When Hawkeye isn't enough - or is it? - MensTennisForums.com

Reply
 
LinkBack Thread Tools
post #1 of 93 (permalink) Old 03-05-2007, 08:51 AM Thread Starter
Registered User
 
Join Date: Apr 2005
Age: 76
Posts: 2,672
                     
When Hawkeye isn't enough - or is it?

Discussion started in Youzhny def Nadal in Dubai thread, about the ball that was overruled by Hawkeye and won Youzhny the first set (7-5 in tb). I think the subject is worthy of a separate thread.

As the Hawkeye has a margin of error of 3.6 mm (source unknown to me), it can't make 100% safe calls less than this. Apemant came up with an alternative solution: let Hawkeye have three alternatives IN/OUT/UNKNOWN, and replay the point if the UNKNOWN call occurs. Maybe more fair than today's rules.

The problem with this approach is that it can't be used for ordinary line calling without significantly delaying play. Lets assume that an average line judge as a margin for error about 5 cm. Judging from a diagram I found on the web

http://images.google.com/imgres?imgu...sv-se%26sa%3DG

it seems as if there were about 30 1st serves called "in" from Sampras-Agassi TMC final 1999 that landed so close to the lines that they couldn't have been safely called by a human eye.

To replay all these points would have caused significant delay, and there probably were a lot of serves called "out" that would also have caused replay, in addition to that a number of ordinary rally points.

One could of course use the unknown option only when Hawkeye is at hand, since a lot fewer balls would be uncertain, but it would make little sense IMO to use it when the calls are more accurate.

One way to solve it would be to say: if the ball according to measurement techniques were LIKELY in, then it is in. (The ball that started this discussion was more likely in than not.)

That is the present paradigm, and IMO it is enough. Particularly considering that getting favourable line calls is probably roughly equally likely for every player.


I don't like hypocrites, but even worse are the ones who think it's OK to be an asshole as long as you are not hypocritical.
oz_boz is offline  
Sponsored Links
Advertisement
 
post #2 of 93 (permalink) Old 03-05-2007, 08:54 AM
Registered User
 
Sean.J.S.'s Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: Aussieland.
Posts: 5,194
                     
Re: When Hawkeye isn't enough - or is it?

Just because it's a machine it doesn't mean it won't make mistakes. It is more accurate than the human eye.
Sean.J.S. is offline  
post #3 of 93 (permalink) Old 03-05-2007, 08:59 AM
Registered User
 
Join Date: May 2005
Posts: 616
                     
Re: When Hawkeye isn't enough - or is it?

I say if it's more accurate that the human eye, then more power to Hawk Eye Especially with serves bombing in a 120-130, I think it's so hard to tell for sure if it's good or not when it's so close to the lines.

The only problem I have with the Hawk Eyes system is the b*tch ass chair umpires who won't overrule and make the players use challenges. WTF are you there for then?

Rafael Nadal
ServeAlready81 is offline  
post #4 of 93 (permalink) Old 03-05-2007, 09:10 AM
Registered User
 
Deivid23's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2004
Age: 38
Posts: 13,295
                     
Re: When Hawkeye isn't enough - or is it?

Good attempt at starting an interesting topic, making sense won´t work in here though so be ready to get dumb answers
Deivid23 is offline  
post #5 of 93 (permalink) Old 03-05-2007, 09:16 AM
Ace Loveforty
 
scarecrows's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: Tirana, ALBANIA
Posts: 81,602
                     
Re: When Hawkeye isn't enough - or is it?

Quote:
Originally Posted by ServeAlready81 View Post
I say if it's more accurate that the human eye, then more power to Hawk Eye Especially with serves bombing in a 120-130, I think it's so hard to tell for sure if it's good or not when it's so close to the lines.

The only problem I have with the Hawk Eyes system is the b*tch ass chair umpires who won't overrule and make the players use challenges. WTF are you there for then?
but now chair umpires are scared of overruling since the player might challenge and if the challenge is right makes the umpire look like an ass

http://www.menstennisforums.com/show...&postcount=378

Quote:
Originally Posted by FormerRafaFan View Post
That will be the last victory of Rafa for quite some time.. With his joke mentality and pathetic game, I hope the disgusting player loses every single match next season. He's disgraceful. He should just retire. He's a joke.
Quote:
Originally Posted by l_mac View Post
(10) Corey Feldman vs. (12) scarecrows
scarecrows is offline  
post #6 of 93 (permalink) Old 03-05-2007, 09:24 AM
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Age: 31
Posts: 4,144
                     
Re: When Hawkeye isn't enough - or is it?

Quote:
Originally Posted by Verdasco View Post
Just because it's a machine it doesn't mean it won't make mistakes. It is more accurate than the human eye.
Exactly. Stop bitching hawkeye, even if it makes errors it does it not as often as the human eye
Adler is offline  
post #7 of 93 (permalink) Old 03-05-2007, 09:38 AM Thread Starter
Registered User
 
Join Date: Apr 2005
Age: 76
Posts: 2,672
                     
Re: When Hawkeye isn't enough - or is it?

The problem is not about some machine making errors or not, the problem is what to do when a conclusive line call cannot be attained. Replay point or take the possibly wrong call knowing that it is probably right? Or any other alternative?


I don't like hypocrites, but even worse are the ones who think it's OK to be an asshole as long as you are not hypocritical.
oz_boz is offline  
post #8 of 93 (permalink) Old 03-05-2007, 03:27 PM
Vamos Mandy :)
 
Deboogle!.'s Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2003
Location: Looking for Andy's forehand with Sarah and Re...
Posts: 85,829
                     
Re: When Hawkeye isn't enough - or is it?

I think adding the "unknown" possibility is an interesting suggestion. If Hawkeye can't determine the accuracy to a certain point, the original call should stand. But I personally don't have a problem with it being the tiniest bit inaccurate because, as you say, it's inaccurate for everyone the same because it's a machine, whereas the human judges are not necessarily inaccurate for everyone the same.

If we lived in a perfect world it would be 100% accurate, but we don't, and it's not. As several have said, it's still better than the human eye. I also agree that it seems to have rendered the umps impotent, but I believe that's up to the ATP/ITF/WTA/whatever to make these umps officiate as if there were no hawkeye.

To me, the most important things are getting it at every tournament and getting it on more match courts. For example, you have a tournament like San Jose where every single singles match is played on one court. No reason not to have Hawkeye there. Many smaller tourneys are played exclusively on 2 courts, etc. Let's get it on more courts. Hopefully someone will come along with a system just as accurate as Hawkeye that will also drive down the price

LA Pics & Reports ~ My New Blog: Adventures of a Picky Foodie! ~ My Travel Blog

to (in no particular order): BryOns | Mandy | MarTy | Isner | Dent | Querrey | Baghdatis | Delic | Oli | N&o | Gasquet | Ferrero | Levine | Malisse | LUX | Melzer | Moya | Nishikori | Haas | Grosjean | Ancic | Mathieu | Calleri | Bolelli | Sela | Blake | more...
Deboogle!. is offline  
post #9 of 93 (permalink) Old 03-05-2007, 03:41 PM
Registered User
 
gusman890's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Age: 26
Posts: 3,158
                     
Re: When Hawkeye isn't enough - or is it?

A chair umpire should do their job first, since thats their duty to begin with. Its not secret that they have gotten a little bit lazy since Hawk-eye has been introduced, but none the less, that doesnt make the situation 100% perfect.

If a player runs out of challenges, then it would be like it was for the longest time for someone aruging a call.

The only time I see a problem with the Hawk-eye/Replay in general is when the Umpire makes a call to award the point or replay it. Since there have been many examples through out the year that this technology has been used to say wether the ball was in, then the umpire decides they should replay the point given the different circumstances.

^^ thats the only guff I have with this process, other then that, I enjoy it

I cannot stand Djokovic
NEW YORK METS

I'm an American who loves clay tennis and the clay season...what is wrong with that picture?
gusman890 is offline  
post #10 of 93 (permalink) Old 03-05-2007, 04:35 PM
Registered User
 
Join Date: May 2006
Posts: 3,459
                     
Re: When Hawkeye isn't enough - or is it?

Quote:
Originally Posted by Deb!. View Post
I think adding the "unknown" possibility is an interesting suggestion. If Hawkeye can't determine the accuracy to a certain point, the original call should stand.
Can you explain your position on this?

If Hawkeye can't make the call, it means the ball landed somewhere from 3.6mm outside to 3.6mm inside (or 1.8/1.8, I'm not sure what they mean by '3.6 mm error') . And if that's the case, if it is THAT close to the outer side of the line, it means the 'original call' is as worthless as Hawkeye's, as there is no way they got it right with any decent probability. So why keep it? With Hawkeye we can at least estimate the chance of it being wrong, i.e. we can say something like, there is 60% chance it got it right. With linespeople, you can't even estimate that probability; so it's nothing more than a blind guess.

The bottom line is, if even Hawkeye can't be sure, then sure as heck no umpire can be sure either. What do we do then? Maybe it really wasn't such a good idea to begin with. Earlier, the umpire would say his final judgement and everyone had to abide by it, right or wrong. And now all this.
Apemant is offline  
post #11 of 93 (permalink) Old 03-05-2007, 05:40 PM
Registered User
 
Deivid23's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2004
Age: 38
Posts: 13,295
                     
Re: When Hawkeye isn't enough - or is it?

Quote:
Originally Posted by Apemant View Post
With Hawkeye we can at least estimate the chance of it being wrong, i.e. we can say something like, there is 60% chance it got it right. With linespeople, you can't even estimate that probability; so it's nothing more than a blind guess.
Way WRONG assumption. In such calls, deviation within the instrument´s precision is random so there´s no way you can trust it more than a blind person´s call
Deivid23 is offline  
post #12 of 93 (permalink) Old 03-05-2007, 05:53 PM
Registered User
 
R.Federer's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2005
Posts: 8,821
                     
Re: When Hawkeye isn't enough - or is it?

Quote:
Originally Posted by oz_boz View Post
Discussion started in Youzhny def Nadal in Dubai thread, about the ball that was overruled by Hawkeye and won Youzhny the first set (7-5 in tb). I think the subject is worthy of a separate thread.

As the Hawkeye has a margin of error of 3.6 mm (source unknown to me),
I posted this in the Youzhny roasts thread

The error rate during the actual test was 3.6 millimeters.That higher distribution isn’t even across all the test results but the way the system was set up — and there are technical reasons for this — we have a lower error on the really, really close ones compared to…say….10 centimeters.
(link to interview etc with the creator Youzhny roasts Nadal 7-6 6-3)
R.Federer is offline  
post #13 of 93 (permalink) Old 03-05-2007, 05:57 PM
Registered User
 
mickymouse's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Posts: 3,185
                     
Re: When Hawkeye isn't enough - or is it?

Is this the first time that there's been such a close call? I seem to recall many other balls that require 'zooming in' in order for the mechanism to determine whether it's 'in' or 'out'. In such instances, luck plays a role. Since the tournament has adopted Hawkeye, then decisions should be left to Hawkeye and no matter how close the call is, players should respect the outcome. You win some, you lose some. Hawkeye may not be enough but I still trust it more than the human eye. Moreover, unlike linespeople, Hawkeye will not be intimidated by nasty players who glare you down nor influenced by a player's status or ranking. In that sense, it's completely unbiased.
mickymouse is offline  
post #14 of 93 (permalink) Old 03-05-2007, 05:59 PM
Registered User
 
Rogiman's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2004
Posts: 9,484
                     
Re: When Hawkeye isn't enough - or is it?

Engineer Tool23 is working on a new device.

He's going to install Nadal in every court to make the calls

Quote:
Originally Posted by Kuhne View Post
It's a sport after all and while it is very important for the players, the only reason they make money (and I mean tennis as a whole) it's because it's entertainment for us, the fans. So if we're watching, I rather watch something that pleases the eye, who gives a shit if a BOSS hotass model takes 5 more seconds in geting the ball to the player in Madrid? I'd rather wait those extra 5 seconds seeing those boobies bounce than watching some fatass kid burn away his bigmac meal.

I don't know, call me old fashioned but I like women
Rogiman is offline  
post #15 of 93 (permalink) Old 03-05-2007, 06:04 PM
Registered User
 
R.Federer's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2005
Posts: 8,821
                     
Re: When Hawkeye isn't enough - or is it?

If it is such a CLOSE call that it lands within Hawkeye's margin of error, well we know Hawkeye is not 100% reliable and we know the linespeople and umpires are not 100% reliable either. Basically, for CLOSE CALLS, it's a coin toss (50-50) whose call is correct.

On such a call, as a player : who are you MORE LIKELY TO TRUST, a human who has POSSIBLY vested interests (maybe your opponent has intimidated them throughout the match, like Capriati did in her 03 USO semi final against Henin) or a machine that is NOT calibrated to call either in your favor or against it?

I think the answer to that is : the unbiased machine.
R.Federer is offline  
Reply

Quick Reply
Message:
Options

Register Now



In order to be able to post messages on the MensTennisForums.com forums, you must first register.
Please enter your desired user name, your email address and other required details in the form below.

User Name:
Password
Please enter a password for your user account. Note that passwords are case-sensitive.

Password:


Confirm Password:
Email Address
Please enter a valid email address for yourself.

Email Address:
OR

Log-in









Human Verification

In order to verify that you are a human and not a spam bot, please enter the answer into the following box below based on the instructions contained in the graphic.



Thread Tools
Show Printable Version Show Printable Version
Email this Page Email this Page



Posting Rules  
You may post new threads
You may post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are On

 
For the best viewing experience please update your browser to Google Chrome