PDA

View Full Version : Should There Be "Instant Replay" In Tennis?


GogoGirl
Aug 17th, 2003, 03:12 PM
I have been wondering about this subject for years. I remember the look on Venus's face in 2000 when she and Martina were playing in the quarters at Wimby. Remember the look Venus had on her face when the chair umpire ruled a ball out - when the replay showed that it clipped the line? She would have broken Martina then - and may haps would have won that second set and the match. And we know she won it in three.

And surely - there are numerous other examples like the aforementioned.

Justine was right in her point that it was not her decision to make regarding whether Serena should have been given another serve. It was clearly up to the official to make the call - but evidently the chair umpire didn't see all aspects as to what truly had transpired. Why? Was it because he couldn't tune into what was happening on both sides of the net at the same specific time? We know that it was. If so - then whom should have been held responsible?

And the other night - the umpire overruled a call during the match between Andy & James. James was too fit to be tied. Andy made an indication that the ball was out. Yet - the replay showed clearly that the ball was wayyyyyyyyyyy in. Even Pat & the other commentator seemed a little taken aback by that missed and inaccurate call. IMO - James never regrouped after that. Not that he would have won the match - but still. I wonder if he and Andy will see eye to eye about that issue?

Anyway - if they can have instant replay in football - then maybe they should consider it in the sport of tennis - IMO.

moby
Aug 17th, 2003, 03:13 PM
*looking at your examples*

i tell you, it's gotta be racism

Mase
Aug 17th, 2003, 03:14 PM
I agree. I think it should be limited to say 1 or 2 replays per set but I think its a great idea...

TonyP
Aug 17th, 2003, 03:17 PM
Of course, there should be. Will there be? In all likelyhood, no.

Why? It costs money to install TV cameras and have playback equipment and the tournaments simplyh won't want to spend the cash. And while the US Open, Wimbledon, etc., might be able to do it, who else could.

Even at the majors, though, think ofthe number of courts where they would have to set up cameras. You couldn't use instant replay only on center court and not on court 14, because then players would be getting unequal treatment.

And remember, most of the linesmen they rely on are working for free. They're volunteers recruited from tennis clubs.

Tennnis is private industry, there to make money and why pay for something when you're getting it for free?

Instand replay would be nice but it isn't going to happen.

GogoGirl
Aug 17th, 2003, 03:30 PM
Imbecile - you are the one that mentioned racism - and not me.

James also got upset about a call that was clearly out - and in the short interview after the match - Pat pointed out to him, that it was indeed out. The day before, Marty Fish got upset about two calls that the replay showed were clearly out - but in his mind - they might have been in.

Doubt creeps in to many players minds as it pertains to whether a call was right or wrong - at times.

Tony P - you've made some very good points. Maybe there could be a computer setup to stream play from all courts to a central control room? I don't know - but I think it is a shame that some players are clearly penalized in one way or another - when a inaccurate call is made.

A bad call can really mess w/a player's mind - and IMO - more so than if a cell phone went off or what not. It is just human nature to get upset at times. And, I don't mean all the times - because most players have learned how to move on past it and get on w/the rest of their play.

I don't agree though that it will never happen - for how expensive could it be?

Martian Willow
Aug 17th, 2003, 03:31 PM
I think what people forget is that a lot of disputed line calls come during points, and not just at the end of them. You can even have more than one close call during a rally. Do you really think we should stop between every game (or even every point) to look at every close call? It would be ridiculous, you'd spend more time looking at replays than actual tennis.

What we need is an an electronic line judge like Hawkeye. You have one person with a screen, who can call balls out instantly, the same way they do now, but with 100% accuracy. If everybody knows the line judge is 100% accurate, there's no need to question calls and no need for replays. Then we can just get on with the tennis.

Don't think I can make myself clear enough on this: I do NOT want matches to be constantly disrupted by 'instant' replays.

Thanks. :)

skanky~skanketta
Aug 17th, 2003, 03:34 PM
there should definitely be instant replays!

GogoGirl
Aug 17th, 2003, 03:36 PM
Good points Willow. You are on to something here. How about a "Hawkeye" type thingy where even the player would be able to glance up real quick to see if the ball was in or out - whether they had hit it or their opponent?

How about the match last year at the US Open when - whom was it that more or less asked Pam S. if the ball was out? And of course, we know how some players will look to their coach of family members for the answer.

Dava
Aug 17th, 2003, 03:36 PM
It depends, sometimes the line calling is good. In yesturdays Suarez/KraZ match it was so appuling even the overrules where bad.

I think they should use hawk eye.

controlfreak
Aug 17th, 2003, 03:41 PM
If we had instant replays, then what would players be able to use as an excuse for tanking a match? :confused:

moby
Aug 17th, 2003, 04:31 PM
in all honesty, instant replay would make tennis more fair, but would also change the very intrigue of the game.

sometimes, it's the bad calls that allow for drama on court.
and yes, i'm saying that as a martina fan who's favorite suffered a very severe injustice on court in RG99

probably one of the worse calls ever made

Beat
Aug 17th, 2003, 04:59 PM
in all honesty, instant replay would make tennis more fair, but would also change the very intrigue of the game.
sometimes, it's the bad calls that allow for drama on court.


exactly. it's part of the game and players have to live with it. can you imagine the mess if a player could constantly get instant replay? o.k., one could limit it to 1 or 2 replays per set, as mase suggests, but for so little you don't have to introduce a whole new system.

Bella
Aug 17th, 2003, 05:17 PM
It cuts both ways. Venus would have lost the (then) Ericcson to Jen when Jen's match-point winner was called out.

Hingiswinsthis
Aug 17th, 2003, 05:20 PM
and Martina Hingis should've won RG 1999 without walkin around the net;)

Dava
Aug 17th, 2003, 05:22 PM
and Martina Hingis should've won RG 1999 without walkin around the net;)

Probably :rolleyes:

Shuji Shuriken
Aug 17th, 2003, 05:32 PM
It cuts both ways. Venus would have lost the (then) Ericcson to Jen when Jen's match-point winner was called out.
that ball was out :lol:

TonyP
Aug 17th, 2003, 05:38 PM
There are many who think player disputes and arguements with the umpire are one of the most colorful aspects of the game. Imagine McEnroe if he'd had nothing but machines to fight with all those years? Of course, he did plenty of fighting with the electronic eye calling serves in or out.

Once, after a machine kept beeping even when balls were inches from the line, he walked up and stood in front of it and said.

"You know it's me, don't you?"

rhz
Aug 17th, 2003, 05:41 PM
If we have the technology, why don't we use it? Can you imagine how many matches would go the other way if only instant replay or a similar type of replay would have been used???

GogoGirl
Aug 17th, 2003, 07:05 PM
Again - I say that if a player gets a bad call - then how do you think that player - coach and family members would feel about it also? Let's say that that one call decided whether the player broke or held serve? Let's say that one call summed up whether that person moved on to the next round. Let's just say that if said person had won that bad call - they would have wound up winning the whole enchilada, or if a call should have legitimately gone against their opponent - then perhaps - they would have won that game - set or match - and of course - depending on the circumstances.

And can we not imagine how a player would feel about the prize money that they didn't receive because of incompetance? I understand how some may feel about the drama of it all - but IMO - the drama comes from witnessing a player that should have won a point or two and how that call or lack thereof could have affected the outcome of a game - set or match.

Needless to say that it will always be about the right and wrong of the matter/question/dilemma/decision.

*JR*
Aug 17th, 2003, 07:48 PM
There are many who think player disputes and arguements with the umpire are one of the most colorful aspects of the game.
You may have nailed the reason they don't have it with this one sentence. Baseball fans like 2C an occasional manager-ump arguement, hockey fans a brawl, etc. Of course it's idiotic that the TV viewer knows more re. in or out on a shot than the ump does. But just like they "sell skin", I guess controversy sells, too (like seeing Jen get into it with the ump, for example). BTW, Tony, guess ya gave up on that "don't hate, appreciate" sig, huh? ;)

Martian Willow
Aug 17th, 2003, 08:06 PM
It doesn't say much for the game of tennis if it has to rely on bad line calls to make it interesting. I'd rather leave all that 'controversy' crap to the likes of F1, which wallows in it. Tennis is a sport, and the ability to play tennis should be the only thing that affects the results. Thanks. :)