Tennis Forum banner

1 - 20 of 39 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
16,648 Posts
Discussion Starter · #1 ·
Mention Wozniacki enough times and eventually someone will flip a coin and a picture of Jana Fett will magically appear in that thread. Speaking of Fett, what is she up to now? I checked and she's out of the top 300, so what happened to her? She can't possibly still be sulking about those two match points, right?
This made me think of this new thread. How do we make sure that a point won by a player effectively goes to that player?
My suggestion would be a roll-over challenge, with a 1 point penalty. It goes like this:
A player will be penalized by 1 points if she gets 3 challenge wrong in a row.

After the penalty, her challenge gets reset.
If she gets a challenge wrong, followed by a right challenge, she gets an automatic reset.
This means the player will never run out of challenge but can't abuse the challenge system because of the point penalty.
If she gets 2 wrong challenges in a row, she'll think twice before her next challenge. If that next challenge is right, she "gets out of jail". Her challenge is reset. :)
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,177 Posts
interesring!!!! #rachel
 
  • Like
Reactions: Absolute10

·
Registered
Joined
·
34,218 Posts
That idea doesn't fix the problem of not challenging though. I think Fett had challenges left but chose not to use them. Have we ever gotten actual confirmation the serve was in either? I remember they did not show a Hawkeye confirmation when I was watching that match and I have not been able to find a video that did.

But regarding the point of the thread, the only way to ensure that the call goes the right way is to have electronic line calling. Quite often players have the opportunity to challenge but don't. Plus if anything the possibility of losing a point for wrong challenges would make them more scared to challenge than just the possibility of running out.
 

·
Administrator
Joined
·
12,207 Posts
That idea doesn't fix the problem of not challenging though. I think Fett had challenges left but chose not to use them. Have we ever gotten actual confirmation the serve was in either? I remember they did not show a Hawkeye confirmation when I was watching that match and I have not been able to find a video that did.

But regarding the point of the thread, the only way to ensure that the call goes the right way is to have electronic line calling. Quite often players have the opportunity to challenge but don't. Plus if anything the possibility of losing a point for wrong challenges would make them more scared to challenge than just the possibility of running out.
Yeah, didn't Li Na hit an ace on SP against Radwanska but decided not to challenge it... with challenges left, and she ended up losing the set and to Radwansaka in 3 sets?
 
  • Like
Reactions: GameSetJJ

·
Registered
Joined
·
16,648 Posts
Discussion Starter · #5 · (Edited)
I think the reason they don't challenge is that they want to save them. With this system, the only time they have to think hard is if they already have 2 wrong challenges in a row. But even if the 3rd one is wrong, they don't run out of challenge. That's the main point. All is reset.

For the Wozniacki match, they've never shown that shot. My guess is they would have shown it if it was out. It was such a crucial point I think they didn't want to ignite a controversy.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
695 Posts
once technology evolves more you could have instant signalling of balls that go out (similar with net cord signal). this way points would always go to the one who won it.

the drawback would be that line referees would become obsolete :)
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,147 Posts
once technology evolves more you could have instant signalling of balls that go out (similar with net cord signal). this way points would always go to the one who won it.

the drawback would be that line referees would become obsolete :)
We already have that technology right now, it's just that it's way too expensive for the majority of tournaments, especially because you would need it on most courts. For a normal singles match you would need 14 high speed cameras. For doubles you can get away with 18. So that's 18 very high performance, miniature high speed cameras that feed into a computer in real-time, which would be able to attain much faster response times which would completely cut down all those situations where a call comes too late. And that would also make challenges obsolete. Also no line people and at that point the umpire would just be there to look all fashionable, flip a coin and maybe call out the score, and maybe also give a warning or two. Also yes, it works on clay too.

But right now the system I'm talking about would cost in the neighborhood of half a million dollars per court, which is just way too expensive for tennis. Maybe in 5 years, probably more if we're being honest here. Think about how long it took for Hawk-eye to get where it is and how old that system actually is and you get an idea of the sort of window we're looking at for what I'm talking about.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
18,852 Posts
I think the reason they don't challenge is that they want to save them.
That's not the only reason though.

I'd be curious to know what the overall challenge success rate is for the entire sport. Because it would show just how right these challenges often end up being. Point is: Sometimes as a player, you're not always certain you're right with your hunch, especially if the ball is on the other side of the court. So you don't challenge because you assume that maybe the original call is the right one. It's not that you're not trying to save challenges. So unless the entire line-calling process because electronic or tech-based, there's really no way to 100% guarantee that the point will always go to the right player, especially if you're going to rely on a challenge system to make it so.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
28,462 Posts
I think the system is good as it is.
If you failed three times already making a bad use of it or you decide simply not using it having still challengers, it’s only your fault.
There has to be a limit, it would be very annoying otherwise with players like Siegemund stopping the game often, abusing of it to gain time or get the opponent mental or whatever.
You know players will abuse the system if they can (ex. MTO/bathroom breaks)

3 fails per set plus one additional if TB seems very reasonable to me. You can use it unlimitedly if you are right.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
16,648 Posts
Discussion Starter · #11 ·
I think the system is good as it is
The idea of players being responsible to challenge shots is ugly. No pro sports does that. It would be like asking basketball players to call the fouls.
Calling shots should be the job of the ref and linemen, not players. It's an unnecessary burden. Every time there is doubt, it should be up to the ref to call the challenge system, the way it's done in football, basketball, etc ..
But since Tennis is opting to burden the players, maybe we can ease that pain a bit by adding variants to this ugly system.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
18,852 Posts
The idea of players being responsible to challenge shots is ugly. No pro sports does that. It would be like asking basketball players to call the fouls.
Calling shots should be the job of the ref and linemen, not players. It's an unnecessary burden. Every time there is doubt, it should be up to the ref to call the challenge system, the way it's done in football, basketball, etc ..
But since Tennis is opting to burden the players, maybe we can ease that pain a bit by adding variants to this ugly system.
The linesmen and the ref do make calls. They call every single point. If the player doesn't agree with that call, he or she can challenge it. If you don't want this "burden" on the players, then the appropriate suggestion is to get rid of the challenge system altogether. Allowing them the opportunity to challenge as much as they want even if they're wrong most of the time (as you clearly stated, as long as they're right every third challenge, they get to have as many challenges as they want) seems counter intuitive.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
16,648 Posts
Discussion Starter · #13 ·
It was in search of a compromise. The ideal would be of course, to have unlimited challenge.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
13,247 Posts
I think the system is good as it is.
If you failed three times already making a bad use of it or you decide simply not using it having still challengers, it’s only your fault.
There has to be a limit, it would be very annoying otherwise with players like Siegemund stopping the game often, abusing of it to gain time or get the opponent mental or whatever.
You know players will abuse the system if they can (ex. MTO/bathroom breaks)

3 fails per set plus one additional if TB seems very reasonable to me. You can use it unlimitedly if you are right.
BTW. there are players who use their challenges just to take a breath / disrupt the opponent's momentum already, I mean some of them don't even look at what the verdict will be, because they know that there is no chance to win it.
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
44,184 Posts
That idea doesn't fix the problem of not challenging though. I think Fett had challenges left but chose not to use them. Have we ever gotten actual confirmation the serve was in either? I remember they did not show a Hawkeye confirmation when I was watching that match and I have not been able to find a video that did.

But regarding the point of the thread, the only way to ensure that the call goes the right way is to have electronic line calling. Quite often players have the opportunity to challenge but don't. Plus if anything the possibility of losing a point for wrong challenges would make them more scared to challenge than just the possibility of running out.
I think the reason they don't challenge is that they want to save them. With this system, the only time they have to think hard is if they already have 2 wrong challenges in a row. But even if the 3rd one is wrong, they don't run out of challenge. That's the main point. All is reset.

For the Wozniacki match, they've never shown that shot. My guess is they would have shown it if it was out. It was such a crucial point I think they didn't want to ignite a controversy.
Fett didn't challenge because it was confirmed to her by the chair umpire that the ball was out. He could have said "I'm not sure", but he pointed his finger up to mean it was out.
 

·
Delusional Jankobitch
Joined
·
7,159 Posts
Totally against the idea of penalising players a point for 3 incorrect challenges. Hideous suggestion.

I feel uncomfortable about putting the onus on the player.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
56 Posts
once technology evolves more you could have instant signalling of balls that go out (similar with net cord signal). this way points would always go to the one who won it.

the drawback would be that line referees would become obsolete :)
What happens when the system suffers a power outage - or the heat causes the system to go out of alignment like it occasionally does during the Australian Open?
 
1 - 20 of 39 Posts
Top