Every Wednesday this site explores a rule or guiding principle that defines how tennis is actually played, especially in the self-contained environments where most recreational competition takes place. This post concludes the discussion on Principle 6 The code by turning to the phrase that many players find hardest to accept. Even if it costs points, even if it feels unfair in itself, the game is played better when we all give our opponent the benefit of the doubt.
Opponent gets benefit of doubt. A player must always give the opponent the benefit of every doubt. When a match is played without referees, the players are responsible for making decisions, especially when it comes to line calls. There is a subtle difference between players’ decisions and those of an on-field referee. A referee resolves a problem with a call impartially, while a player is guided by the principle that every doubt must be resolved in favor of an opponent. A player who attempts to be scrupulously fair on line calls will often keep a ball in play that may have been out or that the player discovers too late was out. Still, the game is played much better this way.
USTA Friend to Court 2025, The Code, Principle 6 (Completed)
At first glance, that last sentence may feel unsatisfactory. It seems like players are being asked to accept point-level dishonesty in the service of some abstract ideal. From a purely transactional perspective, the objection is understandable. Why should a player be expected to concede a ball that he thinks is out of bounds, especially in a competitive match?
The answer lies in the scale. Principle 6 does not relate to individual points. What matters is whether independent tennis remains playable over the course of an entire match, season or competition. The standard deliberately sacrifices precision at the margins to maintain confidence in the center. That decision is not accidental. It’s structural.
When players try to maximize accuracy on every close call, disputes multiply. Every marginal ball becomes an opportunity for disagreement, delay and escalation. Matches slow. The tension rises. The social fabric necessary to maintain autonomous competition is beginning to fray. Nick Powell, the original author of The code and all subsequent editors recognized this long ago. A system optimized for perfect conversations collapses under its own weight without a neutral authority to provide some semblance of impartial perfection.
The benefit-of-the-doubt standard, on the other hand, absorbs errors. It allows a point to be lost every now and then, without it becoming a referendum on integrity. Over time, these absorbed errors spread in ways that are far less damaging than persistent conflict. The match continues. Players stay involved. Trust, even if imperfect, survives.
This is why Principle 6 requires generosity rather than precision. Expecting perfection is fragile, while generosity is resilient. It creates space for human limitation without the need for constant adjudication. In that sense, the principle is less about sportiness and more about system design.
Players often object that this standard rewards the opponent. In reality, it benefits the match. It supports continuity and mutual respect. It reduces the number of times when players feel forced to defend their character instead of playing tennis.
Read this way, the last sentence of Principle 6 is not ambitious but pragmatic. It reflects the hard-earned experience of what works and what doesn’t when players are left to their own devices. Specifically, this behavioral standard recognizes human imperfections and helps players understand how to navigate that reality.
Principle 6 does not eliminate disagreement. It makes disagreement survivable. Without this principle, the remaining rules for conducting calls would be unworkable. At least that gives them a fighting chance.
- Friend at Court: The Handbook of Tennis Rules and RegulationsUSTA, 2025
- Friend at Court: The USTA Handbook of Tennis Rules and Regulations, USTA, 2001. (On paper.)
For readers who may be new to the organized tennis landscape, the Friend at Court is the USTA’s compendium of all the rules governing sanctioned play in the United States. It contains the ITF tennis rules, USTA regulations, and additional guidelines specific to competition in this country. The Code is nested in the Friend at Court. That section describes the “unwritten” traditions, expectations, and standards of behavior that govern player behavior. The Code is the ethical framework that governs how recreational and competitive players behave every time they take the field.
#tennis #played