Tennis and VAR: A Cross-Sport Examination of Video Review Challenges

Opaque communication, lengthy deliberation, and bewildering outcomes. Welcome to the world of Video Assistant Referees (VAR) in tennis, a source of existential angst, frustration, and fury, mirroring sentiments felt across the English Premier League. Since the introduction of VAR in top-flight English football five years ago, few topics have sparked as much heated debate. The situation has become akin to the divisive nature of Brexit, sharpening divides and becoming a reference point for virtually every point of contention, just as the United Kingdom’s protracted secession from the European Union has influenced political discussions.

In contrast, tennis has been slow to adopt video review technologies, yet the specter of VAR has haunted the sport in recent months. A notable incident occurred during the ATP Masters 1000 Cincinnati Open in August, where Jack Draper secured a match point against Felix Auger-Aliassime with a shot that, upon review, was deemed illegal. Umpire Greg Allensworth awarded Draper the point and lacked access to video review to rectify the decision.

The controversy resurfaced on Tuesday in Basel, Switzerland, during an ATP 500-level tournament that employs electronic line calling (ELC) but does not incorporate video review. World No. 36 Tomas Martin Etcheverry experienced the fallout of an erroneous call by umpire Arnaud Gabas in his match against world No. 23 Ben Shelton. Gabas ruled that Shelton’s return of serve had hit Etcheverry on the leg before bouncing. According to the rules, if a player is struck by the ball before it has bounced, the point is awarded to their opponent. However, the ball had actually bounced before making contact, a fact that was evident on television replays that everyone except the umpire could access to clarify the situation. Shelton was subsequently awarded the point.

Clips of the incident circulated rapidly on social media via Tennis TV, the ATP-owned streaming service, only to be swiftly disabled following a copyright report. The incident was notably absent from the Tennis TV highlights package uploaded to YouTube.

“These things cannot continue happening,” Etcheverry expressed on Instagram after the match. At present, video review is limited to the U.S. Open, but it will be utilized at the upcoming end-of-season ATP Finals in Turin, Italy, from November 10 to November 17. The ATP Tour is currently exploring the possibility of implementing the system at higher-category events starting in 2025, while the WTA Tour has yet to make a decision.

GO DEEPER: Tennis has a problem with players, umpires, and rules. Can it be fixed?

This year’s U.S. Open showcased the potential pitfalls of video review, as seen during a third-round match between Russia’s Anna Kalinskaya and Brazil’s Beatriz Haddad Maia on August 31. Umpire Miriam Bley made an incorrect ruling that left many incredulous. In the third game of the match, Haddad Maia attempted to chase down a drop shot, successfully reaching the ball and winning the point. However, Kalinskaya believed it was an illegal shot and challenged Bley’s call using the video review system.

The replays seemed to validate Kalinskaya’s claims, as it appeared Haddad Maia had struck the ball before it bounced twice. Despite this, Bley maintained her original decision, leading to widespread disbelief among spectators. The discrepancy between an official’s on-the-spot judgment and the subsequent review highlighted a significant issue that has plagued football since VAR’s introduction.

On the following Sunday, the U.S. Tennis Association (USTA) confirmed that Bley’s call had indeed been incorrect. The organization revealed that an additional, conclusive angle had only become available after Bley had made her decision. This scenario has become all too familiar in football, where explanations often arrive too late to alleviate the frustration of fans. Kalinskaya ultimately lost the match 6-3, 6-1, her performance hampered by the perceived injustice.

GO DEEPER: Jack Draper bruised by ‘cheat’ accusations after Auger-Aliassime match point controversy.

Tennis is inherently more suited to video reviews compared to football. The sport is naturally stop-start, featuring a granular scoring system. Conversely, football, known for its low scoring, often sees critical moments compromised by lengthy scrutiny under VAR. Most importantly, many decisions in football are subjective, relying on the interpretation of individual referees in real-time. This subjectivity has been a major point of contention since VAR’s inception, as fans anticipated clear-cut resolutions to debatable calls, only to discover that many decisions remain subjective, even under video scrutiny.

GO DEEPER: VAR explained: What is it? Why is it controversial? How might the Premier League ditch it?

Tennis, on the other hand, primarily deals with objective calls. A ball is either in or out, regardless of proximity; a ball has either bounced once or twice before being hit. This is why Hawk-Eye technology, introduced in the mid-2000s for line reviews, has been so successful. A parallel can be drawn with cricket, where video reviews have also proven effective. The U.S. Open implemented video reviews in 2024, allowing players to challenge specific judgment calls made by the chair umpire. Players are permitted three challenges per set and one additional challenge in a tiebreak.

In Etcheverry’s case, video review would have immediately rectified the umpire’s decision, awarding him the point. At the time, the score was 2-3, 15-30 in the first set, and losing a point he should have won left Etcheverry at a disadvantage, which ultimately contributed to his defeat. Similarly, Auger-Aliassime should have received a reprieve from match point down.

In the match between Haddad Maia and Kalinskaya, some spectators supported Bley’s ruling that Haddad Maia had executed a legal shot. This situation shifted the objective to subjective, only for the USTA to later confirm the original ruling was incorrect, reinforcing the notion that technology cannot eliminate human fallibility. Despite the assistance provided by technology, the ultimate decisions rest in human hands, susceptible to error.

As tennis evolves its video review processes, it may encounter challenges similar to those faced by football, including unforeseen consequences of broader implementation. In football, inconsistencies in interpreting rules across different leagues and competitions, particularly between the English Premier League and UEFA Champions League, have led to further fan confusion. While tennis may not face the same issues, its fragmented infrastructure could result in varying applications of video review across tournaments.

Even now, the four Grand Slams adopt different approaches to umpiring and Hawk-Eye usage, from full electronic line calling at the U.S. Open to traditional inspections of ball marks at the French Open. Wimbledon only recently decided to implement ELC after 147 years of having line judges officiate on the court.

Despite the potential for video reviews to improve officiating in tennis, the lessons from football’s VAR experience remain pertinent: if one believes that video technology will serve as a catch-all solution for controversial officiating calls, disappointment may soon follow.

(Top photo: Matthew Stockman / Getty Images)