Brain Makes Tennis Call Error More Likely

Because of the way the brain processes visual information, there's a much higher probability that a tennis ref will call a good ball out than a bad ball in. Steve Mirsky reports

Illustration of a Bohr atom model spinning around the words Science Quickly with various science and medicine related icons around the text

Join Our Community of Science Lovers!

[The following is an exact transcript of this podcast.]

The eyes often don’t have it. Tennis referees, for example, sometimes mess up when calling a ball in or out. And a new study finds that refs are much more likely to make a mistake by calling a good ball out than by calling a bad ball in. The research is in the October 28th issue of the journal Current Biology.

It takes at least a tenth of a second for us to become aware of an image striking the retina. So we all have to construct our perception of moving objects. And the way the brain works, we consistently think something has gone slightly further than it really has. It’s not surprising then that we misjudge the position of hundred-mile-an-hour tennis balls.

When researcher David Whitney saw a call overturned during Wimbledon, he decided to check out referee error rates. He reviewed videos of more than 4,000 randomly selected tennis points, and found 83 incorrect calls. Seventy of the 83 were the type predicted. So players contesting calls are better off asking for reviews on their own shots called out than their opponent’s called in.

—Steve Mirsky 


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.


60-Second Science is a daily podcast. Subscribe to this Podcast:

RSS | iTunes 

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