Personally I think the biggest issue here is that when ELC goes wrong it's just so noticeable and there is not a seamless way to rectify calls that it misses. You're right that the challenge system we just got rid of was a lot of fun and provided drama. Match point of the 2017 Federer-Nadal Australian Open final comes to mind. However, I don't think it was among the best things about tennis and I don't think in the end it provided as accurate of an overall line calling experience as ELC does. These incidents are embarrassing because of the clunky way they unfold but I don't think they mean we should be getting rid of it. The hill I would rather die on is the killing of traditional mixed doubles as a format, which is taking away something that is actually part of the essence of Grand Slams and tennis history. Thank you as always for tackling the issue though.
I want the most accurate calls. I want the right decision. It is sport. I don’t want entertainment via a challenge system. The outcome of a match shouldn’t rely on a player’s decision to challenge or not. And if we trust the hawk-eye, that is a technical system as well.
I'm old enough to remember the old system well and what a huge improvement the challenge system with an objective outcome made. There were so many missed calls and fights over missed calls. I'm open to an argument that the move to pure elc was made too quickly but I still think the amount of consequential errors has been minor and remember that the challenge system had the flaw that the player had to make a split second decision on whether to hit the ball or call for a challenge on a close baseline ball which was always a problem solved by elc. Overall I think it's made tennis much better. As to it being "antiseptic", tennis has plenty of drama without needing human line judge error mixed in.
And fwiw I'll add that the old system, until it was expanded to *very* court at a tournament, favored higher ranked players who accumulated more playing time with ELC and using challenges.
What an embarrassing example from Cincinnati! I am going to guess but could never prove that ELC has a good accuracy record compared to humans. But it feels egregious when ELC fails. I think we have an uphill battle against the proselytizers because to most people ELC (and other AI) feels pretty good most of the time and the accuracy problems are probably fixable. It’s gonna become the battle of our lifetimes to explain to each other why humanness is actually a good thing.
What bothers me is this is also the first time I’d seen an umpire “challenge” the ELC on the player’s behalf. There have been way more egregious incidents where this was not the case (thinking about the one with Naomi in Australia for example, or the insane one with kasatkina), so I don’t understand the inconsistency. Can players now ask the umpire to do a review anytime they think the system might be malfunctioning—a clunkier version of the traditional challenge? Bring back the humans, at least then we know who to blame.
As a content creator I can understand why you're vehemently anti-AI, but when it comes to line calling in tennis, I have zero interest in returning to the tempestuous days of players arguing calls and trying to work the line judges (ala McEnroe). In fact, I would rather "foot fault" be shouted aloud in the dark of night (likely system testing) then ever witness another Serena-like meltdown targeting a line judge. Should the system be improved. Undoubtedly. Should we reembrace human error. No. The world moves on.
Given the frequently incorrect calls of balls and strikes in MLB, I'm eagerly awaiting electronic pitch calling in that sport as well. Getting calls correct is sport is critical for fair play.
Without data for how. many errors or confusing situations occurred with linesjudges it seems to me complaints about electronic line calling are much less than damning. Me, I wonder how there's a route to becoming a national/international level umpire w/o human linesjudges, but that's another topic
I disagree about bringing back the line judges and the dreadful challenge systems. I hate delays in sports--American football is the most egregious. Humans are also more mistake prone than robots.
It does seem like these 1000 events have had more problems than the Grand Slams. Are they using a different and/or cheaper system?
Just thought of a good analogy. In track events, I don't think many are calling for a return manual stop watches and the tape to judge times and winners of the short distance races. The electronic timers and photo of the finishes are so useful.
If a sport has a call that can made for certain without a judgement, seems good to me. Judgement stuff like is a foul or not, then you should use a human.
I can’t believe that Ostapenko was right all along.
Personally I think the biggest issue here is that when ELC goes wrong it's just so noticeable and there is not a seamless way to rectify calls that it misses. You're right that the challenge system we just got rid of was a lot of fun and provided drama. Match point of the 2017 Federer-Nadal Australian Open final comes to mind. However, I don't think it was among the best things about tennis and I don't think in the end it provided as accurate of an overall line calling experience as ELC does. These incidents are embarrassing because of the clunky way they unfold but I don't think they mean we should be getting rid of it. The hill I would rather die on is the killing of traditional mixed doubles as a format, which is taking away something that is actually part of the essence of Grand Slams and tennis history. Thank you as always for tackling the issue though.
I want the most accurate calls. I want the right decision. It is sport. I don’t want entertainment via a challenge system. The outcome of a match shouldn’t rely on a player’s decision to challenge or not. And if we trust the hawk-eye, that is a technical system as well.
I'm old enough to remember the old system well and what a huge improvement the challenge system with an objective outcome made. There were so many missed calls and fights over missed calls. I'm open to an argument that the move to pure elc was made too quickly but I still think the amount of consequential errors has been minor and remember that the challenge system had the flaw that the player had to make a split second decision on whether to hit the ball or call for a challenge on a close baseline ball which was always a problem solved by elc. Overall I think it's made tennis much better. As to it being "antiseptic", tennis has plenty of drama without needing human line judge error mixed in.
And fwiw I'll add that the old system, until it was expanded to *very* court at a tournament, favored higher ranked players who accumulated more playing time with ELC and using challenges.
What an embarrassing example from Cincinnati! I am going to guess but could never prove that ELC has a good accuracy record compared to humans. But it feels egregious when ELC fails. I think we have an uphill battle against the proselytizers because to most people ELC (and other AI) feels pretty good most of the time and the accuracy problems are probably fixable. It’s gonna become the battle of our lifetimes to explain to each other why humanness is actually a good thing.
What bothers me is this is also the first time I’d seen an umpire “challenge” the ELC on the player’s behalf. There have been way more egregious incidents where this was not the case (thinking about the one with Naomi in Australia for example, or the insane one with kasatkina), so I don’t understand the inconsistency. Can players now ask the umpire to do a review anytime they think the system might be malfunctioning—a clunkier version of the traditional challenge? Bring back the humans, at least then we know who to blame.
As a content creator I can understand why you're vehemently anti-AI, but when it comes to line calling in tennis, I have zero interest in returning to the tempestuous days of players arguing calls and trying to work the line judges (ala McEnroe). In fact, I would rather "foot fault" be shouted aloud in the dark of night (likely system testing) then ever witness another Serena-like meltdown targeting a line judge. Should the system be improved. Undoubtedly. Should we reembrace human error. No. The world moves on.
Given the frequently incorrect calls of balls and strikes in MLB, I'm eagerly awaiting electronic pitch calling in that sport as well. Getting calls correct is sport is critical for fair play.
Without data for how. many errors or confusing situations occurred with linesjudges it seems to me complaints about electronic line calling are much less than damning. Me, I wonder how there's a route to becoming a national/international level umpire w/o human linesjudges, but that's another topic
Keep banging the drum on this, Ben. I'm with you.
I miss human linesmen and women
I disagree about bringing back the line judges and the dreadful challenge systems. I hate delays in sports--American football is the most egregious. Humans are also more mistake prone than robots.
It does seem like these 1000 events have had more problems than the Grand Slams. Are they using a different and/or cheaper system?
Just thought of a good analogy. In track events, I don't think many are calling for a return manual stop watches and the tape to judge times and winners of the short distance races. The electronic timers and photo of the finishes are so useful.
If a sport has a call that can made for certain without a judgement, seems good to me. Judgement stuff like is a foul or not, then you should use a human.