Visually Impaired Tennis Feedback
Prepared for: Visually Impaired Advisory Group meeting- 27th August 2015
Dated: 24/08/2015
1 / Visually Impaired Tennis Feedback / 24/08/2015 Summary
The ball
o The best option presently but needs to become more robust and cheaper for long term use.
Court sizes
o Court sizes for B1 and B2-B4 need to be agreed and used throughout the sport.
o B1/red court needs to be created within the dimensions of a regular tennis court.
o B2-B4 court width should be the same as the regular tennis court size (benefits - no need for throw down lines and larger playing area).
Rules
o Serve – the rule is accepted and works well.
o Volleying – several respondents suggested B4’s should be able to volley.
o Blindfolds – accepted by most but clarification of when player can and cannot touch blindfold required.
o Bounces – some suggested B2 players should get 3 bounces and B3 players should get 2 bounces.
2 / Visually Impaired Tennis Feedback / 24/08/2015 Feedback
1 – The Ball: For the purpose of tournaments, the recognized VI sound tennis ball shall be the current Japanese design in either black or yellow
Please see appendix 1 for responses.
2a – Court Sizes: The B1 game shall be played on a standard ITF ‘red’ court measuring 12.80m x 6.10m, tactile on all lines except service boxes.
3 / Visually Impaired Tennis Feedback / 24/08/2015 Please see appendix 2.1 for responses. 2b – Court Sizes: Court Sizes: The B2, B3 and B4 game shall be played on a standard ITF ‘orange’ court measuring 18.29m x 8.23m
Please see appendix 2.2 for responses.
3a – The Serve: Before serving the server calls to their opponent ‘ready’ and their opponent replies ‘yes’, the server then calls ‘play’ before starting the serve
4 / Visually Impaired Tennis Feedback / 24/08/2015 Please see appendix 3.1 for responses.
3b – Volleying: No volleying is permitted
Please see appendix 3.2 for responses.
3c – Blindfolds: Paralympic style blindfolds shall be worn by players in the B1 category of a tournament
5 / Visually Impaired Tennis Feedback / 24/08/2015 Please see appendix 3.3 for responses.
3d – Bounces (B1’s): B1’s are permitted 3 bounces.
Please see appendix 3.4 for responses.
3e – Bounces (B2-B4’s): On a standard orange size court; B2’s shall be allowed 3 bounces, B3’s 2 bounces and B4’s 1 bounce
6 / Visually Impaired Tennis Feedback / 24/08/2015 Please see appendix 3.5 for responses.
Apendix A = Agreed D = Disagreed NC = No comment C = Change/comment 1 The Ball
Feedback 1 No problems with this A
2 No comment given NC
3 These balls are weak, used with a 25” racket as the infill C piece pop out. In outdoor conditions they float around too much. We prefer the Buzz Balls as they last longer and fly more truly. Also apparently for those with good hearing there is also an in-flight sound.
4 I still cannot see a better example of a ball anywhere but C would still welcome other designs to be introduced if they work and are up to ITF standards.
7 / Visually Impaired Tennis Feedback / 24/08/2015 5 I think the rules are good. A 6 No comment given NC
7 I've read the rules and they seem fine A 8 No comment given NC
9 Not sure about a black ball on an indoor court. C Balls are inconsistent with their bounce, they wear out far too quickly and are ridiculously expensive. I would like to see a ball that can be used outside, that’s speed is similar to sponge but is less affected by wind and more resilience would be good. Perhaps something along the lines of a mini tennis red ball. Often by the third bounce the ball could be rolling, what are the rules for hitting a rolling ball?
10 No comment given NC
11 Would it be possible to trial a bright “dayglo” style orange C ball?
12 I am happy with that but I would like a more robust ball, C that lasts for longer and does not break so quickly, and perhaps with the orange court being longer a slightly larger ball would be good for those with the poorer eye sight. Also I would like the ball not to become dirty so quickly as it makes it less bright and harder to see.
13 Yes that is the favoured ball by our players A
14 Agree A
15 Ball do you like the black and Yellow Japan sound ball? C Do you think there should be deep Orange colours ball.
yes i like the black and yellow balls. it would be interesting to see a deep orange ball
8 / Visually Impaired Tennis Feedback / 24/08/2015 16 Yellow ball is good might be worth trying an orange C coloured balk if not already available
17 Generally fine, but they break very easily, which makes C them poor value for money in a sport that doesn’t have much money.
18 No comment given NC
19 Yes, agree A
20 No change A
21 I would like the yellow ball to be used. A
22 No comment given NC
23 The ball remains too expensive and fragile. Would be good C to get Slazenger to explore varieties of their shortex balls, or put more support behind the buzz ball 24 Yellow ball is good might be worth trying an orange C coloured balk if not already available 25 Agreed A 26 No comment given NC
27 Completely agree with this even though they are expensive A 28 This is fine A 29 No comment given NC
30 Good A
31 No comment given NC
32 Acceptable A
9 / Visually Impaired Tennis Feedback / 24/08/2015 33 Best there is at the moment, even though breaks easily C and is expensive. Current alternatives are not as good.
2.1 Court Sizes (B1) Feedback 1 If the B1’s are happy with this, so am I. The important thing A is to settle on a size and stick with it 2 No comment given NC
3 Fine A
4 I think we should drop the use of the words ‘Red’ and C ‘Orange’ courts as there is a little room for manoeuvre using minimum and maximum measurements. We need a standardised specific measurement for both forms of the game to ensure that players get used to playing on just one uniform size. 5 I think the rules are good A
6 No comment given NC
7 I've read the rules and they seem fine A
8 No comment given NC
9 No comment given NC
10 No comment given NC
11 Agree A 12 The red court needs to be set on the regular tennis court so C the players have room to go back and sideways, so not in the half of a regular court 13 We are finding the court size a little small and quite time C consuming to set up. Would prefer to play on the service boxes of a standard tennis court.
10 / Visually Impaired Tennis Feedback / 24/08/2015 14 Should be 10.97m x 5.5m (on a tennis court) or 11.89m x C 5.6m (on a badminton court). Ref LTA rules of mini tennis: http://www3.lta.org.uk/LTA-Mini-Tennis/Mini-Tennis- Competition/Competition/ or ITF rules of mini tennis: http://www.tennisplayandstay.com/media/124413/124413.p df
15 Court if your a b1 player are you happy playing on a red C court or would you rather play on a orange court, or on a red court using tennis net on tennis court.
Tactile lines.
16 No comment given NC
17 I’m yet to get involved with the B1 game, so have no NC comment.
18 Still getting used to this size but should it specify what C happens in singles/doubles.
19 No Comment as I am not B1. NC
20 The additional tactile lines /rope at the back of the court (to C show B1 players where they are in relation to the court) should extend beyond the court, not into the court. 21 No comment given NC
22 No comment given NC
23 No comment given NC
24 No comment given NC
25 n/a NC
26 No comment given NC
11 / Visually Impaired Tennis Feedback / 24/08/2015 27 There has been some confusion regards the C measurements of the red court in some tournaments with measurements from 11 x 5m to the above being used. It needs to be made clear what the sizes are. For some of us more mobile B1 players we feel the red court a bit restrictive and would prefer a larger court. If it is to be the red court we would prefer the larger of the red court dimensions. it should be made standard that the B1 game should be played on a regular tennis court with the correct markings as we get 3 bounces and playing across courts is dangerous and a lot of run off area is needed. The net at 80cm is the right size. 28 Fine, but clarifications needed. C Most important: where is the service line - how far from the net? Important that there's plenty of room around the court; putting the court sideways on a regular court, as is usual for a red court for mainstream under 6 competition, is woefully inadequate for B1 tennis. Would suggest using the service court of a regular court, but narrowed and with a service line added. If there's limited space in the actual rules, a separate document giving guidelines of how to set out the court (as the ITF have done for junior mainstream tennis) would be acceptable, provided that it's considered binding for international competition etc. Also: exact net height? The appendix in the ITF rules gives a range for red courts (0.80-0.83m), rather than a specific number. More concerningly, since the IBTA rules (as currently worded) don't actually use the term "red court", some people mistakenly, but somewhat understandably, interpret them to say that the full net height of 0.914m should be used. (I'm assuming from the question that the width of 6.4m, as written in the copy of the IBTA rules I saw, was, indeed, a typo.) 29 This is not the size of a ‘standard’ ITF court. See also C below.
30 Clarification is needed on: C
12 / Visually Impaired Tennis Feedback / 24/08/2015 Height of net; Position of the service line; Having space behind the baseline (preferably play on a full tennis court rather than sideways on a regular court). 31 No comment given NC
32 No comment as I do not play as a B1 NC
33 Size is fine. Only one B1 game per court playing over the C main net, this allows space to move back / sideways for 3rd bounce and takes away confusion of hearing more than one ball!
2.2 Court Sizes (B2-4)
Feedback 1 I thought the measurement used at Newcastle worked well C Like the length (half way between service line and baseline) and playing to the tramlines but think we should have inner for singles and outer for doubles
2 No comment given NC
3 Fine A 4 I think we should drop the use of the words ‘Red’ and C ‘Orange’ courts as there is a little room for manoeuvre using minimum and maximum measurements. We need a standardised specific measurement for both forms of the game to ensure
5 I think the rules are good A
6 I like playing on this size court but would find it difficult C entering competitions if the 1 bounce rule remains for B4
13 / Visually Impaired Tennis Feedback / 24/08/2015 players.
7 I've read the rules and they seem fine A
8 Court Sizes: We need to be clear on the size of court for a C doubles match. If the basic premise is to use the standard ITF rules with some adaptions, it doesn’t seem to make sense for it to be the same width as a singles court when the tramlines are already there to be used.
9 Court sizes need to be consistent at all tournaments. C
10 No comment given NC
11 Agree A
12 Ok but more tennis courts need the orange line painted so C we can play without having to use drop down lines.
13 We are finding the length ok but would prefer to widen it to C the inner tramline on a standard tennis court. This would speed up set up too.
14 The size for a singles court should be 17.98m x 6.4m and C for doubles it should be 17.98m x 8.23m. Ref ITF rules of mini tennis: http://www.tennisplayandstay.com/media/124413/124413.p df
15 Orange court players your feelings with this size, do you C like the side line to be the singles tram line and for doubles the doubles tram line.
yes
16 feel for B2 court size is adequate maybe look at makinging C iot a narrower court
17 I think this is a good size court for the B2-4 game. It has C
14 / Visually Impaired Tennis Feedback / 24/08/2015 the same relative dimensions as “normal” tennis, which is very important.
18 Still getting used to this size as it seems quite long but C should it specify what happens in singles/doubles.
19 I agree with keeping the length of an ‘orange’ court but not C its width. An orange court is basically for children to learn on but even though we are vi tennis players, we are adults who are bigger and stronger and as such we need the standard tennis court width instead of the narrowed version of the orange court. This would allow for better tennis shots and angles which will also contribute to a more exciting game for both players and spectators which is what we want for the future of vi tennis.
20 The dimensions you have shown is for a doubles orange C court, which I would recommend for both singles and doubles. It is much easier to set up as all you have to set out is the base line. 21 I would the yellow lines to be consider for the other C participants
22 I would like to see the only orange line as the serve line. It C is too restrictive to have orange down lines.
23 The idea of narrowing the court is an incredible burden and C barrier for the game. I am all for extra length but by narrowing the width you suggest we must play on child-like courts. We wish our game to be as close to real tennis as possible and the sheer impracticality of having to lay lines will lead to many abandoning or not able to practice the game. These rules are trying to force our game into a sized court that does not exist on any indoor courts around the world, or certainly not in any I have ever played on
24 feel for B2 court size is adequate maybe look at makinging C iot a narrower court
15 / Visually Impaired Tennis Feedback / 24/08/2015 25 I would be happy with the length of the orange court, which C you then serve into a service box and I would be happy to use the existing inner white lines for singles so not making the court slightly narrow. The time spent in putting down new lines has not been practical. I also think that the net should be slightly lowered as we are not using the full length of the court.
26 I think the narrowing of the court for B2/3/4 players is not C necessary. The extra lines cause confusion and also require more adaptation of a standard tennis court before a game can be played. 27 As with B1 there has been some issue on this and this C needs to be sorted once and for all. 28 Fine, but clarification needed as to the width for singles - C i.e. are there separate singles and doubles sidelines, and, if so, is 8.23m the width of the doubles? This also applies to the B1 court, but is less important there, as it's generally assumed that 6.1m is the width for singles. Net height: there's a bigger issue here than for the B1s, since the ITF rules only specify a range of 0.800-0.914m for the net height. A specific standard height for B2-B4 tennis would be far better than this potential inconsistency from competition to competition. 29 This is not the size of a ‘standard’ ITF Orange Court. C Before they seek to make rules for others, I would strongly suggest that the IBTA reps take the time to learn what the actual ITF rules and standards are and how they are applied in reality or to involve someone in the process who has the relevant knowledge and experience.
The definitive ITF guide to red and orange court setup for competition can be found at http://www.tennisplayandstay.com/media/124413/124413.p df I would suggest that this should be required reading for all those participating in the IBTA process, along with the 2015 ITF rules, a copy of which is hosted at
16 / Visually Impaired Tennis Feedback / 24/08/2015 http://www.nevitc.org.uk/file.aspx?id=6669 The ITF standards for these courts can be found on page 32 of the 2015 rules and they are as follows : • A court, designated “Red” for the purposes of 10 and under tennis competition, shall be a rectangle, between 36 feet (10.97 m) and 42 feet (12.80 m) long, and between 14 feet (4.27m) and 20 feet (6.10 m) wide. The net shall be between 31.5 inches (0.800 m) and 33.0 inches (0.838m) high at the centre. • A court, designated “Orange”, shall be a rectangle, between 58 feet (17.68 m) and 60 feet (18.29 m) long, and between 20 feet (6.10 m) and 27 feet (8.23 m) wide. The net shall be between 31.5 inches (0.800 m) and 36.0 inches (0.914m) high at the centre. The dimensions given by the IBTA are the outer edges of these ranges. The red dimensions given by IBTA do not match any standard red court commonly used in competition; the dimensions for orange court do not match what is generally referred to as an orange court in 10U competition (please see the competition layouts in the court marking guide). The width dimension given by the IBTA for the orange court is 8.23m which is the full width of a standard court, and yet for some reason, people keep insisting on setting up mini orange courts. Using the terms ‘standard’ red and ‘standard’ orange has been the source of much confusion, as has the difference in dimensions given in the actual IBTA agreement vs the MS Word copy of the IBTA rules distributed by TF/VIAG. Original IBTA: http://www.nevitc.org.uk/file.aspx?id=6701 TF/VIAG version : http://www.nevitc.org.uk/file.aspx? id=6666 In the UK, coaches understand a ‘standard’ red/orange court to refer to mini red and mini orange courts, both of which are usually set out for competition at the lower edges of those ranges. Please see Appendix A of the court marking guide linked above for common competition setups, the ones used by UK coaches which are commonly referred to as red and
17 / Visually Impaired Tennis Feedback / 24/08/2015 orange are those listed under the relevant sections as “Competition Setup A” Note that the only place a red court with the dimensions given the IBTA appears is as ‘non tennis court’ setup. In the case of the orange court, the width (though not the length) dimension given by the IBTA matches ‘Competition Setup B’ also known as ‘Wide Orange’ or ‘Orange 60’. This is an appropriate court size for adult players. The commonly used ‘mini’ version with the extra side-lines is not, the nipped in side-lines and lower net are specifically designed to accommodate players with physical attributes of 10 year olds (height, strength, etc). The side-lines in particular remove entire classes of tactical play from adult players. They also introduce a great deal of visual confusion. The standard competition court for B2, 3 and 4 adult players should be the wide court denoted in the guide and this should be made clear in any rules issued by organising bodies. This is the court we used at the NEVITC Open, and it was also used at Cambridge (although not at Leeds). Player feedback from these events (and from use of the court in training at various clubs) suggests that the majority of players favour this court size. It also has the pragmatic advantages that it is much easier and therefore less time consuming to set up – indeed most coaches delivering mini orange programs in the UK leave the side-lines out for training for just this reason – and it is cheaper as it uses a great deal less masking tape to mark. Net height should remain at 90cm in the centre. I have consulted widely with coaches, competition organisers and referees outside of the VI game about this issue, and everyone I have spoken to, particularly those involved in delivering mini orange programmes, has agreed that this is the court we should use. For your convenience, here is a model rule that expresses all these things for the Orange court. I will have to see the feedback from B1 players about court size before making extensive comment on that.
18 / Visually Impaired Tennis Feedback / 24/08/2015 “The standard competition court for B2, B3 and B4 players shall be the ‘Wide Orange’ or ‘Orange 60’ court as defined in the ITF Publication ‘Marking Red and Orange Courts - A Guidance Manual’, Appendix A, Page 32, Competition Setup B. The width of the court shall be 8.23m (the full width of a standard tennis court) the length shall be 17.98m. The net height shall be 90cm at the centre. The singles and doubles sidelines shall be as the standard court. The court should be marked in accordance with the guidance manual using white masking tape of width at least 50mm” 30 No comment given NC 31 No comment given NC 32 Personally I preferred the original size as there was less C area for sight coverage, there was no extra laying out of the court also making it more practical. There were also less lines to visually confuse you when playing. If we are playing on the orange court then the narrower width should be adhered to as it then makes the court area to large for sight coverage. The larger court size also seems to give people with better vision added advantages. You can try to learn to keep the ball in the narrower width but you can't actually make any changes to your level of vision and visual field
33 Lots of confusion with different tournament choosing to use C different measurements! Whatever is agreed and communicated to ALL will take time for players to adapt to. Length of orange court is probably the max for the ball. Important to keep with the dimensions of an ITF recognised court.
3.1 The Serve
Feedback 1 Yes fine A
19 / Visually Impaired Tennis Feedback / 24/08/2015 2 This needs to be more precise, because some of the C players say “ready” and “play” straight after and starting the serve motion. I think would be better if you precise this for “just before the racket meets the ball”. 3 FINE A 4 Works well but officials must enforce it more that ‘play’ C comes before hitting the ball. 5 I think the rules are good A
6 This works perfectly. A 7 I've read the rules and they seem fine A
8 No Comment given NC
9 No Comment given NC
10 Agree A 11 No Comment given NC 12 Agree A 13 Agree A 14 No Comment given NC
15 No Comment given NC
16 works fine A 17 This MUST stay. A 18 No Comment given NC
19 Agree A
20 / Visually Impaired Tennis Feedback / 24/08/2015 20 No change A 21 I think this rule should remain the same, as I feel it suitable NC for VI Tennis. 22 No Comment given NC
23 agreed A 24 works fine A 25 Agreed A 26 Should all players B2 and above not be required to serve C over arm? 27 This works perfectly A 28 This works well A 29 No comment given NC
30 This works well A
31 I think B1 players should have to announce what kind of C serve they are doing if an under arm for instance as a sighted player would be able to see this and it can affect how the serve goes. 32 Acceptable A
33 Agree A
3.2 – Volleying
Feedback 1 No problems with this A
21 / Visually Impaired Tennis Feedback / 24/08/2015 2 No comment given NC 3 B4’s would have a more exciting game, if volleying was C permitted. May be this would then be exciting to watch particularly for doubles. 4 Currently works well but if we introduce a B4 category it C may be worth reviewing 5 I think the rules are good C
6 No comment given NC 7 I've read the rules and they seem fine A
8 Bounces & Volleying: If B4’s are only to have one bounce C (ie same as fully sighted folk) then maybe they should also be allowed to volley (ie no bounce)
9 Could this be reviewed? C 10 No comment given NC
11 Agree A 12 Agree A 13 No comment given NC 14 No comment given NC 15 No comment given NC 16 continue with this rule A 17 I think this rule has to stay in place, as to allow volleying A would give an unfair advantage to those with better sight. 18 Should it clarify by saying that the ball must bounce at least C once 19 I disagree. I think volleying will make the game more C exciting but only allowing categories below B4 to do so.
22 / Visually Impaired Tennis Feedback / 24/08/2015 20 No change A 21 I believe that no volleying should be allowed. A 22 No comment given NC 23 agreed A 24 continue with this rule A 25 Agreed A 26 To bring the game more in line able bodied tennis should C volleying not be allowed for B4 players. I feel that B4 players are being discriminated against but only being allowed one bounce and yet not being allowed to volley. This leads to a unlevel playing field when competing against B3 players 27 Agree with this A 28 Fine. A 29 No comment given NC
30 No comment given NC
31 No comment given NC 32 I agree with this as players are relying on the sound of the A ball bouncing as well as the visual location
33 Maybe consider for B4 & B4+ only C
3.3 – Blindfolds
Feedback 1 Fine A 2 No comment given NC
23 / Visually Impaired Tennis Feedback / 24/08/2015 3 No comment NC 4 This keeps fairness. We need to establish whether the C shades can be lifted between points/games etc. 5 I think the rules are good A 6 No comment given NC 7 I've read the rules and they seem fine, A
8 No comment given NC 9 No comment given NC 10 Agree A 11 Ok A 12 Agree A 13 No comment given NC 14 Clarification needed on whether you can touch or lift eye C shades in-between points
15 Eye shade do you thing a player that is wearing eye C shades in competition, should have them on from be for stepping on the tennis court, if you need to touch them at any time you should put your hand up for Umpire to check that you put them back prolly, and any thing els you can think of.
yes 16 as in most B1 sports all B1 tennis players should always A wear blindfolds as it may encourage cheating B1 players should not be allowed to touch shades during play if they need to touch them they should ask umpire and be asked to turn back on play 17 I’m yet to get involved with the B1 game, so have no NC
24 / Visually Impaired Tennis Feedback / 24/08/2015 comment. 18 No comment given NC 19 No Comment as not a B1 NC 20 No change A 21 Blindfolds should be used for the B1 category players A 22 No comment given NC 23 agreed A 24 as in most B1 sports all B1 tennis players should always A wear blindfolds as it may encourage cheating B1 players should not be allowed to touch shades during play if they need to touch them they should ask umpire and be asked to turn back on play 25 Agreed A 26 No comment given NC 27 Agreed. We need clarification on when the shades can be A lifted for example at the end of a point, at the end of a game or a set. 28 Clarification needed: there is no standard paralympic mask, C as different sports use different types. I'd suggest not using the goalball ones, as they're far more bulky than is needed for tennis, and cost something like £30 each. Standardisation is important, but not urgent. 29 This needs to be made more specific. Probably by C reference to another sport. Most usefully, probably goalball as they have an established standard. In the UK the standard basic goalball eyeshade is a Goalfix Total Blackout Eyeshade (though these are regarded as very basic, and many GB players have more expensive models). This is what NEVITC require for competition.
25 / Visually Impaired Tennis Feedback / 24/08/2015 30 Rather not use goalball shades: they are more for D protection, and are bulky and hot. Lighter ones would work better for tennis. 31 I don’t agree with this though I understand the reasons D why it has been introduced. I think it is an impediment on the face for B1 players for those not used to wearing glasses etc and can interfere with the eyes spatial tracking which is nothing to do with seeing, but rather like the way the arm and hand are encouraged to be used to locate where the ball is in space. I really feel this rule needs to be revised - It’s not fair that genuine B1 players should have to be encumbered because of others cheating. 32 Do not play B1 game but at least this creates the same A level of disadvantage
33 Agree, ensures equality and fairness A
3.4 – Bounces (B1)
Feedback 1 Yes A 2 No comment given NC 3 FINE A 4 Three bounces are justified and if we can create a ball with A the same pace but higher bounce I foresee a much improved game 5 I think the rules are fine A
6 No comment given NC
26 / Visually Impaired Tennis Feedback / 24/08/2015 7 I've read the rules and they seem fine A
8 No comment given NC 9 No comment given NC 10 No comment given NC 11 Agree A 12 Ok A 13 Agree A 14 Agree A 15 No comment given NC 16 No comment given NC 17 I’m yet to get involved with the B1 game, so have no NC comment. 18 No comment given NC 19 Agree in so far as B1’s need more bounces than other A categories. 20 No change A 21 B 1 players should allowed 3 bounces A 22 No comment given NA 23 No comment given NA 24 No comment given NA 25 Agreed A 26 No comment given NA 27 Agreed A 28 Fine A 29 No comment given NA
27 / Visually Impaired Tennis Feedback / 24/08/2015 30 No comment given NC
31 No comment given NC
32 Acceptable A
33 Yes, definitely A
3.5 – Bounces (B2-4)
Feedback 1 Fine with number of bounces but concerned about C inconsistent classifications particularly at the lower end of B4 2 About the ball bounce, I think it should be a courtesy call C from the low vision player to allow the other player the same amount of bounces let say, if B2 ( 3 bounces) plays B4, the B4 (1 bounce) player should be allowed to have 3 bounces, which will make the game equal for both players. 3 OK A 4 This increases fairness to a certain extent but low level of C B2 can never truly compete with a good B3/B4 5 I think the rules are good A
6 I have recently been classified as a B4 player which means C that I now only have 1 bounce. I am relatively new to the game, having only started playing in August 2014. I assumed that I would be a B3 player and have always played with the 2 bounce rule. Since being classified I have tried to play with 1 bounce but have found it extremely difficult. I rely on that first bounce to locate the
28 / Visually Impaired Tennis Feedback / 24/08/2015 ball with the sound. I LOVE playing tennis and how inclusive the game is for all. I play with friends and relatives and people who are fully sighted. To assume that I can play at the same level as my sighted peers, I feel, is wrong. It takes more time to track and locate the ball. The one bounce rule, I feel, is wrong and places me at a disadvantage. 7 I've read the rules and they seem fine A
8 Bounces & Volleying: If B4’s are only to have one bounce C (ie same as fully sighted folk) then maybe they should also be allowed to volley (ie no bounce)
9 No comment given NC 10 My only critisism is that B4's are only allowed one bounce. C With the nature of the classification system meaning that a person could have little vision in one eye but still be classed as a B4 because the other is not as impaired. Situations can occur when the ball travels in a direction where the player can only see it with the eye which can potentially see very little. In this instance, the player should be reliant on sound to track the balls progress, however, because B4's only get one bounce this is not possible.
11 I played VI tennis for the first time at the 2013 Metro C Tournament and because I had not been officially classified I played under B4 rules, but I really struggled with the 1 bounce rule. Could a sub-category of B3+ be considered for future to cover players like myself who fall between B3/B4 and allowing them 2 bounces if necessary. 12 OK A 13 Agree A 14 Agree A 15 No comment given NC
29 / Visually Impaired Tennis Feedback / 24/08/2015 16 Keep B2’s shall be allowed 3 C Maybe make B3’s and B4’s 1 bounce 17 The number of bounces seems about right. However, it C doesn’t do enough to compensate if a poorer sighted player plays a better sighted play, as the extra bounces are rarely useful as the ball is usually past them. I can’t see an easy solution to this, just to not have mixed sight categories at competitions. 18 No comment given NC 19 Disagree. B2 and B3 should both have 2 bounces (which I C thought had been agreed by the draft rules of tennis (UK version) amended 25th September 2013). Agree B4 should have 1 bounce (please see comments at bottom of page on B4’s). 20 No change A 21 The rules for specific bounces should remain the same. A 22 Personally believe all should get 2 bounces but accept C majority views 23 No comment given NC 24 Keep B2’s shall be allowed 3 C Maybe make B3’s and B4’s 1 bounce 25 Agreed A 26 See comments on volleying...... C To bring the game more in line able bodied tennis should volleying not be allowed for B4 players. I feel that B4 players are being discriminated against but only being allowed one bounce and yet not being allowed to volley. This leads to a unlevel playing field when competing
30 / Visually Impaired Tennis Feedback / 24/08/2015 against B3 players. 27 Agreed A 28 Fine A 29 The B4 rule is patently ridiculous, forcing a B4 player with C visual acuity of (to take a recent real life example) 6/50 to play the same as a player with 6/6 acuity is wrong. It is also exclusionary to a large class (possibly the majority, in fact) of people with serious visual impairments. Currently B4 players are stating that they will withdraw from competition as a result of this rule being implemented. Quite aside from that, having an international rule for B4 players is completely outside the scope of any classification system that uses the IBSA classification system as IBSA does not recognise any classification above B3. Athletes with acuity above B3 are classed by IBSA as ‘NE’ which is ‘Non Eligible’ and are not allowed to compete internationally under IBSA rules, so no system claiming to use IBSA classification has any place in setting rules for B4 players. Once again, I would strongly suggest that participants in the IBTA process make themselves familiar with the current existing regulations before attempting to implement or change them. Information on IBSA classification can be found at http://www.ibsasport.org/classification/ NEVITC will not implement this rule for competition in 2016.
30 No comment given NC
31 No comment given NC
32 As long as the rules are enforced across all categories. C There have been instances where B4s have been allowed 2 bounces but no further concessions made to B3s. How is this acceptable to give the advantage to the players categorised as having the most sight.? Especially with the
31 / Visually Impaired Tennis Feedback / 24/08/2015 orange court being a bigger area to cover
33 3 bounces for a B2 is appropriate on the longer court. 1 C bounce for B4 seems fair when playing against B2 & B3 and most B4’s I have seen manage. B4 is UK only.
32 / Visually Impaired Tennis Feedback / 24/08/2015