[castle007]

Obviously, we have the hawkeye challenge system that players can use. Each player gets 3 challenges per set and an extra one in the tiebreak.

But what if a player runs out of challenges by the end of the set, and on set/match point a controversial line call is made?? Sometimes players get robbed of matches and sets on points like these. Should the tour have a review systems that chair umpires can use to review critical points in matches?

What do you guys think?

 

[nole_no1]

Obviously, we have the hawkeye challenge system that players can use. Each player gets 3 challenges per set and an extra one in the tiebreak.

But what if a player runs out of challenges by the end of the set, and on set/match point a controversial line call is made?? Sometimes players get robbed of matches and sets on points like these. Should the tour have a review systems that chair umpires can use to review critical points in matches?

What do you guys think?

If this happens it's only the player's fault :shrug: 3 challenges + 1 more in the TB is enough in my oppinion

 

[justafanYYC]

Yes there are already alot of challenges and there are many stupid challenges that happen.


Look a cricket, a team only gets 2 challenges for an entire innings.

 

[navy75]

The other posters are right. Players who have three wrong challenges in a set deserve to be at the sole mercy of the linespeople by that point. It would be tough to go back to watching the sport if there were no Hawkeye at all, and the AO was the perfect example of why with blatantly atrocious calls throughout that would have actually changed results.

 

[bjurra]

I can't imagine it would be hard to implement a system that tells the umpire immediately if a ball was out and corrects the umpire/linesperson immediately if a ball called out was in fact in.

I wouldn't mind getting rid of line judges on show courts. Most of them are rubbish anyway.

 

[stewietennis]

Three is more than past champions got. It's enough. They should just be smart when using the challenges.

 

[Looner]

Berdych ran out of challenges at 2-1 against Nadull in one of the sets during their QF. That says a lot about the player's intellect.

 

[Mae]

Yes there are too many bad calls!

 

[Mountaindewslave]

i dont really like hawkeye at all. the problem you have is this: currently these still use linesmen AND hawkeye. this is a sport not gambling at a casino.... if the ball is out it should be called out. there should be an added component of pressure to players in a game that has been around for so long. I think they should either use purely linesmen or use the hawkeye system 24/7 using it automatically in any close calls.

if they worked on fine tuning a system so that it checked at a faster rate an automatically no matter what then it would not really add time either because the REF would just call the ball in or out himself without any discussion.

but linesmen are traditional and for that reason i would prefer they make the calls and we just stick with that.

i always thought hawkeye was a cool addition but honestly it adds a lot of stress to players and can affect a match too much. Federer was right when he said they should get rid of it and rely on the umpire and linesmen

 

[Certinfy]

The umpire can challenge calls if he wants. I've seen it before.

Made a thread on it actually too. http://www.menstennisforums.com/showthread.php?t=166542

 

[Mountaindewslave]

The umpire can challenge calls if he wants. I've seen it before.

Made a thread on it actually too. http://www.menstennisforums.com/showthread.php?t=166542

yes he can.

really though some matches literally sometimes are decided by hawkeye and having that sort of pressure added onto players seems dumb...

the whole point of linesmen is so that the players don't HAVE TO worry about ins and outs yet having hawkeye totally contradicts thatttttt

 

[lalaland]

Since we who watches on TV will get the hawkeye review whether or not the player challenges, I think it is there already, so why not just use it to avoid man-made errors. But then, I'm getting used to the challenge system, it added a layer of suspense to the game, the fans kinda like it. So it's hard to change thing right now. And I'm thinking it's there and it's not broken, so let's not change it.

 

[Mountaindewslave]

Since we who watches on TV will get the hawkeye review whether or not the player challenges, I think it is there already, so why not just use it to avoid man-made errors. But then, I'm getting used to the challenge system, it added a layer of suspense to the game, the fans kinda like it. So it's hard to change thing right now. And I'm thinking it's there and it's not broken, so let's not change it.

lalaland i agree 100%. they should either have it or not have it. literally they can practically gurantee a correct answer now if the ball is in or out with the hawkeye system so why rely on linesmen? i get its tradition and all but this is a game about hitting the ball in or out! if a guy hits the ball out and we have a way to know it should not just be ignored!

at the same time linesmen are too traditional and part of the history of the game so that's why I might consider (much like Federer) getting rid of the hawkeye system overall as it can negatively affect the game with players focusing energy on worrying about when to challenge and the # of challenges they have remaining.

 

[leng jai]

So when does an umpire challenge a call? Shouldn't they then challenge every call they are unsure about?

 

[Kat_YYZ]

It's easy to say the players should be responsible for managing their challenges and not running out, but that is not realistic. Look at this past AO where there were so many bad calls. The players lose confidence in the linespeople and start making bad challenges, even when they didn't really see the ball themselves, they figure 'these linespeople are so bad... I can't trust them.'

Also, I've seen instances where the chair umpire hesitates in announcing the score and looks at a player with a raised eyebrow. His body language is saying "hmmm, not sure about that call; do you want to challenge?" Then the player challenges and is wrong and loses a challenge! But the umpire practically goaded him into it. The players cannot be expected to watch the lines the way linesmen do; it would take away from their game. So if the umpire wants something reviewed, he should be able to call for a hawkeye review himself.

 

[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]

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]

So when does an umpire challenge a call?

Whenever they feel like being the centre of attention