Print

Please post once and this message will disappear! Introduce yourself, say hello, jump into a discussion...

[vincent]

I did see many replays by various TV chains. It indeed was a footfault. Only question remains is should the lines woman have called it at this point of the match or should she have given the benefit of the doubt to the server. It does not really matter. Clijsters would have won that game and match anyway.

OK ... I was not sure it was a footfault. Is there a rule in tennis about how to handle doubt, like in cricket?

But for a definition of that kind, and if the lineswoman had doubt, I don't see why the situation of the match, cruel as it was, should sway the decision.

There is clearly the foot-fault rule (see my post below) but no rule about handling doubt or no challenges and replays possible. This is the reason why many times the players - even the frequent offenders - get away with it beacuse the line referees are usually lenient with the offence.

Serena on the other hand could have taken it light heartedly like her sister Venus did in the first round asking the referee "which foot?". The situation was not hopeless. Many great champions have come back to win after trailing by two or more match points.

[vincent]

I did see many replays by various TV chains. It indeed was a footfault. Only question remains is should the lines woman have called it at this point of the match or should she have given the benefit of the doubt to the server. It does not really matter. Clijsters would have won that game and match anyway.

I saw the replays, and I didnt see the foot fault.

Was reading some reports as well and all of them seemed to be clear that there was no foot fault.

Tennis rule 8b says:

 8. Foot Fault
b. Not touch, with either foot, any area other than that behind the base-line within the imaginary extensions of the centre-mark and side-lines.

By that rule there was clearly a footfault. See the video again:

  <a href="http://www.youtube.com/v/XlWoVY0-WHc&rel=0" target="_blank">http://www.youtube.com/v/XlWoVY0-WHc&rel=0</a>

On the other hand, there could have been some leniency shown as Marat Safin said:

"It's difficult and it's almost impossible to make a foot fault on a second serve, and especially in the important moments you shouldn't call it."


             
       

[CLR James]

The serve was well dispatched before her foot hit the ground. Like most tennis players, she was air-borne during the final contact with the ball. This was no foot fault.

[kban1]

Tennis rule 8b says:

 8. Foot Fault
b. Not touch, with either foot, any area other than that behind the base-line within the imaginary extensions of the centre-mark and side-lines.

By that rule there was clearly a footfault. See the video again:

 

On the other hand, there could have been some leniency shown as Marat Safin said:

"It's difficult and it's almost impossible to make a foot fault on a second serve, and especially in the important moments you shouldn't call it."

I know what a foot fault is --it specifies that a foot fault happens when the foot touches the line during the service motion, not after.

In my eyes, she had completed the service. Was airborne and landed inside the court --so no foot fault there.

During the course of the service, I tried to pay very careful attention to where her foot was and it is absolutely impossible to say whether her feet touched the line, given the footage.

I am not even going into the time of calling the footfault.

To me it seems quite clear that is a call that even from 20 feet away (as the line judge was) is almost impossible to accurately make.

In any case, if one has officiated even informally in  a club tennis match, it is not difficult to see why its so difficult to call a foot fault except for the most blatant ones. Which makes it even more difficult to understand that the call was made --not only is the evidence almost non existent from these angles (yes I saw the You tube video as well), it is such a marginal call to begin with --both in nature of the rule, and definitely in this instance, that it beggars belief it was called.

I have to disagree that this was a clear footfault -- I didnt see it.

[WicketView]

The serve was well dispatched before her foot hit the ground. Like most tennis players, she was air-borne during the final contact with the ball. This was no foot fault.

I think the point is about her foot touching the line before she jumped. Her foot is fairly close to the line, and then she rotates the foot to bring most of the foot closer to the line/ touch the line. It seems unlikely that this rotation would make it touch the line, if her original position did not, unless originally her toe was touching, but slightly in the air.

Vincent,
I have seen this replay ... and from this I definitely cannot tell that there was a foot fault ... to me there is no conclusive evidence either way. A different angle may have settled that issue.

[vincent]

OK. Let us agree that it was not a clear decision. But there is one more important point in this whole saga:

Serena today for women's Tennis is what Federer is for men's Tennis : an idol because of her achievements. Not only she has the highest number of Grand Slam Titles among the women who are currently playing (11 as opposed to Federer's 15, but also like Federer she has also won all the 4 Grand Slams is the only currently active female player to do so. Therefore, she should have shown maturity and dignity like Fed always does in keeping her image in line with her achievements. She failed miserably to do so.

At the press conference she said that McEnroe was her idol. The Big Mac was probably a nuissance to the referees, he might have even used the expletives but he never crossed the border line. Nobody can copy him since in his case the outbursts were kind of a drug that provided him with some adrenaline and after a given outnurst he would go on to make many unbelievable points. That does not happen to anyone else.

[WicketView]

OK. Let us agree that it was not a clear decision.

Yes ... I certainly don't want to say that the behaviour that followed was acceptable, and so losing the point and the match seems fair, in fact inescapable.

But there is one more important point in this whole saga:

Serena today for women's Tennis is what Federer is for men's Tennis : an idol because of her achievements. Not only she has the highest number of Grand Slam Titles among the women who are currently playing (11 as opposed to Federer's 15, but also like Federer she has also won all the 4 Grand Slams is the only currently active female player to do so. Therefore, she should have shown maturity and dignity like Fed always does in keeping her image in line with her achievements. She failed miserably to do so.

At the press conference she said that McEnroe was her idol. The Big Mac was probably a nuissance to the referees, he might have even used the expletives but he never crossed the border line. Nobody can copy him since in his case the outbursts were kind of a drug that provided him with some adrenaline and after a given outnurst he would go on to make many unbelievable points. That does not happen to anyone else.

[pieterSAN]

Tennis rule 8b says:

 8. Foot Fault
b. Not touch, with either foot, any area other than that behind the base-line within the imaginary extensions of the centre-mark and side-lines.

By that rule there was clearly a footfault. See the video again:

 

On the other hand, there could have been some leniency shown as Marat Safin said:

"It's difficult and it's almost impossible to make a foot fault on a second serve, and especially in the important moments you shouldn't call it."

I know what a foot fault is --it specifies that a foot fault happens when the foot touches the line during the service motion, not after.

In my eyes, she had completed the service. Was airborne and landed inside the court --so no foot fault there.

During the course of the service, I tried to pay very careful attention to where her foot was and it is absolutely impossible to say whether her feet touched the line, given the footage.

I am not even going into the time of calling the footfault.

To me it seems quite clear that is a call that even from 20 feet away (as the line judge was) is almost impossible to accurately make.

In any case, if one has officiated even informally in  a club tennis match, it is not difficult to see why its so difficult to call a foot fault except for the most blatant ones. Which makes it even more difficult to understand that the call was made --not only is the evidence almost non existent from these angles (yes I saw the You tube video as well), it is such a marginal call to begin with --both in nature of the rule, and definitely in this instance, that it beggars belief it was called.

I have to disagree that this was a clear footfault -- I didnt see it.

I have always felt that instead of calling a foot fault (because it is so rare and marginal), it makes much more sense to play a let. Or issue a separate count for foot faults. Getting called for a foot fault can be frustrating at the best of times - I can only imagine how annoying it was for Serena under the circumstances.

OK. Let us agree that it was not a clear decision. But there is one more important point in this whole saga:

Serena today for women's Tennis is what Federer is for men's Tennis : an idol because of her achievements. Not only she has the highest number of Grand Slam Titles among the women who are currently playing (11 as opposed to Federer's 15, but also like Federer she has also won all the 4 Grand Slams is the only currently active female player to do so. Therefore, she should have shown maturity and dignity like Fed always does in keeping her image in line with her achievements. She failed miserably to do so.

At the press conference she said that McEnroe was her idol. The Big Mac was probably a nuissance to the referees, he might have even used the expletives but he never crossed the border line. Nobody can copy him since in his case the outbursts were kind of a drug that provided him with some adrenaline and after a given outnurst he would go on to make many unbelievable points. That does not happen to anyone else.

Serena's reaction was terrible and uncalled for but clearly she need to release some frustration there. I mean this break-your-racquet frustrating, foot-faulting to give your opponent double match-point. I think she just meant to vent some frustration and what came out of her mouth was, unfortunately, vile and very inappropriate.

[dextrous]

very good US open...good to see some new champions!

[WicketView]

very good US open...good to see some new champions!

Yes !

[ramshorns]

I posted in the wrong thread earlier.

Federer loses the final.

What a match by Potro.

  ::cheers

[dextrous]

yes...beating nadal and federer is only next to beating both the williams sisters!!

[WicketView]

Some of the shots Juan Martin played were awesome. I hope to see more of this in the next tournament.

[ganavk]

big loss for the GOAT after just 2 points away from the match and another grand slam. Very uncharacteristic outburst at umpire.

[RicePlateReddy]

Federer just blew it mentally in the final set. As usual, there were some plays that were simply phenomenal from him. What I was particularly impressed by (okay, TL reaction) was his efficiency in effort. His endorsing Rolex is the perfect metaphor. Doesn't seem to expend any more than what is precisely needed, although the unusually poor service game today was in stark contrast.

I think he is the GOAT or very close to it, yet I can't but remark on what I sometime feel is a teeny mental weakness. I felt he showed similar vulnerability against Nadal too. For the GOAT I expect him to be mentally close to perfect. But after 15 GSs my criticism could well be baseless.

[broadbat]

Honestly I never saw this coming. I thought it would be a cakewalk for Federer. Still Del Porto did give signs of what he can do against Nadal.

[dextrous]

Honestly I never saw this coming. I thought it would be a cakewalk for Federer.

yup

[pieterSAN]

Honestly I never saw this coming. I thought it would be a cakewalk for Federer.

yup

Not surprised - Del Potro has a heavy game and moves very well for someone his size. He reminds me of Safin quite a bit.

That said, I think if Fed had served a little better the match may have ended in 3 sets. He only had 50% first serves for the match.

[kban1]

Wrong tactics too by federer -- he was trying to slug with DelPotro instead of using his variety of shots.

he stopped relying on the slice to move Del Potro around and blunt the latter's flat shots around the middle of the 2nd set. When he went back to the slice, it was periodic and all too brief.

For a 6 ft 6 guy, anything around his waist or so (which is where the average shot with top spin ends up at --as Nadal found out) is a lollipop waiting to be smacked. federer either didnt study the Nadal match or for some inexplicable reason, abandoned his game plan.

[keep-it-cool]

or he thought what's worked six times in the past would work here as well ...anyway, deserved Slam for Potro - you cant do much more than beat the two best players of your generation back to back.

[vincent]

I agree with PieterSan and Kban. Federer was not serving as per his usual standards : 70% first serve in (as opposed to 50), 20+ Aces (as opposed to 13 and 4 or 5 double faults as (opposed to 13). Otherwise it would have easily been a 3 set match.

As for back hand slice (which is his speciality) he did not use it much though it could have been very effective against a tall guy like Potro who would have had to bend deep (like Soderling) only to send the ball to the net.

[gouravk]

http://www.facebook.com/video/video.php?v=1213664814123&ref=nf

[ramshorns]

Wrong tactics too by federer -- he was trying to slug with DelPotro instead of using his variety of shots.

he stopped relying on the slice to move Del Potro around and blunt the latter's flat shots around the middle of the 2nd set. When he went back to the slice, it was periodic and all too brief.

For a 6 ft 6 guy, anything around his waist or so (which is where the average shot with top spin ends up at --as Nadal found out) is a lollipop waiting to be smacked. federer either didnt study the Nadal match or for some inexplicable reason, abandoned his game plan.

to me all that happened due to the fact he was caught off gaurd by Potro and he looked very confused and tensed out there for someone who is so good.  May be it is the type of players sometimes make Federer look very ordinary.  Remember Nadal and the 5 finals he lost to him and now this kid Potro completely throwing him off his game and made him commit 60 unforced errors or so.   Looked very ordinary.

[Flamingo]

Honestly I never saw this coming. I thought it would be a cakewalk for Federer.

yup

The way he played I think Federer also assumed it would be a cakewalk.

[CLR James]

Wrong tactics too by federer -- he was trying to slug with DelPotro instead of using his variety of shots.

he stopped relying on the slice to move Del Potro around and blunt the latter's flat shots around the middle of the 2nd set. When he went back to the slice, it was periodic and all too brief.

For a 6 ft 6 guy, anything around his waist or so (which is where the average shot with top spin ends up at --as Nadal found out) is a lollipop waiting to be smacked. federer either didnt study the Nadal match or for some inexplicable reason, abandoned his game plan.

to me all that happened due to the fact he was caught off gaurd by Potro and he looked very confused and tensed out there for someone who is so good.  May be it is the type of players sometimes make Federer look very ordinary.  Remember Nadal and the 5 finals he lost to him and now this kid Potro completely throwing him off his game and made him commit 60 unforced errors or so.   Looked very ordinary.

Yes, but you are talking about the overall dynamics of the game. It would be a straight set cakewalk had Federer served close to his usual first serve percentage in the second set. It was just one of those days. We are surprised because Fed has so few bad days in office. I think the key to his greatness lies not in the formidable number of grand slams he has won, but in the fact that the man has made 22 grand slam semis in a row.

[ramshorns]

Wrong tactics too by federer -- he was trying to slug with DelPotro instead of using his variety of shots.

he stopped relying on the slice to move Del Potro around and blunt the latter's flat shots around the middle of the 2nd set. When he went back to the slice, it was periodic and all too brief.

For a 6 ft 6 guy, anything around his waist or so (which is where the average shot with top spin ends up at --as Nadal found out) is a lollipop waiting to be smacked. federer either didnt study the Nadal match or for some inexplicable reason, abandoned his game plan.

to me all that happened due to the fact he was caught off gaurd by Potro and he looked very confused and tensed out there for someone who is so good.  May be it is the type of players sometimes make Federer look very ordinary.  Remember Nadal and the 5 finals he lost to him and now this kid Potro completely throwing him off his game and made him commit 60 unforced errors or so.   Looked very ordinary.

Yes, but you are talking about the overall dynamics of the game. It would be a straight set cakewalk had Federer served close to his usual first serve percentage in the second set. It was just one of those days. We are surprised because Fed has so few bad days in office. I think the key to his greatness lies not in the formidable number of grand slams he has won, but in the fact that the man has made 22 grand slam semis in a row.

That is a big "If"  regarding Federer's first serve.  If we keep using these "if's" I can say "if only Nadal was as fit as he was in 2008 had Federer not won this year's French open"   The way I look at it is Federer was well and truly beaten by an opponent who himself commited close to 60 unforced errors but kept on outgunning Federer with forehand winners which he rarely has seen over the last few years.  In that 5th set he was just feeble and Potro looked to be the one in control and the big game player.  I would give credit here to Potro than say that somehow Federer was not at his best.  Not true at all.  He was well and truly beaten by the better player on that day who made Federer pretty much dance to his tunes.

[gouravk]

what a moot discussion.

it all boils down to desire.

on that day the 20 year old going for his first grand slam title had more desire and fight - than the 28 year old champion who has won everything there is to win under the sun. how can you expect the motivation levels to be the same ?

unless the games are drastically mismatched or nerves play a role it all boils down to desire and motivation.
 

[CLR James]

Wrong tactics too by federer -- he was trying to slug with DelPotro instead of using his variety of shots.

he stopped relying on the slice to move Del Potro around and blunt the latter's flat shots around the middle of the 2nd set. When he went back to the slice, it was periodic and all too brief.

For a 6 ft 6 guy, anything around his waist or so (which is where the average shot with top spin ends up at --as Nadal found out) is a lollipop waiting to be smacked. federer either didnt study the Nadal match or for some inexplicable reason, abandoned his game plan.

to me all that happened due to the fact he was caught off gaurd by Potro and he looked very confused and tensed out there for someone who is so good.  May be it is the type of players sometimes make Federer look very ordinary.  Remember Nadal and the 5 finals he lost to him and now this kid Potro completely throwing him off his game and made him commit 60 unforced errors or so.   Looked very ordinary.

Yes, but you are talking about the overall dynamics of the game. It would be a straight set cakewalk had Federer served close to his usual first serve percentage in the second set. It was just one of those days. We are surprised because Fed has so few bad days in office. I think the key to his greatness lies not in the formidable number of grand slams he has won, but in the fact that the man has made 22 grand slam semis in a row.

That is a big "If"  regarding Federer's first serve.  If we keep using these "if's" I can say "if only Nadal was as fit as he was in 2008 had Federer not won this year's French open"   The way I look at it is Federer was well and truly beaten by an opponent who himself commited close to 60 unforced errors but kept on outgunning Federer with forehand winners which he rarely has seen over the last few years.  In that 5th set he was just feeble and Potro looked to be the one in control and the big game player.  I would give credit here to Potro than say that somehow Federer was not at his best.  Not true at all.  He was well and truly beaten by the better player on that day who made Federer pretty much dance to his tunes.

I completely disagree. Fed was not just below par that day, but he was way below his usual self. As you pointed out in your earlier post, perhaps it had to do with the state of mind that day. He got unusually upset with umpiring decisions and clearly lost focus for a few games after that. Federer never outguns people. He is not so much about power as he is about precision. It was the precision that was missing that day by a wide mile. He does not have the heaviest serve in the business, nor the most power packed forehand. Just the most effective overall game in the history of the sport.