1
1970CRBase
Guest
Your position that the rules are inappropriate if you don't like the result says it all about your character & what kind of a person you are in real life. No comment needed.
Last edited by a moderator:
Calling footfault at 5-6 15-30 2nd set is dumb and unprofessional
- Thread starter Henry Kaspar
- Start date
Your position that the rules are inappropriate if you don't like the result says it all about your character & what kind of a person you are in real life. No comment needed.
diggler
Hall of Fame
Not a bad idea. Only on the good serves of course. Faults are still faults.
W
woodrow1029
Guest
The thing with this situation was that the line crew had just rotated in before the foot faults were called. The crew that had just come on had no idea if foot faults had been called or not. After the new crew came on, he was called for foot faults on both sides of the court. Rusedski, in general was a chronic foot faulter. He drug his foot fast enough that some times it was hard to tell if he was foot faulting. Many times, his foot was so far foot faulting, that by the time he struck the ball, his foot was in the court inside of the baseline.
Also, what he doesn't talk about is that after the foot fault was called, he walked over to the line umpire, looked at him and grabbed his own crotch. Of course he got a code violation for that.
W
woodrow1029
Guest
Um. No......
Agreed. Let's complicate a simple rule simply because a select handful of players and onlookers can't grasp the concept of setting up 1/2 inch further behind the baseline than they do.
If there is no edge or player perceived edge in standing so close to the baseline, why would they, particularly the chronic offenders, continue to do it? Why would a player continue to allow aces to be taken away, or points or just give the opponent a look at the second serve on something totally within their control?
Even more so if a player's particular motion includes a step, shift or turn of the foot, which brings him/her even closer to the baseline and hazards a foot fault.
The only explanantions are the players inattention to detail and/or that they perceive that the fraction of an inch difference affords them some kind of edge or at least a comfort zone.
Those looking for "The Simple Fix"? The player backs the "F" up, that small adjustment that Davenport alluded to above.
5
TensProfes
Banned
All good examples. The other one (that has already been mentioned) is last year's US Open. Safin was called for a second serve foot fault in the 4th set (so obviously it was a fairly close match) serving at 4-5. So despite the protestations of certain fans of certain players, here's an example of a second serve foot fault at a Grand Slam (the US Open) at a critical time that could affect the outcome of the match (serving at deuce at 4-5). Not sure how much clearer we can be than that. To start arguing other points of difference is to demonstrate an unwillingness to admit error in the face of overwhelming factual evidence. To add insult to injury, this call was a center line foot fault with the back foot, which later slid into legal position, so unlike a baseline foot fault, there can be no advantage gained. (By contrast, a baseline foot fault, even one of as little as 1mm, can totally change the outcome of a serve, as demonstrated earlier in the thread.)
DarthMaul
Professional
You are basically saying that players (especially Serena) are more important than tennis and its rules! You are dumb then, Sir! According to you, at match point, she can step 2 meters into the court and serve, because it's dumb to call a fault at match point, right?
Repeat after me: "Drugs are not good!"
Last edited: