I'm sure it IS flawed in the sense that nothing can be totally 100%, but I'd trust it over the 20/20 vision of the average stressed linesperson.
A touch of sour grapes, I think, but it was on a pretty vital point.
Both, Federer and Nadal, like to use the Hawk Eye and they would gladly take the point if they are not sure that a ball was in, but if the Hawk Eye rules it as "in".
The bolded sentence of yours is exactly my position and very well said that some other people share this point of view.
Originally Posted by FluffyYellowBall
Nadal suggested that? Good suggestion i think. Ive always had doubts about hawk eye and there were too many flaws in todays match especaially but thats the way it goes. Its great when shows most of the ball to be in but definately flawed. How can the mark of the ball on the screen be as big as the diameter of the ball? Marks left on clay arent that bag. Maybe they should install censors on the lines and that would be more accurate i think.
Do you know any of these highspeed slomo cameras that show, for example, a table tennis ball at the time of impact on the table or the racket? The deformation of it is quite huge despite the ball's surface is stiff and very round. For a tennis ball, something like this applies, too. I can't say if the approach of Hawkeye is to estimate this in any kind or if this is just random, or an error, or whatever. But my goal is only to say that the overall area of where the ball (in reality) touches the court is in nearly all cases really bigger than the mark you see in the clay. Because to leave a mark, the ball needs a sufficient momentum on the clay which not every part of the ball's surface acquires (but it still may touch it). Plus you have little natural unevennesses in the court anyway which makes such exact levels of precision useless anyway, the mark you see in the clay is good enough.