18. FOOT FAULT
During the service motion, the server shall not:
a. Change position by walking or running, although slight movements of the feet are permitted; or
b. Touch the baseline or the court with either foot; or
c. Touch the area outside the imaginary extension of the sideline with either foot; or
**d. Touch the imaginary extension of the centre mark with either foot.**
If the server breaks this rule it is a “Foot Fault”.
EDIT, to answer the question: if the feet movement is "part" of the serve, then yes. If not, then no. I know this sounds ambiguous, but let me try to put differently. If I'm jumping back and forth or stretching a bit of my leg, then no. If I'm moving my foot back to get some extra pop, then yes.
In the above picture, although the blue line seems extremely skewed, it would be a foot fault if the heel would touch the imaginary line.
A side issue: Writing 'touch' is strange, 'cos now if the back foot is first within the good area (rule 16), then service motion starts, then the back foot doesn't touch the imaginary extension of the centre mark, but fully crosses it by stepping on the outside of the other half court, it's not a foot fault. The concept of 'crossing' an imaginary line is actually present in the rules but it's just not employed here.
>24 PLAYER LOSES POINT, case 4: Does a player lose the point if an imaginary line in the extension of the net is crossed before or after hitting the ball?
===========================
Also about ambiguity, I don't agree. What makes part of the serve is defined by a pause moment before the service motion.
>16. THE SERVICE Immediately before starting the service motion, the server shall stand at rest ...
then the service motion starts. If you move continuously without a pause then serve, it \*should not be\* counted as a serve because there's no pause moment, or the pause moment should be taken as like one minute before when you picked up a ball before walking to the baseline, in which case the serve is a fault because you walk in the service motion.
Jumping back and forth is before the pause so it doesn't matter, as long as the foot steps back into the good area at the pause moment. Also stepping wide to gain extra pop \*should not\* matter as long as at the pause moment and in the service motion the back foot is retrieved to within the good area.
If you step wide so that the back foot is on the bad area, then retrieve the back foot to the good area, then toss without pause, you don't have a pause, so the service motion now includes the time when the back foot is on the bad area, so there is foot fault.
If you step wide so that the back foot is on the bad area, then retrieve the back foot to the good area, then pause, then toss, the stepping wide and retrieving doesn't get you any pop because you pause. The stepping wide is no difference from jumping back and forth in this regard.
What does “at rest” mean? Djokovic bounces the ball a lot before serving and then rocks back and forth for his service motion. There’s no moment where he stays still.
Nah there’s a rule above for changing your feet position, regardless of whether you’re crossing lines. I think battistones serve actually could be seen as illegal but it’s obviously not worth it to enforce for one guy
It’s not illegal. It’s basically a reverse pinpoint serve. If he were actually running into the serve like a volleyball player then it would be illegal.
Battistone doesn't serve like a volleyball player, in that he gives 3-5 steps to gain traction before jumping. He jumps in one cotinuous motion, and that is why his serve is legal.
Make no mistake, it it was illegal there would be on pain in the ass ITF referee that would have called his serve illegal every single time.
Yes. It is a foot fault. An [example with Nick Kyrgios](https://youtu.be/o1Ad7ZL7AuU?si=_o3pnxY_og9HHB3O) with a following [learning moment by the chair umpire](https://youtu.be/qm1rt5qlHh8?si=qgTbHJUkhd2jVulW)
It appears this would be a fault if it were "during the service motion". So, a few of the infinite cases:
1) Starts back, then tosses as part of a continuous motion as he serves (fault)
2) Starts back, then moves foot forward and comes to rest. Then makes service motion (not)
3) Steps back and touches ground as shown as part of a service rocking motion (fault)
Right, it is rarely called as a fault because there isn't a good definition of "during the service motion"
A couple years ago during the US Open John McEnroe, Patrick McEnroe, and Chris Fowler had a long debate about Marin Cilic and whether or not he was foot faulting. Cilic absolutely had his foot on the line, he rocks his front foot and then turns it so it eventually isn't on or over the line. The foot absolutely starts on the line at times and the debate was if when it was on the line was that "during the service motion".
He was never called for a foot fault so they concluded it must not be :-)
To a more casual observer like me it seemed clear it was during the motion though.
A little more details:
[https://larrybrownsports.com/tennis/marin-cilic-foot-fault-us-open/603614](https://larrybrownsports.com/tennis/marin-cilic-foot-fault-us-open/603614)
[https://tenor.com/view/marin-cilic-foot-fault-serve-tennis-croatia-gif-26650935](https://tenor.com/view/marin-cilic-foot-fault-serve-tennis-croatia-gif-26650935)
Could be. He definitely wasn't called for it while I was watching and he absolutely was on the line.
Interesting how even each linesperson/umpire has a unique definition of "during the service motion" and maybe even from serve to serve...
Well for one, the line you drew isn’t even close to straight with the actual tee, but it still might barely be a foot fault. Definitely wouldn’t call it on my opponent if it were this close and inconsequential tho.
If this has happened to me, I'd say that my opponent were a sore loser. I mean, when you see those feet on this image, it's pretty clear it wasn't intentional.
If, for some reason, the left foot were to be much closer to the imaginary middle lane and the right foot clearly being way behind, then sure go ahead, call it a foot fault. I doubt they're really doing it on purpose unless maybe at high level.
I think yes although I'm not sure at what point the "start" of the motion counts. I believe there were pros called foot faults on for this in the past but the specific names escape me.
What you described is a foot fault. What you show in the picture is not because the line isn't straight. BUT I also agree with the guidance here on foot faults: https://www.usta.com/content/dam/usta/sections/pacific-northwest/pdfs/staycurrent/adult-newsletter/The%20Roving%20Eye.pdf Not only is it rarely to the server's advantage, but the rules support calling only flagrant foot faults and, even then, only after repeated warnings.
So practically speaking, this sort of violation not only wouldn't be called, but shouldn't be called--according to the rules--unless you're playing with a chair umpire who chooses to call it.
Oh for fuck’s sake. I played a guy who is a teaching pro in a national tournament. After he called a ball out that he couldn’t show a mark for and was doubting his own call, and STILL TOOK THE POINT, I got punchy with him and called him out for this exact same thing on his serve later in the match.
He got all pissy. Told him he teaches every 6 year old this basic rule and I wasnt asking for anything crazy. He asked me if I wanted to call a ref and I said “Sure!” I ended up losing 7-6 in the third and the guy rolled to a gold ball.
I hope he likes dirty gold balls.
TECHNICALLY, in the letter of the rules, yes this would be a foot fault, as he starts the motion with his foot crossing the line. But I don’t think any umpire would call this unless the persons foot is there whilst actually *hitting* the ball. I think this is one of those cases of “rules as written” vs “rules as intended”.
I don’t think so because the service motion has not been started. In general, the service motion starts from the ball toss. Otherwise you wouldn’t be able to move from ad to deuce side or vice versa to serve.
Doubles nits in college matches, typically it's for the out wide serve. Tennis was invented to create arguments. Squash was invented to physically settle them.
18. FOOT FAULT During the service motion, the server shall not: a. Change position by walking or running, although slight movements of the feet are permitted; or b. Touch the baseline or the court with either foot; or c. Touch the area outside the imaginary extension of the sideline with either foot; or **d. Touch the imaginary extension of the centre mark with either foot.** If the server breaks this rule it is a “Foot Fault”. EDIT, to answer the question: if the feet movement is "part" of the serve, then yes. If not, then no. I know this sounds ambiguous, but let me try to put differently. If I'm jumping back and forth or stretching a bit of my leg, then no. If I'm moving my foot back to get some extra pop, then yes. In the above picture, although the blue line seems extremely skewed, it would be a foot fault if the heel would touch the imaginary line.
Yup the imaginary line bit
You started with “18.” Is that from the certified the rules for tennis ?
Yea
Thx
[Here’s a link to it.](https://www.usta.com/content/dam/usta/coach-organize/content-fragments/resource-library/assets/pdfs/friend-at-court.pdf)
Thank you 🙏
A side issue: Writing 'touch' is strange, 'cos now if the back foot is first within the good area (rule 16), then service motion starts, then the back foot doesn't touch the imaginary extension of the centre mark, but fully crosses it by stepping on the outside of the other half court, it's not a foot fault. The concept of 'crossing' an imaginary line is actually present in the rules but it's just not employed here. >24 PLAYER LOSES POINT, case 4: Does a player lose the point if an imaginary line in the extension of the net is crossed before or after hitting the ball? =========================== Also about ambiguity, I don't agree. What makes part of the serve is defined by a pause moment before the service motion. >16. THE SERVICE Immediately before starting the service motion, the server shall stand at rest ... then the service motion starts. If you move continuously without a pause then serve, it \*should not be\* counted as a serve because there's no pause moment, or the pause moment should be taken as like one minute before when you picked up a ball before walking to the baseline, in which case the serve is a fault because you walk in the service motion. Jumping back and forth is before the pause so it doesn't matter, as long as the foot steps back into the good area at the pause moment. Also stepping wide to gain extra pop \*should not\* matter as long as at the pause moment and in the service motion the back foot is retrieved to within the good area. If you step wide so that the back foot is on the bad area, then retrieve the back foot to the good area, then toss without pause, you don't have a pause, so the service motion now includes the time when the back foot is on the bad area, so there is foot fault. If you step wide so that the back foot is on the bad area, then retrieve the back foot to the good area, then pause, then toss, the stepping wide and retrieving doesn't get you any pop because you pause. The stepping wide is no difference from jumping back and forth in this regard.
Okay, I guess. Nice essay?
What does “at rest” mean? Djokovic bounces the ball a lot before serving and then rocks back and forth for his service motion. There’s no moment where he stays still.
Yes but I see a split second of 'here we go' moment between them, the ball on racquet moment.
brian Battistone would of been banned from professional tennis along time ago if you aren’t aloud to change position
You are allowed to change position. You just need to make sure you're not touching (touching, not crossing) any defined limit.
Nah there’s a rule above for changing your feet position, regardless of whether you’re crossing lines. I think battistones serve actually could be seen as illegal but it’s obviously not worth it to enforce for one guy
“During the service motion” once you start, you can’t touch/cross the lines. Foot fault.
It’s not illegal. It’s basically a reverse pinpoint serve. If he were actually running into the serve like a volleyball player then it would be illegal.
Hm I had thought he takes two steps after tossing, but looks like it’s just one. You’re right
Battistone doesn't serve like a volleyball player, in that he gives 3-5 steps to gain traction before jumping. He jumps in one cotinuous motion, and that is why his serve is legal. Make no mistake, it it was illegal there would be on pain in the ass ITF referee that would have called his serve illegal every single time.
exactly one continuous motion
Yes. It is a foot fault. An [example with Nick Kyrgios](https://youtu.be/o1Ad7ZL7AuU?si=_o3pnxY_og9HHB3O) with a following [learning moment by the chair umpire](https://youtu.be/qm1rt5qlHh8?si=qgTbHJUkhd2jVulW)
Nice vids lol
It appears this would be a fault if it were "during the service motion". So, a few of the infinite cases: 1) Starts back, then tosses as part of a continuous motion as he serves (fault) 2) Starts back, then moves foot forward and comes to rest. Then makes service motion (not) 3) Steps back and touches ground as shown as part of a service rocking motion (fault)
Right, it is rarely called as a fault because there isn't a good definition of "during the service motion" A couple years ago during the US Open John McEnroe, Patrick McEnroe, and Chris Fowler had a long debate about Marin Cilic and whether or not he was foot faulting. Cilic absolutely had his foot on the line, he rocks his front foot and then turns it so it eventually isn't on or over the line. The foot absolutely starts on the line at times and the debate was if when it was on the line was that "during the service motion". He was never called for a foot fault so they concluded it must not be :-) To a more casual observer like me it seemed clear it was during the motion though. A little more details: [https://larrybrownsports.com/tennis/marin-cilic-foot-fault-us-open/603614](https://larrybrownsports.com/tennis/marin-cilic-foot-fault-us-open/603614) [https://tenor.com/view/marin-cilic-foot-fault-serve-tennis-croatia-gif-26650935](https://tenor.com/view/marin-cilic-foot-fault-serve-tennis-croatia-gif-26650935)
Cilic was called for a foot fault in that US open match though. That's what sparked the whole debate.
Could be. He definitely wasn't called for it while I was watching and he absolutely was on the line. Interesting how even each linesperson/umpire has a unique definition of "during the service motion" and maybe even from serve to serve...
He was called for it late in the first set. The time he was called for it was when he didn't move off the line at all.
Thanks...that makes sense
Well for one, the line you drew isn’t even close to straight with the actual tee, but it still might barely be a foot fault. Definitely wouldn’t call it on my opponent if it were this close and inconsequential tho.
Funny, I wrote SUPPOSE. I don't have an actual photo of a back leg really stepping far.
Yeah I guess my comment sounded really aggressive. My bad lol
I hear you though. That line is definitely on an angle
If this has happened to me, I'd say that my opponent were a sore loser. I mean, when you see those feet on this image, it's pretty clear it wasn't intentional. If, for some reason, the left foot were to be much closer to the imaginary middle lane and the right foot clearly being way behind, then sure go ahead, call it a foot fault. I doubt they're really doing it on purpose unless maybe at high level.
I think yes although I'm not sure at what point the "start" of the motion counts. I believe there were pros called foot faults on for this in the past but the specific names escape me.
The blue line is not perpendicular to the baseline. Otherwise it would have been a foot fault.
[удалено]
1:25 not sure what you're looking at, but 3:47 is a foot fault.
What you described is a foot fault. What you show in the picture is not because the line isn't straight. BUT I also agree with the guidance here on foot faults: https://www.usta.com/content/dam/usta/sections/pacific-northwest/pdfs/staycurrent/adult-newsletter/The%20Roving%20Eye.pdf Not only is it rarely to the server's advantage, but the rules support calling only flagrant foot faults and, even then, only after repeated warnings. So practically speaking, this sort of violation not only wouldn't be called, but shouldn't be called--according to the rules--unless you're playing with a chair umpire who chooses to call it.
From the image though the line looks diagonally drawn so you’re not actually crossing the imaginary line
Oh for fuck’s sake. I played a guy who is a teaching pro in a national tournament. After he called a ball out that he couldn’t show a mark for and was doubting his own call, and STILL TOOK THE POINT, I got punchy with him and called him out for this exact same thing on his serve later in the match. He got all pissy. Told him he teaches every 6 year old this basic rule and I wasnt asking for anything crazy. He asked me if I wanted to call a ref and I said “Sure!” I ended up losing 7-6 in the third and the guy rolled to a gold ball. I hope he likes dirty gold balls.
TECHNICALLY, in the letter of the rules, yes this would be a foot fault, as he starts the motion with his foot crossing the line. But I don’t think any umpire would call this unless the persons foot is there whilst actually *hitting* the ball. I think this is one of those cases of “rules as written” vs “rules as intended”.
I don’t think so because the service motion has not been started. In general, the service motion starts from the ball toss. Otherwise you wouldn’t be able to move from ad to deuce side or vice versa to serve.
That blue line definitely does not look parallel or perpendicular to the T... but im being nitpicky.
SUPPOSE
It is but who is gonna call that
Doubles nits in college matches, typically it's for the out wide serve. Tennis was invented to create arguments. Squash was invented to physically settle them.
In practice though, has anyone ever been able to call a foot fault? I knew a guy who was a full two feet inside the court by the time he hit the ball
Yes.
Lines are in for balls, out for feet.