FOOTFAULT RULE

New Zealand Herald, Volume LXXI, Issue 21879, 15 August 1934, Page 11

FOOTFAULT RULE

PROPOSED MODIFICATION TENNIS PLAYERS' VIEWS LONDON, August C There is much discussion on the proposed footfault rule in tennis. The newspapers point out that although it would stop players like Borotra, Wood and Shields, who swing over a leg, ife would not eliminate a jumper. Perry says it would be best to leave the law alone. An auxiliary line would only cause confusion, sometimes making it difficult for an umpire to tell which, line the ball hit, especially when guided by a chalk puff. Austin says the rule would penalise the small man who serves legitimately* as two feet further from the net would be a handicap. An auxiliary line would be better one foot from the base-line. Hughes considers that the rule would penalise a correct server, who would have to develop a foot-swing in order, to get level with the swinger. Harry Hopman writes: —-The pro* jected rule deserves a trial, for i$ should eliminate most footfaults* especially swinging-over. This specially, affected the Americans in Davis Cup games, and resulted in players being put off their form. Nevertheless, the rule would havej disadvantages. It would penalise those who are serving fairly now. Two fee# further from the net would be a bandit cap when coming in to volley, and alsd would confuse a man trying to get ai length, as two lines appear almost one from the opposite court, and might, puzzle even the umpire. After considering the South African proposal to modify the footfault rule,the International Lawn Tennis Federation's committee recommended that an auxiliary line should be drawn two feet behind the base-line. The server should stand behind the auxiliary line and keep one foot behind it during delivery.