Why aren't the tennis grand slams 100% digitally judged in real time?

Question

You have awkward rules when and how to challenge shots; you have subjective, costly and controversial judges etc.

Why not just let it be 100% flawless and objective with a real-time digital system?

Answer 1

i'm not trying to turn this political, but look at all the outrage over florida's electronic voting machines in 2000

i think there is a natural distrust of electronic judging (although the difference is that in tennis it would be used to confirm the judges call, while in florida they depended on the electronic systems)

edit:

i think they would want to use both, just using the digital system for close calls and to make sure the judges are accurate

Answer 2

I think it's just better to have real judges. These are my reasons:

1) It's a lot faster when an ump makes the call, and most of the time the call is good.

2) A player can talk to the judge during a game, request something. A lot of judges also control the crowd.

3) If it was done all digitally the fun we all get out of challenges, and the hawk-eye reviews would be gone. :(

4) What if the digital system malfunctions or breaks down?

5) Maybe, a lot of it depends of tradition.

That's just my thinking. Good question though.

Answer 3

There are several reasons to have a person in the judges chair:

1.  equipment can and does malfunction

2. crowd control

3. things happen that cannot be digitally judged.  For example, in the Lopez/Safin match today, there was a ball that hit the line, but Safin didn't go for it... the judge ruled that Lopez had made a noise that distracted Safin (or made him think it was called out), so the point was replayed.  I don't think anything digital can do that.

4. there are other issues on the court with the ability to call in trainers, bathroom breaks, etc that need to be moderated by a person.

5. expense of modifying courts for a digital system (even in the Slams, only the show courts have the technology)

6. it's fun to have someone for the players to argue with.

I do think they can better utilize the technology to make the game more objective, but it can't replace the man or woman in the tall chair.