Last week at the French Open, two situations arose that are interesting data points to further inform the debate over the use of video review in tennis. I have previously touched on this topic when writing about the US Open’s experimental use of replay technology in “Video Review… Not Up.” I also suggested that it could have prevented the cascading series of events in “The Miyu Kato Disqualification Saga.”
The first incident occurred during the coin toss of the quarterfinal match between Alexander Zverev and Alex de Munaur. Zverev called the “ball” side of the coin, and the chair umpire echoed that choice. The “racquet” side of the coin turned up, winning de Munaur the honors. However, Zverev protested that he had called “racquet.” There was some inaudible confusion, and it isn’t clear which player made the decision. In any case, Zverev received in the first game.
Winning the coin toss in tennis is borderline inconsequential. In contrast, on Thanksgiving in 2015, NFL referee Phil Luckett misheard Jerome Bettis’s call on the overtime coin flip. While the Steelers should have had the option to receive, the Lions got the ball instead and drove down the field to kick a game-winning field goal. That event changed how the coin toss is performed in all sports, as the choice is now confirmed before the coin is flipped into the air.
In tennis, winning the toss usually doesn’t matter at all, but if de Munaur had been bothered by the episode and protested Zverev’s reversal, it could have been an easy video review. However, it illustrates the Pandora’s box of video reviews in tennis. It has the potential to significantly slow down the game if used too much.
In this case, what is more interesting to me is what in the hell Zverev was thinking. Either he honestly forgot what he called, he hoodwinked the umpire into giving him the choice, or it was a joke in poor taste that went a little too far. There is also a possibility that his antics were a gamesmanship tactic intended to destabilize de Munaur before the match started. The episode reinforced my opinion that Zverev is a psychopath.
The second data point occurred during the semi-final match between Coco Gauff and Iga Swiatek. Gauff missed a return of one of Swiatek’s serves as a line judge called ‘out.’ However, the chair umpire reversed the call and also ruled that the late call did not impact Gauff’s miss of the return.
In the aftermath, Gauff called for video review in tennis, and many internet “experts” lined up to agree with her.
I am sure this will be a relatively unpopular take, but I don’t think a video review would have helped Gauff in this case. The call was made as the ball was leaving her strings, and contrary to her subsequent claims, she finished her follow-through. Whether a bad call impacts a player is a judgment call by the chair official, and in this case, Aurélie Tourte appeared to get the call right. It certainly would not have been reversed by video review in this instance.
Gauff also clamored that Tourte needs to know and follow the rules of tennis, but the chair umpire was spot on in this case. Gauff had no right to summon the referee, and it wouldn’t have made a difference if she had.
These two incidents at the French Open further fuel the debate over the use of video reviews in tennis. Implementing full video review would require many extra technicians and personnel and create disruptions in play. For me, the jury is still out over whether it would ultimately be a good thing for the game.
Tennis Officials are trained to be impartial and provide and even ‘playing field’ for both sides. A sphere (the ball) touching a flat surface does so with minimal contact. A tennis ball will flatten on contact with an irregular flat surface to a varying degree depending on may things including angle at which the ball strikes the surface and how hard it is hit. Line calling is not an exact science – but video reviews have taken the arguments away which should be good for the sport. The essential point is to get the call correct.
With the Zverev incident, it would not have taken long for the Chair umpire to request the situation be reviewed.
Incidentally, in my experience as a chair umpire, most players elect to ‘receive’ if they win the toss, which, I find surprising, since they give away not only the serve, but the choice of end, which could affect the outcome of the first game in particular. The first game is said to be the most vulnerable for a server because they are not fully ‘match tight’.
In the Coco Gauff incident, she was wrong in calling for the Referee. A Referee called to court cannot rule on matters of ‘fact’ i.e. when the ball was hit. When the ball was hit and when the call came is a matter for the Umpire. Video review should be available – but at the moment this does take too long. Hopefully, with the aid of Artificial Intelligence, the time can be reduced but if players were allowed a set number of challenges to choose which calls they wish to challenge. as they are with the Video Review system which does not automatically call the lines.
There is no reason the Umpire couldn’t review video on his chair tablet but it would be important for the spectators to see the video on the big screens and be informed about what is happening.
I disagree that video reviews are necessarily good for the sport. For me, watching pro matches is much less entertaining now, at least without the challenge system which does include video reviews but lets the players figure it out. We definitely don’t need video reviews for the 2 examples in this article. In the first example, the chair umpire didn’t even seem to realize there was a mistake, no video review would’ve happened. In the 2nd example, video review likely wouldn’t have changed anything. At the very least like you mentioned, let the players have challenges like with line calls to challenge with they want.
Video reviews are getting more line calls correct I’m sure than before, but there’s still a degree of error and they’re not right 100% of the time. Linesmen will actually get some calls right that video review wouldn’t occasionally. But all of this is more or less irrelevant. I can’t remember a match where 1-2 bad calls, maybe even more, actually changed the outcome of a match. In the end, outcomes of matches aren’t changing.
For top 100 male pros, I seriously doubt they’re choosing to receive to start the match more than the serve. But, if they are, it still evens out. The returner in the first game still has to serve immediately after in the 2nd game and on the same side as the player serving to start the match. It’s not like each player plays 4-6 games in a row on one side, and then switch sides.
I’m along the lines of your last sentence that the jury is still out, at best. I think video review in most sports is getting out of control and is overkill. Sometimes it might be ok, but I wouldn’t think these 2 example would be much evidence to further it. The umpires/officials need to do a better job more than anything else. Neither of these examples needs video review.
I think you’re drawing at straws at best saying Zverev is a psychopath. That’s pretty extreme. How the umpire forgot what he said 5 seconds earlier is beyond me, and that’s not Zverev’s fault at all either. You’re right who really knows what Zverev is thinking during the coin toss. I don’t play games myself on the court. But if Zverev actually was and it can gain him any advantage, kudos to him. Why De Minaur accepted it is beyond me though. But in the end, De Minaur is serving first so the loss of the coin toss didn’t matter. And the coin toss has no bearing on the outcome of the match anyway.
With Gauff, she actually broke in the game that she was complaining about, so it still worked out for her. But like you said, video review unlikely would’ve helped her anyway. Unfortunately for her, she’s starting to get a bad reputation now for all this complaining like Serena did. Hopefully, she starts to chill out more in the future. But, if the call is made before the ball actually leaves her strings, the point should be replayed but it’s a tough call in this example, though it seems like the call had no bearing on her missing the return. She should realize that, and not get so worked up about it, but I guess it worked for one game as she won this return game. It’s pretty extreme for Gauff to demand the umpire knowing the rules, like any umpire on the pro tour doesn’t know the rules inside and out. It’s a bit tiresome seeing all these players asking for the tournament referee so often. Rarely will the tournament referee ever be needed or can actually help with any decision.