Umpires should be given the ability to use discretionary Hawkeye

[FedExpress117]

During a match between Thanasi Kokkinakis and Juan Monaco at Indian Wells, Kokkinakis had match point. Monaco hit a ball out, but the linesman called it in. Both players had NO challenges. The umpire didn't want to reverse the call b/c it so close and Monaco didn't have any challenges remaining. Kokkinakis went on to lose that game

Kokkinakis came within two points of losing the match, and JUST BARELY won the match in a 3rd set tiebreaker. Had he lost, it would have been disappointing (though admittedly, the linesmen were making bad calls throughout the match, including one where Monaco hit a ball in but it was called out; he had no challenges remaining that time too).

Why not give the umpires the ability to look at Hawkeye at theirdiscretion? Sure, the players might put a lot of pressure on the umpire to use Hawkeye if they have no challenges remaining on close calls, but it would prevent situations like this where bad calls happen in crucial situations like match point. I'm not convinced that it would drastically slow the pace of the game.

Thoughts?

 

[reaper]

A couple of points about your post. Firstly, Monaco having no challenges remaining should have no bearing on whether the umpire over rules. The ONLY consideration to make re over rules is whether or not there has been a clear error. The fact the players both had no challenges left suggests they were the ones getting things wrong, and the officials were generally getting things right. I think the problem with the umpires referral, is that it will wind up with them checking nearly everything that's remotely close....and remember, the technology has an error of a couple of millimetres.

 

[FedExpress117]

A couple of points about your post. Firstly, Monaco having no challenges remaining should have no bearing on whether the umpire over rules. The ONLY consideration to make re over rules is whether or not there has been a clear error. The fact the players both had no challenges left suggests they were the ones getting things wrong, and the officials were generally getting things right. I think the problem with the umpires referral, is that it will wind up with them checking nearly everything that's remotely close....and remember, the technology has an error of a couple of millimetres.

Good first point. True, the umpires shouldn't make calls based on how many challenges a player has left. Still, an umpire's worst nightmare is making an erroneous call on match point, and there are no challenges remaining.

If the ball WAS close and Monaco had a challenge, it's possible he may have overruled it knowing it could be taken to Hawkeye (you can't be 100% sure, but it CAN play a role].

I also agree with you that the players were making erroneous challenges. But that doesn't excuse the egregrious, erroneous calls by the linesmen, especially in crucial moments of the match like match point. One person's errors (bad calls) shouldn't be justified by anothers' (not strategically using challenges).

The umpire wouldn't have to use the challenge system while both players have challenges. But if NO players have challenges, then the umpire should be given some power to use it. One idea may be if it's match point and no challenges remain, then the umpire should have the power to use it (though I still stand with the idea that umpires should be able to use it anytime, but preferably when neither player has challenges remaining).

 

[bullfan]

During a match between Thanasi Kokkinakis and Juan Monaco at Indian Wells, Kokkinakis had match point. Monaco hit a ball out, but the linesman called it in. Both players had NO challenges. The umpire didn't want to reverse the call b/c it so close and Monaco didn't have any challenges remaining. Kokkinakis went on to lose that game

Kokkinakis came within two points of losing the match, and JUST BARELY won the match in a 3rd set tiebreaker. Had he lost, it would have been disappointing (though admittedly, the linesmen were making bad calls throughout the match, including one where Monaco hit a ball in but it was called out; he had no challenges remaining that time too).

Why not give the umpires the ability to look at Hawkeye at theirdiscretion? Sure, the players might put a lot of pressure on the umpire to use Hawkeye if they have no challenges remaining on close calls, but it would prevent situations like this where bad calls happen in crucial situations like match point. I'm not convinced that it would drastically slow the pace of the game.

Thoughts?

My understanding was that Monaco got screwed first and worst. Mid 3rd set Monaco got screwed, and would have been ahead. Kookinakis would not have won that point anyway. Monaco was easily there.

 

[FedExpress117]

My understanding was that Monaco got screwed first and worst. Mid 3rd set Monaco got screwed, and would have been ahead. Kookinakis would not have won that point anyway. Monaco was easily there.

Yea, that's why I also mentioned that the linesmen messed up one of Monaco's calls (though when I wrote the post I couldn't remember the exact circumstances of the call).

There are valid arguments on both sides of the debate. A player who has used up all his challenges can be blamed for poor strategy on using challenges. But when linesmen [as in this match] make multiple erroneous calls that change the outcome of the match, questions will be raised.

If an umpire can pull up Hawkeye and a player has no challenges, no doubt that player will hammer at the umpire on any close call to use Hawkeye, but that's where the umpire's discretion comes into play. The umpire doesn't have to give in to the player, and should only use Hawkeye when it's a particularly close call.

 

[bullfan]

Yea, that's why I also mentioned that the linesmen messed up one of Monaco's calls (though when I wrote the post I couldn't remember the exact circumstances of the call).

There are valid arguments on both sides of the debate. A player who has used up all his challenges can be blamed for poor strategy on using challenges. But when linesmen [as in this match] make multiple erroneous calls that change the outcome of the match, questions will be raised.

If an umpire can pull up Hawkeye and a player has no challenges, no doubt that player will hammer at the umpire on any close call to use Hawkeye, but that's where the umpire's discretion comes into play. The umpire doesn't have to give in to the player, and should only use Hawkeye when it's a particularly close call.

Sadly, the line calling has been abysmal for this tournament. Hence players going to the challenge do often. I think they are challenging more than usual due to the crappy line calling.

 

[FedExpress117]

Sadly, the line calling has been abysmal for this tournament. Hence players going to the challenge do often. I think they are challenging more than usual due to the crappy line calling.

Yea if players get a feel that the linesmen are making bad calls, they'll definitely use the challenges more often.

I have a good feeling the linesman who missed the crucial match point call will be disciplined in some way, either some time off or just laid off temporarily.

Though admittedly, these aren't easy calls to make. Players are hitting the balls quite fast, and linesmen have to make split-second calls, oftentimes on instinct. There's a lot of pressure on them, and we should sympathize with them to some extent.

An earlier poster talked about the margin of error with Hawkeye. It's always going to be there, but the question is, is that error less than the human error? It depends, but not every linesman is the same. It's a tough situation for everyone. I would at least be pleased if the ATP allows the umpire to use the challenge system on match points.

 

[reaper]

Yea if players get a feel that the linesmen are making bad calls, they'll definitely use the challenges more often.

I have a good feeling the linesman who missed the crucial match point call will be disciplined in some way, either some time off or just laid off temporarily.

Though admittedly, these aren't easy calls to make. Players are hitting the balls quite fast, and linesmen have to make split-second calls, oftentimes on instinct. There's a lot of pressure on them, and we should sympathize with them to some extent.

An earlier poster talked about the margin of error with Hawkeye. It's always going to be there, but the question is, is that error less than the human error? It depends, but not every linesman is the same. It's a tough situation for everyone. I would at least be pleased if the ATP allows the umpire to use the challenge system on match points.

Your post rests on the assumption that Hawkeye was correct on this occasion, not the linesman. Hawkeye showed the ball out by a few millimetres, I'm not sure precisely how far. The linesman saw it in, and the umpire saw no clear error. Kokkinakis, who'd been wrong 3 times previously in the previous 30 minutes thought it was out. The ball might well have been out, but the evidence we're basing that on is a piece of technology that's acknowledged to be flawed.

 

[Bobby Jr]

Why not allow a challenge by either player on any match point regardless of how many they have left? It would at least negate all instances of a legitimate match win being denied by a missed call.

 

[bullfan]

Yea if players get a feel that the linesmen are making bad calls, they'll definitely use the challenges more often.

I have a good feeling the linesman who missed the crucial match point call will be disciplined in some way, either some time off or just laid off temporarily.

Though admittedly, these aren't easy calls to make. Players are hitting the balls quite fast, and linesmen have to make split-second calls, oftentimes on instinct. There's a lot of pressure on them, and we should sympathize with them to some extent.

An earlier poster talked about the margin of error with Hawkeye. It's always going to be there, but the question is, is that error less than the human error? It depends, but not every linesman is the same. It's a tough situation for everyone. I would at least be pleased if the ATP allows the umpire to use the challenge system on match points.

Once again I disagree on the point that is the bone of your contention. That was the lesser point of contention. Kokkinakis wouldn't have gotten there without the first bad call. The whole double bounce, Pico was there anyway, and kokkinakis wouldn't have won that point anyway.

 

[bullfan]

Why not allow a challenge by either player on any match point regardless of how many they have left? It would at least negate all instances of a legitimate match win being denied by a missed call.

Imagine, challenges on every point..... Who needs a break when there's a check with Hawkeye on every play....

 

[FedExpress117]

Your post rests on the assumption that Hawkeye was correct on this occasion, not the linesman. Hawkeye showed the ball out by a few millimetres, I'm not sure precisely how far. The linesman saw it in, and the umpire saw no clear error. Kokkinakis, who'd been wrong 3 times previously in the previous 30 minutes thought it was out. The ball might well have been out, but the evidence we're basing that on is a piece of technology that's acknowledged to be flawed.

It's a valid point. Hawkeye definitely has some margin of error. That particular call was close, but certainly not some of the closest Hawkeye calls we've seen.

If Hawkeye could be pulled up immediately after a ball landed (and make a sound if the ball was out), I wouldn't be surprised if most ATP players voted to use that instead of the line judges. Nothing is perfect, but it's just frustrating to see linesmen jeopardize matches (again, on the assumption that Hawkeye was true).

I honestly wish I had more data on how the margin of error with Hawkeye has changed in the last decade. Still, I wouldn't be surprised if most people considered Hawkeye a fair "standard" (other than clay where you can see the mark).

I'm curious what type of discussions (if any) might result from this match in the ATP administration.

 

[tenisdecente]

A decision like this would leave useless the number of challenges and guys will be even more keen to dump them faste than Monaco and Kokki did today. You need to use your challenges wisely, otherwise situations like this can happen. This time you suffer for this, next one other player will also

 

[chjtennis]

Too much intervention will make it worse. Unless we eliminate all the human lines people and use hawkeye for every single point, I don't think increased usage of hawkeye will be a good solution. Wrong calls used to be considered as part of the game. Too much intervention by the umpire can cause bigger problems because umpires will be accused of being unfair/favoritism constantly which will kill the spirit of the sport.

 

[FedExpress117]

A decision like this would leave useless the number of challenges and guys will be even more keen to dump them faste than Monaco and Kokki did today. You need to use your challenges wisely, otherwise situations like this can happen. This time you suffer for this, next one other player will also

That depends on players assuming the umpire would use the challenge system when the player needs a ball looked at. The umpire won't always use Hawkeye for every close call. So if a player uses up all his challenges and then looks to the umpire, but the umpire declines to use it, he's screwed. I honestly think these types of situations will be resolved once Hawkeye becomes fast enough to provide immediate replay.

 

[Bartelby]

For better or worse, the challenge system brings a kind of lottery-style entertainment factor into line calling.

'Dare I or dare I not use my challenge' is the game, so whether or not an incorrect call decides a set or match has become irrelevant.

 

[FedExpress117]

Once again I disagree on the point that is the bone of your contention. That was the lesser point of contention. Kokkinakis wouldn't have gotten there without the first bad call. The whole double bounce, Pico was there anyway, and kokkinakis wouldn't have won that point anyway.

This point has been discussed in the thread--yes, Monaco was screwed over too, and it's POSSIBLE Kokkinakis wouldn't have still ended up at match point.

Whether Kokkinakis would have had match point or not, the fact remains, a major error was made on match point that nearly changed the outcome of the match. This can happen in the future in any match. I think a fair compromise would be to allow Hawkeye on match point.

A while ago someone posted an "ATP rules quiz", which I don't remember all the answers too, but one question posed a situation where on match point, an umpire erroneously lets a player challenge a call (when the player actually has no challenges), and it's shown that the linesman's call was actually wrong. The Rules quiz asked what was the appropriate decision, and I think it was that even if the wrong call was made by the linesman, the call wouldn't be reversed b/c the player didn't have any challenges and wasn't supposed to be able to use them (even if the umpire accidentally let them use it).

This was a smaller match, but if this ever happens in a major Grand Slam match that many people watch, no doubt it will get people fired up.

 

[bullfan]

This point has been discussed in the thread--yes, Monaco was screwed over too, and it's POSSIBLE Kokkinakis wouldn't have still ended up at match point.

Whether Kokkinakis would have had match point or not, the fact remains, a major error was made on match point that nearly changed the outcome of the match. This can happen in the future in any match. I think a fair compromise would be to allow Hawkeye on match point.

A while ago someone posted an "ATP rules quiz", which I don't remember all the answers too, but one question posed a situation where on match point, an umpire erroneously lets a player challenge a call (when the player actually has no challenges), and it's shown that the linesman's call was actually wrong. The Rules quiz asked what was the appropriate decision, and I think it was that even if the wrong call was made by the linesman, the call wouldn't be reversed b/c the player didn't have any challenges and wasn't supposed to be able to use them (even if the umpire accidentally let them use it).

This was a smaller match, but if this ever happens in a major Grand Slam match that many people watch, no doubt it will get people fired up.

I'm sorry, you don't get to negate screw job number 1, and act like screw job number 2 which may not have happened without screw job number 1 is more important.

That's just crap.

And the HUGE irony is that Kokkinakis got called out like Nadal is during a set point like Nadal.

 

[FedExpress117]

I'm sorry, you don't get to negate screw job number 1, and act like screw job number 2 which may not have happened without screw job number 1 is more important.

That's just crap.

And the HUGE irony is that Kokkinakis got called out like Nadal is during a set point like Nadal.

As has been said previously, this argument can be used on both sides: the linseman's error doesn't completely negate the bad strategy on using up challenges, but the player's bad strategy doesn't completely justify the linseman's mistake.

It is not fair to affect the outcome of a sport on a matter of principle, especially when the technology is there. That is not good for the players, nor the sport.

I don't know who your favorite player is, but let's say they have match point in a Grand Slam final, a bad call is made (i.e., they should have won, but they had no challenges remaining to challenge the erroneous call), and they go on to lose the match. Will you honestly stand by your stance that your favorite player lost fair and square b/c they used up all their challenges? You may very well still stand by your original position, but I'd be surprised if you do.

This issue should be looked at as if it is our favorite player at the highest stage of the game having a bad call made in a crucial moment of the match, b/c are rare as these instances are, they can happen anywhere, anytime.