Does the challenge system make sense? [Archive] - MensTennisForums.com

Does the challenge system make sense?

ogre
01-29-2012, 11:04 AM
Previously, we had a system where although linespeople did make errors that went uncorrected by the chair umpire, everyone had to live with the errors since hopefully they should balance out.

Now we have a more accurate system that, although questionable when deciding to the last few millimeters (can you really be sure when a few hairs of a flattened ball touch the line or not?) is believed to be far more accurate than anything from before.

However, instead of the new technology making the line calls, it is up to the players to make the decision to call on the new technology. On decisions on the far side of the court they are further from the ball than either linespeople or chair umpire, but it is the player who must make the decision.

Yes there is drama to waiting on the replay. There is a tradition of having linespeople. But given the new technology is beleived to be accurate why not ALWAYS provide the chair umpire the information. The technoloy is now fast enough that no delay is needed and the replay is only for the drama.

Either the chair umpire could overrule based on the judgement of the electronics which could be instantly available or you could use the system in place of linespeople.

Isn't it just a little crazy that a result could depend on the error of players in determining their own line calls???

Ok - in 2001 when Hawkeye was first released, the lower computing power available meant the system was too slow for live calls. Almost 12 years later this is no longer the case and the system is now faster than most lines people

navy75
01-29-2012, 12:39 PM
Having grown up for decades without it, I simply could not imagine not having Hawkeye in today's game. This tournament alone has shown how desperately that it is needed, as there have been utterly atrocious calls throughout (including the final rounds).

However, I'm not sure if your options were worded fairly. Sure, information can be relayed to the chair umpire, but it is not instantaneous. What happens when the umpire finds out that the 2nd shot in a 20 shot rally was out, but incorrectly ruled in?

It is for this reason that the current system is about as good as possible imo. You can't award a point that has already been completed to a player, and you also don't want infinite challenges by players who are abusers. The system, as it currently stands, allows for shots that end rallies to be considered for reviewal, and for players who are certain of a call in the middle of a rally to stop and challenge accordingly.

DDrago2
01-29-2012, 02:04 PM
Ofcourse it doesn't make sense. Get rid of all lines people, hawk eye to take over their's job.

Right On
01-29-2012, 02:54 PM
Djoker would have lost today without the challenge system.

Young 8
01-29-2012, 02:58 PM
Ofcourse it doesn't make sense. Get rid of all lines people, hawk eye to take over their's job.

I suppose this will be the goal in 30/40 yrs

No more umpires too

ogre
01-29-2012, 07:34 PM
The current Hawkeye system is now capabale of delievering a result almost instantly and faster than linespeople, who often have to contemplate for a few moments.

My own opinion is that it is crazy for the chair umpire not to have this information available without a player calling for a review. This is the only option that makes sense to me.

The only reasons for not moving to hawkeye ruling on every shot are either a mistrust of the system or fear of breaking with tradition. I only included the 'get rid of hawkeye' option because if you believe in tradition so much, perhaps some want to go all the way.

Farenhajt
01-29-2012, 07:43 PM
Ofcourse it doesn't make sense. Get rid of all lines people, hawk eye to take over their's job.

This. Just as they got rid of netpersons, and they don't lose any sleep over whether the net sensors work correctly 24/7 or not. And the money saved for the linespersons' fees can be readily invested in hawkeye systems all over. I'm also sure the players would accept to forfeit a percentage of prize funds in order to put hawkeyes on all the courts in the Masters and GS series.

ssin
01-29-2012, 07:56 PM
The current system makes sense, and adds something to the game. Besides, some control should always be left to humans regardless of how high the technology is and how prone humans are to making errors. this system serves the purpose of correcting some of the errors and giving the opportunity to players to question some calls, which makes calls less controversial. Who wants HAL from space odyssey in control? :D And computers can make mistakes too. Nah, this is a good system and it works fine.

NID
01-29-2012, 08:00 PM
Djoker would have lost today without the challenge system.

this.
keep it like it is.

ogre
01-29-2012, 08:04 PM
......
However, I'm not sure if your options were worded fairly. Sure, information can be relayed to the chair umpire, but it is not instantaneous. What happens when the umpire finds out that the 2nd shot in a 20 shot rally was out, but incorrectly ruled in?
....


If you check with 'Hawkeye Innovations' (now really owned by Sony) you will find the technology can now rule faster than a linesperson.

Why is the delay needed? The truth is it is considered people are not ready to just 'trust the computer' and the time consuming video recreation gives the system credibility. The recreation has the appearance of a slow motion replay and we wait to 'see for ourselves' what has happened.

The current system was a necessary interim to build trust in the technology. Part of the real question is how long do we need this interim solution while trust is built? In reality it can still make errors and the 'video replay' does nothing to change that, but it is more reliable than line judges.

Time Violation
01-29-2012, 08:08 PM
How many sports have gone "fully digital"? :) There is a review function for the referees in several sports, but I don't think any has excluded judges/referees altogether.

They could, I guess, implement a sound system tied to the hawkeye, in order to sound an alarm any time the ball is out, so that it doesn't even have to be reviewed on the screen, but somehow I think this is the perfect balance between humane and in-humane system. Certainly adds to the drama :p

selyoink
01-29-2012, 08:27 PM
The challenge system would make sense and be fair if it was available on all courts. Since it is not it caters to the tennis aristocracy it should be available to all or none, not the elite.

ogre
01-31-2012, 10:18 AM
The challenge system would make sense and be fair if it was available on all courts. Since it is not it caters to the tennis aristocracy it should be available to all or none, not the elite.

That all is not equal goes beyond Hawkeye. How about line umpires for example?

ATP match...7 line umpires
Qualifying..5 line umpires

Challenger Tournaments?
Main draw 5 line umpires (until the semis then 7)
Qualifying.. 3 line umpires

And yes, there are tournaments without any line umpires at all.

The difference here is that within the same tournament, and even in the same round, circumstances differ. That seems a real problem.

Sophocles
01-31-2012, 10:38 AM
System is fine as it is. It's essentially designed for appeals rather than making the decisions in the first place.

Thunderfish8
01-31-2012, 10:44 AM
I say yes only because of examples like the Aussie Open final where Rafa and Nole were able to successfully overrule at least 20 incorrect calls with a challenge. If the lines people are missing up to 20 calls in a Grand Slam final (not to mention that some were horribly called out. One ball called long was actually on the inside of the line), the hawk eye is necessary to correct the human error. Although that was an extreme situation and the Aussie Open should be reassessing who its hiring.

Sunset of Age
01-31-2012, 11:11 AM
System works fine on the whole, and/but unfortunately, this recent AO has shown that nowadays it's even very necessary :o - a lot of those line judges were in despate need of a trip to SpecSavers Inc.

I say yes only because of examples like the Aussie Open final where Rafa and Nole were able to successfully overrule at least 20 incorrect calls with a challenge. If the lines people are missing up to 20 calls in a Grand Slam final (not to mention that some were horribly called out. One ball called long was actually on the inside of the line), the hawk eye is necessary to correct the human error. Although that was an extreme situation and the Aussie Open should be reassessing who its hiring.

Exactly.
BTW, watching the AO final, my BF came up with a rather intriguing plan to change the system: in stead of players having a challenge taken away from them when their challenge is wrong, perhaps an idea to give them an extra challenge whenever they turn out to be right? :D

I LOL'ed at the idea of having the ump call out "Mr. Djokovic has 22 challenges remaining" at a certain stage of the match. :spit:

woodrow1029
02-01-2012, 04:12 PM
Here's a problem with "instantaneous line calling from Hawkeye."

Every time the ball hits the net, the tech in the Hawkeye booth has to hit a button to recalculate the trajectory of the ball. That happens often enough where it is reason enough you will not see Hawkeye making instantaneous calls to replace line umpires.

stewietennis
02-01-2012, 08:53 PM
How accurate was the Cyclops technology? Couldn't they mix it with Hawk-Eye so there's a beep whenever the ball bounces out? Thereby foregoing the need for linespeople and challenges altogether.

ogre
02-02-2012, 05:41 AM
System works fine on the whole, and/but unfortunately, this recent AO has shown that nowadays it's even very necessary :o - a lot of those line judges were in despate need of a trip to SpecSavers Inc.



Exactly.
BTW, watching the AO final, my BF came up with a rather intriguing plan to change the system: in stead of players having a challenge taken away from them when their challenge is wrong, perhaps an idea to give them an extra challenge whenever they turn out to be right? :D

I LOL'ed at the idea of having the ump call out "Mr. Djokovic has 22 challenges remaining" at a certain stage of the match. :spit:

I really agree there is a problem here. If the linespeople are making lots of errors or simply being lazy, then you need to make lots of challenges. If 4/5 of your challenges are correct, then you should not be prevented from making more challenges! Yet, even if 4/5 of your challenges are right, with todays system you run out if lots of challenges are needed. However getting one extra challenger for every correct challenge might be too much, perhaps one extra challenge for every two correct challeges is sufficient.

chalkdust
02-02-2012, 11:12 AM
I do think we are in a transitional, non-optimal state here. At the recent Aussie Open, the line-calling was truly appalling, and I think this must be in part due to official complacency, because of the presence of Hawkeye.

As has been pointed out before, although Hawkeye makes it possible for players to challenge calls, the importance of correct calls has not in any way diminished. There are many situations where this can be demonstrated, but to take just one example, if a serve is incorrectly called out, but the receiver has hit a return that would have been a clean winner (or even just a good return such that he would hold an advantage in the point), the receiver cannot undo this injustice.

Obviously, a change can only be made if the technology is truly able to support it, but as and when that technology is available I would support a move to fully-automated line judging, as close to real time as computationally achievable.

I must confess that I do somewhat enjoy the drama surrounding challenges under the current system, the controversies surrounding the time players take to issue a challenge, the wandering around looking at "marks" on hard courts (hands up Nadal) and so on; but in the end one has to admit that none of this really relates to the game of tennis. Form must always follow function, as far as I am concerned, therefore I think it would be absurd to retain the current system purely for its dramatic qualities, if the technology behind it has moved on.

It could even be quite funny if, in the middle of a Nole-Rafa slugfest, the ump has to call out:

"30-40. Mr Nadal's 17th shot in the rally landed 0.1cm behind the baseline."
Rafa (running to the chair): "No way, which shot are you talking about?"
Ump:"You know that loopy forehand that bounced about 12 feet high that Mr. Djokovic managed to push back down the line."
Rafa:"Which shot are you talking about? I wanna see the replay"
Ump:"You want to call a Time Out?"
Rafa:"Time Out? No, I wanna just see the replay. Machine is wrong."
Ump.:"You want to see the replay, you have to call Time Out."
Rafa:"Why this rule? It should not apply to me. Not just me, whole top 3 should have replays."
[Time passes (ranting)]
Rafa: "Ok so I want replay, yes Time Out."
Ump.: "Mr. Nadal has called a Time Out so we will all have to wait while we show you the replay."
[Video]
Ump:"30-40. Mr. Nadal has 2 Time Outs remaining"