Wimbledon's recent announcement that it would be moving away from human line judges and adopting electronic line-calling from 2025 onwards has stirred the perpetual debate around the use of technology in tennis.
The introduction of ELC at Wimbledon has struck a chord with many in the tennis community, for better or worse. Not even the hollowed turf of Wimbledon’s Centre Court is spared from the relentless march of technological advancement.
From the introduction of Hawk-Eye to the professional tennis tours during the 2000s, to the pioneering use of Hawk-Eye Live technology at the Next Gen Finals in 2017, to the more widespread adoption of human-free line-judging in tennis exacerbated by Covid-19 and its associated restrictions, the evolution has undoubtedly been dramatic.
Proponents of ELC, such as ATP Chair Andrea Gaudenzi, argue modern tennis bears the responsibility of adopting modern technology to improve the sport.
"We have a responsibility to embrace innovation and new technologies," he said to the Associated Press. "Our sport deserves the most accurate form of officiating."
That summarises the strongest case for ELC: the overall improvement in the quality of officiating.
Although technology is hardly immune from malfunction, the effective elimination of line-calling errors in most matches is, from a sporting integrity viewpoint, a highly desirable outcome.
The widespread introduction of ELC, including the ATP’s tour-wide adoption of the technology from 2025, is likely to be popular amongst players, for whom the absence of mistakes is particularly desirable.
John McEnroe’s iconic on-court meltdowns have become iconic, although they are far from relics of the past when considering the behaviour of modern tennis players.
Ideally, ELC will reduce the prevalence of such incidents with its improved accuracy and reliability. Additional benefits include more efficient and streamlined matches, whereby delays and replayed points for challenges and overrules are less frequent.
Why then, should there be opposition to the widespread adoption of ELC?
The main arguments generally reflect a desire to preserve tradition, aesthetics and drama.
Tennis, and particularly events like Wimbledon, take significant pride in honouring traditions and fundamentals of the sport. Line judges have almost always been a part of that.
The more nuanced argument puts forward the claim that tennis loses some of its entertainment value when the spectacle is so robotic, denying the suspense and uncertainty that comes with human line judges and the challenge system.
Andy Murray succinctly presented these competing values in a post-match interview following his loss to Stefanos Tsitsipas at last year’s Wimbledon, during which the British legend opted against challenging a call that was ultimately shown to be incorrect at a vital moment in the match.
"Right now, I would obviously rather it was done automatically," Murray said. "It’s a hard one because I probably prefer having the line judges on the court… it feels nicer to me. I think the crowd quite like the challenges.
"But when mistakes are getting made in important moments, obviously as a player you don’t want that."
Acknowledging these competing issues, ELC cynics will rightly point to the failure of the technology to eradicate player-umpire conflict. Matters for interpretation by chair umpires invariably arise and outbursts remain common, as exemplified by the recent Shanghai Masters, during which several incidents of concerning umpire abuse arose involving complaints independent of correct line judging.
Further still, the greatest sceptics will question the accuracy of ELC in general.
In recent years, former French Open champion Jeļena Ostapenko has become infamous for her bewilderment at a handful of technological line calls.
During one post-match interview at last year’s Australian Open, Ostapenko was asked whether she trusts ELC. Her response was unequivocal.
"[Trust] in the system? To be honest, no," she said.
"Sometimes it feels like it makes some mistakes, but I don’t know."
The antics of a player on-court, it should be noted, are always best taken with a grain of salt considering the high-stress environment. Ostapenko is seemingly at one extreme of scepticism, a position sorely lacking in evidence.
Nonetheless, legitimate reasons exist for opposition to ELC.
Why then persist with the ELC roll-out in the face of these imperfections?
Ultimately, tennis has continued to embrace technological advancements, and clinging onto the past for nostalgia's sake is an unsustainable position for a modern international sport.
One must also keep in mind the seemingly inescapable human instinct to resist change whenever these debates arise, which invariably informs that sense of nostalgia.
The trade-off of another tradition and component of the existing spectacle, to be replaced with a new approach that emphasises greater officiating accuracy and fairness seems the only logical progression for tennis to make.
Tennis will remain tennis, but less vulnerable to on-court injustice. Abandoning ELC requires a high level of tolerance for bad decisions, including those with potentially match-altering effects, and a willingness from all parties to simply accept this as part of the game.
Such a scenario seems unlikely and frankly untenable in a world where the option to avoid it exists. Is it truly likely that tennis optimised its balance of tradition, spectacle and drama between the years 2000-2020?
The spectacle was great and continues to be great, but that greatness had best not be conflated with umpiring conventions.
Comments