A quick follow-up on this.
It occurred to me that, if both centre and sidelines are going to have a
backward extension, it might be better for the centre to end at the
baseline, and not go forward at all. Then, if you find a line that goes
only back from the baseline, it's the centre; whereas, if you find one
which goes both forward and back, it's the sideline.
Would that work better?
On Wed, 20 Apr 2016, Nikhil Nair wrote:
I agree that having the lines extending backwards is helpful for serving.
That's an odd one, really, as it's been happening, but it isn't in the
rules: on a full-sized court, the lines don't extend back from the baseline
at all. Of course, the sighted players don't really need those backward
extensions, as they can easily estimate by eye, whereas they're nuch more
useful to us.
So it seems common sense has been winning out over the letter of the
written rules. That said, it would make sense to update those rules so
that those backward extensions don't get taken away, all of a sudden, by
some rules stickler in the future.
I wasn't aware anyone was thinking about serving from further back behind
the baseline, though. How far were you thinking - and how far back would
you want those backward extensions to go? In sighted tennis, there's no
rule against serving from as far back as you like - mainly because no one
would want to, as it puts the server at a disadvantage: the distance to the
opposite service line gets longer, which might mean you could hit the serve
a touch harder; but the net also gets further away, which, presumably, is a
significant hindrance. Not sure how the balance would work out in our
game: I could see it might work out particularly well for under-arm
They have a meeting of the VI advisory group tomorrow, so I'll pass on your
comment about the backward extensions.
On Wed, 20 Apr 2016, Priestley, Yvette wrote:
I agree with no tactile lines for the outer side lines or for the service line. I think that a short centre line extending forwards is a good idea. However, I would still like to have a decent centre line extending backwards. This is because if you are serving from some way behind the baseline near the centre then you still need to check your direction and if the line has run out this could be more difficult. I'm just thinking about variations in serving positions because it is good to be able to serve from the corners and the centre. I can't remember what the rule is on the lines extending backwards from the baseline.
Hope this helps
On another note, do you know what the Cambridge tennis camp is all about? It would be great to know.
From: b1-tennis-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx [mailto:b1-tennis-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Nikhil Nair
Sent: 19 April 2016 21:55
Subject: [b1-tennis] A suggestion on tactile lines
I posted a proposal earlier today on the VI Tennis UK Facebook group. I'm copying it below. I'd be interested to hear your thoughts, of course.
Re tactile lines on the B1 court, I have a proposal to put forward.
Keep the centre mark quite small (extending forward no more than 30 cm from the baseline); and no tactile doubles sidelines (i.e. the outer lines).
The reasoning is this. When I find a tactile line which I think is parallel to the net, I immediately know it's the baseline. That's why we don't have a tactile service line.
Similarly, when I find a line which is at right angles to the net, I want to know straight away that it's the singles sideline. That allows me to be as independent on the court as possible - I don't want to have to keep asking an official whether I've found the line I think I've found.
Yes, we need a centre mark, since some players serve from there; and the standard 4 inches (10 cm) that's used on the full sized court is probably too small to find easily without bending down. But if it's relatively short, we'll easily be able to tell the difference between that and the sideline.
This e-mail has been scanned for all viruses by Websense. For more information on a proactive anti-virus service working around the clock, around the globe, visit: http://www.websense.com
This email is confidential and intended solely for the use of the individual to whom it is addressed. The contents of this message will not be in any way binding upon the Big Lottery Fund. Opinions, conclusions, contractual obligations and other information in this message, in so far as they relate to the official business of the Big Lottery Fund, must be specifically confirmed in writing by the Big Lottery Fund. If you are not the intended recipient, be advised that you have received this email in error and that any use, dissemination, forwarding, printing, or copying of this email is strictly prohibited. Additionally, the information contained in this email may be subject to public disclosure under the Freedom of Information Act 2000.