British Tennis Forum - Celebrating 20 Years!

Coup Droit wrote:

---

christ wrote:

---

thegingerlightbulb wrote:

---

I am really impressed with Soney. Lovely game to watch and a really tenacious player. Obviously can still improve but that is fine as she is still young. Here is the thing- I think she should have given the game to her opponent at 4-4. She knew that she should have lost that point and whilst it is not her place to make that decision it clearly fired Pav up
and gave her a sense of injustice that clearly motivated her. I think Soney could have just given her the game as it was still on serve and then felt some degree of moral high ground motivation herself. Maybe that is a crazy idea but Ihe mental side of the game is often more than half the battle and Soney had the game to win that match. To be clear, I don't think she did anything wrong, but just do the right thing and let kama play itself out.

---

 How did she know that she should have lost that point? She may have suspected, when she saw the TV replay, but I don't think that there was any way that she could know.

Ms Raducanu was convinced that there were many points that she should have won when the electronics denied her: should her opponent have conceded them too?

It does show the limitations of having a system with no backup - at least real people were backed up by the electronics, nowadays they are flying without a safety net.

---

 But the electronics they were backed up with are exactly are exactly the ones you're worried about having here 

it's the same 

And we had TONS of bad line calls when plauers had used their three challenges (even assuming that those hawkeyes were correct anyway) and weren't overturned by the umpire and hawkeye then shows the call was wrong 

Having just one wrong call here is still way better than what we had before 

(And Sonay would have known her ball was long - firstly it was at least 3-4 inches long, she probably felt it, but she only had to ask her team, they'd have inidcated it was long, everyone saw it and knew it was long. I'm not saying she was wrong not to concede it but I don't think it was close and her team would have seen it, as well as the umpire)  

---

 Either I misspoke, or you misunderstood me: I am not worried about the line calls.

... but the "old" system gave the players the illusion of a court of appeal: they could take issue with the human and seek solace in the decisions of a higher power.

I prefer the new system, and I think the players will too when they grow into it: it doesn't matter if it is possibly not 100% accurate, it is indisputable (except in incomprehensible cases where the system is disabled in error, obviously).

But that wasn't the thrust of the issue, which was "should Sonay have conceded the point?". And my answer is no, on any number of levels. I think touching the net or double bounces may be things a player can - and possibly should - concede, but not line calls on the other baseline.

(I started one sentence with But, and another with And: My English teacher would have had a conniption.)

Coup Droit wrote:

---

PaulM wrote:

---

Sonay misses a set point but I'm rather glad Pavs broke back in the end.

It has happened before DF - at a match in the States apparently and the decision was to replay and that the Umpire wasn't allowed to overrule even when the error was clear. If there's a failing the ball hasn't been tracked in the point they replay the whole thing. But again it feels stupid.

*5-6

Pavs looks to be channeling the anger well now, absolutely blasting through Sonay.

---

 Exactly 

He can't overrule it

That would defeat the worth of the system

Yes, it was completely wrong 

But so are linespeople sometimes 

And only having three reviews

 

---

 This needs to be changed. Otherwise we may as well dispense with umpires as well as line judges. The ball was clearly out and the point should have been awarded to Pavlyuchenkova. The point should not have been replayed. I understand this is the way it works currently but this is clearly a bad rule.

Quite why the system has to be manually turned on and off is another point altogether. 

A good tournament for Sonay and whilst I like her game I do think she is good at lots of things but not excellent at any. She moves and defends well but doesn't seem to have a real killer weapon which would have been useful today. I think Emma is a bit similar in this respect. Of course Emma's been ranked in the top 10 but only on the back of what is looking more like an outrider of a result at the US Open. I think the ranking ceiling for our top 3 women on a regular basis is probably not far off from where they are now. Emma has a decent chance to climb the rankings with few points to defend now for the rest of the year but let's see how many times she plays.

A decent if not spectacular Wimbledon for our women.

Peter too wrote:

---

Live rankings now has Katie at 40, Sonay 44 and Emma 45.

-- Edited by Peter too on Sunday 6th of July 2025 02:50:10 PM

---

 A bit odd that Katie ends up back as British no.1 despite performing the worst of the three at Wimbledon.

HarryGem wrote:

---

Coup Droit wrote:

---

PaulM wrote:

---

Sonay misses a set point but I'm rather glad Pavs broke back in the end.

It has happened before DF - at a match in the States apparently and the decision was to replay and that the Umpire wasn't allowed to overrule even when the error was clear. If there's a failing the ball hasn't been tracked in the point they replay the whole thing. But again it feels stupid.

*5-6

Pavs looks to be channeling the anger well now, absolutely blasting through Sonay.

---

 Exactly 

He can't overrule it

That would defeat the worth of the system

Yes, it was completely wrong 

But so are linespeople sometimes 

And only having three reviews

 

---

 This needs to be changed. Otherwise we may as well dispense with umpires as well as line judges. The ball was clearly out and the point should have been awarded to Pavlyuchenkova. The point should not have been replayed. I understand this is the way it works currently but this is clearly a bad rule.

Quite why the system has to be manually turned on and off is another point altogether. 

A good tournament for Sonay and whilst I like her game I do think she is good at lots of things but not excellent at any. She moves and defends well but doesn't seem to have a real killer weapon which would have been useful today. I think Emma is a bit similar in this respect. Of course Emma's been ranked in the top 10 but only on the back of what is looking more like an outrider of a result at the US Open. I think the ranking ceiling for our top 3 women on a regular basis is probably not far off from where they are now. Emma has a decent chance to climb the rankings with few points to defend now for the rest of the year but let's see how many times she plays.

A decent if not spectacular Wimbledon for our women.

---

 If umpires have the right to overturn 'clearly' wrong calls, then do they have the right to overturn 'possibly' wrong calls? And who decides if it's clearly or possibly? The umpire? 

Then we're back in a far worse position - and players will be arguing with the umpire, top players will be accused of using their influence, certain umpires will be accused of being biased or weak, all the bad old stuff 

All systems will have a certain number of errors

The new system has far less and is more neutral - I think it's the best thing to happen to tennis since they got rid of on-court coaching (and probably even better than that) - the best thing since the introduction of tie-breaks  

9vicman wrote:

---

If under the existing rules, an umpire is not allowed to overrule a non-functioning ELC (which doesn't make sense: if the system breaks down completely, line judges can be used), the following statement is confusing:

"In that time, there were three calls not picked up by live ELC on the affected part of the court. Two of these were called by the chair umpire, who was not made aware that the system had been deactivated."

What does it mean when it says that "two of these were called by the chair umpire", when the umpire is not allowed to overrule the system?

---

 I agree - I didn't understand this either - and, having watched the match, I didn't see this