What do you think of instant replay in tennis?

@Idlewild (6090)
United States
January 17, 2007 10:20pm CST
Tennis is using instant replay/challenges in tennis. It's similar to that used in American football; each player has a certain number of "challenges" they can make per match if they feel a ball is out. Does this make the game better, or slow it down and take the human element out of it?
2 people like this
7 responses
@starcrazy (137)
• Singapore
18 Jan 07
I think it's a good thing. It makes the game fair as players can judge for themselves. If this technology was available before, Martina Hingis would have won the French Open against Steffi Graf in 1999.
2 people like this
@Idlewild (6090)
• United States
18 Jan 07
The officials definitely miss some calls, and with the balls being served at 120+ mph, it's going to happen. I think it makes sense, too.
@cassidy22 (2974)
• United States
28 Mar 07
It depends on how many they get. If they get to use this 5 times per match, I think it will slow down the flow of the game. Tennis is a fast moving sport - people could abuse the replay - use it not to resolve a dispute, but in order to get a few minutes of rest to get back on their game, etc. I think it could be overused and drag out a tennis match. I think, with any sport, it's more important to PLAY the sport!!
1 person likes this
@Idlewild (6090)
• United States
28 Mar 07
The replays don't really take much time at all (unlike pro football). It's just a simple review of whether the ball is in or out, and then it's over.
• Australia
29 Jan 07
I think it's a great idea, especially for those calls that are really too close to call. I reckon the playes could also use it as a tactical manouvre as well. It just adds another aspect to the game.
1 person likes this
@Idlewild (6090)
• United States
29 Jan 07
Yeah, I like it as long as it's not done too much. The ball is flying faster than ever before, and the human eye has a tough time trying to see everything.
@emisle (3822)
• Ireland
18 Jan 07
It's the same in rugby, except I think there's no limit. I would rather have the replays because if a player was to lose a match over an incorrect decision it wouldn't be fair.
1 person likes this
@Idlewild (6090)
• United States
18 Jan 07
Wow, I didn't know rugby had that, of course I know little about that sport. What do they replay, whether a player has crossed the goal with a ball? Unlimited replays sounds like a recipe for disaster, though. Who calls for replays, players and coaches or the officials?
@RAMONES (537)
• Belgium
18 Jan 07
I think it is OK. The Eagle Eye has allready solved a lot of discussion. And it does not slow down the game much, as players are only allowed to call for it a few times per game. Eagle Eye should be introduced in a lot of other sports !
1 person likes this
@Idlewild (6090)
• United States
18 Jan 07
I think limiting it to a few times per player per match is a good idea, players will using it sparingly. And at the Aussie Open it seems it's only used on the main show court, not all of them.
• United States
18 Jan 07
i like it it works and it gets it right becaue the judges cant tell becaue it goes so fast but it slows the game done to look at all of the stuff but im kinda neutral
1 person likes this
@Idlewild (6090)
• United States
18 Jan 07
I've heard the players don't like it, but the fans do. I have to say I like it. It can help correct a bad call and doesn't slow the game down that much.
• United States
28 Mar 07
I think a lot of sports are debating this whole "instant replay" thing and while I understand the reasoning behind it I think that they're definitely taking a lot of the human element out of it. I think the changes stem from everyone's desire to constantly be "politically correct" and therefore don't upset anyone with incorrect calls, etc. so just to be safe we'll check it using electronics. Come on.. it's a game.. it's supposed to have the element of human error and opinion in it. Soon we'll be playing sports with machines who will make their own calls! LOL