Hawk-Eye, tennis’ instant replay challenge system, just completed its first full season of integration at Grand Slams and major tournaments worldwide.
Today’s Open Forum Friday discussion is on Hawk-Eye and what changes still need to be made to the challenge system.
I’ll be weighing in with my own thoughts on the subject later in the week, but in the meanwhile, everyone feel free to post your opinions below, especially all the lurkers out there!
As a side note, today’s Aces and Faults has been postponed until Monday because of the Thanksgiving holiday week. Also, be sure to check back in the next few days for more information about the 2007 Baseline Awards!
Hawk-eye, for me is one of those things you wish you don’t need, but again accept you can’t do without.
I doubt if it is 100% accurate, but so far it’s all we’ve got to find a common ground on those ‘complex’ line calls…
I remember Federer’s “this thing is killing me…sh**” at Wimbledon 2007. It was such a close call, and Hawk eye made it look so out, but I still doubt the call to date (against Nadal @ d final).
In the end, I think its a technology that’ll be with us for a long time, so long as some techies don’t get smart enough to discredit its reliability.
I am willing to bet, we’ll be so used to it in 10 years time, that tennis rookies then, will wonder how life was now – without it.
I love Hawkeye! At night I find myself wondering what professional tennis was like before Hawkeye came along. It’s an interesting dynamic to the game, and it really helps the game to be more exciting and enjoyable.
It’s the lesser of two evils. I have been at matches where a player has aruged with the umpire for a couple of minutes before play went on at least this way they say challenge and it over in less than a minute end of story play goes on.
Hawkeye seems okay, but I do not like the system. I agree with Mary Carrillo that limiting players’ challenges is ridiculous. There is no reason whatever to believe that players would abuse an unlimited challenge system, and every reason to give them one. If a call is wrong, a call is wrong.
The other thing that needs to happen is that the cowardly umpires who now refuse to do over-rules need to be taken to task by their governing body.
I think something’s been overlooked. It’s the umpire’s and line peoples’ job to call the lines – give the UMPIRE unlimited use of hawkeye and instruct him to use it wheneve a call is questionable. Allow the players to appeal to the umpire to review a call, and, since the “cat is out of the bag”, let the players keep a challenge a set (for the cases where the umpire disagrees with a player’s challenge request) that stays in place if the player’s challenge is correct.
The running players are not in a good position to call lines. I wonder how many challenges didn’t get placed where umpires would have gone to hawkeye if they had the choice.
There are a few hiccups in the system and they are not being ironed out transparently. When ‘hawkeye’ makes what appears to be an error of its own, the replay is never re-shown to clear the air.
I think the challenge system is great for everyone. However, I prefer to 3 + 1 system to the 2 + 1. The challenges go too quickly in the latter. As Wimbledon and the Australian Open have picked up the 3 + 1, I think it’s time the US Open and Series, and all other tournaments, do the same.