Evening public ledger. [volume] (Philadelphia [Pa.]) 1914-1942, 1918-07-16

TT is more than likely that within
L the next few days the Rules Com
mfttee of the United States National
Lawn Tennis Association will receive a
letter recommending a change in the
rule 21 of the laws of lawn tennis, or
that this rule be worded so that 1t
will be made more clear in it's meanins
This rule has been coming in for a
great deal of discussion in the West.
especially in Chicago. during the last
few weeks, and many Emergencies of
views have been expressed by men who
have been playing the game for years,
and therefore are well qualified to ex-
press their opinion.
The rule under discussion reads as
follows: In case a player is obstructed
by an accident not within his control,
the ball shall be considered a let
But when a permanent fixture of the
courts is the cause of The accident the
point shall be counted. The benches and
chairs around the court and the umpire
and lnesmen shall be considered perma-
nent fixtures. If, however. a ball in
play strikes permanent fixture Of the
court (other than the net or posts) be-
fore 1t touches the ground the point is
lost; If after it has touched the\ ground
the point shall be played out"
Different Opinions
The last statement Is the one which
Is causing, the trouble. The majority
of those who discussed the rule claim
that the meaning of the word out" in
this case Is not that the ball shall be
counted as an out, but that the striker
shall be permitted to play the ball If
he can do so before it again touches
the ground.
They take their viewpoint on the basis
| that the generally accepted meaning
when the word out" is used in sem
tence, as this one is. is that the play
shall continue until the point shall be
lost in a legal manner. While the ma
| jority took the above view of the rule,
, the minority, which included President
| Pierce and Walter Hayes, took the view
that the point was over.
We would like to hear from some of
| the players in this city and vicinity as
| to what their opinion is of this rule.
Another Difference
During another of these flaming
bees" at the recent national clay court
tennis championship. held in Chicago,
another matter was brought up in refer'
| ence to different section of the same
paper man, who started the argument
| about the Interpretation of the word
| out" formerly was practicing attor-
ney in New York, and gave as his pro-
| fessional opinion that should a ball he
| struck in such a manner as to strike
within the limits of the court and hit the
bbackstop on the first bound it would be
perfectly legal for any one playing or
| that side OF the net to return the bal
If they could hit it before it agar
touched the ground.
Bill Tlden, the star net player, of this
city. winner of the Pennsylvania State
was asked for his opinion by Salisbury
and the local star said that he took tn,
same stand as Salisbury did. Paul vii
liams. field secretary of the national as
sociation, also took the same viewpoint
Walter Hayes's Opinion
Walter Hayes took the position tha,
they were wrong. He said that the
backstop was part of the playing sur.
face, only on a different plane. SAILS.
bury's contention is that, though the
rule names certain things as perma.
nent fixtures it does not specifically limit
these things and thinks that the back.
stop is certainly permanent fixture
Most of those present agreed.
The general opinion was that /,
would be legal TO return the ball, bu,
that it would be rather poor sportsman.
ship. One thing is certain, and that is