Why can't there be unlimited challenges?

:confused:

Cause then players could challenge almost every point. They already raised it from 2 to 3 challenges a set. It's enough.

yes, it's enough, Dani would be wrong in every case anyway :shrug:

yes, it's enough, Dani would be wrong in every case anyway :shrug:

Fed too.

I don't think they would challenge every point. Players typically feel when the ball is out.

There should be IMO.

I don't think they would challenge every point. Players typically feel when the ball is out.

they would to take some time if feel very tired.

It would slow the game down, be used to change momentum and stall, every time a player knew they were not going to make the shot, they could just challenge and get to replay the point....bad idea.

they would to take some time if feel very tired.

They do that now

It would slow the game down, be used to change momentum and stall, every time a player knew they were not going to make the shot, they could just challenge and get to replay the point....bad idea.

And that would be the Chairs job to judge a reaction shot between a real shot. It's not hard to distinguish.

But if you challenge and you're wrong, you lose the point.

Still, unlimited challenges would just slow things down even more. Some players would use it every point.

But if you challenge and you're wrong, you lose the point.

Still, unlimited challenges would just slow things down even more. Some players would use it every point.

This. Some players even slow down matches by repeatedly checking for marks instead of challenging.

Fed too.

Fed doesn't want more challanges, he would be happy if the system was scrapped.

Fed doesn't want more challanges, he would be happy if the system was scrapped.

Meanwhile, he's more than happy to use it for as much as he claims to dislike it.

Fed doesn't want more challanges, he would be happy if the system was scrapped.

He challenges for the heck of challenging, to waste time, and to demonstrate how he can abuse the system. Most of the balls he challenges are out/in by a foot or two.:devil: It would be entertaining if he gets a dozen challenges a set.

There should be more challenges allowed. They have the technology, so get the calls right.
I've seen chair umpires over rule correct calls. I've seen matches lost on bad calls.
Get the calls right. Get the right winner.

Who would want to be a linesperson. Anyway its a typical GM thread.

I don't think they would challenge every point. Players typically feel when the ball is out.

Hantuchova´s feeling is very messy then

I understand the reasoning because they don't want to have the matches being interrupted all the time. But I also don't want points won or lost on a wrong decision by a line judge and/or umpire. In theory I'd like unlimited challenges but I guess you have to have a limit.

One thing they should really change in the rules when they have a limit though is that any help a player can get from umpire, coach or anyone present as to whether or not to challenge should be 100% allowed and not classed as coaching. To call it coaching is losing sight of what the purpose of hawkeye was for. Which is not to test the player but to get right the decisions that the officials make.

You CAN have unlimited challenges, providing all your challenges are correct.

3 wrong is just fine. If you get it wrong 3 tmes a set, chances are your eye isn't as good as you thought it was, it might be better to trust the line judges.

No, it's good the way it is now. I only wish umpires wouldn't accept challenges 30 seconds after the stroke was hit...

Players get unlimited correct challenges. That's fine the way it is. You should be penalized (as you do now,by losing a challenge) if you repeatedly waste time and get challenges incorrect.

Players get unlimited correct challenges. That's fine the way it is. You should be penalized (as you do now,by losing a challenge) if you repeatedly waste time and get challenges incorrect.

:yeah:

I actually think player should not be required to challenge. If the technology is in place every line call should be validated without the show of the ball falling and taking the time. Granted it adds to the drama, but why incorrect line call should be allowed if someone is out of challenges.

Oh yeah. That would make for great flow in matches. Yeah, maybe the NFL should do that too.

I understand the reasoning because they don't want to have the matches being interrupted all the time. But I also don't want points won or lost on a wrong decision by a line judge and/or umpire. In theory I'd like unlimited challenges but I guess you have to have a limit.

One thing they should really change in the rules when they have a limit though is that any help a player can get from umpire, coach or anyone present as to whether or not to challenge should be 100% allowed and not classed as coaching. To call it coaching is losing sight of what the purpose of hawkeye was for. Which is not to test the player but to get right the decisions that the officials make.

Hawkeye doesn't really provide correct decisions (it's inaccurate.) What it does is provide a technology that has a consistent degree of accuracy/inaccuracy.

Because every match of Rodionova's last 7 hours, at least.

One thing they should really change in the rules when they have a limit though is that any help a player can get from umpire, coach or anyone present as to whether or not to challenge should be 100% allowed and not classed as coaching. To call it coaching is losing sight of what the purpose of hawkeye was for. Which is not to test the player but to get right the decisions that the officials make.


I disagree with this. Players should decide on their own and should not be allowed to ask the coaches if they should challenge or not. The match is about the two player (and umpires) who are actually on the court. It should not in any way depend on the eyesight of their entourage. And the players should also not ask some blatant questions to the chair umpire like "should I challenge" (like e.g. I remember Jankovic did) for similar reasons.

You CAN have unlimited challenges, providing all your challenges are correct.

3 wrong is just fine. If you get it wrong 3 tmes a set, chances are your eye isn't as good as you thought it was, it might be better to trust the line judges.

This and only this.

Because it would stop the play all the time..Isn't that obvious?:weirdo:

You CAN have unlimited challenges, providing all your challenges are correct.

3 wrong is just fine. If you get it wrong 3 tmes a set, chances are your eye isn't as good as you thought it was, it might be better to trust the line judges.


this

I actually think player should not be required to challenge. If the technology is in place every line call should be validated without the show of the ball falling and taking the time. Granted it adds to the drama, but why incorrect line call should be allowed if someone is out of challenges.

This.

Cause then players could challenge almost every point. They already raised it from 2 to 3 challenges a set. It's enough.

You have a point but the challenge system is quicker than a player standing at the umpire's chair arguing with them. If not unlimited then the number should be increased to say 6 a set 3 isn't enough. I would still prefer to see unlimited. :)

If there were unlimted challenges, the matches would never end. There is a reason why the WTA puts a limit, same with the NFL.

I don't think they would challenge every point. Players typically feel when the ball is out.

In that case, they wouldn't get more than three challenges wrong in a set. :wavey:

Whaat? No way, I mean Jankovic would drive us crazy.:lol:

This.That.

That.

Murder she wrote.

Fed too.

He´s one of the worst.... he´s always wrong! :lol:

Why are you all saying players would challenge every point?
IIRC on clay you can ask umpire to check the call multiple times per set and yet it doesn't really affect the match.

I don't think they would challenge every point. Players typically feel when the ball is out.

if they "feel" it, how come they're wrong so often?
and theoretically, they have unlimited challenges - if they're right every time.

You CAN have unlimited challenges, providing all your challenges are correct.

3 wrong is just fine. If you get it wrong 3 tmes a set, chances are your eye isn't as good as you thought it was, it might be better to trust the line judges.

Exactly. There are unlimited challenges.

The problem is who can challenge. I think the linesjudges should be given the power to challenge their own calls (without the dramatic screencap) on balls [and foots] they think are too close to call.

That would take out the gamesmanship, some of the delay, and should result in a higher percentage of correct "calls".

[and foots]

:worship:

Imagine JJ with unlimited challenges. Pure love.

Exactly. There are unlimited challenges.

The problem is who can challenge. I think the linesjudges should be given the power to challenge their own calls (without the dramatic screencap) on balls [and foots] they think are too close to call.

That would take out the gamesmanship, some of the delay, and should result in a higher percentage of correct "calls".

What about the umpire, when/if (s)he wants to overrule? Especially if (s)he thinks a call is wrong, but is not 100% sure? If (s)he can check discretely whether the call is correct, wouldn't that be an improvement?

If there are more challenges players will misuse them to slow down the game

I also think they should develop a new technology in the next couple of years, which says automatically when the ball is out and does a sound like beep :haha: Hopefully this day will come and there will be no need for challenges

^ they tried a system before and it never got used. also what happened to the beeping sensor they used to have for serves, i cant believe they went back to using a linesman to call it

^ they tried a system before and it never got used. also what happened to the beeping sensor they used to have for serves, i cant believe they went back to using a linesman to call it

yes, but this was only in serves
I think they still use it in some tournaments
But for now that can only be used in serves because if sensor has to beep when the ball is out behind the base line it will keep on beeping the whole time because of the players' feet