Three Plus Hawkeye Challenges!

Discussion in 'General Pro Player Discussion' started by lordmanji, Nov 13, 2007.

  1. lordmanji

    lordmanji Guest

    hey all,

    it appears the ATP will now adopt three challenges plus one additional in the tie-break starting with the australian open. ive always been an advocate of this number of challenges and am glad that its finally being implemented. again, the benefits of this number are:

    1. hawkeye works. bottomline, lets have more calls corrected.

    2. players were hesitant to use challenges with only two. often they'd horde them until the end. now with an additional one, they'll use hawkeye more. if you're having a hard time understanding the psychological impact one additional challenge makes, just imagine baseball with two strikes instead of three.

    discuss.
     
    #1
  2. burosky

    burosky Professional

    Joined:
    Nov 9, 2006
    Messages:
    1,035
    Location:
    CA
    If not for the possibility of abuse, I would even like to see no limit. However, I realize it isn't realistic. The way it is, I've seen several instances where a challenge is made on match point even if the ball is clearly in or out. I understand they are not really serious about it though.

    Three would certainly have some impact good or bad on the way they use the challenge but having just two isn't so bad either. The challenges will still be "reserved" for when they really need it.
     
    #2
  3. Leublu tennis

    Leublu tennis Legend

    Joined:
    Sep 30, 2007
    Messages:
    6,426
    Location:
    Moldova
    If you make a challenge and you are right do you lose one of your two challenges or does it remain two until you miss out? Anyone know? Thanks.
     
    #3
  4. takl23

    takl23 Semi-Pro

    Joined:
    Sep 13, 2007
    Messages:
    562
    Location:
    43 05 141 21
    You keep your challenges if you are correct. This is the way it should be. The NFL should have the same policy, if you're correct you keep the challenge.

    3 challenges starting with the AO is great! That way players will hopefully use one or two earlier in the set. I also think 3 is a good number, no more no less. They cannot be abused and they have enough to use an extra one earlier in the set (hopefully).

    Cheers,

    Tim
     
    #4
  5. fastdunn

    fastdunn Legend

    Joined:
    Feb 19, 2004
    Messages:
    6,294
    yeap, 3 seems to be a good number.

    great technoggical advance in tennis.

    but it's not perfect. there seems to be a few moments when hawk eye goes way off although they seem to be rare....
     
    #5
  6. takl23

    takl23 Semi-Pro

    Joined:
    Sep 13, 2007
    Messages:
    562
    Location:
    43 05 141 21
    I haven't seen this yet myself, but I think we can all agree it works exponentially better than the Cyclopse!:-D

    Cheers,

    Tim
     
    #6
  7. Vision84

    Vision84 Hall of Fame

    Joined:
    Mar 27, 2007
    Messages:
    1,655
    Location:
    Cambridge, UK
    Like Federer in the Wimbledon final. ;)
     
    #7
  8. skip1969

    skip1969 Legend

    Joined:
    Sep 4, 2005
    Messages:
    6,456
    Location:
    Pleasantville
    now if they could only do something about the players consulting their people in the box, assessing the desires of the majority of the fans in the stands, checking for the invisible mark on the court, and asking the chair whether or not they think a challenge should be made . . .
     
    #8
  9. JKN666

    JKN666 Rookie

    Joined:
    Aug 23, 2007
    Messages:
    146
    i remember this match between two WTA players(cant remember the names) where one of the players challenged a call that was displayed as "in" by hawkeye but hawkeye said it was "out".

    JKN
     
    #9
  10. Layman

    Layman New User

    Joined:
    Sep 10, 2007
    Messages:
    14
    One thing that bothers me is that it is so slow. All right, it is cool too see the animation, but couldn't the ref just receive a "in" or "out" transmitted from the computer? This way it could be used all the time? Or does the system really need some time for computing?
     
    #10
  11. lordmanji

    lordmanji Guest

    this i actually dont mind. half the time theyre wrong anyway :)

    oh and i forgot to add: i think it was a good idea starting with 2 challenges because the players have learned to use their challenges judiciously. i suppose they wouldve learned it eventually if it started with 3 challenges but it really drives the point home.

    oh and i saw the safin davydenko davis cup match last year where there were unlimited challenges. it was quite awful. challenges were made repeatedly even though balls were well out. im very glad unlimited challenges isnt being used.

    and of course, the fans enjoy the players challenging. i personally love it. its great that we're giving fans the chance to see more challenging. and it was so expensive to install so why not use it: :)
     
    #11
  12. takl23

    takl23 Semi-Pro

    Joined:
    Sep 13, 2007
    Messages:
    562
    Location:
    43 05 141 21
    I think it if some country/city wants to host a tournament, the system should be required to be put in place. There were some WTA tourneys this year that didn't have it. The inconsistency needs to be erradicated.

    Cheers,

    Tim
     
    #12
  13. simi

    simi Hall of Fame

    Joined:
    Feb 23, 2004
    Messages:
    1,929
    Location:
    Laurentia
    Only thing I don't like about Hawkeye is a trend that I've noticed, especially during this Master Series Championship tournament. That is that the match referee had abdicated some of his overrule prerogative and is relying on players using the challenge system instead of calling them as they see them. If you have noticed...very rarely will a referee overrule a line call anymore. This will ultimately result in less qualified and accurate referees, especially on courts without the system.
     
    #13
  14. fastdunn

    fastdunn Legend

    Joined:
    Feb 19, 2004
    Messages:
    6,294
    Definitely. It's much much more accurate. That's doesn't mean it can't be improved.

    In ATP master's double final, one team challenged one line call which appeared to be landed very close to service line. The HawkEye called it like 2 feet inside line. I thought that was grossly wrong.
     
    #14
  15. andyroddick1

    andyroddick1 Rookie

    Joined:
    Sep 9, 2007
    Messages:
    355
    This is why I don't like Fed. He doesn't want correct calls. I mean he is against the system. Makes no sense.
     
    #15
  16. jmsx521

    jmsx521 Hall of Fame

    Joined:
    Aug 29, 2006
    Messages:
    3,496
    Sorry to be barking all over this again. The bottom line is let's have ALL incorrect calls correct!
    • Let the umpire review any call that seems to be wrong.
    • Stop asking the players to be doing the job for the umpires and lines-people for your own entertainment.
     
    #16
  17. Rickson

    Rickson G.O.A.T.

    Joined:
    Jun 16, 2004
    Messages:
    12,740
    Location:
    USA
    Give them 1 per game and let it carry over into the next game if they don't use it. Rollover challenges.
     
    #17
  18. JW10S

    JW10S Hall of Fame

    Joined:
    Sep 27, 2006
    Messages:
    1,896
    Wimbledon used the 3 + 1 challenge system this year so I'm not sure it's an ATP decision or one the AO made on their own. The Slams are run by the ITF not the ATP.

    As for unlimited challenges, one only needed to have seen the Nalbandian/Safin Davis Cup match last year to see why it is a bad idea.
     
    #18
  19. lordmanji

    lordmanji Guest

    i like what agassi said about hawkeye: it makes objective mistakes. when players see that, whether it was truly out or in, they can move on. with only line judges or umpires, the margin for error is higher. also, hawkeye has like what, 9 cameras on the ball? id choose that over one pair of eyes any day.
     
    #19
  20. lordmanji

    lordmanji Guest

    what a bogus argument. if we had all calls being challenged, the game would take forever. moreover, if anything the hawkeye system makes line judges more apt to do their job right lest they get embarassed when the player challenges and their call is overturned. think of hawkeye as a supervisor or fail-safe system. and when the player challenges, its usually to correct a call that has already been made by a line judge.
     
    #20
  21. jmsx521

    jmsx521 Hall of Fame

    Joined:
    Aug 29, 2006
    Messages:
    3,496
    Then, what a "bogus" officiating of a match... to let a possible mistaken call unchallenged, just because the player ran-out of available challenges. That is bad for the sake of the match's officiating accuracy!
     
    #21

Share This Page