The game that evolved into modern tennis was invented in 1874. To stick a pin in the state of technology at that time, it was the same year that typewriters with the now ubiquitous QWERTY keyboard were first marketed in the United States. If someone had suggested that the game needed rules for electronic line calling, they might have been institutionalized. This is one of the most compelling reasons why the provisions for updating the ITF Rules of Tennis exist. They are necessary.
The rules for “Electronic Review Procedures” come in Appendix VI. Those provisions come immediately after “Ball Mark Inspection Procedures” which are used exclusively for clay court play. Examination of these two sections together reveals that the electronic review procedures were directly derived from what was already in place for inspecting ball marks. After all, it is still inspection of a mark even if it is virtual rather than physically on the court.
Philosophically, we have recently covered the majority of the electronic review rules in our recent clay court ball mark inspection posts:
- Electronic review may only be performed on point ending shots or if the player/teams stop play immediately after the shot to be reviewed. Those stoppage conditions were described in “When Ball Mark Inspection is Allowed.“
- The result of the electronic review is considered to be equivalent to a chair umpires final decision of a call made on clay. Consequently it is not appealable from that point. The rule was originally discussed in “Who’s Who in Ball Mark Inspection.” A case study on application of that rule was also provided in “Close Calls and Temper Tantrums.”
- The original call stands if electronic review is unavailable for any reason. The clay court version of that rule was discussed in “That Should Have Left a Mark.”
There are a couple of nuances in the procedures when electronic review is used. We will dive into those differences next Wednesday.
