There was never a dull moment with Ilie Năstase. Walking across centre court in his first round match at Wimbledon in June 1980, the Romanian had his eyes firmly set on a box positioned at the side of the court. He bent down to examine the device, the crowd tittering as Năstase continued to entertain.
This was no ordinary box. In fact, it was a £2,000 machine installed in an attempt to improve officiating in tennis, an early example of technology in a sport, tasked with eliminating any controversial decisions. But as we have found out with the 2025 move away from line judges, initially not everyone was impressed.
Now for the science bit. Invented by Bill Carlton and Margaret Parnis in 1979, the new machines - forever known as Cyclops - were only to be used on service line calls. Two boxes would be set up either side of the service box back line on both sides of the net, one box sending infrared lines across to the other. But there would still be some human intervention required.
If any of the beams on the 'out' side of the line were broken then a red light would show and a bleep would sound to the line judge sat by the box wearing headphones. The official would shout 'fault' as usual and everyone would happily accept the decision and move on. Well that was the plan at least.
Naturally there was both curiosity and suspicion as the devices were to be used in a Grand Slam tournament for the first time during Wimbledon 1980 (on centre court and court one). A report in the Telegraph labelled it an "electronic gimmick", with many wondering whether it was needed for service line calls at all. It did not take long for the debate to begin.
"Science received a frosty welcome at Wimbledon," the Guardian's David Irvine revealed as the rain-hit tournament started. Năstase was one of the doubters. During his comfortable win over Britain's John Feaver, the two-time major winner questioned the accuracy of the "magic eye" or "spy eye" as the press dubbed it.
"He went down on his knees to peer at it like a native like a native from the Papuan Jungle gazing for the first time at a television set," the Telegraph's Lance Tingay wrote, as Năstase then bounced balls on the box and threatened to hit it with his racquet.
"Two calls were definitely wrong," Năstase later revealed. "And John Feaver told me about another. I think the machine must have been made in Russia," he added. "I don't think it will end disputes about line calls. I will wait and see."
American Butch Walts was even more scathing after his straight sets defeat against number two seed John McEnroe. Known for his big serves of 120mph, Walts immediately raised concerns with the machines, asking tournament referee Fred Hoyles to turn off the new devices.
"The referee told me the line judge should call the line with the guidance from the magic eye," Walts said. "But what happened was the official was waiting for the bleep and not concentrating on the line. It is supposed to be fool proof and it is not. You can have a linesman removed for not doing his job properly, so why shouldn't the magic eye be turned off?"
Walts continued his rant. "It may be alright in concept but it's useless in practice." Irvine seemed to sum up the early opinion on the new technology. "The 'bleep' occurs if the ball lands up to six inches over the line but on yesterday's evidence there are grave doubts about its suitability."
Uncertainty regarding the machines was one thing, but one line judge was left with egg on his face when he forgot to turn the magic electronic eye on during the first set of Bjorn Borg's match against Ismail El Shafei. Yet once it was on, Armstrong declared that the machine worked well. "The only problem is that you tend to call late, because you have to wait for the bleep which tells you that the ball is out."
As the sceptics gathered in the early days of the tournament, Carlton was forced to defend his new invention. "Some players will argue with anything," he noted. "I don't think that my machine makes mistakes within a tolerable limit. It is accurate to an eighth of an inch" But as the years progressed there were still discussions regarding the use of the devices.
"However, the electronic eye is not perfect," Malcolm McIntosh wrote in the Observer before Wimbledon 1987. "Last year spectators were treated to a bird landing on court and receiving a line call. The equipment is so sensitive that even a strong wind can set it off. The light beam passes just two centimetres above the grass and on occasion the wind has blown blades of grass up to trigger the bleeper."
It is interesting to note that despite the arguments over the introduction of Cyclops, many pondered whether technology could be developed further to help with all line calls in tennis. McIntosh understandably urged caution. "But before it can be installed on all white lines the equipment must, however, be able to distinguish between a ball, a foot, a racquet, and a bird."
However, the discussions were not just limited to tennis. With the growth of American Football in the UK during the mid-80s, television viewers were introduced to the concept of a Replay Official to adjudicate on decisions taken on-field. When Football League referee officer John Goggins was asked for his opinion on football following the same approach in September 1986, his reaction was telling.
"God forbid! We would take away the human element of a game designed for human beings with human emotions," he answered emphatically. Rugby union referee David Bevan agreed. "It is moving towards the days when you won't have referees, you'll have computers doing it." Rugby league referees assessor Joe Manley feared video decisions creeping into the sport, as it had started to in Australia.
Other areas of technology in sport that we see in the modern era were also under consideration. Test and County Cricket Board chairman Raman Subba Row mentioned umpires wearing small wrist watches with video screens to potentially help them with run outs. In 1980, Carlton had been approached by the Scottish Football League to see if he could come up goal line technology. Clive Allen would have been a fan.
The mind boggles at what the doubters in the mid-80s would make of technology in sport in the modern era. Yet despite the furore in 1980, Cyclops was here to stay, with the US Open soon following suit and using the machines. Eventually Hawkeye would arrive in the 21st century leading to the retirement of Cyclops - at the 2006 US Open and Wimbledon and Australian Open a year later - as technology moved on.
Has the move towards automation in tennis gone too far now? The volume of criticism thrown at the electronic line-calling (ELC) was loud enough before Wimbledon started, the removal of line judges in 2025 a step too far for many. But when the ELC started to glitch in the Pavlyuchenkova-Kartal match, and other players questioned the system, the All England Lawn Tennis Club has been forced to defend the move.
Carlton knew where his invention was leading. In 1980 he gave an indication that Pandora's box had been truly opened by his own. "In fact, I think the time will come when it will be the final decider of what is in and what is out." Cyclops never quite reached that stage, yet it started off a process that has led us to where we are today.
No line judges, AI, and players doubting the accuracy of the technology. The move to Cyclops during Wimbledon in 1980 seems quite tame in comparison, but at the time it was big news, sparking debates about how far technology should be used in sport over human intervention. Maybe the past isn't such a foreign country after all.
No comments:
Post a Comment