By now, live electronic line-calling is the standard across professional tennis, erasing most arguments over in-and-out decisions. But one key element remains under the chair umpire’s control: let calls—the ultimate authority in determining whether a net-cord serve landing in the service box is a ‘let’ and requires a replay. This old-school reliance on human judgment caused doubles player Erin Routliffe to question why the technology hasn’t gone further. Her rant about the net machine has caught the attention of the World No.6 Jessica Pegula.

Routliffe and her partner Gabriela Dabrowski, seeded second in the women’s doubles draw, faced Beatriz Haddad Maia and Laura Siegemund in a tense third-round match. At 1-1 in the decisive tiebreak, Haddad Maia delivered a wide serve that Routliffe barely returned. Or so it seemed.

Routliffe and Dabrowski were convinced the ball had clipped the net, which would have warranted a replay. However, chair umpire Julie Kjendlie ruled otherwise, awarding the point to the opposing team. Her reasoning? She didn’t hear a let.

Frustrated by the decision, Routliffe exclaimed, “Oh my God, we have robots everywhere and we don’t have them for the net?” The moment highlighted a gap in tennis’s technological evolution, where let calls still depend solely on the umpire’s perception. Despite the setback, Routliffe and Dabrowski won the match.

“We have cameras in every player area and everywhere we turn but we don’t have a net machine? 💀 😂” Pegula quipped, pointing out the irony of tennis embracing certain tech advances while leaving others behind.

This is not the first time such a mishap has happened. During the men’s singles quarterfinal, a missed ‘let’ call during the opening set tiebreak left Tommy Paul visibly stunned as Alexander Zverev looked on, benefitting from the chair umpire’s decision. The moment came at a critical juncture, with the point securing Zverev’s win of the set. Paul, caught off guard by the situation, couldn’t hide his disbelief.

“If you don’t hear that one or see that one, you are not going to see any,” Paul said, voicing his frustration. The American later admitted he hadn’t realised that the 2025 Australian Open wasn’t using automatic ‘let’ machines, a surprising absence given the tournament’s other technological advancements.

Zverev, for his part, acknowledged the awkwardness of the situation in his post-match interview.“I didn’t know what to do in that situation… because if there’s no call and I stop playing, then it’s a loss of point for me. In that situation, there’s nothing much you can do but continue playing,” Zverev explained. He went on to criticize the lack of basic technology for let calls at a Grand Slam.

“I think it’s, to be honest, quite ridiculous. Every single corner of everything has a camera. We have a video review and all the high-end technologies that we can possibly have, but a simple ‘let’ machine that we’ve been using for the past 25 years is not available at a grand slam,” the German added.

The controversy once again highlights a gap in tennis officiating. about whether the sport’s technological progress is truly complete. With cameras in every corner and video reviews at players’ disposal, the absence of such a simple yet effective tool has left many scratching their heads.

It’s worth noting that the Australian Open has leaned heavily into technology this year, offering fans unprecedented access to players’ off-court routines. With the new BLUEZONE feature, spectators can catch behind-the-scenes glimpses, from warm-up areas to gyms.

They also decided to shake things up by introducing animated livestreams on YouTube, where real matches were transformed into what can only be described as a tennis version of Saturday morning cartoons. Why?

To dodge those pesky broadcasting rights restrictions while still giving fans around the globe a chance to catch the action. How does it work?

Well, 12 cameras captures player’s movements, processing their silhouettes in real time and mapping them onto animated avatars. But even with all these advancements, the let-call debate underscores the gaps that still exist.

The American tennis player has herself faced her own frustrations at the tournament.

Jessica Pegula blames ‘slow’ court for shocking early exit

Jessica Pegula cruised through the first two rounds, defeating Maya Joint, 6-3, 6-0 and Elise Mertens, 6-4, 6-2, before running into trouble in the third round. Serbian Olga Danilovic stunned the American with a 7-6, 6-1 victory, as Pegula failed to capitalize on six break-point opportunities. Afterward, the World No. 6 didn’t shy away from explaining her struggles.

“Yeah, I mean she served like 80% first serves and when you’re playing against a lefty, that’s really tough conditions were so slow I mean it was slower than like a clay court it felt like the balls were so heavy and that totally I think favored her um for sure especially with her Lefty kind of whippy forehand up to my backhand it’s really tough…I mean, it’s not even the same tournament from like my first-round match,” she said in the post-match press conference.

Between outdated officiating processes and tricky on-court conditions, the Australian Open has sparked plenty of conversations. While tennis has embraced cutting-edge technology in many ways, moments like Routliffe’s disputed net call show there’s still work to be done.

Jessica Pegula’s honest take on the situation could be the push needed for a change in how tennis handles these issues, or will players like her continue to navigate these challenges?