Calling footfaults is important

Discussion in 'Adult League & Tournament Talk' started by sureshs, Nov 19, 2012.

  1. Bartelby

    Bartelby G.O.A.T.

    Joined:
    Nov 14, 2005
    Messages:
    12,538
    If you're not happy with playing by the rules after an argument, I'd ask you to play on as is or forfeit.
     
  2. yourmailman

    yourmailman Rookie

    Joined:
    Oct 18, 2010
    Messages:
    225
    Location:
    Mesa, AZ
    So, let me get this straight ...

    Server double faults and then calls the score 15-love. In essence, you just lost 2 points. You don't correct them?

    Man, I wanna play a match with you!
     
  3. Bartelby

    Bartelby G.O.A.T.

    Joined:
    Nov 14, 2005
    Messages:
    12,538
    The receiver gets to call lines on his side of the court so a fault on that side is a fault, as you well know as this has been gone through so repetition is not necessary?
     
  4. Bartelby

    Bartelby G.O.A.T.

    Joined:
    Nov 14, 2005
    Messages:
    12,538
    I don't know why you've chosen to change the topic when its quite specifically about foot faults and not faults.

    I suppose that's a part of your gamesmanship as well?
     
  5. yourmailman

    yourmailman Rookie

    Joined:
    Oct 18, 2010
    Messages:
    225
    Location:
    Mesa, AZ
    You obviously don't understand that a foot fault is a fault. Not a technical mishap, not a lack of training. It is a fault. If you step inside the court before striking the ball on your serve, it is a fault, whether it lands in the service box or not.

    I can't see how some people refuse to grasp this simple concept.

    If you choose to ignore it, fine. But the rules state it is a fault (hence the name foot fault). Just the same as a serve landing outside the service box.
     
  6. Bartelby

    Bartelby G.O.A.T.

    Joined:
    Nov 14, 2005
    Messages:
    12,538
    You've neither read the rules nor the thread.

    You don't have an entitlement to call foot faults as a receiver.

    It's a simple concept I can't see how you can't grasp it.

    So I'd tell you to either play by the rules or forfeit.
     
  7. Bartelby

    Bartelby G.O.A.T.

    Joined:
    Nov 14, 2005
    Messages:
    12,538
    I'd love to have an official present to call foot faults and officials and video review to check all the dubious line calls, but guess what

    - this costs money and hence is only available at the pro level.
     
  8. yourmailman

    yourmailman Rookie

    Joined:
    Oct 18, 2010
    Messages:
    225
    Location:
    Mesa, AZ
    Bartleby,

    Thanx for helping us get over 300 posts!
     
  9. Bartelby

    Bartelby G.O.A.T.

    Joined:
    Nov 14, 2005
    Messages:
    12,538
    Not at all, but the sureshs didn't stay for the party.
     
  10. yourmailman

    yourmailman Rookie

    Joined:
    Oct 18, 2010
    Messages:
    225
    Location:
    Mesa, AZ
    So you admit that someone who consistently foot faults is cheating. Why play with them?
     
  11. tennis tom

    tennis tom Hall of Fame

    Joined:
    Jun 15, 2007
    Messages:
    2,733
    I play on occasion with some old club coots (defined as four old farts trying to one-up each other), who have learned through ages of tennis experience to call the score for each other.

    p.s. Sorry I missed being post #300, but I had to go to the bathroom, maybe 400.
     
    Last edited: Dec 12, 2012
  12. Bartelby

    Bartelby G.O.A.T.

    Joined:
    Nov 14, 2005
    Messages:
    12,538
    You can do what you like among consenting adults, but its not the rule.

    I think you can wait till post 1000, as that would be a milestone.



     
  13. Bartelby

    Bartelby G.O.A.T.

    Joined:
    Nov 14, 2005
    Messages:
    12,538
    I get put in a division and have to play all comers and all kinds of cheats - people who want to change the order of games, people who call ines wrong, etc.

    I try not to look for foot faults lest that which is not within my control gets to me.

    Cheating is quite low and usually inconsequential, but one must pay more attention in finals rounds where the lust for five dollar trophies drives the punters wild.



     
  14. Mauvaise

    Mauvaise Rookie

    Joined:
    Mar 22, 2011
    Messages:
    194
    Location:
    Phoenix, AZ


    OMG God!*

    Either you never read the rules that were posted at least 300 times this thread or read this thread, but yes, as a receiver in an un-officiated match you absolutely *DO* have the right to call a foot fault. The rules say they have to be flagrant, but they do say that they may be called by the receiver.


    "A player may warn his opponent that the opponent has committed a flagrant foot fault. If the foot faulting continues, the play may attempt to locate an official. If no official is available, the player may call flagrant foot faults."


    It's such a simple concept that I don't understand why you can't grasp it. At this point, I think you don't even believe what you're typing but merely pounding the keyboard in the hopes you'll eventually start writing Shakespeare.





    *I know - it's a long story
     
  15. Bartelby

    Bartelby G.O.A.T.

    Joined:
    Nov 14, 2005
    Messages:
    12,538
    You don't read.

    This was a response to an attempt to claim an unqualified right for the receiver to call foot faults.

    I was the first one to cite the rule you now cite and it is clear from its wording that it is trying to leave foot faults to officials to call.

    Moreover, the meaning of flagrant is anything but clear, but all this has already been discussed, but you chose to comment without reading anything.

    The foot fault rule involves the monitoring of real and imagined lines and it is best left to officials, which in competitive situations are available.



     
    Last edited: Dec 13, 2012
  16. woodrow1029

    woodrow1029 Hall of Fame

    Joined:
    Jan 24, 2012
    Messages:
    2,653
    I don't know why everyone is beating up on Bartelby. I don't see anywhere that he said a receiver CANNOT call a foot fault. All I see is that Bartelby is saying that the rules are very vague as to when it can be called by a receiver based on the wording. He is right. What is flagrant? Is it covering 1/4" of the line, half the line, one foot touching the inside of the court, both feet touching inside the court?

    I've been an official for almost 17 years, and I have never seen a definition of what "flagrant" is for foot faults in an unofficiated match.

    Bartelby is right when he says the rules are written in a way that makes it seem that they want to discourage foot faults being called in unofficiated matches.

    I haven't read the entire thread, but unless someone can point out to me where he said that "a player cannot call a foot fault in an unofficiated match", I agree with most of what he says.
     
  17. Oski10s

    Oski10s New User

    Joined:
    Sep 28, 2012
    Messages:
    18
    Location:
    Westport, CT
    To make it simpler for you...these are his quotes going back through 200 posts in this thread:

    Do you still agree with Bartelby? At this point I think we are all being trolled by him. He goes from feigning understanding, to virtuous righteousness, to defending cheating, and back to his original assertion that a player simply cannot call a foot fault....leading people in circles. Slow clap, nicely done Bartelby. Now please go play in the sandbox by yourself again.
     
  18. dcdoorknob

    dcdoorknob Hall of Fame

    Joined:
    Mar 14, 2010
    Messages:
    3,560
    When he says things like "you don't have entitlement to call foot faults as a receiver" and leaves it at that in some posts, people (understandably imo) take this to mean the receiver cannot call a foot fault in an unofficiated match. It may not be what he means, but it's not hard to see why people would think that, and also why people may not have enough free time to have read the whole thread.

    Of course, the question is still there as to whether or not Bartleby thinks it is permissible for a receiver to call foot faults on a guy who is serving from 2 feet inside the baseline in an unofficiated match. Some of his statements sure make it seem like he doesn't, and he would be wrong about that.
     
    Last edited: Dec 13, 2012
  19. Oski10s

    Oski10s New User

    Joined:
    Sep 28, 2012
    Messages:
    18
    Location:
    Westport, CT
    You don't have to go very far back where he makes it quite clear in post# 306:

     
  20. tennis tom

    tennis tom Hall of Fame

    Joined:
    Jun 15, 2007
    Messages:
    2,733
    The point the rest of us are making is that foot-faults are NOT called enough which is pretty much--NEVER! This is, to put it mildly, and in one word, due to COLLECTIVE COWARDICE, (sorry that's two words, but too late to go back now).

    "Flagrant" is in the eye of the beholder, the better one's vision, the better one's ability to perceive the flagrancy. If you can't see very well, how can you "visualize" what someone with very good eyesight (like me for instance and proud of it) has the ability to see?

    Since this is such a hot-topic issue, why don't the world's collective governing tennis bodies, assemble a blue ribbon commission and settle it once and for all. They need to devise some precise definitions for what constitutes "flagrant" and then we can go from there.

    The way it is now, FF'ing perps get away with it and nothing is being done about it, it's about time there is. This is about as bad a crisis as the economy, the worst since the great depression, and I'm sure we all remember that.
     
    Last edited: Dec 13, 2012
  21. kylebarendrick

    kylebarendrick Professional

    Joined:
    Nov 16, 2006
    Messages:
    1,042
    Location:
    Northern California
    I've said it before in this thread. The definition of flagrant is easy. If the footfault is so egregious that the opponent (or their partner in doubles) can clearly see it, then it is flagrant.

    In my experience, this would apply most clearly to the players that either lineup outside the center/sidelines or who step inside the baseline before striking the ball.
     
  22. woodrow1029

    woodrow1029 Hall of Fame

    Joined:
    Jan 24, 2012
    Messages:
    2,653
    He's right. Very hard to enforce, but he knows that they can be called as a last resort.

    Here again, he's right.

     
  23. Oski10s

    Oski10s New User

    Joined:
    Sep 28, 2012
    Messages:
    18
    Location:
    Westport, CT
    Okay, so you're going to contradict your own post #14 of this thread?:

    Bartelby has repeatedly said that we can't do the last part of what you stated, where a player "can call foot faults on the opponent."

    The USHSTA rules state exactly what you indicated above, so what's the issue? Where did you get your own rules from?
     
  24. woodrow1029

    woodrow1029 Hall of Fame

    Joined:
    Jan 24, 2012
    Messages:
    2,653
    No, what I said yep to, is exactly right. He says "The USTA rules only allow the receiver to call flagrant ff after all alternative avenues have failed, including recourse to the officials who should be the ones to administer a penalty."

    He's correct that the wording of it is vague as to what "flagrant" is, and that the wording makes it clear that they don't want receivers calling foot faults (even if as a last resort, it's technically ok".
     
  25. woodrow1029

    woodrow1029 Hall of Fame

    Joined:
    Jan 24, 2012
    Messages:
    2,653
    If you're going to complain about someone that they are in the "Adult League & Tournament Talk", you should post the rule (which was already posted) out of the Friend at Court, not the USHSTA guidelines, even if they essentially say the same thing.
     
  26. Oski10s

    Oski10s New User

    Joined:
    Sep 28, 2012
    Messages:
    18
    Location:
    Westport, CT
    Appreciate the clarification. I was responding to Bartelby's assertion that there were no U.S. rules to that effect for unofficiated matches, and found the USHSTA rule which at least opines on the subject. Glad to see that it is affirmed by another association as well as your confirmation to the same as an official.

    I understand that the word "flagrant" is up for interpretation. But Bartelby has gone around and around between trying to dissect the rule itself (which is indeed a bit of a gray area) to outright denial of the player's ability to call FF at all as demonstrated in his recent post # 306:

    When I played HS tennis in CA in the 80s/90s, foot faults were called on the court during matches by players at times. I've never seen incidences where it was a problem and there were never any challenges. It especially wasn't done for "gamesmanship". Back then it was still very much a gentleman's sport and people played with honor. I've always been taught to give the opponent the benefit of an uncertain call and it was almost always returned in kind. Now that I come back to the sport 2 decades later, I'm shocked that this has become a controversial matter.
     
  27. Govnor

    Govnor Professional

    Joined:
    Aug 12, 2011
    Messages:
    1,333
    unless it is absolutely ridiculous, I'm not calling it. Just not a big deal to me.
     
  28. schmke

    schmke Professional

    Joined:
    Jan 20, 2010
    Messages:
    1,310
    I'm with you, and many readers of this forum probably agree too.

    Nevertheless, the rule does provide for following a process where the receiver may ultimately call a foot fault if it is flagrant, or "absolutely ridiculous" as you put it.

    FWIW, I don't think anyone has posted a definition of flagrant, so here goes:

    adjective
    1. shockingly noticeable or evident; obvious; glaring: a flagrant error.

    While this is not an explicit definition for our purposes, "shockingly noticeable" and "obvious" give an idea and in my book, if it is obvious from the other end of the court, that constitutes flagrant.

    Now, I personally have never called a foot fault and only once even went so far as to mention it to an opponent, this being in a doubles match where both feet moved inside the baseline before striking the ball and it was obvious, particularly when my partner was receiving and I was closer to the server.

    So yes, the rule allows calling a foot fault, but only after following the outlined process or steps, and if an official isn't available, and if it is flagrant (obvious, glaring, shockingly noticeable or evident).
     
  29. dcdoorknob

    dcdoorknob Hall of Fame

    Joined:
    Mar 14, 2010
    Messages:
    3,560
    Exactly. Can we end the thread now?
     
  30. woodrow1029

    woodrow1029 Hall of Fame

    Joined:
    Jan 24, 2012
    Messages:
    2,653
    I certainly hope so.
     
  31. yourmailman

    yourmailman Rookie

    Joined:
    Oct 18, 2010
    Messages:
    225
    Location:
    Mesa, AZ
    No! We want 500 posts!

    I absolutely agree and would not call a foot fault on anyone unless it was flagrant and repeated. Calling someone for foot faulting because their toe touches the line in an non officiated match is ludicrous at best. When someone strikes the ball on a serve with both feet well into the court, so it is so obvious that you can't help but see it. I believe you should call it.

    I played a guy last night that started a serve to the add court with his left foot on the center line and his right foot well on the deuce side. I attempted to stop him before the serve, but was unable to. I told him to take two, but he looked down at his position and said "No, that was a fault!" and refused to take another first serve. Which is exactly what I would do if the roles were reversed.

    I am guessing that some here would say I was employing gamesmanship. I don't think so. I merely pointed his mistake out to him and gave him another first serve. I did not attempt to penalize him. He was gentleman enough to decline and serve his second. To me, that's how tennis should be.
     
  32. tennis tom

    tennis tom Hall of Fame

    Joined:
    Jun 15, 2007
    Messages:
    2,733
    Agree with Your point of view, Mailman. If an opponent pointed out I was foot faulting, whether it was the first or the last point of the match, whether his intention was gamesmanship or not, I would THANK him for letting me know.
     
  33. volusiano

    volusiano Hall of Fame

    Joined:
    Oct 22, 2006
    Messages:
    1,635
    On the other hand, I've pointed out to several guys in our tennis circle that they've been consistently foot faulting every single time they serve (I never tell them during a match, only outside of a match on a casual basis). Most of them responded like "Oh? Really?", then they went on foot-faulting again exactly like what they'd been doing before when match time comes again. I guess they think it's no big deal and they don't care to fix it. Of course I let it go and don't call them on it during a match.
     
  34. yourmailman

    yourmailman Rookie

    Joined:
    Oct 18, 2010
    Messages:
    225
    Location:
    Mesa, AZ
    Exactly. Then I would correct the error and not do it anymore.

    The trouble is, you point out to someone that they are doing it and they act surprised. Then they make NO effort to correct it, simply because they have gotten away with it in the past.

    Makes you wonder just how many times they have already been informed. They wish to continue because they consider it an advantage that they can use.
     
  35. TTMR

    TTMR Hall of Fame

    Joined:
    Jul 24, 2009
    Messages:
    1,942
    I call my opponent for a foot fault whenever I'm undecided on whether or not his serve was in. I also do it randomly just to keep him on his toes. Don't want him getting too comfortable out there or thinking I am going to play Naive Ned if he does decide to cheat.

    It's a competitive tennis match. I'm not there to make friends. I'm there to win. Period.
     
  36. Bartelby

    Bartelby G.O.A.T.

    Joined:
    Nov 14, 2005
    Messages:
    12,538
    I used the word 'entitlement' very deliberately against someone who was trying to argue that they had an immediate right to call foot faults, which was some people's position before I pointed two different rules that contradicted them.
     
  37. tennis tom

    tennis tom Hall of Fame

    Joined:
    Jun 15, 2007
    Messages:
    2,733
    Well bottom line is guys who play tournament tennis, don't ff or it's very rare and if called on it, they know how to fix it without falling to pieces or making a federal case out of it with the officials. That's because their fellow players had no qualms about pointing it out to them since they were juniors, and their coaches had no problem pointing it out in HS and college--you gottta' start learning how to play the game right some time, better late then never.
     
  38. Bartelby

    Bartelby G.O.A.T.

    Joined:
    Nov 14, 2005
    Messages:
    12,538
    With respect to calling flagrant foot faults long before anyone called them one of two things would have happened:

    - your advice or warning was acknowledged and the server was trying their best to avoid them. In this case it would be quite obnoxious to still pursue an official and start calling flagrant foot faults, although within your rights.

    - your advice was rejected and the game quickly became acrimonious as he starts accusing you of cheating. You keep warning and can't find an official; and he starts warning you and giving you bad calls. Both of you start playing badly.
     
  39. Bartelby

    Bartelby G.O.A.T.

    Joined:
    Nov 14, 2005
    Messages:
    12,538
    During the service motion, the server shall not:

    a. Change position by walking or running, although slight movements of the feet are permitted; or
    b. Touch the baseline or the court with either foot; or
    c. Touch the area outside the imaginary extension of the sideline with either foot; or
    d. Touch the imaginary extension of the centre mark with either foot.

    A flagrant foot fault definition would have to take the same form:

    b. Have an entire foot over the baseline.
    c. Be at least one foot or thirty centimetres outside the imaginary extension of the sideline with either foot; or
    d. Be beyond the imaginary extension of the centre mark with either foot by at least one foot or thirty centimetres.
     
  40. Bartelby

    Bartelby G.O.A.T.

    Joined:
    Nov 14, 2005
    Messages:
    12,538
    The above is probably a definition of a clear footfault, but flagrant seems far stronger than that.

    Definition includes:

    : conspicuously offensive <flagrant errors>; especially : so obviously inconsistent with what is right or proper as to appear to be a flouting of law or morality <flagrant violations of human rights>

    A flagrant footfault would be one that is both an obvious error from the viewpoint of the receiver and one that was intentionally committed so as to flout the rule.

    Its my guess that the flagrant footfaults that the USTA eventually allows you to call are not just breaches of the rules, but ones where the clear intention is not just to cheat - which implies a concealment of fault -

    but an attempt to cheat with open contempt of the rule.
     
  41. tennis tom

    tennis tom Hall of Fame

    Joined:
    Jun 15, 2007
    Messages:
    2,733

    I think it is at this point that President Jimmy Carter should be called in to officiate--or at least his brother Billie.
     
  42. dcdoorknob

    dcdoorknob Hall of Fame

    Joined:
    Mar 14, 2010
    Messages:
    3,560
    Flagrant has absolutely nothing to do with intent in this situation, imo. Are you really suggesting that a reciever in an unofficiated match is expected to guess at the thought processes and intent of his opponent before he can make a foot fault call on a guy that is stepping a foot into the court on every serve? That's ridiculous. The first definition that schmke posted said absolutely nothing about intent, and even the one that you hand picked to make your argument has the word "appear" in there, which would complicate the rest of your assertions if you didn't ignore it completely.

    If the guy chases a bad toss and ends up stepping a foot into the court before he strikes the serve, it is still a flagrant foot fault even if he never intended to foot fault. If the same guy always tosses the ball so far out in front that he always steps a foot into the court before he strikes the serve, he is still flagrantly foot-faulting regardless of his intent. If his bad habit is so ingrained that he can't just quit doing it even if he's trying to, that doesn't mean he is allowed to just keep breaking the rule every serve. It is absolutely in the receivers right to call the foot faults in this situation, after a warning, if no official is present. You may think it obnoxiouis but I think it much more obnoxious to expect to be able to get away with repeatedly footfaulting just because you claim to not be doing it intentionally.

    Gah I got sucked in to all this nonsense. Oh well, finals are over, I've got some free time for now. There are only like 1000 better ways to spend my time than this. What a smart guy I am. :oops:
     
  43. Bartelby

    Bartelby G.O.A.T.

    Joined:
    Nov 14, 2005
    Messages:
    12,538
    Flagrant has something to do with intent, but intent can be inferred from behaviour.

    Flagrant does not just mean clear or obvious, as you seem to think.

    I don't think the rule as it stands is there to allow the receiver to engage in pedagogy.




     
  44. dcdoorknob

    dcdoorknob Hall of Fame

    Joined:
    Mar 14, 2010
    Messages:
    3,560
    It is not just me who seems to think that.

    http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/flagrant

    "shockingly noticeable or evident; obvious; glaring: a flagrant error."

    http://dictionary.cambridge.org/dictionary/british/flagrant

    "(of a bad action, situation, person, etc.) shocking because of being so obvious"

    http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/flagrant
    "Obvious and offensive, blatant, scandalous"


    None of these mention intent. You did find a different definition that mentions the appearance of intent. However, the word can certainly be used to mean simply surprisingly clear and obvious. To argue otherwise would be to argue that the above definitions are all flat out wrong. You are of course free to do that. I am of course free to think it is you who are wrong instead.
     
    Last edited: Dec 13, 2012
  45. Bartelby

    Bartelby G.O.A.T.

    Joined:
    Nov 14, 2005
    Messages:
    12,538
    Offensive, shocking and scandalous may imply intent, but obviously words have ranges of meanings.

    And the meanings I selected to quote bear out the interpretation I suggest.

    I decided to leave out of the meanings I quoted the more usual meanings that you have quoted.

    You still have no legal definition of flagrant; only a set of synonyms.



     
    Last edited: Dec 13, 2012
  46. Bartelby

    Bartelby G.O.A.T.

    Joined:
    Nov 14, 2005
    Messages:
    12,538
    I would define these as completely normal examples of foot faults with nothing particularly flagrant about them:


    If the guy chases a bad toss and ends up stepping a foot into the court before he strikes the serve, it is still a flagrant foot fault even if he never intended to foot fault. If the same guy always tosses the ball so far out in front that he always steps a foot into the court before he strikes the serve, he is still flagrantly foot-faulting regardless of his intent. If his bad habit is so ingrained that he can't just quit doing it even if he's trying to, that doesn't mean he is allowed to just keep breaking the rule every serve. It is absolutely in the receivers right to call the foot faults in this situation, after a warning, if no official is present. You may think it obnoxiouis but I think it much more obnoxious to expect to be able to get away with repeatedly footfaulting just because you claim to not be doing it intentionally.
     
  47. dcdoorknob

    dcdoorknob Hall of Fame

    Joined:
    Mar 14, 2010
    Messages:
    3,560
    I would completely disagree with your definition.
     
  48. Bartelby

    Bartelby G.O.A.T.

    Joined:
    Nov 14, 2005
    Messages:
    12,538
    Disagree, then, but the reality is that the USTA gave us no working definition of 'flagrant'.

    And the definition of flagrant is not so shockingly obvious or flagrant.
     
  49. yourmailman

    yourmailman Rookie

    Joined:
    Oct 18, 2010
    Messages:
    225
    Location:
    Mesa, AZ
    Maybe a more proper name would be blatant foot fault, but then there is no alliteration. :shock:
     
  50. Bartelby

    Bartelby G.O.A.T.

    Joined:
    Nov 14, 2005
    Messages:
    12,538
    Speeding is against the law, but the law recognizes the difference between being up to 10kmh over and 50kmh over as it infers intent for the latter infraction and not necessarily the former.

    The law probably does not explicitly use the word intent, but that is the common sense foundation of the defintion of the difference in charge and penalty.
     

Share This Page