LAWN TENNIS

Dominion, Volume 31, Issue 74, 21 December 1937, Page 15

LAWN TENNIS

Solving The Foot-fault

Problem

FURTHER VIEWS

(BY

Forehand. )

Considerable interest has been shown in the discussion to which this column has been given up in previous week?. The various views therein set forth cannot but be of benefit to the game. They have turned players’ thoughts toward a consideration of the rules of lawn tennis as perhaps never before. I have received a letter from a great friend, who shall be nameless, and he, in my opinion, has given the real solution of the footfault problem.

“I fully agree,” he says, “with Mr. Clive Johns, that all rules should be strictly adhered to. It is not fair to those who observe them that others should be allowed to break them in any way.

“I notice that a very large percentage of players, even among good ones, jump off the left f° ot: when serving, perhaps only half an inch, but sufficiently to show daylight under the toe of the left foot. This cannot be seen from the umpire’s seat but it is very evident to anyone sitting behind the server and on the same level.

“It is done in order to hit the ball a trifle higher, and though no substantial advantage is gained by it, and the server himself is often quite unconscious of it, yet it is not fair to the player who obeys the rule against jumping. If it is allowed at all, where is the limit to be drawn? If. half an inch, why not’ three-quarters of an inch,.and if three-quarters of an inch, why not an inch? And so on, ad infinitum.

“It has always struck me that there are some awful asses among the body that makes the rules for lawn tennis, and in nothing have they shown their incompetence so much as in the various rules that have obtained re footfaults.

"What is wrong with the following? The server must stand with both feet on the ground before commencing to serve. He may lift one foot and one foot only, provided that he grounds it again behind the baseline.

“With such a rule the umpire could easily see all footfaults. The present rule seems to have been made in the interests of the net-rushers who swing a foot over the line. But if they ground that foot, as they do at present, say, 18 inches over the line, they would merely have to stand 20 inches further back in serving, and would be 20 inches later in getting to the net. This would not really influence the game, and it would be the same for all,

instead of merely for a section of players.”

Player-Umpires. One player of the rank and file tooK me to task the other day for not issuing a blast against all those front-rank players who, critical of umpires, will not themselves take a hand in umpiring at tournaments. When asked to umpire a match they are always full of excuses. The objector has much reason on his side. It is the exception and not the rule for leading players to umpire at tourtiamyifa. To this extent the leading players are extremely selfish. They _ should consider it as a duty to do their fair share of umpiring. . , The following letter has been received from ‘"E.BAL,” putting Mr. Clive Johns correct on one or two points, and making some comments on umpiring in New Zealand :—

“Re your article on lawn tennis m this morning’s issue, Mr. Clive Johns has got his facts slightly mixed. ... “The incident he referred to where George McElhone gave a point, against a player for putting his foot under the net, happened in a colts' match, between Harry Hopman and Noel Wilson. . . . Noel was well ahead and had . Harry sadly in trouble when this decision was given, and it so upset Noel that he dropped that game and the match. “I was tournament secretary at that time and had just gone over to see bow long the court would be in use, and arrived just in time to see the incident. . . . Noel, of course, took the decision with his usual smile; the behaviour on the courts of all the New Zealand colts was an outstanding feature of the visit and caused very favourable comment. “E. D. Andrews and Fred Kalms had Mr. Ivo Kerr as an umpire; this was a highlight in the match New Zealand v. New South Wales.

"Re umpiring, you are certainly much better supplied with umpires in New Zealand than we were in Sydney during my term as secretary of the New South Wales association. Onlv the two or three most important matches played on the centre courts sported umpires, the other 20 or 30 courts had no umpires, and the pjayers had to do the best they could,. Even in the big matches during ‘country week,’ with over 500 players taking nart, during the off days no umpires were provided, consequently on the final days, when the umpires’ association took charge, sometimes there was a bit of a barney over footfaulting.”

Warning to Players. The Wellington Lawn Tennis Umpires’ Association has issued the following warning to players which will be enforced in matches which its members will control :—

"Members are instructed tho. in the case of misbehaviour by a player, such as obscene language, throwing of racket, etc., the following procedure must be carried out: The offender must, immediately be warned by the umpire that any repetition of misbehaviour will be reported to the official controlling the match. Should there be a repetition of misbehaviour the umpire must, on the completion of the match, report the offender to the official in charge of umpires, who will immediately forward the report to the official controlling the match.”