PDA

View Full Version : Enforcing the rules of tennis..............


HippityHop
Jul 2nd, 2010, 04:11 AM
I was having a discussion with a friend a several hours ago and we were talking about the rules of tennis. He was still complaining about the foot fault that was called on Serena at the US Open last year that caused all hell to break loose.

Leaving Serena's reaction aside he was saying that you just don't call a foot fault at that stage of the match. I believe tha Johnny Mac said much the same thing when it happened. But if a player commits a foot fault how is it fair to to opponent to not call it? After all it can mean a point for the opponent. If a rule is there should it or should it not be enforced? As an aside, I wonder when/if there will be cameras on the lines so that we can really see if a foot fault actually occured.

But let's say that we are for the enforcing the full letter of the "law". We all know that practically nobody abides by the 20 second rule for serving after a point is played. Why shouldn't that be enforced to the letter of the "law"?

The no coaching rule is very rarely enforced. But then again what constitutes coaching? If a fan yells out, "serve into his/her body more" is that coaching?

If rules are not going to be enforced all the time should they be dispensed with altogether?

mdterp01
Jul 2nd, 2010, 04:15 AM
The no coaching rule is very rarely enforced. But then again what constitutes coaching?


http://www.onthebaseline.com/images/albums/userpics/10001/CarlosRodriguez.jpg <------Exhibit A

Vartan
Jul 2nd, 2010, 04:47 AM
http://www.onthebaseline.com/images/albums/userpics/10001/CarlosRodriguez.jpg <------Exhibit A

:lol:

HippityHop
Jul 2nd, 2010, 04:50 AM
http://www.onthebaseline.com/images/albums/userpics/10001/CarlosRodriguez.jpg <------Exhibit A

Dead, creamated, reincarnated and dead again. :lol::lol:

omoruyi
Jul 2nd, 2010, 04:58 AM
http://www.onthebaseline.com/images/albums/userpics/10001/CarlosRodriguez.jpg <------Exhibit Ahttp://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6V1YmiT8qKg&feature=related

mdterp01
Jul 2nd, 2010, 01:51 PM
To the OP though...I do agree that they need to do a better enforcement of the rules. If its a rule then its a rule. Sometimes its just too blatant.

SVK
Jul 2nd, 2010, 01:57 PM
Foot fault is just foot fault and It doesnīt matter if there is a match point in Grandslam tournament or 1st point of 1st Q round in 10k challenger...thatīs something like...oh, itīs SF of WCH in football so we just canīt call an offside 5 minutes before the end when itīs 2:2 and have a clear chance to 3:2..thatīs stupid...IF Serena had a foot fault then it SHOULD be called...other thing is if she really footfaulted

The same with coaching...If itīs banned then itīs banned and the players should respect it...also the same with this time rule before serving, yeah also my one of the biggest fave Hantuchova should be many times penalized for this, and it doesnīt matter how score itīs...Rules are rules and they just should be followed

duhcity
Jul 2nd, 2010, 01:59 PM
JMac only said that because he always thought he was above the rules.

I don't care if you're in the 5th set down 70-71 MP and you footfault. If you do, you lose that serve. If it's a second, you lose the match. Really.

Yonexforever
Jul 2nd, 2010, 02:46 PM
I think the real reason there was so much drama and discussion is because Serena has gotten horrendous calls at the US Open in the past, and EVERYONE acknowledges "shot spot" was really given momemtum as a DIRECT result of Serena's bad calls at the Open.
To top it off, the "foot fault" has never been proven.
There is NO film ANYWHERE from ANY angle that showed a clear foot fault.

HippityHop
Jul 2nd, 2010, 02:53 PM
I think the real reason there was so much drama and discussion is because Serena has gotten horrendous calls at the US Open in the past, and EVERYONE acknowledges "shot spot" was really given momemtum as a DIRECT result of Serena's bad calls at the Open.
To top it off, the "foot fault" has never been proven.There is NO film ANYWHERE from ANY angle that showed a clear foot fault.

I agree with you on that which is why I wondered if eventually there will be cameras situated to challenge foot faults. After all a foot fault on second serve can cost the server a point and if a regular fault can be challenged in that situation, why not a foot fault?

But my question is really bigger than that particular instance. I'll bet that if an umpire put a stop watch on players and started enforcing the 20 second rule to the letter of the law they will change it in a hurry. Of course they couldn't get rid of it completely because some folks would never serve. However perhaps it should be changed to 30 seconds. Hell some players bounce the ball for 20 seconds.

azmad_88
Jul 2nd, 2010, 03:00 PM
i think they should do away with let during serves... they play let during points..why bother replaying point when serving..thats just my opinion

HippityHop
Jul 2nd, 2010, 03:03 PM
i think they should do away with let during serves... they play let during points..why bother replaying point when serving..thats just my opinion

I think that makes a lot of sense. Martina N. said that it's impossible for a player to deliberately use the let to win a point. And she's right. All lets are a matter of luck. I don't see anybody being able to pinpoint their serve so that it just ticks the top of the net on purpose.

EDIT: And if it's time that they're worried about, playing the lets on serve and adding another 10 seconds to the time between the end of a point and the next serve would speed the game up. After all how many times do we see three or four lets in a row and then "first service" from the umpire? I think it would even out.

twight6
Jul 2nd, 2010, 03:08 PM
I think the real reason there was so much drama and discussion is because Serena has gotten horrendous calls at the US Open in the past, and EVERYONE acknowledges "shot spot" was really given momemtum as a DIRECT result of Serena's bad calls at the Open.
To top it off, the "foot fault" has never been proven.
There is NO film ANYWHERE from ANY angle that showed a clear foot fault.

There also wasn't any footage showing it wasn't a foot fault. Therefore, plain and simply, it WAS a foot fault. It was called as one, therefore remains a foot fault.

sammy01
Jul 2nd, 2010, 03:09 PM
JMac only said that because he always thought he was above the rules.

I don't care if you're in the 5th set down 70-71 MP and you footfault. If you do, you lose that serve. If it's a second, you lose the match. Really.

this and this. jmac has a horrible sense of entitlement when it comes to tennis and he deliberately tries to be contriversial as hes built his career on that and it still makes him money.

a foot fault is a foot fault and should be called at any time, and for all those who say prove it was a foot fault, i say prove it wasn't, my proof is a professionally trained linesperson called it, what you got?

HippityHop
Jul 2nd, 2010, 03:12 PM
this and this. jmac has a horrible sense of entitlement when it comes to tennis and he deliberately tries to be contriversial as hes built his career on that and it still makes him money.

a foot fault is a foot fault and should be called at any time, and for all those who say prove it was a foot fault, i say prove it wasn't, my proof is a professionally trained linesperson called it, what you got?

I'm not arguing the call though I wouldn't be surprised if cameras are eventually put in. Of course we all know that the reason the challenge system is in now is because Serena was so blatantly robbed.

Do you think that the 20 second rule should be strictly enforced since you are such a stickler for the rules? After all it's the rule that is most often violated by most players.

twight6
Jul 2nd, 2010, 03:14 PM
But anyway, to answer the question:

I think in the foot fault instance, it has to be called no matter what. As for the time violation, and even coaching, these things aren't enforced as much because they don't directly hurt the opponent. Sure, more time might let you recover better, and coaching might give you an edge in the long run, but ultimately it's more of a pain in the ass to enforce these rules than it's actually worth. Putting a stop watch or clock on court becomes even more hyper-enforcing and can blemish the game even more than shot spot, so it's better to just enforce it when it begins to affect the game more.

In other words, if a player foot faults, that's something that needs to be called because not calling it hurts your opponent. Taking too much time, however, isn't as big of a deal, so to speak. But, once they start taking forty-five seconds between every point, then it gets enforced.

It brings to mind the Armando Galarraga blown call on the last out of his perfect game. People argue that he should've been called out on a close call, no matter what, because the pitcher worked so hard and a perfect game is just so... epic! So, even if it was a close call, the ump should've just called him out because 1) it was the last out of the game, 2) odds were very slim that the other team would make a comeback, and 3) that was history in the making. But, had the runner been safe and gotten called out, wouldn't it blemish the perfect game? :shrug:

sammy01
Jul 2nd, 2010, 03:19 PM
I'm not arguing the call though I wouldn't be surprised if cameras are eventually put in. Of course we all know that the reason the challenge system is in now is because Serena was so blatantly robbed.

Do you think that the 20 second rule should be strictly enforced since you are such a stickler for the rules? After all it's the rule that is most often violated by most players.

anyone who knows me on this board knows i want the 20 second rule applied strictly and for it to be knuckled down on. im sick of waiting 40 seconds between points while dani faces the back of the court and does whatever she thinks shes doing.

some tennis matches become painfully slow and it is only because umpires are lapse on enforcing the rules. i've even made a thread about forcing players to speed up.

HippityHop
Jul 2nd, 2010, 03:22 PM
But anyway, to answer the question:

I think in the foot fault instance, it has to be called no matter what. As for the time violation, and even coaching, these things aren't enforced as much because they don't directly hurt the opponent. Sure, more time might let you recover better, and coaching might give you an edge in the long run, but ultimately it's more of a pain in the ass to enforce these rules than it's actually worth. Putting a stop watch or clock on court becomes even more hyper-enforcing and can blemish the game even more than shot spot, so it's better to just enforce it when it begins to affect the game more.

In other words, if a player foot faults, that's something that needs to be called because not calling it hurts your opponent. Taking too much time, however, isn't as big of a deal, so to speak. But, once they start taking forty-five seconds between every point, then it gets enforced.

It brings to mind the Armando Galarraga blown call on the last out of his perfect game. People argue that he should've been called out on a close call, no matter what, because the pitcher worked so hard and a perfect game is just so... epic! So, even if it was a close call, the ump should've just called him out because 1) it was the last out of the game, 2) odds were very slim that the other team would make a comeback, and 3) that was history in the making. But, had the runner been safe and gotten called out, wouldn't it blemish the perfect game? :shrug:

To argue that the time rule doesn't affect the opponent is disingenuous. The time rule has to do with fitness. Why penalize the receiver after a long point if he/she is ready to go but the server is winded? And forty-five seconds? WTF? Just change the rule to 30 seconds.

The perfect game analogy is a stretch because the technology clearly showed that the runner was out. Baseball can be pig headed and pretend that he was safe but that just ruins their credibility. And it does matter if it's the last out.

Again the technology showed very clearly that Serena was robbed during that match against JenCap. Had it only been one or two calls I doubt that we would have the challenge system now. But those calls were so blatant that everybody could see that something else was needed.

mdterp01
Jul 2nd, 2010, 03:29 PM
The foot fault thing will be debated until the cows come home. What pisses me off more is blatant cheating from coaching. This thing now with challenging calls. No bitch....you don't get to look up at your box to get a clue as to whether or not you need to challenge, nor should you get any clues by asking the chair ump. So coaching and the challenge system need to be tightened up quite a bit. Other than Serena's incident, there haven't even been big issues with foot faults, but blatant coaching happens every time certain players are on the damn court.

twight6
Jul 2nd, 2010, 03:29 PM
To argue that the time rule doesn't affect the opponent is disingenuous. The time rule has to do with fitness. Why penalize the receiver after a long point if he/she is ready to go but the server is winded? And forty-five seconds? WTF? Just change the rule to 30 seconds.

The perfect game analogy is a stretch because the technology clearly showed that the runner was out. Baseball can be pig headed and pretend that he was safe but that just ruins their credibility. And it does matter if it's the last out.

Again the technology showed very clearly that Serena was robbed during that match against JenCap. Had it only been one or two calls I doubt that we would have the challenge system now. But those calls were so blatant that everybody could see that something else was needed.

My point is, a foot fault is clear cut. If you step on the line or over it, the linesman puts up his/her hand, and it's called a fault. The time rule, however, is discretionary. The rule doesn't mean players have exactly 30 seconds to serve. The rule was actually always "play at the servers pace, as long as it's reasonable." So some points they might take 32 seconds, others they might take 28 :shrug: That's how it works. So to enforce it would not only be controversial but it would be a huge pain in the ass.

Something like a lines call or foot fault is simple to enforce and it should be enforced, it's a rule that has always been in play and directly affects the game. The time rule, or even coaching, are like "secondary" rules (for lack of a better word).

miffedmax
Jul 2nd, 2010, 05:07 PM
In every sport there's a bizarre disconnect between what happens at the juniors and the pros. We call 20 sec. violations and footfaults in the juniors--as excessive grunting, and unsportsmanlike "C'mons" and fistpumping. But they never call those rules in pro tournaments, just like in the NBA guys palm the ball and start running with it somewhere around the midcourt stripe, and EPL players throw elbows that would get a select soccer player a red card, etc.

My guess is that its the difference about trying teach character and respecting the rules, and providing entertainment. One of the worst things about MLS isn't the quality of play, it's that the refs call every minor infraction, constantly breaking up the flow of the game and ruining the game.

Most pro sports would be unwatchable. Like they say, they could throw a flag for holding on practically every play in the NFL. Most tennis fans don't want to see free points handed out unless a player's just done something inexcusable--going 3 or 4 seconds long between serves and losing a point is just too harsh.

I think one of the things about the Serena footfault was not only the timing, but that it was such a minor infraction that she didn't really gain an advantage from it. I'd hate to be in the position of having to make that call. Which is why I merrily work junior tournaments, and have no aspirations to go any higher.

sammy01
Jul 2nd, 2010, 05:21 PM
In every sport there's a bizarre disconnect between what happens at the juniors and the pros. We call 20 sec. violations and footfaults in the juniors--as excessive grunting, and unsportsmanlike "C'mons" and fistpumping. But they never call those rules in pro tournaments, just like in the NBA guys palm the ball and start running with it somewhere around the midcourt stripe, and EPL players throw elbows that would get a select soccer player a red card, etc.

My guess is that its the difference about trying teach character and respecting the rules, and providing entertainment. One of the worst things about MLS isn't the quality of play, it's that the refs call every minor infraction, constantly breaking up the flow of the game and ruining the game.

Most pro sports would be unwatchable. Like they say, they could throw a flag for holding on practically every play in the NFL. Most tennis fans don't want to see free points handed out unless a player's just done something inexcusable--going 3 or 4 seconds long between serves and losing a point is just too harsh.

I think one of the things about the Serena footfault was not only the timing, but that it was such a minor infraction that she didn't really gain an advantage from it. I'd hate to be in the position of having to make that call. Which is why I merrily work junior tournaments, and have no aspirations to go any higher.

but what exactly is a big enough infraction to gain an advantage from it, you cant say well it was only just a footfault there for it doesn't matter.

Serena y Monica
Jul 2nd, 2010, 05:33 PM
The discrepancies in who get's called for what makes the rules fungible. There should be a time clock at either end for the server. There should be a camera on the footfault line...or make it electronic like the service line and last but certainly not least there should be officials assigned to each watch each players box for anything other than come on in it many variations.

Volcana
Jul 2nd, 2010, 05:48 PM
I was having a discussion with a friend a several hours ago and we were talking about the rules of tennis. He was still complaining about the foot fault that was called on Serena at the US Open last year that caused all hell to break loose.

Leaving Serena's reaction aside he was saying that you just don't call a foot fault at that stage of the match. I believe tha Johnny Mac said much the same thing when it happened. But if a player commits a foot fault how is it fair to to opponent to not call it? After all it can mean a point for the opponent. If a rule is there should it or should it not be enforced? As an aside, I wonder when/if there will be cameras on the lines so that we can really see if a foot fault actually occured.

But let's say that we are for the enforcing the full letter of the "law". We all know that practically nobody abides by the 20 second rule for serving after a point is played. Why shouldn't that be enforced to the letter of the "law"?

The no coaching rule is very rarely enforced. But then again what constitutes coaching? If a fan yells out, "serve into his/her body more" is that coaching?

If rules are not going to be enforced all the time should they be dispensed with altogether?First of all, never ruin a good discussion point by tossing in 'everybody knows that'. To take your example, almost all the players observe the twenty second rule about serving. There are some habitual violators, and yes, they are allowed to get away with it, but most players follow that rule.

Volcana
Jul 2nd, 2010, 06:00 PM
There also wasn't any footage showing it wasn't a foot fault. Therefore, plain and simply, it WAS a foot fault. It was called as one, therefore remains a foot fault.I recognize this was a reply, but that's ridiculous. Line judges do get calls wrong. The presence or absence or clear video footage is no proof either way. The linesperson should make calls as they see them, and it's no great technical challenge to allow video review of footfault calls. Fousr cameras, two on each line, about eight feet up, focused on the lines. If a player's foot touches the line, one camera or the other will pick it up. It's actually a lot simpler than shotspot.

sammy01
Jul 2nd, 2010, 06:06 PM
I recognize this was a reply, but that's ridiculous. Line judges do get calls wrong. The presence or absence or clear video footage is no proof either way. The linesperson should make calls as they see them, and it's no great technical challenge to allow video review of footfault calls. Fousr cameras, two on each line, about eight feet up, focused on the lines. If a player's foot touches the line, one camera or the other will pick it up. It's actually a lot simpler than shotspot.

so serena and her fans have no proof what so ever that it wasn't a footfault, everyone else has a professional lines person to provide evidence it was.

it is ridiculous that some people still think it wasn't a footfault, the best person in the house to call it who also is trained to spot footfaults saw it, what more proof does one need?

The Dawntreader
Jul 2nd, 2010, 06:10 PM
Serena was foot-faulted earlier in the tournament, on the same baseline.

Coincidence? It's not as though it would've been unprobable for her to have foot-falted, and like sammy says, the linesperson had the best position, has experience of calling foot-faults and ultimately we have to trust her judgement.

There's no injustice, it's the rules. The only reason this is an issue, is because how Serena reacted to it.

Beat
Jul 2nd, 2010, 06:10 PM
Foot fault is just foot fault and It doesnīt matter if there is a match point in Grandslam tournament or 1st point of 1st Q round in 10k challenger.

this.

BuTtErFrEnA
Jul 2nd, 2010, 06:17 PM
http://www.onthebaseline.com/images/albums/userpics/10001/CarlosRodriguez.jpg <------Exhibit A

close the thread :spit:

LUVMIRZA
Jul 2nd, 2010, 06:18 PM
Serena was foot-faulted earlier in the tournament, on the same baseline.

Coincidence? It's not as though it would've been unprobable for her to have foot-falted, and like sammy says, the linesperson had the best position, has experience of calling foot-faults and ultimately we have to trust her judgement.

There's no injustice, it's the rules. The only reason this is an issue, is because how Serena reacted to it.

Right. Footfaults are called in so many matches and it was never an issue until Serena over reacted unnecessarily. She was agitated coz Kim was playing too good..

LoveFifteen
Jul 2nd, 2010, 06:22 PM
Are people still going on about this damn foot fault? Serena was lucky not to be expelled from the US Open after that disgraceful outburst.

Instead, in the match itself, she was just given a one point penalty. A one point penalty! Deal with it. :shrug:

miffedmax
Jul 2nd, 2010, 06:54 PM
I recognize this was a reply, but that's ridiculous. Line judges do get calls wrong. The presence or absence or clear video footage is no proof either way. The linesperson should make calls as they see them, and it's no great technical challenge to allow video review of footfault calls. Fousr cameras, two on each line, about eight feet up, focused on the lines. If a player's foot touches the line, one camera or the other will pick it up. It's actually a lot simpler than shotspot.

No. Like Lena's bangs, we tennis officials are perfect.:angel:

HippityHop
Jul 2nd, 2010, 07:31 PM
My point is, a foot fault is clear cut. If you step on the line or over it, the linesman puts up his/her hand, and it's called a fault. The time rule, however, is discretionary. The rule doesn't mean players have exactly 30 seconds to serve. The rule was actually always "play at the servers pace, as long as it's reasonable." So some points they might take 32 seconds, others they might take 28 :shrug: That's how it works. So to enforce it would not only be controversial but it would be a huge pain in the ass.

Something like a lines call or foot fault is simple to enforce and it should be enforced, it's a rule that has always been in play and directly affects the game. The time rule, or even coaching, are like "secondary" rules (for lack of a better word).

The question then becomes why have the rule at all if it's not going to be enforced?

Just for the heck of it I put my stop watch on the players today and Novak nearly always was within the 20 second rule. Rafa nearly always was around 30 seconds or more. The argument that a rule would be controversial doesn't fly as far as I'm concerned.

If 30 seconds is about the average, and I don't know that it is, it's just an example, then change the rule to 30 seconds and enforce it. Otherwise we have what is clearly going on in this thread. That is that some people think that some rules are to be enforced and others are not. How is that fair?

And this thread is not about Serena. That's over and done with as far as I'm concerned. It's just that my discussion with my friend was based on that incident before it became a question about all of the rules.

My argument is that if a rule is not going to be enforced then it's a superfluous rule and should be either modified to reflect reality or done away with altogether.

makirilenko
Jul 2nd, 2010, 07:49 PM
In every sport there's a bizarre disconnect between what happens at the juniors and the pros. We call 20 sec. violations and footfaults in the juniors--as excessive grunting, and unsportsmanlike "C'mons" and fistpumping. But they never call those rules in pro tournaments, just like in the NBA guys palm the ball and start running with it somewhere around the midcourt stripe, and EPL players throw elbows that would get a select soccer player a red card, etc.

My guess is that its the difference about trying teach character and respecting the rules, and providing entertainment. One of the worst things about MLS isn't the quality of play, it's that the refs call every minor infraction, constantly breaking up the flow of the game and ruining the game.

Most pro sports would be unwatchable. Like they say, they could throw a flag for holding on practically every play in the NFL. Most tennis fans don't want to see free points handed out unless a player's just done something inexcusable--going 3 or 4 seconds long between serves and losing a point is just too harsh.


This, rules are broken all the time in every sport, it is at the discretion of the officials to call it. Like in the NBA, the refs tend to relax on the calls towards the end of games to let the players play out a tight game. They don't want to influence the game, so unless it is a super blatant call, the officials will relax and let the players play. Letting the players play is usually best for any sport, outside interference causes all kinds of disruption and would make certain sports unwatchable. While I think rules should be applied at any given stage of a match, it is really up to the officials to decide that, if a player is gaining some sort of unfair advantage then the call should be made, but I'm a big advocate for letting the players just play it out unless something completely ridiculous happens.

VS Fan
Jul 2nd, 2010, 08:30 PM
I recognize this was a reply, but that's ridiculous. Line judges do get calls wrong. The presence or absence or clear video footage is no proof either way. The linesperson should make calls as they see them, and it's no great technical challenge to allow video review of footfault calls. Fousr cameras, two on each line, about eight feet up, focused on the lines. If a player's foot touches the line, one camera or the other will pick it up. It's actually a lot simpler than shotspot.
At one time they HAD cameras on the baselines. However when "shotspot" was incorperated they removed these cameras. The fear was that the baseline camera and "shotspot" just might show different results. We need the baseline cameras to prevent incidents like US Open 2009. No one in the crowd would be taking video of a player's feet. That is why there is NO footage to prove there was or was not a foot fault. The ONLY person watching was the line judge. Correct, mistake or blatant miscall? No way to prove one way or the other. The overhead camera on the replay seemed to exorerate Serena on the call if not her outburst. It was NOT a clear shot of her feet and the line from right angles so does not provide any proof.
Put the cameras back in. Use them just for call such as this.

twight6
Jul 2nd, 2010, 09:25 PM
I recognize this was a reply, but that's ridiculous. Line judges do get calls wrong. The presence or absence or clear video footage is no proof either way. The linesperson should make calls as they see them, and it's no great technical challenge to allow video review of footfault calls. Fousr cameras, two on each line, about eight feet up, focused on the lines. If a player's foot touches the line, one camera or the other will pick it up. It's actually a lot simpler than shotspot.

I'm not saying the judge didn't get it wrong.. I'm saying it was called a foot fault, so therefore, by the rules of tennis and in the circumstances of this match, it was a foot fault. Serena was penalized for it, and as far as I'm concerned, rightly so, because the only real proof is the line judge's call. For people to argue the call is just ridiculous because they have no proof whatsoever, so the call will always stand as a foot fault.

twight6
Jul 2nd, 2010, 09:27 PM
First of all, never ruin a good discussion point by tossing in 'everybody knows that'. To take your example, almost all the players observe the twenty second rule about serving. There are some habitual violators, and yes, they are allowed to get away with it, but most players follow that rule.

Agreed, players who break the rule are actually the big minority (at least on the grand slam/upper stages, not sure about smaller tournaments, obviously).

And I thought the rule was 30 seconds :spit: Shows how much I know :help:

miffedmax
Jul 2nd, 2010, 09:29 PM
It's 25 at a major, 20 at a regular tournament, IIRC.

One factor on time violations is if a player complains. An ump has a lot to do, (believe it or not) so if the match is going smoothly they may not always keep a stopwatch on the time between points. However, if a player complains, then you'll keep an eye on it and issue a code violation.

They have thrown a couple time violations this Wimby without anyone complaining. Again, it's partly about the entertainment value. In general, if the match is proceeding smoothly, an official is going to be reluctant to start handing out free points if it can be avoided.

twight6
Jul 2nd, 2010, 09:38 PM
This, rules are broken all the time in every sport, it is at the discretion of the officials to call it. Like in the NBA, the refs tend to relax on the calls towards the end of games to let the players play out a tight game. They don't want to influence the game, so unless it is a super blatant call, the officials will relax and let the players play. Letting the players play is usually best for any sport, outside interference causes all kinds of disruption and would make certain sports unwatchable. While I think rules should be applied at any given stage of a match, it is really up to the officials to decide that, if a player is gaining some sort of unfair advantage then the call should be made, but I'm a big advocate for letting the players just play it out unless something completely ridiculous happens.

Agreed, and this is kind of what I was trying to say.

In basketball, if a player misses a shot, they don't get the points. In tennis, if a player hits the ball in the net, they lose the point. In baseball, if a player catches a fly ball, the batter is out. These are all easy, clear cut rules that are enforced the same way.

But in basketball, it's up to the ref to decide what is or isn't a foul and make the call. It's up to the ump in baseball to decide what's a strike and what's a ball. With tennis, it used to be that the game relied a LOT on human discretion-- calling the ball in or out, whether the ball hit the net on the serve for a let. But with technology, it's becoming a lot more clear cut. With rules where there is some room for leniancy, like the clock or unsportsmanlike conduct, it's always going to vary from chair umpire to chair umpire, and from situation to situation. I agree with you, I think in basketball they should "let the players play" as they say, and leniancy should very depending on the situation.

twight6
Jul 2nd, 2010, 09:41 PM
It's 25 at a major, 20 at a regular tournament, IIRC.

One factor on time violations is if a player complains. An ump has a lot to do, (believe it or not) so if the match is going smoothly they may not always keep a stopwatch on the time between points. However, if a player complains, then you'll keep an eye on it and issue a code violation.

They have thrown a couple time violations this Wimby without anyone complaining. Again, it's partly about the entertainment value. In general, if the match is proceeding smoothly, an official is going to be reluctant to start handing out free points if it can be avoided.

Yes, and another factor would be how the penalised player reacts to the call. If I'm a chair umpire, and no one is complaining about the time one of the players is taking, I'm not about to just throw out a warning unless it's very obvious. That way, I avoid arguments and controversy, and as far as I know it's not even bothering the other player.

roelc
Jul 2nd, 2010, 09:42 PM
I don't see anybody being able to pinpoint their serve so that it just ticks the top of the net on purpose.


i m not so sure... maybe dementieva?

mykarma
Jul 2nd, 2010, 10:18 PM
http://www.onthebaseline.com/images/albums/userpics/10001/CarlosRodriguez.jpg <------Exhibit A
:lol: :lol: :lol:

miffedmax
Jul 3rd, 2010, 02:57 AM
i m not so sure... maybe dementieva?

Good Lord, no. The Czarina of Yips is lucky to get the ball in the right half of the universe when the match is tight.

KoOlMaNsEaN
Jul 3rd, 2010, 03:07 AM
The real problem is the lack of consistency in the calls by the Umpires and Linespeople.. Some go all out and call everything like they should while others who are afraid to be chastised for doing their job ,shut their mouths and just don't get involved.

Tripp
Jul 3rd, 2010, 03:17 AM
I get what you're saying, but what's the limit? If you don't call foot faults, then players would just toss the ball forward and end up serving in the middle of the court.

Volcana
Jul 3rd, 2010, 04:57 AM
so serena and her fans have no proof what so ever that it wasn't a footfault, everyone else has a professional lines person to provide evidence it was.First of all, the lines people are NOT 'professionals'.
it is ridiculous that some people still think it wasn't a footfault, the best person in the house to call it who also is trained to spot footfaults saw it, what more proof does one need?Quite a lot. Those are the same linesperson who get challenged by the players, and shotspot backs up the players, and the same linesperson who the chair umpire over-rules.

The fact that linespeople make mistakes, and sometimes obvious ones, and why we HAVE shotspot. It's why the chair umpire is allowed to over-rule.

"what more proof does anyone need"!?!?

The sport has whole mechanisms built aroudn the fact that linespeople get it wrong. The better question is, why do YOU think the linespeople never make mistakes, when the tour itself concedes that they do, and has mechanisms in place to correct linespoerson error?

You're arguing that the 'trained' humans never make mistakes. The USTA, for one, does NOT agee with you. Famously (http://nbcsports.msnbc.com/id/5933547/).

DefyingGravity
Jul 3rd, 2010, 05:36 AM
Well...enforcing the rules of tennis is subject to human error, because for the most part it is humans watching and seeing the match and playing it. It doesn't matter if it's a foot fault, a hand up before a serve, beads falling out of your hair...the rules have to be enforced as often as humanly possible to be fair and to give the sport credibility. If we start bending the rules to the situation, then we might as well throw them all out and let Carlos hold up placards from the stands. Rules are in place to ensure fair competition takes place. Do we really want to have steroids in tennis too? No, because it's in the rules and it would make competition unfair.

HippityHop
Jul 3rd, 2010, 08:55 AM
I get what you're saying, but what's the limit? If you don't call foot faults, then players would just toss the ball forward and end up serving in the middle of the court.

It's unfortunate that this discussion has been centered by some on foot faults when I've tried to make it clear that I'm talking about the rules in their totality not just foot faults.

sammy01
Jul 3rd, 2010, 11:25 AM
First of all, the lines people are NOT 'professionals'.
Quite a lot. Those are the same linesperson who get challenged by the players, and shotspot backs up the players, and the same linesperson who the chair umpire over-rules.

The fact that linespeople make mistakes, and sometimes obvious ones, and why we HAVE shotspot. It's why the chair umpire is allowed to over-rule.

"what more proof does anyone need"!?!?

The sport has whole mechanisms built aroudn the fact that linespeople get it wrong. The better question is, why do YOU think the linespeople never make mistakes, when the tour itself concedes that they do, and has mechanisms in place to correct linespoerson error?

You're arguing that the 'trained' humans never make mistakes. The USTA, for one, does NOT agee with you. Famously (http://nbcsports.msnbc.com/id/5933547/).

shot spot or hawkeye is just a main court gimmick, if it was so vital it would be on every court. and you can argue cost but wimbledon can sure afford to have it on every court, but it isn't that tells you the need for it.

and shino is a professional, thats why shes here at wimbledon calling lines and was at the oz open, it is her job and shes one of the best hence why shes called to each major tournament and does show court matches.

if serena hadn't of reacted like a bully there wouldn't have been a problem, venus got foot faulted several times at the YEC last year, and guess what it was no problem she got on with it as she knows she isn't above the laws of tennis.

miffedmax
Jul 3rd, 2010, 12:26 PM
If they make it to the WTA or ATP, they are professionals. According to the BBC, http://news.bbc.co.uk/sport2/hi/tennis/get_involved/4541821.stm, pro level umpires earn 60,000 pounds a years--that's pushing 90k in US money. Linespeople are making around $30k. I have friends who, between working USTA, high school and college events, make about half their income from officiating--even at my lowly level we're at least "semi-pro."

Some linespeople at events do get pulled in to work really big events from the semipro ranks, but at least according to the ones I've talked to in my circle of friends, if you are a semipro linesperson and you're working the US Open, you're going to be doing the juniors, the qualifying rounds and, if you have just crazy credentials, a early round, way on the outer court match.

A semifinal at the US Open? Those are going to be the same officials who work WTA and ATP events every week, not guys like me who were working a 14-and-Under Girls ZAT in a public park two weeks before.