Tennis refs are people, too: Visual illusion to blame for all those bad calls

Join Our Community of Science Lovers!

This article was published in Scientific American’s former blog network and reflects the views of the author, not necessarily those of Scientific American



On supporting science journalism

If you're enjoying this article, consider supporting our award-winning journalism by subscribing. By purchasing a subscription you are helping to ensure the future of impactful stories about the discoveries and ideas shaping our world today.


Flummoxed by those wrong "out" calls tennis referees make? Blame it on the brain's sluggish visual-processing system: It makes the ump — and all humans — likely to perceive moving objects as farther along in their trajectory than they actually are, a new study says.

The glitch produces a visual illusion that makes refs' erroneous calls overwhelmingly more likely to be on balls they call "out" than on ones they judge as "in," according to new research in today's Current Biology. Because the brain is constantly playing catch up with visual reality, it can become particularly taxed in situations in which an object is moving extremely quickly or unpredictably; in the case of a bouncing tennis ball, the brain may perceive it as landing beyond where it actually did.

"This is not a problem with referees," says study co-author David Whitney, a vision scientist at the Center for Mind and Brain at the University of California, Davis. "It’s a consequence of human visual processing … a visual illusion caused by a mechanism that allows the system to localize a moving object."

The problem involves a 100 millisecond-lag between the moment an object appears on the retina, the part of the eye that translates light into images, and when our brains make us aware of that object. "To compensate, the visual system takes the image and shifts it forward and allows us to perceive it in a more physically accurate position so we can live in the present," Whitney says. That trick "works great for continuously moving systems, but if something changes abruptly, there can be mistakes; the visual system has a hard time with that abrupt change."

In Whitney's study, three scientists independently reviewed video and instant replay of 4,457 randomly selected points from the 2007 Wimbledon championships. Of the 83 calls that the video and instant replay showed were wrong, 70 were "out" calls. The scientists found the same bias when they reviewed player challenges in this year's Wimbledon: 69 percent of those calls were judged by refs as being out when they were really in.

Players could use the findings to strategize about which calls to challenge (they should object more often to those called "out" than "in," Whitney says). The results are also likely to apply in other sports in which the visual localization process plays a make-or-break role, such as synchronized diving — in which athletes  quickly change positions — or baseball, Whitney says. "When a ball is thrown to first base there's a perceptual challenge there: Does the ball hit the glove first or the foot hit the base first?" he says. "The visual system may be taxed to its limit."

You can find our podcast on the study here.

(Image by iStockphoto/Stephen Morris)

It’s Time to Stand Up for Science

If you enjoyed this article, I’d like to ask for your support. Scientific American has served as an advocate for science and industry for 180 years, and right now may be the most critical moment in that two-century history.

I’ve been a Scientific American subscriber since I was 12 years old, and it helped shape the way I look at the world. SciAm always educates and delights me, and inspires a sense of awe for our vast, beautiful universe. I hope it does that for you, too.

If you subscribe to Scientific American, you help ensure that our coverage is centered on meaningful research and discovery; that we have the resources to report on the decisions that threaten labs across the U.S.; and that we support both budding and working scientists at a time when the value of science itself too often goes unrecognized.

In return, you get essential news, captivating podcasts, brilliant infographics, can't-miss newsletters, must-watch videos, challenging games, and the science world's best writing and reporting. You can even gift someone a subscription.

There has never been a more important time for us to stand up and show why science matters. I hope you’ll support us in that mission.

Thank you,

David M. Ewalt, Editor in Chief, Scientific American

Subscribe