I take that back, ESPN!

I take that back, ESPN!

Post by Stev » Mon, 17 Aug 1998 04:00:00


ESPN's commitment to tennis has waned in recent years and as far as women's
tennis is concerned, they have no commitment.  It is a real pity.  Perhaps
Women's Tennis, now that it is taking off, will snub ESPN from now on.
 
 
 

I take that back, ESPN!

Post by Scal » Tue, 18 Aug 1998 04:00:00

I take back every nice I said about ESPN's coverage of tennis in a previous post
after ESPN left many parts of the Sampras/Rafter final on the edit room floor
due to "time constraints".

Thank you.....I was wrong.
_____________________________________________

remove the nospam to reply via email

 
 
 

I take that back, ESPN!

Post by Deeyou » Tue, 18 Aug 1998 04:00:00


Quote:

>ESPN's commitment to tennis has waned in recent years and as far as women's
>tennis is concerned, they have no commitment.  It is a real pity.  Perhaps
>Women's Tennis, now that it is taking off, will snub ESPN from now on.

ESPN had nice coverage all week in Cinci but they screwed
it up Sunday.

ATP could stand an invigorated TV program.

There was a good article in BusinessWeek last week about
Fox Sport's new contract with the WTA.  I am happy for the
WTA, but worried about what Fox will do to tennis.  Don't
forget they're the guys that display advertising logos on the
court surface.

____
Mike Deeyoub
Atlanta

 
 
 

I take that back, ESPN!

Post by joel sherrif » Tue, 18 Aug 1998 04:00:00

The thing that really pissed me off about ESPN's coverage, aside from only showing
half
the match, was that they didn't bother to have a mac-cam so that WE could see
whether
the match point line call was bad or good.  Personally, I don't see how the chair
ump
could overrule from his angle (above the ball), especially on match point.

Quote:

> I take back every nice I said about ESPN's coverage of tennis in a previous post
> after ESPN left many parts of the Sampras/Rafter final on the edit room floor
> due to "time constraints".

> Thank you.....I was wrong.
> _____________________________________________

> remove the nospam to reply via email

  vcard.vcf
< 1K Download
 
 
 

I take that back, ESPN!

Post by Sanj » Tue, 18 Aug 1998 04:00:00

Quote:

> Personally, I don't see how the chair
> ump
> could overrule from his angle (above the ball), especially on match point.

Hi,
I agree that it was a bad way for an *awesome* match to end!
But, the chair umpire did the right thing, IMO.
Here's why: If the chair umpire clearly sees the ball in, and the linesperson
calls it out, then he/she should definitely overrule the call - that's
their job!  It should be done regardless of what the situation is (matchpoint,
whatever).
Also, the question was whether the serve was wide, or not (not about whether
it was long).  As far as overruling, I can't think of any other line that the
chair umpire had a better view of (it was right under him).
So, essentially, the umpire *had* to do it.  :)
Sanj

--

orbital.com

 
 
 

I take that back, ESPN!

Post by joel sherrif » Tue, 18 Aug 1998 04:00:00

I don't see how the ump had a better view of the side line than the linesman
him/herself.  The ump would be looking down
on a ball that was very flat (from the camera's perspective) and very fast.  The
point of contact from that angle would be
virtually imperceptable (IMHO).

Quote:


> > Personally, I don't see how the chair
> > ump
> > could overrule from his angle (above the ball), especially on match point.

> Hi,
> I agree that it was a bad way for an *awesome* match to end!
> But, the chair umpire did the right thing, IMO.
> Here's why: If the chair umpire clearly sees the ball in, and the linesperson
> calls it out, then he/she should definitely overrule the call - that's
> their job!  It should be done regardless of what the situation is (matchpoint,
> whatever).
> Also, the question was whether the serve was wide, or not (not about whether
> it was long).  As far as overruling, I can't think of any other line that the
> chair umpire had a better view of (it was right under him).
> So, essentially, the umpire *had* to do it.  :)
> Sanj

> --
> sanj

> orbital.com

  vcard.vcf
< 1K Download
 
 
 

I take that back, ESPN!

Post by Sammy C. Le » Tue, 18 Aug 1998 04:00:00

yup, when they started showing the 2nd set 4-3 only about 15 minutes
into the telecast, everyone knew Rafter was gonna win the 2nd and go
into a 3rd.  I guess what ESPN thought was that the 1st set would be too
boring to watch.  oh well.
 
 
 

I take that back, ESPN!

Post by Sanj » Tue, 18 Aug 1998 04:00:00

Quote:

> I don't see how the ump had a better view of the side line than the linesman
> him/herself.  
><snip>

Hi,
No doubt about it!
I never claimed that the ump had a better view of the side line than the
linesman.  In fact, I don't think the ump has a better view of *any* of the
lines (compared to the linespeople), for that matter.
My point was that of all the possible lines, it seems to me that the
ump him/herself has the best view of this particular one.
:)
Your point brings up a different question altogether:  Should an ump
be allowed to overrule *any* balls at all (since he/she by default has
a worse view of the line than the person he/she is overruling)?
I think the answer is 'yes,' actually.  There've been several occasions
where clear mistakes have been made, warranting overrules (because linespeople
are human).  So, as long as the ump doesn't get to high on him/herself, and
sticks to *obvious* mistakes, I think this system works (of course, they're
human too).
Sanj

--

orbital.com

 
 
 

I take that back, ESPN!

Post by Donal Fag » Tue, 18 Aug 1998 04:00:00


Quote:

>yup, when they started showing the 2nd set 4-3 only about 15 minutes
>into the telecast, everyone knew Rafter was gonna win the 2nd and go
>into a 3rd.  I guess what ESPN thought was that the 1st set would be too
>boring to watch.  oh well.

That's the problem with TV, you know things will generally be resolved at
ten of the hour, so there's time for a few commercials, a tidy little
wrapup and a few more commercials.

You knew the second set was going to at least 7-5 because of all the time
left, you knew that Rafter would win it, the only doubt was in the outcome
of the final set.

A better strategy would have been to announce that the match was
well-played, but too long for the schedule and would be shown in its
entirety in the AM.  Then show highlights of the first and second sets and
the entire final set in the time allotted.  The impatient, and VCR-less,
would have seen a good set, the patient would have seen a good match.

--
Donal Fagan

Remove the unpleasant social display to reply via e-mail
http://donalfagan.home.mindspring.com

 
 
 

I take that back, ESPN!

Post by flum » Fri, 28 Aug 1998 04:00:00

Women's tennis is so much more interesting than men's lately but there
is so little TV coverage...it's so irritating.
Quote:

>ESPN's commitment to tennis has waned in recent years and as far as women's
>tennis is concerned, they have no commitment.  It is a real pity.  Perhaps
>Women's Tennis, now that it is taking off, will snub ESPN from now on.