Who cares what you like doing? The guys who made the rules recognized that it was a bad idea to let the server get that big an angle, to drive home the point, if you were allowed to serve to the ad court from the outside of the doubles alley, in theory you could serve so wide that the receiver would be about a block off the court-just like when an approaching net player has a sitter and hits it almost parallel to the net. But that's not even the main point, sureshs stated that: You don't get to decide if it is pointless or not, or whether it provided any advantage or not.
Jack Sock foot fault
- Thread starter sureshs
- Start date
Who cares what you like doing? The guys who made the rules recognized that it was a bad idea to let the server get that big an angle, to drive home the point, if you were allowed to serve to the ad court from the outside of the doubles alley, in theory you could serve so wide that the receiver would be about a block off the court-just like when an approaching net player has a sitter and hits it almost parallel to the net. But that's not even the main point, sureshs stated that: You don't get to decide if it is pointless or not, or whether it provided any advantage or not.
Exactly, there are players who stand that close, but their back heel never makes contact with the ground, unlike Sock. And, why does he have to stand so close anyway? Clearly, because he wants to get the best possible angle for the wide serve,
Your second paragraph is particularly spot on, it's like when people say, what's the big deal with coaching from the stands, it doesn't change anything? Ah, that's why the top players pay their coaches' expenses and hefty salaries, because it doesn't change anything, and why the officials of tennis deemed it illegal, because it doesn't change anything...
Then you didn't watch very many, or very closely, the commentators were predicting it before it happened, given how close he stands on some serves. Decades ago, players weren't allowed to swing their foot over the service line when serving, they had to stay anchored to the crown, but that was deemed to hard to spot, so it became, just don't touch inside the baseline before the ball is struck. That, of course, led to some players leaning in and doing a mini-broad jump to get into the net and/or improve the angle of the serve. Sock's heal doesn't touch the ground on some serves, but on many of them, it clearly does.
Shaolin
G.O.A.T.
I was using that as an example of why I don't think it's an advantage. Wtf are you even talking about with your ''better angle'' theory? What a joke. Their angle out wide worsens with every inch they step toward the center of the deuce court. Otherwise you would see every player standing right up against the notch. I can have my opinion of whether the rule is pointless or not anytime I feel like it. BTW it's hardly ever called because it IS a stupid rule that gives no advantage so go cry yourself to sleep over it if you feel so strongly.
Learn how to read, I didn't say a word about the center of the court, nor the deuce court. I said the angle out wide improves the closer they get to the DOUBLES sideline while serving to the AD COURT; do you know where that is? You're entitled to state your opinion that it's pointless, just as I, and others, are free to state OUR opinion that you don't know much about tennis, and that the rule was instituted by people who DO know about tennis for a reason.
Shaolin
G.O.A.T.
No idea why you were even referencing the ad side in the first place….its obvious the further you go toward the dubs alley the better your angle is. The issue at hand is the deuce court and whether it gives the server an advantage to cross the plane with the back foot.
Actually, Sock served one from an unorthodox position for singles - close to the alley on the ad court, as doubles players sometimes do. The commentator noted that his back foot was close to the sideline, but did not cross it, so it was not a foot fault.
Doesn't matter if it touched the ground or not. If it was in the air, it would still touch the imaginary vertical center line plane and is a fault.
RalphJ
Banned
Last edited:
Shaolin
G.O.A.T.
Interesting. I actually didn't see that serve from Sock or have ever seen him do it before.
And, like we've said before, the notion of whether a rule should be enforced or not being based whether YOU think it's an advantage or not is laughable, not to mention clueless.
Shaolin
G.O.A.T.
You are the one who needs a clue. How old are you, 12? Grow up. We are having a discussion about the rule and whether it matters or not. I never expected it to start being enforced or not based on my opinion. The fact that you would even infer that is ridiculous.
Rattler
Hall of Fame
Rattler
Hall of Fame
Watched the entire match, didn't see it touch once. Granted watching on Television is much different from being there, but every time Courier said it was a foot fault and they did a slo-mo or still close-up it wasn't.
But thanks
I'm pretty sure you're wrong on that one, that would be analogous to either foot jumping off the ground and over the service line while serving that I mentioned in post # 54.
I wasn't the only one who "inferred" it, and the notion that a rule shouldn't be enforced because YOU don't think it matters, is ridiculous, especially when it's clear that you don't what you're talking about. Let me ask you something: if a player was serving to the deuce court, and was allowed to stand in the ad court, would THAT matter, and, if so, why?
I've played and watched tennis for a long time, and have seen a few isolated incidents when former players didn't know the rules, I could literally count the times on one hand, so your first sentence is ridiculously overstated, especially the "everyone, except Navratilova" part. And, you should get your eyes examined, there is absolutely no doubt that they showed multiple examples of his foot actually touching.
Last edited:
West Coast Ace
G.O.A.T.
The problem is that if a rule is on the books then it should be enforced - or removed.
Like Djokovic falling into the net before the 2nd bounce. Didn't affect the shot - he'd already hit it and the ball was long gone - but it's the rule and was correctly called.
I do wonder if a player complained before a match (and showed video proving that it's happening) with Sock if they could force the ATP to put a person on that center line full time and call it.
Like Djokovic falling into the net before the 2nd bounce. Didn't affect the shot - he'd already hit it and the ball was long gone - but it's the rule and was correctly called.
I do wonder if a player complained before a match (and showed video proving that it's happening) with Sock if they could force the ATP to put a person on that center line full time and call it.
Exactly right, and I alluded to your final point in post # 18 in this thread: the Colts complained to the NFL before the AFC Championship game(without video evidence) about the Pats, told them to keep an eye on the balls, and, lo and behold, it was found that the Patriots cheated-what are the odds, lol?
West Coast Ace
G.O.A.T.
Thanks.
Yeah, I'm laughing at the people defending the Pats - the evidence is overwhelming. Brady needs to accept it and move on. Instead of crying like a little girl and shopping for a sympathetic judge.
RalphJ
Banned
Yep X2! Haha
Winners or Errors
Legend
Still no picture? I can't imagine he's not been called for it a single time.
Rattler
Hall of Fame
Overstated? Huh...ok.
Still maintain that his heal didn't touch, it's not like he's not well known for this on the tour, at challengers and futures...but you just wanna argue, so....
BTW my eyes are fine...
That is bait for you to ask me how I'm so sure.....
Rattler
Hall of Fame
There was a shadow under his heal....that means it wasn't touching....call your optometrist.
Of course it's overstated, are you REALLY gonna sit there, with a straight face, and say that YOU know the knowledge of the rule book by ALL tennis commentators? That statement is obviously ridiculous.. Like I said, I've played and watched tennis for a long time, and, except for McEnroe once or twice not knowing(I think one was about the hindrance rule), I've never seen them show an obvious ignorance of the rules. As for Sock not being "well known," gee, it's a violation that is almost NEVER shown, and called even less, so, I wonder why THAT is? Finally, I'll take what was seen by me, Courier, and other posters in this thread over what YOU as the Lone Wolf in this matter have to say.
