Why does a bad call (or non-call) stand when hawkeye confirms it as bad?

[Mitcheson]

Just been watching Broady v Ruud at Wimbledon. Ruud clearly hit a volley out at 3-1 in the 2nd set but it wasn't called - you could even see on TV as I was convinced and questioned it, also it would have given Broady a 0-40 lead against Ruud's serve and he would have broken back. The commentator said that hawkeye confirmed it out as they had privileged access - so obviously the umpire also does.

Why should this stand? The fact that the wronged player doesn't know or challenge it is and should be irrelevant. He has won the point - so why should he lose it? This was huge in the context of the match and an injustice. It completely changed the set which was very closely contested.

A player's success should be determined by his/her tennis - not by his/her challenges or lack of them. He/she is there to play tennis not call lines and is reliant on fair umpiring and line calls. It is pretty obvious that players who are moving a lot (including their heads!) are usually not best placed to see or judge bad calls/non-calls.

 

[Aussie Darcy]

Broady didn't challenge that ball. So the point stands.

Had he challenged it, he would've won the point.

It's not "privileged access". We get to see the hawkeye replay as viewers, the chair umpire has to adjudicate the match in live time, not rewatch where every ball lands as per Hawkeye.

 

[Mitcheson]

Broady didn't challenge that ball. So the point stands.

Had he challenged it, he would've won the point.

It's not "privileged access". We get to see the hawkeye replay as viewers, the chair umpire has to adjudicate the match in live time, not rewatch where every ball lands as per Hawkeye.

I know what happened but it is absolutely an injustice. The commentator was able to give this feedback almost immediately - before the next point started.

A player's success should be determined by his/her tennis - not by his/her challenges or lack of them. He/she is there to play tennis not call lines and is reliant on fair umpiring and line calls.

 

[Aussie Darcy]

I know what happened but it is absolutely an injustice. The commentator was able to give this feedback quickly - before the next point started.

A player's success should be determined by his tennis - not by his challenges or lack of them. He/she is there to play tennis not call lines and is reliant on fair umpiring and line calls.

You want the chair umpire to have to halt play after every point to check where the ball landed according to Hawkeye (which by the way, we all know is not 100% correct). Come on… There is a system in place that has worked for a long time. Broady had challenges. He didn’t use them, that’s on him. Tennis is not a perfect sport. Linespeople and chair umpires make errors. That’s why players get to challenge.

 

[GabeT]

I know what happened but it is absolutely an injustice. The commentator was able to give this feedback quickly - before the next point started.

A player's success should be determined by his tennis - not by his challenges or lack of them. He/she is there to play tennis not call lines and is reliant on fair umpiring and line calls.

Are you arguing then in favor of getting rid of lines people? If so I agree

 

[jimmy8]

Same thing in baseball. The audience watching TV can see balls and strikes, and see when the umpire is wrong. But at least in tennis you can challenge, in baseball you can't challenge balls and strikes. It's stupid.

And baseball could use the robot instead of a human umpire, but they don't. It's stupid.

 

[Aussie Darcy]

Are you arguing then in favor of getting rid of lines people? If so I agree

What’s the point of the chair umpire too? Let’s just get rid of everybody that isn’t the two players and have it all automated then lol. Let’s put all our faith in tennis technology to get everything correct. Cause it’s not like we saw hideous errors by the automated system at those tournaments that had it earlier this year.

 

[tex123]

Same in any sport. You appeal. Appeal gets rejected or accepted.

 

[Jonesy]

In 2025 this **** ends at all big tournaments.

 

[GabeT]

What’s the point of the chair umpire too? Let’s just get rid of everybody that isn’t the two players and have it all automated then lol. Let’s put all our faith in tennis technology to get everything correct. Cause it’s not like we saw hideous errors by the automated system at those tournaments that had it earlier this year.

Well, chair umpire does more than just call balls in or out. And I don’t recall so many errors, at least not as many as we see with lines people. Has anyone done an empirical analysis comparing the two?

 

[Mitcheson]

You want the chair umpire to have to halt play after every point to check where the ball landed according to Hawkeye (which by the way, we all know is not 100% correct). Come on… There is a system in place that has worked for a long time. Broady had challenges. He didn’t use them, that’s on him. Tennis is not a perfect sport. Linespeople and chair umpires make errors. That’s why players get to challenge.

Yes, I do. We have already had automated line-calling during covid. Hawkeye not being 100% accurate is not the point - we are already relying on it and it is 99.9% accurate and more so than any lines person.

Yes there is a system in place but no it has not worked - it has been wrong time and time again. If "we've done it like that for a long time" was a valid argument we'd be back in the stone age and nothing would ever improve, especially when it has been done unsatisfactorily.

 

[ChaelAZ]

Been seeing some bad calls as usual and a waste of time with challenges. No reason for line judges when Hawkeye is more accurate and unbiased.

 

[Arak]

obviously, Hawkeye does far less errors than humans and is unbiased. I thought that was agreed upon by most. Now, if a tournament has linespeople, then it is what it is. The Hawkeye footage is shown only for the purpose of frustrating the spectators.

 

[Mitcheson]

Been seeing some bad calls as usual and a waste of time with challenges. No reason for line judges when Hawkeye is more accurate and unbiased.

Completely agree. Especially in terms of being unbiased.

 

[reaper]

obviously, Hawkeye does far less errors than humans and is unbiased. I thought that was agreed upon by most. Now, if a tournament has linespeople, then it is what it is. The Hawkeye footage is shown only for the purpose of frustrating the spectators.

Is it obvious that Hawkeye makes fewer errors than humans? How is the veracity of a Hawkeye call tested?

 

[Arak]

Is it obvious that Hawkeye makes fewer errors than humans? How is the veracity of a Hawkeye call tested?

Obviously it can’t be really tested except by eye, or by checking marks on clay. There are always dubious calls, mind you.