Most of us have heard by now the Colorado-Arizona . Tied at 80, Colorado seemingly made a game winning shot, only to have it waived off. Tad Boyle had some interesting things to say when asked about it. Basically, due to the need for human error in sports, he wants replay abolished.
Taking us back to tennis, a question arises: Should we do away with hawk eye? Hawk eye is the most accurate video review in sports. If a line call is questionable, a player (assuming they have challenges remaining) can challenge the call and get a completely accurate review to whether the call was correct. But, is being this accurate too accurate? Should tennis have some human error?
My answer is no. Yes, in an ideal world we could still have some human error, but it wouldn't effect the outcome of the match. Everyone would go home happy, with the officials in the background.
But, this isn't an ideal world. In tennis, any wrong call could possibly turn around a match. That could, literally, be the difference between a win and a loss.
This is about the legitimacy of sports. We all saw what happened when an incorrect call costed a team the ball game. That "fail mary" single handedly led to an end to the officials lockout. Essentially, what Boyle is saying, is that he would like more of that. More of teams (or players in this case), losing games unjustly. Fairness is more important than having a "human" side to sports.
One of the best parts of tennis is when a great upset happens. Like Rafael Nadal, a perennial power, losing to unknown Lukas Rosol. That is what makes tennis great. Imagine if Rosol, on match point, slapped a forehand "winner", only for us to discover later it was a missed call. It didn't matter if the score was 40-0 at the point of the "winner", there would have always been doubts that Nadal could have possibly mounted a comeback, the momentum now on his "side". It would have taken away from Rosol's win.
Tennis needs hawk eye. Because without it, the legitimacy of the game is taken away.
No comments:
Post a Comment