Every Wednesday, this site examines a rule or governing principle that shapes how tennis is actually played, particularly in the self-officiated environments where most recreational matches take place. This post concludes the discussion of Principle 6 in The Code by turning to the sentence that many players find the most difficult to accept. Even when it costs points, even when it feels unfair in isolation, the game is better played when we all give our opponent the benefit of the doubt.
Opponent gets benefit of doubt. A player should always give the opponent the benefit of any doubt. When a match is played without officials, the players are responsible for making decisions, particularly for line calls. There is a subtle difference between player decisions and those of an on-court official. An official impartially resolves a problem involving a call, whereas a player is guided by the principle that any doubt must be resolved in favor of an opponent. A player in attempting to be scrupulously honest on line calls frequently will keep a ball in play that might have been out or that the player discovers too late was out. Even so, the game is much better played this way.
USTA Friend at Court 2025 , The Code, Principle 6 (Complete)
At first glance, that final sentence can feel unsatisfying. It appears to ask players to accept point-level unfairness in service of some abstract ideal. From a purely transactional perspective, the objection is understandable. Why should a player be expected to concede a ball they believe was out, especially in a competitive match?
The answer lies in scale. Principle 6 is not concerned with individual points. It is concerned with whether self-officiated tennis remains playable over the course of an entire match, season, or league. The standard intentionally sacrifices precision at the margins to preserve trust at the center. That tradeoff is not accidental. It is structural.
When players attempt to maximize accuracy on every close call, disputes multiply. Each marginal ball becomes an opportunity for disagreement, delay, and escalation. Matches slow. Tension rises. The social fabric required to sustain self-officiated competition begins to fray. Nick Powel, the original author of The Code and all the subsequent editors along the way, recognized this long ago. A system optimized for perfect calls collapses under its own weight when there is no neutral authority to provide some semblance of impartial perfection.
By contrast, the benefit-of-the-doubt standard absorbs error. It allows the occasional point to be lost without turning it into a referendum on integrity. Over time, those absorbed errors distribute themselves in ways that are far less damaging than persistent conflict. The match continues. Players remain engaged. Trust, even if imperfect, survives.
This is why Principle 6 demands generosity rather than accuracy. Expecting perfection is brittle, while generosity is resilient. It creates space for human limitation without requiring constant adjudication. In that sense, the principle is less about sportsmanship 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 moments where players feel compelled to defend their character rather than play tennis.
Read this way, the final sentence of Principle 6 is not aspirational but pragmatic. It reflects hard-earned experience with what works and what does not when players are left to govern themselves. Specifically, this behavioral standard recognizes human imperfections and helps players understand how to navigate around that reality.
Principle 6 does not eliminate disagreement. It makes disagreement survivable. Without this principle, the remaining rules on making calls would be unworkable. With it, they at least have a fighting chance.
- Friend at Court: The Handbook of Tennis Rules and Regulations, USTA, 2025
- Friend at Court: The USTA Handbook of Tennis Rules and Regulations, USTA, 2001. (Hardcopy.)
For readers who may be new to the organized tennis landscape, the Friend at Court is the USTA’s compendium of all rules governing sanctioned play in the United States. It includes the ITF Rules of Tennis, USTA Regulations, and additional guidance specific to competition in this country. The Code is nested within the Friend at Court. That section outlines the “unwritten” traditions, expectations, and standards of conduct that guide player behavior. The Code is the ethical framework that shapes how recreational and competitive players conduct themselves every time they step onto the court.