I'm not too familiar with the tennis system. I can read those articles but still cannot really comment on how it works in practice. But in other sports (again I'll go mostly by the NFL) it seems that giving players or teams a specific number of challenges does a good job of limiting the instances of review (how could it not) but a poor job of selecting the best occasions of review. Even though they have a strong incentive only to use challenges for situations that are both important and likely to succeed, it does not seem that most contestants do a good job of it. And because a lot of obviously bad calls never were reviewed the league expanded the way calls that get reviewed. The NFL went from (1) each team gets 2 challenges per game, to (2) still 2 per game but if you get both right you get another, and more and more as long as you keep winning them, to (3) every touchdown and turnover is automatically reviewed, plus officials can decide to review anything late in the game plus the status quo of (2) remained. So now there is almost no limit that is effectively imposed. Also, when you do set limits you end up with the practice of using unspent challenges late in the contest for ridiculously unlikely situations because why not? Oddly, even though I would get rid of video review in all sports, I don't like these types of measures. I guess I figure if we are going to have an inefficient system that IMO does more harm than good, we might as well make sure we get the good out of it, which requires not putting in these artificial limits. I prefer the system where officials decide what gets reviewed.
). As
Keith Putnam is suggesting, handball in the box plus encroachment / staying on the line for penalties seems to be another that is causing more harm than it is preventing.
