Too Much Talk?

Too much talking?
Too much talking?
How much time can your doubles opponents take in between YOUR first and second serve without it being a hindrance of some kind? That is the question from Newk camp mate, Mike “Rambo” Rennels, who writes…

“My team in a league championship 9.5 men’s combo had a few events.

“First set up 6-5 in the tie break. My team serving to the ad court – hit the first serve into the net. His partner scoops up the ball quickly. My team goes to serve the second serve and they look up and the receiving team is huddled in the middle of the court to talk strategy. The server is in disbelief at their actions. We lose the point and eventually fall to 11-12.

“Now serving to stay alive. A first serve goes long. A ball comes into the court from outside this detached court. Our team was not awarded a first serve. We double fault to lose the set 7-6. This team goes on the lose their match 7-5 in the second set.

“What is the ruling on the second team huddling up after a first serve fault?

“What is the rule when an outside ball entering the court after a first serve fault?

“Did my guys get hosed twice?”

My Response

Rambo, I will post for other opinions; but I think you got hosed once.

I don’t think the opponents can “huddle up” in between serves; but I don’t know what the “penalty” should be.

The ball rolling on the court is questionable…
If it interrupted your guy’s service motion (i.e. he was in the motion of serving) it is a let; but if he was not, the new interpretation of the rule is that you play on and serve a second serve.

Other opinions?

Today’s Tournament Results

Tom McCune and I played the 70s doubles semi’s vs. the #2 seeded Chuck Kinyon and Don Long team. We played about our average quality game; and they did too. Except their “average” is better than ours; so they won.

Men’s 65 Singles
SF (2) Mike Dahm d. (5) John Welch 6-3; 6-4
SF (1) Larry Turville d. Mark Anderson 6-2; 6-0

Men’s 70 Singles
SF (2) Fred Drilling d. (3) Donald Long 6-4; 6-4
SF (4) Evert Jonsson d. (5) William Simonton 6-3; 6-3

Men’s 75 Singles
SF (5) Guido Weber d. (4) James Rauch 6-4; 6-4
SF (3) Kaz Saito d. (1) Jerald Hayes 6-3; 2-6; 6-3

Men’s 80 Singles
F (1) Gordon Hammes d. (2) Monson Douglas 6-0; 6-0
Consolation:
CF Dick Crawford d. Jack Lease 3-6; 6-0; 10-1
Jack: Making progress!

Men’s 60 Doubles

SF (2) Dalphon/Wilkie d. Hoffmann/Peters 6-2; 6-3
SF (1) Bouchard/Robinson d. Spano/Turner 6-2; 6-0

Men’s 65 Doubles
SF (2) Gonzales/McAleer d. (3) Moore/Schultz 7-6(5); 6-3
SF Fournier/Kimball d. Morton/Weiss 6-4; 6-3
Consolation:
CQ Griner/Tarantino d. Baker/Petrocco 6-4; 3-6; 10-6

Men’s 70 Doubles
SF (2) Kinyon/Long d. (3) McCune/Wachtel 6-4; 6-1
SF (4) Engelhard/Hull d. Swan/Underwood 3-6; 6-4; 11-9
(So, the team we beat last week, beat the team that beat Drilling/Kileff. Go Figure!)
Consolation:
CS (1) Drilling/Kileff d. Ludwig/Mutchnik 6-0; 6-7; 10-7
Great showing by Ludwig/Mutchnik (and “nobody applauded their great shots!”)

Men’s 75 Doubles

SF Benites/Weber d. (3) Curry/Kennedy 6-3; 3-6; 10-3
SF (1) Davie/Dilworth d. (4) Mathias/Poist 6-3; 7-5

For the link to the draws and match times for Saturday, click HERE

If you are not on my “new posting alert email list” and want to be (I promise, no other uses of your email address!), just drop me a note at George@seniortennisandfitness.com

4 thoughts on “Too Much Talk?

  1. rules state thatthe receiving team must play at the pace of the server
    and a ball rolling on the court is not 2 serves unless you are in your service motion.

    Bill – I agree, but what can you do about it? George

  2. If opponents huddled to discuss strategy between my first and second serves, I would simply say “Really? I am taking another first serve”!

  3. Rambo,

    Re the huddle between serves, I agree with George. The rules say that the receiver is supposed to be ready and play to the pace of the server, or words to that effect. The receiving team violated that rule. Also, this might even be viewed as intentionally trying to interfere with the server’s rhythm. I think the serving team should have been awarded a first serve.

    Re the ball coming on the court, I think it depends. If it was just a quick interference and somebody picked up the ball quickly, the fact that it occurred after the first serve and before the second should not automatically entitle the server to another first serve. The interference has to have been significant, I believe, for the server to be entitled to start over. What is significant? I don’t really know, as I think it depends on the circumstances. Certainly, a few seconds to pick up the extra ball would not do it. But if it took a half minute or more, then I think the server would have legitimate expectation to be awarded another first serve.

    Was this match officiated? It seems not. I don’t think an official would have allowed the receiving team to get away with the huddle.

    In the absence of an official, what I would probably do in a situation like this (although I have never had anybody huddle quite like this) is to pointedly say something like the following to the receiving team before the second serve: “You guys realize, of course, that you are supposed to play to the pace of the server and that does not entitle you to huddle before the second serve and mess up our rhythm. Under the circumstances, I assume you will agree that we are entitled to a first serve, correct? If you don’t agree, then we are going to ask for an official before we play another point.”

  4. The fact is that you should ask them to stop and request a 1st serve under the code of beavior. Their delays are intentional and not within the spirit of the code of tennis.
    If it continues then ask for an official.

Comments are closed.