As we have seen in Wimbledon this year if a player thinks that an officials ruling is wrong he can challenge the decision. Is this good or bad for the game? Personally I think that is good as it helps get sometimes very important decisions right and can help weed out bad officials. I hate the thought of someone losing a match upon the basis of a bad decision.

It must have been proved to be accurate so why don't rely on it all the time? If it is more accurate than human judgement then why restrict it to 3 uses per set. They could replace the people with a speaker that made a noise when hawk eye has judged the ball out?

I think it is a good idea.

It must have been proved to be accurate so why don't rely on it all the time? If it is more accurate than human judgement then why restrict it to 3 uses per set. They could replace the people with a speaker that made a noise when hawk eye has judged the ball out?


Possibly the software just isn't that fast - I don't know. We did, previously, have a computer controlling the service-line calls - I remember Jimmy Connors getting down on his belly to examine it because he thought it was dodgy!

It may be possible to have similar computer systems controlling every line, but .. how much would it cost? And would the players really prefer it?

It must have been proved to be accurate so why don't rely on it all the time? If it is more accurate than human judgement then why restrict it to 3 uses per set. They could replace the people with a speaker that made a noise when hawk eye has judged the ball out?

I think it is a good idea.

I was just about to post this idea.

My tomtom has 5 voices on it, you could make it more convincing by having different voices that shout. :hihi:

In particular, one that shouts a little late, but makes it look more convincing that they were sure, by shouting out 10 times louder than the rest. :thumbsup:

-

Could you challenge hawkeye then?

Could you challenge hawkeye then?


Under the current system, you can't; the players agreed to have Hawkeye as the ultimate arbiter.

Under an entirely computerised system, I'm not sure how you could challenge the computer if you believed it in error; who would be in a position to over-rule it? Perhaps this is one reason that it hasn't yet been seriously considered.

Under the current system, you can't; the players agreed to have Hawkeye as the ultimate arbiter.

Under an entirely computerised system, I'm not sure how you could challenge the computer if you believed it in error; who would be in a position to over-rule it? Perhaps this is one reason that it hasn't yet been seriously considered.

I meant if hawkeye had replaced the judges - I was adding to cynics post. (my mistake, I didn't make clear)

I think it must be fast enough to do it. As for cost, perhaps just used on the centre court? (for a start)

I meant if hawkeye had replaced the judges - I was adding to cynics post. (my mistake, I didn't make clear)

That's why I gave both answers; I wasn't sure which one you were interested in. ;)

That's why I gave both answers; I wasn't sure which one you were interested in. ;)

I see, that's why I sneakily edited more in. :hihi:

I'm rushing, need to go to work :(

Hawkeye isn't a real time system, and would be unable to call things out quickly enough. It is however a lot quicker than seen on TV - the slow animation is done simply for aesthetic reasons.

The main reason for the limited challenges is to stop players from challenging every decision that goes against them.

I like it, I think it's a very good idea and adds to the spectacle of the tennis game. It livens the crowd up, and stops the players moaning about everything.

The sooner they develop a fully functional system for football, the better.

I like it, I think it's a very good idea and adds to the spectacle of the tennis game. It livens the crowd up, and stops the players moaning about everything.

The sooner they develop a fully functional system for football, the better.

I think the argument for football is that it would have to work across the board. So even the hundreds/thousands of amateur leagues would have to use the same system. If you didn't do that then you are making it a different game in the top leagues. Not sure if I agree with that opinion though, it isn't different just more accurate.

I think the argument for football is that it would have to work across the board. So even the hundreds/thousands of amateur leagues would have to use the same system. If you didn't do that then you are making it a different game in the top leagues. Not sure if I agree with that opinion though, it isn't different just more accurate.

That is, indeed, the argument that's always been put forward against the use in football. In my eyes, it doesn't hold water; rules simply need to state "it can be used where available."

Using the challenge is often done at a key moment when the opponent needs to hold their nerve giving them more time to mull over an opportunity they have missed etc. Having 3 per set is a good idea because then people know using them unnerving the opponent could backfire if they need it to challenge a bad call against themselves later.

That is, indeed, the argument that's always been put forward against the use in football. In my eyes, it doesn't hold water; rules simply need to state "it can be used where available."

I'd agree with this. Anything which helps cut down the histrionics on the field and helps ensure fairness.

What football also really needs:

1) A dive-o-meter

2) A cry baby-o-meter.

:)

As we have seen in Wimbledon this year if a player thinks that an officials ruling is wrong he can challenge the decision. Is this good or bad for the game? Personally I think that is good as it helps get sometimes very important decisions right and can help weed out bad officials. I hate the thought of someone losing a match upon the basis of a bad decision.

Sorry forgot to mention above that I agree with Hawkeye, and the way it's implemented!

I'd agree with this. Anything which helps cut down the histrionics on the field and helps ensure fairness.

What football also really needs:

1) A dive-o-meter

2) A cry baby-o-meter.

:)

Don't you reckon it would self combust during a Man U - Liverpool game though? :hihi:

Don't you reckon it would self combust during a Man U - Liverpool game though? :hihi:

Quite possibly, they'd have to be industrial strength! Anyway, I want one of those magic spray cans that the trainers bring on, the ones which fix broken legs and everything...

yes it is has these so called linesman get it wrong it has probably cost players a lot of points in the past

yes it is has these so called linesman get it wrong it has probably cost players a lot of points in the past

Doubtful, since they are equally likely to make mistakes in either direction. A player would have to be amazingly unlucky to be consistently on the wrong end of the mistakes.

if that is the case how many challenges were done at wimbledon that were correct that someone had got wrong