Calling footfaults is important

[kylebarendrick]

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.

[woodrow1029]

Originally Posted by Bartelby

Even the USTA code makes calling foot faults the very last resort, which means basically that they are not really enforceable at all:


Calling foot faults. The receiver or the receiver’s partner may call foot faults
only after all reasonable efforts, such as warning the server and attempting to get an
official to the court, have failed and the foot fault is so flagrant as to be clearly
perceptible from the receiver’s side.

He's right. Very hard to enforce, but he knows that they can be called as a last resort.

Originally Posted by Bartelby

You don't have the right to officiate foot faults as a receiver in Australia, from what I've read, and you only have a highly qualified right to do so as a last resort in the US.

So both associations know that you'll have problem players who think they have the right to do anything for a win by decreeing themselves de facto officials.

So most of what has gone on in this thread about calling foot faults, including your statements, is just plain illegal according to the codes of two national associations.

So maybe you can find some associations which give an unqualified right for the receiver to call a foot fault?

Here again, he's right.

[quote=Bartelby;7051154]There are rules for officiated games and rules for non-officiated games.

And receivers have either no right or a right in the very final instance to call a foot fault and only when it's flagrant.

Its called a rule book and I quoted from it and it says what I said it says

Originally Posted by Oski10s

I can care less if you want to hit tennis balls against your garage door or serve from the net. But you are in the "Competitive Tennis Talk > Adult League & Tournament Talk" part of Talk Tennis, where ostensibly people are playing tennis competitively.

Talk to the Admins about creating a forum for "Recreational Tennis & I Like to Make Up My Own Rules". You and Bartleby can make up threads for tennis games akin to a game of HORSE on the basketball court.

Adult League & Tournament Talk, yes. But you are the one that keeps bringing a USHSTA rule.

Originally Posted by Bartelby

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.

Its clear that this is what the rules intend, not you misinterpretation. The rules are doing their best to avoid the situation where the receiver imposes a penalty for good reasons.

The point about honour refers in this instance to the integrity of the server not the officiousness of the receiver.

If there is anything that shows better the fact that people who want to call ff ad libitum are not to be trusted its this post.

I am defending the rules as they are written. You are the fundamentalist who wants to impose your God-ordained understanding of the rules.

Yep.

Originally Posted by Oski10s

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.

You just can't comprehend what he is saying.

[Oski10s]

Originally Posted by woodrow1029

Yep

Okay, so you're going to contradict your own post #14 of this thread?:

Originally Posted by woodrow1029

If his opponent had noticed and/or cared, he could have warned him that he was blatantly foot faulting. THen he could have gone and gotten an official (of course he can go get the official before he says anything too). Then, if the official can't be found, or if the official is on another court that had problems and can't leave the court he's on, he can call foot faults on the opponent.

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?

[woodrow1029]

Originally Posted by Oski10s

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?

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".

[woodrow1029]

Originally Posted by Oski10s

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

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.

[Oski10s]

Originally Posted by woodrow1029

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.

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:

Originally Posted by Bartelby

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.

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.

[Govnor]

unless it is absolutely ridiculous, I'm not calling it. Just not a big deal to me.

[schmke]

Originally Posted by Govnor

unless it is absolutely ridiculous, I'm not calling it. Just not a big deal to me.

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).

[dcdoorknob]

Originally Posted by schmke

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).

Exactly. Can we end the thread now?

[woodrow1029]

Originally Posted by dcdoorknob

Exactly. Can we end the thread now?

I certainly hope so.

[yourmailman]

Originally Posted by dcdoorknob

Exactly. Can we end the thread now?

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.

[tennis tom]

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.

[volusiano]

Originally Posted by tennis tom

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.

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.

[yourmailman]

Originally Posted by tennis tom

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.

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.

[TTMR]

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.

[Bartelby]

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.

[tennis tom]

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.

[Bartelby]

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.

[Bartelby]

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.

[Bartelby]

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.