Are line judges penalized for making bad calls?

TagUrIt

Professional
Something I’ve always wondered, I know it’s their job, but generally there can repercussions to doing your job badly. Do line judges get an allowance of bad calls a year/season? What about the contrary, are they rewarded when a player challenges and haweye show that they made the correct call?
 

Hmgraphite1

Hall of Fame
Something I’ve always wondered, I know it’s their job, but generally there can repercussions to doing your job badly. Do line judges get an allowance of bad calls a year/season? What about the contrary, are they rewarded when a player challenges and haweye show that they made the correct call?
I think it would be ridiculous to punish for 1mm off. That said i'm sure if a judge was off by too much too often the umpire might not want them on the team
 

time_fly

Hall of Fame
Something I’ve always wondered, I know it’s their job, but generally there can repercussions to doing your job badly. Do line judges get an allowance of bad calls a year/season? What about the contrary, are they rewarded when a player challenges and haweye show that they made the correct call?
I think they have a secret holiday party in December with MLB umpires and laugh about all the players they scr***d this year.
 

Vcore89

G.O.A.T.
Penalties? How about compensation for the abuses?

“If I could, I would take this ----ing ball and shove it down your ----ing throat.”

“I did not get coaching, I don't cheat. You need to make an announcement. I have a daughter and I stand for what's right [sic] for her.''
 

Rattler

Professional
Something I’ve always wondered, I know it’s their job, but generally there can repercussions to doing your job badly. Do line judges get an allowance of bad calls a year/season? What about the contrary, are they rewarded when a player challenges and haweye show that they made the correct call?
To answer your question...everytime a line Umpire is on the court at an ATP match they are evaluated...by the chair umpire..if their average scores are low, they will not be hired to work past the qualifying and first round....same logic applies to the next rounds and the finals.

If the scores are consistently low, they are not picked up for ATP events.
 

SystemicAnomaly

Talk Tennis Guru
Something I’ve always wondered, I know it’s their job, but generally there can repercussions to doing your job badly. Do line judges get an allowance of bad calls a year/season? What about the contrary, are they rewarded when a player challenges and haweye show that they made the correct call?
Fallacious assumption. We should not assume that HawkEye is infallible. There are undoubtedly times when the linesperson has actually made the correct call and HawekEye's calculated approximation reverses that correct call. Last I heard, the average accuracy for the HE system was 3.6 mm. So those HE calls where it shows the ball to be 1-2 mm (or even 3-5 mm) In or Out could very well be Wrong.

Perhaps we should penalize HE for making incorrect calls.
.
 

Hmgraphite1

Hall of Fame
Fallacious assumption. We should not assume that HawkEye is infallible. There are undoubtedly times when the linesperson has actually made the correct call and HawekEye's calculated approximation reverses that correct call. Last I heard, the average accuracy for the HE system was 3.6 mm. So those HE calls where it shows the ball to be 1-2 mm (or even 3-5 mm) In or Out could very well be Wrong.

Perhaps we should penalize HE for making incorrect calls.
.
By an large the human error machine was way worse, saw calls this year that 2-3 inches or more wrong by the humans heye is awesome. You cannot be serious
 

Sudacafan

G.O.A.T.
Fallacious assumption. We should not assume that HawkEye is infallible. There are undoubtedly times when the linesperson has actually made the correct call and HawekEye's calculated approximation reverses that correct call. Last I heard, the average accuracy for the HE system was 3.6 mm. So those HE calls where it shows the ball to be 1-2 mm (or even 3-5 mm) In or Out could very well be Wrong.

Perhaps we should penalize HE for making incorrect calls.
.
If we talk about 3.6 mm deviations, a line judge watching the ball bouncing from several meters distance is a guess.
No matter how sharp his sight, the error/deviation of his eye should be greater than 3.6 mm.
 

Rattler

Professional
By an large the human error machine was way worse, saw calls this year that 2-3 inches or more wrong by the humans heye is awesome. You cannot be serious
I don’t doubt it, but I have a question. What round was the tournament in, when you saw these errors?
 

Rattler

Professional
Believe it was early rounds in October
Kinda what I suspected...these are usually staffed with more...inexperienced line umpires.

They are usually nervous, (who wouldn’t be?) and not usually comfortable with Hawkeye...if they are on a show court...so errors happen.

I’d be surprised by really bad errors in later rounds, but they do happen.

Was this an ATP or WTA event?
 
Last edited:

SystemicAnomaly

Talk Tennis Guru
@Rattler
By an large the human error machine was way worse, saw calls this year that 2-3 inches or more wrong by the humans heye is awesome. You cannot be serious
Au contraire, I am quite serious. My primary point is that neither the HE system nor the certified (human) linesperson is infallible. When HE reverses a call made by a linesperson, the HE call must be accepted but there is no guarantee that HE is actually correct and the human is wrong. Note that the stated HE accuracy, 3.6mm, means that some of the time its error will be 3.6mm or greater. Half the time?

Note that the HE is a projected (calculated) guess based on the ball's pre-bounce trajectory. HE never (or almost never) sees the actual bounce event. A competent/certified linesperson should see the actual bounce most/nearly all of the time. Sure, a human linesperson will space out every once in a while (due to boredom, fatigue, etc) but I would say that errors of 2-3 inches by a certified linesperson would not happen very often. Under what circumstances did you witness this much error from an actual linesperson?

Note that I had witnessed quite a few HE errors in two (back-to-back) matches at the BOW Classic (Stanford) where shots that appeared to be more than 6" long were deemed to by IN by the HE system. In these matches, there was a moderately strong wind with pretty strong gusts along the length of the court. If the wind gusts occurred just prior to (and during) the bounce, HE got it wrong. This error was quite evident to the chair umpires, to the linepersons and to many, if not most, of us watching the match.

I doubt that this much error from the HE system happens very often, but it can occur. I believe that there may have been times when it had been requested that the HE system be turned off for a match.

https://www.theguardian.com/science/sifting-the-evidence/2013/jul/08/hawk-eye-wimbledon
 
Last edited:

Rattler

Professional
@Rattler


Au contraire, I am quite serious. My primary point is that neither the HE system nor the certified (human) linesperson is infallible. When HE reverses a call made by a linesperson, the HE call must be accepted but there is no guarantee that HE is actually right and the human is wrong. Note that the stated HE accuracy, 3.6mm, means that half the time HE's error will be 3.6mm or less and half the time its error will be 3.6mm or greater.

Note that the HE is a projected (calculated) guess based on the ball's pre-bounce trajectory. HE never (or almost never) see the actual bounce event. A competent/certified linesperson should see the actual bounce most/nearly all of the time. Sure, a human linesperson will space out every once in a while (due to boredom, fatigue, etc) but I would say that errors of 2-3 inches by a certified linesperson would not happen very often. Under what circumstances did you witness this much error from an actual linesperson?

Note that I had witnessed quite a few HE errors in two (back-to-back) matches at the BOW Classic (Stanford) where shots that appeared to be more than 6" long were deemed to by IN by the HE system. In these matches, there was a moderately strong wind with pretty strong gusts along the length of the court. If the wind gusts occurred just prior to (and during) the bounce, HE got it wrong. This error was quite evident to the chair umpires, to the linepersons and to many, if not most, of us watching the match.

I doubt that this much error from the HE system happens very often, but it can occur. I believe that there may have been times when it had been requested that the HE system be turned off for a match.

https://www.theguardian.com/science/sifting-the-evidence/2013/jul/08/hawk-eye-wimbledon
.
I never said Hawkeye was infallable...I know first hand that it is quite the contrary.

Hawkeye uses ten cameras and an extrapolation to offer a best guess where the ball landed...and extrapolation is just a mathematical guess...not an exact representation. And the cameras need to be calibrated...the mounts can be affected by the wind, shaking, bumping...whatever...the calibration of the cameras, I believe, is done daily.
So if the reference points are out of sync...the extrapolation is less accurate, regardless of the formula.

A Hawkeye challenge is the last word though, that is what the players and the ATP, WTA & ITF agreed.

The “moment of truth” system they were testing in the Asian swing is the most accurate...using high speed digital cameras for line call challenges.

Also, there are exceptions to science and research of how well a human can see...I have been on the court and have been amazed at how well (accurate) some umpires could see...jaw droppingly amazed...now their outliers, for sure, but damn.
 

Hmgraphite1

Hall of Fame
Kinda what I suspected...these are usually staffed with more...inexperienced line umpires.

They are usually nervous, (who wouldn’t be?) and not usually comfortable with Hawkeye...if they are on a show court...so errors happen.

I’d be surprised by really bad errors in later rounds, but they do happen.

Was this an ATP or WTA event?
Atp
 

Hmgraphite1

Hall of Fame
@Rattler


Au contraire, I am quite serious. My primary point is that neither the HE system nor the certified (human) linesperson is infallible. When HE reverses a call made by a linesperson, the HE call must be accepted but there is no guarantee that HE is actually correct and the human is wrong. Note that the stated HE accuracy, 3.6mm, means that some of the time its error will be 3.6mm or greater. Half the time?

Note that the HE is a projected (calculated) guess based on the ball's pre-bounce trajectory. HE never (or almost never) see the actual bounce event. A competent/certified linesperson should see the actual bounce most/nearly all of the time. Sure, a human linesperson will space out every once in a while (due to boredom, fatigue, etc) but I would say that errors of 2-3 inches by a certified linesperson would not happen very often. Under what circumstances did you witness this much error from an actual linesperson?

Note that I had witnessed quite a few HE errors in two (back-to-back) matches at the BOW Classic (Stanford) where shots that appeared to be more than 6" long were deemed to by IN by the HE system. In these matches, there was a moderately strong wind with pretty strong gusts along the length of the court. If the wind gusts occurred just prior to (and during) the bounce, HE got it wrong. This error was quite evident to the chair umpires, to the linepersons and to many, if not most, of us watching the match.

I doubt that this much error from the HE system happens very often, but it can occur. I believe that there may have been times when it had been requested that the HE system be turned off for a match.

https://www.theguardian.com/science/sifting-the-evidence/2013/jul/08/hawk-eye-wimbledon
.
Subjective, I would be willing to go over the specs and the test methods, frame rates and use a max speed of 200 mph. I think we would find the systems are without a doubt the best solution.
 

tennytive

Professional
I was a line judge and worked tournaments for Virginia Slims and Volvo in Chicago. We were trained not to look at the ball, look at the line instead. It's technique and experience more than how perfect your eyesight may be. As Rattler said, performance good or bad went into consideration for following rounds and finals. We used less than full crews in early rounds which meant calling the center line on serves and running to your sideline after. Finals had full crews and best position was center line… one call and you could watch the rest of the point courtside, best view anyone could have. I had to call serves one match between Roscoe Tanner and Borg but by then they were on the exhibition tour so not as hard as when they were in their primes.

As far as Hawkeye goes, I differ with their interpretation that a ball can touch a fraction of the line as fine as the sliver of the ball outline they occasionally show on replays. Even compressed to the max my guess is that only 45 to 50% of the bottom of the ball at most would contact the court which means that even though from above the ball would look to have caught the line, the edge of the ball would not be in contact with the court. However the powers that be have ruled that HE is the final word so it is what it is.
 

Hmgraphite1

Hall of Fame
I was a line judge and worked tournaments for Virginia Slims and Volvo in Chicago. We were trained not to look at the ball, look at the line instead. It's technique and experience more than how perfect your eyesight may be. As Rattler said, performance good or bad went into consideration for following rounds and finals. We used less than full crews in early rounds which meant calling the center line on serves and running to your sideline after. Finals had full crews and best position was center line… one call and you could watch the rest of the point courtside, best view anyone could have. I had to call serves one match between Roscoe Tanner and Borg but by then they were on the exhibition tour so not as hard as when they were in their primes.

As far as Hawkeye goes, I differ with their interpretation that a ball can touch a fraction of the line as fine as the sliver of the ball outline they occasionally show on replays. Even compressed to the max my guess is that only 45 to 50% of the bottom of the ball at most would contact the court which means that even though from above the ball would look to have caught the line, the edge of the ball would not be in contact with the court. However the powers that be have ruled that HE is the final word so it is what it is.
I've thought of this flattening out of the ball. HE does show a skidding ball mark oval in some cases. How much it flattens out are easy tests with parameters put into the algorithm. I would bet this data is in there.
 
Top