Who Agrees w/the Unlimited Challenge System? [Archive] - MensTennisForums.com

Who Agrees w/the Unlimited Challenge System?

gogogirl
10-23-2006, 08:33 PM
Hey All,

I think I agree that something needs to be done as it pertains to players only getting 2 challenges per set. Look what happened to Marat against David.

Mary C., surely did make her point months ago about this. In the article below - she is quoted again stating that the onus shouldn't even be on the players. The technology is there - so why not just use it when there is a close call?

Btw - when will they get the tech on every court? I think it would be funny if it wasn't so sad that only the Stadium Court and Court 1, for an example, employ Hawk Eye. I really do believe it is a tsk-tsk - kind of situation.

What say y'all? Shouldn't they expand the technology to all courts - and shouldn't the challenges be unlimited?

http://www.sportsmediainc.com/tennisweek/index.cfm?func=showarticle&newsid=16090&bannerregion=

thrust
10-23-2006, 08:54 PM
Not unlimited, but I would double the amount of challenges there are now.

vogus
10-23-2006, 09:00 PM
Hey All,

I think I agree that something needs to be done as it pertains to players only getting 2 challenges per set. Look what happened to Marat against David.

Mary C., surely did make her point months ago about this. In the article below - she is quoted again stating that the onus shouldn't even be on the players. The technology is there - so why not just use it when there is a close call?

Btw - when will they get the tech on every court? I think it would be funny if it wasn't so sad that only the Stadium Court and Court 1, for an example, employ Hawk Eye. I really do believe it is a tsk-tsk - kind of situation.

What say y'all? Shouldn't they expand the technology to all courts - and shouldn't the challenges be unlimited?

http://www.sportsmediainc.com/tennisweek/index.cfm?func=showarticle&newsid=16090&bannerregion=


this argument, which was also presented by Mary "Know-Nothing" Carillo last winter, is a poorly diguised effort to undermine the concept of replay line calling. What you are really trying to argue, without saying it, is that bad calls are somehow a necessary part of tennis. I don't buy into that.

I think two challenges is enough. It makes things interesting. And replay only on the show courts is a hell of a lot better than no replay at all.

rmb6687
10-23-2006, 09:01 PM
Even now, with only two, players use it to slow down play or just for the hell of it. Play is going to slow down even more with the unlimited challenge system.

That said, I think I'd rather have a slower match than have players cheated out of wins and points at very crucial moments of matches just because they are stupid when it comes to challenging calls.

vogus
10-23-2006, 09:04 PM
if you have an unlimited challenge system, players will be checking the line calls 20 times a set, because they have nothing to lose from doing so. Terrible idea.

croat123
10-23-2006, 09:10 PM
i think the system is stupid and we should get rid of it. it's not going to be fair for everyone until it completely gets rid for the need for line judges on all courts (and that would be terrible for tennis because the human element is such a big part of the game)

vogus
10-23-2006, 09:18 PM
i think the system is stupid and we should get rid of it. it's not going to be fair for everyone until it completely gets rid for the need for line judges on all courts (and that would be terrible for tennis because the human element is such a big part of the game)


see what i mean? The thread starter's argument brings the people out of the woodwork who were 100 percent against replay from the very beginning.

Metis
10-23-2006, 09:32 PM
I am for the unlimited challenges. It takes more time for the players to decide whether they will challenge or not (many times they walk towards the mark, look, then look again, sometimes they even argue with the umpire trying to get him to overrule, glare at the linespeople, etc) than to automatically check a close line call. And although in the USOpen Series the linespeople were usually correct (about 2/3 of the times), in Madrid I remember some matches where their performance was terrible and most challenges were correct. IMO unlimited challenges will make everybody's life easier and tennis matches fair as far as line calls are concerned.

Allure
10-23-2006, 09:36 PM
I think players should receive unlimited challenges because linespeople/umpire can be wrong more than two times a set.

DrJules
10-23-2006, 09:37 PM
Even now, with only two, players use it to slow down play or just for the hell of it. Play is going to slow down even more with the unlimited challenge system.

That said, I think I'd rather have a slower match than have players cheated out of wins and points at very crucial moments of matches just because they are stupid when it comes to challenging calls.

Agree.

Number needs to be limited, but more than currently. Possibly, 3 a set and 1 extra in tie break

adee-gee
10-23-2006, 09:40 PM
Dreadful idea.

Deboogle!.
10-23-2006, 09:41 PM
Players can challenge unlimited calls on clay, what's the difference if it's electronic replay?

bpt7
10-23-2006, 09:41 PM
unlimited challenges would be stupid....then a best of three sets match would probably last 4 hours :-) however i do agree than there should be more than 2 challenges per metch....4 or 5 would be good.

That tennis kid
10-23-2006, 09:56 PM
Players can challenge unlimited calls on clay, what's the difference if it's electronic replay?

Very good point. Challenges on clay may also take far longer than challenges using Hawkeye.

WF4EVER
10-23-2006, 10:00 PM
I agree with Mary Carillo. A system that expensive should be put to its full use. Sometimes for months you don't have a tourney that uses it, or you have it on one court only so only a few players get the benefit of it or worse you use your challenges and if there's a clearly bad call you can't do shit about it.

If it can't be used to the fullest I think they should get rid of it.

vogus
10-23-2006, 10:14 PM
I agree with Mary Carillo. A system that expensive should be put to its full use. Sometimes for months you don't have a tourney that uses it, or you have it on one court only so only a few players get the benefit of it or worse you use your challenges and if there's a clearly bad call you can't do shit about it.

If it can't be used to the fullest I think they should get rid of it.



that's the typical Mary Carillo garbage tactic - trying to create diversions from the real issues, which are improving the fairness of the line calling in the most important matches, and providing the best viewing experience for the fans. Replay is here forever. Mary Carillo and her ilk are never going to get rid of it no matter how much they wriggle and bitch and whine.

+alonso
10-24-2006, 02:47 AM
So it should not be any people watching for lines and umpire, alfer all We could have a recorder to call the scores! :lol:

*Viva Chile*
10-24-2006, 03:30 AM
Not agreed, because in that case, tennis won't need linesmen and chair umpires IMO

What will happen in AO with the Hawkeye system in 5th set?? I propose to add 2 more challenges at 6-6, 12-12 but not accumulate them, so the players have the right to use their 2 challenges every 12 games. ;)

JW10S
10-24-2006, 04:28 AM
I don't understand why people keep saying the players only get "2 challenges per set". That is simply not true. They get 2 incorrect challenges--they get an unlimited number of challenges as long as they are correct. So please, stop with the "only 2 challenges" nonsense.

To get to the point, I like the limited challenge system. As it is now the players challenge when they are at least reasonably sure they got a bad call. If there were no penalty for incorrectly challenging an official's call (i.e. losing a challenge if incorrect) I believe some players would challenge every time a ball landed anywhere close to a line. If one correctly challenges a call they are rewarded by having the point replayed or in the case of an ace or clean winner, awarded to them outright. Therefore it makes perfect sense to me that if a player incorrectly challenges an official's call there should also be some penalty. He or she should not just get a free pass to challenge willy-nilly without consequence.

Checho
10-24-2006, 04:32 AM
I don't understand why people keep saying the players only get "2 challenges per set". That is simply not true. They get 2 incorrect challenges--they get an unlimited number of challenges as long as they are correct. So please, stop with the "only 2 challenges" nonsense.

To get to the point, I like the limited challenge system. As it is now the players challenge when they are at least reasonably sure they got a bad call. If there were no penalty for incorrectly challenging an official's call (i.e. losing a challenge if incorrect) I believe some players would challenge every time a ball landed anywhere close to a line. If one correctly challenges a call they are rewarded by having the point replayed or in the case of an ace or clean winner, awarded to them outright. Therefore it makes perfect sense to me that if a player incorrectly challenges an official's call there should also be some penalty. He or she should not just get a free pass to challenge willy-nilly without consequence.

I couldn't agree more!!

NyGeL
10-24-2006, 05:58 AM
Players can challenge unlimited calls on clay, what's the difference if it's electronic replay?

On clay, the umpire can decide to look at the mark or not.

I totally agree with JW10S.

corporalclegg
10-24-2006, 06:24 AM
I agree with the guy who said the thing about the unlimited number of challenges on clay. No difference if they made it the same on hardcourts and electronically. And the players wouldn't challenge ever single point either if they had the system, just like they don't on clay.

erekiel
10-24-2006, 06:54 AM
It would be better if they had unlimited challenges only on crucial points like breakpoints, gamepoints, setpoints, mathpoints. In this case it will not make that big number of challenges. And fair enough.

Action Jackson
10-24-2006, 07:01 AM
I am not a fan of the challenge system in general, but the way it is at the moment is fine.

If it was unlimited, then the possibilities for all kinds of shenanigans and stalling tactics would be even worse than they are now.

scarecrows
10-24-2006, 07:23 AM
edit. I should have read the whole thread before posing, someone said the same thing before

Action Jackson
10-24-2006, 07:32 AM
edit. I should have read the whole thread before posing, someone said the same thing before

Imagine Coria and Massu without limited challenges. A 2 hour match would go for 6 hours.

oz_boz
10-24-2006, 09:20 AM
I don't agree, it slows down the play too much. 2 or 3 per set is fine.

mrserenawilliams
10-24-2006, 10:23 AM
I think the current system is fine, but 3 challenges of 5 per set might be good as well.

gogogirl
10-24-2006, 03:02 PM
Hey All,


Here’s my thing. How many of us watched several matches of the Madrid tourney? Since it’s still fresh in our minds, let's remember that one. How many calls were right by the players? Numerous right? Then there are two main problems. The linesperson oft times makes the wrong judgment call – and if the umpire doesn’t overrule – then the player is gypped out of a point, and sometimes a game. That is just plain wrong.

These days – players are serious as a heart attack, as it pertains to their being professional tennis players. A bad call or two could lose the match for a player that might be on the rise – and just might have gone on to win the entire enchilada/tourney. I agree w/Mary C. that the technology should be there on every court and all of the time. Of course, I thought this before I heard her pipe up about it, and I had mentioned it on WTA World about four years ago.

For instance, isn’t it Wimby that has the infamous graveyard court? You mean to tell me that Roger, other toppers (and the right thing to do is to add them all) could be on that court playing w/the match tied @ one set a piece, and during the third set, the linesperson gets it wrong, the ump doesn’t overrule, so said player loses it 7-5 in the third? That’s a lousy concept.

And just recently, the commentators were stating that some umps that aren’t overruling bad line calls, are actually putting the onus on the players to use up their challenges. So – ultimately this means that the ump doesn’t know whether a ball was in or out – because in some cases, they are too far away to see it. That is nonsense. So after all challenges are used up, the ump could care less if the replay shows it was in or out – but said ump didn’t reverse the bad/wrong call. Umps better watch their backs in the future. It is so human nature to get upset if some thing they were done wrong – and gypped.

Some player’s futures could be riding on the lines people and umpires judgments. They expect them to just get it right. The stakes are so high these days for these players – and even the ones ranked outside of the top 50, for an example, are out there trying to win and move ahead. It’s sad to think that someone’s ranking could be held back because of a bad line call. Meaning, if a player is broken at 5-5, and the opponent can now serve for the match at 6-5 and wins it, but the replay surely showed that at 40-30, the ball was in, but the player went on to lose the game, and if the player had won the match, then the player could have very well moved up in rankings. And what about making the Masters Cup? What if one of the ones trying to make it got gypped because of a bad line call?

Incorrect calls could affect so many things. One day – they might have to take out the replay because some players are looking up to their boxes for confirmation and one day – we might see a player completely snap and charge toward the linesperson or the ump looking to do some violence. In other words, it might get tricky to continue letting the TV audience and the crowd see where the ball actually landed.

They need to employ the technology period and on all courts.

So – we shall see said the blind linesperson.:eek:

Action Jackson
10-24-2006, 03:08 PM
It won't be implemented on all courts, just the show courts.

Just cause Safin lost a match, now it's an issue.

vogus
10-24-2006, 03:15 PM
Hey All,


Here’s my thing. How many of us watched several matches of the Madrid tourney? Since it’s still fresh in our minds, let's remember that one. How many calls were right by the players? Numerous right? Then there are two main problems. The linesperson oft times makes the wrong judgment call – and if the umpire doesn’t overrule – then the player is gypped out of a point, and sometimes a game. That is just plain wrong.

These days – players are serious as a heart attack, as it pertains to their being professional tennis players. A bad call or two could lose the match for a player that might be on the rise – and just might have gone on to win the entire enchilada/tourney. I agree w/Mary C. that the technology should be there on every court and all of the time. Of course, I thought this before I heard her pipe up about it, and I had mentioned it on WTA World about four years ago.

For instance, isn’t it Wimby that has the infamous graveyard court? You mean to tell me that Roger, other toppers (and the right thing to do is to add them all) could be on that court playing w/the match tied @ one set a piece, and during the third set, the linesperson gets it wrong, the ump doesn’t overrule, so said player loses it 7-5 in the third? That’s a lousy concept.

And just recently, the commentators were stating that some umps that aren’t overruling bad line calls, are actually putting the onus on the players to use up their challenges. So – ultimately this means that the ump doesn’t know whether a ball was in or out – because in some cases, they are too far away to see it. That is nonsense. So after all challenges are used up, the ump could care less if the replay shows it was in or out – but said ump didn’t reverse the bad/wrong call. Umps better watch their backs in the future. It is so human nature to get upset if some thing they were done wrong – and gypped.

Some player’s futures could be riding on the lines people and umpires judgments. They expect them to just get it right. The stakes are so high these days for these players – and even the ones ranked outside of the top 50, for an example, are out there trying to win and move ahead. It’s sad to think that someone’s ranking could be held back because of a bad line call. Meaning, if a player is broken at 5-5, and the opponent can now serve for the match at 6-5 and wins it, but the replay surely showed that at 40-30, the ball was in, but the player went on to lose the game, and if the player had won the match, then the player could have very well moved up in rankings. And what about making the Masters Cup? What if one of the ones trying to make it got gypped because of a bad line call?

Incorrect calls could affect so many things. One day – they might have to take out the replay because some players are looking up to their boxes for confirmation and one day – we might see a player completely snap and charge toward the linesperson or the ump looking to do some violence. In other words, it might get tricky to continue letting the TV audience and the crowd see where the ball actually landed.
They need to employ the technology period and on all courts.

So – we shall see said the blind linesperson.:eek:


This is one of the most elaborately idiotic posts that i have ever read on a tennis board.

gogogirl
10-25-2006, 12:29 AM
All,

Hey Bogus - will you please let me have my opinion? Thanks. And as for the text you bolded - I should have said verbal abuse - but we don't know - because sometimes verbal abuse/violent outbursts can turn into physical abuse and violence. No - for the most - we don't have to worry about it - but again and IMO - the stakes are getting higher and higher. How about the parent that was feeding his child's opponents drugs? How about the two Russian players getting into it w/a tennis dad over a practice court?

There's so much more money involved these days, the potential for noteriety - the ESPYs award show, 'TTC', and the like - that could cause added pressure on some of the players that are trying to make it in the sport of tennis, and in many cases, are basing their livelyhoods on it.

I am not try to get anyone to think like me. I can think for meself. And surely - there are millions that think like me in this instance, and like the writer below. If we're going to be FAIR, and that should be the goal - then why should just the show courts get the benefit of shotspot - hawkeye or the fabulous MAC CAM (That's what I'm talkin' 'bout - the big MAC)?

Below is something I lifted from another article.

"I think this is really a great thing. It is frustrating to see a match turn on a bad call... or a player totally become unhinged for no good reason."

My answer to the above would be - "Oh so you only feel frustrated to see a match turn on a bad call......only as it pertains to the show courts?" "What about those two players on court 2-whatever, for an example?" I mean really!



Thursday, April 20, 2006
DW: Hawkeye: Using the Right Technology the Wrong Way
By Dave Winship
OnTheLine.org

When Hawk-Eye technology made its debut at the Nasdaq-100 a few weeks back, there was plenty of scope for tournament directors, referees, umpires and players to use the right technology in the wrong way. Well, that's pretty much exactly what's happened.

Before the instant replay system was installed for the Miami tournament, line-call blunders threatened to undermine the integrity of the professional game. Injustices witnessed by television audiences often had a significant bearing on the outcome of matches. In 2004, USTA Chief Executive Arlen Kantarian was moved to apologise to Serena Williams after overrules and bad line-calls during her US Open quarter-final encounter with Jennifer Capriati cost her a place in the last four. So the stakes were too high to resist the implementation of a system that eliminates human error. Unfortunately, the movers and shakers of the tennis industry spied an opportunity to inject an uncalled-for element of drama and entertainment into the sport and the skewed system of limited player challenges was born. Kantarian, a former marketing executive for the National Football League, was clearly influential in the decision to approve a policy similar to the instant replay challenges adopted by the NFL in 1999.

Instead of ushering in a new era of fairness and accuracy, the fanfare in Miami has produced nothing but a half-cocked Hawk-Eye which isn't even under the control of the umpire. It's as if the window of opportunity has been opened only for officials to put up some eye-catching curtains. The powerlessness of the umpires has been compounded by the inhibition of players disposed to save their challenges for potentially critical moments late in each set. The arbitrariness of limited challenges produces intrigue and strategy, but players will soon feel short-changed when they realise that inconsistency and unfairness have merely been reconstructed when they could have been eradicated. Fans will also share the frustrations when the novelty starts to wear thin. There must be serious misgivings over a system that is restricted to a select few on the show courts at tournaments.

Hawk-Eye should be a discretionary tool in the hands of chair umpires empowered to view an instant replay to resolve doubtful calls whenever they see fit. On clay courts, umpires already respond to limitless appeals by players. The use of instant replay technology is quicker and less intrusive than the spectacle of an umpire jumping in and out of the chair to inspect marks. Implementation should not depend on the installation of big screens, but, where they are available, they can be used to satisfy those who insist that the entertainment factor is exploited.

Instant replay technology is too good an opportunity for tennis to waste. The various authorities should be constantly reminded that the goal is the elimination of erroneous calls and there should be nothing else on the agenda. Every effort must be made to deploy it on all courts at those tournaments that choose to sanction its use. Above all, the technology must be put in the hands of the umpires.

Copyright 2006, Dave Winship -- all rights reserved worldwide





http://www.operationdoubles.com/blog/2006/04/dw-hawkeye-using-right-technology.html

vogus
10-25-2006, 12:49 AM
why should Hawkeye be in the hands of the umpires when you have got umpires like Maria Alves making outrageous calls that made replay necessary in the first place? The umpires are the PROBLEM. You will have scenarios where an umpire refuses to check obvious bad calls.

Putting the Hawkeye challenges in the hands of the players, and out of the reach of the umpires, is the SOLUTION. Dave Winship's argument is way off base.