LONDON: ‘Disappointing’ was the word Emma Raducanu used when talking about a questionable call made by the electronic line calling system during her third round match against Aryna Sabalenka at Wimbledon. 

The British world No.40 engaged in a tightly contested encounter with top seed Sabalenka, losing in two sets after two hours of play. During the first set, a shot from the top seed headed towards the baseline and looked to have landed beyond it. However, there was no indication that it was out due to the technology used to make such calls.

“That call was for sure out,” Raducanu said afterwards. “It’s kind of disappointing at the tournament here that the calls can be so wrong.

“For the most part, they’ve been okay. It’s just, like, I’ve had a few in my other matches, too, that have been very wrong.”

This year is the first time in Wimbledon’s history that there are no line judges, with technology being brought in to replace them. Supporters argue that the system helps speed up matches and prevents the potential of human error. It is estimated that Hawk-Eye’s margin of error is 2.2mm, but other studies have suggested it could be higher. 

However, Raducanu isn’t alone when it comes to questioning the system. Ben Shelton is another player to have raised questions. His match against Rinky Hijikata was suspended on Thursday evening after the Hawk-Eye system issued a warning it would stop working in five minutes. Shelton was about to serve for the match but had to come back the following day to do so, spending less than two minutes on the court. 

“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,” he said.

“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.”

Carlos Alcaraz made his views on the matter known when speaking to the umpire during his clash with Jan-Lennard Struff on Friday. 

‘I’m not sure about it,’ Alcaraz told the umpire after a shot from his opponent was called good. ‘I would have asked for a challenge.

‘It’s not the first time I’ve seen the machine… It’s not the first time. I’m not sure about some calls.’

Jack Draper is just as critical when speaking about his experiences this year. Draper was knocked out of the tournament by Marin Cilic, who claimed his first win over a top-five player on the grass in his career. 

“I don’t think it’s 100% accurate in all honesty,” said Draper. “A couple of the ones it showed a mark on the court. There’s no way the chalk would have shown that. I guess it cannot be 100% accurate – it’s millimetres.”

The right thing to do 

Embed from Getty Images

Whilst there are doubts about the reliability of electronic line calling at both Wimbledon and other tournaments, the grass-court major believes the move away from line judges is the right choice. 

On the first day of this year’s tournament, chief executive Sally Bolton said the decision was not a cost-cutting initiative and was the right thing to do. Bolton was asked to shed some light on the cost of such a system, but declined to do so. 

“It’s about evolving the tournament and making sure that we’re providing the most effective possible line,” said Bolton.

“Calling the line judges has been such an important part of the championships for so many years, and we hugely appreciate the service that they’ve provided.

“We don’t comment on what things cost. It’s not a money-saving exercise. The technology investment we’ve had to make to deliver ELC is not insignificant.”

Tournament director Jamie Baker has also defended the use of electronic line calling, which he argues is now standardised in the sport. The French Open is the only major event yet to use such a system.  

“The concept of live line calling is absolutely standard across the tour now – mandatory across the ATP tour. Two of the other grand slams have had it for four or five years,” Baker said earlier this week.

“What that has meant also actually [is] that the level of sophistication and certification around the system has become more professional and more robust as time has gone on.

“The accuracy and the reliability and the robustness of the system and the process as a whole, in terms of officiating, is in as good a place as it has been for tennis.”

As to what happens now, it is unlikely that anything will change. Players will still have their doubts, but the prospect of removing electronic line calling is extremely unlikely. Although Wimbledon will be keen to fine-tune the software for the future, in the hope it will minimise the criticism.