Wimbledon only add to Hawk-Eye confusion during heated discussion with All England Club chief executive
With no meaningful information forthcoming, we had wondered if someone sat on an on/off button. Or brushed past and accidentally flicked it within the cramped confines of a booth where the system is administered.
It turns out that a 'checked' box on a screen, activating the system, had been inadvertently 'unchecked' on Sunday.
That left a backhand from Britain's Sonay Kartal to sail out with no call forthcoming at a crucial moment against Russian Anastasia Pavlyuchenkova, eliciting calls of conspiracy from the aggrieved party, and the point having to be replayed.
They are such small margins with this new technology. A system of justice is contingent on the click of a Hawk-Eye operator's mouse.
Wimbledon tell us that action has been taken and there will be no manual override for ball tracking from now on. But the fog took a long time to clear.
The line-calling system is not the only one to have suffered a communication breakdown over the past few days.
When All England Club chief executive Sally Bolton sat down for a media discussion on Monday, she repeatedly declared herself unaware why the system had been switched off mid-match, rather than between matches.
There was no disclosure about boxes being unchecked, nothing to dispel the idea of a big red button and no requirement to furnish us with any such details, she insisted.
But this was the most obvious question, it was put to her during a conversation which became rather heated. 'That's a pertinent question for us in terms of ensuring it doesn't happen again, yes,' she replied. 'I'm not sure it matters greatly exactly how it happened.'
It was a remarkable observation, given that this system requires every ounce of credibility — and transparency — it can muster, during a tournament in which Emma Raducanu has called it 'dodgy' and Jack Draper has also voiced his doubts.
The All England Club insist humans were at fault and the match review official, working alongside a Hawk-Eye technical official, could have told chair umpire Nico Helwerth the system had been accidentally switched off.
But if that official had known, could he not have simply rechecked the on/off box? And why did at least three points play out without technology before Helwerth was informed? Still, more questions than answers.
Helwerth was not assigned a match at Wimbledon yesterday, his first day off at this tournament. Officials said he had not been demoted and was not at fault.
Perhaps, when he rematerialises, the German will tell us why, after the machines failed him, he felt unable to call Kartal's volley out, as he was entitled to do.
Bolton says she suspected he had not seen the ball drop a foot out of play. Pavlyuchenkova says Helwerth told her he knew it was out.
For once, the All England Club will be counting themselves lucky the British player did not win. There would have been hell to pay from the articulate and opinionated Russian.
Doubts about the system persisted on Monday night. After winning her last-16 match, Swiss player Belinda Bencic said: 'I don't trust it. I don't want to talk about it too much, but it's really stressful.
'Sometimes you see a ball that's out. You want to stop playing, but now I'm reminding myself to just play every ball.'
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
BBC News
24 minutes ago
- BBC News
What would a regional mayor mean for Norfolk and Suffolk?
Big changes in how Norfolk and Suffolk are run are on the government wants to carry out a major shake-up of local authorities – existing councils will be scrapped and replaced by new ones - and the counties will share a will be given extra powers over areas including transport and housing, with elections for the mayoral role due to take place in May next successful politician will then oversee councils running two counties that have traditionally been known to have a friendly rivalry. Why is this happening? Last December ministers revealed devolution plans which would see a huge reorganisation of local government, with the pledge of moving more power away from London and also cutting prime minister Angela Rayner told the BBC that giving regional mayors more control over housing, transport, education and employment would help drive economic plan will also see numerous existing councils Norfolk that means eight existing councils will be scrapped, although there is debate as to how they should be reformedThe existing county council favours one authority covering the entire county while six of the district councils favour three. South Norfolk Council has said two would be Suffolk, six current councils will county council has said it should be replaced by one authority, but the five districts are backing the idea of three. What would the mayor do? The mayor would be in charge of what is called a combined county authority – which would be made up of Norfolk and Suffolk's government has said they would have "greater local control" over transport, adult education and skills, and housing – and it would expect them to deliver improvements including economic may also take on the responsibilities of the police and crime powers will ultimately be determined by the Devolution Bill - launched on Thursday - if that passes through parliament and becomes mayor would also represent Norfolk and Suffolk on the Council of Nations and Regions – which includes the Prime Minister, leaders of Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland – as well other regional mayors. What other parts of the country have mayors like this? There are already 14 regional mayors in England covering the likes of Greater Manchester, Greater Lincolnshire and Cambridge and powers and responsibilities vary, with the Mayor of London role being quite different as it was setup under a different model of devolution. Who could the next mayor be? With the election not due to take place until next year, the major parties have yet to select their as a high-profile, new role, competition to be nominated would likely be could also see independent candidates put themselves forward. Don't we already have mayors? Yes, we do – but they are different from the one we have been talking about selects a new Lord Mayor every year from its existing councillors, while West Suffolk, Great Yarmouth and King's Lynn and West Norfolk Borough councillors do the same for their each case, it is a ceremonial role that sees them chairing full council meetings, attending civic events and councils like Bury St Edmunds, Cromer, Thetford and Felixstowe also have mayors who are, again, existing councillors serving as figureheads and chairing meetings. How would they be chosen? An election is scheduled for 7 May 2026, with everyone registered to vote in Norfolk and Suffolk able to take mayor would then serve for a fixed term of four years, before another election takes place. Will these changes definitely happen? Devolution deals have been on the table for both Norfolk and Suffolk in the past, but ultimately came to time around, the majority of players involved want to move forward with a deal, even though they may not currently agree on what the final deal should sorting out such a major reorganisation is not simple, and there is still a lot of work to be done in a relatively short period of time. Follow East of England news on X, Instagram and Facebook: BBC Norfolk or BBC Suffolk.
Telegraph
26 minutes ago
- Telegraph
Unite's doing an astounding PR job for Reform
Unite's shock decision to suspend Angela Rayner's membership and re-examine its relationship with Labour on Friday left the trade union community aghast. As senior union officials messaged each other in shock, political rivals were left salivating. This is just the kind of shake-it-up drama they were hankering for. 'This is an odd hill to die on,' one bemused union insider says of Unite chief Sharon Graham's decision. 'It's bonkers – what's their endgame here? Your average union member doesn't give a f--- about political affiliations, but this is damaging for Labour and now is not a good time to damage them.' Unite, Labour's biggest union backer, should be very careful what it wishes for. When it ran a private poll of its members before last year's general election, insiders were alarmed to discover growing support for Nigel Farage's Reform. Clearly concerned about the shift in political tone among its membership, a Unite insider told me earlier this year that Reform was simply an example of 'very wealthy people plugging into the zeitgeist of workers. Is Reform a friend to workers? No'. So it seems odd that the very same union is now doing some pretty astounding PR for Reform, knowing from their own membership base exactly how effective ex-City trader Farage's efforts have been (the union never revealed the results of the poll). If the gameplan here is to shift funds to Jeremy Corbyn's new Left-wing party, it's unlikely to work – those union members who have been caught up by Farage's razzle dazzle won't suddenly become Corbynites just because Sharon Graham says so. While it's younger voters who are more likely to vote for the Corbyn-led party, it's older workers who are more likely to join a union. According to official data, 40pc of union members are over 50 years old while just 3.7pc are under the age of 24. Gen Z might have a reputation for demanding change, but very few are actually unionised. Meanwhile older, unionised workers who have lost faith in mainstream politics have been listening to Farage for months. From Reform's local election launch rally at JCB where Farage declared that he was 'on the side of working people' to his message in a working men's club in Durham, when he said Reform was parking its 'tanks' on Labour's lawn in Red Wall areas, Farage's charm offensive has paid off. Union chiefs have been working hard to convince any won-over members to rethink. Tackling Reform's rise was a major focus at a lunch hosted by the Public and Commercial Services (PCS) union, which represents almost 200,000 civil servants, earlier this year while the Trades Union Congress (TUC) has been promoting clips on social media of workers asking why Farage wants them to lose their jobs. When I asked a union boss about all of this recently, he acknowledged that members were frustrated and angry, living in a country that feels 'broken and beaten'. Reform has tapped into this feeling. But unions have a job to do, he continued – 'remind our members that the reason we have a historic relationship with Labour is that working people need a voice. We still feel that is best served by Labour'. Maybe so, but Unite just bulldozed that message. Despite vowing to spend less of members' time and money on Westminster politics, Sharon Graham has been attacking government policies for months. Going 10 steps further with a formal split from the party and a withdrawal of funding would mark a landmark political moment – one which as well as damaging Labour could serve as a boost for corporate Britain and the wealthy, instead of the workers unions are fighting for. If Labour falls out with its union paymasters, ministers might be more likely to listen to the needs of the executive class. The government may reconsider its tax raids on the rich amid accusations that it is driving the wealthy away, or it might soften the looming Employment Rights Bill - which is set to give unions far more power – in order to appease UK plc. Both issues are at a crunch point. As the Bill makes its way to the final stages of the parliamentary process, bosses will be raising the volume on their long-running concerns. Meanwhile billionaires who swung behind Labour in the lead-up to the election are losing patience. Sir Keir refused to rule out introducing a new wealth tax, a move which unions back, earlier this week after former Labour leader Lord Kinnock suggested the party was 'willing to explore' a tax on assets worth more than £10m. One of Labour's richest supporters, Phones4U founder and former Tory John Caudwell, has said he is growing 'increasingly nervous' about the Government's direction and argued that a wealth tax would be 'very destructive' to growth. Labour knows it can't ignore these concerns. Sir Keir's pro-business party looked beyond the unions who traditionally bankroll it in the run-up to the election, accepting nearly £13m in private donations in 2023 versus £5.8m from unions. It is clear that divisions on the Left will not only benefit Reform but also drive Labour into the arms of billionaires and big business. Unite, which has donated £19m to Labour since 2019, is not as in control as it might think.
New Statesman
an hour ago
- New Statesman
The mutation of jihad
Photo by Wakil Kohsar/AFP We fear the wrong terror. This week marked the 20th anniversary of the 7/7 bombings. But the spectacular terror of international jihad has significantly abated. In 2022, the UK downgraded its terrorism threat level from 'severe' to 'substantial', and MI5 director Ken McCallum observed in 2024 that terrorist threats had diminished during his time at the service. Attacks claimed by Islamic State group (IS) have fallen from almost 4,000 in 2018 to around 600 so far this year. And they are less likely to be of immediate concern to Western countries. Almost 90% of the group's violence now takes place in remote parts of Africa. A report published this week highlighted a newer danger: hostile governments are equipping themselves to execute professional attacks on British soil. The study by Parliament's Intelligence and Security Committee, which Keir Starmer saw before publication, investigated Iran. It counted at least 15 attempted murders or abductions of British nationals or UK-based citizens since 2022, and designated the Iran one of the biggest threats to the UK, next to Russia and China. But it should not be news that the threat of state-sponsored, professional killings has been increasing in recent years should not be news. In 2024, MI5 admitted a 48 per cent rise in state-instigated assassination attempts on UK soil. But the only such incident to gain real cut-through was the poisoning of Sergei and Yulia Skripal in 2018. Jihad is changing its face. In recent years, jihadist and Islamist groups that have embraced more pragmatic, local agendas have tended to flourish. Meanwhile, supporters of more extreme jihadist ideologies – groups like IS and al-Qaeda which once posed significant threats to the West – are foundering. In 2001, al-Qaeda executed the grandest and most famous assault the West had ever seen on its own land. The 2017 attacks on Westminster Bridge and London Bridge represented a transition to less complicated methods, such as stabbings and driving vans into crowds. IS was encouraging followers to use whatever equipment they can get their hands on. Now, commenters on GeoNews, the main al-Qaeda chat room, are wont to take a despairing tone; in late April this year, one commenter reflected 'Jihadism goes nowhere, it didn't achieve anything… it's like digging in water… The best that can happen is like [what happened in] Syria'. Since the December 2024 overthrow of the al-Assad government, Syria has been ruled by Ahmed al-Sharaa, better known by his military name Abu Mohammed al-Jolani. Al-Sharaa's regime has dismayed Islamist hardliners by distancing itself from typical jihadist and Islamist demands, such as rigorous application of Sharia law. Instead it has loudly touted its respect for religious minorities, with a programme more reminiscent of the Ottoman Empire's 'millet' ('personal law') decentralisations, which gave religious communities a degree of local autonomy. Al-Sharaa has even shaken the investment tin to the US and other Western powers. And, perhaps most controversially, his government is signalling openness to normalising ties with Israel, its arch-foe. Unburdened of US sanctions, Syria's economy is expected to begin the slow path to recovery. Al-Sharaa has generally prioritised winning international credibility as a competent and pragmatic leader over governing by strict Islamic principles. He has proposed plans to privatise state-controlled infrastructure and made overtures to foreign investors. Government officials have stated intentions to model Syria's future on service-based economies like Singapore. It is a surprising posture. Historian Djene Rhys Bajalan has coined the term 'Salafi Neoliberalism' to describe the strange new synthesis of 'malls and mosques'. Other media outlets have described it as 'Islamist technocracy', pointing to the equal centrality of technocratic institutions and conservative social mores. Subscribe to The New Statesman today from only £8.99 per month Subscribe Before Syria, there was Afghanistan. Despite being spurned by the international community for its deeply regressive social policies, hardcore jihadists had condemned the Taliban's rule in Afghanistan after its 2021 takeover as too lax. IS's local wing and its affiliated media regularly scorn the Taliban, holding that the group has abandoned jihad, failed to implement Sharia and allied itself with enemy foreign powers. Accepting national borders and engaging in diplomacy is considered anathema to IS's vision of global jihad. Taken as evidence of ideological compromise was the Taliban's removal from Russia's list of terrorist organisations. And this week, on 9 July, Afghanistan posted an extraordinary tourism advert online, which opens with a shot of five turbaned men behind three kneeling hostages. The leader says 'we have one message for America', then pulls off the hood of the central hostage, revealing a beaming Westerner who shouts, 'Welcome to Afghanistan!' Of course, all sorts of propaganda will be used in service of attracting tourism; but this is nonetheless a sea change from the autarkic Taliban regime of the 1990s. Affiliates of al-Qaeda now appear poised to make a definitive break with the transnational jihadist model most infamously espoused by Islamic State (IS). Al-Qaeda affiliates in Yemen (AQAP) and Somalia (Al-Shabaab) have showed signs of being willing to collaborate with the Iran-backed Houthis, traditionally an ideological foe. In Yemen in April, a former al-Qaeda member rebranded innocuously as the Movement for Change and Liberation, a new, locally focused party. The affiliate in West Africa's Sahel region, JNIM, is perhaps the most likely to split from al-Qaeda's central structure next: media branding changes, such as the removal of JNIM's logo, suggest a split from the wider North African branch, AQIM. In February, one al-Qaeda supporter wondered in the GeoNews chatroom why 'JNIM want to separate from [al-Qaeda]?… It's sad'. JNIM's drift away from al-Qaeda may allow it to more openly collaborate with other non-jihadist militant groups such as Tuareg separatists. JNIM has also reportedly signalled willingness to combine forces with non-jihadist armed groups in the Sahel, such as the Azawad Liberation Front (FLA), against common enemies in the region (predominantly the governments of Mali and Burkina Faso). Burkina Faso's military junta plainly considers the Taliban and JNIM entirely separate entities, meeting with the former in May while engaged in a bloody war with the latter. What is left of IS itself has blamed the West for the move away from jihadism and toward more palatable alternatives in order to undermine them and lure Muslims from the 'true' path. One high-profile IS supporter posted on Facebook, '[the US] gave Afghanistan to Taliban… and Syria to [al-Sharaa's] HTS which converted to secularism'. Devoted IS supporters see more pragmatic Islamist movements like HTS as enforcers of the West's war on terrorism who are beholden to Western interests, rather than being committed to applying Shariah by the letter. Al-Naba, IS's weekly newspaper, has recently struck a downbeat tone. An early July editorial worried about low morale and a wavering commitment to global jihad. Several other recent editorials have all but admitted that the group is on the backfoot, especially in its Middle Eastern heartlands, where its attacks have dropped significantly in recent years. Transnational jihadism – an ideology that has demonstrated remarkable tenacity throughout the first quarter of the 21st century – may be about to turn a corner. As US power retreats, those who might have been attracted to confronting American imperialism are concerned by other questions. International terrorist imperatives are being subordinated to domestic, material issues. At least for now, the success of the local appears to be global jihadism's loss. [See also: Netanyahu bends the knee for Trump] Related
