The answer to every question these days invariably involves AI so it has been with some degree of interest that I have been watching this year's Wimbledon to see how AI-driven electronic line calling has been implemented at SW19. Given that Wimbledon is the oldest tennis tournament in the world and heavily steeped in tradition, they were always going to go last.
This isn't really news though as last year it was announced that for the first time in the championship's 147-year history, all 300 human officials over 18 match courts would be replaced with electronic line calling (ELC). It has been successfully deployed since 2018 in the ATP finals and the Australian Open implemented it entirely four years ago. It's sufficiently mature to not pose a high probability of failure and had been phased in gradually. Like any system, while it can offer reliability and accuracy, it's not infallible. Although I seriously question the organiser's thinking behind positioning an Australian Open failure as 'hilarious'.
The match with Anastasia Pavlyuchenkova and Sonay Kartal at Wimbledon on Sunday is a prime example of the impact that ELC can have on a match. The incident in question happened when Pavlyuchenkova held game point on her serve and a backhand return from Kartal went past the baseline. No ELC call. No umpire correction. Pavyluchenkova challenged. It then emerged that the ELC monitoring had not been operational on the server side of court for some time and Nico Helwerth (umpire) elected to replay the point as the fairest resolution. Having lost her service game as a result of the outcome of the replayed point, Pavyluchenkova was further disadvantaged facomg set point on Kartal's serve. It isn't uncommon for a decision like that to be a turning point in a match. It's fortunate for the AELTC that Pavlyuchenkova ultimately prevailed and the significance of the issue was minimised as a result.
Kartal's original return was clearly out as it was sufficiently far beyond the bounds of play to not have contacted the baseline but the umpire should have intervened. Particularly given the proximity and unimpeded view he would have had from the umpire's chair. I'm not sure if he was distracted and lost focus or didn't have the confidence to make a contentious call that might shift the course of the game, potentially bringing his reputation into disrepute if he was later proven wrong. But the matter could have been referred to the chief umpire for determination and based on video footage, it would have been a straight forward decision.
Wimbledon have apologised claiming that it was human error and stated that the system was accidentally turned off which prevented an action replay to address the challenge. Wimbledon's Chief Exec (Sally Bolton) fielded a pre-scheduled media call the day after the match which was dominated by discussion around ELC. Bolton asserted repeatedly that the mistake was down to human error and that the protocols had been changed to prevent recurrence of this issue. Ensuring the system was operational seems to rank high in the list of obvious protocol steps. The frustrating issue is that so many media outlets have lazily conflated ELC accuracy and player dissent with implementation and what appears to be a failure of process design or failure to observe that process. The irony of those clamouring for human judgement when it was human error that precipitated the issue.
Any implementation partner working for a prestige client like Wimbledon would have legislated a fail safe in the system design and accounted for human error in all its forms. There would be redundancy and mitigation together with researched and clearly documented protocols in a correctly designed implementation. The AELTC would also demand user acceptance and sufficient training for operator proficiency to ensure trust, credibility and to avoid any embarrassment.
Provision to share learnings between major tournaments along with the ATP and WTA must also exist - it is in the interest and advancement of the game that adoption and acceptance of these technologies is seamless. Hawk Eye has been at Wimbledon for nearly 20 years and has always been positioned as the ultimate decision making authority so why such widespread criticism and objection to ELC in 2025? Simply because Wimbledon is the last bastion of tradition and the visual change to the court is jarringly evident given the absence of line judges?
“It’s funny, because when we did have linesmen, we were constantly asked why we didn’t have electronic line-calling because it’s more accurate,” Debbie Jevans, the chair of the AELTC, told the BBC.
I've not seen much if anything written about momentum and the disruptive impact of contentious decisions. I used to play at a high level in tournaments which had Hawk Eye or line judges and even if calls are corrected, the impact to player rhythm disrupts focus. It takes time to calm and regulate emotions. But ELC isn't distinct from human line calls and this has existed as an issue since time immemorial (ask John McEnroe as the patron saint of the wronged player). One could argue these interactions contribute to the theatre and memorable spectacle of the game. In 2025, some of the crowd participation court side in a challenge replay is conspicuous in its absence.
If Pavlyuchenkova had exited in the fourth round as a result of the decision, you could argue the line call cost her £160,000 (based on the difference in prize money progressing between rounds). That's a relatively simplistic and mercenary view but I don't think you would find a player who would disagree given their livelihood is predicated on the accuracy of such systems.
As a sofa spectator, I much prefer the reduced visual clutter of the court without line judges. Retaining human voices to make the line calls feels fraudulent and many players have complained that they can't hear calls clearly, particularly when the speakers are competing with crowd noise. Set the speaker volume too high and the calls become the voice of god and a distraction in themselves which may interfere with play on adjacent courts.
I can understand why Wimbledon have tried to retain a degree of humanity by playing human voices but I'd argue they've simply provided basis for player complaint in trying to not make the implementation feel cold and sterile. But you simply serve to remind people of what you took away.
Introducing significant changes to the world's oldest tournament will always be contentious and fuel subjective discourse but failures of judgement, human or otherwise, while low probability, will always have a significant impact on a match. That will never change. Much like the inexorable march of technological progress.
