CHRISTI HAYS IS RIGHT ON REGARDING FOOTFAULTS

By Charles E. Vasoll

In the November issue of Platform Tennis Magazine, Christi Hays issued two challenges. The first was to the governing body of the sport, the American Platform Tennis Association (APTA) and the second was to "all my fellow players". I commend her for her courageous stand and endorse her call for action.

Christi asks the APTA to revise Rule 11 that relates to footfaults. She states it is "very ambiguous" and asks it be "made more specific and appropriate for the modern game of paddle". I agree and I wish I had said it as well as she did in her next two sentences. "We are playing paddle, not mini-tennis!" she emphasizes. "Walking or running is changing position, but jumping is not?"

To me that is precisely the point. When the Official Rules of Platform Tennis were first written, they relied strongly on the rules for tennis. In fact, it was stated that if some facet of the game were not covered by the Official Rules of Platform Tennis, lawn tennis rules would apply. That’s how we got into this predicament.

When the governing body of tennis permitted the server to leap into the air while delivering the serve, platform tennis authorities did nothing to its rules to prevent it. Thus we have the sight of Jeff Hodges (AKA Dr. Detroit) making a simply majestic move over the end line, striking the ball while levitating and alighting on the deck well inside the court. It’s beautiful, but it should not be permitted.

As a member of the Rules & Equipment Committee, I asked that the rule be changed to require that one foot be in contact with the deck until the ball was struck. Even Bob Hope never got a bigger laugh from his audience. I was told it would "ruin" the game and penalize those who had perfected this art of jumping with the serve. I ask, when did the track and field event called "broad jumping" become part of a racquet sport competition?

I also agree with Christi Hays about the "grace" fault. "What’s up with that?" she asks. This was put in the Official Rules with the hope that it would help overcome the reluctance to call that first violation. Phooey! If a ball is "out" it is "out" and the point is lost. There is no good reason to appease the one who does not comply with the rules even once.

I do question Christi Hays’ conclusion that the receiver’s partner is in the best position to call the violation. I’ve watched matches with umpires present and no foot faults were called because the contact of the paddle with the ball and the landing of a foot inside the base line are so close that even a high speed camera might not be able to determine whether a violation occurred. I think that’s the principal point that makes a case for a better rule. We cannot go to a replay camera, as they do in some professional sports, to make the right call. We have to have a rule that makes the violation clear cut and obvious such as having a foot in contact with the deck.

Over the years, the APTA Directors have talked and talked and talked about this problem which gives a tremendous advantage to the server, particularly in average, every day competition. As Christi concludes, "Let’s deal with it once and for all. It won’t go away just by ignoring it".

NOTE: The article by Christi Hays regarding footfaults originally appeared in the Summer 1998 issue of the APTA newsletter and was titled "New View on Footfaults Via Pittsburgh" It was republished, with her permission, in Platform Tennis Magazine, Volume 5, Issue 2, November 2003.

Click HERE to Return to Archives