Wimbledon gets rid of line judges in favor of recorded voices announcing electronic calls

LONDON (AP) — John McEnroe — he of “You cannot be serious!” call-arguing fame — is quite all right with Wimbledon's latest of many steps into the modern era, choosing technology over the human touch to decide whether a ball lands in or out.

There were no line judges at the All England Club's matches for Monday's start of the oldest Grand Slam tournament, with rulings instead being made by an electronic system that uses recorded voices to announce when a shot lands astray.

“In some ways, the players, and even the fans, miss that interaction, but at the same time ... if it’s accurate, I think it’s great, because then at least you know that you’re getting the right call,” said McEnroe, who won Wimbledon three times during his Hall of Fame career and is a TV analyst at this year's event for ESPN and the BBC.

“My hair,” the 66-year-old McEnroe joked, “wouldn’t be quite as white as it is now.”

The new system puts Wimbledon in line with nearly ever other top-tier tennis event on all surfaces — although the French Open, played on red clay, remains an exception, sticking with judges — and Monday's debut seemed to be mostly seamless, as far as players were concerned.

Indeed, Frances Tiafoe, an American seeded 12th, didn't even notice there were no line judges at his first-round victory.

What he did notice, and chuckled about afterward, was when the chair umpire wasn't even paying all that much attention at one point, grabbing the phone on his stand to place a call and request that more towels be brought to the court on the hottest Day 1 in tournament history.

“It takes him completely out of play,” Tiafoe said about the on-court official, “other than just calling the score and calling time violations.”

No. 1-ranked Aryna Sabalenka liked that the All England Club's switch to electronic line-calling eliminated the need for her to question whether she should contest a ruling. From 2007 until last year, players were allowed to ask for a video replay to check whether a decision was correct.

“If you have line umpires, you (are) always thinking, like, ‘Should I challenge or shouldn’t I?’" she said. “It’s a lot of doubt in your head.”

Cam Norrie was pleased that there no longer is a reason to get angry about what's perceived as a wrong decision, the way McEnroe — and plenty of others through the years — used to.

“To be honest, it’s good. You get on with it. There’s no kind of getting mad at anyone for missing a call or saying something or moving during the point or something happening,” said Norrie, a British player who won Monday. ”It's pretty black-or-white with the calls. In, out, and you hear it. There’s no mistake."

Not everything is favorable in his view, though.

The familiar scene of officials sitting or standing around the court “looks cool,” Norrie said. Plus, he noted the loss of work for some of the 275 line judges the tournament used in the past (80 were brought back as “match assistants” to help chair umpires from behind the scenes).

“The decision we've made there, I suppose, is very much about the way in which Wimbledon has always balanced heritage and tradition with innovation and how we walk that line. We're always very conscious of that. ... For us, it was time to make that change," All England Club CEO Sally Bolton said. "It's not a money-saving exercise. It’s about evolving the tournament and making sure that we're providing the most effective possible line-calling.”

Frenchman Adrian Mannarino liked having what he called “a machine” involved Monday, saying: "You cannot complain against the machine.”

“When you feel like someone is judging the ball and ... is probably not seeing so well, and maybe not even concentrating, it’s pretty annoying," Mannarino said. “But the fact that it’s a robot calling the balls, there’s nothing to complain about.”

He did caution that it wasn't always easy to figure out which recorded announcements were for his win at Court 5, because it's wedged amid other courts.

Sometimes he thought an “Out!” call at an adjacent match was for his.

“It can be a little tricky with this,” Mannarino said, “but overall, I think it’s a good thing.”

AP tennis: https://apnews.com/hub/tennis

Frances Tiafoe of the U.S. returns the ball to Elmer Moller of Denmark during their first round men's single match at the Wimbledon Tennis Championships in London, Monday, June 30, 2025. (AP Photo/Kirsty Wigglesworth)

Matteo Berrettini of Italy serves to Kamil Majchrzak of Poland in their first round men's singles match at the Wimbledon Tennis Championships in London, Monday, June 30, 2025. (AP Photo/Joanna Chan)

Aryna Sabalenka of Belarus reacts during her match against Carson Branstine of Canada at their first round women's single match at the Wimbledon Tennis Championships in London, Monday, June 30, 2025. (AP Photo/Kin Cheung)

General view during the round women's single match between Diane Perry of France and Petra Martic of Croatia at the Wimbledon Tennis Championships in London, Monday, June 30, 2025. (AP Photo/Kirsty Wigglesworth)

WASHINGTON (AP) — House Republicans rejected a pair of Democratic-backed resolutions Wednesday that would have put a check on President Donald Trump’s power to use military force against drug cartels and the nation of Venezuela.

Democrats forced the votes using war powers resolutions as Trump has stepped up his threats against the South American nation and Congress has questioned how the U.S. military is conducting a campaign that has destroyed 26 vessels allegedly carrying drugs and killed at least 99 people, including an attack Wednesday. The legislation would have forced the Trump administration to seek authorization from Congress before continuing attacks against cartels that it deems to be terrorist organizations in the Western Hemisphere or launching an attack on Venezuela itself.

Rep. Gregory Meeks, the top Democrat on the House Foreign Affairs Committee, argued that Trump's aggressions in the region were really because “the president is coveting Venezuelan oil.”

They were the first votes in the House on Trump's military campaign in Central and South America. A majority of Republicans in the Senate had previously voted against similar resolutions, and Trump would almost certainly veto them if they were to pass Congress. But Democrats forced the votes as a way to bring up a debate about the military campaign and force Republicans to go on the record about supporting it.

Republican leaders have increasingly expressed support for Trump's campaign, even as it potentially escalates into a direct confrontation with Venezuelan President Nicolás Maduro.

Senate Majority Leader John Thune said earlier Wednesday that he didn't know whether the Trump administration had “publicly stated” that they wanted regime change, but “I would certainly not have a problem if that was their position.”

“Maduro is a cancer on that continent,” added Thune, R-S.D.

Still, the Trump administration has not sought congressional authorization for its recent actions in the Caribbean, arguing instead that it can destroy drug-carrying boats just as it would handle terrorist threats against the U.S. That rationale, however, has led to deep scrutiny of the strikes, especially after it was revealed that a Sept. 2 operation killed two people who had survived an initial attack.

Secretary of State Marco Rubio, Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth and other top national security officials briefed members of Congress on Tuesday. They defended the campaign as a successful counter-narcotic effort that has cut into the drug supply entering the U.S., but did not clue in Congress about its ultimate goals when it comes to Venezuela.

The Navy admiral who ordered the strike on Sept. 2 that killed two survivors was also back on Capitol Hill Wednesday for classified briefings with the House and Senate Armed Services Committees.

After viewing the video of the strike in question, lawmakers emerged with contrasting responses. Republicans mostly backed the decision-making that led up to the strike, saying it was based on exact intelligence and careful decision-making. Democrats said the sight of a missile strike on two people clinging to the wreckage of a boat was shocking and should be made public.

“I think there are serious questions about criminal culpability here, and there is certainly a need for more intensive federal investigation,” said Sen. Richard Blumenthal, a Connecticut Democrat.

Rep. Seth Moulton, a Massachusetts Democrat and former Marine who served in Iraq, said Wednesday’s briefing confirmed his concerns and led him to determine that the two survivors who were killed were “helpless” and that there was “significant evidence that they were not continuing their mission.”

GOP lawmakers, however, appeared ready to move on from investigations that had been opened under the Republican-controlled committees. Rep. Mike Rogers, the GOP chair of the House Armed Services Committee, said his panel’s investigation into the Sept. 2 boat strike is over.

He also said the video of the follow-up strike, which killed two survivors of the initial attack, should not be released to the public unless it’s “declassified to the level that we don’t compromise tactics, techniques and procedures.”

Meanwhile, Sen. Roger Wicker, the Republican who leads the Senate Armed Services Committee, told reporters, “I think we know all we’re going to know as a matter of oversight.”

The resolutions Wednesday were brought under the War Powers Act of 1973, which was intended to reassert congressional power over the declaration of war. And the debate in Congress showed there is still some hesitancy among Republicans to fully endorse an ongoing conflict.

Rep. Don Bacon, a Nebraska Republican who retired from the Air Force with a rank of brigadier general, said that while he believes the boat strike was lawful, the Trump administration should seek authorizations from Congress.

“I think the mission was right," he said after the briefing with Bradley. "But continued hostility does require congressional approval.”

Democrats also repeatedly challenged whether Trump's goals are in fact about halting drug trafficking and preventing overdose deaths. They stridently criticized the president for pardoning former Honduras President Juan Orlando Hernández after he was sentenced last year to 45 years in prison for his role in a drug trafficking operation that moved hundreds of tons of cocaine to the U.S.

A few GOP lawmakers have joined them, noting the escalation of hostilities against Venezuela has failed to keep Trump's campaign promises to disengage from military commitments overseas.

“If it were about drugs, we'd bomb Mexico or China or Colombia,” said Rep. Thomas Massie, a Kentucky Republican, as he pointed out that those countries were actually where illegal drugs originate.

“This is about oil and regime change,” he added.

Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth walks to the auditorium to brief members of Congress on military strikes near Venezuela at the Capitol, Tuesday, Dec. 16, 2025, in Washington. (AP Photo/Jose Luis Magana)