People are ONLY UPSET at the footfault call because it was a "SLEIGHT FOOTFAULT"

[crazylevity]

Completely agree.

Based on what I have seen, however, it *has* been enforced consistently this US Open. Serena got called for a footfault earlier in this very match, for god's sake! If that's not a sign that footfaults are being enforced, then what is? (Heck, I remember seeing other footfaults too. I think there was at least one in the Wozniacki-Oudin match, don't remember on who. One on Navarro in the Navarro-Dent match. I hadn't watched Serena's other matches, but apparently she got called on some in other matches as well.)

I have not been paying attention to footfault calls in other tournaments so I don't know whether it's consistent at other tournaments, but at this US Open at least, all the players should have known perfectly well that the rules are being enforced. (There's at least a few videos floating around of footfault calls at bad moments in other tournaments too, though.)



If a linesperson sees Serena's foot touch the line, and he does not call it because of whatever reason, he has cheated in Serena's favor. Simple.

USO 2005 SF, Federer vs Hewitt. Hewitt was called for footfaults twice in the match, once on a break point.

I don't buy the 'not enforced in critical moments' argument. Not one bit.

 

[Deleted member 21996]

It's been an unspoken rule in tennis not to call foot faults in moments like those. Let's not all of a sudden start acting coy about it.

Unspoken in fact.. i never even heard of it!

 

[amarone]

Or maybe you didn't make a point. You thought it was implied, but in reality there was no point whatsoever.

Deuce made his point very clearly.

 

[amarone]

Were there other foot faults called prior in the match?

Yes. Serena was called on one earlier, by a different line judge.

 

[amarone]

Unspoken in fact.. i never even heard of it!

Of course you haven't - it is unspoken. And unwritten-about. I've never heard of it either. Nor have I heard any of the USO commentators mention it. Nor can I find any mention of it in a Google search. I don't believe it exists, nor should it.

 

[jmverdugo]

My thoughts:

1. Some people here is saying that the FF rule is not enforced enough in the PRO level, how can they know for sure? I beleive they can't. You could say that you BELEIVE is not enforced enough because it is rarely called, well, there is another explanation: most professional players do not do FFs. And this it is a fact. Think about it, do any of you (amateurs) FF? Profesional players train to not FF, even our local PRO force us to serve without foot faulting, Don't you think guys that the Pro's coaches do it too?, same thing as training a Crosscourt Forehand. You do not want to lose a point in such a ridiculous way.

2. The only job of the baseline linejudge while the player is serving is to pay attention to the foot faults, she is not doing anything else, she is staring at the players feet, that are not moving that fast by the way. Do you think she would call it if she was in doubt about it? She is looking right at the feet!! Some people say that, by the video they have seen, THEY cant be sure it was a foot fault. Well, they are not line judges and are not staring at the player feet at the same level under and incredible ilumination and just a couple of dozen feet away. So you think the line judge couldn't be sure because you are not sure?

3. A foot fault is like regular serve fault, do you think that the server should be granted 4 more chances to serve at critical potins? Then way shouldnt they call the foot faul at critical points?

 

[Medved]

It's the only call in tennis for which there is NO oversight. She can't challenge the foot fault, nor can the umpire, to my knowledge, overrule it.

It's also the most minor infraction in the game. That's why it's called so leniently, so stop acting as if it's the same as where the ball bounces. It isn't the same, and the inability to recognize this nuance is a detriment.

Then the rules should be openly and officially changed. Would you not agree that subjective enforcement is not a good answer?

 

[COPEY]

My thoughts:

1. Some people here is saying that the FF rule is not enforced enough in the PRO level, how can they know for sure? I beleive they can't. You could say that you BELEIVE is not enforced enough because it is rarely called, well, there is another explanation: most professional players do not do FFs. And this it is a fact. Think about it, do any of you (amateurs) FF? Profesional players train to not FF, even our local PRO force us to serve without foot faulting, Don't you think guys that the Pro's coaches do it too?, same thing as training a Crosscourt Forehand. You do not want to lose a point in such a ridiculous way.

2. The only job of the baseline linejudge while the player is serving is to pay attention to the foot faults, she is not doing anything else, she is staring at the players feet, that are not moving that fast by the way. Do you think she would call it if she was in doubt about it? She is looking right at the feet!! Some people say that, by the video they have seen, THEY cant be sure it was a foot fault. Well, they are not line judges and are not staring at the player feet at the same level under and incredible ilumination and just a couple of dozen feet away. So you think the line judge couldn't be sure because you are not sure?

3. A foot fault is like regular serve fault, do you think that the server should be granted 4 more chances to serve at critical potins? Then way shouldnt they call the foot faul at critical points?

Imagine being 5 feet away and watching a persons's foot trying to gauge whether it's "touching" the line or not. Sounds simplistic enough, but honestly, the human eye can't detect the difference between being "on the line" or 4 mm (.16") shy of being on the line...again, not from that great of a distance, hence it's a judgement call at best. Yes, some faults I'm certain are blatantly obvious, but as Namranger put it, the linesperson should be a-b-s-o-l-u-t-e-l-y sure - not pretty sure or fairly sure. The problem is there's no way they can be when you're talking about mere millimeters, but the fact remains, if it's even touching the line by a fraction of an inch, it's a legitimate foot fault.

I'm not defending Serena nor am I against the linesperson in question or linespeople in general. They do the best they can with the understanding that human error is a factor at times. Still, I would be in favor of using technology to preclude recurrence of calls of this type where human error is even a remote possibility. We have the means to do it, so why not use it?

 

[jmverdugo]

..., the linesperson should be a-b-s-o-l-u-t-e-l-y sure - not pretty sure or fairly sure. The problem is there's no way they can be when you're talking about mere millimeters, but the fact remains, if it's even touching the line by a fraction of an inch, it's a legitimate foot fault.

And how do you know the linesperson wasn't a-b-s-o-l-u-t-e-l-y sure? Dont you think she knows she has to be absolutely sure about it to call it? Again just because we are not sure about it doesnt mean she wasnt sure about it.

 

[HellBunni]

I'm not defending Serena nor am I against the linesperson in question or linespeople in general. They do the best they can with the understanding that human error is a factor at times. Still, I would be in favor of using technology to preclude recurrence of calls of this type where human error is even a remote possibility. We have the means to do it, so why not use it?

The technology in place right now is not 100% accurate either. It is still a guess with a margin of error. All those reviews, where the ball is touching the line by a mm are NOT accurate (the machines have a margin of error). But they are still counted.

Human error is part of the game.
If you take that out, then there is no need for line judges, no need of umpires.

 

[COPEY]

Hehe I don't know if she was sure. I don't know if Serena foot faulted or not. The point is, we have the means to be a heck of a lot more precise on calls than the human eye ever could be, so why not use it. Boxing has incorporated instant reply to discern whether or not a cut above the eye resulting in the stoppage of a fight was caused by a punch or a head butt, baseball now uses instant replay to determine whether certain balls are homeruns or fouls, football...everyone knows the story there, but let's talk tennis.

We've gone from line judges/umpires having total and complete control over every aspect of the game. That's not the case anymore, and because of this incident, it brings into question whether we should also use technology to call foot faults. Believe what you want, whether they do or not you better believe the big wigs are going to be talking about it. Cyclops at one point was merely a discussion, as was Shot Spot.

Speaking of which, it's true SS isn't 100% accurate (I believe the margin of error is 3 mm - which equates to .118 of an inch), but again, it's been proven beyond a shadow of a doubt that's it's significantly more accurate than the human eye.

Human error is part of the game. If you take that out, then there is no need for line judges, no need of umpires.

That line of thinking doesn't cut it anymore, and as I stated above, too many other sports are supplanting "human error" with technology. Whether you agree with it or not is moot since so many sports already incorporate various aspects of technology to improve the accuracy of decisions "formerly" made by humans. You're likely to see a lot more of it than less of it, that's for sure.

 

[HellBunni]

We've gone from line judges/umpires having total and complete control over every aspect of the game. That's not the case anymore, and because of this incident, it brings into question whether we should also use technology to call foot faults. Believe what you want, whether they do or not you better believe the big wigs are going to be talking about it. Cyclops at one point was merely a discussion, as was Shot Spot.

Speaking of which, it's true SS isn't 100% accurate (I believe the margin of error is 3 mm - which equates to .118 of an inch), but again, it's been proven beyond a shadow of a doubt that's it's significantly more accurate than the human eye.

And I agree with some players' comments awhile back, that umpires in tennis are pretty much glorified score keepers. (especially with SS in place, umpires don't even overrule calls).

Shot spot and the whole challenge system was added more for entertainment values.

not without a shadow of a doubt. SS system predicts point of contact, and shape of contact. There have been cases where SS saids the ball is in, while the mark (clay) shows that it was clearly out.

 

[COPEY]

Shot spot and the whole challenge system was added more for entertainment values

.

Not quite. Not sure if you're aware of this, but in 1992 they were experimenting with electronic line calling systems, and it had nothing to do with "entertainment value", but rather the need to keep pace with other sports as they improved the accuracy of their sports - namely swimming, auto racing, and track. Moreover, the players were growing increasingly displeased with missed calls, poor overrules or overrules where there shouldn't have been without any means of recourse. In fact, the test cases had gone so well they were all set to implement it at the '93 U.S. Open, but it fell through ($$, like everything else). So no, the technology isn't in place "more for entertainment value", but the challenge system is.

Most people (like yourself, obviously) don't realize that the discussion of technology being infused in tennis matches was on the table more than 17 years ago lol. Anyway, my opinion is that it wouldn't surprise me in the least if foot fault calling is done by technology in the future. Either that or they'll do away with the rule entirely.

As for your clay court example, fine. I don't know what matches you're referring to so I certainly won't dispute it. I play on clay courts, and you can certainly discern whether or not some shots are decidedly in or out, but there are ones where because the impact of the ball causes the mark to expand, it appears that the ball touches the line when in fact it didn't - SS has exposed that, too. That's too easy though - that's just common sense.

 

[stormholloway]

Then the rules should be openly and officially changed. Would you not agree that subjective enforcement is not a good answer?

It was working just fine until the other night. I can assure you there have been players double faulting on key points in the past that weren't called on it, intentionally.

It wasn't made an issue until the other night.

 

[Chadwixx]

I can assure you there have been players double faulting on key points in the past that weren't called on it, intentionally.

Give an example.

Im going to assume you cant, because you dont even understand the basic rules of the game.

 

[Deuce]

.

Not quite. Not sure if you're aware of this, but in 1992 they were experimenting with electronic line calling systems, and it had nothing to do with "entertainment value", but rather the need to keep pace with other sports as they improved the accuracy of their sports - namely swimming, auto racing, and track. Moreover, the players were growing increasingly displeased with missed calls, poor overrules or overrules where there shouldn't have been without any means of recourse. In fact, the test cases had gone so well they were all set to implement it at the '93 U.S. Open, but it fell through ($$, like everything else). So no, the technology isn't in place "more for entertainment value", but the challenge system is.

Most people (like yourself, obviously) don't realize that the discussion of technology being infused in tennis matches was on the table more than 17 years ago lol. Anyway, my opinion is that it wouldn't surprise me in the least if foot fault calling is done by technology in the future. Either that or they'll do away with the rule entirely.

So, what you're saying is that the 'powers that be' were looking at incorporating some sort of 'high technology' device to help with line calls in the early 1990s... but that you are certain that it was not at all for entertainment or marketing purposes.

The early 1990s... yeah... I remember that time...
That was right when tennis was suffering a significant decline in popularity as compared with the popular 1970s and 1980s.
But you say that they were not looking at the new technological line-calling systems as a means of entertainment or for the purposes of promoting the game.
Interesting...

 

[stormholloway]

Give an example.

Im going to assume you cant, because you dont even understand the basic rules of the game.

What a ridiculous question. I can't give an example of something that wasn't called. Needless to say that, on tour, it's understood that footfaults are called leniently.

If they're going to call them so strictly, then there needs to be oversight. They aren't that easy to call. They're always very close.

 

[Rob_C]

Serena should of gotten a time violation, she was yelling and screaming far longer than time legally allows. She was also the server.

They didnt call it on her either.

Feel better?

Actually, she didnt. How long does it take to say one sentence, 25 secs???

But, as far as rules, and always enforcing them, blah, blah, blah. How come Fed didnt get coded for cussing at the umpire??? He didnt threaten to choke him with the ball??? He didnt shake his racket at him???

 

[COPEY]

So, what you're saying is that the 'powers that be' were looking at incorporating some sort of 'high technology' device to help with line calls in the early 1990s... but that you are certain that it was not at all for entertainment or marketing purposes.

The early 1990s... yeah... I remember that time...
That was right when tennis was suffering a significant decline in popularity as compared with the popular 1970s and 1980s.
But you say that they were not looking at the new technological line-calling systems as a means of entertainment or for the purposes of promoting the game.
Interesting...

Google it. I actually watched a match where the line TEL system was being used. As for promoting the game, of course it would spark new interest in fans, however, the emphasis placed on accuracy with respect to line calls coupled with trying to keep pace with other popular sports during that period.

I'm sure you already know this (since you obviously know it all), but as a matter of fact, the very first instances of electronic line calling took place in the 70s.