Now that the first complete season of Hawk-Eye’s use is behind us, let’s take a quick look at how it performed during 2007, and some changes that still need to be implemented.
Although the ATP Tour’s Roger Federer is still Hawk-Eye’s most vocal detractor, the women on the Sony Ericsson WTA Tour have generally accepted its presence and supported its use at all major events. Just as reminder, Hawk-Eye was used for the first time at all three Grand Slams where marks are not visible on the court, including a 2007 debut at Wimbledon.
The Hawk-Eye use rules have differed depending on the tournament, but most events have adopted a 2 + 1 formula where a player begins a set with two challenges, with another being granted if the set is decided in a tie break. If a player is correct, she is not cost a challenge.
Those rules sound fairly straight-forward, but unfortunately, they have left open the door to two different controversies.
Less Responsibility for the Chair Umpire
I’m not going to make a general statement by saying that this happens across the board, but on occasion, chair umpires appear less likely to overrule calls that clearly looked questionable, and instead rely on the player to make the challenge.
On the opposite side of the spectrum, I can’t recall the number of times I’ve watched a player contemplate a challenge, only to look up and ask the chair umpire for his/her opinion before making an official request. The ITF needs to instruct their umpires that they should only ask a player if she would like to challenge, instead of voicing a personal opinion about whether he thought the ball was out.
Comment poster Jon had this to say about Hawk-Eye on a post last week:
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 whenever 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.
I couldn’t agree more with this idea, especially with the television networks still showing the SpotShot or Hawk-Eye view even if a player did not challenge. Give the chair umpires unlimited use of Hawk-Eye at their discretion, and perhaps, issue the players two spare challenges as a backup.
Prohibit a Player from Getting Advice from Her Support Box
Again, this is not something that happens in every situation, but several players (including Justine Henin) are notorious for seeking the advice of their coaches or parents when it comes to issuing challenges. Often times, the individuals in the support boxes had a better view of a questionable shot and have no qualms with telling their player to make a challenge.
This is the same subversive equivalent of illegal on-court coaching. In the heat of the moment, it is not up to a player’s coach, her father, her mother, or her masseuse to tell her when a ball is in or out. Obviously, you cannot prevent a player from making eye contact with her support team, but the chair umpires can do something about a coach gesticulating madly from the stands.
Is Hawk-Eye flawless? No, and I have to confess that I did chuckle when it did not even work for the first part of the opening rubber at the Championships. Amelie Mauresmo found herself at the heart of Hawk-Eye’s first major glitch when a formal call at the Australian Open did not coincide with the image being displayed. Hawk-Eye is just one big computer system and as we all know, computers often have internal issues or problems resulting from human error.
As for me, I’ll take Hawk-Eye any day over the sight of a player pitching a fit on the court, only to lose her concentration and stumble her way out of a competitive match.
