Who the Heck Do the Techs Think They Are???

[Love Game]

Today in Paris was a good example of one of the ways "hawkeye" challenge system is not perfect.

In the Roddick/Tsonga match, Rod served and the serve was called out. Rod challenged the call. The technicians in the hawkeye booth refused to play the replay because they claimed Rod had no challenges remaining.

The Umpire insisted that, as it is his job to do, he had been keeping track and insisted that Rod had one remaining challenge. He even reminded the booth that such decisions were up to the umpire and that he was willing to take responsibility.

The technicians, on the other hand, refused to allow the umpire to take responsibility, citing instead the fact that the french scoreboard said Rod had 0 challenges remaining .....

Rather than be bullied by the techs, Mohamed Lahyani called out the supervisor, who stood around taking first to andy, then to JW. All the time Mohamed was stating it was his responsibility. Even the supervisor almost did not give in until the umpire insisted multiple times.

Then the replay was shown .............

Bottom Line: The technicians had NO RIGHT
to refuse to comply with the umpire's decision.

 

[veritech]

yeah, that's ********. thumbs down to the paris hawkeye controllers.

 

[PCXL-Fan]

was it true? Were the hawkeye controllers trying to intentionally influence the game as much as possible and intentionally remove one of roddicks challenges simply because they wanted Tsonga to win?

From the amount they were fighting with the umpire I wouldn't doubt it. Good ref, I'd like to shake his hand.

Even though I prefer Tsonga to win that match, foul tactics like that sicken me.

 

[woodrow1029]

This was a case of a mistake by the review booth. It had nothing to do with French bias. The HawkEye booth consists of the HawkEye personnel and one International Certified chair umpire. It's not a bunch of french guys up there saying lets let Tsonga win and get Roddick out of here. It was a mistake.

 

[veroniquem]

This was a case of a mistake by the review booth. It had nothing to do with French bias. The HawkEye booth consists of the HawkEye personnel and one International Certified chair umpire. It's not a bunch of french guys up there saying lets let Tsonga win and get Roddick out of here. It was a mistake.

It may have been a simple mistake but their insistence to challenge and bypass the ump's authority was plain wrong. I agree with love game and PCXL that some foul tactics were at play in this incident.

 

[Love Game]

was it true? Were the hawkeye controllers trying to intentionally influence the game as much as possible and intentionally remove one of roddicks challenges simply because they wanted Tsonga to win?

From the amount they were fighting with the umpire I wouldn't doubt it. Good ref, I'd like to shake his hand.

Even though I prefer Tsonga to win that match, foul tactics like that sicken me.

well, unless they were in cahoots w/the scoreboard people, I'd have to guess no.

it was just that they decided to take the word of the scoreboard instead of the word of the umpire. they need to be counseled that such is a no-no.

and tsonga very sportsmanlike agreed that he thought andy legitimately had the challenge available.

p.s. I agree about Mohamed Lahyani.

 

[chlsmo]

Excellent umpiring here, in my opinion. I liked the way Lahyani was insistent but not derogatory or insulting. I felt he kept the situation as calm as possible. I also enjoyed the mini-tennis rally between Roddick and Tsonga.

 

[Love Game]

This was a case of a mistake by the review booth. It had nothing to do with French bias. The HawkEye booth consists of the HawkEye personnel and one International Certified chair umpire. It's not a bunch of french guys up there saying lets let Tsonga win and get Roddick out of here. It was a mistake.

you're correct that their reliance on the scoreboard (which is staffed by different personnel entirely) was a mistake.

but they made a bigger mistake and this is one that needs to be addressed to make sure it does not happen in the future, namely, in any question of this sort, the final word belongs to the umpire, not the scoreboard and not the hawkeye techs.

that's what they refused over and over to comply with, even tho the umpire kept stating it was his decision and he would take the heat if he was wrong.

 

[Love Game]

Excellent umpiring here, in my opinion. I liked the way Lahyani was insistent but not derogatory or insulting. I felt he kept the situation as calm as possible. I also enjoyed the mini-tennis rally between Roddick and Tsonga.

totally!

 

[Alejandro D]

Fortunately, both players kept it cool. If something like this happens in a match between two bad-tempered guys... With McEnroe & Connors it would've ended in some kind of ultimate fighter bout!

 

[Love Game]

Fortunately, both players kept it cool. If something like this happens in a match between two bad-tempered guys... With McEnroe & Connors it would've ended in some kind of ultimate fighter bout!

well, we know andy has been verbally abusive to umpires in the past ...... but in this case with the entire stadium of tens of thousands against him, I believe andy wisely maintained a much more calm exterior than he would have otherwise.

plus the fact that the umpire said, "I believe you."
and JW also agreed when andy pointed out: how could I have no challenges left, when he's used more challenges this set than I have?

 

[kelz]

tsonga shouldve challenged for him.

 

[woodrow1029]

It may have been a simple mistake but their insistence to challenge and bypass the ump's authority was plain wrong. I agree with love game and PCXL that some foul tactics were at play in this incident.

I agree that it was wrong, but I am just making the point that it was not some guys in the booth trying to make Tsonga win the match.

 

[woodrow1029]

you're correct that their reliance on the scoreboard (which is staffed by different personnel entirely) was a mistake.

but they made a bigger mistake and this is one that needs to be addressed to make sure it does not happen in the future, namely, in any question of this sort, the final word belongs to the umpire, not the scoreboard and not the hawkeye techs.

that's what they refused over and over to comply with, even tho the umpire kept stating it was his decision and he would take the heat if he was wrong.

What do you mean staffed by completely different personnel?

 

[Alejandro D]

tsonga shouldve challenged for him.

Can you actually do that? I mean, according to the rules, can a player challenge a call against himself?
Anyway, you can expect Tsonga to waste one of his challenges on Roddick's behalf... I think. That would be just too much fair play!!!

 

[iamke55]

This incident lasted so long, I forgot what Roddick was challenging and just laughed at Roddick and Tsonga hitting the ball back and forth to pass time.

Props to Tsonga for telling the truth! With this and Federer appreciating his humor, I can accept that Tsonga was just trying to be funny doing his dance during Federer's overhead. I originally supported Blake in the next match for being a classy athlete, but now that Tsonga has proved his integrity I actually would rather see him win.

 

[lordmanji]

was it a review official the umpire was talking to or just a tech? the commentators made it seem like theres a guy keeping track of challenges with some authority.

 

[matchmaker]

I think this situation created a precedent.

The umpire is the ultimate authority in these situations. His task is to keep duly track of the remaining challenges and that is what he did in this match.

The situation got really akward because I understood that at the end the umpire was told the ball was in but that they could not show it on the stadium screen, what would off course mean a lack of legitimacy for the crowd.

BTW in this match Roddick did not challenge a ball that cost him a break in the last set and that was shown in by the television repetition. It might well have cost him the match because it gave Tsonga the crucial break back. So even with Hawk Eye and so, there still remains a lack of accuracy on line calls if players do not challenge.

 

[kimbahpnam]

It's quite a lengthy dispute

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tZns7F3OLDY

 

[greenfan]

I think that the "Hawkey's" job is just to show if a ball was In or Out. It's not their job to decide if they show the replay or not. It's not their job to say that a player has no more challenges left. That's up to the umpire....

 

[Underhand]

What do you expect from people who eat snails?!? Poor snails...

 

[kelz]

What do you expect from people who eat snails?!? Poor snails...

es cargo .. mmmm slimy..

 

[FiveO]

Another example of the way the rules set up as to how "hawkeye" system is employed are horribly flawed.

Use it or don't use it.

Get it right every time or don't get it right.

The entire thing should be in the umpire's lap, not the players nor the techs, and without the artificial limits placed on its usage now.

If "hawkeye" is accurate, and some question just how accurate it actually is, the umpire should have every close call immediately available to him in the chair and make his overrules from there then he can re-play the grounds for the overrule, to entertain the crowd and to keep the player's minds at ease.

5

 

[misterchris]

Roddick lost the match because of a bad line call. Roddick had just unsuccessfully used one of his challenges and the following point they called a shot out that appeared IN on tv. Roddick was probably too concerned about losing two in a row that he did not challenge the point that would have won the match for him.

Add that to the resistance in the timing booth and I'd say the staff were trying to help their own win.

 

[jmverdugo]

Maybe the hawkeye people charge by challenge and aditionall challenge wasnt on the bill!

 

[woodrow1029]

was it a review official the umpire was talking to or just a tech? the commentators made it seem like theres a guy keeping track of challenges with some authority.

It was a review official that is also an internationally certified chair umpire that he was talking to.

 

[TheTruth]

Excellent umpiring here, in my opinion. I liked the way Lahyani was insistent but not derogatory or insulting. I felt he kept the situation as calm as possible. I also enjoyed the mini-tennis rally between Roddick and Tsonga.

Agreed. Excellent job by Lahyani. He refused to be intimidated, and he was right!

 

[Deleted member 25923]

The mini tennis was fun, and pretty funny when Tsonga was setting up for a 2 hander!

 

[takl23]

I saw this live yesterday and was absolutely floored. This umpire is my new favorite. He did an amazing job. I don't know what the guy in booth was thinking. I hope someone finds the video of this. The guy in the booth should be fired. He was so far out of line it was unreal. Great job for the chair umpire!!!!


Cheers,

Tim

 

[Love Game]

What do you mean staffed by completely different personnel?

* I just mean the umpire calls the match: That's one personnel.
* Only after the umpire announces each point do the scoreboard personnel change the score: That's two.
* The hawkeye booth is staffed by a third group of personnel.

3 separate units, a sort of checks and balances which would make a conspiracy more unlikely.

 

[Love Game]

was it a review official the umpire was talking to or just a tech? the commentators made it seem like theres a guy keeping track of challenges with some authority.

There's an official to which the umpire can appeal if the hawkeye isn't functioning. IOW, roddick challenges the call and the booth tells the umpire that technical problems are preventing them from showing the replay.

the hawkeye system consists of 10 or 11 cameras positioned strategically around the court so that every shot is viewed from 10 different angles and those angles are combined to produce the picture we see on replay.

The purpose of the official in the booth is to verbally convey a judgment of the call in case technical difficulties prevent showing the replay, not to keep track of the number of challenges used or remaining, which is probably why the umpire announces how many challenges a player has remaining after the player's challenge has been shown to be either correct or incorrect.

It's definitely not a perfect system.
Is it more perfect than not?
The players seem to prefer playing with hawkeye review than without it, even tho it's not perfect.

 

[woodrow1029]

If any of you have the match saved on a DVR or a computer, I think you may want to go back and watch the 3rd set again. Roddick lost challenges in the 2nd, 4th and 6th game. When Roddick lost the challenge in the 2nd game, the umpire said "Roddick has 2 challenges remaining." The one in the 4th game was on a first serve. Roddick challenged it and was wrong. The umpire only said, "The call stands." After the point, he never announced that Roddick has one challenge remaining. After the one in the 6th game, after Roddick incorrectly challenged, the umpire said, "Roddick has one challenge remaining." At this point, the official in the booth correctly showed 0 challenges on the scoreboard. The umpire apparently forgot about the one in the 4th game on the serve, because he kept saying on court that the one in the 6th game was his second challenge of the set.

The person in the booth is a VERY experienced chair umpire and hawkeye review official. The reasons that there is a certified chair umpire in the booth is to 1. Make sure that the correct shot is shown on the screen and 2. To assist the umpire in keeping track of the challenges that each player has remaining.

Please watch again if you have the match saved. This was not as great of a piece of officiating as some of you think.

 

[Love Game]

I don't have the match saved, but it's pretty obvious that we haven't heard the last about this incident.

 

[woodrow1029]

I don't have the match saved, but it's pretty obvious that we haven't heard the last about this incident.

All I am saying is that the Review Official was correct in this situation. Roddick had used 3 incorrect challenges prior to the one in question.

It is the review official's job to correct the chair umpire in this case. And you are wrong when you say it is not the review official's job to keep track of the number of challenges.

 

[veritech]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tZns7F3OLDY

 

[arnz]

All I am saying is that the Review Official was correct in this situation. Roddick had used 3 incorrect challenges prior to the one in question.

It is the review official's job to correct the chair umpire in this case. And you are wrong when you say it is not the review official's job to keep track of the number of challenges.

I didnt see the match. But in any match, there should be one umpire only. The rest is just staff working there with no power to make decisions about the match.

The umpire should have the last word on anything that goes on in the match, even when he is mistaken. There should not be a second umpire in the hawkeye booth or scoreboard personnel, or anywhere else. If the scoreboard puts up numbers different from what the umpire says, the umpire should have the final word. If the umpire says run hawkeye, then they should run it. End of discussion

 

[woodrow1029]

Yes that is the situation in question. Does anybody have the whole 3rd set saved? Roddick had used all 3 of his challenges already.

 

[BreakPoint]

I didnt see the match. But in any match, there should be one umpire only. The rest is just staff working there with no power to make decisions about the match.

The umpire should have the last word on anything that goes on in the match, even when he is mistaken. There should not be a second umpire in the hawkeye booth or scoreboard personnel, or anywhere else. If the scoreboard puts up numbers different from what the umpire says, the umpire should have the final word. If the umpire says run hawkeye, then they should run it. End of discussion

I saw this match and saw this incident but my confusion is that I thought the umpire was the one that controlled the scoreboard? I thought the umpires use an electronic device to change the score on the scoreboard after each point? So if the scoreboard was wrong, wasn't that the umpire's own fault?

 

[crazylevity]

^^ I think in this case it was quite clear that Lahyani did not have control of the scoreboard. At certain tournaments, the umpires use a stylus and an electronic thingy like a PalmTop, but I think on the youtube clip you can see Lahyani using a piece of paper. Also, if Lahyani was in control of the scoreboard, it would be untenable that his records do not tally with the information on the scoreboard.

 

[crazylevity]

I think, overall, it was a terrible incident; all around negative press for Hawkeye, the tournament organizers, etc. Props to Lahyani for standing his ground and handling the situation as best he could. I think Roddick allowing Lahyani to handle it and not bursting into a tantrum speaks volumes for the respect that tour players have for an umpire like Lahyani.

I agree with the other posters that the chair umpire should have the final say: Hawkeye is there for the umpire to call upon and control, and should do so on demand and without delay.

 

[Love Game]

All I am saying is that the Review Official was correct in this situation. Roddick had used 3 incorrect challenges prior to the one in question.

It is the review official's job to correct the chair umpire in this case. And you are wrong when you say it is not the review official's job to keep track of the number of challenges.

all I meant when I said that was that it was my impression that it's officially the umpire who's responsible and who takes precedence when there's a disagreement, according to the rules.

By saying that I am "wrong," are you saying that the official rules of tennis have been changed to give the booth official precedence in the chain of command over the umpire?

 

[Love Game]

I saw this match and saw this incident but my confusion is that I thought the umpire was the one that controlled the scoreboard? I thought the umpires use an electronic device to change the score on the scoreboard after each point? So if the scoreboard was wrong, wasn't that the umpire's own fault?

Do you mean only in matches where there's hawkeye?

Because in wimby, for instance, some courts don't even have electronic scoreboards. Human beings actually come out and change the scoreboard manually.

Are you saying that on courts where there's an electronic scoreboard the umpire is somehow elecronically connected to it? Because my guess would be not, since the umpire chairs are on wheels.

So unless it's all wireless. Is that what youre saying?

 

[woodrow1029]

Do you mean only in matches where there's hawkeye?

Because in wimby, for instance, some courts don't even have electronic scoreboards. Human beings actually come out and change the scoreboard manually.

Are you saying that on courts where there's an electronic scoreboard the umpire is somehow elecronically connected to it? Because my guess would be not, since the umpire chairs are on wheels.

So unless it's all wireless. Is that what youre saying?

Ok, Let me clear up 2 of your posts in one.

First of all, in regards to this post, the umpire has a palm device to keep the score. At most of the tournaments and on most of those courts, the umpire is controlling the scoreboard. In Miami for instance, the chair umpire is controlling the scoreboard with his/her palm device on all of the courts except for stadium court. And that is the case at the majority of the tournaments. It is all wireless. At the US Open, the umpire is controlling the scoreboards with their computer. There, it is wired. There is a docking station on the chair for the umpire to put the palm device into that is wired to the scoreboards and the network. Also being controlled by the umpire's scoring device is the live scoring that you see on the internet. At tournaments like Wimbledon and Newport where there are no electronic scoreboards, obviously those are controlled by ballkids or other staff.

Now, as for your previous post, the "official rules of tennis" have not been changed. There is more than just the "rules of tennis." There are guidelines, procedures and protocols. The chair umpire DOES NOT control the number of challenges remaining on the scoring device. That is controlled by the review official. There is a lot of information that needs to be entered every time there is a challenge. When HawkEye first came along, we would write the challenge information on a piece of paper, then when the challenge was taken away, we would tell the scoreboard operator to remove one challenge for the player. Now, it is all done on a computer that is controlled by the review official. After the challenge, we need to enter what line, whether the line umpire's call or an overrule is being challenged, what the original call was, what the hawkeye result was and how many millimeters in or out the ball was. As soon as that is entered into the computer, the scoreboard automatically reflects the number of challenges remaining. The procedure for HawkEye is that the review official is RESPONSIBLE for determining whether or not a review is available. This includes confirming whether or not the players have any more challenges remaining. The umpire has the responsibility of making sure that the proper challenge procedure is followed by the player such as whether or not the player stopped play in time to make the challenge and then deciding after the challenge whether to replay the point or award the point. Does this help to explain it a little bit better?

 

[Moose Malloy]

If any of you have the match saved on a DVR or a computer, I think you may want to go back and watch the 3rd set again. Roddick lost challenges in the 2nd, 4th and 6th game. When Roddick lost the challenge in the 2nd game, the umpire said "Roddick has 2 challenges remaining." The one in the 4th game was on a first serve. Roddick challenged it and was wrong. The umpire only said, "The call stands." After the point, he never announced that Roddick has one challenge remaining. After the one in the 6th game, after Roddick incorrectly challenged, the umpire said, "Roddick has one challenge remaining." At this point, the official in the booth correctly showed 0 challenges on the scoreboard. The umpire apparently forgot about the one in the 4th game on the serve, because he kept saying on court that the one in the 6th game was his second challenge of the set.

The person in the booth is a VERY experienced chair umpire and hawkeye review official. The reasons that there is a certified chair umpire in the booth is to 1. Make sure that the correct shot is shown on the screen and 2. To assist the umpire in keeping track of the challenges that each player has remaining.

Please watch again if you have the match saved. This was not as great of a piece of officiating as some of you think.

I just watched the entire set, you are correct. The chair umpire screwed up bigtime(causing an unecessary 10 minute delay at 4-5 in the 3rd must be as big a mistake any umpire can ever make) do you know if anything will happen to him? I've read that all umpires are evaluated after every match, wonder if he'll be in Shanghai.

I'm surprised the booth eventually gave in (as soon as I heard this I was skeptical & waited until I saw the match before praising the umpire like everyone else - also was surprised the commentators didn't notice the error they just praised Layani, guess they weren't following the match all that closely. Ditto with the fans watching at home as well I guess)

His mistake wasn't just to lose track of challenges, but to cause Roddick to think he had challenges left as well(I guess Roddick was so focused on the match that he wasn't keeping track & when Layani said "one challenge remaining" after his 3rd incorrect challenge of the set, why would he question that?)

So in a way it was fair that Roddick got that last challenge, its not his fault that the umpire gave him false information.

Here were the exact times of Roddick's incorrect challenges for anyone interested:

1) Roddick serving 0-1, 1st point

2) Roddick serving 2-1, 30-30, challenges a 1st serve fault. It is customary in this situation for the umpire to wait until after the 2nd serve is hit to announce the amount of challenges left, Layani forgot to do so(and Roddick plays very fast, so there wasn't much time for him to get that in before the next point)

3) Roddick serving 2-3, 1st point, Layani incorrectly says 'one challenge remaining.' I guess forgetting to announce the amount of challenges on the previous challenge threw his count off.

and then Roddick's 'extra' challenge was at 4-5, 40-0

 

[woodrow1029]

I just watched the entire set, you are correct. The chair umpire screwed up bigtime(causing an unecessary 10 minute delay at 4-5 in the 3rd must be as big a mistake any umpire can ever make) do you know if anything will happen to him? I've read that all umpires are evaluated after every match, wonder if he'll be in Shanghai.

I'm surprised the booth eventually gave in (as soon as I heard this I was skeptical & waited until I saw the match before praising the umpire like everyone else - also was surprised the commentators didn't notice the error they just praised Layani, guess they weren't following the match all that closely. Ditto with the fans watching at home as well I guess)

His mistake wasn't just to lose track of challenges, but to cause Roddick to think he had challenges left as well(I guess Roddick was so focused on the match that he wasn't keeping track & when Layani said "one challenge remaining" after his 3rd incorrect challenge of the set, why would he question that?)

So in a way it was fair that Roddick got that last challenge, its not his fault that the umpire gave him false information.

Here were the exact times of Roddick's incorrect challenges for anyone interested:

1) Roddick serving 0-1, 1st point

2) Roddick serving 2-1, 30-30, challenges a 1st serve fault. It is customary in this situation for the umpire to wait until after the 2nd serve is hit to announce the amount of challenges left, Layani forgot to do so(and Roddick plays very fast, so there wasn't much time for him to get that in before the next point)

3) Roddick serving 2-3, 1st point, Layani incorrectly says 'one challenge remaining.' I guess forgetting to announce the amount of challenges on the previous challenge threw his count off.

and then Roddick's 'extra' challenge was at 4-5, 40-0

Thank you for confirming that for me so everyone can see.

I hope that the combination of my last post explaining the procedures and your confirmation of the 3 incorrect previous challenges helps clear up the fact that the review official was just trying to help Tsonga win, (By the way the review official for the tournament is not even French.)

In fairness to the review official, he didn't give in at all until Carlos Sanchez, the tournament supervisor came to the court and ordered the challenge to be shown. He has the final final say.

 

[crazylevity]

Moose, Woodrow: I stand corrected.

However, in such a case, do you think that the chair umpire should have the final say? If not, when a dispute ensues, what do you suggest the proper protocol should be?

 

[PimpMyGame]

Well yes the techs were dorks. But what do you expect from the second most arrogant country in the world?

 

[woodrow1029]

Moose, Woodrow: I stand corrected.

However, in such a case, do you think that the chair umpire should have the final say? If not, when a dispute ensues, what do you suggest the proper protocol should be?

I know what the proper protocol is, and I agree with it. The review official should be the one to confirm that challenges are remaining as he/she is the one entering all of the challenge information into the computer and controlling that part of the scoreboard. That is why we have a certified chair umpire in the booth. I have been in the situation before as a review official where the chair umpire mistakenly thought there was a challenge remaining. I have also been a chair umpire and thought that the player had NO challenges remaining, and upon communicating with the booth, was saved and correctly allowed the challenge. I know that if I hadn't checked and denied the challenge to the player, I would have been in hot water..

 

[Moose Malloy]

I know what the proper protocol is, and I agree with it. The review official should be the one to confirm that challenges are remaining as he/she is the one entering all of the challenge information into the computer and controlling that part of the scoreboard. That is why we have a certified chair umpire in the booth. I have been in the situation before as a review official where the chair umpire mistakenly thought there was a challenge remaining. I have also been a chair umpire and thought that the player had NO challenges remaining, and upon communicating with the booth, was saved and correctly allowed the challenge. I know that if I hadn't checked and denied the challenge to the player, I would have been in hot water..

While I agree with the protocol of allowing the challenge booth to have the final say on challenges, don't you think this was a tricky situation?

Layani announced 'one challenge remaining' after Roddick's 3rd challenge, so Roddick played on thinking he had one more. That would have seemed pretty unfair if Layani said, 'my bad, the booth is right you have none' when Roddick tried to challenge and it probably would've caused Roddick to flip out, since he was just told he had one more a few games ago.

Also, why didn't the booth(or someone) immediately correct Layani when he said, 'one challenge remaining?' that is where the trouble started. and since they rightfully took the scoreboard down to zero while Layani was saying otherwise, why didn't anyone alert him of the error? I'm sure the fans were confused seeing a 'zero' on the screen at the same time the umpire says 'one challenge remaining'

 

[fastdunn]

The technicians, on the other hand, refused to allow the umpire to take responsibility, citing instead the fact that the french scoreboard said Rod had 0 challenges remaining .....

As I understand, this is not between technician and the chair umpire. It was disagreement between the chair umpire and the umpire who supervise hawkeye system(and review board).