Volleying.
By David Kjeldsen

Hippy-Dippy Communications
“I think it is hard to argue that the new APTA site is anything but an unqualified success. The increase in the number of viewings is dramatic and is helping the APTA further its mission of growing the game. It is our belief that potential corporate sponsors will be interested in the level of excitement that the APTA and our website are generating and it will convince them that the money they spend will prove to be a worthwhile investment.” Scott Bondurant, APTA Vice President

“I agree with you, but your "Hippy Dippy Communications" article sounds a little hypocritical coming from a publisher who puts his picture on the cover of the PTN e-blast with a Viking hat smoking a cigar. How about a professional looking photo?” Rick Johnson

Share the Wealth
“I suggest that a very large percentage of LIPTA members would not subscribe to APTA if they had to: 1) pay the $50.00 and 2) had to send in the separate application. This has been a good recruiting method for the APTA for those who might sign up for APTA tourneys and it boosts circulation for the magazine. Further, when a league sends one check for the entire group along with updated contact information on the players, APTA saves processing expense.” Bill Jones

“I think you’re missing a point here. Very few league members would be APTA members if not a requirement of their league. It is reasonable for a league to require participants to support the APTA with $25 annually to receive the magazine. $50 would most likely result in fewer leagues requiring APTA membership. Fewer members and economies of scale for our magazine and less revenue for the APTA. I like the idea to require APTA tournament playing league members to upgrade to full APTA membership for an additional $25.”
Rich Green

“All members should pay the same price. Period. And I am a league member. To be honest, it comes in on my club bill and it's buried!! Up the league and reduce the individual to keep costs the same. Also, make an option for online only for publication to further reduce costs...My 2 cents” Tom (last name withheld by request)
“(C)ut all the dues in half and make it up on volume!” Dick Stone

“I agree that anyone joining the APTA (which dues are $50.00) should pay the current rate. Why is someone, paying a different rate? This, I say, IRK'S me.” Jim McGovern

“Leagues deliver number/members to the APTA who would otherwise never join, so I think the discount is sensible.” John Stoffel (regular member).

“........and then there is the issue of requiring league members to join ATPA.... and I have been a member for years. Actually now I am a member for less :-)” Charlie Cobb

Foot Faulting
“I enjoyed your article regarding foot faults, which happens to be a hot button for me for all the reasons you described. Foot faulting is a violation of the rules of platform tennis, period. The rule is in place for one very good reason – to prevent the unfair advantage that someone gets from foot faulting. People that foot fault are unfairly closer to their target, can serve a greater array of angles, and have more momentum towards the net than their counterparts that play by the rules. The prevalence of foot faulting is a result of the lack of enforcement of the rule and the soft stance the APTA has taken towards it by suggesting a “warning” on the first occurrence. To level the playing field and rid our magnificent sport of foot faulting, the APTA needs to strengthen its stance and clearly state that a foot fault is a loss of point, period. Tournament officials should emphasize that they will be enforcing the rule and line judges should be used to spot check matches and officiate consistent offenders. Local leagues should also emphasize the rule and encourage their members to openly police each other until foot faulting is gone from our game.“ Andrew Shepherd

“There are "Foot Faults" and then there are "Foot Faults". There should really be no argument that foot faults should be penalized according to the rules. However: In the first category of "Foot Faults" are the egregious ones which include the server consistently stepping inside the court before making contact with the ball. In the second, are the incidental ones such as occasionally stepping on the line with the front foot while setting up to serve.

“In my experience, if one allows one's opponent to call foot faults there are those who, from the other end of the court, insist that the server was standing on the line as he served or that when jumping up into the court from behind the base line, contact with the court is made before the paddle hits the ball. The former is probably as difficult as distinguishing a strike above the knees from a ball below the knees and the latter, although theoretically not as difficult is frequently miscalled. And as we were shown in the World Series, even the professional umpires can't always get those calls correct.

“Unfortunately, I don't have a really satisfactory solution to this problem but I do know there's nothing more annoying than having your opponent call a foot fault from the other end when you are sure that you didn't (and of course, you could be wrong but who is to say). One can't help but feel that there is some bias involved in such a call. If the opponent's foot faults are egregious, an umpire should be summoned. If there is none available then the match is probably not that important and foot faults should not be called at all. Often the umpire doesn't have to stay very long before determining whether the accused foot faulter is really foot faulting and after that the players must depend upon the inherent sportsmanship of the participants.” Hans Gruenberg

Serve & Return: Bounce Lob Rule
“Marjorie Hodson's argument that it takes skill to know when to let a lobbed ball bounce and let it go over the screen is ridiculous. What it actually is, is bad judgment in thinking that the lob is going out. Sounds like double jeopardy for the lobber to me.

“I believe that the team being lobbed had a fair chance to hit the ball in the air, as opposed to the hard overhead that bounces out, where they had no chance to play the ball.

“Even more ridiculous is the notion that there would be arguments about whether or not the ball was really lobbed. Come on now, who are we kidding?

“By the way I was a member of the APTA Board and Chair of the Rules Committee back in the early '80's. Along with complete support from the umpires council, we proposed the "no let" rule for serves and the changing of the wording for carries and double hits to read the same as tennis. Both were easily defeated. I held back on proposing the lob rule change after that. I'm glad that the future board members have proven to be more insightful. Hopefully, they will follow suit on the lob bouncing over the screen issue.” Buddy Scudder

what do you think? let me know! info@platformtennisnews.com

Click HERE to Return to December’s articles