Hawkeye and line calls

time_fly

Hall of Fame
I had an opponent complain about a line call yesterday. The ball clearly landed outside the side line, which he didn’t dispute ... but he said that the inside edge of the ball still touched the outside edge of the line and that I had to allow for more clear separation of the entire ball and line to be certain it’s out. I think this thinking comes from the pro level tournaments where it is now common to challenge and occasionally get points for balls where the Hawkeye system says a tiny sliver of the edge of the ball maintained contact with the edge of the line even though the judge saw it out.

I personally think the rule should be changed so that if the center of the ball lands outside the line then the ball is out. Nothing except a dedicated line judge working with a camera system can make an accurate call in those situations; it’s impossible to make those types of calls at the amateur level while trying to hit the ball. Otherwise, the court effectively gets 2 or 3 inches bigger as balls that used to be called out start requiring the benefit of the doubt because of the possible “edge on edge” touches.
 

S&V-not_dead_yet

Talk Tennis Guru
Otherwise, the court effectively gets 2 or 3 inches bigger as balls that used to be called out start requiring the benefit of the doubt because of the possible “edge on edge” touches.

But now the problem has shifted to one of trying to figure out the geometric center of the ball as it's moving. That's not an easy visual problem either.

For me, the current system is fine [albeit imperfect]: give the benefit of the doubt to your opponent.
 
Yeah, the rules are fine. If any part of the ball touches any part of the line, it's in. That's what the rules have always been, even before hawkeye.

That's easier to watch for than trying to figure out where the "center" of the ball landed, anyway.
 

sureshs

Bionic Poster
This is why I have said many times and some self-righteous posters didn't like it - that you call a ball out based on what you see and how you intrapolate the path in you mental computer - and not always give the "benefit of the doubt." If you do, you will have to call many many balls in, as in this case.

A teacher who rounds up every 89 to the A grade cutoff of 90 is not doing the right thing.
 

S&V-not_dead_yet

Talk Tennis Guru
A teacher who rounds up every 89 to the A grade cutoff of 90 is not doing the right thing.

The analogy isn't appropriate on several levels.

A teacher is not trying to adhere to a gentleman's code of conduct [ie give your opponent the benefit of the doubt].

A teacher/student relationship is not a peer-to-peer one like two tennis opponents [only the teacher grades tests, not vice versa whereas in tennis, both players are "grading" each other].

you will have to call many many balls in, as in this case.

An exaggeration for me; a few calls per set is not "many, many".

And, regardless of the #, what's wrong with calling close balls in [assuming your opponent is following the same code]? Of course, it gets sticky when one player is and the other isn't.
 
N

Nashvegas

Guest
The analogy isn't appropriate on several levels.

A teacher is not trying to adhere to a gentleman's code of conduct [ie give your opponent the benefit of the doubt].

A teacher/student relationship is not a peer-to-peer one like two tennis opponents [only the teacher grades tests, not vice versa whereas in tennis, both players are "grading" each other].



An exaggeration for me; a few calls per set is not "many, many".

And, regardless of the #, what's wrong with calling close balls in [assuming your opponent is following the same code]? Of course, it gets sticky when one player is and the other isn't.

So much for the prior post.
 

r2473

G.O.A.T.
I had an opponent complain about a line call yesterday. The ball clearly landed outside the side line, which he didn’t dispute ... but he said that the inside edge of the ball still touched the outside edge of the line and that I had to allow for more clear separation of the entire ball and line to be certain it’s out. I think this thinking comes from the pro level tournaments where it is now common to challenge and occasionally get points for balls where the Hawkeye system says a tiny sliver of the edge of the ball maintained contact with the edge of the line even though the judge saw it out.

I personally think the rule should be changed so that if the center of the ball lands outside the line then the ball is out. Nothing except a dedicated line judge working with a camera system can make an accurate call in those situations; it’s impossible to make those types of calls at the amateur level while trying to hit the ball. Otherwise, the court effectively gets 2 or 3 inches bigger as balls that used to be called out start requiring the benefit of the doubt because of the possible “edge on edge” touches.
“It’s better to let 9 guilty men go free than to convict even 1 innocent man”.

Anything as close as you describe is “in”, because there is no way you can be 100% sure it was 100% out while playing the ball. I play lots of out balls in a match. But I don’t call any ball that even might have been in, out.
 

sureshs

Bionic Poster
The analogy isn't appropriate on several levels.

A teacher is not trying to adhere to a gentleman's code of conduct [ie give your opponent the benefit of the doubt].

A teacher/student relationship is not a peer-to-peer one like two tennis opponents [only the teacher grades tests, not vice versa whereas in tennis, both players are "grading" each other].



An exaggeration for me; a few calls per set is not "many, many".

And, regardless of the #, what's wrong with calling close balls in [assuming your opponent is following the same code]? Of course, it gets sticky when one player is and the other isn't.
People like you simply call it out and say that they are sure. I don't play that game.

Hawkeye exists because humans can't be sure. That doesn't mean they should always be presumed wrong. Otherwise the code of conduct would say that anything less than 3 inches out is to be called in. It doesn't.

Sent from my SM-G935V using Tapatalk
 

sureshs

Bionic Poster
You're expected to obey the speed limit. In practice, you may be slightly above or below. That is enough. You don't have to drive 10 mph below the limit just in case.

Similarly, your eye and brain (actually eye is a part of the brain) creates a mental model of the ball near the line. You should go with that. That is the only reality you have without Hawk Eye. In fact, HE also builds a model of reality with a 3 mm error. Your model may be worse, that is all.

Sent from my SM-G935V using Tapatalk
 

S&V-not_dead_yet

Talk Tennis Guru
People like you simply call it out and say that they are sure. I don't play that game.

So what do you do? Call it out and say you're not sure? That's not going to fly very well.

Hawkeye exists because humans can't be sure. That doesn't mean they should always be presumed wrong. Otherwise the code of conduct would say that anything less than 3 inches out is to be called in. It doesn't.

And since I don't have Hawkeye when I play, I rely on my own limited, faulty, error-prone visual system plus my own human frailty in wanting the ball to be out in combination with giving my opponents the benefit of the doubt. It's the best I can do and I expect others to do the same.

I'd love it if someone or something else could make every call and free me to simply play.
 

sureshs

Bionic Poster
And since I don't have Hawkeye when I play, I rely on my own limited, faulty, error-prone visual system plus my own human frailty in wanting the ball to be out in combination with giving my opponents the benefit of the doubt. It's the best I can do and I expect others to do the same.

That is exactly what I do. What I DON'T do is to pretend that I am sure, call the ball out, and then lecture on morality.
 

West Coast Ace

G.O.A.T.
I had an opponent complain about a line call yesterday. The ball clearly landed outside the side line, which he didn’t dispute ... but he said that the inside edge of the ball still touched the outside edge of the line and that I had to allow for more clear separation of the entire ball and line to be certain it’s out. I think this thinking comes from the pro level tournaments where it is now common to challenge and occasionally get points for balls where the Hawkeye system says a tiny sliver of the edge of the ball maintained contact with the edge of the line even though the judge saw it out.

I personally think the rule should be changed so that if the center of the ball lands outside the line then the ball is out. Nothing except a dedicated line judge working with a camera system can make an accurate call in those situations; it’s impossible to make those types of calls at the amateur level while trying to hit the ball. Otherwise, the court effectively gets 2 or 3 inches bigger as balls that used to be called out start requiring the benefit of the doubt because of the possible “edge on edge” touches.
Unless your opponent brought up Hawkeye I think you’re just speculating that is the reason he questioned it. It’s more likely he based it on where you were standing, how far away you were. You also don’t mention when in the match this happened - if it was early he could have just been getting in your head on the next call or gauging your reaction to see if you look guilty or timid and can be bullied.

Only you know how fair you are in calling lines: if you feel you’re doing a good job, don’t let yourself get bullied - remind him you call your own side and he calls his.
 
It’s more likely he based it on where you were standing, how far away you were. You also don’t mention when in the match this happened - if it was early he could have just been getting in your head on the next call or gauging your reaction to see if you look guilty or timid and can be bullied.

Or, even simpler answer, he saw the ball hit the line. (Or thought he did).
 

Dartagnan64

G.O.A.T.
I think the OP needs to understand "benefit of the doubt". If he thought the ball might be a teensy bit out and the opponent thought the ball was a teensy bit in, then the ball should have been called in by the standards of the "code".

Only call a ball out if you clearly see it as "out". You don't have to be "Certain", you have to have clearly seen it out. Eyes play tricks so "certainty" is impossible. But the best you can do is go with what you saw at the time. If you clearly saw it out, it's out. If you didn't clearly see it out, its in.

As we age the courts must by necessity enlarge. We old folks can't see a ball out by a sliver of court. We need 1-2 inches minimum. Some young folk with good eyes can see balls out clearly at less than a half inch. That's why I don't like playing young guys. The Code requires I give them more court to work with when they already have more speed to work with.
 

ShaunS

Semi-Pro
I personally think the rule should be changed so that if the center of the ball lands outside the line then the ball is out. Nothing except a dedicated line judge working with a camera system can make an accurate call in those situations
What you describe wouldn't be any easier to judge than the current method, and I would argue it's less accurate because it requires some sort of interpretation of where the center of the ball lands.

The Code said:
A player shall not call a ball out unless the player clearly sees space between where the ball hits and a line.


that you call a ball out based on what you see and how you intrapolate the path in you mental computer - and not always give the "benefit of the doubt."
This is clearly in contradiction of the USTA code, so I'm not sure how you validate it. Better to possibly hook your opponent than give them a free call?
 

sureshs

Bionic Poster
What you describe wouldn't be any easier to judge than the current method, and I would argue it's less accurate because it requires some sort of interpretation of where the center of the ball lands.





This is clearly in contradiction of the USTA code, so I'm not sure how you validate it. Better to possibly hook your opponent than give them a free call?

There is no contradiction. The USTA code refers to being sure. That is not a quantitative measure. I have seen balls on TV which I knew were clearly out, but the pro player challenged it. It was out by several inches. When a pro makes this kind of error, while a rec player claims that he is "sure," it is a lot of BS.

Your problem is that you are setting up an artificial fight between moral and immoral actions, while the moral action is merely a guy claiming to be sure and probably deceiving himself and others.

As a good example, when I play doubles against club players known for "sure" bad calls, I adopt a tactic. If I had hit a ball close to the lines, I shout and congratulate myself very fast. If my partner has hit it, I applaud him immediately. You will be shocked at the discomfort the opponents feel once they realize that their usual strategy of being "sure" that the ball was out has been preempted. I love to watch them look surreptitiously at each other trying to decide whether to still call the ball out and start a fight.

Put a little pressure and the "sure" guys start being unsure.
 

ShaunS

Semi-Pro
Your problem is that you are setting up an artificial fight between moral and immoral actions, while the moral action is merely a guy claiming to be sure and probably deceiving himself and others.
Nonsense, you're misinterpreting the "sure" part of the rules.

The rules state that you must "clearly see space" to call the ball out. Not predict that the flight path would've resulted in space. This is absolutely a qualitative measurement, and the process you're describing clearly doesn't meet this requirement.

When the USTA brings up "sureness" they are only attempting to clarify that if there's any doubt you have to give that call to the opponent.

There's no morality argument here. You're either playing by the USTA rules, or you're using your own which potentially results in cheating.
 

sureshs

Bionic Poster
Nonsense, you're misinterpreting the "sure" part of the rules.

The rules state that you must "clearly see space" to call the ball out. Not predict that the flight path would've resulted in space. This is absolutely a qualitative measurement, and the process you're describing clearly doesn't meet this requirement.

When the USTA brings up "sureness" they are only attempting to clarify that if there's any doubt you have to give that call to the opponent.

There's no morality argument here. You're either playing by the USTA rules, or you're using your own which potentially results in cheating.

Yeah and anyone who claims to see clear space for a close-to-the-lines ball from a distance of half a court or more on the run is lying, so it is the same thing.

The other issue is that seeing the green between the ball and the line is very difficult for low balls angling away from you. The trajectory and flattening of the ball actually make it very difficult. Interpolation is a superior technique in these situations.
 

ShaunS

Semi-Pro
The other issue is that seeing the green between the ball and the line is very difficult for low balls angling away from you. The trajectory and flattening of the ball actually make it very difficult. Interpolation is a superior technique in these situations.
I suspect you are right... in that you're able to make closer line calls with good accuracy using your system.

My only point is that your system is not the same as the USTA rules. By using your system, whether or not it's more accurate to actual line calls, it does give you a potential advantage over your opponents who are following said rules. This would be true of any situation where you adhere only closely to the rules, but in practice I expect your calls are accurate enough that it isn't an issue.

Yeah and anyone who claims to see clear space for a close-to-the-lines ball from a distance of half a court or more on the run is lying, so it is the same thing.
There's clearly much variability in people's ability to track fast moving objects. I believe the intent of the USTA rules is to error on the side of caution, presuming that it's better to play a ball that was out by a minuscule amount than to call balls that were in by a similar amount out. And really, it's always more fun to hit a winning shot than it is to call a close ball out.
 

sureshs

Bionic Poster
I suspect you are right... in that you're able to make closer line calls with good accuracy using your system.

My only point is that your system is not the same as the USTA rules. By using your system, whether or not it's more accurate to actual line calls, it does give you a potential advantage over your opponents who are following said rules. This would be true of any situation where you adhere only closely to the rules, but in practice I expect your calls are accurate enough that it isn't an issue.


There's clearly much variability in people's ability to track fast moving objects. I believe the intent of the USTA rules is to error on the side of caution, presuming that it's better to play a ball that was out by a minuscule amount than to call balls that were in by a similar amount out. And really, it's always more fun to hit a winning shot than it is to call a close ball out.

Let us look at the geometry.

A tennis ball is 2.7 inches in diameter. Say the ball landed outside the deuce court with its leftmost point just outside the outside edge of the line. For anything other than perfectly vertical landing, no deformation, and no parallax error (viewer looking straight ahead at the ball), any of the above non-ideal situations could place some part of the ball in reality actually inside the line. So, to be sure, the ball can be called out only when its leftmost point is at least a ball's diameter away from the line, which means its center is a diameter plus a radius away, namely 4.05 inches. Now add in defective eyesight, motion of the player, too much glare or too little light, and spin on the ball causing it to dip before it was expected to (happens a lot with advanced players), I would say that the center of the ball should be at least 5 inches away from the outside of the line for it to be called out with certainty.

But that much space would not usually result in a challenge by the opponent, especially one who was directly in line with the ball (like a DTL shot).

In other words, the USTA guideline is a waste.
 
Last edited:

ShaunS

Semi-Pro
Let us look at the geometry.

A tennis ball is 2.7 inches in diameter. Say the ball landed outside the deuce court with its leftmost point just outside the outside edge of the line. For anything other than perfectly vertical landing, no deformation, and no parallax error (viewer looking straight ahead at the ball), any of the above non-ideal situations could place some part of the ball in reality actually inside the line. So, to be sure, the ball can be called out only when its leftmost point is at least a ball's diameter away from the line, which means its center is a diameter plus a radius away, namely 4.05 inches. Now add in defective eyesight, motion of the player, too much glare or too little light, and spin on the ball causing it to dip before it was expected to (happens a lot with advanced players), I would say that the center of the ball should be at least 5 inches away from the outside of the line for it to be called out with certainty.

But that much space would not usually result in a challenge by the opponent, especially one who was directly in line with the ball (like a DTL shot).

In other words, the USTA guideline is a waste.
The efficacy of their rule isn't the point. The rules are the contract by which the matches are governed. If you do something different than the rules you're potentially gaining an advantage. That's all.
 

sureshs

Bionic Poster
The efficacy of their rule isn't the point. The rules are the contract by which the matches are governed. If you do something different than the rules you're potentially gaining an advantage. That's all.

A rule which talks about being "sure" is not a rule. A rule is something which can be quantified and enforced.
 
N

Nashvegas

Guest
A rule which talks about being "sure" is not a rule. A rule is something which can be quantified and enforced.

What do the guidelines for linespeople say about calling a ball out? (Throwing this question out for anyone.)
 

sureshs

Bionic Poster
Here is my proposed change:

When the player receiving the ball is almost stationary and almost directly behind the ball and the center of the ball is at least 5 inches from the outside edge of the line, and the lighting conditions are good, he shall call the ball out with surety.

In any other case, he shall provide a guess based on his mental model of the ball's flight path. If he calls it in, end of story.

If he calls it out, he shall also query the opponent to find out if he had a better view of the ball. If the opponent agrees to the out call, end of story.

If none of the above hold, a coin toss shall be done.
 

sureshs

Bionic Poster
What do the guidelines for linespeople say about calling a ball out? (Throwing this question out for anyone.)

Interesting. Note that linespeople satisfy many of the conditions I mentioned in my previous post:

When the player receiving the ball is almost stationary and almost directly behind the ball and the center of the ball is at least 5 inches from the outside edge of the line, and the lighting conditions are good, he shall call the ball out with surety.
 

ShaunS

Semi-Pro
A rule which talks about being "sure" is not a rule. A rule is something which can be quantified and enforced.
We already discussed how this statement is based on the false premise that "sureness" is the qualifier. It is not.

I'll quote the entire two entries from the Friend At Court document for your benefit:
7. Ball touching any part of line is good. If any part of a ball touches a line, the ball is good. A ball 99% out is still 100% good. A player shall not call a ball out unless the player clearly sees space between where the ball hits and a line.

8. Ball that cannot be called out is good. Any ball that cannot be called out is considered to be good. A player may not claim a let on the basis of not seeing a ball. One of tennis’ more infuriating moments occurs after a long hard rally when a player makes a clean placement and an opponent says:“I’m not sure if itwas good or out. Let’s play a let.” Remember, it is each player’s responsibility to call all balls landing on, or aimed at, the player’s side of the net. If a ball cannot be called out with certainty, it is good. When a player says an opponent’s shot was really out but offers to replay the point to give the opponent a break, it seems clear that the player actually doubted that the ball was out.
#7 is clearly defining that you must always see space. That's not subjective in any way.

#8 is only clarifying that when presented with a lack of evidence balls *always* must be called in. It's not allowing you to inject subjectivity, but re-affirming that without visual confirmation of the space you can't call it out. In truth, this only strengthens the requirement in #7.

I don't personally care if you use your own system for calling lines, and I acknowledge that your system might even be more accurate. However, and this is an indisputable fact, if you opt to use a less stringent requirement for calling balls out you *must* be introducing a potential advantage over an opponent who follows the letter of the law.

What do the guidelines for linespeople say about calling a ball out? (Throwing this question out for anyone.)
You won't find hardly any discussion of line calls in the scenarios and interpretations. The Friend at Court document though is what I reference above, and it's intended for officials to be their handbook. Both of them are over here though:
https://www.usta.com/en/home/about-usta/who-we-are/national/officiating-rules-and-regulations.html
 

sureshs

Bionic Poster
#7 is clearly defining that you must always see space. That's not subjective in any way.

As I have already mentioned, that is possible only when the center of the ball is at least 5 inches from the outside edge of the line, and in such cases, it is rarely disputed.

To test real-life scenarios, look at the test in the link that I provided. The only correct answer is that the ball has to be called out in all the cases, unless you want to cheat and pretend that you clearly saw space.

BTW, have you ever wondered why line judges in the stationary optimal no-parallax position to see the ball make errors which HE has to correct? They were also "sure" that they saw "space." Why were they wrong?

Because vision involves the brain as well as the eye, and the eye itself has limitations.
 

ShaunS

Semi-Pro
The efficacy of their rule isn't the point. The rules are the contract by which the matches are governed. If you do something different than the rules you're potentially gaining an advantage. That's all.

You're just recycling the same points while ignoring the imbalance it creates when one player doesn't follow the same guidelines.

So I'll try one last time with straightforward wording. Why is it *fair* for you to use a different guideline than everyone else? This isn't even specific to line calling but any rule.
 

S&V-not_dead_yet

Talk Tennis Guru
A rule which talks about being "sure" is not a rule. A rule is something which can be quantified and enforced.

How do you quantify a hindrance? It's a judgment call.

How do you quantify a serial tosser? Or a receiver who becomes "unready" to throw the server's rhythm off?

How do you quantify bad sportsmanship? Racquet abuse?
 

sureshs

Bionic Poster
How do you quantify a hindrance? It's a judgment call.

How do you quantify a serial tosser? Or a receiver who becomes "unready" to throw the server's rhythm off?

How do you quantify bad sportsmanship? Racquet abuse?

These examples are not valid because they involve variable elements including humans. For a ball and a line, there is only one correct answer. There is no correct answer in your examples.
 

S&V-not_dead_yet

Talk Tennis Guru
These examples are not valid because they involve variable elements including humans. For a ball and a line, there is only one correct answer. There is no correct answer in your examples.

I was responding to your statement "A rule is something which can be quantified and enforced.".
 

time_fly

Hall of Fame
#7 is clearly defining that you must always see space. That's not subjective in any way.

So if you are playing singles and someone hits a flat serve roughly at you then you can only call it out if you see space between the ball and the line ... over the top of the ball? Depending on your height and where you stand, you might be giving an extra foot or so to the server.
 

ShaunS

Semi-Pro
So if you are playing singles and someone hits a flat serve roughly at you then you can only call it out if you see space between the ball and the line ... over the top of the ball? Depending on your height and where you stand, you might be giving an extra foot or so to the server.
It seems very unlikely that anything approach one foot would be required unless you're playing with a beach ball, but it's not my rule. It's the USTA. I am only pointing out that if everyone doesn't play by the same rules it is unfair. And that's the great thing, even if a rule is dumb, as long as everyone uses the same parameters it will be fair.
 

sureshs

Bionic Poster
So if you are playing singles and someone hits a flat serve roughly at you then you can only call it out if you see space between the ball and the line ... over the top of the ball? Depending on your height and where you stand, you might be giving an extra foot or so to the server.

I see that happening in USTA tournaments in the club. Players are so afraid of the rule that they were calling these serves in when we could see from the side that it was 1 foot long.
 

CdnUmp

New User

I've seen that one as well as the Roland Garros one. They're cool, but a pretty poor representation of what it's actually like to call the ball. Line umpires use peripheral vision to anticipate roughly where the ball will land. We focus our eyes on a specific part of the line based on the ball's trajectory. In the link above, calling the base line is particularly difficult since it's impossible to focus on the entire line at once.

As for the requirement that a player be certain the ball is out before calling it out, I think it's fine. It's possible for someone to be certain and still be wrong. The principle is that if they're even the slightest bit unsure, the point continues. Does this mean that some balls that are out are played? Yes. Are balls that are in called out? All the time. In my experience, honest mistakes seem to even themselves out over the course of a match.
 

sureshs

Bionic Poster
I've seen that one as well as the Roland Garros one. They're cool, but a pretty poor representation of what it's actually like to call the ball. Line umpires use peripheral vision to anticipate roughly where the ball will land. We focus our eyes on a specific part of the line based on the ball's trajectory. In the link above, calling the base line is particularly difficult since it's impossible to focus on the entire line at once.

As for the requirement that a player be certain the ball is out before calling it out, I think it's fine. It's possible for someone to be certain and still be wrong. The principle is that if they're even the slightest bit unsure, the point continues. Does this mean that some balls that are out are played? Yes. Are balls that are in called out? All the time. In my experience, honest mistakes seem to even themselves out over the course of a match.

You hit the nail right there on the head when you said calling the line requires peripheral vision and anticipation. You cannot call the line by staring intensely at an area. That is why I said interpolation is needed, taking into account the trajectory of the ball.

That is the honest way to call the ball out. Claiming to be sure that there was space works only when the ball is several inches out and the viewing conditions are ideal, and in those cases there is seldom any challenge.
 

CdnUmp

New User
You cannot call the line by staring intensely at an area. That is why I said interpolation is needed, taking into account the trajectory of the ball.

Yes and no, and depends on the line. When I'm calling serve I'll focus on the first third of the service line. This is because it's easier for humans to see things above their focal point rather than below their focal point. If I'm focusing on the middle of the service line I'll miss a ball hit to the near line. The serve is coming too fast to use any peripheral vision to judge the target. If you look at a service line umpire in a match you'll notice that they'll look at the server until the start of their service motion and then will focus entirely on the line. On base, you judge the direction of the shot off the racket as well as whether it's hit strong enough to challenge the baseline and at about the point that the ball crosses the net, I'm focusing on the baseline at around the area I expect the ball to land. This is also true on the long lines. We track the ball and when it's hit, if it's coming near my line, I'll judge how deep it is and focus on roughly that point of the line. When calling centre serve I'm always focusing about 5 inches up the T and use my peripheral vision to judge if the ball is coming near the line or not. This is particularly "fun" with players like Nadal who will hit a serve that looks like it's about a foot wide off the racket and will then spin back in and catch the line. Important not to get overexcited and jump the call.
 

sureshs

Bionic Poster
^^^ Interesting that a real-life line judge does not make simple moralistic statements about seeing space and then lord it over others
 
D

Deleted member 23235

Guest
I had an opponent complain about a line call yesterday. The ball clearly landed outside the side line, which he didn’t dispute ... but he said that the inside edge of the ball still touched the outside edge of the line and that I had to allow for more clear separation of the entire ball and line to be certain it’s out. I think this thinking comes from the pro level tournaments where it is now common to challenge and occasionally get points for balls where the Hawkeye system says a tiny sliver of the edge of the ball maintained contact with the edge of the line even though the judge saw it out.

I personally think the rule should be changed so that if the center of the ball lands outside the line then the ball is out. Nothing except a dedicated line judge working with a camera system can make an accurate call in those situations; it’s impossible to make those types of calls at the amateur level while trying to hit the ball. Otherwise, the court effectively gets 2 or 3 inches bigger as balls that used to be called out start requiring the benefit of the doubt because of the possible “edge on edge” touches.
news flash... line judges still get it wrong.
was at the quallies that last couple days... i always sit on the baseline... over half a dozen matches, saw at least 3 bad linesjudge calls.

a better rule change is "if you don't see a gap between the ball and the line, then it's good"... ie. presume most balls are good, except those that are obviously out. would make the game so much more friendly
 
D

Deleted member 23235

Guest
So if you are playing singles and someone hits a flat serve roughly at you then you can only call it out if you see space between the ball and the line ... over the top of the ball? Depending on your height and where you stand, you might be giving an extra foot or so to the server.
imo that's the fair way to call the line. otherwise you're guessing
 
D

Deleted member 23235

Guest
You hit the nail right there on the head when you said calling the line requires peripheral vision and anticipation. You cannot call the line by staring intensely at an area. That is why I said interpolation is needed, taking into account the trajectory of the ball.

That is the honest way to call the ball out. Claiming to be sure that there was space works only when the ball is several inches out and the viewing conditions are ideal, and in those cases there is seldom any challenge.
given the spin rate thse days... the ball dips at the last minute... i think anticipation the expected landing will lead many to incorrect calls.. "call it as you see it" IMO is most fair.
 

CdnUmp

New User
given the spin rate thse days... the ball dips at the last minute... i think anticipation the expected landing will lead many to incorrect calls.. "call it as you see it" IMO is most fair.

What I meant by anticipation, from a line umpire's point of view, is about anticipating that the ball may challenge your line and knowing roughly where it will land so that you can get your eyes focused on that spot. Not anticipating where the ball will go and being late to the line is the thing that will lead to incorrect calls.
 

Rattler

Hall of Fame
news flash... line judges still get it wrong.
was at the quallies that last couple days... i always sit on the baseline... over half a dozen matches, saw at least 3 bad linesjudge calls.

A few points...

Qualies has a lot of new(er) less experienced line umpires...the USTA and other Slams use Qualies as a pseudo job interview...suprisingly, for many of the ‘new(er)’ umpires this may be their first big tournament past the Challenger level...more than a few don’t make the cut....so add in their nerves to the equation...and you’re gonna get a lot more errors.

Also, for the experienced, or umpires in a more ‘mentoring’ roll...most of them are not operating at their full potential...being on the road since Newport, RI...it gets to you, no matter how many times you’ve done it...so the occasional performance dip is to be expected, as unwanted, or untinentional it is.

Everybody makes mistakes.

Wondering if I know CdnUmp
 
Last edited:
Top