Topic: How would shotspot be used...anyone know?

[Babblelot]

Assume[/u] for now that shotspot is sufficiently precise.

Does anyone know how it would be implemented? I know Johnny Mac keeps talking about a system in which a player gets 1 challenge a set. IMO, however, I don't see why, say, rules involving challenging calls at the USO should be any different than those at Roland Garros, where players are at liberty to challenge virtually every close call, and the chair umpire comes down from his perch and points to the spot on the clay, which invariably is followed by a discussion over which mark in the clay is correct.

I would think the technology provided by shotspot would allow not only the chair and the television audience to see where the ball landed, but it could be displayed on the huge monitors on the feature courts as well, so that the players and fans in attendance can see, too. Moreover, even using RG rules, the fact that the chair umpire can watch the replay from his perch is time saving relative to the umpire coming down from his chair and inspecting the spot on the court.

So, back to my question: does anyone know how shotspot would be implemented assuming it gets the green light?

[Tennis4you]

I personally would like to see where the ball landed EVERYTIME on the big screen if it was within a foot of the line.  That way the players can ALWAYS see and so would the fans.  I think that would be sweet.  They could even have a separate screen for it.  It seems like it would be fair for everyone.  I doubt they would set it up that way.

I am not sure I like the idea of players gettign to challange and slow down the game.

[Babblelot]

I am not sure I like the idea of players gettign to challange and slow down the game.

It is curious that this is such a concern at the USO, while it's completely dismissed at RG. By their very nature, claycourt matches are "slow." Yet, nobody seems to notice the fact that players disputing calls only adds to the length of the match.

Just something I find curious...

[hummer23mm]

on clay courts, marks are left where hte ball hits teh court.  mos tof hte time, if there is a really a dispute, the umpire can come out of the chair and call hte ball good or out, even if its not perfect, and the marks can be confuzed with one another, its still a luxury we dont have on hard courts such as those of the U.S> Open.  For this reason, the french may be mroe hesitant to invest in shot spot type stuff.

[Arcforce]

on clay courts, marks are left where hte ball hits teh court.  mos tof hte time, if there is a really a dispute, the umpire can come out of the chair and call hte ball good or out, even if its not perfect, and the marks can be confuzed with one another, its still a luxury we dont have on hard courts such as those of the U.S> Open.  For this reason, the french may be mroe hesitant to invest in shot spot type stuff.

Yeah and even if there is a mark left on hard courts [according to the rules] I dont think you're allowed to use them as substantial evidence for a shot being in or out. I guess since they're so hard to see or something they're not conisdered solid evidence. -shrugs- I dunno.

I wouldn't really want the shotspot to slow down the matches but I think if technology advances enough so that we can have it be instant, then I'm with Scott that everyone should be able to see it including the players and fans. Tho if it is not that advanced yet -- I think the idea of having 3 or 4 calls per match per players is fair and acceptable.

[MontyDub]

Personally I think shot spot should never be used in a tournament. I guess this makes me a purest. If they were going to use it, then why not now. The technology is not perfect, but none is.

I'm not worried about the matches being slowed down. Players already know how to slow down a match if they want to. I just hope that we are not trying to eventually fase out line judges. Pretty sure they're not. But, and I think I said this on another thread, human line calling is a great part of the sport. The fact that when you step on the court and you put trust in your opponent to make the correct calls is why this a sport of gentlemen. And dealing with bad, incorrect, or malissed calls is all a part of playing. When we take away the trust , we take away a part of the sport that makes it so special. Hell, let's just forget the whole hand shake at the end too.

[Babblelot]

Personally I think shot spot should never be used in a tournament. I guess this makes me a purest. If they were going to use it, then why not now. The technology is not perfect, but none is.

I'm not worried about the matches being slowed down. Players already know how to slow down a match if they want to. I just hope that we are not trying to eventually fase out line judges. Pretty sure they're not. But, and I think I said this on another thread, human line calling is a great part of the sport. The fact that when you step on the court and you put trust in your opponent to make the correct calls is why this a sport of gentlemen. And dealing with bad, incorrect, or malissed calls is all a part of playing. When we take away the trust , we take away a part of the sport that makes it so special. Hell, let's just forget the whole hand shake at the end too.

For the record, the decision not to use it at this year's USO came in this week.

"USTA Passes On Electronic Line Calling For U.S. Open
By Tennis Week
07/29/2005

Electronic line-calling systems have failed to qualify for next month’s U.S. Open, the USTA announced today. There was widespread speculation the U.S. Open would become the first Grand Slam event to use an electronic line-calling system this year, however the USTA said such systems failed to meet International Tennis Federation accuracy standards in a year-long test..."
 
http://www.sportsmediainc.com/tennisweek/index.cfm?func=showarticle&newsid=13473&bannerregion=

The article mentions "electronic line calling (would give players) the opportunity...to challenge calls," but does not explain the specifics. That's the gist of my question. The USTA was about to launch something that, apparently, nobody knows how it would be implemented.

Quite startling, IMO.

[MontyDub]

And in my opinion...nothing of the sort should ever be implemented. Thank you for the update on this years USO. I was not sure if it would start this year or not.

But if the question is HOW they are going to use it?...then my answer is DON'T.

[Babblelot]

Suddenly, this topic lends itself to a couple of polls.

1. Would you like to see shotspot/hawkeye implemented at the slams?
a) yes
b) no

2. If/when shotspot/hawkeye gets the green light, how many challenges should a player receive?
a) a limited number per set as Johnny Mac suggests (say, 1 or 2 per set)
b) players should be able to challenge every close call, as they can at Roland Garros

[blisteringboom]

if they did implement this like tennis 4 you said it would have to be for every shot on a monitor so everyone could look and challen ges wouldn't slow down the game erven more especially if pierce is sserving my god serve the ball!

[rhubarb]

If the technology is more accurate than linespeople, use it all the time in a match.  If it's not, don't use it at all.

There should never be a challenge system which restricts the number of calls that can be checked.  The aim of implementing an electronic system is to avoid wrong calls; if you're going to restrict its use to only a certain number of occasions in a match, then surely that's defeating the object of putting in such a system in the first place?

[Babblelot]

If the technology is more accurate than linespeople, use it all the time in a match.  (and this discussion assumes that is so).

There should never be a challenge system which restricts the number of calls that can be checked.  The aim of implementing an electronic system is to avoid wrong calls; if you're going to restrict its use to only a certain number of occasions in a match, then surely that's defeating the object of putting in such a system in the first place?

ding! ding! ding! ding!

I couldn't agree more, rhubarb. Thanks for the reply.

(I don't know what Johnny Mac is smoking...)

[wilsonboy]

It's a topic that can be supported both ways. they want to keep the game as traditional as possible but they also don't want any mistakes. I would prefer to have an electric system so that an incident like the Capriati-Williams one wont happen again.

[Babblelot]

It's a topic that can be supported both ways. they want to keep the game as traditional as possible but they also don't want any mistakes. I would prefer to have an electric system so that an incident like the Capriati-Williams one wont happen again.

I'll second that, Wilson. What a disgrace!

[kittens25]

I agree that they should implement a big screen high on court that everybody can see, rather than having players choosing which calls to question, or a specified number of how many they are allowed to question per set.