4

Typically tennis player can challenge a certain number of decisions. If they lose the challenge, they lose one of those “challenges”, but if they are right they don’t. So, they could possibly challenge as many decisions they want as long as they are always right. In this video, however, Herbert did not have any challenge left, he asked the opponent to challenge the decision, and Herbert got the point. If Herbert had challenged the decision he would have been right and lost none of his challenges. Did his opponent lose one, since it was Herbert’s point?

  • Could you clarify what rule set you're asking about? There are different rules depending on what governing body you're discussing. Thanks! – Joe Jun 24 at 10:02
  • Clearly he asking about the challenge system which is in place for all rule bodies. for instance, look it up on the ATP rulebook under "Electronic review". – beta Jun 24 at 11:14
  • 1
    @beta That may be true, but rules questions should still specify the league/tournament/etc. they are asking about - even if there are no differences between various leagues, it is still good to have that context (and that information, that all of the leagues share a common ruleset for electronic review, is useful in and of itself!) – Joe Jun 24 at 16:24
2

If Herbert had challenged the decision he would have been right and lost none of his challenges. Did his opponent lose one, since it was Herbert’s point?

The answer is simple: Stakhovsky (the opponent) was right in his challenge. The initial call was OUT. Stakhovsky challenged this decision. He was right in his challenge, because the ball actually was IN. Therefore, he did not lose a challenge.

To whom the point is awarded is a different question based upon the final call after the review and has nothing to do with who does (not) lose a challenge.

See the relevant section of the rulebook as follows.

enter image description here

The rulebook can be found here: https://www.atptour.com/en/corporate/rulebook

| improve this answer | |
  • This case is not explicitly handled in the rulebook, but I can try to amend my answer. – beta Jun 25 at 9:23
  • Seems explicit to me. Thanks! – Joe Jun 25 at 14:07
  • No need to be a smartass ;) I meant that the specific case of a player challenging a call that is actually favourable to him is not dealt with. Normally such special circumstances are explicitly dealt with in the ATP rulebook. That's what I was referring to. – beta Jun 26 at 7:59

Your Answer

By clicking “Post Your Answer”, you agree to our terms of service, privacy policy and cookie policy

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.