TENNIS NEWS:
Analysis: Tennis needs correct calls — and histrionics, too
Getting rid of all line judges and eliminating the human aspect from officiating at the Australian Open may have been a required action to lower the variety of individuals on court amidst a pandemic.
It likewise may be great for the stability of the video game, since getting every call right – or as near to that as possible – matters a lot to gamers and fans.
What there is no doubt about, nevertheless, is this: The expansion of live electronic line-calling tends to be even worse for the phenomenon of the sport, a component tennis certainly needs. Gamers can’t challenge a call from the devices at Melbourne Park (a replay is displayed in the arena after a ball lands within 2 inches of a line on a serve or within 6 inches on any other shot), so there isn’t much sense in lodging a problem throughout the very first Grand Slam competition had fun with absolutely no line judges.
Let’s hope that doesn’t accelerate the disappearance of histrionics.
“That’s the only downside: There’s no one to argue with,” Tommy Paul, an American ranked 53rd, stated in a video interview with The Associated Press today. “There’s no one to blame when you feel like you might have made a ball but it was actually out.”
Jennifer Brady, a U.S. Open semifinalist in October and seeded 22nd in Australia, sees that element as an advantage: “I would rather not argue with people. … If it’s out, it’s out. If it’s in, it’s in.”
Both Paul and Brady, like the majority of gamers, state they value the objective of including precision with automation.
“There’s a neutrality to it,” Canada’s Rebecca Marino stated.
Not all are persuaded of its excellence.
Not all are subtle about their misgivings, either.
Frances Tiafoe, a quarterfinalist in Australia two years ago, described the new arrangement as “horrible” – and modified that word by preceding it with a two-syllable expletive.
“I hate it,” Tiafoe said Wednesday after questioning calls in a second-round loss to No. 1 Novak Djokovic. “I cannot stand it.”
After a first-round exit, British qualifier Francesca Jones called the system “extremely questionable,” saying one shot by her opponent that was called in was shown on TV to have landed out.
“I much prefer human error than systematic error,” Jones said, urging that the setup “be revised.”
Reilly Opelka, meanwhile, disagreed with a series of foot faults during his first-round win, yet is willing to overlook that flaw.
“It’s shocking some of the line calls and overrules you’ll see with refs. It frustrates the players. You spend a lot of time training, and then it happens on big points,” said the American, who is ranked 38th.
Letting cameras and computers make decisions “just eliminates all confrontation,” Opelka said. “I’m a big fan of it. I hope every Slam does it.”
Serena Williams is no stranger to disputed Grand Slam calls, including a foot fault at the end of her 2009 U.S. Open semifinal loss to Kim Clijsters – and wildly wrong rulings that went against the 23-time major champion during a 2004 quarterfinal loss to Jennifer Capriati at Flushing Meadows, a match that hastened the advent of replay reviews in tennis.
Williams thought “it was different; it was weird” when she first played with no on-court officials other than the chair umpire.
“I like it now, because … it takes away a lot of the human error, which clearly I definitely don’t need,” Williams said, punctuating the line with a knowing roll of her eyes and wave of her hand. “I should be the biggest fan of that.”
Even Tiafoe, a 23-year-old American ranked 64th, knows this sort of thing is not likely to go away (there was fully electronic line-calling at all but two courts at last year’s U.S. Open).
“I get technology is at a crazy-high level. I’m just not a believer in it,” he explained. “It doesn’t matter what I say. They’re not going to change anything because Frances Tiafoe said it, (but) I’m never going to be for it.”
Let’s leave the last word on this subject to John McEnroe, he of the infamous tirades at officials during a playing career that featured seven Grand Slam singles trophies.
Not surprisingly, he’s fine with taking calls away from line judges.
“If you like the human element, I have a better idea: Have the players call the lines,” said McEnroe, an announcer on ESPN’s Australian Open coverage. “Then you’ll see some interesting developments.”
___
AP Sports Writer John Pye in Melbourne, Australia, contributed.
___
Howard Fendrich covers tennis for The Associated Press. Write to him at [email protected] or follow him on Twitter at https://twitter.com/HowardFendrich
___
More AP tennis: https://apnews.com/hub/tennis and https://twitter.com/AP_Sports
Getting rid of all line judges and eliminating the human aspect from officiating at the Australian Open may have been a required action to lower the variety of individuals on court amidst a pandemic.
It likewise may be great for the stability of the video game, since getting every call right – or as near to that as possible – matters a lot to gamers and fans.
What there is no doubt about, nevertheless, is this: The expansion of live electronic line-calling tends to be even worse for the phenomenon of the sport, a component tennis certainly needs. Gamers can’t challenge a call from the devices at Melbourne Park (a replay is displayed in the arena after a ball lands within 2 inches of a line on a serve or within 6 inches on any other shot), so there isn’t much sense in lodging a problem throughout the very first Grand Slam competition had fun with absolutely no line judges.
Let’s hope that doesn’t accelerate the disappearance of histrionics.
“That’s the only downside: There’s no one to argue with,” Tommy Paul, an American ranked 53rd, stated in a video interview with The Associated Press today. “There’s no one to blame when you feel like you might have made a ball but it was actually out.”
Jennifer Brady, a U.S. Open semifinalist in October and seeded 22nd in Australia, sees that element as an advantage: “I would rather not argue with people. … If it’s out, it’s out. If it’s in, it’s in.”
Both Paul and Brady, like the majority of gamers, state they value the objective of including precision with automation.
“There’s a neutrality to it,” Canada’s Rebecca Marino stated.
Not all are persuaded of its excellence.
Not all are subtle about their misgivings, either.
Frances Tiafoe, a quarterfinalist in Australia two years ago, described the new arrangement as “horrible” – and modified that word by preceding it with a two-syllable expletive.
“I hate it,” Tiafoe said Wednesday after questioning calls in a second-round loss to No. 1 Novak Djokovic. “I cannot stand it.”
After a first-round exit, British qualifier Francesca Jones called the system “extremely questionable,” saying one shot by her opponent that was called in was shown on TV to have landed out.
“I much prefer human error than systematic error,” Jones said, urging that the setup “be revised.”
Reilly Opelka, meanwhile, disagreed with a series of foot faults during his first-round win, yet is willing to overlook that flaw.
“It’s shocking some of the line calls and overrules you’ll see with refs. It frustrates the players. You spend a lot of time training, and then it happens on big points,” said the American, who is ranked 38th.
Letting cameras and computers make decisions “just eliminates all confrontation,” Opelka said. “I’m a big fan of it. I hope every Slam does it.”
Serena Williams is no stranger to disputed Grand Slam calls, including a foot fault at the end of her 2009 U.S. Open semifinal loss to Kim Clijsters – and wildly wrong rulings that went against the 23-time major champion during a 2004 quarterfinal loss to Jennifer Capriati at Flushing Meadows, a match that hastened the advent of replay reviews in tennis.
Williams thought “it was different; it was weird” when she first played with no on-court officials other than the chair umpire.
“I like it now, because … it takes away a lot of the human error, which clearly I definitely don’t need,” Williams said, punctuating the line with a knowing roll of her eyes and wave of her hand. “I should be the biggest fan of that.”
Even Tiafoe, a 23-year-old American ranked 64th, knows this sort of thing is not likely to go away (there was fully electronic line-calling at all but two courts at last year’s U.S. Open).
“I get technology is at a crazy-high level. I’m just not a believer in it,” he explained. “It doesn’t matter what I say. They’re not going to change anything because Frances Tiafoe said it, (but) I’m never going to be for it.”
Let’s leave the last word on this subject to John McEnroe, he of the infamous tirades at officials during a playing career that featured seven Grand Slam singles trophies.
Not surprisingly, he’s fine with taking calls away from line judges.
“If you like the human element, I have a better idea: Have the players call the lines,” said McEnroe, an announcer on ESPN’s Australian Open coverage. “Then you’ll see some interesting developments.”
___
AP Sports Writer John Pye in Melbourne, Australia, contributed.
___
Howard Fendrich covers tennis for The Associated Press. Write to him at [email protected] or follow him on Twitter at https://twitter.com/HowardFendrich
___
More AP tennis: https://apnews.com/hub/tennis and https://twitter.com/AP_Sports
Read Original – Click Here
question, you know it's been at least
15 years since I've been following the news, no 10 my folks do that, hmm. what was the question again !?
where you read about this ?
of course I can, it was here
on U-S-NEWS.COM
