Calling footfaults is important

[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]

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]

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:

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]

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.

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

 

[tennis tom]

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.

No worries DC, by your posts you have demonstrated that the time and money on your education have been well spent. Aristotle and Plato would be proud, now go out and play or go indoors and play.

 

[andfor]

Thank goodness for this first of its kind thread on foot-faulting here in TT. Very infomative and productive.

 

[tennis tom]

Pre-existing illnesses are not covered by the thread.

Thank G_D I have Blue Cross!

 

[tennis_ocd]

I video tape my matches and was shocked when I watched the match and saw that every time he served (first and second), his heal was the only part of his right foot that was not already totally inside the court. By this, I mean his heel was touching the inside of the baseline.

And this is the RL situation.... surprisingly common during club type play.

Flagrant?

Clearly a FF but it went unrecognized during actual play; needed video to become aware. In a way I'm glad there are those who campaign against this stuff. I'm just not that guy -- much to do with nothing.

(Given that rec servers strike the ball anywhere from 1/2 foot behind the line to perhaps nearly two feet inside the baseline I think there is way too much emphasis placed on the advantage of a hacker having toes over the line. At a high serve (4.5+) level it's likely quite an advantage but those with this type of technically sound serve aren't fumbling around with their feet chasing tosses.)

 

[Bartelby]

There was a thread not so long ago, if I remember correctly, about the removal of the let rule in competition due to the fact that receivers were calling lets in order to avoid being aced.

So there are problems with honesty not only with regard to foot faulting servers.