[ballbasher101]

3 challenges are enough. If a lines person makes too many bad calls then remove them. Technology is good but we don't want too much technology.

[MuzzahLovah]

Normally I'd say the challenge system was enough, but the AO was horrific in terms of line calling, and players did run out of challenges. I think the umpire should have this ability to challenge.

[navy75]

I'm really surprised that two people voted to go back to just having linesmen. Anyone who saw the AO this year, with balls a yard in or out being called the opposite way, could certainly not have voted this way.

I disagree that it adds more stress to players, as years ago players would dwell for the rest of an entire match over one or two bad calls. Now, with Hawkeye, the call can be corrected, and the players can simply carry on. Also, years ago, I am certain that there were certain players who got preferential calls. Again, Hawkeye serves to keep these judges honest.

[Sunset of Age]

Originally Posted by navy75

I'm really surprised that two people voted to go back to just having linesmen. Anyone who saw the AO this year, with balls a yard in or out being called the opposite way, could certainly not have voted this way.

I fully agree that the linecalling at this year's AO was atrociously bad. Still I wonder whether or how much the linejudges' incapabilities aren't also (partly) due to the fact that there actually is HE available now - could it not also contribute in a way like the linesmen (and the umpires) get more lazy just because there is HE, like "why bother trying to do the job as best as we can, as the players can always challenge if they don't agree with the call"? It's a nasty thought, but somehow I feel like it may well be part of the problem at times.

Don't get me wrong, I'm rather happy with how the system works right now, and indeed the AO showed how much HE is necessary nowadays.

I disagree that it adds more stress to players, as years ago players would dwell for the rest of an entire match over one or two bad calls. Now, with Hawkeye, the call can be corrected, and the players can simply carry on.

Yep, the 'stress' argument surely fails. If anything, HE will contribute to less stress to the players, as you say, there is now a final verdict on calls available. Accept it and move on, no point in further arguing.

Also, years ago, I am certain that there were certain players who got preferential calls. Again, Hawkeye serves to keep these judges honest.

Good point. Still I can't help but notice how many more calls went against Djokovic in particular at the AO final this year. I'm certainly not a fan of his but it was pretty difficult not to notice some kind of an (unintentional?) bias against him in that final. Well another point for the HE-system I guess.

Actually, when watching that final, my BF (who, admittedly, is more of a Djokovic fan than a Nadal fan) at a certain point non-seriously suggested a slight adaptation of the HE-rules: in stead of taking away one challenge from a player whenever that player challenges wrongly, perhaps it's an idea to give that player an EXTRA challenge whenever he challenges correctly.
No idea how that would work out, but it's a funny thought - Djokovic might have ended up with "Mr. Djokovic has 20 challenges remaining" at the end of the AO final.

[philosophicalarf]

Originally Posted by leng jai

So when does an umpire challenge a call?

Whenever they feel like being the centre of attention :-)

[ossie]

no, one or two extra challenges could help though

[Kat_YYZ]

Originally Posted by navy75

I'm really surprised that two people voted to go back to just having linesmen. Anyone who saw the AO this year, with balls a yard in or out being called the opposite way, could certainly not have voted this way.

I disagree that it adds more stress to players, as years ago players would dwell for the rest of an entire match over one or two bad calls. Now, with Hawkeye, the call can be corrected, and the players can simply carry on. Also, years ago, I am certain that there were certain players who got preferential calls. Again, Hawkeye serves to keep these judges honest.

the stress without HawkEye comes from pointless dwelling after the fact.

The stress with HawkEye comes in the middle of a rally, from the player having to watch the line while the ball is in play. And then having to make a shot and within the same second also decide if you're going to challenge your opponent's shot. You can't challenge when the rally is over; you have to decide to stop the point immediately. But, if you want that extra quarter of a second to think about it, you also have to make a good return (in case you decide it was in after all and need to keep playing the point). It's not so simple. Players keep their eyes on the ball, but not in the same way as a linesperson; that linesperson doesn't care what happens after the ball bounces, but the player has to have timed his return (to hit it at the right moment, with the right part of the racquet).

[Yolita]

I think the system's fine as it is. 3 challenges per player are enough. The problem in Australia was human: umpires not having common sense as to when to allow a player to challenge, plus too many errors from the lines-persons. Those problems don't get solved with more challenges or a review system.