Hewitt call electronic line-calling "mickey mouse" [Archive] - MensTennisForums.com

Hewitt call electronic line-calling "mickey mouse"

nobama
06-19-2006, 10:35 AM
http://www.theadvertiser.news.com.au/common/story_page/0,5936,19514179%255E12428,00.html
Hewitt resists move to TV eye
LEO SCHLINK
19jun06

LLEYTON Hewitt has refused to join the stampede calling for the immediate installation of electronic line-calling at all tournaments after a controversial Queen's Club victory.

Hewitt's Stella Artois Championships semi-final success over Tim Henman was lost in a tumult over a series of questionable calls, none as decisive as the one which cost Henman his serve in the third set.

Leading 2-1 with a break, Henman drilled a forehand and the ball appeared to catch the line, only to be called out and costing him the game.

Television replays showed the ball had caught the line.

Incensed, Henman immediately complained and demanded tournament supervisor Thomas Karlberg come to centre court.

After complaining bitterly, Henman failed to gather his composure and lost the remaining four games.

He described the officiating under Italian Manuel Messina as "appalling", agreeing it was the worst of his long career.

Predictably, he is in favour of the use of Hawkeye, a video replay system now used mostly for television, at all events.

"When you're in a match like that where there's so many mistakes, it's obviously going to clear up the vast majority of them," he said.

"I'm in favour of it."

Used for the first time at ATP and WTA level in Miami in March after experimental use at the Hopman Cup exhibition in Perth, Hawkeye allows players to challenge a limited number of calls.

It will be used for the first time at a Grand Slam during the U.S. Open from August 28 and, provided there are no problems, at January's Australian Open.

But Hewitt described the system as "Mickey Mouse".

"I've been a bit sceptical," he said. "I know (Roger) Federer and a few of the guys weren't the biggest fans right off.

"From just my experience in Miami, it felt a little bit Mickey Mouse a couple of times.

"I think a lot of players sort of exploit it at different times.

"If it's going to bring the crowds and viewing into it more, then that's a positive.

"But I don't think we should lose what we've got in the game and not try and turn it into a sideshow too much."

Hewitt's 6-3, 3-6, 6-3 victory earned the Australian a fourth Queen's final and will guarantee a decent rankings boost ahead of Wimbledon.

ezekiel
06-19-2006, 11:48 AM
boo, shut up dude, it's 21st century and technology rules . People want to see where the ball landed

star
06-19-2006, 12:16 PM
oh, Lleyton. It's no more mickey mouse than raging about a line call and breaking rackets and getting penalties for back chat, etc. If anything, it's going to take a lot of the "sideshow" out of tennis.

Where would McEnroe have been with Hawkeye??? All of those tantrums, the mostrous delays of geme, the replayed remarks, his very own Stockholm syndrome..... They would just have faded away.....

Oh well, I'm wrong. He would have had fits about the technology. :lol: :lol:

Bilbo
06-19-2006, 01:05 PM
Hewitt is right. You don't need to "americanize" every sport out there with technology. Why take off the speed of this sport like they do in football or hockey?

This is what I like about tennis and soccer. There are no breaks.

Socket
06-19-2006, 01:18 PM
oh, Lleyton. It's no more mickey mouse than raging about a line call and breaking rackets and getting penalties for back chat, etc. If anything, it's going to take a lot of the "sideshow" out of tennis.

Where would McEnroe have been with Hawkeye??? All of those tantrums, the mostrous delays of geme, the replayed remarks, his very own Stockholm syndrome..... They would just have faded away.....

Oh well, I'm wrong. He would have had fits about the technology. :lol: :lol:
Do you remember when Cyclops was introduced? Most of the players hated it! Ilie Nastase once famously jumped up and down on the Cyclops box to protest a beep he disagreed with, and players used to ask the chair to turn it off and use a line judge instead.

My primary objection with Hawkeye is that it will slow the game down ("let's go to the replay") and increase the amount of time the ball is not in play. And frankly, I think most fans like the encounters between players and the chair over bad calls. For most fans, it's about the only time they get to see the player show some emotion and hear their voices.

Hagar
06-19-2006, 01:21 PM
"From just my experience in Miami, it felt a little bit Mickey Mouse a couple of times."

Sounds like Lleyton is INDEED BACK!!! :devil:

COME ON!

Deboogle!.
06-19-2006, 02:33 PM
Hewitt is right. You don't need to "americanize" every sport out there with technology.Hm, maybe we should keep all our technlogy to ourselves then, if no one else wants it!There are no breaks.Huh? What about on clay when it takes about 10 times longer for the ump to get out of his chair to check a mark than it would for the replay, which takes about 5 seconds. During clay season I found that much more of an annoyance than waiting for the replay results in Miami.

Anyway, Lleyton's fully entitled to his opinion, I just disagree. I think it needs to be in the game. I just think that after they did the testing in Miami and saw how quick it was, how well it worked, that the challenge system probably should go. Every call needs to be right and if it became an integrated part of the game like that, and not one moreso for the crowd involvement, maye Lleyton wouldn't still think of it as "mickey mouse"?

Allstar
06-19-2006, 03:03 PM
Hewitt is right. You don't need to "americanize" every sport out there with technology. Why take off the speed of this sport like they do in football or hockey?

This is what I like about tennis and soccer. There are no breaks.

It takes no time at all. You also have to consider all the time that it takes aruguing with the umpire due to bad calls. With hawk-eye everyone knows where they stand.

rofe
06-19-2006, 03:06 PM
Hm, maybe we should keep all our technlogy to ourselves then, if no one else wants it!Huh? What about on clay when it takes about 10 times longer for the ump to get out of his chair to check a mark than it would for the replay, which takes about 5 seconds. During clay season I found that much more of an annoyance than waiting for the replay results in Miami.

Anyway, Lleyton's fully entitled to his opinion, I just disagree. I think it needs to be in the game. I just think that after they did the testing in Miami and saw how quick it was, how well it worked, that the challenge system probably should go. Every call needs to be right and if it became an integrated part of the game like that, and not one moreso for the crowd involvement, maye Lleyton wouldn't still think of it as "mickey mouse"?

I think that may be the reason that he feels that way. If they took out this idiotic challenge system, I am pretty sure more players will warm up to it.

Deboogle!.
06-19-2006, 04:35 PM
I think that may be the reason that he feels that way. If they took out this idiotic challenge system, I am pretty sure more players will warm up to it.yeah I agree. I mean they gave it a try. and it worked, and then again I don't recall any time where any player was out of challenges near the end of a tight set/match or anything. Even a challenge system but where the ump could explicitly reserve the right to review any call he wants (instead of just when unsighted like now), would help.

I wonder what Lleyton would have said, though, if he'd been the one who kept getting the bad calls in this match and found out later that Hawkeye proved him righ basically every time. If he'd been broken b/c of a bad call, etc., would he still have thought it was a joke? I bet he would've wanted it out there :shrug:

Neverstopfightin
06-19-2006, 04:39 PM
For those players who don't like this system i would challenge them to make a competition against the hawkeye machine and we would see if their human eye is more reliable than the machine .

They would be ridiculed by the machine.

rofe
06-19-2006, 04:41 PM
yeah I agree. I mean they gave it a try. and it worked, and then again I don't recall any time where any player was out of challenges near the end of a tight set/match or anything. Even a challenge system but where the ump could explicitly reserve the right to review any call he wants (instead of just when unsighted like now), would help.

I wonder what Lleyton would have said, though, if he'd been the one who kept getting the bad calls in this match and found out later that Hawkeye proved him righ basically every time. If he'd been broken b/c of a bad call, etc., would he still have thought it was a joke? I bet he would've wanted it out there :shrug:

Well yeah, that is why we have Henman calling for Shotspot and Hewitt calling it Mickey Mouse. If Hewitt had been at the receiving end of these bad calls, then we may have seen him change his tune. In general though, Shotspot is a good thing so I hope it gets incorporated for every disputed line call instead of making it selective.

LoveFifteen
06-19-2006, 04:52 PM
Go fuck yourself, Hewitt.

LoveFifteen
06-19-2006, 04:55 PM
It takes no time at all. You also have to consider all the time that it takes aruguing with the umpire due to bad calls. With hawk-eye everyone knows where they stand.

Amen! :worship:

P.S. I'll never get why people act like this challenge system wastes time. Sure goes a hell of a lot faster than the "challenge system" set up on clay. :rolleyes:

oneandonlyhsn
06-19-2006, 05:08 PM
Welcome back Hewitt :rocker2:

nobama
06-19-2006, 06:00 PM
Hewitt is right. You don't need to "americanize" every sport out there with technology. Why take off the speed of this sport like they do in football or hockey?

This is what I like about tennis and soccer. There are no breaks.I thought the inventor of "Hawkeye" was British? :confused:

Anyway time is clearly not an issue. It didn't slow down the pace of the games in Miami. My issue is you have the technology but it's not used on all courts and isn't used all the time. If this really was about accuracy and not just entertainment for the fans it would be used all the time by the chair ump.

Deboogle!.
06-19-2006, 06:07 PM
I thought the inventor of "Hawkeye" was British? :confused: He is, but everything wrong with the world is the Americans' fault so why not this too:)

mangoes
06-19-2006, 06:16 PM
Hewitt is right. You don't need to "americanize" every sport out there with technology. Why take off the speed of this sport like they do in football or hockey?

This is what I like about tennis and soccer. There are no breaks.


You really must educate me some more on American culture :rolleyes: :rolleyes:

FYI, the hawkeye did not slow down the pace of the matches at Miami. If anything, they cut out the wasted time spent, by players, arguing with the umpire over calls that are perceived to be unjust.

LoveFifteen
06-19-2006, 06:18 PM
He is, but everything wrong with the world is the Americans' fault so why not this too:)

:haha:

It's fucking hilarious that someone would call Hawkeye "Americanizing" the sport. I remember the furor over the system, with the main complaint being that it would disrupt play and slow things down. As if clay didn't have an unlimited challenge system in place! And the umpire coming out of the chair takes a while. Never saw anyone complaining about that.

Also, the 2 challenges are great. Do we really want to the umpire reviewing every call with Hawkeye?

Also, people complain that it should be used on every court. First of all, Hawkeye is expensive as hell. It's not feasible. Second of all, they really just put this system in place for the main matches. We just don't want to see the big matches get marred by bad calls. AO 2004 final, anyone? I mean, honestly, it just blows to see huge matches really hinge on a lousy call.

nobama
06-19-2006, 06:36 PM
:haha:

It's fucking hilarious that someone would call Hawkeye "Americanizing" the sport. I remember the furor over the system, with the main complaint being that it would disrupt play and slow things down. As if clay didn't have an unlimited challenge system in place! And the umpire coming out of the chair takes a while. Never saw anyone complaining about that.

Also, the 2 challenges are great. Do we really want to the umpire reviewing every call with Hawkeye?

Also, people complain that it should be used on every court. First of all, Hawkeye is expensive as hell. It's not feasible. Second of all, they really just put this system in place for the main matches. We just don't want to see the big matches get marred by bad calls. AO 2004 final, anyone? I mean, honestly, it just blows to see huge matches really hinge on a lousy call.I'm well aware how expensive it is. But what's fair about having it only on a couple courts? Just because Cyclops isn't on every court? I could maybe understand not using it at every tournament because it is so expensive but if you're going to use it at a tournament it just doesn't seem right that only the top players (and the unlucky few who draw them early) get the benefit of it.

Of course the umpire shouldn't review every call, who said they would? To me it's madness that say you use up your two challenges on very close calls and then you get a third really bad call and nothing can be done? Yet everyone watching on TV can see that the call was horrible? Why not let the umpires have the technology to over rule?

I'm all for it if the purpose is to minimize as much as possible bad line calls. But it seems it's as much for trying to provide entertainment to the crowd as anything else. And IMO that's not worth the money.

LoveFifteen
06-19-2006, 07:54 PM
To me it's madness that say you use up your two challenges on very close calls and then you get a third really bad call and nothing can be done? Yet everyone watching on TV can see that the call was horrible? Why not let the umpires have the technology to over rule?

Under the old system, all bad calls stood. Why knock a system that gives players the opportunity to overturn EVERY SINGLE bad call against them? If you're smart, you won't lose your challenges, and you will be able to overturn every single bad call against you.

celia
06-19-2006, 07:59 PM
i like Hewitt. he's such a straight-talking, no bullshit type of dude. :lol:

rexman
06-19-2006, 08:13 PM
So it's not fair for Roddick to lose a big match because of a bad call, but it's okay for Christophe Rochus (or any other non-marquee player) to lose over one?

I don't get it.

I don't mind the use of it, but it's ridiculous to only let the to players do it.

Deboogle!.
06-19-2006, 08:25 PM
So it's not fair for Roddick to lose a big match because of a bad call, but it's okay for Christophe Rochus (or any other non-marquee player) to lose over one?

I don't get it.

I don't mind the use of it, but it's ridiculous to only let the to players do it.I think everyone agrees that it sucks that it can't be on all courts. No one is saying they think this is a good thing. but wouldn't you rather some matches be more accurate than none? Cyclops has been on the main courts only for years. Where's the complaining about that? I don't really see what the functional difference is.

i think the best hope is that other companies are able to develop an equally as accurate system and that as the technology develops the price will go down. But right now at over $100,000 a court, it's simply not feasible for it to be on all courts, particularly at the masters and slams.

the other thing is that I hope they are seeking corporate sponsorship. Some big company could put up a million bucks and there you go, hawkeye on 10 courts. So it'd be the "cocacola hawkeye" or whatever and every time it were to get on tv, that's what the commentators say (ESPN had different people sponsoring the ShotSpot for a while, and it was fine). I think that's the avenue they really need to try to pursue. I'm sure there's some company out there with deep pockets who'd be willing to lay down the cash for something so innovative.

mandoura
06-19-2006, 08:28 PM
A question to the more informed:

Will the chair umpire still overrule a wrong call if a player does not challenge it?

Another thing. Sometimes when a call is questionned and showed by the Shotspot, I get the feeling it is not the same shot because it's either way too long/out or way too short/in. Is it just an optical illusion?

rofe
06-19-2006, 08:28 PM
:haha:

Also, the 2 challenges are great. Do we really want to the umpire reviewing every call with Hawkeye?


This is where you miss the point completely. With Hawkeye/Shotspot, the umpire decides whether he/she wants to review the call or not. The player can offcourse dispute every call (like today) but the ultimate decision still rests with the umpire. I don't think people who are opposed to the challenge system (including me) are saying that the player should be allowed to use Hawkeye for every single line call.

The way I want it to work is as follows:

a) Player disputes a line call.
b) Umpire decides to overrule the player's objection because the umpire feels that the player was wrong.
c) Or, umpire is not sure about the line call either and uses the Hawkeye service to remove all doubt.
d) Play resumes.

Efficient and much more accurate than the current situation.

rofe
06-19-2006, 08:30 PM
A question to the more informed:

Will the chair umpire still overrule a wrong call if a player does not challenge it?


I don't think so. If the player does not dispute it then play should proceed as usual.


Another thing. Sometimes when a call is questionned and showed by the Shotspot, I get the feeling it is not the same shot because it's either way too long/out or way too short/in. Is it just an optical illusion?

Haven't seen this.

Mechlan
06-19-2006, 08:32 PM
Under the old system, all bad calls stood. Why knock a system that gives players the opportunity to overturn EVERY SINGLE bad call against them? If you're smart, you won't lose your challenges, and you will be able to overturn every single bad call against you.

This system doesn't allow you to overturn every single bad call against you, because after 2 incorrect challenges, you lose that ability. Under this challenge system, it is virtually impossible to be correct ALL the time unless you only challenge calls you are already 100% sure about. Which means that if you have even the slightest doubt, you don't challenge. Hence bad calls go through anyway. If you're going to go to the effort of having this amazing technology, why cripple yourself and use it in such a half-assed manner?

LoveFifteen
06-19-2006, 08:33 PM
So it's not fair for Roddick to lose a big match because of a bad call, but it's okay for Christophe Rochus (or any other non-marquee player) to lose over one?

I don't get it.

I don't mind the use of it, but it's ridiculous to only let the to players do it.

No, it's not fair for ANYONE to lose because of a bad call so why are you against it that some players have the chance to overturn bad calls. I just don't get it. It's not perfection, but damn, something is better than nothing, right?

Deboogle!.
06-19-2006, 08:33 PM
Will the chair umpire still overrule a wrong call if a player does not challenge it? he can, but I think something people noticed at Miami is that the ump didn't overrule as much in case the player wanted to challenge. overrules are usually done within a few seconds of the call, before a player would challenge it. Charlie Bricker commented on this when he blogged from miami. or maybe i'm not sure what you're asking. if I didn't address what you meant, please clarify? :) if you were asking whether the ump can, on his own accord view the hawkeye replay, then no, only if there is a sighting problem and someone didn't see it. The ump can't initiate the hawkeye if he thinks a call is close and the player decides to let that one go.
Another thing. Sometimes when a call is questionned and showed by the Shotspot, I get the feeling it is not the same shot because it's either way too long/out or way too short/in. Is it just an optical illusion?i'm not positive but I think the rules state that if shotspot couldn't get the right shot, that the original call will have to stand. it's technology and not perfect but i'd be shocked if the ITF would have, after all the delays and testing, approved a system that was picking up the wrong shot in a rally!

rofe, why not go one step farther and give the ump all ultimate control? If the call is close, ask for the hawkeye decision. Let's make sure the call is right every single time, whether a player even questions it or not. I've seen players not question calls that were acually bad against them. Let the ump be the final arbiter and say "okay that one was close and i am not 100% sure so I will use the hawkeye on this point" or something.

rofe
06-19-2006, 08:33 PM
the other thing is that I hope they are seeking corporate sponsorship. Some big company could put up a million bucks and there you go, hawkeye on 10 courts. So it'd be the "cocacola hawkeye" or whatever and every time it were to get on tv, that's what the commentators say (ESPN had different people sponsoring the ShotSpot for a while, and it was fine). I think that's the avenue they really need to try to pursue. I'm sure there's some company out there with deep pockets who'd be willing to lay down the cash for something so innovative.

I agree. I think every court should have it and the ATP and the slams should court sponsors otherwise it would be really unfair for players who are not ranked that high.

Deboogle!.
06-19-2006, 08:39 PM
I agree. I think every court should have it and the ATP and the slams should court sponsors otherwise it would be really unfair for players who are not ranked that high.if they can get someone to sponsor the doubles tour, surely they can get someone to sponsor hawkeye, which would get a lot more TV exposure than doubles :rolleyes::o

rofe
06-19-2006, 08:41 PM
rofe, why not go one step farther and give the ump all ultimate control? If the call is close, ask for the hawkeye decision. Let's make sure the call is right every single time, whether a player even questions it or not. I've seen players not question calls that were acually bad against them. Let the ump be the final arbiter and say "okay that one was close and i am not 100% sure so I will use the hawkeye on this point" or something.

When I thought about it initially, I was leaning towards that approach but then I realized that one of the main reasons for its introduction is to also make sure that a player doesn't self-destruct if he/she is at the receiving end of blatantly bad calls (for example, Henman). So, in the interests of not wasting too much time, if a player is ok with what turns out to be a bad call (according to Hawkeye), an umpire should just go with the flow.

I don't know, I could go either way on this but I am pretty sure that the challenge system should be removed.

mandoura
06-19-2006, 08:42 PM
he can, but I think something people noticed at Miami is that the ump didn't overrule as much in case the player wanted to challenge. overrules are usually done within a few seconds of the call, before a player would challenge it. Charlie Bricker commented on this when he blogged from miami. or maybe i'm not sure what you're asking. if I didn't address what you meant, please clarify? :) if you were asking whether the ump can, on his own accord view the hawkeye replay, then no, only if there is a sighting problem and someone didn't see it. The ump can't initiate the hawkeye if he thinks a call is close and the player decides to let that one go.

Here's an example of what I meant:

A shot is called out by a linesman. The chair umpire saw it in. Will he overrule even if the player who made the shot does not challenge the call? :)

i'm not positive but I think the rules state that if shotspot couldn't get the right shot, that the original call will have to stand. it's technology and not perfect but i'd be shocked if the ITF would have, after all the delays and testing, approved a system that was picking up the wrong shot in a rally!

I guess it's optical illusion because sometimes I think the ball was just out or might have caught the line and when it is replayed, it looks out by at least 2 inches. :)

Rofe, thanks for your reply. :)

rofe
06-19-2006, 08:45 PM
Here's an example of what I meant:

A shot is called out by a linesman. The chair umpire saw it in. Will he overrule even if the player who made the shot does not challenge the call? :)



Yeah, I know what you mean. Somehow, I feel that the umpire should not overrule since the player is not aware of it and let the match proceed to the next point.

Deboogle!.
06-19-2006, 08:45 PM
Here's an example of what I meant:

A shot is called out by a linesman. The chair umpire saw it in. Will he overrule even if the player who made the shot does not challenge the call? :) okay so I did understand what you were saying. Yes, the umpire can still overrule if he saw it in. A couple of times in Miami, a player challenged an ump's overrule and i think the players had a pretty decent success rate (aka the umps' overrules were wrong more often than the linespeople's original calls ;)) And like I said, though, they noticed that umps did not overrule nearly as much, but not because they couldn't.

http://blogs.sun-sentinel.com/sports_tennis/2006/03/cmon_make_the_o.html
http://blogs.sun-sentinel.com/sports_tennis/2006/03/umpires_wake_up.html

Socket
06-19-2006, 08:47 PM
A question to the more informed:

Will the chair umpire still overrule a wrong call if a player does not challenge it?

Another thing. Sometimes when a call is questionned and showed by the Shotspot, I get the feeling it is not the same shot because it's either way too long/out or way too short/in. Is it just an optical illusion?
My recollection is that Lleyton, and maybe Roger, thought that the chair umpires were not overruling calls in the absence of a challenge.

rofe
06-19-2006, 08:49 PM
My recollection is that Lleyton, and maybe Roger, thought that the chair umpires were not overruling calls in the absence of a challenge.

Another reason for the umpire to be in control instead of the player.

mandoura
06-19-2006, 08:57 PM
okay so I did understand what you were saying. Yes, the umpire can still overrule if he saw it in. A couple of times in Miami, a player challenged an ump's overrule and i think the players had a pretty decent success rate (aka the umps' overrules were wrong more often than the linespeople's original calls ;)) And like I said, though, they noticed that umps did not overrule nearly as much, but not because they couldn't.

http://blogs.sun-sentinel.com/sports_tennis/2006/03/cmon_make_the_o.html
http://blogs.sun-sentinel.com/sports_tennis/2006/03/umpires_wake_up.html

Yes you did and this is what I wanted to know. Thanks for the links.

I asked this question specifically because of what Socket posted. :)

Mechlan
06-19-2006, 09:11 PM
Also, correct me if I'm wrong, but hasn't Roland Garros shown that there can be some pretty significant discrepancies between the computerized system and the actual marks on the clay? I know the ball can skid through the clay and sometimes the computer doesn't catch that, so how would that work out?

From what I recall, there were discrepancies this year at RG between the actual marks and the technology they used (for TV) but supposedly that was because they weren't using the full set of cameras that they normally use.

BlakeorHenman
06-19-2006, 09:19 PM
I really dislike the challenge system. A tennis player is paid to play tennis, not to make calls. The chair umpire should use the hawkeye every time he isn't 100% sure.

Deboogle!.
06-19-2006, 09:23 PM
From what I recall, there were discrepancies this year at RG between the actual marks and the technology they used (for TV) but supposedly that was because they weren't using the full set of cameras that they normally use.yeah, they said this several times on our coverage.

J'torian, they've always said that the system used purely for TV was not as accurate as that which would be used in actual competition. So I think for RG, it was the same as they have always had, but not nearly as accurate as compared to what was in place in Miami.


Am I making any sense? :lol:

star
06-19-2006, 09:34 PM
Do you remember when Cyclops was introduced? Most of the players hated it! Ilie Nastase once famously jumped up and down on the Cyclops box to protest a beep he disagreed with, and players used to ask the chair to turn it off and use a line judge instead.

My primary objection with Hawkeye is that it will slow the game down ("let's go to the replay") and increase the amount of time the ball is not in play. And frankly, I think most fans like the encounters between players and the chair over bad calls. For most fans, it's about the only time they get to see the player show some emotion and hear their voices.

Yeah, I remembered all of McEnroe's goings on about cyclops. That's why I added the last line.

Somehow, I doubt that hawkeye is going to stop players from complaining about something or other. :)

star
06-19-2006, 09:53 PM
A question to the more informed:

Will the chair umpire still overrule a wrong call if a player does not challenge it?



It seems to me that when an umpire wants to overrule a linesman's call, he/she should first review it on haweye.

I think this is one of the players' complaints though. They think that now the umpire won't overrule and they will be forced to use up a challenge.

DrJules
06-19-2006, 09:53 PM
:scratch: No umpire and no linesmen/women - is that the future.

Mechlan
06-19-2006, 10:07 PM
It seems to me that when an umpire wants to overrule a linesman's call, he/she should first review it on haweye.

I think this is one of the players' complaints though. They think that now the umpire won't overrule and they will be forced to use up a challenge.

Yeah, this was my (and many other people's) complaint. I can totally see a close call and the umpire considering overruling and deciding against it and simultaneously a player considering challenging and deciding not to.

I seem to recall there were actual statistics showing the decrease in the number of overrules that umpires called during the tournament while using Hawkeye, but I can't find anything now, maybe I just dreamed it up.

spencercarlos
06-20-2006, 12:25 AM
Do you remember when Cyclops was introduced? Most of the players hated it! Ilie Nastase once famously jumped up and down on the Cyclops box to protest a beep he disagreed with, and players used to ask the chair to turn it off and use a line judge instead.

My primary objection with Hawkeye is that it will slow the game down ("let's go to the replay") and increase the amount of time the ball is not in play. And frankly, I think most fans like the encounters between players and the chair over bad calls. For most fans, it's about the only time they get to see the player show some emotion and hear their voices.
To be honest i don´t agree with this.
How can you compare the Cyclops tecnology with this? :lol:
The game does not seem to be slowed-down when players ask to check marks on clay for exmaple. Also when people complains and keep arguing about a bad call, when in the end the call won´t be changed.

amierin
06-20-2006, 12:47 AM
I am totally shocked!!! Shocked I tell you!!! NOT.

Socket
06-20-2006, 01:48 AM
I found Lleyton's Miami interview on asapsports.com where he was asked about challenges and chair umpires.

Q. Did you consider using the challenges at all in the match?

LLEYTON HEWITT: No, there was really no -- I didn't see any, you know, clear problems or, you know, questionable calls out there on my side.

Q. Do you like the opportunity to be able to do that?

LLEYTON HEWITT: I don't know. I think you can get taken advantage of a little bit.

Q. How so?

LLEYTON HEWITT: You know, I think, especially at the end of a set, you know, the crowd obviously want it sometimes. I think that entices the player to go for it even if they truly believe they're going to be on the wrong end of it.

So maybe it gets a little bit Mickey Mouse out there.

Q. You like the audio a little bit more, that's your style, to get fired up. Does that take away the friction between the chair umpire because they have the button to hit?

LLEYTON HEWITT: Not really. I think the chair umpires are going to rely on it a lot more, though. The problem is I don't think they're going to overrule anything now. And, you know, as a player, it is hard, if it's up the other end, on the baseline or close, it's very hard. And a compare umpire can clearly see it's overruled, then he's got to overrule. I don't believe they probably will now. I think they'll take the safer option and I don't think that's the way to go.

Socket
06-20-2006, 02:01 AM
And Roger's comments, also from Miami.

Q. Now that the tournament's over, are you warming up to instant replay or not?

ROGER FEDERER: Not quite, huh (smiling).

Q. Same reservation still?

ROGER FEDERER: What's that?

Q. Same reservations, or any suggestions for changes or tweaking?

ROGER FEDERER: Well, it hasn't been much challenges, but I still feel - I don't know. I miss many calls, either my way or his way, whatever. I still believe you don't get every ball right, you know, still. People tell me I come off matches and I missed four calls, I'm like, "Where were they?" You know. It's not as simple as it seems.

I still believe you got to give it time and see if it's really reliable and everything. You know, it was all right, you know. I'm happy it's in the past right now.

Q. It seems the other players are more relaxed with the HawkEye, maybe you get a little bit more nervous with this. Is that right?

ROGER FEDERER: No.

Q. No?

ROGER FEDERER: Was the case in the first round, yes. But after that, not anymore.

And:

Q. Did the challenge system -- what did you think of the challenge system? Did it bother you? Were you into it?

ROGER FEDERER: Well, it's there, right? It's always in your mind at the moment, especially the more you talk about it.

But I'm sort of neutral. I like to give it some time because at one stage it wasn't working, you know, for a game, and then it was working again. Obviously, that's something that is not acceptable, you know, for us players, playing with our minds, I think, you know.

Then, obviously, I was happy. I got the one call for me. I felt a little bit embarrassed I didn't get the other call, you know, because I don't like challenging. If a ball is out, I challenge it. It happened.

So, anyway, got to give it time, I guess.

Q. Is there a time limit on the challenge? It looked like he wanted to call it on the changeover.

ROGER FEDERER: Yeah, well, that's exactly when it gets a little complicated. We're both sitting down, he's challenging a call? I mean, that's a little bit awkward, isn't it?

Q. That second one, it turned out you were wrong. Did you feel you were definitely going to be right? Were you surprised?

ROGER FEDERER: I was surprised, yes.

Q. Getting back to the challenges for a minute, would you ever challenge if you weren't completely sure, like if it was late in the set and you had one left and it was a close call, but you weren't sure? Would you challenge anyway?

ROGER FEDERER: Probably not, no. I think you should really only use them when you're 100% sure.

Q. You think it's going to prevent chair umpires from overruling because why should they, they'll think?

ROGER FEDERER: Little bit maybe, yeah. I mean, my big wish from this whole thing is that the fans sort of don't take this as a game, you know, because it happens so rarely that they shouldn't be screaming you know, like, "Oh, challenge that," or, "Challenge this." Like when there is close calls, they don't applaud anymore because they think there is going to be a challenge. I feel like that's sometimes a little bit of a problem right now.

For this reason I'm saying let's wait and see how it goes. If the people wait too much for the calls, you know, and don't really care about the shots anymore, this is when I tend to get a little bit pessimistic about the whole thing.

Adcourt
06-20-2006, 02:23 AM
Instant replay is wrong because it is inequitable. The lower-ranked players and those who play on the outside courts do not get the benefit of this system in their matches on the courts without hawk-eye. In effect what is happening is a game with different rules for the show courts. That is preposterous and in fact bizarre. Unless hawkeye can be used on EVERY court it should not be used at all in major tournaments. Right now it is a gimmick.

Deboogle!.
06-20-2006, 02:46 AM
Instant replay is wrong because it is inequitable. The lower-ranked players and those who play on the outside courts do not get the benefit of this system in their matches on the courts without hawk-eye. In effect what is happening is a game with different rules for the show courts. That is preposterous and in fact bizarre. Unless hawkeye can be used on EVERY court it should not be used at all in major tournaments. Right now it is a gimmick.This argument fails because the outer courts are already inequitable. For the following, and many more, reasons:

~Cyclops is only on the main court(s)
~outer courts are a lot more lax about crowd control, noise, etc.
~outer courts are sometimes not maintained as well (several players complained about some of the outer courts at Hamburg this past year)
~As a corollary to the previous, some tournaments have main courts with covers (Hamburg, Australian Open, etc.), making the tournaments on the main court sometimes a completely different animal to the outer courts.

Plus, some of us have made very feasible suggestions as to how to get Hawkeye onto all, or at least many more, courts.

To me, the most important thing is that huge matches have been determined by bad line calls. the 2004 AO womens final comes first to mind. The semis and finals, etc, of tourneys are always played on the main court no matter who is playing, and IMO these are the matches where getting the calls correct is crucial. It is undeniable that bad calls contributed to the outcome of the Henman/Hewitt match, and it is undeniable that it contributed to the JHH/Kim match a couple years ago. It bothers me a LOT that a slam final was affected by human error. Even if it is not perfect, I think we need to do whatever we can, whenever we can, to improve the integrity of the game, and I'd rather a few matches have the technology than none at all.

Bibberz
06-20-2006, 03:56 AM
I think Hewitt should initiate another lawsuit against the ATP. Fight the system!

16681
06-20-2006, 05:47 AM
Instant replay is wrong because it is inequitable. The lower-ranked players and those who play on the outside courts do not get the benefit of this system in their matches on the courts without hawk-eye. In effect what is happening is a game with different rules for the show courts. That is preposterous and in fact bizarre. Unless hawkeye can be used on EVERY court it should not be used at all in major tournaments. Right now it is a gimmick.
I don't think I would call hawk-eye a "gimmick", but I do
agree it should be used on all courts or not be used at all.

mandoura
06-20-2006, 01:29 PM
It seems to me that when an umpire wants to overrule a linesman's call, he/she should first review it on haweye.

I think this is one of the players' complaints though. They think that now the umpire won't overrule and they will be forced to use up a challenge.

Yes, that's what bothers me too. If an Umpire actually believes the call was wrong but says nothing because the wronged player did not challenge it then what is he/she there for? It's not fair. :shrug:

The links deb provided earlier are very true.

mandoura
06-20-2006, 01:31 PM
I think Hewitt should initiate another lawsuit against the ATP. Fight the system!

:lol:

Neely
06-21-2006, 04:09 PM
Why take off the speed of this sport like they do in football or hockey?
I don't agree about that because more speed is being taken out of the game when the refs reviews from three or four different camera angles whether a buzzer beater in basketball left the hand before the clock ran down to 0.0 or when a play in hockey or football is challenged and reviewed for about one, two or more minutes (sometimes even discussed by the umpires standing before the monitor).