PDA

View Full Version : Why can't there be unlimited challenges?


VeeJJ
Feb 24th, 2011, 07:32 PM
:confused:

Kworb
Feb 24th, 2011, 07:33 PM
Cause then players could challenge almost every point. They already raised it from 2 to 3 challenges a set. It's enough.

fouc
Feb 24th, 2011, 07:34 PM
yes, it's enough, Dani would be wrong in every case anyway :shrug:

edificio
Feb 24th, 2011, 07:35 PM
yes, it's enough, Dani would be wrong in every case anyway :shrug:

Fed too.

VeeJJ
Feb 24th, 2011, 07:36 PM
I don't think they would challenge every point. Players typically feel when the ball is out.

cellophane
Feb 24th, 2011, 07:37 PM
There should be IMO.

RR-87
Feb 24th, 2011, 07:37 PM
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.

fightserena!!!
Feb 24th, 2011, 07:39 PM
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.

VeeJJ
Feb 24th, 2011, 07:43 PM
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.

NoChokes
Feb 24th, 2011, 07:48 PM
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.

young_gunner913
Feb 24th, 2011, 07:53 PM
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.

ClijstersGOAT
Feb 24th, 2011, 07:54 PM
Fed too.

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

young_gunner913
Feb 24th, 2011, 07:56 PM
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.

Bingain
Feb 24th, 2011, 07:58 PM
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.

goldenlox
Feb 24th, 2011, 08:04 PM
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.

King Halep
Feb 24th, 2011, 08:17 PM
Who would want to be a linesperson. Anyway its a typical GM thread.

SVK
Feb 24th, 2011, 08:21 PM
I don't think they would challenge every point. Players typically feel when the ball is out.

Hantuchova´s feeling is very messy then

terjw
Feb 24th, 2011, 08:22 PM
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.

-Sonic-
Feb 24th, 2011, 08:25 PM
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.

crazillo
Feb 24th, 2011, 08:48 PM
No, it's good the way it is now. I only wish umpires wouldn't accept challenges 30 seconds after the stroke was hit...

duhcity
Feb 24th, 2011, 08:56 PM
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.

edificio
Feb 24th, 2011, 10:16 PM
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:

Irute
Feb 24th, 2011, 10:21 PM
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.

pov
Feb 24th, 2011, 10:28 PM
Oh yeah. That would make for great flow in matches. Yeah, maybe the NFL should do that too.

pov
Feb 24th, 2011, 10:31 PM
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.

Freakan
Feb 24th, 2011, 10:53 PM
Because every match of Rodionova's last 7 hours, at least.

Matt01
Feb 24th, 2011, 11:31 PM
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.

MB.
Feb 24th, 2011, 11:56 PM
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.

slamchamp
Feb 25th, 2011, 12:00 AM
Because it would stop the play all the time..Isn't that obvious?:weirdo:

BuTtErFrEnA
Feb 25th, 2011, 12:03 AM
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

pedropt
Feb 25th, 2011, 12:05 AM
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.

Lindsayfan32
Feb 25th, 2011, 08:40 AM
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. :)

Curtos07
Feb 25th, 2011, 08:48 AM
If there were unlimted challenges, the matches would never end. There is a reason why the WTA puts a limit, same with the NFL.

BlueTrees
Feb 25th, 2011, 12:12 PM
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:

mariavikafan
Feb 25th, 2011, 12:16 PM
Whaat? No way, I mean Jankovic would drive us crazy.:lol:

slamchamp
Feb 25th, 2011, 01:19 PM
This.That.

Hian
Feb 25th, 2011, 02:31 PM
That.

Murder she wrote.

danieln1
Feb 25th, 2011, 03:09 PM
Fed too.

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

olivero
Feb 25th, 2011, 03:17 PM
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.

Beat
Feb 25th, 2011, 03:22 PM
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.

Olórin
Feb 25th, 2011, 03:25 PM
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".

Caralenko
Feb 25th, 2011, 04:18 PM
[and foots]

:worship:

MaBaker
Feb 25th, 2011, 05:00 PM
Imagine JJ with unlimited challenges. Pure love.

nicky
Feb 26th, 2011, 07:27 AM
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?

abollo
Feb 26th, 2011, 07:31 AM
If there are more challenges players will misuse them to slow down the game

abollo
Feb 26th, 2011, 07:33 AM
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

King Halep
Feb 26th, 2011, 07:41 AM
^ 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

abollo
Feb 26th, 2011, 07:54 AM
^ 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