Common Sense? COMMON SENSE?
A criminal trial requires assessments of difficult to quantify elements of an offense, i.e. of intent and mental state of the accused or emotional response of the victim such as "fear".
However it also considers questions of fact, i.e. the respective ages of the victim and offender, what type of structure was involved, was a handgun operabable, loaded and/or licensed in a particular jurisdiction. Those issues are not subject to the "reasonable man" test, et al. They are or they aren't, period. Something IS or ISN'T.
A footfault is completely defined, there's no abiguity. It is a question of fact. The only "fan based" question is whether the rule was or wasn't violated. In that the section of the footfault rule that applies in Serena's case is probably the "easiest" footfault to call, for that matter the easiest call that any linesperson is charged with the responsibility to make in that it involves a very slow movement of a large object v. a fixed object all happening a a very narrow field of view, we have to accept the call as it is made.
In that there has been no more definitive video available to REFUTE the linesperson's call, the call stands. PERIOD.
The player's know the rule, the linespeople know the rule, HELL, most of us know the rule. Additionally, Serena knows the rule, has been called for footfaults in the past, in this tournament, and more specifically by another linesperson in this match, shame on her for not moving a 1/2" further away from the baseline, which would have about as much impact on her ability to make a serve, as bending the rule would.
Yeah, most NBA fouls, NFL penalties and MLB calls are subjective, which only raises the emotions of fans who feel cheated or benefitted by a call or non-call.
But, how about the NFL back that barely touches the sideline with one step, on his way to a game winning touchdown with no time left on the clock. The NBA'er who's size 13's were ONLY 1/32nd of an inch on the 3 point line instead of behind it when he hit what would have been a game tying or winning, last second shot.
There are rules in golf which seem unreasonably harsh which if violated seem to have little impact outcomes, such as the ball moving when a player soles a club behind it. But the rule exists, not only does it exist the player is expected to make the call against him/herself if it occurs. It is a question of fact, not subject "awe, come on, it hardly moved" judgement call. And it doesn't factor in the player's intent. It moved, it's a stroke. PERIOD.
Further, any suggestion to simplify the rule, or relax its enforcement would only serve (excuse the pun) to complicate it. What's reasonable? Why was
the same or very similar call made against player A and not player B? What's reasonable to one linesperson as opposed to the second or third linesperson who relieves them during the course of the same match?
It IS or it ISN'T. It's the easiest call for a linesperson to make. It isn't a secret. It's not some obscure rule that has never been enforced before.
The only thing that I would deem within reason, stemming from all the attention this rule has gotten for reasons truly unrelated to it, is having video to confirm the call. I don't think it's necessary, but if it would serve to end the nonsense that stemmed from it, I wouldn't object.
This other nonsense, is nonsense. Unnecessary rationalizations most which I believe are motivated by the desire to blame the victim or system, rather than hold the offender accountable for what, particularly in this specific instance, is totally within their control, with an equally miniscule adjustment on their part.
5
