'Because she is local, they can say whatever': Anastasia Pavlyuchenkova questions officials bias after controversial calls at Wimbledon

Russia’s Anastasia Pavlyuchenkova has questioned the bias of the officials at Wimbledon after controversial calls during the fourth-round contest against Britain’s Sonay Kartal. The 34-year-old came out in that contest in straight sets with a score of 7-6, 6-4.

Pavlyuchenkova was involved in a controversial decision in the ninth game of the first set, where she was serving for the game. Pavlyuchenkova was convinced that Kartal’s shot was long, but there was no call from the electronic line-calling system. The call was so controversial that it prompted the chair umpire, Nico Helwerth, to intervene and ask whether the technology was functioning properly.

After hearing that the technology was not working correctly, Helwerth asked the point to be replayed. Pavlyuchenkova was not happy with the outcome, and she could be heard saying, “Because she is local, they can say whatever. You took the game away from me.”

Later, Pavlyuchenkova clarified those comments during a media interview after the match. She also stated that wrong calls make players question their judgment. She also said that having no line umpires is decreasing the ‘charm’ of the sport.

“It was a very crucial moment in the match,” she said. “I expected a different decision. I just thought also the chair umpire could take the initiative. That’s why he’s there sitting on the chair. He also saw it out, he told me after the match. I don’t know if it’s something to do because she’s local. I think we are losing a little bit of the charm of actually having human beings. Like during Covid, we didn’t have ball boys. It just becomes a little bit weird and robot sort of orientated. They’re very good at giving fines, though, and code violations. This they don’t miss because every time any little thing, they are just right there on it. I would prefer they looked at the lines and call the errors better. Sometimes when we play, I’m thinking, ‘Am I crazy, or I just feel like the ball is long?’ Then nothing is happening. There is no automatic line calling. The chair umpire was so confused. I think the chair umpire needs to maybe have a clear plan if that happens. We probably should have this system like in football to review.”

Kartal, on the other hand, defended the chair umpire’s call. She was of the opinion that Helwerth’s handling of the situation was the correct one. “That situation is a rarity,” she said. “I don’t think it’s really ever happened. It’s tough luck. What can you do? The umpire is trying his best in that situation. I think he handled it fine. I think the fairest way was what he did, to replay the point.”