Originally Posted by Bartelby
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.
Right, it's open for interpretation. I never said otherwise. I just said that I definitely disagree with your interpretation. I don't find it to be logical or compelling in any way.
It seems clear to me that the rule did intend for footfaults to only be called by a receiver in an unofficiated match when the footfault in question was glaringly obvious. It also seems clear to me that the rule did not
intend for the receiver to have to read the server's mind about whether it was done intentionally or not.