I think I have already explained about how much I would like some form of bird of prey as a superhero sidekick. However, I'm not a massive fan of Hawk-Eye in tennis. I'm not against using technology, its more the problems that crop up that sits uneasily with me. See these copy paste examples(I started writing an abstract explanation but ended up using google and finding this: For example in a match last year, Andy Roddick was just about to hit back his opponent's ball. But just before he was about to, the line judge called his opponent's shot wide so Roddick left the ball alone. His opponent then challenged and it actually showed the ball in, but since Roddick didn't hit the shot prior to the call, his opponent wins the point regardless because it is considered a winner as the supposedly-out-ball-which-was-actually-in surpassed Roddick even though the line judge called it out before he hit it. The chair umpire would claim that Roddick since he didn't hit it originally, it shows that he couldn't get to the ball. And since it is actually in, it should be a winner for Roddick's opponent. This is a common scenario which I see many times on the tour, especially with serves.
Another situation is when a player is returning a serve, say a second serve for example to emphasize the ridiculous reasoning the ATP sometimes has, and they play a rally in which the returner is in control in which he hits a forehand that clips the line and forces his opponent to dink to ball back. But all of a sudden, the line judge calls the returner's forehand long which causes a challenge and they end up finding that the forehand was indeed in. But since the server was able to get the ball back, regardless of how badly it was hit back, all they do is replay the point with the server getting two chances again on serve even though he started the point after missing the first serve. And then with this reborn opportunity, the server shoots off an ace with his first serve giving him the point/game/set/match. There are a few other situations but this shows how ridiculous the rules are sometimes.
Another situation is when a player is returning a serve, say a second serve for example to emphasize the ridiculous reasoning the ATP sometimes has, and they play a rally in which the returner is in control in which he hits a forehand that clips the line and forces his opponent to dink to ball back. But all of a sudden, the line judge calls the returner's forehand long which causes a challenge and they end up finding that the forehand was indeed in. But since the server was able to get the ball back, regardless of how badly it was hit back, all they do is replay the point with the server getting two chances again on serve even though he started the point after missing the first serve. And then with this reborn opportunity, the server shoots off an ace with his first serve giving him the point/game/set/match. There are a few other situations but this shows how ridiculous the rules are sometimes.
I think the lesson to be learnt here is that even with technology you can always find fault with rulings in sport. Have an image:
No comments:
Post a Comment