. You tactfully ask your opponent if he is sure the ball was out, and he sticks to his call. No need to get mad: you've just completed Phase One. The seed has been planted.
Phase One will suggest to anyone with an iota of conscience that he may have won the last point unjustly. Now you reinforce this feeling of ill-gotten gains with Phase Two: an idle comment, usually said to your partner but spoken just loud enough for your opponents to hear. Some recommendations for the Phase Two comment are listed below. You can pick the one which best fits your personality, or, if you enjoy creative exercises, come up with one of your one. Really, in Phase Two you are limited only by your imagination.
CYNICAL: "Don't get mad, partner. Remember a few weeks ago? You made a call that was just as bad."JUDICIAL: "It looked good to me too, but it's their call. Right -- or wrong."
SARDONIC: "Hey, our eyesight will probably start to go too when we get to their age."
COMPASSIONATE: "Let it go, partner. We all make mistakes."
THEOLOGICAL: (Looking skyward:) "Forgive them."
AUTHORITATIVE: "They're not going to give us the whites. Don't paint the lines this week."
ANALYTICAL: "Stay focused, partner. Don't get psyched out by bad calls."
INTIMIDATING: "That may be good for us, partner. Maybe that call will get us going."
MANIPULATIVE: "That's okay. Some players make a big deal when they get a bad call, but not me."
In summary, don't get mad when you get a bad call. Instead, think of it as an opportunity to thrust a mental dagger into your opponents' brain cells. As a rule, your opponents will play the next few points with diminished resolve, and you'll get the point back with interest. The nicest part of this is, nobody can accuse you of being dishonest or argumentative.
It should be mentioned that sometimes you aren't able to recoup your losses after a bad call. For example, an ex-teammate of mine was once victimized by an out call at match point of a third set tiebreaker. It should have been six-all; instead it was, "Great match. Thanks for playing." The victimized player shook the guy's hand and walked off without saying a word to anybody. Now, if that's not integrity, I don't know what is.
A postscript to those of you who may be alarmed by the combative atmosphere conveyed in some of the above scenarios: Please don't be alarmed. Doubles is rarely as rowdy as this article suggests. To make this article more entertaining and readable, I have exaggerated some situations. Slightly.