Mary Carillo - Discussion

[35ft6]

^ It was kind of funny how every time she ranted about it there would be a bit of silence, if even for a few seconds, as if Dick and John didn't want to undermine her on the air, yet, thought she was a kook. They certainly didn't seem to agree and they made a few jokes to try to lighten the mood.

[jack hoyer]

She can be good. She knows tennis, and seems like a nice person, but she often gets carried away by her own rhetoric. She reminds me of Jim Lampley in that respect. Didn't she work with him in the early days of her broadcasting career? I agree there was too much talking over the points by all parties yesterday. At least McEnroe often returned the discussion to the play. He is the best tennis announcer by far IMO. Dick Enberg is older now, and often flubs the score, but he also makes astute observations, and characterizes things well.

[smoothtennis]

Yeah - the guys moved on, and were playing point after point, and yes, Carillo would just not shut up over the lines - I am sorry Mary - you know that one point in the second set will not determine if Murray wins a 5 set match. I mean, jeez, I had to review TVO to watch one really great point because she was sooooo distracting.

[MEAC_ALLAMERICAN]

Despite what anyone has to say, I like Mary Carillo and she is a very gifted journalist in her own right. Although, she can shut up sometimes, that will never take away from her gift and contribution to the sport of tennis or any sport that she does cover.

[Moose Malloy]

Until today. Actually, she was kind of annoying me yesterday, but today when she was going on and on about Hawkeye, she may have lost me for good. She made very little sense. Murray continued to play a point even though a backhand was out (by an inch or two) and immediately after the point, when Murray went back to look at the mark, she exclaimed "this is why I hate the review system!!!" Huh? Because Murray didn't stop the point and ask for a review? How is that the technology's fault? Later, she said that Hawkeye might have cost Andy the championship and it was unfair. It was truly bizarre.

You really don't understand her point? I was just talking to a friend of mine(a casual tennis fan) about the way replay is used in other sports, & we agreed the only reason it is used in other sports is strictly for the purpose of getting calls right, not for the fans at all(& fans in baseball & football stadiums aren't getting fancy replays on the scoreboard to ooh & ahh at as they do in tennis)

In the NBA they automatically use replay on shots that end quarters or games, no players/coaches are required to 'challenge.' And in college football they automatically review any questionable calls throughout the game.

I explained to him what happened yesterday & he was pretty shocked, he basically said what Carillo said, what's the point of replay at all if bad calls can still happen? wasn't that the whole point of adding it, to make sure bad calls can't decide a match?

Her point is valid, someone could have relayed to the chair umpire the info that the ball was out immediately & he could have stopped the point. But no, having players 'challenge' is more dramatic so they are sticking with a flawed system where players can still get screwed by bad calls.

Its sorta sad that pro tennis has to resort to gimmicks to help its popularity, they know that this really isn't about getting calls 'right' at all(I've seen quite a few points where players stare at lines, then decide not to challenge, then the replay shows that they should have)

Carillo is right, it should not be the players responsibility to call the lines.

I think the ATP/ITF should at least think about automatically using replay on any close shot on big points(mainly game points), sort of like the way the NBA uses it(and tennis replays are quicker than any other sports' replays, other sports often need to have several refs study various camera angles before ruling, while its just a simple question in tennis - in or out?)

Maybe some of you will understand her point when a bad call happens in the 5th set of a grand slam final, and the player either doesn't challenge or is out of challenges. wouldn't that defeat the whole purpose of replay?

I thought yesterday was a big enough point that fans would finally get how silly the system is, but I guess not.

[superstition]

rather than the incessant jibbering of Carillo or Shriver...

Or McEnroe?

I have liked McEnroe until the US Open. He was getting on my nerves a bit this time.

[TennisInPleasanton]

I like Mary Carillo. I think she is one of the better commentators out there. I don't know where you are coming from when you say she doesn't stop talking when I notice that she doesn't get a word edgewise when she is in the booth with Enberg and J Mac. That said I do like Enberg's end of the tournament segments.

[TennisInPleasanton]

I also agree with MooseMAlloy about what Mary Carillo said about hawkeye. I really don't think players should make their own calls. HAwkeye has made Umpires lazy. I was actually surprised that umpires can use the challenge system when it happened during the women's finals. If that's the case, the umpires should be calling for hawkeye not the players.

[5263]

there is a ton of ways to use Hawkeye, but this is the one they came up with to limit the delays, but still bring it into use. Most courts don't have it, so remember it is a luxury when you have the opportunity and it makes sure you don't get a major rip at a bad time. also, linesman are part of the game as well. They make far less mistakes than the players do, and maybe less than hawkeye?? probably not, but just cause hawk eye says something, does not make it correct. On the closest ones, I prefer the linesmans call, as it may fall into the margin for error for hawkeye, but the linesman call is the standard.

Mary's problem is her poor explanation of her position, just like on every other subject.