TennisForum.com  

TennisForum.com (http://www.tennisforum.com/index.php)
-   General Messages (http://www.tennisforum.com/forumdisplay.php?f=12)
-   -   Was officiating always this corrupt before hawkeye? (http://www.tennisforum.com/showthread.php?t=487697)

Patrick345 Jan 31st, 2013 05:56 PM

Was officiating always this corrupt before hawkeye?
 
I honestly canīt remember, but you watch events like Paris or Copenhagen that donīt have hawkeye technology and the hometown bias is off the charts. Wickmayer got screwed over by a linesman calling a ball out at her breakpoint for 5-5 atht was clearly in and would have put Wickmayer rin great position. And it wasnīt the first time in the match it happened.

pla Jan 31st, 2013 06:37 PM

Re: Was officiating always this corrupt before hawkeye?
 
Calling it corrupt is a bit exaggerating. Home bias always existed, and will exist until the technology evolves to a level it will no longer need a linesman. Humans are biased, even at a subconscious level. I am sure the linesmen don't even realise they are doing it. It is as it is- our senses are not perfect, and the analysis of the data they "send" to our brain- even less. ;)

Melange Jan 31st, 2013 06:44 PM

Re: Was officiating always this corrupt before hawkeye?
 
Stupid gold badge umpire should have overrule. Copenhagen officials used to screw Wozniacki too

bobito Jan 31st, 2013 06:47 PM

Re: Was officiating always this corrupt before hawkeye?
 
A couple of years ago I was sat two rows back, right behind the baseline judge for Petra Kvitova's 1st round match at Wimbledon. As Petra smacked yet another return for a winner that whizzed by in front of me, I remember looking at the linesman and thinking "I wouldn't fancy his job".

I think they do pretty well all things considered.

Jane Lane Jan 31st, 2013 06:48 PM

Re: Was officiating always this corrupt before hawkeye?
 
The really contentious call looked more out than in to me, and you don't expect an umpire to overrule on that case anyway. They're not in a good position to see it, and Kjendlie was totally honest to Yanina about that.

Corrupt is too strong a word. Unless you've done it, and I have, you have *no* idea how hard it really is.

LUVMIRZA Jan 31st, 2013 06:51 PM

Re: Was officiating always this corrupt before hawkeye?
 
Its one of the most difficult jobs. You have to be on full concentration to call it correctly. Mistakes tend to happen often:shrug:

miffedmax Jan 31st, 2013 06:54 PM

Re: Was officiating always this corrupt before hawkeye?
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by Jane Lane (Post 23908561)
The really contentious call looked more out than in to me, and you don't expect an umpire to overrule on that case anyway. They're not in a good position to see it, and Kjendlie was totally honest to Yanina about that.

Corrupt is too strong a word. Unless you've done it, and I have, you have *no* idea how hard it really is.

This. Most officials are doing the best possible, and study after study has shown they are far better than players or fans at making the correct call. Which is not to say we are infallible.

edificio Jan 31st, 2013 06:55 PM

Re: Was officiating always this corrupt before hawkeye?
 
It isn't corruption. It's jut bad line calling. We can add Stanford to the list. I can't forget Sorana's match there. She was so right so often on her challenges. It was laughable. Sometimes it is homerism but other times just bad linecalling. :shrug:

What is amazing is how right they usually are. They have to make decisions in a split second.

They should be required to have hawkeye on the court where the final will be played at all the tournaments.

I do think that Yanina's ball was in in the first set. The ball was not that far away from the umpire, but perhaps the angle was bad, or maybe she thought it was in as well.

ZeroSumGame Jan 31st, 2013 07:01 PM

Re: Was officiating always this corrupt before hawkeye?
 
Absolutely :worship: When umpire didn't want you to win, they would make a string of ridiculous lines calls to determine the outcome of a match, overruling the correct one's ...HAWKEYE now is like a street corner video camera set up to catch thugs, so officials are careful not to make stupid line calls :lol:

Jane Lane Jan 31st, 2013 07:04 PM

Re: Was officiating always this corrupt before hawkeye?
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by miffedmax (Post 23908801)
This. Most officials are doing the best possible, and study after study has shown they are far better than players or fans at making the correct call. Which is not to say we are infallible.

Exactly. You have less than a few seconds to react and you're staring at the line, not the ball to begin with. Fans and players are obviously looking at the ball.

Boxuan Jan 31st, 2013 07:05 PM

Re: Was officiating always this corrupt before hawkeye?
 
Since I just watched this match thru low-quality online streams, I won't go that far to call it "corrupted", questionable for sure.

Cooper96 Jan 31st, 2013 07:09 PM

Re: Was officiating always this corrupt before hawkeye?
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by edificio (Post 23908857)
It isn't corruption. It's jut bad line calling. We can add Stanford to the list. I can't forget Sorana's match there. She was so right so often on her challenges. It was laughable. Sometimes it is homerism but other times just bad linecalling. :shrug:

What is amazing is how right they usually are. They have to make decisions in a split second.

They should be required to have hawkeye on the court where the final will be played at all the tournaments.

I do think that Yanina's ball was in in the first set. The ball was not that far away from the umpire, but perhaps the angle was bad, or maybe she thought it was in as well.

This. I think it is somewhat preposterous that there is no universal rule for WTA tournaments regarding the use of HawkEye. I know that the system's use has vastly increased, but to have it in some places and not in others just doesn't make any sense to me. I have similar feelings about this as I do about using different balls every week. At least the WTA could make a rule that no new tournament will be added to the calendar without agreeing to make HawkEye available.

Jane Lane Jan 31st, 2013 07:10 PM

Re: Was officiating always this corrupt before hawkeye?
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by Cooper96 (Post 23909417)
This. I think it is somewhat preposterous that there is no universal rule for WTA tournaments regarding the use of HawkEye. I know that the system's use has vastly increased, but to have it in some places and not in others just doesn't make any sense to me. I have similar feelings about this as I do about using different balls every week. At least the WTA could make a rule that no new tournament will be added to the calendar without agreeing to make HawkEye available and if I had it my way, it would include clay tournaments too.

You can't put Hawkeye on a clay court with the way the technology is currently formatted.

GoDominique Jan 31st, 2013 07:11 PM

Re: Was officiating always this corrupt before hawkeye?
 
With more and more Hawkeye, lots of umpires will get worse at overruling properly so there will be problems on courts without it.

Some umpires have been and will always be terrible anyway though. I think they got the job with connections, the system itself is probably corrupt.

Cooper96 Jan 31st, 2013 07:12 PM

Re: Was officiating always this corrupt before hawkeye?
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by Jane Lane (Post 23909489)
You can't put Hawkeye on a clay court with the way the technology is currently formatted.

Oh, really? Didn't know that. I'll take that part out.


All times are GMT. The time now is 10:01 PM.

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.8
Copyright ©2000 - 2014, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.