Shotspot - ambiguous rules!

Discussion in 'General Pro Player Discussion' started by Max G., Aug 5, 2006.

  1. Max G.

    Max G. Hall of Fame

    Joined:
    Feb 18, 2004
    Messages:
    4,355
    So, I'm watching Safin vs Clement.

    Clement hits a serve; it's called out. He walks up to the net, looks at the place it landed (looking for a mark), stared at it for 5 seconds or so, then challenges.

    Later, Safin thinks about whether to challenge or not, and the umpire tells him it's too late to challenge, he took too long to decide, or something like that; either way, there was a conversation with the umpire about the challenges. He got the information that the challenge needs to be done "relatively quickly" (umpire's words).

    Commentators immediately want to know what's the definition of "relatively quickly", and it seemed like Safin did as well; commentators got one of their guys down on court to talk to the Tournament Supervisor, Safin stopped by to have a chat as well.

    His response - "well, the decision to challenge or not needs to be made immediately." When it was pointed out ot him that Clement clearly took some time to decide, he responded with something along the lines of "Well, they have a bit of time," leaving both me, the commentators, and Safin completely hanging as to what "immediately" means and HOW LONG DO THEY ACTUALLY GET to decide whether to challenge or not.

    Ugh, no wonder some players are against the challenge system.
     
    #1
  2. Max G.

    Max G. Hall of Fame

    Joined:
    Feb 18, 2004
    Messages:
    4,355
    Okay, to continue the rants. Maybe I should have put this in rants and raves instead.

    Second complaint is a rant which I accidentally put in somebody else's thread. http://tt.tennis-warehouse.com/showthread.php?t=113065 (if anybody can answer the guy's question, that would be nice too.)

    And, third thing - the commentators mentioned that because of shotspot, the umpires might start overruling less, to put the onus on making the decision on the players instead. Now, I hope they're wrong - the linesmen and umpires should be proffessional enough to not worry about that stuff and just make the calls as best they see them. But if they're right that's a bad thing... the players should not be the ones having to make the calls!
     
    #2
  3. skip1969

    skip1969 Legend

    Joined:
    Sep 4, 2005
    Messages:
    6,334
    Location:
    Pleasantville
    well, yet another reason why the challenge system (as is now implemented) is lame (though i know we are stuck with it and it is here to stay). unless the ball is WAY out, the player is not going to challenge immediately. he has to think about the score, how many challenges he/she has left, etc. of course, if the ball is way out, there shouldn't even be the need for a challenge in the first place, as it is still the job of the chair to overrule bad calls. but i guess that is part of your whole point. that the chair won't bother anymore.

    the real point is this:
    the players should be responsible for hitting the lines.
    the chair (and the linespeople) should be responsible for calling the lines.

    period.
     
    #3
  4. shawn1122

    shawn1122 Professional

    Joined:
    Dec 29, 2005
    Messages:
    1,131
    #4
  5. LowProfile

    LowProfile Professional

    Joined:
    Mar 10, 2006
    Messages:
    1,441
    Well in that case, it was just the umpire being vague about the rules. He should have specified a time limit for making challenges rather than just giving a subjective response. I think it should be up to each individual umpire to decide how long players should have to challenge, but it should be relatively quickly (under 10, and maybe under 5 seconds).
     
    #5
  6. Max G.

    Max G. Hall of Fame

    Joined:
    Feb 18, 2004
    Messages:
    4,355
    I don't think so. Because then, players would have to (in each match!) ask the umpire how long that particular umpire allows.

    And then they need to try remembering that number. I bet that if you ask at the beginning of the match, then by the time there's a close call (say, at 4-4 in the first set) you're going to be too engrossed in the match to remember what the umpire had told you - was it 5 seconds, or 10? Or was this one of the umpires that was lenient and said 15? Or did you forget to ask?

    I think that if they're going to use this the time limit should be specified in the rules.
     
    #6
  7. skip1969

    skip1969 Legend

    Joined:
    Sep 4, 2005
    Messages:
    6,334
    Location:
    Pleasantville
    agreed. in sport, it's always the rules most subject to personal interpretation that cause the most problems. there just needs to be a rule that can be enforced. it's like the time between points. you can't say it's 25 seconds . . . unless it's a REALLY long point and you've run around a LOT. or if it's REALLY hot. then you get more time. i mean, yeah, the chair can use it's judgement and allow more time sometimes, but the rule is still there to enforce.
     
    #7
  8. TennisProPaul

    TennisProPaul Banned

    Joined:
    Jun 18, 2006
    Messages:
    691
    It would be funny if at the US open a player asks for a challenge and the ump did not hear him or her, then waited , then asked again, and the ump said you waited too long, then the player said, I did ask but you did not hear me, then the ump says, im sorry but i cant give it to you since i did not hear you, then the player protests, then the head official comes out and tells the player you cant get the challenge, and the player still wont budge, and they default the player

    what a mess

    I think the time frame should be after the ball in question lands in or out, the player should have a full 10 seconds ( as long as they did not play the ball ).

    10 seconds works for me

    wait even better...

    since you only get 2 a set and 1 more for a breaker, the player should have the ability to ask for a challenge before the next point is served ( as long as they did not play the ball ). If that means 5, 10, 15 sec, or 45 sec in the case of nadal ( hehe) then so be it as the next point has not started yet.

    discuss
     
    #8

Share This Page