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

[woodrow1029]

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'

Yes, I agree it would have significantly helped the situation if the review official had caught the error of Lahyani saying one challenge remaining.

In some of the review booths, it is not always easy to hear what the chair umpire is saying. If you watch, almost all of the time when the chair umpire announces that there is a challenge, he raises his hand up. This is to confirm with the booth that there is a challenge incase they can't hear the umpire due to poor speaker system in the booth or excessive crowd noise. Also, the chair umpire says "no challenges remaining," and not "zero challenges remaining." So it isn't inconceivable that the review official may not clearly hear "no" instead of "one."

Bottom line, is mistakes happen. No system and no person is perfect. Mistakes will happen on both ends.

 

[BreakPoint]

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?

I've seen umpires use hand held wireless devices and I've also seen umpires use an electronic pad that's attached to the chair platform.

Are you sure that even today that Wimbledon doesn't have electronic scoreboards on the outside courts? How do they transmit what's going on on the outside courts then? Most tournaments have screens at a central location where you can monitor all the scores of all the matches in progress around the grounds.

 

[woodrow1029]

I've seen umpires use hand held wireless devices and I've also seen umpires use an electronic pad that's attached to the chair platform.

Are you sure that even today that Wimbledon doesn't have electronic scoreboards on the outside courts? How do they transmit what's going on on the outside courts then? Most tournaments have screens at a central location where you can monitor all the scores of all the matches in progress around the grounds.

At Wimbledon, the scoring device is connected in a wired docking station the umpire's chair. The outside courts DO NOT have electronic scoreboards, so they are operated by a human. The umpire, through their wired palm device, is controlling the live scoring that goes to the scoreboards around the site and the internet live scoring.

 

[Love Game]

when is there going to be an official review of this situation?

Umpire Mohamed was obviously under the impression that he was the man in control.

But the booth personnel would not do what he told them to do, namely show the replay.

When will there be an official judgment on this impasse? Obviously, it needs to be avoided in the future, and the chain of command needs to be made clear to all, including the players.

Andy roddick on court told the supervisor that he would appeal or file an official complaint if he refused to accede to the umpire's judgment. And the supervisor did accede to the umpire's judgment.

 

[shawn1122]

Either way, the french crowd reacted **** poor to the situation. They actually booed Roddick the next time he challenged and got it wrong, and they were booing through the whole situation and I would not be surprised if they were booing him.

 

[Love Game]

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.

How could Mohamed have been controlling the scoreboard at Paris Masters?

The scoreboard was not the same as Mohamed's own "palm device."

If Mohamed had been controlling the scoreboard with his palm device, then the scoreboard would have had the same statistics as Mohamed's palm device, but it didn't.

 

[woodrow1029]

How could Mohamed have been controlling the scoreboard at Paris Masters?

The scoreboard was not the same as Mohamed's own "palm device."

If Mohamed had been controlling the scoreboard with his palm device, then the scoreboard would have had the same statistics as Mohamed's palm device, but it didn't.

First of all, you need to read the entire things. I said in another post that the umpire's palm device DOES NOT CONTROL THE AMOUNT OF CHALLENGES REMAINING. THAT IS CONTROLLED BY THE REVIEW OFFICIAL IN THE HAWKEYE REVIEW BOOTH. The umpire controls the scoreboard in regards to the score only on the court scoreboards at most tournaments, a lot of the time EXCEPT FOR THE STADIUM COURT. The umpire's palm device ALWAYS controls the live scoring that you see on the ATP website. Believe me, I am experienced in this field.

 

[treblings]

First of all, you need to read the entire things. I said in another post that the umpire's palm device DOES NOT CONTROL THE AMOUNT OF CHALLENGES REMAINING. THAT IS CONTROLLED BY THE REVIEW OFFICIAL IN THE HAWKEYE REVIEW BOOTH. The umpire controls the scoreboard in regards to the score only on the court scoreboards at most tournaments, a lot of the time EXCEPT FOR THE STADIUM COURT. The umpire's palm device ALWAYS controls the live scoring that you see on the ATP website. Believe me, I am experienced in this field.

i would like to thank you for your effort to explain the incident and your insight. it´s always a pleasure to read a thread and be able to actually learn something.

 

[Love Game]

How could Mohamed have been controlling the scoreboard at Paris Masters?

The scoreboard was not the same as Mohamed's own "palm device."

If Mohamed had been controlling the scoreboard with his palm device, then the scoreboard would have had the same statistics as Mohamed's palm device, but it didn't.

First of all, you need to read the entire things. I said in another post that the umpire's palm device DOES NOT CONTROL THE AMOUNT OF CHALLENGES REMAINING. THAT IS CONTROLLED BY THE REVIEW OFFICIAL IN THE HAWKEYE REVIEW BOOTH. The umpire controls the scoreboard in regards to the score only on the court scoreboards at most tournaments, a lot of the time EXCEPT FOR THE STADIUM COURT. The umpire's palm device ALWAYS controls the live scoring that you see on the ATP website. Believe me, I am experienced in this field.

I take your word for it that you are experienced.

But that does not address the issue in this particular debacle that occurred in Paris Masters.

The live scoring on the ATP website is a different issue entirely, as that is not what was in question.

Umpire Mohamed did not accept the authority of the booth official to refuse to show the replay, and the supervisor who was called out to resolve the stalemate agreed with Mohamed.

 

[Love Game]

Additionally, if the certified booth official is going to be given authority over the certified chair umpire, then the name of the booth official needs to be announced on the record at the beginning of the match, rather than allowing the booth personnel to remain annonymous.

This whole "booth umpire" situation represents a sea change in tennis officiating and obviously needs to be standardized, especially if that booth official is sometimes unable to hear what's going on, on the court!

In some of the review booths, it is not always easy to hear what the chair umpire is saying. ... in case they can't hear the umpire due to poor speaker system in the booth or excessive crowd noise. ...

 

[woodrow1029]

You said:

Originally Posted by Love Game
How could Mohamed have been controlling the scoreboard at Paris Masters?

The scoreboard was not the same as Mohamed's own "palm device."

If Mohamed had been controlling the scoreboard with his palm device, then the scoreboard would have had the same statistics as Mohamed's palm device, but it didn't.

I said:

First of all, you need to read the entire things. I said in another post that the umpire's palm device DOES NOT CONTROL THE AMOUNT OF CHALLENGES REMAINING. THAT IS CONTROLLED BY THE REVIEW OFFICIAL IN THE HAWKEYE REVIEW BOOTH. The umpire controls the scoreboard in regards to the score only on the court scoreboards at most tournaments, a lot of the time EXCEPT FOR THE STADIUM COURT. The umpire's palm device ALWAYS controls the live scoring that you see on the ATP website. Believe me, I am experienced in this field.

I answered your post, and added another sentence referring to the live scoring, only as an addition as the question has been raised earlier.

What I want to know is why don't you think that the review official should be able to correct the chair umpire in this situation? The review official is the one that is entering all of the challenge information into the system. The chair umpire doesn't have a way to enter anything about challenges in the palm device. He is only relying on his memory.

Part of the review official's protocol is to decide whether a review of the call is available. This includes confirming that the HawkEye personnel has captured the image, and confirming that the player has challenges remaining. The chair umpire has the final authority on whether or not the proper challenge proceedure was met which includes if the player stopped play in time on a non point ending shot and whether to replay the point or award the point.

The supervisor has the final authority on all questions of law. In this case, he decided that the umpire should have the final word on how many challenges remaining. As far as I know, this is the first time that there has been such a long debate over number of challenges. Like I said before, I have been on both sides of it. I know when I was the chair umpire, I was glad to be corrected. And I was thanked as a review official for correcting a chair umpire over this type of situation. I would doubt that the supervisor would make the same decision again. And, I would be surprised if this situation isn't covered in the 2009 rulebooks.

So, I agree with you that this situation needs to be addressed in the rulebooks, but I think the final authority about number of challenges should be in the hands of the review official. I don't agree that the review official's name has to be addressed, especially since there is no rule that the chair umpire's name needs to be addressed.

 

[Love Game]

. . .
I would doubt that the supervisor would make the same decision again. And, I would be surprised if this situation isn't covered in the 2009 rulebooks.[/I]

So, I agree with you that this situation needs to be addressed in the rulebooks, but I think the final authority about number of challenges should be in the hands of the review official. I don't agree that the review official's name has to be addressed, especially since there is no rule that the chair umpire's name needs to be addressed.

*** previous posts have revealed "most tournaments" "not on stadium court," "miami," etc. Where else are the rules in tennis subject to the circumstances of the venue?

the rules should not be dependent on the venue. the rules for years have been standardized to apply regardless of the venue.

the invention of hawkeye challenge review should not be allowed to be an exception to that, which is probably why not all venues, even some of the most technically advanced, have adopted it, prefering to stay with the tried and true until all the bugs are worked out of "booth officiating."

*** you mentioned the 2009 rulebook.
when does that come out?
does the general public have access to it?

*** while I did say that situations like these need to be addressed in the rulebook, I also said that the details of this particular situation need to be revealed to the public, who were all witnesses of the debacle. in particular, if the official in the booth was unable to hear certain statements of the umpire or unaware that the scoreboard was not in agreement with the umpire's information before the problem arose.

That's a major flaw because that allows doubt about match fixing to come into play. everybody on court and in the audience can see and hear what the umpire says and does, just as you and another member were able to check the tape and report on lahyani's statements, so we know about lahyani.

but that's only half the picture. the other half is what did the booth umpire know and when did he know it? Who was the booth umpire? If we don't know who the "booth umpire" was, how do we even know it was a "certified" umpire at all?

plus: if there's something that the booth umpire did not know because of deficiency in technology or deficiency of communication between the chair umpire and the "booth umpire," then the accuracy of the hawkeye review is in question, and that's something the players and the public have the right to know.

 

[woodrow1029]

*** previous posts have revealed "most tournaments" "not on stadium court," "miami," etc. Where else are the rules in tennis subject to the circumstances of the venue?

the rules should not be dependent on the venue. the rules for years have been standardized to apply regardless of the venue.

the invention of hawkeye challenge review should not be allowed to be an exception to that, which is probably why not all venues, even some of the most technically advanced, have adopted it, prefering to stay with the tried and true until all the bugs are worked out of "booth officiating."

*** you mentioned the 2009 rulebook.
when does that come out?
does the general public have access to it?

*** while I did say that situations like these need to be addressed in the rulebook, I also said that the details of this particular situation need to be revealed to the public, who were all witnesses of the debacle. in particular, if the official in the booth was unable to hear certain statements of the umpire or unaware that the scoreboard was not in agreement with the umpire's information before the problem arose.

That's a major flaw because that allows doubt about match fixing to come into play. everybody on court and in the audience can see and hear what the umpire says and does, just as you and another member were able to check the tape and report on lahyani's statements, so we know about lahyani.

but that's only half the picture. the other half is what did the booth umpire know and when did he know it? Who was the booth umpire? If we don't know who the "booth umpire" was, how do we even know it was a "certified" umpire at all?

plus: if there's something that the booth umpire did not know because of deficiency in technology or deficiency of communication between the chair umpire and the "booth umpire," then the accuracy of the hawkeye review is in question, and that's something the players and the public have the right to know.

My response about what kind of palm device is used and what scoreboards it controls has nothing do with the rules of tennis. Somebody else and you asked questions regarding what the palm device controls and why it wasn't in agreement with the scoreboard. That is what I was addressing.

We know it is a certified official because the ATP, WTA and ITF rule books require a certified chair umpire to be in the booth for every match that HawkEye is used.

The HawkEye official knows immediately after the challenge how many challenges are remaining. If crowd noise or something else prevents him from hearing the umpire's every announcements, that is the umpire's responsibility to get the announcements right. The review official followed the correct procedure by alerting the umpire that there were no challenges remaining when Roddick challenged at 4-5.

The rule books can be found on the ATP, WTA and ITF websites and yes are available for download by the public.

Once again, the posts about what the umpire's palm device were informative only. Has nothing to do with the rules.

 

[Love Game]

Ok. You got me. LOL. You asked me, I answered with the way it is. If it's not enough for you, then I guess it's pointless for me to argue anymore. Argue, I mean explain. Again, players like it, fans like it, officials like it and the media likes it. It is technology run by humans. Neither are perfect and mistakes will happen.

Writing words after someone brings up a point is not the same as answering that point.

undiscoverable mistakes happening is the way the ugly sports gambling system gets its hooks in. I love tennis too much to remain silent while that camel gets its nose under the tent.

Neither the fans nor the players will like it if it can be manipulated or is unreviewable. human error can also be the result of human corruption, and human corruption is the driving force behind the crime of sports gambling manipulation by "fixing." And what's more "fixable" than unsupervised computer technology?

all I'm insisting is that when errors occur, their origins needs to be transparent, not unknown or unknowable by all. Otherwise, they can't be correctable.

Couple weeks ago, the booth replayed the wrong point on a challenge. That's not ready for prime time.

 

[woodrow1029]

technology operated by humans.. neither is perfect and mistakes will happen. This was a mistake. Granted, not a minor mistake, but a mistake none the less.

 

[Love Game]

duplicate .....

 

[woodrow1029]

duplicate .....

I read your post before you deleted as you did before I deleted mine.

Look, I understand what you are saying that it could be perceived as corruption by some people. I am not arguing that. But, then the same can be said about every close line call with or without HawkEye by some people. I happen to know the chair umpire and review official very well and know that's not the case. I am very confident that if the same situation happened again in the future, it would be handled differently. But again, I am not arguing with you that it can be perceived that way..

 

[Love Game]

technology operated by humans.. neither is perfect and mistakes will happen. This was a mistake. Granted, not a minor mistake, but a mistake none the less.

agreed, but when "mistakes happen" and "errors are made" by those humans, it needs to be transparent for the sake of accuracy.

for example, the situation often arises of a dispute over whether or not a baseball runner was tagged out by the baseman. That error or mistake is discoverable on replay.

And that replay shows the actual event, not a computer generated representation of the event, which is what hawkeye shows.

 

[woodrow1029]

agreed, but when "mistakes happen" and "errors are made" by those humans, it needs to be transparent for the sake of accuracy.

for example, the situation often arises of a dispute over whether or not a baseball runner was tagged out by the baseman. That error or mistake is discoverable on replay.

And that replay shows the actual event, not a computer generated representation of the event, which is what hawkeye shows.

But the baserunner being tagged out is not a reviewable call (at least yet.) Additionally, it is not always 100% clear whether a tag was made. In this case, the decision of the line call wasn't the issue, the issue was whether Roddick had challenges remaining. I don't see players or fans questioning the accuracy of HawkEye too much outside of the minor margin of error.

 

[Love Game]

I read your post before you deleted as you did before I deleted mine.

Look, I understand what you are saying that it could be perceived as corruption by some people. I am not arguing that. But, then the same can be said about every close line call with or without HawkEye by some people. I happen to know the chair umpire and review official very well and know that's not the case. I am very confident that if the same situation happened again in the future, it would be handled differently. But again, I am not arguing with you that it can be perceived that way..

I appreciate that.
We all know the chair umpire was Mohamed Lahyani.

?What is the name of the review official?

 

[Petekbladetour1]

I would say lyani is a good umpire

 

[woodrow1029]

I would say lyani is a good umpire

Mohamed Lahyani is an excellent umpire.

 

[Love Game]

^^^

. . . But, then the same can be said about every close line call with or without HawkEye by some people. I happen to know the chair umpire and review official very well and know that's not the case. . . .

I appreciate that.
We all know the chair umpire was Mohamed Lahyani.

?What is the name of the review official?

Good. There you are, woodrow1029.

 

[woodrow1029]

^^^





Good. There you are, woodrow1029.

And that means?

I will not give out anybody's name like that here.

 

[Love Game]

Mohamed Lahyani is an excellent umpire.

And that means?

I will not give out anybody's name like that here.

so the "booth umpire" is shrouded in secrecy?!

I wonder why.

 

[woodrow1029]

so the "booth umpire" is shrouded in secrecy?!

I wonder why.

Lahyani has already been talked about by name. No news there. I am not divulging new names. That would be extremely unprofessional.

 

[Love Game]

Lahyani has already been talked about by name. No news there. I am not divulging new names. That would be extremely unprofessional.

why?
why is the indentity of the "booth umpire" a secret?

why should the identify of the one be public
while the identity of the other is kept sub rosa?

secrecy is the enemy of transparency.
the players and the public have a right to know.
in fact, for all the public knows, there was no official umpire in that darkened booth at all or s/he could have stepped out for a moment.

 

[woodrow1029]

why?
why is the indentity of the "booth umpire" a secret?

why should the identify of the one be public
while the identity of the other is kept sub rosa?

secrecy is the enemy of transparency.
the players and the public have a right to know.
in fact, for all the public knows, there was no official umpire in that darkened booth at all or s/he could have stepped out for a moment.

Why does it matter?

 

[Love Game]

Why does it matter?

it matters for the sake of accountability.
for the sake of the record's accuracy.

as i said before, secrecy is the enemy of transparency. a lot of illegal things can't stand the sunshine.

let the sun shine on the "certified booth umpire," if such there is, in every single match, the same way it shines on the chair umpire in every single match.

 

[woodrow1029]

it matters for the sake of accountability.
for the sake of the record's accuracy.

as i said before, secrecy is the enemy of transparency. a lot of illegal things can't stand the sunshine.

let the sun shine on the "certified booth umpire," if such there is, in every single match, the same way it shines on the chair umpire in every single match.

I'm sure you can probably find out that information somewhere. I will not divulge it in this type of forum.

 

[Love Game]

I'm sure you can probably find out that information somewhere. I will not divulge it in this type of forum.

why would you have to "divulge" it in the first place?

why is the identity of the so-called booth umpire kept secret, instead of being open public knowledge the way the identity of the chair umpire is?

 

[woodrow1029]

why would you have to "divulge" it in the first place?

why is the identity of the so-called booth umpire kept secret, instead of being open public knowledge the way the identity of the chair umpire is?

I'm not giving you the name of a friend and colleague of mine so that you can continue to talk negatively about him for something that he did correctly.

 

[Love Game]

why would you have to "divulge" it in the first place?

why is the identity of the so-called booth umpire kept secret, instead of being open public knowledge the way the identity of the chair umpire is?

I'm not giving you the name of a friend and colleague of mine so that you can continue to talk negatively about him for something that he did correctly.

either that or "he" is a figment.

as all can read for themselves, i didnt "talk negatively about him" at all, but rather about the flaws in the current review system as witnessed by all in roddick/tsonga.

 

[poochie]

either that or "he" is a figment.

as all can read for themselves, i didnt "talk negatively about him" at all, but rather about the flaws in the current review system as witnessed by all in roddick/tsonga.

First of all, there was miscommunication across the board(chair umpire, booth officials and the supervisor). In the 3rd set, 2nd game, challenge lost by roddick, chair umpire announced that he had 2 challenges remaining, all ok as now. In the 3rd set 4th game, challenge lost by roddick, chair umpire did NOT announce that roddick had one challenge remaining. In the 3rd set 6th game, challenge lost by roddick AGAIN, chair umpire announced that roddick had ONE challenge remaining when roddick had NO challenge remaining, here is the booth official should contact the chair umpire to let him know there's no challenge remaining for roddick but he didn't. During the changeover, the supervior, chair umpire and the booth official were discussing while the chair umpire said one challenge remaining for roddick while the board showed 0. They should've solved the problem right there and then but they didn't, so the problem exists... basically it was the miscommunication across the board... any questions?????

 

[shawn1122]

Who cares about the review official if he didn't make a mistake. Layani is the one that should be dealt with, but even then its a pretty regular human error and should not really be punished. I'm sure the officials and the lines people do the best job they can out there, any of us in that same position would eventually commit some errors as well.

 

[Fedexeon]

I always like Layani. He's a good umpire