Isner, Nalbandian, Nouni and the Issue of Timely Challenges

OK, I'm going to wade into this controversy even though I know my point of view is probably in the minority.

I feel bad for David Nalbandian knowing that he got "hooked" (got a raw deal) on a line call while receiving a first serve from John Isner. The serve was called out by the linesman but called good in an overrule by Kader Nouni, the chair umpire for the match. After some thought, Nalbandian tried to challenge and was denied in doing so by Nouni because he had taken "too much time" for the request.

Replay technology used by TV commentators showed the ball out. Yet even though the chair umpire's overrule on the call was incorrect, I completely agreed with Nouni on the denial of the challenge!

Before making his earlier challenges in the match, David had gone through this basic routine:

• walking up to the line
• looking for a "mark"
• looking at his box
• looking at the "mark"
• asking the chair about the call
• and then finally deciding to make the challenge

This is way too much theatrics for taking an action that is supposed to provide immediate remedy if you are wronged on a call.

Challenges are supposed to be made in a timely manner. The definition of timely gets murky though, and there is no fixed time limit for making the challenge. Some players will immediately challenge without hesitation: notably Federer, Ferrer, Roddick, Serena (when she challenges, which is rarely). No quibble, no walking around, no looking at their box. They all make quick challenge requests within two to four seconds.

Others take way too much time and go through too many shenanigans before issuing their challenge. Juan Martin Del Potro is infamous for doing just that. This behavior annoyed Roger Federer greatly during their U.S. Open final. Del Potro is a big guy who tends not to do anything very quickly. One such stroll to check a mark and to make his subsequent challenge decision took almost 10 to 15 seconds. Federer was rightly annoyed by this action.

Caroline Wozniacki does the "long and pondering stroll" as well to check a ball mark before deciding on a challenge. In her case, it almost seems almost to be a way of subtle intimidation aimed at the offending line judge for future calls. The message transmitted seems to be that if the line judge doesn't want to receive "the treatment" on future calls they should make the correct one next time … in the player's favor, of course.

Back to Nalbandian's second round match…

He loses the point on the (incorrect) overrule and has no ability to challenge the call because he didn't do so in a timely manner. This is not how we would like to see these types of tense matches play out. But those are the rules of tennis. The call went against David in this instance, and it's tough to watch I agree. But these are the rules under this system.

I have always agreed with television commentator Mary Carillo on this point: if we have a system in place to correct errant calls that are off by only centimeters, then we should have the ability to use it indiscriminately or as standard procedure. It shouldn't be on the shoulders of the aggrieved player to decide on a challenge if the technology can easily show everyone else that the call was wrong. If we know the ball is out by replay, then it's out. No challenge should be necessary.

For the record, I think David got the very short end of the stick with the overrule, not his denied challenge. Chair umpires should overrule only when they feel the call is egregious, or completely missed. Isner's serve was neither.

This was a great match that shouldn't have been decided by this type of bad call and subsequent controversy. But, if we know the ball was out anyway via replay, he should still have won the point. Right? If the rules ain't fair, then maybe we need to change the rules.