Thank you.....I was wrong.
remove the nospam to reply via email
>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.
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
The thing that really pissed me off about ESPN's coverage, aside from only showing
the match, was that they didn't bother to have a mac-cam so that WE could see
the match point line call was bad or good. Personally, I don't see how the chair
could overrule from his angle (above the ball), especially on match point.
> Thank you.....I was wrong.
> remove the nospam to reply via email
< 1K Download
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).
> 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,
> 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. :)
< 1K Download
> I don't see how the ump had a better view of the side line than the linesman
>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.
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.
Remove the unpleasant social display to reply via e-mail