The final problem involving the Hawk-Eye System involves the time limit rule on
challenging and lack of clarity as to if the point must be replayed in certain
scenarios. Players are supposed to challenge in a timely manner and stop playing
the current point. Some players will even go as far as to ask their chair umpire or
take a look at their box for any hint as to if they should challenge a particular shot
or not and unfortunately some chair umpires will oblige them with advice which
clearly spoils fair play.
The Need for Hawk-Eye
While it may have some flaws that will no doubt be worked out over time, the
introduction of the Hawk-Eye System has added a new level of strategy to the
sport that never before existed. Since players now have access to only 3 challenges
per set they must be wise on when to use those challenges. In addition to knowing
when to use a challenge, a player could also burn a challenge to possibly slow their
opponent’s momentum and regain composure during the time it takes for the call to
be reviewed should they be in a tight spot.
“I don’t need to go to bed now wondering if that serve really was in or out. I
looked up. It’s in. There’s no need to worry about that tonight.”
-James Blake, Retired Tennis Professional
Closing Thoughts
After the Hawk-Eye was beginning to be an intrinsic part of the game, it saw both
sides of arguments from the players. Most veteran players have been quoted as
saying that they wished they had such technology to use when they played the
game. On the other hand, top players like Roger Federer and Rafa Nadal had
initially made it clear that they do not appreciate the addition of this new facility.
Ultimately, the Hawk-Eye system has certainly improved the sport. Tom Perrotta
in his article “Hawk-Eye is here to kill tennis” rightly states, “When it comes to
officiating in sports, we’re constantly trying to hit a Pareto optimum where the
37