Your all missing the point Re: Serena

[gashandburn]

Her heel did not move. If anything it was her toe.

Watch at :50 here - http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1P9HTsd7VVs&feature=related

... and tell me her heel didn't move, and her toe did. You've got it completely backwards, her heel was the only part that moved forward.

 

[Ocean Gypsy]

WTF are you talking about? This is why this part of the forum is such garbage, because half-brains like you are allowed to post. We're talking ABOUT the foot fault, so yes this is about the foot fault. I never apologized for her cursing out the lineswoman, ever, so shut up.

My, my. So sensitive. You still missed the point there, sparky. Call me and I'll explain it to you.

 

[LPShanet]

Because it was not flagrant. Let's say her tippy toe skimmed the line......it should not have been called!!

It's so freaking minor and not clear....we actually need shot spot on that one .

Again, why do you say it was not flagrant? How do you know that? You couldn't see it. The linesperson could. It may well have been a very clear fault. How far over the line is far enough? At what point exactly should she be allowed to call it? That's why there's a line instead of a vaguely shaded area on the court. Touch it and it's a fault. Not a hard call to make from the linesperson's vantage point, and one that is practically never made wrong based on any objective verification.

And by the way, Shot Spot is actually LESS accurate than the human eye in this type of situation. Shot Spot (really named HawkEye) is actually a computer ESTIMATION of the "most likely" path that the ball probably took. It is not photographic. Its average error is between 3 and 4 mm on every shot. That's quite a bit. In the case of a slow-moving object (a foot being slid) and a good vantage point (the linesperson's seat), the human eye will be very reliable, and extrapolation technology less so.

While none of us can be certain, the probability is that the foot fault call was correct. There is no objective reason to believe otherwise, other than wanting it to be so.

 

[Ocean Gypsy]

A match should not be decided on such a minor possible infraction.

Ideally, sure. But the rule's the rule. Also, what possible motive could the linesperson have beyond wanting to get it right? I feel bad for her. Perhaps she indeed made a mistake. Yet, even if we assume she made an incorrect call, nothing justifies Williams' actions imo.

 

[mikro112]

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.

RULES ARE RULES, NO MATTER WHAT SCORE IT IS!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!111111111

Sorry for caps lock but some people simply don't understand otherwise!

 

[West Coast Ace]

Again, why do you say it was not flagrant? How do you know that? You couldn't see it. The linesperson could.

At this point we're troll feeding because the Serena apologists have deluded themselves to believe the call was wrong and now all that's to be determined is how Serena should have reacted to 'another injustice'.

In the case of a slow-moving object (a foot being slid) and a good vantage point (the linesperson's seat),

It's incredibly easy to call because you just watch the feet and wait to hear the sound of the ball being hit. Again, we're wasting our time because they can't give this point up - it's the linchpin in their rationalization of Serena's meltdown...

I can only imagine their reaction if it had been a white male who made the call...

 

[FEDEXP]

You're missing the point; it was not the footfall that defaulted the match but her phusically intimidating and obscene verbal debasement of a lineswoman. All Serena had to do was go back a fire a couple of aces.

 

[crawl4]

Thanks for posting in my thread people and thank you for correcting me that she had made a previous foot fault in the match. In that instant the linesperson had the right to call it I believe as she had been wanred beforehand. To those people who stick by 'rules are rules', what is your view about time violation? It was bought up earlier that for bigger points sometimes players get exceptions and take longer.

Cheers

 

[BreakPoint]

Thanks for posting in my thread people and thank you for correcting me that she had made a previous foot fault in the match. In that instant the linesperson had the right to call it I believe as she had been wanred beforehand. To those people who stick by 'rules are rules', what is your view about time violation? It was bought up earlier that for bigger points sometimes players get exceptions and take longer.

Cheers

Again, time violations are can only be called by the umpire, not the linespeople. Only the umpire is allowed to use discretion in enforcing the rules. The linespeople are trained and instructed to make the call immediately without any thought and without any regard to the score. They are supposed to just watch the lines and not keep the score.

 

[pmerk34]

So what ?

Lines people c use discretion all the time. What's seen as out to one person may not seem out to another. What is a foot fault to one person may not be a foot fault to another .

That was just too close to call at that part of the match. It just was not clear enuf to call and EVERYONE from Clijsters, to the umpire, to the tournament director wish that he didn't make such a moronic call. Let the players play.

Now we don't know who really woul have won. The match was decoded on stupidity . That I think is a far greater injustice than possibly grazing the edge of the line.

The call was insane. Since the foot fault rules have never been enforced to the letter of the law in any big match in a critical moment in this history of open tennis before the Serena match, the WTA needs to decide how this rule will be enforced going forward.

And they have to notify the players if the foot fault police are going to call every questionable infraction up to and including match point.

 

[kanamit]

The call was insane. Since the foot fault rules have never been enforced to the letter of the law in any big match in a critical moment in this history of open tennis before the Serena match, the WTA needs to decide how this rule will be enforced going forward.

And they have to notify the players if the foot fault police are going to call every questionable infraction up to and including match point.

You're talking out of your behind. Where is your proof that there have been uncalled foot faults in critical moments of previous matches?

 

[pmerk34]

You're talking out of your behind. Where is your proof that there have been uncalled foot faults in critical moments of previous matches?

40 years of it never being called is proof. Unless you believe Serena is the only person in the last 40 years in a grand slam match of any consequence to actually foot fault. IF she really foot faulted.

 

[kanamit]

40 years of it never being called is proof. Unless you believe Serena is the only person in the last 40 years in a grand slam match of any consequence to actually foot fault. IF she really foot faulted.

40 years of it never being called is proof of one thing: that there was 40 years of it never being called. It's not proof that it was happening but not being called. It could very well be proof that most professional tennis athletes have a solid enough serve not to be stumbling all over the baseline when trying to serve in the key moments of a match. Where is your proof that there were uncalled footfaults?

 

[Love Game]

I despise Serena and am not defending her at all but to call a foot fault at that instant was uncalled for. ...

well, this has been talked to death, but since when is it the line judge's job to keep track of the score? that's the job of the umpire. the line judge has one job and one job only: to watch his/her assigned line and to call balls (or feet) in the vicinity of that line.

that's all. that's the one and only thing the line judge is responsible for.

the player, herself, is responsible for winning her own match! If serena had simply served the ball, she might even have won. it was her decision, and her decision only to violate the rules by refusing to serve and, instead, going after the official.

she knows waaaaaaay better.
and she knows how to control herself quite well.
we saw a good example of that control in the presser.

 

[Brawndo]

Should we allow officiating to be based on the importance of the point? Certainly not, we already have the NHL for that. Thanks but no thanks

 

[pmerk34]

40 years of it never being called is proof of one thing: that there was 40 years of it never being called. It's not proof that it was happening but not being called. It could very well be proof that most professional tennis athletes have a solid enough serve not to be stumbling all over the baseline when trying to serve in the key moments of a match. Where is your proof that there were uncalled footfaults?

Because they would never call it unless the full foot went over the line in a match such as a grand slam semi. Stefan Edberg spent his whole life foot faulting but was never called for it when the match was on the line.

 

[kanamit]

Because they would never call it unless the full foot went over the line in a match such as a grand slam semi. Stefan Edberg spent his whole life foot faulting but was never called for it when the match was on the line.

You're begging the question. How do you know they would never call it unless you can provide us with some proof that players were foot faulting without being penalized or called on it?

 

[AR15]

I think everyone can agree that the alleged footfault was not clear.

Therefore why call it?

The issue is whether a match be decided by a possible foot fault that is so minor that it can hardly even be seen and gives no advantage to the alleged culprit?

I say NO....let the players play their match.

Because as a line judge she is instructed to call "it." And as a human, line judges sometimes make errors.


If the foot faults were called with an electronic device, should it be turned off on critical points?

 

[kanamit]

Its impossible to prove a negative.

Can you prove that Santa Claus does NOT exist?

You can say that every area of the north pole has been searched, you can say that witness' have been contacted ....but that does not prove that Santa Claus does NOT exist.

But it is exactly the reason people like Mcenroe and Shriver think the call should not have been made. A foot fault that minor is generally NOT called by the officials. Especially near match point of a grand slam.

Another epic fail in logic. I am not asking pmerk to prove that people didn't foot fault. I am asking him to prove that people were footfaulting left and right without being called on it.

 

[LPShanet]

All she had to do????

I'm not defending her actions but she was under jut a bit of stress and then was cheated on a HUGE point to pit her down 2 match points!!!

The linesperson probably made the worst call in tennis history and that's simply ignored because Serena trumped her.

You keep saying this, but there's absolutely no evidence of any kind that the linesperson's call was wrong. Not only is this call rarely made wrong, but I would say that if you did some research you wouldn't be able to find evidence of that particular call EVER being made wrong at the tour level. That's not to say it's never happened, but it's so rare that there aren't any clear examples of it ever happening at a major event in the modern era. So what are the chances that the first ever such bad call happened to Serena? Not very good.

You might want to rephrase your assertion that she was "CHEATED", or that the linesperson "probablyi made the worst call in tennis history" because there is absolutely no physical evidence to support either of those claims. In fact, the factual evidence tends to support that the call was correct.

It is understandable that you are upset that one of your favorite players lost in such a frustrating way, and your great energy as a fan is good for the game. But you undermine the credibility of your posts when you make inaccurate statements of that type, and people will take your contributions to the thread more seriously if you use a little objectivity and factual basis for your assertions.

 

[LPShanet]

40 years of it never being called is proof. Unless you believe Serena is the only person in the last 40 years in a grand slam match of any consequence to actually foot fault. IF she really foot faulted.

Pmerk, you've already been given examples of previous ones, as per the multiple Safin posts, for example. And those are just one player in the past 12 months. It happens. It's frustrating, but it does happen. It also happened to Edberg at Wimbledon (in 1987 against Lendl, I think believe). The only difference is that Edberg went on to win the game it happened in.

Out of curiosity, if it were true that this was the first time that such a thing happened, what is your theory on why? Do you believe there was an intentional or personal bias?

 

[kanamit]

It does not happen on the point before match point!

Maybe it's because professional tennis players tend not to footfault on the match before match point

 

[LPShanet]

Im saying that you can make the argument that the call was close but you cannot make the argument that it should have been called....it simply should not have been called because if there was a fault it was a microscopic one.


**** In response to your accusationas ...... I dont like Serena at all .
But that call should not have been made.

I completely disagree.

And once again, I ask you to support HOW you can make the argument that it was close? Without being on the line, it's impossible to see even differences that are fairly large. And that's LIVE...on TV you have even less of a perspective. According to the same research they used in creating and approving HawkEye, being in a position perpendicular to the line in question (rather than parallel as the linesperson was) can create a misperception of up to three inches. And the camera views we're all discussing are perpendicular to the call or within 10 degrees of perpendicular. So while I'm not saying Serena was three inches over the line, she could have been significantly over (and enough to be called easily by the linesperson) without it being clear to us on the TV angle. Think of all the times you've seen replays of what looked like a close call, only to have replay show it 3 or more inches out. There is no reason to believe, and no way to accurately state, that the call was wrong, nor even that it was "miniscule". And as has been posted, even a miniscule advance forward in her position can change the result of a serve, so it's very easy to defend calling the fault. Without calling it, her move forward could have turned a fault into an ace.

If a linesperson sees an infraction they are required to call it. If they found to have intentionally not called it, they can lose their jobs. Only the umpire can use discretion in rule application, not the linespeople. So what appears to have happened is a legitimate call by a linesperson doing her job. Nothing conclusively unusual there. What is unusual is the behavior afterwards.

 

[LPShanet]

It does not happen on the point before match point!

Yes. Yes it does. It has. A number of times. To a number of people.

 

[BreakPoint]

So what ?

Lines people c use discretion all the time. What's seen as out to one person may not seem out to another. What is a foot fault to one person may not be a foot fault to another .

That was just too close to call at that part of the match. It just was not clear enuf to call and EVERYONE from Clijsters, to the umpire, to the tournament director wish that he didn't make such a moronic call. Let the players play.

Now we don't know who really woul have won. The match was decoded on stupidity . That I think is a far greater injustice than possibly grazing the edge of the line.

Um....have you ever seen a linesperson say on a ball that lands near the line - "It's too close to call"? No, they must make a call one way or the other immediately and without discretion. They call them as they see them, period. The score is irrelevant.

 

[BreakPoint]

The call was insane. Since the foot fault rules have never been enforced to the letter of the law in any big match in a critical moment in this history of open tennis before the Serena match, the WTA needs to decide how this rule will be enforced going forward.

And they have to notify the players if the foot fault police are going to call every questionable infraction up to and including match point.

Serena had been called for foot faults in just about all of her matches throughout the entire tournament, including one earlier in the semi match. Don't you think she would have gotten the hint by now that they will be watching her feet and calling foot faults?

 

[BreakPoint]

40 years of it never being called is proof. Unless you believe Serena is the only person in the last 40 years in a grand slam match of any consequence to actually foot fault. IF she really foot faulted.

Have you seen each and every one of the 10 million professional tennis matches that have been played over the past 40 years? :-?

 

[ledor]

Wow, Serena got called on foot faults in her doubles matches, televised on TV. If you think they don't call foot faults, you haven't been watching tennis.

 

[BreakPoint]

A foot fault that is so microscopic ...if it even existed should not be called.

Just think about it....why call it? Do you think it gave Serena any unfair advantage?? Should the match have been decided by that??

So a serve that lands only 1mm out according to Shot Spot should not be called out because it's a critical point in the match? Should the match be decided on that?

 

[Richie Rich]

So a serve that lands only 1mm out according to Shot Spot should not be called out because it's a critical point in the match? Should the match be decided on that?

or the linesperson says "it was out but it was a critical point in the match so I let it go". so now you have just screwed their opponent.

or in football. it's last play of the game. the offensive linesman clearly holds the defensive lineman. ref doesn't call a penalty and the offensive team scores a touchdown to win the game. by your reasoning the call shouldn't have been made because it was a critical time in the game and the refs should let them play it out. this makes no sense. if they see it the refs will call it every time, no matter what stage the game is in.

jeu de paume just doesn't get it. foot fault is a foot fault no matter when. first point of the match or last point of the match. how anyone can say that any call should not be made because it was 1 point before a match point is just insane.

 

[mtommer]

or the linesperson says "it was out but it was a critical point in the match so I let it go". so now you have just screwed their opponent.

or in football. it's last play of the game. the offensive linesman clearly holds the defensive lineman. ref doesn't call a penalty and the offensive team scores a touchdown to win the game. by your reasoning the call shouldn't have been made because it was a critical time in the game and the refs should let them play it out. this makes no sense. if they see it the refs will call it every time, no matter what stage the game is in.

The problem is that a very minor foot fault does not screw the opponent. It doesn't affect play at all. I have known refs who do not call holding in the last minute or two of a game when the hold is clearly away from the ball meaning the players weren't involved in the success of the play. A foot fault violation cannot be compared to a ball landing in or out (unless you're dealing only with the letter of the law) for the ball being in or not is how one wins in the first place.

As I said before, some people hold the letter of the law as more important and some the spirit of the law. The lines judge wasn't wrong but that doesn't mean it wouldn't have been nice if she had let it go so we could have seen if Serena could have pulled it out or if Kim could have done so. Remember that there were games Serena was down 15/40 and she hit some big aces to come back and take the game. At 15/30 it's still hard to say what would have happened. What I do know is that you can never count Serena out until the last point is won because when she puts her mind to it she comes up big like all champions before her. Also like all champions before her she fights until the end. I don't like Serena's open display of contempt for the players currently around her but the woman can play tennis.

 

[Tshooter]

Good points.

 

[pmerk34]

Have you seen each and every one of the 10 million professional tennis matches that have been played over the past 40 years? :-?

Well Break I'm pretty sure there weren't 10 million grand slam semis played the past 40 years.