Calling footfaults is important

[tennis tom]

Originally Posted by Bartelby

: 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>

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

[dcdoorknob]

Originally Posted by 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.

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.

[Bartelby]

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.

Originally Posted by dcdoorknob

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.

[dcdoorknob]

Originally Posted by Bartelby

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.

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/dict...itish/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.

[Bartelby]

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.

Originally Posted by dcdoorknob

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/dict...itish/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.

[Bartelby]

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.

[dcdoorknob]

I would completely disagree with your definition.

[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.

[yourmailman]

Maybe a more proper name would be blatant foot fault, but then there is no alliteration.

[Bartelby]

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.

[Bartelby]

As someone driving at the speed limit, it may seem flagrant if someone zooms past you but this is not necessarily so.

The receiver is in the position of that someone driving within the speed limit. All the above examples of foot faults are normal errors, but if you don't commit them they seem flagrant to you.

[dcdoorknob]

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.

[Bartelby]

Intention is always inferred by behaviour, or from the consequences of the behaviour, unless someone chooses to confess.

Most 'normal footfaults' are not glaringly obvious. They even have a specific umpire to officiate them in the pro game.

Flagrant has to mean something more than obvious; at least that seems obvious to me.

The phrase 'flagrant disobedience' or 'flagrant act of disobedience' has always meant something intentional in my 'speech community'.

But like all words it has a range of meaning, but for a foot fault to be called by an umpire it must be obvious so ... why would flagrant just mean obvious?


.

[dcdoorknob]

Originally Posted by Bartelby

But like all words it has a range of meaning, but for a foot fault to be called by an umpire it must be obvious so ... why would flagrant just mean obvious?

I think flagrant is meant as a stronger form of obvious in this situation, to reflect the relatively poor vantage point that the receiver has to make the call relative to the vantage point an official or umpire would have.

Under your apparent interpretation, why would there be a rule that effectively says "Someone can clearly and obviously break this rule, and not be able to be legitimately be called on it, as long as they didn't really mean to do it." ?

Are there any rules in any sports that exist that say something like this? It makes no sense.

[Bartelby]

Again you think intention means some spiritual super-added component to an act, which it isn't.

Flagrant is a stronger form of obvious but it is neither defined nor quantified.

Moreover, flagrant often refers to a willed act and not an unintended act.

Its not clear to me that the USTA only intends by flagrant the narrow, as opposed to wider, meaning of the term.

The word 'flagrant' invoked by the USTA solves nothing as its meaning is either ambiguous or unquantified.

Moreover, if someone objects to the receiver calling a 'flagrant' ff there is no dispute resolution process.

The rule does not say that the receiver may call foot faults if all else fails, so the word 'flagrant' can always be disputed.

The reality is that the USTA decided to leave it up in the air.

[Bartelby]

A better rule would be that:

'Receivers have a right to call foot faults in matches where an official can be called.

The receiver should give three warnings before an official can be called at the request of the server.

If the official concurs in the receiver's judgement after sufficient observation the receiver shall continue to possess this right.

All future calls will attract the appropriate penalty.

If the server does not request an official after the third warning then all future calls attract the appropriate penalty.

Receivers may not call foot faults where an official can not be brought to the court.'


.

[dcdoorknob]

I think that would be a worse rule. The people who wrote the rule presumably do to.

You have more clearly revealed your agenda though. You think no returner should ever be able to call a footfault in an unofficiated match. This is clearly not consistent with the actual rules, so you twist your 'interpretation' of this rule in such a way so that the end effect is the same as your made up rule, not because this is an actual logical interpretation of the real rule, but because it's more consistent with what you think the rule should be.

The problem is that your interpretation doesn't make sense. I'd love to see you actually address this question, instead of ignoring it:

Originally Posted by dcdoorknob

Under your apparent interpretation, why would there be a rule that effectively says "Someone can clearly and obviously break this rule, and not be able to be legitimately be called on it, as long as they didn't really mean to do it." ?

This whole thing is still not very useful or productive though. I'm going to belatedly take my own advice and stop posting here now, I've said what I have to say, and I don't see how continuing would be in any way productive (not that any of it was productive to start with). Have a nice rest of the thread.

[Bartelby]

I explained why your definition of intention is fundamentally incorrect on numerous occasions, so I haven't ignored anything.

I think that the server and receiver should arrive at a consent agreement in non-officiated matches which could include some sort of right of the receiver to call foot faults if the issue arises.

If the match has no officials there either has to be an absolute right or a negotiated one.

The USTA refused to make foot fault calls an absolute right, whereas line calls are.

[tennis tom]

Originally Posted by Bartelby

The reality is that the USTA decided to leave it up in the air.

Ah ha, I think we're onto something here! Perhaps the USTA could have a pheremone developed to be applied to players feet, and when they foot fault, would trigger a smell-ometer to beep loudly, similar to the electronic let cord pick-up device. It could be called the FRAGRANT FLAGRANT FOOT FAULT-PHEREMONE-OMETER.

P.S. I think reading this thread could cause brain damage.

[Bartelby]

Pre-existing illnesses are not covered by the thread.

Originally Posted by tennis tom

P.S. I think reading this thread could cause brain damage.