Federer Right (Again) About The Challenge System

Discussion in 'General Pro Player Discussion' started by Chopin, Sep 14, 2009.

  1. Chopin

    Chopin Hall of Fame

    Joined:
    Mar 13, 2004
    Messages:
    4,103
    Location:
    St. John, USVI
    The challenge system is a joke. Why are there not more stringent rules about its use (especially today, when it literally decided the match)?

    Signaling to your box (as Del Potro was doing) before challenging should not be allowed. Federer was completely right to complain that Del Potro was taking too long. There needs to be a rule regarding how much time can pass before challenging!

    The chair and lines officials also did a pretty lousy job. I particularly enjoyed when some guy in the crowd yelled out a call (correctly) that all the on-court officials had missed. The chair allowed Federer to challenge and then decided to give Del Potro a 1st serve despite the ball being out because of the "delay."

    Even worse was when Federer hit an ace and Del Potro apparently saw some distraction (though made no motion to play a let) and the chair made them replay the point.

    Also, am I the only one who suspects that thw challenge system might not be completely accurate. Wouldn't it be more logical to use it for ALL calls or not to use it at all?

    Nonsense.

    EDIT: I'm going to present this thread to the Hawkeye creator via e-mail. Math, computer and physics guys please feel free to post some questions regarding the system. If we have doubts about the system, let's try to get some answer!
     
    Last edited: Sep 15, 2009
    #1
  2. Jchurch

    Jchurch Guest

    I also think it might not be accurate. That 4th set tie break call killed me. In my eyes, that literally DECIDED the match. We all know how Federer gets into his funks.
     
    #2
  3. Max G.

    Max G. Hall of Fame

    Joined:
    Feb 18, 2004
    Messages:
    4,356
    Yeah, the challenge system is stupid. It shouldn't be the players' problem - the umpire should himself order a replay viewed whenever he believes the call was close enough to warrant a second look. No input from players needed.
     
    #3
  4. Raphael

    Raphael Semi-Pro

    Joined:
    Sep 15, 2008
    Messages:
    413
    IF the technology really does work, then it should be for all points, not just the ones that the players (or their coaches) feel were judged incorrectly.
     
    #4
  5. dh003i

    dh003i Legend

    Joined:
    Apr 27, 2006
    Messages:
    5,114
    I agree with your post completely. It was really disgusting and unprofessional that the umpire gave Del Potro another first serve "because of the delay". What a spineless coward. The whole point of the challenge was that if it was out, it was a 2nd serve. Isn't there a rule about that?

    Asking your box before making a challenge is cheating; it is essentially coaching.

    And it is really pathetic that the someone in the crowd got an "out" call (which the replay showed right), when none of the lines people did.

    It was really disgusting when Del Potro got to replay a point where he wasn't ready, but he appeared to be ready to Federer, the commentators, and anyone watching. Why not just allow the receiving player to say he isn't ready after the serve has been made at any point? People are supposed to read his mind, I guess.

    This was some really awful officiating. Fortunately, I don't think it really decided the outcome of the match, as Federer was serving poorly enough that it didn't really matter (i.e., broken twice last set).

    But it was still awful. And I agree, shot-spot ought to maybe be used on every shot. It is instantaneous.

    Something seriously needs to be done about improving the officiating in tennis. It is simply awful. Rules ought to be enforced strictly, and the umpire is supposed to enforce the rules, not make them up as he goes along like this guy did (see the above situations). Federer would have been justified in not shaking the umpire's hand.
     
    #5
  6. atac

    atac Rookie

    Joined:
    Sep 21, 2005
    Messages:
    371
    Yet in the semifinal, Federer doesn't complain when he clearly got aced by Djokovic, the serve was called out, Djokovic challenges, its in and Norm Chryst makes him do a first serve??? After that, I'd say today made it pretty even.
     
    #6
  7. NamRanger

    NamRanger G.O.A.T.

    Joined:
    Oct 19, 2005
    Messages:
    13,916
    Someone's a little bitter.
     
    #7
  8. atac

    atac Rookie

    Joined:
    Sep 21, 2005
    Messages:
    371
    ^^^ If that was meant for me, then no. I'm pretty happy considering Fed got pwned today.
     
    #8
  9. NamRanger

    NamRanger G.O.A.T.

    Joined:
    Oct 19, 2005
    Messages:
    13,916

    Not you, OP.
     
    #9
  10. pame

    pame Professional

    Joined:
    Jun 8, 2009
    Messages:
    1,427
    Hmm.. I would have thought losing in straight sets at low scores would classify as getting "pwned".. losing in 5 sets, with 2 tiebreaks... if that's being pwned, what room do you leave for anything else?
     
    #10
  11. Tony48

    Tony48 Legend

    Joined:
    Sep 1, 2008
    Messages:
    6,896
    Decided the MATCH? wtf

    Federer sucks at Hawkeye. PERIOD.
     
    #11
  12. Chopin

    Chopin Hall of Fame

    Joined:
    Mar 13, 2004
    Messages:
    4,103
    Location:
    St. John, USVI
    ^^Well, the real thing that decided the match was Federer hitting a dropshot by the T serving at 5-4 in the second set when he could have just ripped a forehand. Game over. Set over. Match over.

    Federer came out strong and put himself in a position to put Del Potro away before he even knew what was happening, but he took his foot off the gas just a little too much towards the end of the second and eventually Del Potro woke up and Fed's poor serving caught up to him.

    Federer should have won the match in straights IMO. He got too cute and too cocky.

    Federer will likely dismantle Del Potro next time they play though (in the same way that he's recently crushed both Murray and Djokovic after losing some matches to them).
     
    Last edited: Sep 14, 2009
    #12
  13. dh003i

    dh003i Legend

    Joined:
    Apr 27, 2006
    Messages:
    5,114
    Right, he does. But why should he have to be good at it? That isn't tennis; it isn't what he trained to do. It isn't his job. The challenge system is unprofessional and awful. It should be the umpire (maybe even commentators) doing he challenges.

    And IF Hawkeye really is accurate, it ought to be used on every shot, as it is instantaneous.

    I am not convinced on Hawkeye, and neither are a lot of others. I'd like to see it compared to he marks at the FO. I think it fails. But the raw data on it should be made available to the public.
     
    #13
  14. Chopin

    Chopin Hall of Fame

    Joined:
    Mar 13, 2004
    Messages:
    4,103
    Location:
    St. John, USVI
    The sad thing, none of the players seem to know how good t is. It seems like it's just meant to make the game "more exciting" for the fans. Personally, I find it annoying.
     
    #14
  15. NamRanger

    NamRanger G.O.A.T.

    Joined:
    Oct 19, 2005
    Messages:
    13,916


    I am totally convinced that Hawkeye robbed Federer of a point at 30 all I believe (forgot when it was; it was a Del Potro pass to get back into the match). However, you just have to get over it.
     
    #15
  16. dh003i

    dh003i Legend

    Joined:
    Apr 27, 2006
    Messages:
    5,114
    It seems like a poor decision in retrospect; but if it worked, it's brilliant. It is part of a strategy of mixing it up, giving the other guy more to think about. I don't think Federer got cocky or cute, I think he just didn't do enough to put away Delpo when he could have. And, as you said, his bad serving caught up to him.

    Credit to Delpo, he deserved to win and he hung in there.
     
    #16
  17. penang

    penang Rookie

    Joined:
    Jul 8, 2004
    Messages:
    186
    As I have said before. The challenge system make the chair umpire and lines person lazy and afraid to call a close shot and sometime an obvious shot.

    See what happen next Grand Slam. Who would want to take the pressure like the lines person call on one of the woman foot fault. Take the system away and let the officials do their job. Otherwise install all courts with the Hawkeye or whatever they want to call it. It look like the smaller courts with no camera and those player's aren't play for the championship. Only the few big courts matches with camera are.

    And I hate lines person with sunglasses. maybe want to hide themselves.
     
    #17
  18. ArrowSmith

    ArrowSmith Banned

    Joined:
    Sep 4, 2009
    Messages:
    427
    Yeah let's pretend Fed lost because of Hawkeye....
     
    #18
  19. topspin

    topspin Semi-Pro

    Joined:
    Feb 18, 2004
    Messages:
    654
    The challenge system works. It can work for you or against you. So as a player, you have to accept that it will help you at times and hurt you other times. At least it is precise and consistent.

    About the person in the crowd who yelled out "OUT" correctly: people tend to yell out line calls a bit too much at matches. They just take guesses if the ball is close to the line.
     
    #19
  20. Chopin

    Chopin Hall of Fame

    Joined:
    Mar 13, 2004
    Messages:
    4,103
    Location:
    St. John, USVI
    Yeah, of course Del Potro deserved the win, but Federer definitely took his foot of the gas in the second set. It just seemed like he assumed he was going to continue breezing through the set and after blowing it, Del Potro just caught stronger and stronger and Federer let things like Hawkeye start to get to him. IMO, if Djokovic or Murray were across the net in the final, Federer would have never dared take his foot off the gas. At the end of the day, Fed underestimated Del Potro.

    Federer was coming to net a lot in the first two sets and he went away from the way too much in the final sets and got into those extended rallies from the baseline towards Del Potro's forehand.

    Regardless of how fit the guy is, he's played a LOT more tennis than Del Potro and he's 28--not 20. The longer the match went on, the more it favored Del Potro after playing back to back matches.
     
    Last edited: Sep 14, 2009
    #20
  21. iGotServed628

    iGotServed628 New User

    Joined:
    Jun 23, 2009
    Messages:
    46
    Location:
    Coral Gables, FL
    you guys are all aware that hawk-eye does not represent what actually happened in real life right? it uses the cameras to make a prediction of where the ball WOULD land based on the velocity and trajectory of the ball with a very slim margin of error. however, i am not 100% convinced on a lot of the calls that zoom in to show that a ball was in/out by millimeters. in regards to the us open final, delpo came to play and was the better player today, controversial or not. as a fed fan im disappointed, but he just didnt play as well.
     
    #21
  22. dh003i

    dh003i Legend

    Joined:
    Apr 27, 2006
    Messages:
    5,114
    We have no objective evidence hat shot-spot is accurate and consistent. I'd like to see the raw data on it, and a comparison of it vs. the marks at clay tournaments.

    In any event, it isn't as simple as "for or against you". Some players are really bad at it, others really good. It is an unfair advantage to the player who's good at second-guessing lines calls. That isn't what these guys train for, and it isn't their job. It is the job of the ump and the lines people to do that. They should do it.

    IF shot spot is accurate, it should be used on every shot. Why not? They use an electronic sensor to sense lets.

    But I doubt it is accurate. IF the ATP and the company backing shot-spot were so confident, they'd use it during clay-court tournaments and compare it to the marks for real proof.
     
    #22
  23. Chopin

    Chopin Hall of Fame

    Joined:
    Mar 13, 2004
    Messages:
    4,103
    Location:
    St. John, USVI
    Exactly. There is really no legitimate counter-argument to your last point. If it's that good, why not use it at all times?
     
    #23
  24. Tony48

    Tony48 Legend

    Joined:
    Sep 1, 2008
    Messages:
    6,896
    1. Federer hates Hawkeye.
    2. Federer uses Hawkeye quite a bit
    3. Federer has more incorrect challenges than anyone on the ATP

    If Hawkeye is a joke, Federer does a terrible job trying to prove it.
     
    #24
  25. Knightmace

    Knightmace Professional

    Joined:
    Sep 30, 2008
    Messages:
    940
    The challenege system is not accurate I remember one time it said it was out but showed the ball hit the line.
     
    #25
  26. RalphNYC

    RalphNYC Semi-Pro

    Joined:
    Feb 2, 2009
    Messages:
    656
    #26
  27. dh003i

    dh003i Legend

    Joined:
    Apr 27, 2006
    Messages:
    5,114
    How exactly could Federer "prove it"? He can't.

    Hawkeye isn't used at clay-court events, isn't even shown to the public. Why not? Well, it isn't really needed, because there are marks. But it ought to be used anyways, to prove it's accuracy for other events.

    Why isn't it? Why isn't the public shown proof that Hawkeye almost always matches the marks on clay?

    I suspect the answer is because Hawkeye is really just a guess based on extrapolation. It isn't that accurate. It certainly can't account for wind or cold fronts, for example. (in particular, it can't account for sudden gusts of wind, or random changes in wind, which happened a lot at the USO).

    We'd be better off using very high fps videos to see what happened.
     
    #27
  28. dh003i

    dh003i Legend

    Joined:
    Apr 27, 2006
    Messages:
    5,114
    #28
  29. Jim A

    Jim A Professional

    Joined:
    Dec 29, 2008
    Messages:
    804
    62 UE's do more damage than a replay
     
    #29
  30. asdfuogh

    asdfuogh New User

    Joined:
    Sep 11, 2009
    Messages:
    50
    Marks only show where there is the most impact right? But when the ball hits the surface, it flattens out in a way depending on how it approached the ground.. Then again, hawkeye really needs some improvements because it's just basically a good educated guess.
     
    #30
  31. dh003i

    dh003i Legend

    Joined:
    Apr 27, 2006
    Messages:
    5,114
    What exactly is the rule? Is it physical contact, or just any part of the ball being over the line? I would think it'd be any part of the ball being over the line, as physical contact is really almost impossible to see.
     
    #31
  32. kkm

    kkm Semi-Pro

    Joined:
    Feb 20, 2008
    Messages:
    649
    They should actually enforce the no-coaching rules or otherwise get rid of these rules. Now they don't seem to enforce it one bit.
     
    #32
  33. Ultra2HolyGrail

    Ultra2HolyGrail Hall of Fame

    Joined:
    Aug 2, 2004
    Messages:
    2,519
    How is it coaching when you look to your box on out calls?
     
    #33
  34. dh003i

    dh003i Legend

    Joined:
    Apr 27, 2006
    Messages:
    5,114
    This is obvious. It is coaching because you're looking for a visual cue on whether or not to challenge the out call.
     
    #34
  35. Ultra2HolyGrail

    Ultra2HolyGrail Hall of Fame

    Joined:
    Aug 2, 2004
    Messages:
    2,519

    I don't consider that coaching. It's not like they are telling them how to play the game.
     
    #35
  36. dh003i

    dh003i Legend

    Joined:
    Apr 27, 2006
    Messages:
    5,114
    The ATP has made that a part of the game, by making challenges up to players. This is wrong, but it is. Hence, asking for advice from one's box on that is asking for coaching, and not within the rules. The commentators also said as much.

    That said, Delpo is generally a really nice guy. No-one is perfect, and I blame the ATP for the situation.
     
    #36
  37. Chopin

    Chopin Hall of Fame

    Joined:
    Mar 13, 2004
    Messages:
    4,103
    Location:
    St. John, USVI
    Q. Seemed like a little turning point in the second set, there was that call on the line that was challenged. Seemed look you thought it was maybe another mark there. Can you talk about that?

    ROGER FEDERER: It was only one mark. That mark was out. But apparently in. I mean, I don't know what to say. This thing is so ridiculous anyway. I see the ball landing, I see the ball hanging, and then it's called in.
     
    #37
  38. Chopin

    Chopin Hall of Fame

    Joined:
    Mar 13, 2004
    Messages:
    4,103
    Location:
    St. John, USVI
    "The mark of the ball was still on court and it was outside. But in the challenge it was in, so that's unbelievable. The Hawk Eye system is not perfect," fumed Nadal.

    "I told the chair umpire: 'Look, the ball is out' and he said: 'I know'.

    "The truth is that the ball was out. Let them put the Hawk Eye on clay and you will see," Nadal shrugged.
     
    #38
  39. Chopin

    Chopin Hall of Fame

    Joined:
    Mar 13, 2004
    Messages:
    4,103
    Location:
    St. John, USVI
    #39
  40. Chopin

    Chopin Hall of Fame

    Joined:
    Mar 13, 2004
    Messages:
    4,103
    Location:
    St. John, USVI
    #40
  41. (K)evin

    (K)evin Rookie

    Joined:
    Feb 24, 2009
    Messages:
    335
    or?

    or I was thinking we could just sack the hawkeye system and isntead install sensors on the lines either a pressure sensor underneath the line itself that can detect balls hitting the line. and if it isn't possible to translate this system to clay and grass than a tiny sensor at the very end of each line and send a beam to te other side and when the ball breaks the beam you know it was in.
     
    #41
  42. Chopin

    Chopin Hall of Fame

    Joined:
    Mar 13, 2004
    Messages:
    4,103
    Location:
    St. John, USVI
    #42
  43. COPEY

    COPEY Hall of Fame

    Joined:
    Nov 7, 2008
    Messages:
    1,543
    Best quote in the thread, and speaks volumes.

    My thoughts are...

    This thread wouldn't exist if the outcome had been different I'm sure. Having said that, it doesn't change the fact that the ATP/WTA need to make a few changes in the challenge system. I personally don't see it going away, although I agree with Carillo in that players shouldn't have to challenge. We have the means to improve the accuracy of every call, but for the sake of infusing drama, which inturn influences fan appeal and ratings, the challenge system will probably be around for a while.

    Already been down that road. Electronic line calling was first tinkered with back in the the 70s, and it was extremely close to being implemented in the '93 US Open, but failed miserably in the final testing period.

    The problem as I see it is if they remove any and all sources of human error in tennis, then you're left with the game itself to lure fans in, get high ratings and the like. So even though Shot Spot/Hawk-Eye trump the human eye with respect to discerning the probability of a ball being in or out, the challenge system still leaves room for "mistakes", which can sometimes lead to high drama in tense moments/key points. Translation: higher ratings, more interest from the fans.

    Me - I love the game, so I'm all for line calls being as accurate as possible, but I also understand why we're not "there" yet.
     
    #43
  44. topspin

    topspin Semi-Pro

    Joined:
    Feb 18, 2004
    Messages:
    654
    I have no problem with it being used for every shot. It is a quick process that does not cause much delay. That is something the ITF can consider. I understand that some will say that then players will just ask for a verification every time they need an extra 10 seconds to recover from a point. So the best thing would be to keep the current challenge system and then just leave it up to the ref to verify any close calls for a player that has run out of challenges. That would be very reasonable.

    As far as accuracy, there are many many threads about it on here. Visually it appears to be very accurate to me. When I see a review, it is often exactly where I imagined the shot to have landed. Apparently the margin for error is 1/8 of an inch. That's not perfect of course, but very good and, most importantly, it is consistent. A linesperson is not that precise or consistent. But with a 1/8 margin of error, it is possible that some reviews will show the ball to either touch the line or barely miss it. I think the players understand this. That's why I say they know that the system will equally help them or hurt them. The main thing though is to avoid really really bad calls like that against S Williams in a US Open match years ago.
     
    #44
  45. Bud

    Bud Bionic Poster

    Joined:
    Jul 23, 2007
    Messages:
    31,167
    Location:
    San Diego, CA
    Was that the point where Federer kept looking at the mark on the court... for the next 4-5 points? Federer even went over and pointed out the incorrect mark (on the sideline of the ad court). If so, the replay showed the called mark was the correct mark and Delpo's ball did catch the edge of the line.
     
    Last edited: Sep 15, 2009
    #45
  46. Gorecki

    Gorecki G.O.A.T.

    Joined:
    Jul 20, 2007
    Messages:
    13,227
    Location:
    Puerto y Galgo....
    plus the idiot challenges in the replay point after spraying a fh...

    the only jokes i see are Fed's eyes and Chopin's opinions...
     
    #46
  47. Bud

    Bud Bionic Poster

    Joined:
    Jul 23, 2007
    Messages:
    31,167
    Location:
    San Diego, CA
    Yep, Federer likes Hawkeye when it works in his favor... and hates it like the dickens when it works against him.
     
    #47
  48. Fedace

    Fedace Banned

    Joined:
    Dec 10, 2006
    Messages:
    23,292
    Location:
    San Diego, CA
    I agree that it isn't 100% accurate due to shadow problems and such. but it is FUN. it adds excitement to tennis. so that is what matters, and it stays.
     
    #48
  49. P_Agony

    P_Agony Banned

    Joined:
    Jul 16, 2008
    Messages:
    13,186
    The umpire really annoyed Federer, and Federer was rightfuly annoyed. I think that had part in his game declining during the match.
     
    #49
  50. Stinkdyr

    Stinkdyr Professional

    Joined:
    Feb 20, 2004
    Messages:
    1,246
    agree that mac-cam would be better. animation=approximation.
     
    #50

Share This Page