04/16/24
July 18, 2006
"Couldn't you see anything?" : Actually, Mr. McEnroe, we don't need to, because this year the US Open Series will become the first Grand Slam tournament rely on instant replay. The instant replay will be used not just for the US Open itself, as previously announced, but for all tournaments in the series, and will use the Hawkeye system. Competitors will be allowed two incorrect challenges and an unlimited number of correct challenges per set, and one additional challenge for a tiebreaker.
posted by lil_brown_bat to tennis at 01:24 PM - 16 comments
I agree, the challenge thing seems sketchy, and fraught with lots of unintended consequences. Either use the technology all the time, or not at all. Why the half-measure?
posted by psmealey at 03:29 PM on July 18, 2006
As a player, I like it. Matches can completely turn around because of a bad call. Not only because you've lost the point, but sometimes it gets you so pissed off that it takes you off your game. On clay a player can call out the ref to check the mark if he thinks that he got a bad call, this to me is the same thing, only it's done electronically.
posted by agilityman at 06:05 PM on July 18, 2006
This is a good thing. The technology has clearly come far enough that it's fast, accurate and reliable, so there's no reason to not do this. Yes, it is another psychological tool in a smart player's arsenal, but but it's a tool given to both players in equal measure, and (more in tennis than most sports), accuracy of calls is paramount. The fact that they're implementing it in the entire series shows a commitment to it as a long-term addition to the sport. It'll soon be everywhere, I trust.
posted by chicobangs at 06:32 PM on July 18, 2006
Technology didn't stop Ilie Nastase arguing with the service line beeper or whatever it's called.
posted by owlhouse at 07:15 PM on July 18, 2006
It didn't stop him from flipping the bird an inordinate amount of times in his professional career, either.
posted by The_Black_Hand at 08:04 PM on July 18, 2006
The latest: Ginepri used the challenge in a match today, and it paid off handsomely.
posted by lil_brown_bat at 09:45 PM on July 18, 2006
I like the idea. If the Hawk Eye is as nearly infallible as it's reputed to be, and the players can't afford to be wrong very often, it seems like it should work well. Sure, there will probably be areas that need to be tweaked, but I can't imagine anything that would be all that hard to iron out.
posted by ctal1999 at 10:16 PM on July 18, 2006
On clay a player can call out the ref to check the mark if he thinks that he got a bad call, this to me is the same thing, only it's done electronically. Exactly my point. On clay, a player is not artificially limited to a certain number of appeals. He can do this as many times as it takes. If you have the technology to eliminate bad calls, why not eliminate them altogether?
posted by psmealey at 05:08 AM on July 19, 2006
psmealey, everyone believes that it's the wave of the future and that the other majors will follow (unless there's a debacle, which there won't be), but the use of the replay is at the instigation of the US Open, not from on high. The other Grand Slam tournaments are their own thang and will follow or not as they choose.
posted by lil_brown_bat at 07:38 AM on July 19, 2006
I think you misunderstood my point, lbb. My point was not that it should be used at all tournaments, that's up to each tournament director to decide. My point was that if it is used in a particular tournament, like the US Open for example, why not encourage the chair umpire to use it for all points in a given match rather than setting up a player challenge dynamic? The smacks to me of gimmickry (as Fernandez kind of implies it benefits the commentators) rather than being an intelligent implementation of the technology.
posted by psmealey at 08:17 AM on July 19, 2006
Well, the review, while quick, must take some time, and you don't want to slow down the points any more than necessary.
posted by lil_brown_bat at 08:34 AM on July 19, 2006
lbb is right. It's not practical to review every point. For that matter, there are likely to be points where more than one shot is close. You could easily double the length of a match. So, what do you do? Only use it on shots that are really, really close? How do you define that? You'd be begging for an absolute mess in every match. Remember, players can challenge on every point under this system...but they'd better be pretty certain that they're right. The article doesn't say, but I'd hope there's an allowance for a judge to ask for a review if he or she isn't sure of a call. That way, if there's substantial question about any call, raised by a player or judge, it can be quickly answered.
posted by ctal1999 at 10:05 AM on July 19, 2006
Well, the review, while quick, must take some time, and you don't want to slow down the points any more than necessary. I know you like her and all, but surely a review wouldn't take any longer than Mary Pierce does between points?
posted by owlhouse at 03:40 PM on July 19, 2006
I know you like her and all, but surely a review wouldn't take any longer than Mary Pierce does between points? And then you'd have the review delay, plus the amount of time that Mary Pierce takes between points. Great.
posted by lil_brown_bat at 07:44 AM on July 20, 2006
Agreed, but Mary must be due for retirement soon.
posted by owlhouse at 03:32 PM on July 20, 2006
I'm not a huge fan of the challenge format. I guess there really isn't anyway around it, but it's not without it's problems - it either shows up an umpire, or can be used to psychological effect. But mostly I'm against it because it means the crowd will be more interested in challenges than great shots. It takes the emphasis away from the athletics to the officiating and technology - and this is to the detriment of the sport, I believe. Smacks a bit too much of a game show, or reality TV gimmick. "He only has one challenge left, will he use it?" I'd rather that the replay be used independantly, but I guess that points are played in too rapid a succession for that to work. And the Hawkeye is never wrong, so it needs to be applied. I'm all for getting it right. I'm probably overstating the problem. At least it may help get rid of some bad umpires.