The New York Times published an article on 30 March 2022 with the headline: In Tennis, Racket Smashing Gets Out of Hand. What does ‘out of hand’ mean and what does it have to do with smashing a tennis racket?
The Free Dictionary defines ‘out of hand’ as ‘an unruly or unmanageable state or manner; out of control.’ The Cambridge Dictionary also defines ‘out of hand’ as ‘out of control.’ These definitions are from an objective third party view or a reflective view – i.e. a bystander or witness has an opinion that an action is out of control, such as ‘Absenteeism is out of hand in this company.’
From the view of the person doing the action, The Free Dictionary adds that ‘out of hand’ also means ‘immediately and without thinking about something fully or listening to other people’s arguments’ and ‘without consideration; immediately.’ The Free Dictionary gives the example: ‘(He) dismissed my complaint out of hand.’
Therefore, the headline of the article announces that the action of smashing tennis rackets is getting out of hand and/or done immediately and without thinking.
What does the article say, and does it match its headline? The word ‘smashing’ in the headline suggests that violent actions are taking place.
The sentence underneath the headline banner, which is expected to explain the headline, states: ‘Long accepted as an entertaining idiosyncrasy of the sport, the act of hurling one’s racket has led to some close calls, as ball people and chair umpires dodge injury.’
Here, ‘the sport’ refers to tennis. In American English, the spelling of the tennis instrument used to hit a tennis ball is ‘racket’ and in British English, the spelling is ‘racquet’ or ‘racket.’ Overall, the most common spelling is racket. Either way, I am not focusing on the spelling, but on the verb ‘hurling’ that describes what is happening to the racket. Oh my goodness! The journalist does not merely write that the racket left one’s hand, but that, in tennis, there is the act of ‘hurling one’s racket.’
Hurling one’s racket is a strong, visual phrase that denotes that the person holding the racket deliberately threw the racket (and quite some distance away too), and not that it just happened to leave the person’s hand, such as during an accidental fumble or soft drop to the ground (intentional or otherwise).
Does this first sentence explain the headline? Yes, it does.
The premise specifies that, in tennis, the act of hurling a racket ‘is getting’ out of control – and the article is referring to tennis players even though it is not yet stated. The act of hurling a racket BY one or more tennis players is out of control. The journalist clarifies this part of the sentence by adding a reference to the consequences of this act – ‘close calls’ and possible injury to the ball people (youth who retrieve the tennis balls) and chair umpires (the umpires that sit on a very high chair to referee the tennis game).
Does the article provide further clarification and examples to justify this strong claim that racket smashing is getting of out hand, out of control? Yes, it does.
Does the article provide examples of racket smashing being done ‘immediately and without thinking’ as suggested in the dictionary definition? Yes, it does.
In the article, the journalist uses another strong action verb – ‘whacked’ – to describe a specific tennis player who ‘whacked his foot with his racket several times in frustration.’ Note that the action does not potentially cause injury to anyone else – the action is self-inflicted. But the same tennis player had earlier ‘angrily hurled his racket to the court’ landing close to a ball person’s feet.
The article describes another tennis player who ‘flung his racket to the ground’ and ‘shouted at the umpire.’ The same tennis player ‘battered his racket four times against the ground.’
These acts are described as ‘tantrums’ with the umpires resisting ‘meting out the most serious punishment.’ However, there is an example of an eight-week suspension for one tennis player who came close to ‘cracking his racket into the official’s feet.’
The article includes examples, quotes, statistics of fines and penalties, and explanations about the code of conduct rules in tennis, but ‘these codes are more gray than black and white.’ Examples are provided of specific male and female tennis players breaking the code of conduct, although gender neutral words (such as one’s, people, players, persons in tennis, and someone) are used throughout for general examples.
The article gives examples of racket smashing being ‘out of hand’ – by both the tennis player (doing the action) and the umpire (in not controlling the action through issuing fines or punishment).
However, the phrase ‘out of hand’ is not mentioned at all in the article.
Scorecard for The New York Times headline is 99%. The article connects the headline with the narrative, but it does not re-state the phrase ‘out of hand’ in the first sentence, nor thereafter.
Nevertheless, the headline cleverly uses the mental image of a racket being ‘out of the player’s hand’ with repetitive mental images and examples of a player behaving in a ‘unruly or unmanageable manner.’ Verbs that evoke violence – hurling, whacking, cracking, beating, throwing, flung, and battered – are used throughout the article. The actions of the tennis players are described to denote behaviours that are ‘immediate and without thinking.’ These are violent actions to a tennis racket in the heat of frustration and anger that the article cites as becoming more frequent – that is, more out of hand and more out of control.
 |
| Photo source: tennisthis.com |
 |
| Photo source: s.yimg.com |
MARTINA NICOLLS
SUBSCRIBE TO MARTINA NICOLLS FOR NEWS AND UPDATES
MARTINA NICOLLS is an international aid and development consultant, and the author of: The Paris Residences of James Joyce (2020), Similar But Different in the Animal Kingdom (2017), The Shortness of Life: A Mongolian Lament (2015), Liberia’s Deadest Ends (2012), Bardot’s Comet (2011), Kashmir on a Knife-Edge (2010) and The Sudan Curse (2009).
Comments
Post a Comment