McEnroe 'Proved Wrong'

In a study that hasn't been described as a complete waste of time and money, tennis scientists have found line judges usually get their calls right. Stefanie Jones finds out whether they can actually be serious.

"You can NOT be serious," is one of the greatest sporting catchphrase ever, but a recent study suggests that John McEnroe was wrong, and that where line calls are concerned, judges can in fact be as serious as they like.

Researchers from the University of Sussex analysed 1,473 challenges to line calls in professional tennis matches over a two year period, and found that line judges were correct 61% of the time. This makes them more reliable than the players at judging whether the ball bounced within a court line, a useful attribute when your occupation is a line judge.

George Mather, author of the paper, said the line judges were “remarkably proficient” (again, what is it they’re being paid for?) and that this level of accuracy is good enough to dismiss calls for players to be allowed more than two unsuccessful challenges per set, the current maximum.

He does add that mistakes are much more likely to be made when the ball bounces near the base or service lines, as the judges for these sit closer than for the side and centre. In these situations the ball passes too quickly across the retina for the brain to get a precise fix on its position, which is also more likely when balls are struck down the centre of the court rather than diagonally.

Mather suggests that line judge training should therefore focus on base and service line calls in the future, as these are more error-prone.

But in short, if the line judge says the ball was out, chances are he’s probably right. Good news for match officials and sadistic PE teachers across the land, bad news for Mr. McEnroe and a myriad other mouthy tennis players…

More stories from the Null