South Bend news-times. (South Bend, Ind.) 1913-1938, 1920-01-28
Principal Objections.

Principal Objections.
So far as the rules are concern
ed, the principal objections relate
TO the new foot fault rule. scoring
system and method Of conducting
handicap events. Their views are set
forth by Mr.. Adee in part as fol-
lows.
II feel very strongly that these
changes in the rules could not be
adopted. The game has always been
played under the present system of
scoring. which is known and under
stood she world over. In the present
system there is a distinct difference
between the point score of each
game and the score of the games of
each set so there is no possible
chance OF "A misunderstanding In
the proposed system the scoring of
points and OF games is exactly the
same. with the consequent chance Of
"A mix-up. To my mind 1t is a mis-
take TO change the traditions Of any
game unless there is an absolutely
vital necessity for the change. The
growth OF tennis and the position
the game has taken among the
sports Of the world is proof posi-
tive no such change is necessary.
THE proposed handicapping rule
would change the principle Of hand
leap matches from the winning of
sets TO the winning OF points. It
would be impossible to tell who is
ahead until the match is over. a
pencil and paper would probably be
needed to keep track of the points
made by each player in each game
and the winner would not be decided
until the total number Of points
made by each contestant is figured
out and the handicaps added. IL the
total points Of each contestant are
the same after the handiCaps are
added. IL is a tie
The proposed change in the foot
fault rule would permit the server
10 hop or jump into the air while
serving. or 10 serve on the run, pro-
vsded both feet are behind the base
line when the racket hits the hail.
7 believe this would develop into an
added advantage to the server. who
now has advantage enough
View of Wrcnn.
Former PreS't Wrenu writes:
These changes. which affect 90
the foot fault rule. CD the method
of scoring, and 60 handicapping
are of a drastic nature There is
grave doubt in my mind as to the
advantage 10 be gained from any of
the changes. one in particular,
(which provides that i'm handicap
q
points irrespective OF games may
be reduced 20 an absolute absurdity.
For example a competitor A.
I'm a handicap event. allows his OPP
poncut. r. l. points per set. In the
deciding set. A. starting badly
loses the first four games without
winning a point This automatically
ends the match i'm BIS favor. since
no matter how brilliantly "A re-
covers. even should he win six
straight love games he cannot
make enough points To overcome
the lead OF b In other words the
match is over before the set is fin
ished
But. entirely aside from any
merit ,u these proposals il appears
Lu me grave error 10 uaNt >utu
radical changes without fun con
sultation with our allies and Davis
up contestants We are Just re-en-
rerinE a period OF international
competition which bids fair 90 far
surpass in interest anything that has
zone before other nations have
.-vinced "a desire TO make playing
rules uniform. Would it not Doe par
tcularly aggravating 90 them 20
note that We are taking an indie
pendent step IN adopting new play
ing rules. without even asking for
Jheir cooperation and advice BY
making such changes we establish
a precedent and may easily work
TO our embarrassment and disad-