I like such advances only to the extent that they don't interfere with the flow of the game/match. If they can't use it immediately and make the call quickly (within seconds), then I will take the human error.
Weedy hit the nail on the head when comparing this to using it in baseball. THe lines are static, game to game, set to set, match to match. A strike zone differs from player to player, heck possibly within the same at-bat, if the player has a different "natural stance" for full cuts and bunts. That being said, and even in light of the horrendous officiating in the NFL this past post-season, I am against this mechanization of officiating, in any sport, at any level. The game is meant to be played by humans, overseen and judged by humans. It is part of the human condition that no one, not even officials, are perfect, and an error in judgement is as much a part of the game as a bad bounce. It is the striving to eliminate the errors that makes the game compelling, by the competitors, and by the officials. The sports official strives for the 'perfect game' as much as any athlete. Just because a technology is available, does not mean is use is good, even if it were to eliminate controversy or doubt. As long as sports officials do their best, call a square game, and strive to improve, them let the games contnue.
It seems to me that in tennis the lines are absolutely static, painted on even, but in baseball its a lot more arbitrary. It makes sense in tennis, it sucks to see a tennis player get penalized because of a bad call by an official favoring the more popular player, serena and venus williams get this sort of favor all the time, i guess because the official just assumes that if it was one of them that hit the ball it stands to reason that it would be inbounds. Baseball is so much different. no one, pichers or batters would want a replay on a pitch, it just wouldn't suit the game. in tennis its a different story, all these tennis players are coming out in support of this thing. why not include it? I'm with weedy on this all the way, use the tecnology if you got it.
Did you just make that stuff up about Venus and Serena getting favorable calls? Do you mean calls like this?
I can't wait to see someone try to "make a tennis move" in slow motion.
Can we get a machine to count the 1-1/2 steps NBA players are allowed to take without dribbling, or do we not have time to watch a 5 hour basketbal game?In all seriousness, I agree with many of posts above. Static areas should be fine for machine officiating and the rest should remain the status quo.
bperk, I was referring to all of the matches I have watched, and not to one specific call or another, but... Congrats on being the first one to point out an exception to my theory; its really impressive when someone refutes a general conclusion with one example that they can think of where the circumstances went differently... it's just really a fabulous form of discourse. Good Job!
It's Hawk-Eye. The transition from its original use in cricket (it'd be hard to imagine TV coverage without it these days) to tennis is a natural one. It's interesting, though, that while the ICC has resisted the introduction of Hawk-Eye for the 3rd umpire to adjudicate LBW decisions, even though it uses replay much more liberally, and employs Hawk-Eye to evaluate umpire performance, the ITF has leaped ahead and embraced it as a tool for umpires, albeit one that's invoked on limited occasions, at the players' request. I think that compromise is a good one, though, since it's going to be the blatant miscalls, outside the 3mm limit of Hawk-Eye's accuracy, that prompt challenges. And you can trust the cricket writers to talk about the 'romance' of dodgy decisions.
its really impressive when someone refutes a general conclusion with one example that they can think of where the circumstances went differently Easy there, everett. Your "general conclusion" didn't even offer one example. That's even more fabulous, don't you think?
Thanks for that link, etagloh. After reading a bit, I have to take back part of what I said above. If the system is used to provide some novel player and match statistics, then it just might add to my enjoyment of tennis. Then again, I'm geeky that way.
Amateur, I was talking about a relatively well known phenomenon in the world of tennis, the same way that one might say Kobe, or T-mac get an extra half step in the key. As a fan of Tennis, I am talking about a subject that is well enough known by other fans of tennis. I did not feel I had to defend it too aggressively. now... I was maybe a little cranky when I wrote my response, but I feel like people do have a tendency to make criticizms without a lot of basis sometimes, and it irritates me. So, sorry for the sharp tongue.
everett, sometimes things that "everybody knows" turn out to be unsupported by facts. I don't know enough about tennis to say anything about this particular case, but I don't think bperk was out of line to give a counterexample. Interestingly, this new system could actually provide some objective evidence (aka statistics) to support or debunk theories of this type. There will now be a record of calls given and overturned, so we will be able to see whether the human umpires are in fact biased for or against particular players.
True. either way I think that an increased level of objectivity on the things that are really static will only work to improve the game.
