New-York tribune., 1920-02-04
Proposed New Foot-Fault Rule
Debated by Tennis PLAYERS

what he said might shed q new ligh
on the rules problem than lette
came to me from Lyle Evans Mahan
ranking player who has long beer
active on the courts and in the coun
ellis OF the world of lawn tennis. Afte1
gong over Mr.. Mahan's letter foun(
my mind as much in whirl as evcl
on the subject of the rules.
Lyle Mahan's Letter
The letter is we'll worth reprintine
If only to show how two we'll informed
men can totally disagree on The same
subject, even when that subject is sc
cut and dried thing as technica
rules Therefore | present the letter
in question:
Dear Hawthorne: Every once III & while
a wild desire to write seizes on me and
this time you are the victim. because
have Just been reading Mr Merrhew's
reply to Mr.. Adee and Mr.. Wrenn
Il object to the new foot-fault rule.
cannot see that, even as amended. it pre-
vents running start. Certainly it does
not prevent Z hop or d jump. | sugpes;
that in order to make the rule clear and
conform to the present rule (Which is, to
my mind, about good a one as can he
devised. 1t should be amended so as to
The server shall Immediately before
commencing to serve. stand with both feet
at rest behind the base line and within
the limits Of the center mark and the side
nI1G,, Hne. fRoM boS1 .,uil TnE TINE OF TAXING
RACKET STRIKES THE BALL. BOTH
FEET SHALL BE KEPT BEHIND THE
BASE LINE AND AT LEAST ONE
Foot SHALL REMAIN ON THE
II call your attention to the fact that
If jump hop is allowed the foot
fauit umpire has to look at both feet TO
see II either one goes over the line before
the moment of impact, instead of only one.
as now
Opposes New Scoring
with reference to the new nandicapping
and scoring rules. it is hard to state nv
argument briefly II is this: First that
IN handicap matches referees are rarely
available and it would necessitate q slate
and pencil being kept by the court and
that the players should stop at the end of
each game to put down the score of that
game Second. even If this method were
employed, it is no argument in favor of
the new scoring method. because the point
score could Just as easily as not be nut
down on slate. Sc, for instance which
ever method of calling the score is en-
pioyed. and. further, in the ultimate result
1t would make difference whether a
man won q long deuce game or q game to
10. as in any case he would receive only a
net credit OF points on that game
Ihlrdly. as to the scoring alone
while do not approve of letting respect
Tor tradition interfere with true progress I
worked pretty hard in two campaigns to
take the championship from Newport. and
the nrst time IL was not for the benefit of
my own club. the West Side, as we were
proposing the Merton Cricket Club for the
event), yet have not heard one valid ar
gument in favor of the new scoring and
In such case | believe tradition should be
upheld.
The argument that it is simple is alb
surd. Any child strong enough to knock
ball over the net can learn the present
method of scoring. | knew how before I
ever returned ball. The only argument
is one for the benefit of ignorant spectators
of the game. and doubt if they could un
derstand the new count. with points. games
and sets. much better
Il may say that | know that n, least
one of the rules committee is against the
new handicapping. If they want a new
method. why not try that used years ago
IN Central Park of match consisting Of
y or any fixed number of points 1t
would be fair easier. Sincerely yours,
Il. K. MAHAN'