Help
4/5/09 5:29 AM | Ricky Dimon
Max Mirnyi and Andy Ram voiced their concerns about the challenge system following their victory in the doubles final of the Sony Ericsson Open.
Call this a challenge of the challenge system.
Max Mirnyi and Andy Ram questioned the accuracy of Hawkeye, the electronic review system used for line calls, on Saturday at the Sony Ericsson Open. According to Mirnyi and Ram, they were robbed of a point in the first-set tiebreaker of their doubles final against Australians Ashley Fisher and Stephen Huss, but they bounced back to win the title 6-7(4), 6-2, 10-7 (super-tiebreaker).
In the first-set 'breaker, the Fisher/Huss team hit a ball that was called out by the linesperson and confirmed by the chair umpire. Fisher and Huss, however, challenged and Hawkeye showed the ball to be in, giving Huss and Fisher the point. The Aussies went on to win the tiebreaker seven points to four.
"I was closest to the ball, and we were totally robbed," Mirnyi explained. "There was a mark. Both the umpire and the linesman called it out. I've seen it happen before; for some reason when the ball travels slow the technology doesn't pick up the path of the ball correctly. The way the challenge showed that point, it was a totally different location where the ball actually bounced."
"Ridiculous," added Ram. "There was a mark. The second time it's happened. Last week (in Indian Wells) we saw it again."
Mirnyi says that he is going to start using up all of his available challenges as a result of possible flaws in the system. "Obviously in the back of your mind, you go into a tiebreak and you have four challenges remaining," he said. "Any ball that's going to be out by a foot or ten feet, you might as well use your challenges. This is what we gonna do next time: we still have four challenges remaining, we gonna make sure we use them all up. Who knows? Maybe the challenge system is going to pick up one of those balls that's shows in."
"The Beast" from Belarus even suggested a possible rule change. "Certainly a flaw in the rule book. Maybe there should be an adjustment that when two people call it simultaneous there shouldn't be a way of challenging it. But I'm not sure. I'm not just trying to change the rule. I'm just saying that today there was a definite flaw in the system."
Tell a friend »
duh, I mean without changing the "essense" of the game. The outcome would obviously be changed forever...
sky , 4/5/09 12:31 PM
Last week in IW the hawkeye showed the second bounce of the ball hence led to the wrong decision in Murray-Ljubicic match. The system isnt flawless but Im sure techs will work out whats wrong with it. If Mirnyi-Ram will challenge all calls against them in tie-break in hope of winning a point they know they should have lost; that would be very unsportsmanlike.
orion , 4/5/09 1:28 PM
Interesting...well, nothing is perfect, and it's good to be questioning the system rather than blindly following it. Sounds like it has some issues that need to be worked out.
thefanchild , 4/5/09 1:58 PM
Scan QR code to access Unibet mobile.
Bet on Sports wherever you are and whenever you like, with Unibet's quick and simple mobile client you can place bets, check results and see live odds.
For more info about QR codes & scanners click here.
Contact us
/ About us
/ Cookies
/ Recommended links
/ Advertise
/ Sitemap
Tennistalk v1.5.0
Disclaimer © 2001-2012, Moneytainment Media Ltd - All rights reserved
Interesting Ricky, I wonder if the challenging system is flawed. Maybe another camera (or two) is needed to deal more effectively with the ball in play. I don't remember who it was but recently (it was one of the games in Indian Wells) the tennis player was arguing with the chair umpire (the review was shown again with the same result), and the player was asking if the result of the hawk eye could be challenged, and the answer was NO. Personally, I feel more cameras are most likely needed, and the question of the hawk eye being used will always be argued/discussed. A question remains: "Should the hawk eye be used automatically? Unfortunately, this would change the nature of the game considerably as it would take time, and in tennis timing is in the essence. It could and would throw off some of the rhythem. Maybe there is someway it could be used quickly without changing the outcome of the game. Interesting article.
sky , 4/5/09 12:27 PM