LONDON — In an ironic twist, the All England Club has attributed a significant oversight to “human error” involving the electronic system that supplanted human line judges at this year’s Wimbledon.
On Monday, club CEO Sally Bolton disclosed that the technology had been “inadvertently deactivated” for a brief period during Anastasia Pavlyuchenkova’s hard-fought three-set match against Sonay Kartal in the fourth round. At one critical moment, Kartal’s shot clearly landed beyond the baseline, yet the automated system—known as Hawk-Eye—failed to register the point due to the shutdown.
Following Bolton’s comments, the club released a statement announcing that they have “removed the capability for Hawk-Eye operators to manually deactivate the ball-tracking feature,” ensuring that such mistakes cannot happen again due to recent system modifications.
While Bolton refrained from naming the individual responsible for the error or discussing potential repercussions, she stated there were additional lapses in communication involving the chair umpire, Nico Helwerth, along with the review and Hawk-Eye officials.
“Our focus should not have been simply on bringing back line judges,” Bolton emphasized. “We required the system to be fully operational.”
Is AI being utilized for line calls at Wimbledon this year?
No, Wimbledon, like many other major tennis tournaments—excluding the French Open—has transitioned from employing line judges to using advanced cameras designed to track ball trajectories and determine in or out calls.
Some in the British press have characterized this as a growing infiltration of artificial intelligence into everyday scenarios. However, Bolton objected to this terminology in this context.
“I want to make it clear—contrary to some reports—it’s not an artificial intelligence system. While the camera-tracking technology makes automatic line calls, it still relies on human oversight to monitor its functionality,” Bolton clarified. “So, it’s not AI. There are human elements involved, and in this instance, it was indeed a human oversight.”
What occurred during the missed call at Wimbledon?
Pavlyuchenkova was on the cusp of securing a 5-4 lead in the first set against Kartal when a shot clearly landed long. However, no call was made by Hawk-Eye.
After a break in play, Helwerth ruled that the point should be replayed—an action that Pavlyuchenkova perceived as favoring her opponent on home turf. Once Hawk-Eye was restored, Kartal capitalized and won the game, although Pavlyuchenkova ultimately emerged victorious in the match.
The All England Club conducted an investigation into the incident and discovered that the line-calling system had actually been non-operational for three points before it was recognized.
The system itself was performing “optimally,” as Bolton reiterated throughout the briefing.
“Unfortunately,” she added, “it was the human element that faltered in this case.”
What led to the accidental shutdown of the Hawk-Eye system during a match?
According to Bolton, the system is deactivated between matches, and it is the responsibility of staff to actuate it. Unfortunately, someone mistakenly turned it off during the contest between Pavlyuchenkova and Kartal.
When questioned about the specifics, Bolton replied: “I’m not sure what happened. It was clearly an oversight. I wasn’t present to observe it.”
She mentioned that Helwerth could have made a judgment call on the contentious non-call, just as he did moments prior, but instead opted to pause the match.
“I can only assume,” Bolton said, “he felt he hadn’t seen the play clearly.”
Pavlyuchenkova later shared that the official indicated he believed the ball was out.
What are players’ opinions on the use of technology at Wimbledon?
Opinions among players are divided regarding the implementation of electronic rulings during matches—especially if they aren’t fool-proof—and whether a return to traditional methods is warranted.
From 2007 until last year, a blend of human judgment and technology was utilized: line judges made calls, while players could challenge and request a video review for suspected errors.
“This is such a crucial match, a significant event,” Pavlyuchenkova remarked. “With the substantial investment in automatic line-calling, perhaps we should explore alternative approaches to ensure more accurate decisions.”
