LONDON: The chief executive of The All England club said two individuals were part of the human error that occurred during a match on Sunday in which the line calling system was deactivated.
During the fourth round clash between Sonay Kartal and Anastasia Pavlyuchenkova, it was confirmed that the Hawk-Eye system missed three calls after being turned off due to ‘human error.’ One of those missed calls came at a crucial moment when Pavlyuchenkova had an advantage at 4-4. A shot from Kartal landed beyond the baseline, with a video replay showing this to be the case. However, the umpire was unable to award the point to the Russian because the software didn’t detect the shot and instead decided that the point had to be replayed. Pavlyuchenkova ended up getting broken in that game.
“It was very confusing at the beginning because the ball looked very long to me,” she said afterwards.
“Then I kind of stopped. The chair umpire stopped, as well, the point. I was pretty sure that it was my game because I saw it (the ball) was very long.
“We were waiting for a decision as the system was down, but I was expecting to hear if they said the ball was in or out. Instead, they said to replay the point. It was tricky, especially at that moment. It was a very crucial moment in the match.
“I expected a different decision. I just thought the chair umpire could also take initiative.”
Following the incident, Wimbledon CEO Sally Bolton has lent her full backing to the system, which she states is not an artificial intelligence system. Electronic line calling is camera-operated tracking technology which requires a person to ensure it is functioning correctly. The person in charge of the system during Pavlyuchenkova’s match turned it off by accident, but it is still unclear as to how this managed to occur mid-match. It is usually turned off after a match ends.
“The electronic line calling system was working optimally,” Bolton told reporters on Monday morning.
“The issue we had was human error in terms of the tracking system having been inadvertently deactivated, and then the chair umpire not being made aware of the fact that it had been deactivated.”
It wasn’t just a single failure that took place. Besides a person accidentally turning the system off, it has also been confirmed that the review official in charge failed to inform the umpire that the system wasn’t working. If the umpire was informed, he would have had primacy on the court, which means he could decide if a ball was in or out.
“So the Hawk-Eye official is looking after the system. The review official is more about looking at tennis, but they need to work as a team,” Bolton explains.
“They should have operated a team to make sure that the system was operational during the match. That was their collective job to do.
“If that person had been doing their job effectively, then the chair umpire would have had the relevant information with which to make the decision, and the system would not have been deactivated again.”
The people involved in the error are still part of the Wimbledon team, and a review into the matter has been launched to ensure a similar situation doesn’t take place again. Bolton confirmed ‘amendments’ have been made without elaborating any further.
“We have made the appropriate changes that we needed to make. But we’re absolutely confident in the system,” she concludes.
This year is the first time Wimbledon is using electronic line calling instead of line judges. Such systems have been used at many other events on the Tour, including both the US Open and Australian Open. Whilst players are used to Hawk-Eye, some have still voiced their concerns about its accuracy. It is estimated that Hawk-Eye’s margin of error is 2.2mm, but other studies have suggested it could be higher.
“I don’t think the Hawk-Eye system’s perfect. I think we’ve seen that at earlier tournaments in the year, players taking pictures of marks on the clay and stuff,” 10th seed Ben Shelton said earlier this week.
“In terms of the accuracy in a match, whether it was line calls on every point or Hawk-Eye on every point, I feel like Hawk-Eye is probably a little bit better. There are probably fewer mistakes using Hawk-Eye for the whole match.”
