US Open Tennis 2009

[hughgs]

Thanks for answering my questions and missing my point. I care what actually happened, because I'm curious about the truth. You seem to be more worried about the process of judging and defending the line judge. Defend away. I just wish that there was a camera angle to let me know whether the call was right, or whether the line judge blew it.

I don't think I missed your point because your point is immaterial. Here's what you said

"I'm not disagreeing that a violation should be called if it happened"

The point is that is doesn't matter if it "happened". Calls are not made based on whether things "happen" or not. Calls are made based on the perception of whether they happened. There's a process for making calls and no where in the process does that fact that a foot fault, in this case, happens make any difference.

[Duke4Ever32]

I don't think I missed your point because your point is immaterial. Here's what you said

"I'm not disagreeing that a violation should be called if it happened"

The point is that is doesn't matter if it "happened". Calls are not made based on whether things "happen" or not. Calls are made based on the perception of whether they happened. There's a process for making calls and no where in the process does that fact that a foot fault, in this case, happens make any difference.

I don't think you're getting the point here. Even if you don't feel it matters whether or not it happened, cato would like to know if it actually did. So, for that matter, would I. How you feel about our interest in that is irrelevant.

[aimo]

I believe that other replays have shown that her toe did ever-so slightly touch the line. Therefore, it was a "good" call. Yes, even if it was shown to be a "bad" call, it would still stand as long as it was not overruled.

During a serve, it is the linesman's job to sit and stare at toe and service line. If they touch, they yell "FOOT FAULT!". Regardless if it's the first or potentially last point of the match and regardless if it's the first or last match of the Open. As I stated before, I disagree with McEnroe's statement that "such a minor foot fault" shouldn't be called at that stage of the match. If it happens, it happens, and it should be called. If I were playing in the championship of the US Open, I would make damn sure my toes stayed behind the line. I play USTA league, and I stink, and I make sure I don't foot fault.

As for frequency of the calls, Serena said herself that she had been called many times during the tournament for foot faults. Stefan Edberg used to ALWAYS get called b/c his serve-and-volley style made him move so quickly off the serve. I hope it gets called whenever it happens, b/c rules are rules and they exist for a reason. There should not be a grey area here.

[hughgs]

I don't think you're getting the point here. Even if you don't feel it matters whether or not it happened, cato would like to know if it actually did. So, for that matter, would I. How you feel about our interest in that is irrelevant.

I'm not commenting on whether people want to know if the foot fault actually happened. Your interest in that facet of the match is your own. But that isn't how cato couched his terms:

"I'm just saying that I wish I knew whether the call was correct."

By definition, the call is correct since it was made. Whether Serena stepped on the line is a completely different matter. And if that is what cato is trying to say then so be it, but his post doesn't distinguish between the differences and that's the important point I'm trying to make.

And I would appreciate it if you could keep the discussion on point. Your statement "How you feel about our interest in that is irrelevant." doesn't do much to further the discussion.

[hughgs]

I believe that other replays have shown that her toe did ever-so slightly touch the line. Therefore, it was a "good" call. Yes, even if it was shown to be a "bad" call, it would still stand as long as it was not overruled.

During a serve, it is the linesman's job to sit and stare at toe and service line. If they touch, they yell "FOOT FAULT!". Regardless if it's the first or potentially last point of the match and regardless if it's the first or last match of the Open. As I stated before, I disagree with McEnroe's statement that "such a minor foot fault" shouldn't be called at that stage of the match. If it happens, it happens, and it should be called. If I were playing in the championship of the US Open, I would make damn sure my toes stayed behind the line. I play USTA league, and I stink, and I make sure I don't foot fault.

As for frequency of the calls, Serena said herself that she had been called many times during the tournament for foot faults. Stefan Edberg used to ALWAYS get called b/c his serve-and-volley style made him move so quickly off the serve. I hope it gets called whenever it happens, b/c rules are rules and they exist for a reason. There should not be a grey area here.

It's the difference between people who ref and people who don't ref. When you don't ref, everything becomes a subjective call based on the current situation. I see it in volleyball all the time. It's actually interesting to watch people go from one side to the other.

[cato]

I'm not commenting on whether people want to know if the foot fault actually happened. Your interest in that facet of the match is your own. But that isn't how cato couched his terms:

"I'm just saying that I wish I knew whether the call was correct."

By definition, the call is correct since it was made. Whether Serena stepped on the line is a completely different matter. And if that is what cato is trying to say then so be it, but his post doesn't distinguish between the differences and that's the important point I'm trying to make.

And I would appreciate it if you could keep the discussion on point. Your statement "How you feel about our interest in that is irrelevant." doesn't do much to further the discussion.

You are now making a distinction between "whether a foot fault actually happened" and "whether the call was correct." That's just silly.

[Duke4Ever32]

I'm not commenting on whether people want to know if the foot fault actually happened. Your interest in that facet of the match is your own. But that isn't how cato couched his terms:

"I'm just saying that I wish I knew whether the call was correct."

By definition, the call is correct since it was made. Whether Serena stepped on the line is a completely different matter. And if that is what cato is trying to say then so be it, but his post doesn't distinguish between the differences and that's the important point I'm trying to make.

And I would appreciate it if you could keep the discussion on point. Your statement "How you feel about our interest in that is irrelevant." doesn't do much to further the discussion.

What?! The call is correct since it was made?? So, by that logic, there has never been an incorrect call in the history of sports?? You're not really making sense here. And, my last sentence was meant to emphasize that you were minimizing our interest in the correctness of the call, and saying that that isn't important, when to us it is.

I really don't see a distinction between "whether a foot fault actually happened" and "whether the call was correct". If there is one, it's a distinction without a difference.

[hughgs]

What?! The call is correct since it was made?? So, by that logic, there has never been an incorrect call in the history of sports?? You're not really making sense here.

Yes, the call is correct because it was made. I'll say it again. The line judge's job is not to make the perfect call but to follow the correct process. The fact that she saw a foot fault is completely different from whether a foot fault occurred. It doesn't make sense to you only if you don't believe that the referee's job is based on process. And until someone with similar credentials argues otherwise I'll believe the statements of an international referee who teaches referee clinics.

And, my last sentence was meant to emphasize that you were minimizing our interest in the correctness of the call, and saying that that isn't important, when to us it is.

I didn't minimize your interest in the correctness of the call. I minimized the idea that the correctness of the call was somehow related to whether the line judge made the correct call. It can't be said enough that the two are different things.

I really don't see a distinction between "whether a foot fault actually happened" and "whether the call was correct". If there is one, it's a distinction without a difference.

The distinction is what allows someone to judge a good referee. In every sport there are going to be subjective calls. How does one judge the performance of someone in those cases? Do you use instant replay for every call? If not, the just the close ones? Who decides which calls to review? How do you ensure the correct camera angle? It would be impossible to objectively evaluate referees under those circumstances. So what do you evaluate? You evaluate the process. Was the referee in the proper place to make the call? Should they have seen the call? Did they properly overrule part of the team? Process, process, process. It's what the DBR basketball referee tried to tell us during the season.

[hughgs]

You are now making a distinction between "whether a foot fault actually happened" and "whether the call was correct." That's just silly.

If you think that's silly then you haven't been listening to what I've been saying. I made that distinction during my first post in this thread. The correct call is based on the what the line judge thinks she saw. Once she thinks she saw a foot fault she was obligated to call it. That's the correct process. No where in the process is the requirement for an actual foot fault.

[tommy]

Guys, this is silly.

Utilizing the correct "process," as in the referee standing in the right location, utilizing the right angles, as you interpret the word "process," is of course preferable to not using the correct process. But utilizing the correct process does not ensure that the resulting call is correct. The referee can be standing in the right place, use the right angle, and still perceive a ball to be in when it is clearly shown by replays to be out. That, in any reasonable usage of the word, would be an "incorrect" call, regardless of the "correctness" of the referee's "process." Come on.