Calling footfaults is important

Bartelby · Dec 12, 2012

If you're not happy with playing by the rules after an argument, I'd ask you to play on as is or forfeit.

yourmailman · Dec 12, 2012

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!

Bartelby · Dec 12, 2012

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?

Bartelby · Dec 12, 2012

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?

yourmailman · Dec 12, 2012

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.

Bartelby · Dec 12, 2012

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.

Bartelby · Dec 12, 2012

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.

yourmailman · Dec 12, 2012

Bartleby,

Thanx for helping us get over 300 posts!

Bartelby · Dec 12, 2012

Not at all, but the sureshs didn't stay for the party.

yourmailman · Dec 12, 2012

Bartelby said:
Is is it cheating, yes.

So you admit that someone who consistently foot faults is cheating. Why play with them?

tennis tom · Dec 12, 2012

Bartelby said:
Only the server calls the score, so after the server puts you in your place he can call the correct score.

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.

Bartelby · Dec 12, 2012

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.

tennis tom said:
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.

Bartelby · Dec 12, 2012

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.

yourmailman said:
So you admit that someone who consistently foot faults is cheating. Why play with them?

Mauvaise · Dec 13, 2012

Bartelby said:
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.

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

Bartelby · Dec 13, 2012

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.

Mauvaise said:
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

woodrow1029 · Dec 13, 2012

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.

Oski10s · Dec 13, 2012

woodrow1029 said:
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.

To make it simpler for you...these are his quotes going back through 200 posts in this thread:

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

Bartelby said:
You are entitled to warn people in any event under any circumstance all anyone is arguing is that you can't as a receiver go around issuing penalties.

Bartelby said:
Sorry, you can't read. i have never once said ff was in the rules. My argument is that receivers cannot think they are permitted to call ff like they call lines.

Bartelby said:
What you can't do as a receiver is think that you can officiate foot faults as if they were line calls, which is an all too widespread view.

Bartelby said:
Yes, you can point out that the opponent is foot faulting in America, but unless you can get an official on court that's about it.

Bartelby said:
Foot faults may only be called by an official standing on court or by a chair umpire. Players may be requested to correct their foot faulting problem by a Referee or Court Supervisor, who will require the player to make an effort during the match to rectify the problem. The receiver may not call a foot fault against the server.

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.

dcdoorknob · Dec 13, 2012

woodrow1029 said:
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.

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.

Oski10s · Dec 13, 2012

You don't have to go very far back where he makes it quite clear in post# 306:

Bartelby said:
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.

tennis tom · Dec 13, 2012

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.

kylebarendrick · Dec 13, 2012

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 · Dec 13, 2012

Bartelby said:
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.

Bartelby said:
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.

Bartelby said:
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

Oski10s said:

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.

Click to expand...

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

Bartelby said:

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.

Click to expand...

Yep.

Oski10s said:

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.

Click to expand...

Oski10s · Dec 13, 2012

woodrow1029 said:
Yep

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

woodrow1029 said:
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 · Dec 13, 2012

Oski10s said:
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 · Dec 13, 2012

Oski10s said:
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 · Dec 13, 2012

woodrow1029 said:
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:

Bartelby said:
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 · Dec 13, 2012

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

schmke · Dec 13, 2012

Govnor said:
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 · Dec 13, 2012

schmke said:
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 · Dec 13, 2012

dcdoorknob said:
Exactly. Can we end the thread now?

I certainly hope so.

yourmailman · Dec 13, 2012

dcdoorknob said:
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 · Dec 13, 2012

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 · Dec 13, 2012

tennis tom said:
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 · Dec 13, 2012

tennis tom said:
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 · Dec 13, 2012

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 · Dec 13, 2012

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 · Dec 13, 2012

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 · Dec 13, 2012

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 · Dec 13, 2012

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 · Dec 13, 2012

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.

tennis tom · Dec 13, 2012

Bartelby said:
: 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 · Dec 13, 2012

Bartelby said:
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 · Dec 13, 2012

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.

dcdoorknob said:
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 · Dec 13, 2012

Bartelby said:
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/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.

Bartelby · Dec 13, 2012

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.

dcdoorknob said:
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.

Bartelby · Dec 13, 2012

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 · Dec 13, 2012

I would completely disagree with your definition.

Bartelby · Dec 13, 2012

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 · Dec 13, 2012

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

Bartelby · Dec 13, 2012

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.

Calling footfaults is important

Bionic Poster

Rookie

Bionic Poster

Bionic Poster

Rookie

Bionic Poster

Bionic Poster

Rookie

Bionic Poster

Rookie

Legend

Bionic Poster

Bionic Poster

Rookie

Bionic Poster

Hall of Fame

New User

Hall of Fame

New User

Legend

Professional

Hall of Fame

New User

Hall of Fame

Hall of Fame

New User

Professional

Legend

Hall of Fame

Hall of Fame

Rookie

Legend

Hall of Fame

Rookie

Hall of Fame

Bionic Poster

Legend

Bionic Poster

Bionic Poster

Bionic Poster

Legend

Hall of Fame

Bionic Poster

Hall of Fame

Bionic Poster

Bionic Poster

Hall of Fame

Bionic Poster

Rookie

Bionic Poster

Similar threads