Should Tennis change the rules and allow umps to review the tape?

Should Chair Umps being able to "review the tape" on player-contested calls?

  • Yes.

    Votes: 34 75.6%
  • No.

    Votes: 11 24.4%

  • Total voters
    45

TimeSpiral

Professional
Last edited:

RafaIsBack

Professional
Yes the players should be allowed to ask for the video once or twice per match. There was that mistake yesterday in the match Raonic/Del Potro but something similar happened on a crucial point during the Olympic Games 2008 between Gonzalez and Blake.
 

Chico

Banned
YES of course.

Why is it not allowed? What is the rationale? There is none. The most important thing is to get the correct call, not to hide behind silly rules like "can't overturn the decision because I am not allowed to watch the tape".
Makes no sense at all to me.
 

RafaIsBack

Professional
YES of course.

Why is it not allowed? What is the rationale? There is none. The most important thing is to get the correct call, not to hide behind silly rules like "can't overturn the decision because I am not allowed to watch the tape".
Makes no sense at all to me.
Yes Lahyani should've felt stupid when everybody in the stadium and in the world saw that he was wrong in the slowmotion. Reviewing the tape should be allowed.
 

Devilito

Hall of Fame
was an issue 30 years ago when reviewing video took a long time. In 2013 it's instant so no reason why close calls shouldn't always be reviewed.
 

darrinbaker00

Professional
How about giving the linespeople more responsibilities? Like Mr. Layhani said, he couldn't watch two things (Raonic and the ball) at once. If one of the other officials saw that the ball was still in play when Raonic touched the net, they should have the authority to go to the chair umpire and say so.
 

woodrow1029

Hall of Fame
How about giving the linespeople more responsibilities? Like Mr. Layhani said, he couldn't watch two things (Raonic and the ball) at once. If one of the other officials saw that the ball was still in play when Raonic touched the net, they should have the authority to go to the chair umpire and say so.
Then you have the chair umpire watching one, the line umpire watching the other. Then you have one person saying he touched the net, one person saying the ball bounced twice, and you're right back to where you started. Not knowing which came first.

A lot of line umpires aren't trained as chair umpires to know what to look for and when. The line umpires are on court to be line umpires, not a second chair umpire.

And as a chair umpire, there are a lot of line umpires that I barely trust calling lines in my match, let alone looking for touches, not ups, etc.

In other words, won't work...
 

Beacon Hill

Hall of Fame
Then you have the chair umpire watching one, the line umpire watching the other. Then you have one person saying he touched the net, one person saying the ball bounced twice, and you're right back to where you started. Not knowing which came first.

A lot of line umpires aren't trained as chair umpires to know what to look for and when. The line umpires are on court to be line umpires, not a second chair umpire.

And as a chair umpire, there are a lot of line umpires that I barely trust calling lines in my match, let alone looking for touches, not ups, etc.

In other words, won't work...
But doesn't the generous financial compensation and years of rigorous training ensure that line umpires are only of the highest standard?
 

Chico

Banned
Referees and linesmen should be completely replaced by technology. The sooner that happens the better.
 

woodrow1029

Hall of Fame
Referees and linesmen should be completely replaced by technology. The sooner that happens the better.
First of all, I didn't know we were even talking about referees at all in this discussion.

Secondly, what happens when technology breaks down?
 

Chico

Banned
Umpires/referees same thing.

These days technology runs/controls much more critical and essential things than refereeing (sorry umpiring) a sports match. I am sure it will be fine.
 

Beacon Hill

Hall of Fame
A discussion of officiating seems like an appropriate topic for this thread. It's clear the chair umpire didn't make a mistake, it was just impossible for him to have his eyes in two places at once.

Someone asked if a line umpire could have helped and Woodrow suggested a line umpire could also not look at two actions simultaneously (though the service line umpire may have been in much better position to see this particular violation), there might be disagreement with the calls, and line umpires were often not trained or qualified to make decisions like these.

Now we're discussing appropriate use of technology. It all seems relevant, and certainly a more interesting discussion than who is the GOAT. I'm not sure how we can develop technology to completely take the job away from officials. How, for instance, will a machine, issue a code violation for an obscene gesture or for coaching, ensure the ball kids are in their proper places, or ask the server to wait because the receiver is not ready? But it seems obvious that an umpire should have replay tools at his disposal to make the correct call in the Raonic match.

The line umpires in these matches, by the way, are probably earning just over $100/day.
 

vandre

Hall of Fame
Yes the players should be allowed to ask for the video once or twice per match. There was that mistake yesterday in the match Raonic/Del Potro but something similar happened on a crucial point during the Olympic Games 2008 between Gonzalez and Blake.

yup, I agree with you, but i'm not sure how many would actually reverse their decision after they review it. the chair in the raonic/ delpo match had a sheepish look on his face after he saw the replay like he knew he was wrong but he didn't change his decision. do we know of any chair ump who changed their mind on their own call/ overruled themselves?
 

Beacon Hill

Hall of Fame
yup, I agree with you, but i'm not sure how many would actually reverse their decision after they review it. the chair in the raonic/ delpo match had a sheepish look on his face after he saw the replay like he knew he was wrong but he didn't change his decision. do we know of any chair ump who changed their mind on their own call/ overruled themselves?
The chair umpire was not allowed to change his decision after he saw the replay.
 

Chico

Banned
The chair umpire was not allowed to change his decision after he saw the replay.

Why. I just don't get that. That is the stupidest rule ever. I thought it is most important to make the right call, not to impose ridiculous rules like this one.
 

rh310

Hall of Fame
The idea is to make the most correct calls possible, IMHO. Why not use video review if it can be made not to disrupt the flow of a match (as it would not have in the case of Raonic hitting the net while the ball was in play, and winning the point anyway).
 

darrinbaker00

Professional
This is a nice example why we need to completely replace line judges and referees with technology. Ridiculous:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=edlWAOZTBnQ

Not sure if they were trying to rob Sorana or they were just totally incompetent. Either way, a proper application of technology solves the problem.

Said technology was created by imperfect human beings, was it not? It is also currently administered by imperfect human beings, is it not?
 

woodrow1029

Hall of Fame
Someone asked if a line umpire could have helped and Woodrow suggested a line umpire could also not look at two actions simultaneously (though the service line umpire may have been in much better position to see this particular violation), there might be disagreement with the calls, and line umpires were often not trained or qualified to make decisions like these.

No, because the service line umpire was on Raonic's side of the net, so from the service line umpire's viewpoint, it would have been hard to tell for sure if he actually touched the net, and the timing.
 

Max G.

Legend
To the OP - what tape, pray tell, should the chair ump review? The one provided by the TV cameras? Those tapes are for entertainment purposes only. The courts would have to have an official "review camera". And where would you point that to catch random things like that? The net?
 

TimeSpiral

Professional
To the OP - what tape, pray tell, should the chair ump review? The one provided by the TV cameras? Those tapes are for entertainment purposes only. The courts would have to have an official "review camera". And where would you point that to catch random things like that? The net?

No, you can just use one or many of the broadcast feeds, exactly like the do in football. Use as many feeds or angles as needed to clarify the call.

Sometimes these calls are extremely important and sway the result of the match. You wouldn't need official review cameras, just access to the instant replay feeds (with audio). One instance that happens far more often than a net touch, is the "late call / replay the point" ruling. This is often contested and can easily be clarified, in many instances.
 

Wilander Fan

Hall of Fame
Definitely yes. They should also get rid of the no tiebreaker 5th set rule, the let cord on serve rule, and allow strategic coaching during time outs.

I would also change the scoring so that the first player to win 2 sets in a row wins the match with the 5th being the tiebreaker set.
 

TimeSpiral

Professional
Definitely yes. They should also get rid of the no tiebreaker 5th set rule, the let cord on serve rule, and allow strategic coaching during time outs.

I would also change the scoring so that the first player to win 2 sets in a row wins the match with the 5th being the tiebreaker set.

That last sentence doesn't make sense to me.

I'm okay with keeping service lets, although I do acknowledge that it's an inconsistent rule. A let is not called during a rally. If you can't start a rally with a let, then why can you win/alter a point with one later?

The coaching rule might be one of the dumbest aspects of this beloved game.

Advantage sets vs. tiebreak sets
In the slams, every match--save the finals--should be: best of five tiebreak sets. In the finals, you could just leave it as an advantage set, or you could look for an alternative, like the 8 game pro-set. The potentially never-ending advantage set in the is a game breaking rule, in my opinion.
 

TimeSpiral

Professional
Because technology is created and administered by human beings, it is as imperfect as we are.

:???:

Sorry, bud. Not willin' to follow you down that rabbit hole of ridiculousness. Technology--if we're going to use the broadest term possible--is often many hundreds of millions of times more perfect than a human. Computers, for instance, are used for the specific purpose of reducing human error.

Within the context of this conversation, I'm asking whether or not the rules of tennis should change to allow for technology to help reduce the occurrence of human error during a match. Pretty simple concept, really. I believe the only people that would oppose it are strict tennis naturalist. I would even argue that the "no" votes on this poll would also vote to buff the courts and nerf the racquets--but that's a different argument.
 

fuzz nation

G.O.A.T.
Be careful what you wish for

Maybe... but there are a few problems to sort out.

I like the human element of officiating in most sports, but I also want the less-than-perfect officials to get things right as often as they can. If technology can help out with sorting out those empirical close calls without a big hold up, then that's a good thing.

Can we leave things up to the officials? I say yes. Occasionally one thing or another will go kerflooey, but the "unforced errors" that the judges and umpire collectively rack up through the course of any match will likely never come close to the error totals compiled by the players, right?

My problem with match officiating is that they never "huddle up" to talk over who saw what happen with issues other than line calls. Football and baseball umpires/refs do this all the time, but it only seems to happen in tennis when a line judge reports hearing profanities from a player or coaching from the stands.

As for Shot-Spot, Hawkeye, etc., I hate it. Nothing more than a gimmick for the audience, but it also makes chair umpires less decisive. The worst part about it is that the "blue collar" ATP and WTA pros who rarely play on the big show courts don't have the challenge system available. That's inconsistent officiating by design and I'm very NOT okay with that. Since we can't rig up every court at every venue with the same tech, it should be left to the officials so that every player enjoys the same conditions.
 

TimeSpiral

Professional
Maybe... but there are a few problems to sort out.

I like the human element of officiating in most sports, but I also want the less-than-perfect officials to get things right as often as they can. If technology can help out with sorting out those empirical close calls without a big hold up, then that's a good thing.

Can we leave things up to the officials? I say yes. Occasionally one thing or another will go kerflooey, but the "unforced errors" that the judges and umpire collectively rack up through the course of any match will likely never come close to the error totals compiled by the players, right?

My problem with match officiating is that they never "huddle up" to talk over who saw what happen with issues other than line calls. Football and baseball umpires/refs do this all the time, but it only seems to happen in tennis when a line judge reports hearing profanities from a player or coaching from the stands.

As for Shot-Spot, Hawkeye, etc., I hate it. Nothing more than a gimmick for the audience, but it also makes chair umpires less decisive. The worst part about it is that the "blue collar" ATP and WTA pros who rarely play on the big show courts don't have the challenge system available. That's inconsistent officiating by design and I'm very NOT okay with that. Since we can't rig up every court at every venue with the same tech, it should be left to the officials so that every player enjoys the same conditions.

Very fair points, although I disagree on a few things.

Hawk-Eye being an entertaining feature for the audience (what you bitterly call a gimmick), and also being an officiating aid are not mutually exclusive. Without hawk-eye, how does a player challenge a call on hard courts or grass? They can't. Does that mean hawk-eye needs to be present on every court played by the ATP/WTA? Nope. The players know well in advance whether or not they're playing on a court with that system.

I can appreciate you liking the humanity of human officials, but how is that not just as gimmicky as another spectating liking the hawk-eye review?

Let's not have the perfect be the enemy of the good. Should we ditch advancements in officiating aids because we can't install it on every pro court in the world? No. That's ridiculous. We should, however, put rules in place so that as many matches as reasonably possible can be officiated as accurately as possible. It's not perfect--but it's better.
 

darrinbaker00

Professional
:???:

Sorry, bud. Not willin' to follow you down that rabbit hole of ridiculousness. Technology--if we're going to use the broadest term possible--is often many hundreds of millions of times more perfect than a human. Computers, for instance, are used for the specific purpose of reducing human error.

Within the context of this conversation, I'm asking whether or not the rules of tennis should change to allow for technology to help reduce the occurrence of human error during a match. Pretty simple concept, really. I believe the only people that would oppose it are strict tennis naturalist. I would even argue that the "no" votes on this poll would also vote to buff the courts and nerf the racquets--but that's a different argument.

I am all for using technology to help people. What you are proposing is the use of technology to replace people, which I am against.
 

Wilander Fan

Hall of Fame
That last sentence doesn't make sense to me.

I'm okay with keeping service lets, although I do acknowledge that it's an inconsistent rule. A let is not called during a rally. If you can't start a rally with a let, then why can you win/alter a point with one later?

The coaching rule might be one of the dumbest aspects of this beloved game.

Advantage sets vs. tiebreak sets
In the slams, every match--save the finals--should be: best of five tiebreak sets. In the finals, you could just leave it as an advantage set, or you could look for an alternative, like the 8 game pro-set. The potentially never-ending advantage set in the is a game breaking rule, in my opinion.

Basically every match is potentially 2 sets or 5 sets. This lets a better player end it quickly. A 4 set match is impossible and a 5 setter only happens if these players are so matched that they are trading every other set.
 
Top