–

Funny thing about progress. It solves problems, but it also creates other problems – often unforeseen ones.

And if there’s any lesson to be learned, big picture, it’s that eliminating humans from any endeavour isn’t always the magic pill people want to think it is.

The latest in tennis is the fallout when the electronic line-calling system malfunctions.

It has happened here and there over the last few years. But two higher-profile cases at top-level ATP Tour events over the last week have brought it into sharp focus.

Another umpire drama – and FAA gets hosed

And so by their standards, the ATP Tour rather quickly (and correctly) addressed a situation they perhaps hadn’t quite thought through.

On Thursday morning, the Tour announced that if its electronic line-caling system malfunctions, but a replay shows that a ball was out during a rally – which both theoretically and practically ends the point – that would stand. Even if it comes late.

Here’s their announcement.

ATP Officiating Update: After recent technical issues with Live ELC in Montreal and Cincinnati, we have conducted a thorough review of our protocols. Going forward, if the Review Official determines during a rally that a ball was out earlier in the point (but was not called by…

— ATP Tour (@atptour) August 15, 2024

The two situations that led to this happened to American players Frances Tiafoe in Montreal last week, and Taylor Fritz in Cincinnati this week.

Tiafoe was serving at 4-5, 30-all against Chilean-Canadian Alejandro Tabilo when Tabilo’s return appeared (well) long. The electronic line-calling system didn’t call it.

Chair umpire Mohamed Lahyani got that information over his walkie-talkie. But he made the decision to replay the point. And Tiafoe double-faulted, eventually losing the set.

Someone please explain to me how they didn’t give Frances this point when it was clearly stated that his opponent hit the ball out … genuinely confused. 30-30, serving down 4-5. no player challenges, only electronic line calling. There was ELECTRONIC proof that he won the point pic.twitter.com/Y25JFL27yh

— ayan broomfield (@AyanBroomfield) August 7, 2024

In Fritz’s case, it was 3-2, 30-all, and opponent Brandon Nakashima hit a forehand long (not called) and they continued the point. Eventually they stopped play and the video replay confirmed the ball was long. Which, technically, gives the point to Fritz.

The call of “Stop, Stop” came automatically from the system, not the umpire, when “it” realized there was a malfunction.

Except that with the delay in establishing that, the chair umpire said the point needed to be replayed.

Rulebook is clear – as mud

The social-media shaming goes on the umpires, of course. Because they’re always the bad guys, right?

But the ATP rulebook, updated to take into account electronic line-calling, is clear. So it’s a case of shooting the messenger.

The chair umpire can make a line call if the ELC doesn’t make it. But if they don’t, because they’re not 100 per cent sure, the point must be replayed.

But that only applies if it’s a point-ending shot, or if the player stops play. In that case the umpire can call for the shot to be shown on the video board.

In these two cases, the point continued. So because the calls came on NON point-ending shots, the umpires followed the rulebook. (Of course, the fact that a ball that’s out DOES end the point – at least in theory, and even in retrospect, is the wild card in all this).

In essence, their updates to the rulebook with the arrival of ELC aren’t dissimilar to what happened when the human eye makes the line calls. Except, of course, there are multiple other factors involved now – like electronic malfunctions.

Imagine telling me I needed to stop the point when we have literal Hawkeye electronic line calling 😂 https://t.co/c6O03AaOr7

— Taylor Fritz (@Taylor_Fritz97) August 14, 2024

In this case, umpire Greg Allensworth admitted to Fritz he thought it was out. So he could have – likely should have – overruled the system right away. But the umpires are literally not used to overruling the system. And these things happen in a heartbeat.

At the same time, Fritz (and he probably isn’t alone here) clearly did not know how the rules with ELC applied to the players. And they should know.

Then again, there are a lot of rules the players don’t know about the sport that offers them a great living. So he was wrong, but he was also right.

In essence, a faulty electronic line call is considered the same as an incorrect line call on the red clay. If you think the wrong call was made, you have to stop the point and have it reviewed electronically.

But that brings up another issue …

Another under-reported consequence of ELC

It doesn’t get talked about much on the record, but several umpires have confirmed in conversations with Open Court that it is a real thing.

Especially for those top-level umpires who work the big stadiums and – in the case of the ATP Tour, all the match courts at the bigger events (and, starting potentially from January, ALL their events).

It’s not intentional on their part. But they’re human, and it’s normal that those instincts, now unused, would wither.

The electronic line-calling system has basically eliminated the need for the chair umpires to be ready to overrule any potential ball.

And, as a result – except during much of the clay-court season – they have completely gotten out of the habit of being ready to pull that trigger at any time. The electronic line-calling is definitive and there’s no appeal available to the player. As a result, there’s almost never any need for the chair umpire to overrule it.

Even though the rules allow for it. And that’s part of the context Allensworth found himself in.

Their instincts on that front, honed through years of practice at the lower levels. – when you go down the food chain, chair umpires often call all the lines from their chair – were muted by the Challenge system. And now, with the electronic calling system have been all but wiped out.

The margin of error

The other issue – which people tend to like to ignore because of the definitive finality of the electronic line calling, is that there’s a margin of error.

Perhaps it’s smaller than the human margin of error, perhaps not. But there have been many, many instances where players have definitely given the side-eye to electronic line calls.

(To be fair, players often see line calls with the “eyes of the heart”, which is why cheating in juniors is so rampant and the pros don’t call their own lines).

But still …

Après l'épisode Fritz, est-ce que le Hawk-Eye est fiable à Cincinnati ?

Moutet semble certain que le service de Marozsan est faute.

La fameuse marge d'erreur du Hawk-Eye pic.twitter.com/jJKruKl6OT

— TennisTemple (@tennistemple) August 14, 2024

There are hardly the first glitches with the electronic line-calling system. They won’t be the last.

Here’s one from 2021.

Electronic line calling failing in a doubles match today at Delray Beach. Fergus Murphy overrules the (terribly) wrong OUT call by the system and then radioing to the operators: "Make sure we are set to doubles". pic.twitter.com/jBriTBTHBr

— Beta (@sPETEcore) January 10, 2021

The other inadvertent consequences

Last week in Montreal, we ran into a lot of line umpires we’ve known for years.

Up until a decade ago, many of these folks – lawyers, teachers in real life – would take two weeks off in the summer and call the lines in Montreal and Toronto. They loved it.

Then, when the tours decided to make the Canadian event a “virtual combined” to accommodate Cincinnati, it was one week.

Now, with the electronic line calling, all of them are out of a “job”, so to speak.

These are the unappreciated foot soldiers of the game. They are avid players for the most part. And they officiate at the junior and senior events for basically nothing, purely for the love of the game, to be involved in the sport they love – and the one reward they had was being able to be line umpires in the “big leagues” a week or two a year.

We saw several of them in volunteer uniforms throughout the week, as ushers or security or the various other unpaid jobs around a tournament that, in Montreal, counts more than 1,400 volunteers. And all of them were sad about the development. Understandably so.

They still wanted to be involved in some way, because of their love of the sport.

That’s putting aside the fact that without the line umpires, the atmosphere on the court is … rather barren. Perhaps we’ve just gotten used to that, as watchers. But it’s still true.

And it made us think of the hundreds of line umpires in the U.S. who do the same thing, in small tournaments around the country, with the reward being a trip to Manhattan and the opportunity to be line umpires at the US Open. For all they do all year, it was the small reward. And that’s also gone.

The question is this: if there is nothing to aim for, to aspire to, how will it be possible going forward to maintain the number of unpaid officials who toil at the thousands of tournaments around the various countries? There are only a select few gold- and silver-badge chair umpire’s spots available. And they’re taken.

Lack of eyeballs on the court

But their absence leads to other unintended consequences, because now there really is only one pair of eyes on any match court. The Tour supervisors (we saw two in Montreal) have many matches and many courts to supervise, so they’re not watching every moment of every match.

One example that came to mind was the Denis Shapovalov incident in D.C. two weeks ago.

Sleepless nights for Shapo in D.C. default drama

Chair umpire Allensworth said he didn’t hear what the fan in the stands said, to which Shapovalov responded with a profanity that got him defaulted.

Shapovalov heard it. His opponent Ben Shelton said he heard it.

But had there been line umpires on court, it’s entirely likely at least one of them would also have heard it. And Allensworth could have consulted them – or they could have come forward with the information. And that might well have given him context in which to make a different judgment.

It might also have led to said fan being immediately ejected by security.

But with only one pair of eyes and ears with any sort of power, too much was left to chance.

The bee situation, with Erika Andreeva

Another situation caught our attention last week, in a match featuring Marina Stakusic and Russia’s Erika Andreeva.

The chair umpire’s eyes are on the ball, and it was Stakusic who was preparing to serve, so he was looking over there.

In the meantime, Andreeva found herself attacked by a wasp or a bee. And as she was frantically trying to wave away the offending insect, she held up her hand to stop play.

Except, the chair umpire didn’t see her. And so she awkwardly tried to return the ball, and lost the point.

Andreeva was apoplectic (she was kind of in a state already). But the chair umpire said there was nothing he could do, because he didn’t see her.

It was another instance in which he could have consulted any of the line umpires that would have been near her on the court. And someone could have confirmed it. And they could have replayed the point.

Except there wasn’t. And so, Andreeva had no recourse.

To sum up, the Challenge system was (probably) more accurate than the human eye. Although that obviously depends on the eye and the level of officials and tournament. We make noise about poor calls, and some events have a number of them. But we don’t say much about the millions of correct ones.

But it requires the players to proactively challenge, or stop the point. Which isn’t ideal in the heat of play.

And, especially on the WTA side, it’s not available on all courts. And so the “haves” just get another big advantage over the “have nots”. It’s not equitable.

The electronic line-calling system is “better” than the challenge system because the players can just keep playing until they hear an “out” call. So there’s no responsibility on them to judge the line calls and take a risk in stopping the point.

And there’s no recourse, anyway.

But all that is only true if nothing goes awry.

We’ve seen examples in recent weeks that both prove that nothing electronic is foolproof. And that there is ALWAYS value in having several pairs of eyes available for issues electronic systems are not designed to decide.

About Post Author