Most amateur tennis matches have a trust system, which means that whether the ball you play is out of bounds or not is up to the opponent. This unique way of refereeing provides a justified opportunity for trickery, and much of the controversy in tennis is caused by it.
For example, you think that the ball you hit is a good ball, or even see the ball's landing point pressure line or simply in the line, only to be called out of bounds by the opponent. Under the rules of trust, the ball can only be judged out of bounds, and unless the opponent changes his mouth to admit that the ball is a good ball, you can only lose this point.
When you encounter an opponent who is playing with lai, you basically have no way. Especially in the crucial minutes, even if you are sure that your ball is not out of bounds, as long as the opponent insists on calling out of bounds, you can only accept it. And you can't complain yet, let alone get angry or angry, or you're likely to lose control of your emotions and lose focus and affect the next game.
Since sometimes it is inevitable for the opponent to play tricks, and you have no choice, how do you counter it? Judging from the rules of the trust system, you couldn't take any countermeasures at that time. So some people will ask, can I also play like the other party?
The answer, of course, is yes. If you follow my method, you can not only play with lai, but also play with peace of mind and quietly, and you will not arouse the suspicion of your opponent.
First, you want your opponent to feel trust in you. Just as you must first invest money if you want to make money, you must first cultivate a sense of trust before you play a trick, and establish an honest and upright person for yourself.
In order to clarify this issue, we must first clearly understand the essence of the matter of calling out of bounds.
Because the ball you hit is on the side of the opponent's field, you are farther away from the ball than the other party, the viewing angle may be more off, and the ball lands and bounces only in an instant, so it is difficult for you to be sure whether your ball is out of bounds.
That is to say, even if you think that the ball just now is a good ball, it is actually difficult to be 100% sure in your heart. You are like this, and so are your opponents.
As mentioned earlier, considering that you are closer to the ball, whether the opponent's ball is pressed against the line, in fact, he is more uncertain than you. When you are in the non-critical point, the opponent's press ball or the ball pressing the outside line, you should decisively determine that it is a good ball in the boundary, so that the opponent will have a sense of trust in you, he may feel that you are accommodating him (because he already thinks that his ball is out of bounds).
However, you can't do that all the time.
I mean – you should do it when it's non-critical points, or when you're leading significantly. For example, you can do this when you have 2 more breaks than your opponent, or you can do this at 40-0. And once you reach the key round or key point, you can't do this - you can sneak in at the key time and call the opponent's good ball out of bounds, at this time the opponent usually does not doubt your out of bounds based on the previous sense of trust in you.
In addition to successfully relying on key points, this has another advantage.
Even if he is habitually tricky, he sometimes feels guilty. If you have not called out of bounds some of your opponent's outside lines or just a little out of bounds, you will not only win the trust of your opponent, but also feel in your heart that you are very sportsmanlike and a humble person.
With this premise, after you "play lai" in the key points, you will seek self-comfort in your heart - I have already let him have a few points before, and now it is a big deal to play with it, and it is easier to feel at ease.
However, because it is a key point, your trick is more valuable. "Sneaking" in key minutes can have a significant impact on the outcome of the game. And you may wish to be "generous" when you are leading a big lead and have a great chance of winning, if you only suspect that the opponent's ball is out of bounds, then don't call out of bounds. In other words, when you feel that the trend has gone, you can't make a "fool's errand".
Another important point is. If you feel that the other party is not playing with lai, then you should not play lai, especially in the key time. That is to say, this "despicable" trick with a counter-purpose has a premise for use - you are very sure that the other party is playing lai in the game, and he has always liked to play lai, then you can use this "despicable" trick to counter him.
To further clarify this, let's take an example.
In the fourth round of the 2013 Australian Open, Djokovic and Wawrinka played 4-4 in the decider, Wawrinka got the break point, his serve was called out of bounds by the line, Djokovic also immediately signaled Wawrinka's return ball out of bounds after the mistake of returning the ball, at this time Wawrinka showed a suspicious and confused expression, but the referee on duty also nodded to indicate that the ball was out of bounds just now.
Next, Djokovic scored two consecutive points to save this crucial serve. Several television replays on the scene showed that Wawrinka's return ball should have been a good ball. After the game, Hawkeye replays also confirmed that the ball was indeed a good ball in the world.
That is to say, if Wawrinka chose to challenge at that time, he achieved a key break in the decisive set, thus coming to his own service to win the game. Unfortunately, Wawrinka chose to trust Djokovic and the referee rather than choose to challenge, and the end result of this match was that Wawrinka lost the decider 10-12.
After the game, it was commented that Djokovic was the closest person to the landing point of that ball, he should have seen that the ball was pressed, and his body movements and expressions also made people guess that he actually knew that the ball was a good ball, and that the referee had made a misjudgment.
The end result of this incident was that Djokovic not only won the match, but also eventually won the Australian Open of the year. If Wawrinka had chosen to challenge at the time, or if Djokovic had offered that Wawrinka's serve was a good one in the world, history might have been rewritten.
It is gratifying that this incident did not affect Djokovic's reputation, as he had shown good work ethic and sportsmanship in previous matches, and there were reports that Djokovic had taken the initiative to correct the referee's misjudgment and let his opponent score.
Unfortunately, I did not find any instances in support of the story, only one similar one. In the 2016 Hopman Cup Sock against Hewitt, Hewitt's serve was called out of bounds by the referee, and Sock thought it was a good ball in the boundary, he suggested that Hewitt apply for a challenge, so Hewitt applied for the challenge, Hawkeye replay was indeed a good ball in the boundary, and as a result, Hewitt won this point.
Finally, the example I gave may not be appropriate, but there is clearly some relevance to the topic under discussion today. In addition, any trick should be eliminated, let alone worth advocating.
For the above views, what do you think, please leave a message in the comment area, support or bricks are equally welcome. (Source: Tennis House Author: Yun Cirrus Yunshu)