I'm amazed at how much foot faulting I see in adult league play

[r2473]

Originally Posted by AR15

These were simply 2 examples of tennis rules that some think are silly. my point was, and is, that if we are going to ignore some rules (foot faulting) why not ignore them all.

Exactly!!

I was just telling a cop the other day while standing over a dead body with a bloody knife in my hand that I saw a guy speeding earlier. And if the cops are going to ignore speeders, why can't they ignore the occasional murder?

Makes no sense to me.

[AR15]

Originally Posted by Taxvictim

I know, I was just surprised at Caesar's response.

and, the rest of us too.

[AR15]

Originally Posted by r2473

Exactly!!

I was just telling a cop the other day while standing over a dead body with a bloody knife in my hand that I saw a guy speeding earlier. And if the cops are going to ignore speeders, why can't they ignore the occasional murder?

Makes no sense to me.

You think that is an "apples to apples" comparison? strange logic

[mucat]

Originally Posted by r2473

Exactly!!

I was just telling a cop the other day while standing over a dead body with a bloody knife in my hand that I saw a guy speeding earlier. And if the cops are going to ignore speeders, why can't they ignore the occasional murder?

Makes no sense to me.

The reason the copy will go after the murder because of limited resource, therefore priorities.

In the case of making the right call in a tennis match, limited resource is not one of the problem.

[r2473]

Originally Posted by AR15

You think that is an "apples to apples" comparison? strange logic

So what rules are silly (but need to be strictly enforced) and what rules are beyond question (and who gets to decide)?

Should the chair umpire have a stopwatch at professional matches and enforce the 25 second rule strictly? The 5 minute warmup rule? The coaching rule? How about calls for review?

Would you want a league match held to the exact same standards are a professional match in all regards?

Are all rules black and white? Are some grey? Should judgement and discretion be involved or should it be "letter of the law" all the way? If so, where does it end? Do we need to measure the exact height of the net to the millimeter after each point? After all, there is an exact height specificed and that should be enforced?

When does it get absurd in your opinion?

[r2473]

Originally Posted by mucat

The reason the copy will go after the murder because of limited resource, therefore priorities.

In the case of making the right call in a tennis match, limited resource is not one of the problem.

Not to labor this point, but certainly you have sped past a cop and not been pulled over, correct (or any example you want)? Ever jaywalked with a cop around? Was he just limited in his resources and couldn't write you a ticket?

[mucat]

Originally Posted by AR15

These were simply 2 examples of tennis rules that some think are silly. my point was, and is, that if we are going to ignore some rules (foot faulting) why not ignore them all.

I totally agree. IMO, it is much simpler to not be judgmental about the rules, just follow the rules on all the calls and enjoy the game.

[AR15]

Originally Posted by mucat

I totally agree. IMO, it is much simpler to not be judgmental about the rules, just follow the rules on all the calls and enjoy the game.

exactly!

We should all be following ALL of the rules to the best of our ability.

Like another poster pointed out earlier, when I am playing singles, I probably will hardly ever notice a foot fault because I am too busy concentrating on the ball. However, in doubles, I see nothing wrong with the non-receiving partner watching for foot faults.

[mucat]

Originally Posted by r2473

Not to labor this point, but certainly you have sped past a cop and not been pulled over, correct (or any example you want)? Ever jaywalked with a cop around? Was he just limited in his resources and couldn't write you a ticket?

If I remember correct, I have never done those in front of a cop. I might have sped a little bit in front of cops a few times, but I wasn't fast enough (only 10km over) to deserve a ticket... yet.

[r2473]

Originally Posted by mucat

If I remember correct, I have never done those in front of a cop. I might have sped a little bit in front of cops a few times, but I wasn't fast enough (only 10km over) to deserve a ticket... yet.

I only footfaulted a little bit

Why do I deserve a ticket?

How can you be a "black and white letter of the law guy" in some instances but not in others? Apparantly you and AR15 use some disrection to decide when to be "letter of the law". Which sounds to me like some rules you think are "important" and some are not so important. How do you decide? And then, why is your judgement more valid than someone elses?

Personally, I'm very concerned with net height because I know that even one millimeter can mean the difference between the ball hitting the tape and falling over the net or not falling over the net. Some people say I'm wrong to be obsessed with measuring the net height, but I don't think so. I understand how important it can be and I also know the rule.

[mucat]

Originally Posted by r2473

I only footfaulted a little bit

Why do I deserve a ticket?

How can you be a "black and white letter of the law guy" in some instances but not in others? Apparantly you and AR15 use some disrection to decide when to be "letter of the law". Which sounds to me like some rules you think are "important" and some are not so important. How do you decide? And then, why is your judgement more valid than someone elses?

Personally, I'm very concerned with net height because I know that even one millimeter can mean the difference between the ball hitting the tape and falling over the net or not falling over the net. Some people say I'm wrong to be obsessed with measuring the net height, but I don't think so. I understand how important it can be and I also know the rule.

You don't understand. The reason a cop cannot give you a speed ticket for small amount of speeding (say 5km over) is because of potential equipment error. The driver can appeal in court and the ticket will get throw away. It is just a waste of everyone's time and money. It is much more productive/profitable to nail the big offender. Those reasons has nothing to do with tennis.

That's why it is an apple orange comparison and probably that's why AR15 think your logic is strange.

[mucat]

Originally Posted by r2473

How can you be a "black and white letter of the law guy" in some instances but not in others?

Isn't it obvious?

I enjoy clean tennis and fast cars.

[AR15]

No, quite the opposite. I am suggesting we should make every attempt to follow the rules, to the letter of the law, as much as possible, even if some people think some of the rules (like slight foot faults) are silly.

[AR15]

I'll leave the rules changes to the higher authorities. In the mean time, I'll follow them as written to the best of my ability.

[r2473]

Originally Posted by AR15

No, quite the opposite. I am suggesting we should make every attempt to follow the rules, to the letter of the law, as much as possible, even if some people think some of the rules (like slight foot faults) are silly.

And I would suggest that, because slight footfaults are customarily not enforced, it is awkward when some people do enforce them.

That said, I get called for a footfault each and every time I play a tournament (which isn't often). It's no big deal to me. I just back off the line ~6" or so and never get called a second time.

I don't mind officials enforcing the rule. I'd just never do it myself against an opponent unless it was large and I thought they were actually getting an advantage out of it.