Instant replay: pro or con ? [Archive] - MensTennisForums.com

Instant replay: pro or con ?

TheMightyFed
03-23-2005, 12:59 PM
The debate will be stronger and stronger with possible use in US Open and AO. I think that would break the flow of the game and would make matches too long. Plus guys like Federer never argue on bad calls and manage to... hum, dominate by serving an ace on the following shot, so it even pushes the players to play better...

syd
03-23-2005, 01:17 PM
it's true that match could be too long but i think it can be very useful
it would create less problems,
And there is too much errors sometimes !!! :worship: :wavey:

euroka1
03-23-2005, 01:22 PM
We had a good discussion about this on www.***************
To me the best thing would be for the umpire to be able to access (he/she could have a running laptop!) instant information following an appeal from a player. There were all too many bad calls at the Pacific Life Open, that was clear!

onewoman74
03-23-2005, 01:27 PM
We had a good discussion about this on www.***************
To me the best thing would be for the umpire to be able to access (he/she could have a running laptop!) instant information following an appeal from a player. There were all too many bad calls at the Pacific Life Open, that was clear!

I think that's a good idea also...we don't want matches being dragged out by line call disputes. We want to keep the flow of the match going, but be able to give the right calls.

Fumus
03-23-2005, 01:28 PM
Any reasons not to do it? I can't think of any, if you can improve the quality of the game with it, why not.

Aguante_el_Gato
03-23-2005, 01:36 PM
We had a good discussion about this on www.***************
To me the best thing would be for the umpire to be able to access (he/she could have a running laptop!) instant information following an appeal from a player. There were all too many bad calls at the Pacific Life Open, that was clear!
I agree. It would have to be exclusive for umpire (not the public nor the players) and to avoid permanent reclamations, perhaps it could be fixed a maximum number of reclamations by player (eg.: 2 or 3 by set)

Domino
03-23-2005, 02:04 PM
Not if it stops the flow of the match. The replay itself would need to be quick enough so the umpire could overrule a shot a second after.

I'd want it just for serves. Just because the speed that they are comming at are usually baffling a lot of the judges, and in this case it would be an easier fix to flow of the match, since it was the initial ball of the point.

euroka1
03-23-2005, 02:22 PM
No, it's not just serves.

NATAS81
03-23-2005, 03:33 PM
Limit to 3 challenges like the NFL. Lose a challenge if wrong.

uNIVERSE mAN
03-23-2005, 04:21 PM
why does the umpire have to judge the replay? why not just have the crew from the computer lab or whatever instantly relay to him if it's in or out?

federer express
03-23-2005, 06:32 PM
con

Rex
03-23-2005, 06:39 PM
pro- because it makes for less hassle- and more actual play. It would make less argument- and stupid linespeople dont need to have the last say on a call.

CooCooCachoo
03-23-2005, 06:42 PM
I am against instant replays, because they will make the linesmen feel somewhat redundant. But I voted con especially because I think bad or questionable line calls make for a more interesting match, with players such as Davide Sanguinetti. Trust me, that is tennis amusement first class.

euroka1
03-23-2005, 06:43 PM
why does the umpire have to judge the replay? why not just have the crew from the computer lab or whatever instantly relay to him if it's in or out?
The chair umpire could take advice from the computer lab crew as he does from the lines people in making his call. The important thing is that the decision is quick and accurate. Players who make numerous incorrect challenges would soon be identified by the crowd!

NATAS81
03-23-2005, 06:46 PM
..

federer express
03-23-2005, 06:46 PM
I think bad or questionable line calls make for a more interesting match

true.....that is the reason why they are a massive con

CooCooCachoo
03-23-2005, 06:56 PM
The chair umpire could take advice from the computer lab crew as he does from the lines people in making his call. The important thing is that the decision is quick and accurate. Players who make numerous incorrect challenges would soon be identified by the crowd!

This is a system that is too expensive for many tournaments. Challengers and Futures and Satellites won't be able to implement it at all, except for maybe the larger Challengers such as San Marino or Sunrise. This makes the differences between ATP-level and Challenger-level or below for players extremely hard to deal with. I can see many juniors, Challenger players struggling with this, but also players ranked in the regions 80-160, who often play both International Series events or higher and Challengers.

If such a system were to be implemented, I think it must be done in all professional tournaments. One has to be uniform in this and that is simply not possible, money-wise. The ATP already isn't a wealthy organisation.

Also take into account that the decision to implement a system that enables umpires or technicall staff to have instant replays or not is something that will take a very long time. This decision is made not solely by one organisation. If the ATP decides to implement it, then it will be used on AMS tournaments, IS events, ISG events and Challengers. However, Grand Slams are independent, so the ATP's decision will not mean that Grand Slams will also use this system. Then there is also the WTA. Of course the WTA and ATP have differences, but I think it would be awkward to have different systems when it comes to instant replays or not. It would be particularly odd at ATP/WTA-combined events, such as Rosmalen, Indian Wells, Miami, Sopot. Add to that the fact that there is a completely different organisation dealing with the many Futures (men) and 'Challengers' (women): ITF.

Personally, I consider it impossible for these four (or seven, should you count every Grand Slam as one party) parties to agree on such an idea that will alter the game in an extremely significant manner.

MariaV
03-23-2005, 07:02 PM
Agree Martijn. I'm also con bc of the above mentioned reasons.

fedpras
03-23-2005, 07:16 PM
I've read that "Hawkeye" (the instant replay used by USA network) is only accurate to within one-fifth of an inch. So what happens when the ball is within one-fifth of an inch of the line? Can an umpire overrule a call when the instant replay shows it to be that close? This issue will certainly have to be considered before any sort of instant replay is implemented in matches.

uNIVERSE mAN
03-23-2005, 07:29 PM
In response to CooCoo's thread about the costs. I think it's important that the show court's at least have this, and it's not only to do with having the right decision made on a disputed linecall but as much to do as not turning off the tv audience who see numerous replays of shot spot etc. and are probably getting very angry at blown calls. So there's a dual purpose being served here, not just in terms of fairness but good business too.

The most important thing for any business is looking after your customers. And replay technology would go a long way towards doing that.

euroka1
03-23-2005, 07:52 PM
In response to CooCoo's thread about the costs. I think it's important that the show court's at least have this, and it's not only to do with having the right decision made on a disputed linecall but as much to do as not turning off the tv audience who see numerous replays of shot spot etc. and are probably getting very angry at blown calls. So there's a dual purpose being served here, not just in terms of fairness but good business too.

The most important thing for any business is looking after your customers. And replay technology would go a long way towards doing that.

I agree with this point of view. Unless things improve, the game will slide into increasing disrepute.

I don't expect, nor is it necessary, for it to come to my neighborhood courts.

AlexNYR
03-23-2005, 08:02 PM
100% pro - shotspot/hawkeye whatever you call it is instantaneous....we see the spot of the ball on tv not 10-15 seconds after the ball lands, so it would hardly stop the game cause the chair ump can just look on his screen as the player is getting the balls to serve and can overule or let the call stand before the next ball is struck with no problem...and people forget that arguments, walking to the chair to scream/curse takes far more time than the spot to be put on screen

User ID 4783
03-23-2005, 08:02 PM
I am against instant replays, because they will make the linesmen feel somewhat redundant. But I voted con especially because I think bad or questionable line calls make for a more interesting match, with players such as Davide Sanguinetti. Trust me, that is tennis amusement first class.
I agree.

boliviana
03-23-2005, 08:47 PM
there have to be safeguards in place so that it is not abused . . . only so many appeals per set or match . . . I would like to know if the linespeople are reviewed or sit down for match reviews after a tournament . . . the NBA does that with their refs and I think there are enough questionable calls to warrant the linespeople spending sometime in a room with a vcr.

euroka1
03-23-2005, 09:14 PM
I would like to know if the linespeople are reviewed or sit down for match reviews after a tournament . . . the NBA does that with their refs and I think there are enough questionable calls to warrant the linespeople spending sometime in a room with a vcr.

I wonder, too. Being a linesperson these days must mean more than a summer job for a kid. I'd be interested to hear from those that know.

jackieglover
03-23-2005, 09:16 PM
I like ALL forms of instant replay in all sports, I don't buy the argument that it slows down the game or takes up time. Things should be done correctly.

garylanders
03-23-2005, 09:26 PM
Pro of course and its gonna happen sooner or later

kartveteran
03-23-2005, 10:03 PM
I say "Pro"

I read 4 possible arguments against replays in this topic:
1. it slows down the flow of the game
2. it isn't fair if some tourneys have it and others don't
3. linesmen will feel redundant
4. players might ask for replay checking too often

About all those 4 arguments i'd say: Just compare using replays with ball mark checking on a clay court.
1. A clay court ball mark check doesn't slow down the flow of the game that much.
2. It isn't a major problem that non-clay courts don't have it (well, the fact that this topic exists means it is a problem, but it's not the inequality itself that's the problem).
3. I don't think linesmen feel redundant on a clay court. They just know the ball mark can be checked if there's a problem.
4. To me it doesn't seem like players ask for a ball mark check too often, if the mark is on the other side of the net. They want to avoid asking for a check when they're not right, and when they ask they usually ask it in a nice way (no asking like this: "OMG, that's the worst line call in the tourney, don't you see it?!?! go check it now, i know i'm right!").

Chloe le Bopper
03-23-2005, 10:47 PM
I don't think that this is going to make a dramatic difference to the outcome of matches. At all. Not even a little bit. However, the casual fans might like it, and it probably won't hurt. I can't imagine that the time delays caused by this will be substantial. So I don't have a problem with the inevitable.

I should point out that I used to be against the idea, for a number of reasons. However, I've rethought my position as above.

Neely
03-24-2005, 01:49 AM
I'm against it, instant replays are not available everywhere. So why have a few tournaments where it would be used and some others where it is not.
Unlike NBA or NFL games that are all broadcasted, the needed technology to decide tennis calls is not at every tournament available.

-ernie-
03-24-2005, 01:51 AM
Id say its a pro, i love shot spot its cool :p

PaulieM
03-24-2005, 03:01 AM
I say "Pro"

I read 4 possible arguments against replays in this topic:
1. it slows down the flow of the game
2. it isn't fair if some tourneys have it and others don't
3. linesmen will feel redundant
4. players might ask for replay checking too often

About all those 4 arguments i'd say: Just compare using replays with ball mark checking on a clay court.
1. A clay court ball mark check doesn't slow down the flow of the game that much.
2. It isn't a major problem that non-clay courts don't have it (well, the fact that this topic exists means it is a problem, but it's not the inequality itself that's the problem).
3. I don't think linesmen feel redundant on a clay court. They just know the ball mark can be checked if there's a problem.
4. To me it doesn't seem like players ask for a ball mark check too often, if the mark is on the other side of the net. They want to avoid asking for a check when they're not right, and when they ask they usually ask it in a nice way (no asking like this: "OMG, that's the worst line call in the tourney, don't you see it?!?! go check it now, i know i'm right!").
interesting post. i'm undecided on the issue, but i do think that something has to be done because some calls are just ridiculous and can affect the match. i don't buy the stuff about it taking up too much time etc. a lot of people complain about it not being perfected yet, but they use stuff like the cyclopse and the letcord that mess up every now and then (and those are on things that would be pretty easy for humans to judge), nothing will ever be perfect. i do think that the biggest problem is the cost efficiency of implementing it. also it is unfair if some tournaments have it and others don't, same goes for only having it on show courts, all i know is that i wouldn't want to be the poor player that's playing out on one of the back courts getting hooked on calls and not being able to do anything about it. part of me likes maintaining the game the way it is, and thinking that it all evens out in the end, but it really doesn't and something needs to be done. using stuff like shotspot seems fairly time efficient and it is worth giving it a try, with limited numbers of challenges per set.

CooCooCachoo
03-24-2005, 07:18 AM
I say "Pro"

I read 4 possible arguments against replays in this topic:
1. it slows down the flow of the game
2. it isn't fair if some tourneys have it and others don't
3. linesmen will feel redundant
4. players might ask for replay checking too often

About all those 4 arguments i'd say: Just compare using replays with ball mark checking on a clay court.
1. A clay court ball mark check doesn't slow down the flow of the game that much.
2. It isn't a major problem that non-clay courts don't have it (well, the fact that this topic exists means it is a problem, but it's not the inequality itself that's the problem).
3. I don't think linesmen feel redundant on a clay court. They just know the ball mark can be checked if there's a problem.
4. To me it doesn't seem like players ask for a ball mark check too often, if the mark is on the other side of the net. They want to avoid asking for a check when they're not right, and when they ask they usually ask it in a nice way (no asking like this: "OMG, that's the worst line call in the tourney, don't you see it?!?! go check it now, i know i'm right!").

Very casually overlooking my argument of it being too expensive ;)

Scotso
03-24-2005, 07:26 AM
It's not too expensive. If players can earn 500,000$ for winning one match, I think they can afford this.

And about bad calls making the game more interesting, you wouldn't say that if you had match point to win the US Open, got a bad call on a winner, and went on to lose the title.

Alan
03-24-2005, 07:32 AM
a similar debate has been roused in soccer. but it was deemed as a con by the experts and i thnk it applies to tennis too. fans watching the match live in the stadium would find it confusing if decisions were to be finalized by a replay... this is especially a predicament for stadiums or courts without the expensive and distracting wide screen displays. a decision reversed due to replays would come out as vague even if an umpire wrongly ruled a shot as good.

this would make live matches boring and confusing. watching it live would be reversed without much explanation as the replays would not be accessible to everyone watching it right there at the court.

CooCooCachoo
03-24-2005, 07:41 AM
It's not too expensive. If players can earn 500,000$ for winning one match, I think they can afford this.

And about bad calls making the game more interesting, you wouldn't say that if you had match point to win the US Open, got a bad call on a winner, and went on to lose the title.

Of course it is too expensive. If it were to be implemented, there should be a straight line and it should be used in all matches. The equipment is too expensive to be able to do this.

And yes, such calls do make the game more interesting. I didn't say they make the game fairer, but they add some excitement to the game. As well as emotions.

Alan
03-24-2005, 07:45 AM
Of course it is too expensive. If it were to be implemented, there should be a straight line and it should be used in all matches. The equipment is too expensive to be able to do this.

And yes, such calls do make the game more interesting. I didn't say they make the game fairer, but they add some excitement to the game. As well as emotions.

YES my point exactly, although i posted some other points too

Scotso
03-24-2005, 07:46 AM
You can like what you wish, but I don't find it fun to watch people get cheated.

I'll say again, there is so much money in this sport... it is not too expensive. If it WERE too expensive, they wouldn't even be considering it.

Alan
03-24-2005, 07:50 AM
You can like what you wish, but I don't find it fun to watch people get cheated.

I'll say again, there is so much money in this sport... it is not too expensive. If it WERE too expensive, they wouldn't even be considering it.

they're not being cheated, it's just the way the sport goes, humans aren't perfect, but leaving the bigger job to machines makes the game less exciting and confusing especially if you're watching the match live.

not all tournaments could afford this technology, even if my idea of how expensive it is quite muddled... it is quite far-fetched for smaller tournaments

Swider
03-24-2005, 08:17 AM
It's not too expensive. If players can earn 500,000$ for winning one match, I think they can afford this.

Also on 400.000$ events? And challengers? :rolleyes:

Belive me - even not every ATP International Series tournament can afford it. Of course, it's also question of enormous money for players - but as far as I'm concerned, it will never be less.

Besides, I can imagine that most players would ask for replay in every game. Even if they know they're not right, it's another way to deconcentrate opponents.

Action Jackson
03-24-2005, 08:21 AM
No.

CooCooCachoo
03-24-2005, 08:24 AM
You can like what you wish, but I don't find it fun to watch people get cheated.

I'll say again, there is so much money in this sport... it is not too expensive. If it WERE too expensive, they wouldn't even be considering it.

There may be much money involved in the sport, but the sport itself is not rich. Many tournaments are playing break-even or even have great debts. The organisations itself are not big and rich institutions either.

Seriously, I don't see where the money would come from.

And should the instant replay fail due to technical errors, that will lead to weird situations on court as well. It will not only be confusing to the crowd, but even to players and umpires.

Add to that arguing with the umpire is a tactical manoeuvre used by many, many players. Even when they know they are wrong, they like to argue. This intimidates the opponent and gives the players some rest. It's part of the game and I think tennis will become much more boring should instant replays be implemented.

euroka1
03-24-2005, 09:09 AM
.

And should the instant replay fail due to technical errors, that will lead to weird situations on court as well. It will not only be confusing to the crowd, but even to players and umpires.

Add to that arguing with the umpire is a tactical manoeuvre used by many, many players. Even when they know they are wrong, they like to argue. This intimidates the opponent and gives the players some rest. It's part of the game and I think tennis will become much more boring should instant replays be implemented.

We're already doing this sort of thing routinely for serves. If the technology fails, there are always linespeople.

To me, arguing with the umpire when the player knows he/she is wrong and intimidating the opponent in this way indicate poor sportsmanship to say the least and makes the game ugly, not interesting. Good tennis is interesting on its own.

MariaV
03-24-2005, 09:20 AM
I so agree with Martijn in this debate.

syd
03-24-2005, 09:38 AM
anyway i notice that many times players are right !!!!
and i don' t see where is the problem.
on claycourt, the umpire check marks everytime he's not sure and it does not take him "an hour" to check the mark.

Smankyou
03-24-2005, 09:46 AM
A big fat no. Human error is fun.

Aurora
03-24-2005, 09:55 AM
big con here for all the reasons stated above.

But mainly: how accurate are these things? If it isn't close to 100%, I don't see the use of it. I saw a report on Hawkeye claiming it has a 70% percent correctness. If that's so, it just doesn't cut it for me, I prefer the human faults then.
Money problem: it's gotta be for everyone or no one, and I don't think it's affordable on every court in every tournament. How on earth would this work in reality?

CooCooCachoo
03-24-2005, 11:10 AM
I so agree with Martijn in this debate.

:lol: :woohoo:

:p

Experimentee
03-25-2005, 02:17 PM
I dont agree that it has to happen on all courts at all tournaments. I'd compare it to something like a roof at the AO. There is only a roof over the two biggest courts, so if it rains then the top players get their matches completed while the others have to wait. That is not equal, but it is still a good thing because at least some players as well as the audience are getting the benefit, and it will make tv coverage better. Same with the Hawkeye technology. Tennis is about making money as well, and the technology will appeal to the tv audience who dont like seeing mistakes all the time like we've been getting. Also it would be good not to have players or fans complain or blame their loss on bad calls because it wouldnt happen.

Becarina
03-25-2005, 04:45 PM
pro. As long as it is limited. Some calls have been just too far off.

Paialii
03-26-2005, 03:05 AM
I'm all for preserving tradition tennis, and for that reason I suppose I'm somewhat against implementing instant replay. However, I think it's pretty much been decided already that they're implementing it into the larger tournaments. Isn't it final that it'll be used at Us Open in 05?

On the other hand, it's points like in the following video clip that I think instant replay IS a necessity.

The infamous point of 04's US Open:

http://media.worldofvenus.net/vswfan/2004%20US%20QF%20Serena%20lt%20Capriati%20misjudge d.wmv

jacobhiggins
03-26-2005, 03:39 AM
If it's 100 percent, then lets have it. Why wouldn't anybody want it????? LoL, a mm in or out can decide a point and really thats the way it should be. If it's in its in, if its out its out. And I don't think you should have a certain amount of times you can use the Hawkeye call. If the results can pop up in seconds to the chair umpire, then it should always be used.

Swider
03-26-2005, 08:23 AM
If it's 100 percent, then lets have it. Why wouldn't anybody want it????? LoL, a mm in or out can decide a point and really thats the way it should be. If it's in its in, if its out its out. And I don't think you should have a certain amount of times you can use the Hawkeye call. If the results can pop up in seconds to the chair umpire, then it should always be used.

Did you read the whole thread? :rolleyes:

Roger-No.1
03-26-2005, 08:39 AM
No.

Roger-No.1
03-26-2005, 08:40 AM
Computers make mistakes.

Smankyou
03-26-2005, 09:09 AM
Computers make mistakes.
That they do.

And which one of you comedians voted for "other"? :p Care to elaborate?

euroka1
03-26-2005, 09:16 AM
And which one of you comedians voted for "other"? :p Care to elaborate?

I confess!! Despite all I have said since. I cast my vote early on and I had and still do have some concerns about putting it into practice. But I'm strongly for this in principle. You can call it the Hamlet syndrome.

bad gambler
03-26-2005, 09:18 AM
i'm with above :p