More power to Hawk-eye [Archive] - MensTennisForums.com

More power to Hawk-eye

Black Adam
11-19-2008, 06:40 PM
Hear ye, hear ye Tennis folks!

After carrying out a rigourous study and perousal of the ensuing financial, ethical and technologic benefits, I hearby present to you my suggestion: Let's get rid of all Linesmen/women and leave that demanding duty to a more efficient and reliable technology.

1. Hawkeye's margin of error is estimated to be around 3mm which is far more accurate than the human eye. The use of Hawk-eye would only lead to new improved forms of technology that would benefit not only tennis but other sports and the number of players/specators affected by doubt/dubious decisions will be reduced.

2. In the longterm it will be more affordable to to run Hawk-eye instead of employing Linesmen/women who lack reliability and aren't part for what is envisioned for Tennis in the rest of the 21st century. Forget their historical value, this is what the future holds in store for tennis. Bye Bye.

3. Hawk-eye could be further customized to calculate the time between points, making it easier for the Umpire to penalise them.

4. Whining will be gone, that's a given because the players aren't savy enough to found logical arguments on why Hawk-eye is wrong (See Federer's failed attempts during Wimbledon final 2007, 4th set). In the Hawk-eye era whinging would be extremely frowned upon and considered a waste of time that will result in fines.


Thoughts?? Discuss.

GlennMirnyi
11-19-2008, 06:44 PM
Why am I not surprised from where this preposterous idea comes from?

finishingmove
11-19-2008, 07:04 PM
adam, i don't think u need a special acc campaign, with that signature of yours.

oranges
11-19-2008, 07:42 PM
There's been rumors they've already made the computer needed to implement this, but some twat asked it what is the meaning of life and it's still pondering. Needless to say, knowledgeable people already know what the answer would be from a similar incident in the future ...

Black Adam
11-19-2008, 07:52 PM
There's been rumors they've already made the computer needed to implement this, but some twat asked it what is the meaning of life and it's still pondering. Needless to say, knowledgeable people already know what the answer would be from a similar incident in the future ...
There is no such thing as a sentient machine.:rolleyes: All beings, follow a certain program and Hawk-eye is definitely controlled by humans, hence that Science fiction bla bla really doesn't enter the eqaution of getting rid of linesmen/women.

oranges
11-19-2008, 08:09 PM
There is no such thing as a sentient machine.:rolleyes:
:worship:

aboZctrHfK8

federernadalfan
11-19-2008, 10:08 PM
hawkeye would have to improve significantly from now. It would at least have to give nearly instantaneous line calls for this to be possible. I'd imagine it would suck for the linesmen and lineswomen who will be laid off if implemented

Forehander
11-19-2008, 11:57 PM
The usage of linesman is still ongoing is all just because of the tradition of tennis nothing more.

bluefork
11-20-2008, 12:27 AM
It all sounds good in theory, but as federernadalfan pointed out, is this actually feasible? I mean, it takes about 10-15 seconds from the time the player challenges to the time the call is displayed. Obviously that's far too long to be used as a replacement for linesmen. How fast would Hawkeye actually be able to make calls?

finishingmove
11-20-2008, 12:46 AM
It all sounds good in theory, but as federernadalfan pointed out, is this actually feasible? I mean, it takes about 10-15 seconds from the time the player challenges to the time the call is displayed. Obviously that's far too long to be used as a replacement for linesmen. How fast would Hawkeye actually be able to make calls?

that's one problem

another one would be implementing it on all courts. they might need to develop a "mole-eye" technology for the smaller courts.

Bernard Black
11-20-2008, 08:58 AM
Simple, if the technology's there then use it.

With the money they're playing for it's ridiculous one person's poor judgement can ultimately cost a player thousands of bucks and serious affect his career prospects. This is not to blame the linespeople for mistakes, anyone in their position would make mistakes, the game is simply too fast and too long to make the correct call every time. Let the computers do it.

This of course, would only be practical for the show courts at the moment. Linespeople would still have to be employed on outside courts.

Neely
11-21-2008, 09:46 PM
Exactly what I think. As soon as the computing speed would be fast enough to call the shots real-time, I would spend more than only one thought about getting rid of all human line judges and would like this idea that Hawk Eye calls all shots.

GlennMirnyi
11-21-2008, 09:49 PM
Bullshit.

Why don't you get rid of all human players and put robots there?

Black Adam
11-21-2008, 10:04 PM
Exactly what I think. As soon as the computing speed would be fast enough to call the shots real-time, I would spend more than only one thought about getting rid of all human line judges and would like this idea that Hawk Eye calls all shots.

That's what I am talking about. Linesmen/women have been great but at some points, there is no room for the slightest error.

It, post number #13, hasn't understood anything at all. The ball folks, and the Umpire would still remain but Hawkeye will end all disputes regarding line calls. It can be even improved to have the capability of counting the time players take between points and signal it to the Umpire to penalise them.

calvinhobbes
11-21-2008, 10:15 PM
It all sounds good in theory, but as federernadalfan pointed out, is this actually feasible? I mean, it takes about 10-15 seconds from the time the player challenges to the time the call is displayed. Obviously that's far too long to be used as a replacement for linesmen. How fast would Hawkeye actually be able to make calls?

If Hawkeye is put in automatic mode, a call would take only milliseconds. Challenges take 10-15 seconds because they are retrieved by a human-involved process, including the challenge itself. With no linesmen, there would not be challenges. It would be like playing on a playing-station.
Boring sports if there is nobody to blame on :devil::devil::devil:. . . . .

JolánGagó
11-21-2008, 10:25 PM
Bullshit.

Why don't you get rid of all human players and put robots there?

because no robot can play better than a human player? :shrug:

if the compuers can do it better than humans, let them do it. we watch people playing a game, not linespeople standing there shouting.

Forehander
11-22-2008, 02:04 AM
If all the calls become computer judged then the players would simply argue with the umpire about the computer. What they need, is CONFIRMATION. So there's not much point getting rid of the linesman.

oranges
11-22-2008, 02:31 AM
I can't believe this is actually being discussed :lol: It's not as if there's technology to implement it and it's only a matter of whether or not that is better than line judges. Going from current hawk system which takes about 15-20 seconds to make a call on one shot to a system that would instantly do it all the time requires not only a basically new software, but also Hal-like computer to run it. As many tournaments cannot yet afford the current hawk eye on center court alone, why no one else perceives this as SF issue is beyond me.

Roddickominator
11-22-2008, 10:46 PM
Hawkeye is fine how it is....i'd rather get rid of it altogether but it's no big deal. Replacing officials with hawkeye would be a disaster. Who would the players argue with after calls that didn't go their way? You know you love seeing a chair ump get trash talked.

Garson007
11-22-2008, 10:55 PM
It only takes that long because a human has to start it and it is showcased on the big screen, with the whole trajectory replay and everything. Even if the software is too hard on your common PC it would be easy enough to create dedicated hardware which would calculate everything in a second.

Black Adam
11-22-2008, 11:07 PM
Some people are old fashioned. I hate it when players argue even if when they know they are wrong and just want an outlet to vent their frustration. With permanent Hawk-eye, play would be more efficient and there wouldn't be any doubt or regret over difficult shots. With racket technology getting better, it's becoming a strain on the linesman to always make the right call and I believe that players, who are playing for thousands of dollars, deserve to truly know if a shot was correctly called or not.

Forehander
11-23-2008, 03:44 AM
Some people are old fashioned. I hate it when players argue even if when they know they are wrong and just want an outlet to vent their frustration. With permanent Hawk-eye, play would be more efficient and there wouldn't be any doubt or regret over difficult shots. With racket technology getting better, it's becoming a strain on the linesman to always make the right call and I believe that players, who are playing for thousands of dollars, deserve to truly know if a shot was correctly called or not.

Exactly, you hate the players for doing that, but you can't stop them. Even if permanent Hawk-eye is applied with 99.9999% accuracy the players would still argue with the umpire with the line calls when things are going against their way. With the system as it is now, the Hawk-eye serves as a confirmation of a call made by the linesman and it can shut them up much better this way.

Black Adam
06-27-2009, 06:14 PM
This Wimbledon tournament just proves that Linesman/women are becoming obsolete. They have been outright poor, maybe knowing that Hawk-eye can correct their mistakes. They ought to feel embarrassed about it.

Goldenoldie
06-27-2009, 07:11 PM
I would love to see some statistics showing the number of times the Chair Umpire overrules the linesperson, and the number of times the overrule is correct.

If my instinct that the chair umpire is most often right, they could get rid of all the linespersons and leave it to the Chair Umpire and Hawkeye.

Then Hawkeye would only be used for disputed calls, as at present.

peribsen
06-27-2009, 07:58 PM
"there is no room for the slightest error."

Are you sure that that is a good thing? No human activity is free from error, a sport is a game, not a high-tech event. Sportsmanship is about facing mistakes (mostly your own, but sometimes also the mistakes of others) and keep trying your best. Mistaken calls are part of the game, and handling them is part of what becoming a sportsman is all about. A player who is positive he has an 'absolute' right for nobody to make the slightest mistake, ever, will go on to make demands on the antiques of his rivals, the attitude of the public, the lighting, and who knows what.

The risk does exist that we´ll end up having an error-free game for gadget-craving nerds, to be seen by a crowd of statystics-obsessed goons.

Yes, I guess technology can do away with mistaken calls. But, are they really so many of them as to be a threat to the sport?

Some things are much better left alone, as free of technology as possible.

oranges
06-27-2009, 08:44 PM
I would love to see some statistics showing the number of times the Chair Umpire overrules the linesperson, and the number of times the overrule is correct.

If my instinct that the chair umpire is most often right, they could get rid of all the linespersons and leave it to the Chair Umpire and Hawkeye.

Then Hawkeye would only be used for disputed calls, as at present.

Except that the umpire only overrules calls close enough to him/her ;)

dodo
06-27-2009, 09:08 PM
Except that the umpire only overrules calls close enough to him/her ;)
or, as is the case with most chair umpires, never.
useless chumps, only good for reminding players before the match that there are tv changeovers and they have 3 challenges per set. thanks for that! oh, and obviously they are needed so that roddick can vent his anger.

Amukinado
06-27-2009, 09:19 PM
"there is no room for the slightest error."

Are you sure that that is a good thing? No human activity is free from error, a sport is a game, not a high-tech event. Sportsmanship is about facing mistakes (mostly your own, but sometimes also the mistakes of others) and keep trying your best. Mistaken calls are part of the game, and handling them is part of what becoming a sportsman is all about. A player who is positive he has an 'absolute' right for nobody to make the slightest mistake, ever, will go on to make demands on the antiques of his rivals, the attitude of the public, the lighting, and who knows what.

The risk does exist that we´ll end up having an error-free game for gadget-craving nerds, to be seen by a crowd of statystics-obsessed goons.

Yes, I guess technology can do away with mistaken calls. But, are they really so many of them as to be a threat to the sport?

Some things are much better left alone, as free of technology as possible.


I wouldn't say it better.

dodo
06-27-2009, 09:42 PM
if clowning were desirable, we could have a gadget (or person) just stop the point randomly a couple of times per match and pull the winner out of a hat. but the whole point of sticking a dude next to every line and adding a high-tech computer tracking system on top of that is to make sure that as many calls as possible are CORRECT. Federer's match against Kohlscreiber, he was robbed 4 points (one was a break point, I think) by completely ridiculous calls in the space of 15 minutes. I fail to see how pissing him off made the game better.
If it's technically feasible, do it. There will be traditionalist naysayers at first, as there were when Hawkeye was first introduced. Now everyone is on board.

GlennMirnyi
06-27-2009, 09:46 PM
vxWTGGhbHjA

Action Jackson
06-27-2009, 09:54 PM
Federer's view of Hawkeye.

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/a/a8/HawkeyeEpisode.jpg

Action Jackson
06-27-2009, 09:55 PM
He'd love it.

http://www.quizilla.com/user_images/S/StotchBabe12/1100502851_resHawkeye.JPG

Polikarpov
06-27-2009, 10:02 PM
Aside from the idea being stupid, it's not even feasible. First it's expensive. I've read that it cost 100,000 dollars to install. Second where are you going to install the cameras on smaller courts? I believe there is a requirement regarding the height and the positioning of the cameras around the perimeter in order for it work. There would also have to be a control room for the person operating the technology.

iSzavay.
06-28-2009, 01:37 AM
So every honky field court needs Hawk-Eye? No.

RafaTheBest
06-28-2009, 02:24 AM
"there is no room for the slightest error."

Are you sure that that is a good thing? No human activity is free from error, a sport is a game, not a high-tech event. Sportsmanship is about facing mistakes (mostly your own, but sometimes also the mistakes of others) and keep trying your best. Mistaken calls are part of the game, and handling them is part of what becoming a sportsman is all about. A player who is positive he has an 'absolute' right for nobody to make the slightest mistake, ever, will go on to make demands on the antiques of his rivals, the attitude of the public, the lighting, and who knows what.

The risk does exist that we´ll end up having an error-free game for gadget-craving nerds, to be seen by a crowd of statystics-obsessed goons.

Yes, I guess technology can do away with mistaken calls. But, are they really so many of them as to be a threat to the sport?

Some things are much better left alone, as free of technology as possible.

This has to be the dumbest argument against Hawk-eye of all time. If you have the technology to improve the accuracy of calls, it would be retarded NOT to implement it. Yes, umpire error is part of sport but if there is a way to reduce that error, what kind of moron wouldn't want to do that? The ultimate goal is to get the call right and if that takes technology, so be it.

peribsen
06-28-2009, 01:11 PM
This has to be the dumbest argument against Hawk-eye of all time.

Trouble is I see a slippery slope you seem to ignore.

Tennis used to be far more exciting in the 70s. Then technology gave us new rackets and new strings. Both were good things, but... the speed of the ball grew so much it affected the way the game is played. Balls often move so fast that linemen have trouble being sure about just where they hit the ground. So you need new technology to make sure you don´t have too many bad calls.

And what was the final result of the new rackets and strings? What I see is tennis becoming much more about physical strenght than it used to be. To be played far more from behind the baseline than it used to be. To be much more about the speed of the first serve than it used to be. That the average height of pro players is higher than it used to be. That the girth of their arms is growing (I don´t mean all players are over 6 feet and have Nadal´s arms, but a tendency is certainly there). As for women, the 'Venus' model is on the rise.

As for the tournaments themselves, TV demands are dictating the timing of events and putting roofs on to make sure the weather plays no part... interruptions due to rain may soon be a thing of the past. Now, you could argue this to be a good thing, but, on my view, wind and rain are part of tennis, and the ability to manage the nerve-racking effect of suspending the game because of them is also part of the game and has often been a contributing factor to some of the most exciting and fun games the sport has ever known. So bypassing their effect through a movable roof that can timely be put in place is surely also affecting the way the game is played.

And now (Halle is a good example) it seems the roofs are affecting the quality of grass (less sunshine), so roofs will likely end up causing an increase in the use of artificial grass that will again have an effect on the way tennis is played on grass....

So there are surely many 'good things' technology can do for tennis, but somehow it would seem they always end up affecting the game itself.

Do we really want that? I certainly do not.

Why should we become obsessed with abolishing error in something that, ultimately, is a game? Tennisused to be played mostly by young adults, now it would seem the number of inmature grossly over-payed cry-babys is on the rise.

Some people fall in love with every new gadget that comes along. Most of them can be seen as 'good things'. But we should take a long, careful look at the slippery slope we may be going down on.

DDrago2
06-28-2009, 01:26 PM
Hear ye, hear ye Tennis folks!

After carrying out a rigourous study and perousal of the ensuing financial, ethical and technologic benefits, I hearby present to you my suggestion: Let's get rid of all Linesmen/women and leave that demanding duty to a more efficient and reliable technology.

1. Hawkeye's margin of error is estimated to be around 3mm which is far more accurate than the human eye. The use of Hawk-eye would only lead to new improved forms of technology that would benefit not only tennis but other sports and the number of players/specators affected by doubt/dubious decisions will be reduced.

2. In the longterm it will be more affordable to to run Hawk-eye instead of employing Linesmen/women who lack reliability and aren't part for what is envisioned for Tennis in the rest of the 21st century. Forget their historical value, this is what the future holds in store for tennis. Bye Bye.

3. Hawk-eye could be further customized to calculate the time between points, making it easier for the Umpire to penalise them.

4. Whining will be gone, that's a given because the players aren't savy enough to found logical arguments on why Hawk-eye is wrong (See Federer's failed attempts during Wimbledon final 2007, 4th set). In the Hawk-eye era whinging would be extremely frowned upon and considered a waste of time that will result in fines.


Thoughts?? Discuss.

I'm saying this for a long time. Plus get rid of clay and grass.

P.S. As for the time between points, computer could also loudly make a count-down saying 10, 9,..., 0, and when it reaches zero the point goes to the player who recieves serve