Your all missing the point Re: Serena

Oh one more thing Serena... the number one position is controlled by the computer standings. If you want it to say you are number one... win more. Sure you won 3 of the last 4... hmmm 2 of the last 4 majors, but you are not consistant. Pretty sure you have not won anything else this year.
 
Don't matter if it is 1st point of the match or Match point. Footfault should be called every time.
but more importantly, if you are going to call the footfault, call it EVERYTIME, not just sometimes.
 
DNShade said:
Again...someone who doesn't play sports at any real level - you always say you don't want to win on a double fault, ff or whatever - they always say that to be PC - but trust me - they all want a double fault or ff on match point. ALL OF THEM.

And again...for the cheap seats - she didn't loose the match on a FF! She lost the 15-30 point.

THE FF CALL WASN'T ON MATCH POINT - so stop b!tching.

If Serena had hit the second serve only an inch out should they have just played it? Come on.
Click to expand...

Oh please. A ball landing out isn't the same as a foot fault and you know it. It's a BS call. It shouldn't have been made at that point. If you don't get it, then you never will.

There are multiple problems. At least a bad line call can be overruled. Ever heard a footfault get overruled? I've never heard of it in my life, therefore there's no oversight for the call.

dextor said:
I thought GLASSES were made to correct vision...my bad, clearly there wasn't a foot fault because people with glasses obviously need to take them off to see things.
Click to expand...

Yes. They're made to correct bad vision, but good vision will always be better. You're still looking through glass. The image is still skewed. People with glasses have no business being linespeople. It's a job whose sole requirement is clear vision. People with glasses should not be allowed. I made a thread all about this once before.
 
Maybe a foot-fault challenging system will be implemented, lol who knows, it just takes 2 cameras, refs get instant replay.
 
It's a BS call. It shouldn't have been made at that point. If you don't get it, then you never will.

Ok so how far over the line can you go.. an inch a foot..? 3 feet..?

The lines people do the best they can and it is the only system currently available in the game, so as imperfect as it may seem to you it is all we have and we all play by the same rules.
 
stormholloway said:
Oh please. A ball landing out isn't the same as a foot fault and you know it. It's a BS call. It shouldn't have been made at that point. If you don't get it, then you never will.

There are multiple problems. At least a bad line call can be overruled. Ever heard a footfault get overruled? I've never heard of it in my life, therefore there's no oversight for the call.
Click to expand...
^ The obvious reason that foot faults don't get overruled is because they are generally not extremely obvious, as some 'in' or 'out' calls can be. Especially from the chair umpire's position.

Storm, you're really making an ass of yourself on this issue. Especially considering that, when it suits your position, you tend to be a stickler for the rules.
You come off as being incredibly petty and heavily biased on this issue.
 
crawl4 said:
I despise Serena and am not defending her at all but to call a foot fault at that instant was uncalled for. She had not been pinned earlier in the match (correct me if im wrong) and at that circumstance the line official should have known what such implications would have. I know 'rules are rules' but cmon at that stage who would honestly have the guts to do that. For those people who play tennis, you would react if that happened to you.

Serena's actions however were inexcusable and I hope she receives much criticism. All her career she has been a poor loser and that match (and interview) made it blatant for everyone. She would have redeemed some of her credibility if she had been apologetic in the interview but of course her stupidity got the better of her. For a professional athlete, this is one of the lowest acts ive ever seen.
Click to expand...

she broke the rules simple as that. balls are called out depending on which side of the line they land on. foot faults are as legitimate and determined the same way. plus she was called on it earlier but didnt correct the problem so we know its not a totally random incident.
 
Ripper014 said:
It's a BS call. It shouldn't have been made at that point. If you don't get it, then you never will.

Ok so how far over the line can you go.. an inch a foot..? 3 feet..?

The lines people do the best they can and it is the only system currently available in the game, so as imperfect as it may seem to you it is all we have and we all play by the same rules.
Click to expand...

We don't play by the same rules. The USTA is lax about footfaulting , something about it having to be egregious and causing the offender some advantage
 
pmerk34 said:
We don't play by the same rules. The USTA is lax about footfaulting , something about it having to be egregious and causing the offender some advantage
Click to expand...

Ya ya... when I said us I meant the pros...

I have never worried about foot faulters in tournament play... if you need to foot fault go for it. But if I had linesman calling it... I would be ok with that too.
 
crawl4 said:
I despise Serena and am not defending her at all but to call a foot fault at that instant was uncalled for. She had not been pinned earlier in the match (correct me if im wrong) and at that circumstance the line official should have known what such implications would have. I know 'rules are rules' but cmon at that stage who would honestly have the guts to do that. For those people who play tennis, you would react if that happened to you.

Serena's actions however were inexcusable and I hope she receives much criticism. All her career she has been a poor loser and that match (and interview) made it blatant for everyone. She would have redeemed some of her credibility if she had been apologetic in the interview but of course her stupidity got the better of her. For a professional athlete, this is one of the lowest acts ive ever seen.
Click to expand...

She definitely did get a foot fault called on her early in the second set.
 
stormholloway said:
A) If they show a foot fault then it was a foot fault. Did I claim it was definitely not a foot fault? No. I said it was definitely not clear, that there was no evidence of a foot fault.

B) If that was a foot fault, then it was barely a f*cking foot fault. You don't make that call in the semifinal of a grand slam, period. It's too close to call. It's a foot fault for chrissakes.

Your little "rules are rules is a rule is rules" spiel is pitiful. It's over-officiating, period.

Lastly, how the hell do you know it was a foot fault. You claimed it was "clearly a footfault". Where is this evidence? If it's clear, you should be able to show us. Let's see it, right now.



It was a footfault on a second serve. In tennis, your opponent gets a point if you double fault. Go learn the basics of the game then come back and try again. It was 15-30 and the footfault was called. Then it was 15-40 and Serena got a second code violation to lose the match.
Click to expand...


storm,

You and anyone who thinks like you are idiots.

The linelady's job is to call line violation like that, is it not? How the hell do you expect proof if they never rely on a foolproof monitor like the hawkeye?

"You don't make that call in the semifinal of a grand slam, period. It's too close to call. It's a foot fault for chrissakes."

How the hell do you expect a line judge to perform her duty honestly and unbiasly if you also expect her to change her observation on certain points?

"too close to call"? Are you telling the linejudge how to do her job? YOu seem to forget that she has the authority to make the call. If there's proof that that linejudge is biased or incompentent like past history, then I can accept that there's doubt in her call, but is there proof of her incompentence?

If the point is important, which everyone seems to agree, all the more reason to be unbias because who knows if Serena went one and won the match from that turning point, so now the linelady has to live knowing that Serena won with a blatant violation? In that scenerio, would that be fair to Kim Clisjster?
 
Last edited:
A foot fault needs to be quite blatant to be called. Not just at this stage of the match, but at any stage. Because a foot fault is VERY hard to see. The shoe can hang over the line, but not be touching it. If videos afterwards show that the foot fault was really obvious, then that is legitimate. But if the foot fault wasn't obvious, then that is not a call that the judge should make. A rule is a rule, yes. And in a perfect world, we would call even the closest foot fault. But the problem is that it is so hard to see, that if you start trying to call everything that is barely a foot fault, you will end up handing out lots of foot faults wrongfully. And that is far worse than not calling foot faults that are barely ones.
 
lessthanjake said:
A foot fault needs to be quite blatant to be called. Not just at this stage of the match, but at any stage. Because a foot fault is VERY hard to see. The shoe can hang over the line, but not be touching it. If videos afterwards show that the foot fault was really obvious, then that is legitimate. But if the foot fault wasn't obvious, then that is not a call that the judge should make. A rule is a rule, yes. And in a perfect world, we would call even the closest foot fault. But the problem is that it is so hard to see, that if you start trying to call everything that is barely a foot fault, you will end up handing out lots of foot faults wrongfully. And that is far worse than not calling foot faults that are barely ones.
Click to expand...

Exactly. A lot of people seem to be missing this point.
 
lessthanjake said:
A foot fault needs to be quite blatant to be called. Not just at this stage of the match, but at any stage. Because a foot fault is VERY hard to see. The shoe can hang over the line, but not be touching it. If videos afterwards show that the foot fault was really obvious, then that is legitimate. But if the foot fault wasn't obvious, then that is not a call that the judge should make. A rule is a rule, yes. And in a perfect world, we would call even the closest foot fault. But the problem is that it is so hard to see, that if you start trying to call everything that is barely a foot fault, you will end up handing out lots of foot faults wrongfully. And that is far worse than not calling foot faults that are barely ones.
Click to expand...

joeman957 said:
Exactly. A lot of people seem to be missing this point.
Click to expand...
Good posts. Glad to see I don't share this planet with nothing but robots.
 
stormholloway said:
A) If they show a foot fault then it was a foot fault. Did I claim it was definitely not a foot fault? No. I said it was definitely not clear, that there was no evidence of a foot fault.

B) If that was a foot fault, then it was barely a f*cking foot fault. You don't make that call in the semifinal of a grand slam, period. It's too close to call. It's a foot fault for chrissakes.

Your little "rules are rules is a rule is rules" spiel is pitiful. It's over-officiating, period.

Lastly, how the hell do you know it was a foot fault. You claimed it was "clearly a footfault". Where is this evidence? If it's clear, you should be able to show us. Let's see it, right now.



It was a footfault on a second serve. In tennis, your opponent gets a point if you double fault. Go learn the basics of the game then come back and try again. It was 15-30 and the footfault was called. Then it was 15-40 and Serena got a second code violation to lose the match.
Click to expand...

Yes. and i was referring to the match point.
 
A linesperson with 20-20 at the perfect angle, 15 feet away is a lot more reliable than an instant replay from the wrong angle, regardless of what J-Mac thinks about it.

Rules are rules... now, most of the time I'm sure people let foot faults slide because they aren't looking for them unless it's obvious... but if you do it a lot then you have to be called on it. Most of the time pros are careful to avoid them unless they get sloppy or their technique makes them prone to them.
 
lessthanjake said:
A foot fault needs to be quite blatant to be called. Not just at this stage of the match, but at any stage. Because a foot fault is VERY hard to see. The shoe can hang over the line, but not be touching it. If videos afterwards show that the foot fault was really obvious, then that is legitimate. But if the foot fault wasn't obvious, then that is not a call that the judge should make. A rule is a rule, yes. And in a perfect world, we would call even the closest foot fault. But the problem is that it is so hard to see, that if you start trying to call everything that is barely a foot fault, you will end up handing out lots of foot faults wrongfully. And that is far worse than not calling foot faults that are barely ones.
Click to expand...

So if I were to run and jump 4 feet into the court on my serve, just like in volleyball and hit the serve, that's perfectly fine...after all, I'm not TOUCHING THE LINE.
 
Nanshiki said:
A linesperson with 20-20 at the perfect angle, 15 feet away is a lot more reliable than an instant replay from the wrong angle, regardless of what J-Mac thinks about it.

Rules are rules... now, most of the time I'm sure people let foot faults slide because they aren't looking for them unless it's obvious... but if you do it a lot then you have to be called on it. Most of the time pros are careful to avoid them unless they get sloppy or their technique makes them prone to them.
Click to expand...
True, why let common sense or judgement affect making important decisions? If you think there might have been an inconsequential "footfault", then go for it.
 
lessthanjake said:
A foot fault needs to be quite blatant to be called. Not just at this stage of the match, but at any stage. Because a foot fault is VERY hard to see. The shoe can hang over the line, but not be touching it. If videos afterwards show that the foot fault was really obvious, then that is legitimate. But if the foot fault wasn't obvious, then that is not a call that the judge should make. A rule is a rule, yes. And in a perfect world, we would call even the closest foot fault. But the problem is that it is so hard to see, that if you start trying to call everything that is barely a foot fault, you will end up handing out lots of foot faults wrongfully. And that is far worse than not calling foot faults that are barely ones.
Click to expand...


So, has it been established that Serena's footfault was very hard to see by that linewoman? Or was it only hard to see by you? Don't forget it is the linewoman's job to watch the line, not you.

Ok, now on video (IF available) vs the linewoman's eyes, so now linepeople have to observe for line violation and also have to take in consideration whether it's obvious on video or to the public or not, before they can shout out?
 
user92626 said:
storm,

You and anyone who thinks like you are idiots.

The linelady's job is to call line violation like that, is it not? How the hell do you expect proof if they never rely on a foolproof monitor like the hawkeye?

"You don't make that call in the semifinal of a grand slam, period. It's too close to call. It's a foot fault for chrissakes."

How the hell do you expect a line judge to perform her duty honestly and unbiasly if you also expect her to change her observation on certain points?

"too close to call"? Are you telling the linejudge how to do her job? YOu seem to forget that she has the authority to make the call. If there's proof that that linejudge is biased or incompentent like past history, then I can accept that there's doubt in her call, but is there proof of her incompentence?

If the point is important, which everyone seems to agree, all the more reason to be unbias because who knows if Serena went one and won the match from that turning point, so now the linelady has to live knowing that Serena won with a blatant violation? In that scenerio, would that be fair to Kim Clisjster?
Click to expand...


Nobody is saying it was not a footfault. You just don't make a call like that at that stage period, and if you do it better be very obvious. Do you think referees in football throw a flag for every damn play they think is a penalty? Sometimes you gotta just let them play the game.
 
user92626 said:
storm,

You and anyone who thinks like you are idiots.
Click to expand...

Well then McEnroe is an idiot too, and so are most tennis pros, because they agree on this one. So is everyone associated with the NBA, because they have a clear "let them play" policy as well.

The linelady's job is to call line violation like that, is it not? How the hell do you expect proof if they never rely on a foolproof monitor like the hawkeye?

"You don't make that call in the semifinal of a grand slam, period. It's too close to call. It's a foot fault for chrissakes."

How the hell do you expect a line judge to perform her duty honestly and unbiasly if you also expect her to change her observation on certain points?

"too close to call"? Are you telling the linejudge how to do her job? YOu seem to forget that she has the authority to make the call. If there's proof that that linejudge is biased or incompentent like past history, then I can accept that there's doubt in her call, but is there proof of her incompentence?

If the point is important, which everyone seems to agree, all the more reason to be unbias because who knows if Serena went one and won the match from that turning point, so now the linelady has to live knowing that Serena won with a blatant violation? In that scenerio, would that be fair to Kim Clisjster?[/B]
Click to expand...

Let's say it's match point and a player is a bit slow getting to serve. Do you call think a time violation that would cost them the match should be called? Should a player lose the match on a time violation?

Think about this one for a bit. Be consistent. A rule's a rule right? Good luck answering.
 
Ultra2HolyGrail said:
Nobody is saying it was not a footfault. You just don't make a call like that at that stage period, and if you do it better be very obvious. Do you think referees in football throw a flag for every damn play the think is a penalty? Sometimes you gotta just let them play the game.
Click to expand...

Not everyone is saying it WAS a footfault either. It sure as hell wasn't clear on the video. Let's see it.
 
An ugly end to an otherwise sub-performance from Serena. Double match points and you got called for foot fault that resulted in a double fault, what not to do is to explode and take your anger/frustrations out on a referee. Tennis is a physical game as much as it is mental, if you can't keep yourself in-check, you don't deserve to win...that is not to say you don't have the skills to win. Tonight Serena is the clear loser anyway you look at it.

We can be all technical about the line call, question the accuracy of it and whine about it as she did. What can't be argue is that rules are rules and it's established, if she isn't aware that this would cause her the match with the point penalty that's another fault of her own.

Her conference after the match is just as unbelievable as her performances on the court. I turned off the TV when she said she "puts 200% into everything to does"... and this somehow justifies her actions on the court? To say she admired other players with bad temper or competitive on the courts doesn't make much sense either. Why is apologizing for a bizarre behavior so difficult to admit?
 
stormholloway said:
Let's say it's match point and a player is a bit slow getting to serve. Do you call think a time violation that would cost them the match should be called? Should a player lose the match on a time violation?

Think about this one for a bit. Be consistent. A rule's a rule right? Good luck answering.
Click to expand...
The difference is that time violations are called by the umpire and not the linespeople. Only the umpire is supposed to use discretion and judgment in when to enforce the rules, not the linespeople. The linespeople are trained to act like robots and to call balls in or out without hesitation and without thinking about the circumstance of what's going on in the match, and for good reason. You don't want a linesperson to call an out ball in just because it's match point, do you? Or for a linesperson to hesitate and think through their line call just because it's break point, do you? No, they are trained to make the call as soon as they see it regardless of what's going on in the match and without any consideration of the current score.
 
WhiteKnight said:
An ugly end to an otherwise sub-performance from Serena. Double match points and you got called for foot fault that resulted in a double fault, what not to do is to explode and take your anger/frustrations out on a referee. Tennis is a physical game as much as it is mental, if you can't keep yourself in-check, you don't deserve to win...that is not to say you don't have the skills to win. Tonight Serena is the clear loser anyway you look at it.

We can be all technical about the line call, question the accuracy of it and whine about it as she did. What can't be argue is that rules are rules and it's established, if she isn't aware that this would cause her the match with the point penalty that's another fault of her own.

Her conference after the match is just as unbelievable as her performances on the court. I turned off the TV when she said she "puts 200% into everything to does"... and this somehow justifies her actions on the court? To say she admired other players with bad temper or competitive on the courts doesn't make much sense either. Why is apologizing for a bizarre behavior so difficult to admit?
Click to expand...

She isn't the brightest bulb in the basket. Did you catch her misunderstanding of the weather question? the poor reporter was asking if the rain and delays affected her mental state, and she construed it to be a question about the temperature during the game, and laughed at him for his silly question...
 
If it's a 1/2 inch footfault it's not okay to call, but if it's a 4 inch footfault it is okay to call. That's what people who oppose this footfault call are saying, in essence. If one wants to argue logically about this, that's the core issue that needs to be addressed. How is a 1/2 inch footfault different from a 4 inch footfault.
 
BreakPoint said:
Serena herself admitted that she foot faulted in her press conference.
Click to expand...

What the hell? How could a player POSSIBLY know if she footfaulted or not BP? Last time I served I was looking the opposite direction of my feet. Nice try.

And I heard no such thing from Serena in that press conference.
 
dwhiteside said:
If it's a 1/2 inch footfault it's not okay to call, but if it's a 4 inch footfault it is okay to call. That's what people who oppose this footfault call are saying, in essence. If one wants to argue logically about this, that's the core issue that needs to be addressed. How is a 1/2 inch footfault different from a 4 inch footfault.
Click to expand...
The difference is 3 1/2 inches.
 
stormholloway said:
What the hell? How could a player POSSIBLY know if she footfaulted or not BP? Last time I served I was looking the opposite direction of my feet. Nice try.

And I heard no such thing from Serena in that press conference.
Click to expand...

From press conference:

Q. Would you be interested to see if you actually foot faulted?

A. I'm pretty sure I did. If she called a foot fault, she must have seen a foot fault. I mean, she was doing her job. I'm not going to knock her for not doing her job.


"Nice try."
 
stormholloway said:
Well then McEnroe is an idiot too, and so are most tennis pros, because they agree on this one. So is everyone associated with the NBA, because they have a clear "let them play" policy as well.



Let's say it's match point and a player is a bit slow getting to serve. Do you call think a time violation that would cost them the match should be called? Should a player lose the match on a time violation?

Think about this one for a bit. Be consistent. A rule's a rule right? Good luck answering.
Click to expand...

Is a time violation worth a point? I have not seen it. But I have seen footfault=point lost. In any case it is at the umpire and authority's discretion.
We all want minimum authority's interference due to our bias feelings, ie we wanna see more game, like certain player more, etc., but truly what's good for the game and everyone is when authority makes the right call and their authority's respected.

Funnily and ironically, you don't want umpires' calls or their own behaviors to decide a match's outcome, but then all along you've been suggesting is that they should practice politics, discrete biased judgements, albeit unseen and unknown to the public, that have consequence in the outcome instead of them doing their simple duties.
 
stormholloway said:
What the hell? How could a player POSSIBLY know if she footfaulted or not BP? Last time I served I was looking the opposite direction of my feet. Nice try.

And I heard no such thing from Serena in that press conference.
Click to expand...

Q. How many times were you called for a foot fault during this tournament?
SERENA WILLIAMS: A lot. I mean, compared to all year? A lot. I haven't been called for a foot fault all year until I got to New York, so maybe when I come to this tournament I have to step two feet back.

Q. Would you be interested to see if you actually foot faulted?
SERENA WILLIAMS: I'm pretty sure I did. If she called a foot fault, she must have seen a foot fault. I mean, she was doing her job. I'm not going to knock her for not doing her job.


At the end of her press conference at the bottom: http://www.usopen.org/en_US/news/interviews/2009-09-12/200909121252748398140.html
 
Steady Eddy said:
True, why let common sense or judgement affect making important decisions? If you think there might have been an inconsequential "footfault", then go for it.
Click to expand...
An "inconsequential footfault"!
That's quite funny.

So now we have violations and "inconsequential" violations. How convenient.

By that... umm... 'logic', one could state that Serena breaking her racquet was "inconsequential" to the match, and therefore ought not to have been called.
The entire concept of having RULES OF PLAY is to establish a black & white context... one in which the officials report honestly on what they see.

To call a foot fault "inconsequential" is akin to saying that a woman can be a little bit pregnant. It is akin to saying that a ball which lands 1/8 of an inch out should not be called out, because it was "close enough" to being in.
Such thinking is entirely absurd, and dismisses the entire notion of the RULES OF PLAY (in any sport).

There is not one set of rules for tall players and other rules for short players; there is not one set of rules for players who are ahead and another for players who are behind; there is not one set of rules for cloudy days and another for sunny days; there is not one set of rules for the beginning of a match, another for the middle, and another for the end...
The entire concept of rules is to set a level playing field. Once you allow what you erroneously call "judgment" to enter the equation, you create a very dangerous environment which can easily favour one player over another if one official interprets the situation as calling for him/her to ignore a violation while another official, in another situation, interprets things differently.

Rules are established. Players know the rules going in. The ONLY justification for complaining about a call in tennis is if the player honestly and legitimately believes that an official was in possession of some degree or form of bias against him/her, which caused a call to go against him/her.
Otherwise, you play the call and shut up.

stormholloway said:
Well then McEnroe is an idiot too, and so are most tennis pros, because they agree on this one. So is everyone associated with the NBA, because they have a clear "let them play" policy as well.
Click to expand...
^ Of course McEnroe is an idiot. Is that not blatantly obvious to any even semi-intelligent person?

What I wrote in another thread:
McEnroe loved to bully umpires and linespeople and treat them like garbage. It was and remains clear that he has no respect for them.
Additionally, McEnroe was always a spoiled brat with a huge ego matched only by his equally huge arrogance and sense of entitlement.
It is therefore not at all a surprise that he is on Serena's side in this, and against the lineswoman.

Dude, if you see John McEnroe as an objective observer, you're even more delusional than you previously appeared.
 
BreakPoint said:
The difference is that time violations are called by the umpire and not the linespeople. Only the umpire is supposed to use discretion and judgment in when to enforce the rules, not the linespeople. The linespeople are trained to act like robots and to call balls in or out without hesitation and without thinking about the circumstance of what's going on in the match, and for good reason. You don't want a linesperson to call an out ball in just because it's match point, do you? Or for a linesperson to hesitate and think through their line call just because it's break point, do you? No, they are trained to make the call as soon as they see it regardless of what's going on in the match and without any consideration of the current score.
Click to expand...
Yes, very well said.

Discretion in calling lines and foot faults would be disastrous. A huge can of worms.
 
dwhiteside said:
So in what ways is it different from a serve that's out 1/2 inch as opposed to 4 inches?

That's only 3 1/2 inches too, right?
Click to expand...
The word "difference" is a mathematical term that when discussing measurments means the "difference" of A and B is A - B. If a serve is 1/2 inch out or 4 inches out, it's still out. In tennis it's been a longstanding tradition not to call close footfaults, especially on important points. If you're unaware of this, you're unaware of this. But given this "common law" interpretation, tonight's rejection of it seems outrageous.

BTW, if you're unaware of the footfaults traditional status in the game, you cannot establish your point by saying, "This is how it seems to me." Being aware of the traditional understandings is decisive in this 'controversy'.
 
Deuce said:
An "inconsequential footfault"!
That's quite funny.

So now we have violations and "inconsequential" violations. How convenient.

By that... umm... 'logic', one could state that Serena breaking her racquet was "inconsequential" to the match, and therefore ought not to have been called.
The entire concept of having RULES OF PLAY is to establish a black & white context... one in which the officials report honestly on what they see.

To call a foot fault "inconsequential" is akin to saying that a woman can be a little bit pregnant. It is akin to saying that a ball which lands 1/8 of an inch out should not be called out, because it was "close enough" to being in.
Such thinking is entirely absurd, and dismisses the entire notion of the RULES OF PLAY (in any sport).

There is not one set of rules for tall players and other rules for short players; there is not one set of rules for players who are ahead and another for players who are behind; there is not one set of rules for cloudy days and another for sunny days; there is not one set of rules for the beginning of a match, another for the middle, and another for the end...
The entire concept of rules is to set a level playing field. Once you allow what you erroneously call "judgment" to enter the equation, you create a very dangerous environment which can easily favour one player over another if one official interprets the situation as calling for him/her to ignore a violation while another official, in another situation, interprets things differently.

Rules are established. Players know the rules going in. The ONLY justification for complaining about a call in tennis is if the player honestly and legitimately believes that an official was in possession of some degree or form of bias against him/her, which caused a call to go against him/her.
Otherwise, you play the call and shut up.


^ Of course McEnroe is an idiot. Is that not blatantly obvious to any even semi-intelligent person?

What I wrote in another thread:
McEnroe loved to bully umpires and linespeople and treat them like garbage. It was and remains clear that he has no respect for them.
Additionally, McEnroe was always a spoiled brat with a huge ego matched only by his equally huge arrogance and sense of entitlement.
It is therefore not at all a surprise that he is on Serena's side in this, and against the lineswoman.

Dude, if you see John McEnroe as an objective observer, you're even more delusional than you previously appeared.
Click to expand...
Nice argument Deuce. Too bad that it's not up for argument. If you know tennis, then you know this is how it is. If you don't know much about tennis, (and I can see that you don't), I can see how you might feel this way about it. Heck, the U.S. Open even had a woman as ignorant about tennis as yourself out there as a linesperson!
 
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EZcDn8JWCLo
this looks like a foot fault to me. at 40-45 secs you can see serana is already "barely" on the line, and then she twist her foot in which clearly looks like a foot fault. And even if its a lil in you should still call it, its like saying if micheal jordan or kobe bryant barely step on the freethrow line when they shot it shouldnt matter and it should just be given to them. ridiculous and i second that, Jonh Mac probably just wanted to see the match played out but ya kno what, rules are rules. Kim C didnt want to win that way but she wouldnt if they gave they point back to serena and somehow she lost. that a couple a 100 grands were talking about. but ya know its tennis and tennis is a sport so you know you gotta "EXPECT THE UNEXPECTED"
 
and jonh mac clearly thinks rules are only good in certain situation, even though i respect his accomplishments hes dumb serious "you cant call that there" its the rules!!!!!
 
BreakPoint said:
Q. How many times were you called for a foot fault during this tournament?
SERENA WILLIAMS: A lot. I mean, compared to all year? A lot. I haven't been called for a foot fault all year until I got to New York, so maybe when I come to this tournament I have to step two feet back.

Q. Would you be interested to see if you actually foot faulted?
SERENA WILLIAMS: I'm pretty sure I did. If she called a foot fault, she must have seen a foot fault. I mean, she was doing her job. I'm not going to knock her for not doing her job.


At the end of her press conference at the bottom: http://www.usopen.org/en_US/news/interviews/2009-09-12/200909121252748398140.html
Click to expand...

This I think is the crucial point, the person who had the best view called it a foot fault. The lineswoman was only enforcing the rules, and you have to do that at any time in the match. Serena's behaviour was unacceptable, even Mac never did stuff like this. I can't believe she ruined what should have been a great moment for Kim.
 
Steady Eddy said:
Nice argument Deuce. Too bad that it's not up for argument. If you know tennis, then you know this is how it is. If you don't know much about tennis, (and I can see that you don't), I can see how you might feel this way about it. Heck, the U.S. Open even had a woman as ignorant about tennis as yourself out there as a linesperson!
Click to expand...

I wonder what Spinoza would think about logic like that.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

V
The Serena Apologists Thread
Replies
35
Views
4K
Speranza
Speranza
M
Depressed Serena fans check in here
2
Replies
77
Views
5K
sarag
S
robin7
The point that led to a third set in Women's Singles Final (Wimbledon 2012)
Replies
5
Views
1K
Vamos Rafa
V
Gazelle
Did Sharapova ruin the Serena Slam?
Replies
16
Views
2K
Soianka
S
Topaz
The *correct* sequence of events.
Replies
46
Views
4K
Crusher10s
Crusher10s
Back
Top