"FOOT FAULT!" Isner loses it in Paris

[disgruntledamsel]

Y'all being crazy arguing about something have of you didn't even see. He got it called by the line judge because he started with his back foot at the same plane as the center hash line. The call didn't come until he hit the serve, which makes me think it would not have been called if he didn't hit the toss and restarted, but I can't be sure. He was a baby about it, and even said to the ump, why does it matter if I was over the line anyway, which is an argument that the rule shouldn't exist, not his violation of it. Frankly, it ended up seeming to rattle sock more than Isner as sock lost the plot soon after.

 

[disgruntledamsel]

Just to add, the ump told John that he couldn't do anything about it because the line judge was in the best position to make that call.

 

[Chadillac]

He was a baby about it, and even said to the ump, why does it matter if I was over the line anyway, which is an argument that the rule shouldn't exist, not his violation of it.

I like Isner, but using ignorance as an excuse never works and makes you look dumb.

 

[Gary Duane]

I've seen players jump over that center mark and land on the wrong side without getting called, so it can be a tricky call.

 

[TimHenmanATG]

Did Isner shove the the ball down the line judge's throat?

 

[HuusHould]

In the Isner case, wouldn't it be the primary responsibility of the center line judge, not the umpire? That person has the best view of where Isner's foot started.

Y'all being crazy arguing about something have of you didn't even see. He got it called by the line judge because he started with his back foot at the same plane as the center hash line. The call didn't come until he hit the serve, which makes me think it would not have been called if he didn't hit the toss and restarted, but I can't be sure. He was a baby about it, and even said to the ump, why does it matter if I was over the line anyway, which is an argument that the rule shouldn't exist, not his violation of it. Frankly, it ended up seeming to rattle sock more than Isner as sock lost the plot soon after.

Surely it doesn't matter where your back foot starts, it would be where it is when you push off and become airborne? (Ie in Isner's case after he's executed the step up) Maybe I'm misinterpreting what you mean by where it starts? I'm very interested in the response to this as I've started ( to give my opponent with a great off backhand minimal angle) to serve with my back foot well across the centre hash and then stepping up and across to push off from inside of it.

 

[HuusHould]

Y'all being crazy arguing about something have of you didn't even see. He got it called by the line judge because he started with his back foot at the same plane as the center hash line. The call didn't come until he hit the serve, which makes me think it would not have been called if he didn't hit the toss and restarted, but I can't be sure. He was a baby about it, and even said to the ump, why does it matter if I was over the line anyway, which is an argument that the rule shouldn't exist, not his violation of it. Frankly, it ended up seeming to rattle sock more than Isner as sock lost the plot soon after.

It matters of course, for the exact same reason a normal foot fault does, because you're potentially closer to the box you're serving to. Although with the centre hash and the back foot this isn't always the case.

 

[Bluefan75]

It matters of course, for the exact same reason a normal foot fault does, because you're potentially closer to the box you're serving to. Although with the centre hash and the back foot this isn't always the case.

Except that if I could hit the serve straight into the box in front of me my serve would be so much better. It's a lot easier to hit a straight ball rather than have to move it somewhat to one side or the other. You're still making it an easier play by lining up basically in the other box.

 

[Freddy Cat]

I never understood this rule... You're not making contact with the ball while your foot is over the line, so why does it matter? I mean, say you're serving from the deuce court, and go over to the ad court to get a ball, then when you go to serve is that called a foot fault as well? Nope. And you can't say the point is initiated at the ball toss, or else players shouldn't be able to let a "bad toss" go.

I'm surprised to see Isner having been foot-faulted for THAT reason, because he was standing quite far over, in my opinion, than usual.

 

[tennis tom]

Did Isner shove the the ball down the line judge's throat?

No, but he nearly choked on the security towel he's always chewing on.

 

[woodrow1029]

The rule is plain and simple. It's just right here in plain English. I don't see why whenever someone does this, it turns into such a huge discussion, whether it be Safin, Isner, Massu used to do it. For those that say, "I don't understand why it's called, it's not like they are over the line when they hit the ball...", etc., it doesn't matter.

Foot fault rule:

18. FOOT FAULT 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.

If the server breaks this rule it is a “Foot Fault”​

 

[Freddy Cat]

The rule is plain and simple. It's just right here in plain English. I don't see why whenever someone does this, it turns into such a huge discussion, whether it be Safin, Isner, Massu used to do it. For those that say, "I don't understand why it's called, it's not like they are over the line when they hit the ball...", etc., it doesn't matter.

Foot fault rule:

18. FOOT FAULT 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.

If the server breaks this rule it is a “Foot Fault”​

Not a matter of discussing whether the call should have been made or not. Obviously if it's a rule, it should be enforced. Discussing the terms and justification of the rule is another story.

 

[Nashvegas]

Not a matter of discussing whether the call should have been made or not. Obviously if it's a rule, it should be enforced. Discussing the terms and justification of the rule is another story.

My guess is that this wrinkle of the rule isn't attempting to prevent an advantage for the server but is there to make the linesmen's jobs easier.

Without the rule they would have to track the status of feet that might start out of position or move out of position (including across the baseline) during the serve, and make sure the feet return to a non-faulting position prior to contact. With the rule they just look for a foot to go wrong at any point in the serve prior to contact and if one does, that's it - fault.