British Tennis Forum - Celebrating 20 Years!

Coup Droit wrote:

---

HarryGem wrote:

---

Coup Droit wrote:

---

PaulM wrote:

---

Sonay misses a set point but I'm rather glad Pavs broke back in the end.

It has happened before DF - at a match in the States apparently and the decision was to replay and that the Umpire wasn't allowed to overrule even when the error was clear. If there's a failing the ball hasn't been tracked in the point they replay the whole thing. But again it feels stupid.

*5-6

Pavs looks to be channeling the anger well now, absolutely blasting through Sonay.

---

 Exactly 

He can't overrule it

That would defeat the worth of the system

Yes, it was completely wrong 

But so are linespeople sometimes 

And only having three reviews

 

---

 This needs to be changed. Otherwise we may as well dispense with umpires as well as line judges. The ball was clearly out and the point should have been awarded to Pavlyuchenkova. The point should not have been replayed. I understand this is the way it works currently but this is clearly a bad rule.

Quite why the system has to be manually turned on and off is another point altogether. 

A good tournament for Sonay and whilst I like her game I do think she is good at lots of things but not excellent at any. She moves and defends well but doesn't seem to have a real killer weapon which would have been useful today. I think Emma is a bit similar in this respect. Of course Emma's been ranked in the top 10 but only on the back of what is looking more like an outrider of a result at the US Open. I think the ranking ceiling for our top 3 women on a regular basis is probably not far off from where they are now. Emma has a decent chance to climb the rankings with few points to defend now for the rest of the year but let's see how many times she plays.

A decent if not spectacular Wimbledon for our women.

---

 If umpires have the right to overturn 'clearly' wrong calls, then do they have the right to overturn 'possibly' wrong calls? And who decides if it's clearly or possibly? The umpire? 

Then we're back in a far worse position - and players will be arguing with the umpire, top players will be accused of using their influence, certain umpires will be accused of being biased or weak, all the bad old stuff 

All systems will have a certain number of errors

The new system has far less and is more neutral - I think it's the best thing to happen to tennis since they got rid of on-court coaching (and probably even better than that) - the best thing since the introduction of tie-breaks  

---

 I think we are on the same side really. An absolutely necessary development but when it fails then the umpire should be allowed to overturn an incorrect decision or in this case no decision at all since the system was switched off. Replaying the point was the wrong call here in my opinion as the ball was clearly out. This is very much a minority case however, as this doesn't happen very often and not at all in the vast majority of tournaments.

There seems to be a lack of communication between the team organising the hawk eye stuff and the chair umpire. I was watching one tournament where the system broke down and play had to be suspended whilst it was reactivated. 

All a bit embarrassing for the tournament really. Still not clear why it was switched off in the first place.

Coup Droit wrote:

---

JonH comes home wrote:

---

Sounds like the umpires werent fully briefed or aligned with the tournie policy

---

 Sounds like he bottled it 

---

 Or that! 

Coup Droit wrote:

---

Lambda wrote:

---

9vicman wrote:

---

If under the existing rules, an umpire is not allowed to overrule a non-functioning ELC (which doesn't make sense: if the system breaks down completely, line judges can be used), the following statement is confusing:

"In that time, there were three calls not picked up by live ELC on the affected part of the court. Two of these were called by the chair umpire, who was not made aware that the system had been deactivated."

What does it mean when it says that "two of these were called by the chair umpire", when the umpire is not allowed to overrule the system?

---

The rules allow the umpire to make call if it is clearly out and the ELC fails to make the call.

---

 Which rule?

And how do they define clearly? 

I'm with you, HarryGem, it's embarrassing  - especially as it was 'human error' 

---

 I believe, even when working properly, the electronic system only deals with balls relatively close to the line, the others very well out are just accepted as out and sometimes called by the umpire for clarity.

If I've got the right calls being talked about from this game made by him ( which I actually think were more wide than long ) they were well out. Therefore I don't think the umpire would have picked up that there was any system problem and just routinely called them out himself. There was nothing contradictory here, just normal practice, is my understanding.

Then that one close to the baseline ( so clearly within the electronic limits ) exposed the issue and it needed dealt with. And it was dealt with ridiculously in my opinion. Be it by guidelines or the umpire himself dealing with it wrongly, it was just stupid and unfair.

System fails, umpire clearly sees it as out, give Pav the point and game, move on. Yes, there might be more doubtful ones where the system is known / found to be down and the umpire is much less sure, then in these cases replay the point. It isn't rocket science and as has been said, surely the umpire is there for some purpose like making decisions at times.

HarryGem wrote:

---

 .....  the other issue for Emma is that she doesn't possess a real weapon. She can't just summon up a really monster serve or massive forehand when she needs to. I'd like to see her develop the type of slice Barty used to such good effect.

---

 I have made the assumption that with all the issues has Emma faced over the 3 years or so before she finally started a period of stability with her health and fitness that she hasn't been in a position to build weapons. I believe the Emma we saw against Aryna is nowhere near where she would have been without the mental and physical issues she has now hopefully overcome. As she herself has mentioned she has several areas she knows she needs to work on (including I'm pleased to hear her say, reducing safety margins). I agree with her improving her slice, and reducing margins will stretch her opponents. She also has those glaringly bad choices over the direction of volleys. I think that the next version of Emma would have beaten Aryna .. can't wait!! 

Helen40 wrote:

---

Watching Siegmund, and wishing Sonay or Emma could incorporate some of that. Really hoping she'll beat Sabalenka, but not looking too promising now.

---

 Have to say i didnt like the time wasting and gamesmanship being shown.  Very happy that Sabalenka got through. 

Helen40 wrote:

---

RJH1962 wrote:

---

Helen40 wrote:

---

Watching Siegmund, and wishing Sonay or Emma could incorporate some of that. Really hoping she'll beat Sabalenka, but not looking too promising now.

---

 Have to say i didnt like the time wasting and gamesmanship being shown.  Very happy that Sabalenka got through. 

---

 Not the time wasting, I can't say I saw it as gamesmanship, but variety and tactics were superb.

---

 Agree with the variety but she was deliberately making Sabalenka wait to serve which I felt crossed the line. Also every change of ends she stayed on her seat at least 30 seconds after the umpire called time.