Death of characters in tennis will result due to hawk-eye [Archive] - MensTennisForums.com

Death of characters in tennis will result due to hawk-eye

adee-gee
10-17-2005, 07:35 PM
Does no-one else hate the idea?

I find one of the most fascinating aspects of tennis is how players respond to bad line calls.

Who can forget the likes of Tarango, Mcenroe etc. I love seeing players argue with umpires. It gets the crowd involved. It gets players wound up and you get some real characters coming out. I love the fact that human error is part and parcel of the game. Sure, there have been times when bad line calls have annoyed the hell out of me but I still like the fact that mistakes can be made.

Ditch the idea :fiery:

El Legenda
10-17-2005, 07:41 PM
i rather see a player not get fudged by bad call then a player aruge with ump and nothing gets done.

Fumus
10-17-2005, 07:44 PM
I would rather not see an another episode like this year at the French open where Rafa did nothing wrong but was made to suffer over a poor excution by an umpire.

adee-gee
10-17-2005, 07:45 PM
i rather see a player not get fudged by bad call then a player aruge with ump and nothing gets done.

Are you telling me....for example, you didn't enjoy the classic Roddick/Diaz incident vs Hewitt at the US Open 2001. Yes, Roddick was unlucky he got a shocker of a call but it was sure as hell entertaining.

adee-gee
10-17-2005, 07:46 PM
I would rather not see an another episode like this year at the French open where Rafa did nothing wrong but was made to suffer over a poor excution by an umpire.
I presume you're talking about the Grosjean match? Are you suggesting that hawk-eye would've shut that French crowd up? I don't think so :o

prima donna
10-17-2005, 07:48 PM
I think tennis would be better off that way, personally.

R.Federer
10-17-2005, 07:49 PM
Does no-one else hate the idea?

I find one of the most fascinating aspects of tennis is how players respond to bad line calls.

Ditch the idea :fiery:


Well, its not like the players are going to accept hawk-eye as the truth and not show their anger. hawk-eye is not precise, and the players know it as much as we do. I don't think there will be lack of tempers shown

Fumus
10-17-2005, 07:50 PM
I presume you're talking about the Grosjean match? Are you suggesting that hawk-eye would've shut that French crowd up? I don't think so :o


Yea, they could have showed the correct call on the jumbo tron. :o

Second of all there's no way hawk-eye will take away the characters in tennis. Are you telling me Marat Safin won't smash his racquet anymore, Andy won't curse when he hits a lose forehand, and Hewitt won't c'mon after...well every fucking point he wins?

This system will make tennis better. The more calls that are made correctly, the better it is for the sport.

adee-gee
10-17-2005, 07:55 PM
Yea, they could have showed the correct call on the jumbo tron. :o

Second of all there's no way hawk-eye will take away the characters in tennis. Are you telling me Marat Safin won't smash his racquet anymore, Andy won't curse when he hits a lose forehand, and Hewitt won't c'mon after...well every fucking point he wins?

This system will make tennis better. The more calls that are made correctly, the better it is for the sport.

It still wouldn't have shut them up ;)

I agree, there will be elements of frustration from players that are hotheads, and the odd c'mon from Hewitt, vamos from Nadal etc. But I love it when players feel they have been hard done by with a line call, and then they really start to show some emotions.

I find it the same for every sport. Its all part and parcel of sport that there will be human error. It would take away a lot of the excitement and controversy in football for example if we got a machine to call offsides and everything.

Neely
10-17-2005, 08:02 PM
I want to see some characters and lots of emotions, but whatever has the chance to help assisting to make a fair line call gets my nod.

Fumus
10-17-2005, 08:04 PM
It still wouldn't have shut them up ;)

I agree, there will be elements of frustration from players that are hotheads, and the odd c'mon from Hewitt, vamos from Nadal etc. But I love it when players feel they have been hard done by with a line call, and then they really start to show some emotions.

I find it the same for every sport. Its all part and parcel of sport that there will be human error. It would take away a lot of the excitement and controversy in football for example if we got a machine to call offsides and everything.


Players pump them selves up with bad calls but, perhaps they will find other ways to pump themselves up like winning money. ;)

Arguing calls is good fun, but, challenging them will only add to the excitement. This time the arguing will actually get somewhere with a definitive answer.

Oh and to answer something you said before the camera system is very acurate. The percentage of error on the newest machines is under 1 percent. ;)

This is only a win win situation for tennis. Can you imagine the joy you will have when a bad call goes against one of your favorites and it's overuled after a debate and a review using shot spot? I think it will bake my muffins ;)

Loremaster
10-17-2005, 08:05 PM
Are you telling me....for example, you didn't enjoy the classic Roddick/Diaz incident vs Hewitt at the US Open 2001. Yes, Roddick was unlucky he got a shocker of a call but it was sure as hell entertaining.

It was great it showed how important this much was for Roddick - he showed great passion to win
and I liked when he was "talking: with umpire during Queens 2003 vs Agassi he told umpire: "You're an idiot, God" But Roddick argues very much and I've always liked it

Turkeyballs Paco
10-17-2005, 08:08 PM
It doesn't matter what we think about it, if it happens, there's nothing we can do to stop it. I think the money should be used for something else, since it probably won't be on every court due to the cost, so why bother? They've been saying it's coming for ages and still nothing, so I wouldn't worry about it too much.

adee-gee
10-17-2005, 08:10 PM
Players pump them selves up with bad calls but, perhaps they will find other ways to pump themselves up like winning money. ;)

Arguing calls is good fun, but, challenging them will only add to the excitement. This time the arguing will actually get somewhere with a definitive answer.

Oh and to answer something you said before the camera system is very acurate. The percentage of error on the newest machines is under 1 percent. ;)

This is only a win win situation for tennis. Can you imagine the joy you will have when a bad call goes against one of your favorites and it's overuled after a debate and a review using shot spot? I think it will bake my muffins ;)

Pah, like money really matters to most of the top players anyway.

Some fair points, I still like the idea that a player gets to challenge 1 or 2 calls a match. If you've used up your share then its tough luck. I mean, how often are we going to have umpires going to check a call. Its undermining their authority, is there any point in having umpires and line judges in tennis anymore if everytime we get a close call its going to be checked out.

Also, as a player/fan I can envisage a situation where someone hits a ball very close to a line on a big point. However, you can't have your natural reaction like a c'mon or a vamos because there is a possibility it could get checked and then overturned. I fancy this could get annoying.

adee-gee
10-17-2005, 08:11 PM
It doesn't matter what we think about it, if it happens, there's nothing we can do to stop it.
:lol: we can't change anything in tennis, but we can still debate about it!

Fumus
10-17-2005, 08:19 PM
Pah, like money really matters to most of the top players anyway.

Some fair points, I still like the idea that a player gets to challenge 1 or 2 calls a match. If you've used up your share then its tough luck. I mean, how often are we going to have umpires going to check a call. Its undermining their authority, is there any point in having umpires and line judges in tennis anymore if everytime we get a close call its going to be checked out.

Also, as a player/fan I can envisage a situation where someone hits a ball very close to a line on a big point. However, you can't have your natural reaction like a c'mon or a vamos because there is a possibility it could get checked and then overturned. I fancy this could get annoying.

Just like on clay, you can only challenge the last shot of the rally, ie you have to stop playing(Grosjean). I don't think players will be using it like crazy because it's not in their best interest to. The winning shots in rallies are well inside of the lines due to the fact that court position decides winners and any half-way decent player/pro uses a margin in their shots.

I think this system will be mostly used on serves because they are fastest shots and the hardest to see. Serves are also the hardest to determine whether they are in or out because they are always on the line. I think there are about 2 desputed service calls in every match. They could have used one these machines in that Rafter v. Sampras final a couple years back, thanks Lars Graff. :)

adee-gee
10-17-2005, 08:25 PM
Just like on clay, you can only challenge the last shot of the rally, ie you have to stop playing(Grosjean). I don't think players will be using it like crazy because it's not in their best interest to. The winning shots in rallies are well inside of the lines due to the fact that court position decides winners and any half-way decent player/pro uses a margin in their shots.
Thats thrown up an interesting point actually. If someone is getting beaten badly, it could be a new 'injury time-out' thing. Like a lot of players take time-outs to try and stem the momentum against them when things are going badly, maybe players will start continually requesting hawk-eye as a means of winding up the opposition. Or maybe I'm just going over the top now :o

I think this system will be mostly used on serves because they are fastest shots and the hardest to see. Serves are also the hardest to determine whether they are in or out because they are always on the line. I think there are about 2 desputed service calls in every match. They could have used one these machines in that Rafter v. Sampras final a couple years back, thanks Lars Graff. :)
I dread to think how many calls a line-judge is unsure about during a 5 set Roddick/Karlovic match. More than 2 I'd imagine!

Peoples
10-17-2005, 08:37 PM
Hawk-eye is quite incorrect too sometimes and can't be considered the final truth. The best way is well-positioned cameras and if they are clear enough to prove the linesman wrong, the umpire should overrule. Otherwise the linesperson's call should stand.

Fumus
10-17-2005, 08:49 PM
Thats thrown up an interesting point actually. If someone is getting beaten badly, it could be a new 'injury time-out' thing. Like a lot of players take time-outs to try and stem the momentum against them when things are going badly, maybe players will start continually requesting hawk-eye as a means of winding up the opposition. Or maybe I'm just going over the top now :o


I dread to think how many calls a line-judge is unsure about during a 5 set Roddick/Karlovic match. More than 2 I'd imagine!

Well that would only go on for about 2 minutes or so as they will have a limit number of challenges.Even if you do have players challenging calls just to change momemtum, it will take far less time than someone like Mcroe took arguing calls to change momemtuem. Basically they are already do this stuff already, except we call it arguing.

Yea but when you only get 2 then you have to use them wisely i.e. bps, set points, mini-breaks etc.

adee-gee
10-17-2005, 08:58 PM
Is it confirmed that you can only question a certain number of calls? And its the players that ask to use hawk-eye, and not the umpire when he's unsure of a call?

musefanatic
10-17-2005, 09:04 PM
I totally agree that we shouldn't have hawk eye, i love seeing people like safin etc playing up to the umpire and seeing how it affects their game. Espeically coria, he is so fun to watch!

Fumus
10-17-2005, 09:26 PM
Is it confirmed that you can only question a certain number of calls? And its the players that ask to use hawk-eye, and not the umpire when he's unsure of a call?

As opposed to what we were talking about, I think that is actually up for discussion. :)

adee-gee
10-17-2005, 09:42 PM
As opposed to what we were talking about, I think that is actually up for discussion. :)

:lol: ok, I say the player should be able to question 1 call a match.

Fumus
10-17-2005, 09:56 PM
:lol: ok, I say the player should be able to question 1 call a match.

Don't you mean negative one ;)

Scotso
10-17-2005, 09:58 PM
I don't think it will cause people to stop bitching.

KoOlMaNsEaN
10-17-2005, 11:22 PM
Wow i never thought of it like that

hablovah19
10-17-2005, 11:45 PM
I disagree! I'm sick and tired of these bad calls... :fiery:
tennis will always have characters in spite of hawk-eye :p

star
10-18-2005, 01:47 AM
Well, its not like the players are going to accept hawk-eye as the truth and not show their anger. hawk-eye is not precise, and the players know it as much as we do. I don't think there will be lack of tempers shown

Bingo. It's like they came up with the electronic service line equipment and that just led McEnroe to have even bigger temper tantrums. :)

adee-gee
10-18-2005, 09:52 AM
Bingo. It's like they came up with the electronic service line equipment and that just led McEnroe to have even bigger temper tantrums. :)

They were mostly an act though.

adee-gee
10-18-2005, 06:17 PM
Greg showed us some decent argueing with umpires in the Karlovic match ;)

shotgun
10-18-2005, 06:45 PM
Disagree. Take a guy like Coria, for example. He'll stop arguing with the umpire, but he'll try other strategies like accusing the opponent of faking injuries, complaining about the audience's bad behaviour and other things we have seen him done in the past.