Delay of Game

When electronic line review systems were first deployed in professional tennis, it was pretty common to see rankings lists of players who were the most accurate (or inaccurate) when issuing challenges. That has become relatively rare more recently because it is apparent that some players issue challenges as a tactic to temporarily disrupt play.

Curiously enough, there is a provision in the electronic review procedures in the ITF Rules of Tennis that provides an avenue for the chair umpire to refuse player challenges.

The chair umpire should decide to use the Electronic Review when there is doubt about the accuracy of the line call or overrule. However, the chair umpire may refuse the Electronic Review if they believe that the player is making an unreasonable request or that it was not made in a timely manner.
Appendix IV, Electronic Review Procedures, ITF Rules of Tennis, USTA Friend at Court

Umpires refuse to honor challenges all the time on the basis that it was not promptly made. I can’t recall ever seeing an umpire disallow a request on a ball that was egregiously out, but intuitively this must have happened at least a few times. (Editorial Note: We covered the first sentence in this rule last Wednesday in “Chair Umpire Initiated Electronic Review.”

On a somewhat related tangent, there is another situation that isn’t explicitly covered in the rules. At Halle in 2019, Ukrainian player Sergiy Stakhovsky used one of his own challenges that reversed a call that originally went in his favor. It was an act of extreme sportsmanship since his opponent, Pierre-Hugues Herbert was out of challenges.

Stakhovsky is retired from professional tennis, but has been in the news recently. He is currently in Ukraine defending his country against the Russian invasion.