A flaw in the Hawkeye system? [Archive] - MensTennisForums.com

A flaw in the Hawkeye system?

adee-gee
09-08-2006, 12:53 AM
Does anyone else think it becomes a bit silly, when towards the end of a set players just challenge calls for the hell of it, even though they don't really think the call has been wrong?

I don't really know how they can change it, but it was getting silly in the Haas/Davydenko match at times.

Balerion
09-08-2006, 12:59 AM
Does anyone else think it becomes a bit silly, when towards the end of a set players just challenge calls for the hell of it, even though they don't really think the call has been wrong?

I don't really know how they can change it, but it was getting silly in the Haas/Davydenko match at times.

It is used for gamesmanship, but a challenge isn't nearly as long of a delay as calling out the trainer, so I don't view it as a huge problem.

I would be more concerned with the accuracy of the system. How big are the error bars on this technology? With a bunch of calls shown as just barely in or out, it seems to me that a lot of it may be up to chance.

Pfloyd
09-08-2006, 12:59 AM
I heard someone say, who knew about the system, that it has a 97% accuracy, which is good, but lets say 100% is better. Anyway, its still good to have a system that most of the time works.

MrExcel
09-08-2006, 01:47 AM
I kinda agree...

The only time it gets silly is when the player(s) don't use either of their challenges during the set, then get an extra one for the tiebreak, all of a sudden there's a total of 6 challenges to be used up, and if they decide to use a lot of them, the most crucial part of the set can become a bit of a joke.

I remember Ljubicic-Gonzalez in Toronto was kinda like that where they challenged about 5 calls and they were laughing about it all, so the intensity of the tiebreak almost dissappeared.

tangerine_dream
09-08-2006, 01:50 AM
I'm more annoyed that chair umps have gotten lazier and won't overrule calls anymore. Suddenly the burden has shifted to the players and they really don't need that added pressure.

drf716
09-08-2006, 01:53 AM
you are right!
i hope the other tournaments don't add that to their system
trust the us to think of things for better tickets and viewing
and not about the feelings of players

JW10S
09-08-2006, 02:50 AM
According to the developer of the system there is a margin of error of 3.6 mm. So those shots where you see the ball just grazing the line may actually be out. As for the challenges that come late in the set the player figures "what have I got to lose at this point by challenging"--hope springs eternal.

scoobs
09-08-2006, 02:54 AM
I'm more annoyed that chair umps have gotten lazier and won't overrule calls anymore. Suddenly the burden has shifted to the players and they really don't need that added pressure.

It's worse than that - I don't think some of them bother to check the lines very closely anymore when they're on a court with Hawkeye - they just seem to assume that the player will challenge if they don't like a call.

I wouldn't give a shit about that if the players had unlimited challenges but the current implementation is a bit of a lottery - use them up and the you're out. Seems really unfair.

nobama
09-08-2006, 04:57 AM
They need to get rid of the limited challenges. If you have the technology you should be able to use it at any time.

Action Jackson
09-08-2006, 05:12 AM
They need to get rid of the limited challenges. If you have the technology you should be able to use it at any time.

What and try and it slow the game down even more.

Lee
09-08-2006, 05:22 AM
you are right!
i hope the other tournaments don't add that to their system
trust the us to think of things for better tickets and viewing
and not about the feelings of players

What and try and it slow the game down even more.

There's unlimited challenge on clay courts and it even takes longer, IMO, as the umpire has to come down from the chair, argue which is the right mark and scramble back to the chair :shrug:

Action Jackson
09-08-2006, 05:26 AM
There's unlimited challenge on clay courts and it even takes longer, IMO, as the umpire has to come down from the chair, argue which is the right mark and scramble back to the chair :shrug:

Can you see a clear mark on clay? As long as they are watching where the ball lands and the other player doesn't try and wipe out ball marks before it has been examined, it doesn't take long.

If it hits a line on clay, then the bounce it takes is usually indicates so.

Lee
09-08-2006, 07:09 AM
Can you see a clear mark on clay? As long as they are watching where the ball lands and the other player doesn't try and wipe out ball marks before it has been examined, it doesn't take long.

If it hits a line on clay, then the bounce it takes is usually indicates so.

There had been times players argued with umpire about which ball mark was the right one. And hawkeye doesn't take that long to determine whether the ball is in or out.

So when both don't take that long, why the bias vs Hawkeye? I agree it's not available on all courts but at least, this is a progress.

And with the system, there are lots less players arguing with umpire on line calls which saves lots of time, IMO.

Action Jackson
09-08-2006, 07:18 AM
There had been times players argued with umpire about which ball mark was the right one. And hawkeye doesn't take that long to determine whether the ball is in or out.

So when both don't take that long, why the bias vs Hawkeye? I agree it's not available on all courts but at least, this is a progress.

And with the system, there are lots less players arguing with umpire on line calls which saves lots of time, IMO.

Replacing one inaccurate system with another. The umpire is the one who should know where the ball lands and they might as well do away with all of the officials then and just let the machines take over.

OK, if it were unlimited challenges, it could used just as a total distraction tool. Coria would be calling it for every 2nd point among others and even now most are using it at the end of the set for the sake of it.

You are trying to make out Hawkeye is perfect and it's not, there will be errors with Hawkeye and clay and hardcourt can't be accurately compared when it comes to calling lines just cause of the general nature of the surface.

At least they aren't silly enough to implement it in the clay events as of yet.

Timariot
09-08-2006, 08:25 AM
Given what I've seen so far with Hawkeye vs camera closeups of the call, I'd say 97% is generous...

adee-gee
09-08-2006, 10:06 AM
They need to get rid of the limited challenges. If you have the technology you should be able to use it at any time.
Probably the worst idea I've ever heard. It would turn into a farce.

Neely
09-08-2006, 10:08 AM
I'm very convinced of the Hawkeye system and I'm totally sure it is much better than the Human eye, even though not 100% perfect yet. We have seen some very good challenges, some of then which really changed something or even brought a momentum change. Why not use the technology to help you and to make the game fairer?

About the 'problem' that players might challenge towards the end of the set only for the sake of it because they would lose unused challenges anyway after the set: I don't see it as a big problem at all. When somebody wants to delay the game, he can still find hundreds of other ways, just like going to the net and looking for the mark and then discussing it with the umpire.

And also I disagree that the line and chair umpires are not attentive anymore. We've seen some very good close decisions which were confirmed by Hawkeye and I've also seen plenty of overrules by the chair umpire. So it's not like as if they would not pay attention anymore.

Neely
09-08-2006, 10:13 AM
Probably the worst idea I've ever heard. It would turn into a farce.
It's still a bad idea, but I firmly believe the future will be clearly going to immediate Hawkeye line-calling right on the instant where challenges are not needed anymore.

Then you only have the players and the chair umpire on the court. And maybe a baseline line judge to look for foot faults, but the rest will all be done by Hawkeye.

kundalini
09-08-2006, 10:24 AM
Well in the Robredo v Ljubicic quarter final in Cincinnati Robredo had a winner called out at a key point in the first set tiebreak, that not only looked good but was shown on the tv replay to be on the line, and he never even bothered to challenge the call; incompetent barely describes his decision making on that point. Somehow he manage to win the tiebreak having saved numerous set points.

So if they have the challenges left they might as well use them just in case there's been a mistake. I do think the challenge system has shown players' judgement on line calls to be even less reliable than the officials, especially when it comes to shots that land near their own baseline where they are forever claiming that a shot landed 1 ft out when it the replay shows it clipping the edge of the line.

David Kenzie
09-08-2006, 10:28 AM
Does anyone else think it becomes a bit silly, when towards the end of a set players just challenge calls for the hell of it, even though they don't really think the call has been wrong?

I don't really know how they can change it, but it was getting silly in the Haas/Davydenko match at times.

Yes that is why people who know anything about tennis opposed the system as it is.
The only proper way of using the replay is to let the chair umpire decide when to use it. Get rid of the ridiculous "challenges" and do it like on clay : if a player thinks a call is wrong he askes the umpire the check the mark (replay on hardcourts), but the umpire doesn't have to do it if he thinks it's not needed.

DrJules
09-08-2006, 12:22 PM
Does anyone else think it becomes a bit silly, when towards the end of a set players just challenge calls for the hell of it, even though they don't really think the call has been wrong?

I don't really know how they can change it, but it was getting silly in the Haas/Davydenko match at times.

That is why they only have a limited number of wrong challenges.

scarecrows
09-08-2006, 12:29 PM
I'm more annoyed that chair umps have gotten lazier and won't overrule calls anymore. Suddenly the burden has shifted to the players and they really don't need that added pressure.


I've thought of that also

now they just say "I can't tell. Do you want to challenge it? "

Roger The Great
09-08-2006, 12:41 PM
Yeah, apparently it's a 3mm variance which is the width of the fuzz on the ball. That would make it more than 97% accurate. If it was only 97% accurate they would not use the technology.

Adler
09-08-2006, 12:46 PM
I think umpires should be able to use it instead of players. There should be a hawkeye overwiev after every point, but that should go fast, otherwise matches would last hours more

Io non ho paura
09-08-2006, 02:18 PM
it have negative effect. Players worry about challenge, if yes or no :( it become very silly when player focus on hawkeye more than match.

Gonzo Hates Me!
09-08-2006, 02:59 PM
I just hate hawkeye because it just discriminates... as stupid as it sounds...... there are basically only a few players who actually get to use it on a continuous basis--center court players are constantly having the privilege, and they don't even need it... I just think it's crazy how it's this new great technology but pretty much not that many players get to use it or have the "luxury" actually.... I know it's just the beginning of the technology and it's really expensive right now, but I feel like it would be less expensive if it were not treated as an "entertaining challenge system on the jumbo screen" for the "most important court" and then maybe it could be on atleast one more court... I don't like this underlying entertainment value of the challenge system

ezekiel
09-08-2006, 04:15 PM
more whining, yawn :zzz: . In other sports we have timeouts and they are used strategically. There is nothing wrong with using strategies if they are fair to both players. Seriously some of the tennis fans must be miserable folks who hate anything different or seeing changes , games changes and people should change their thinking along . Having a set mind is a waste of life

Lee
09-08-2006, 04:54 PM
Replacing one inaccurate system with another. The umpire is the one who should know where the ball lands and they might as well do away with all of the officials then and just let the machines take over.

No, it's adding a more accurate system on top of an existing not so perfect system. Can you honestly say the human system has a 97% accuracy rate? Why we have MRI machines, blood tests, etc to help doctors to identify an illness. Traditionally, we have doctors looked at and talked to patients to identify the problem, why we need all these technologies to help doctors do the job? Will those machines and tests replace the need for a human doctor? The answer is a big flat NO.

OK, if it were unlimited challenges, it could used just as a total distraction tool. Coria would be calling it for every 2nd point among others and even now most are using it at the end of the set for the sake of it.

We saw these on clay courts many time already, didn't we?

You are trying to make out Hawkeye is perfect and it's not, there will be errors with Hawkeye and clay and hardcourt can't be accurately compared when it comes to calling lines just cause of the general nature of the surface.

Now quote where I say Hawkeye is perfect? :angel:

At least they aren't silly enough to implement it in the clay events as of yet.

Why they want to do that? :shrug:

Boris Franz Ecker
09-08-2006, 05:10 PM
Hawkeye isn't accurate sometime. See it at Haas-Safin, 2-2, 30-40 in 4th set. Hawkeye made a mistake, the tv pictures showed the truth.

Pigpen Stinks
09-08-2006, 06:45 PM
I agree that some umpires may be more hesitant to overrule with the new technology. However, one issue that I think is flawed is when the player asks the umpire his or her thoughts before challenging. I don't think the player should be able to solicit the umpire's opinion before challenging a call. Earlier in the Jankovic-Henin match, Jankovic asked the umpire about a call before challenging, and the umpire indicated that the ball was, indeed, several inches out. If a ball is really close, I don't think the umpire will say "I don't know, it may have been in, but I couldn't overrule it." Instead, in these cases, it seems the umpire tends to clam up and asks the player if they wish to challenge. Just seems like a bit of a conflict that the umpire should comment at all when this technology is on the table.

Pigpen Stinks
09-08-2006, 06:54 PM
There was an exact example of my point on that last Jankovic challenge. She said "I'm asking you your opinion", and he just said "would you like to challenge?". As he didn't give his opinion in that case, he shouldn't give his opinion on the balls that are blatantly out. The onus should be on the players in this system.

Jim Courier
09-08-2006, 07:23 PM
If the system is that accurate, then why on hell doesn't the chair umpire have a little screen to check every point, without interrupting play? Since Hawkeye is so expensive, you would think a small TV on the chair would be a given.

The real reason is because "we're in the entertainment business". How commentators can't shut up about Hawkeye should be a big enough clue on what the corporate line is.

drf716
09-14-2006, 10:55 AM
banish it

tennis lover
09-14-2006, 12:24 PM
I have a different question about the hawkeye system. correct me if I'm wrong but if the player wants to challenge a call, they have to stop playing don't they? if they do stop in the middle of a point to challenge and the challenge is incorrect, do they replay the point or does it go to the other player? sorry if this has already been discussed! :)

nobama
09-14-2006, 01:37 PM
I believe if they stop in the middle of a point to challenge a call the point is replayed.

Pigpen Stinks
09-14-2006, 02:26 PM
If a player stops playing in the middle of a point, it's to challenge his opponent's shot that wasn't called out, but that the player believes was out. Obviously, if the ball is determined to have been in, the challenging player LOSES the point. It is not replayed.

ABandt
09-14-2006, 05:16 PM
you are right!
i hope the other tournaments don't add that to their system
trust the us to think of things for better tickets and viewing
and not about the feelings of players

I believe there's already talk of adding it to the Australian Open this coming year.

~Amy

lordmanji
09-14-2006, 05:22 PM
itd be nice to see players apologizing to the other player when they challenge a call and are wrong. youknow, more of that delicious tennis ettiquette

Neely
09-15-2006, 09:37 PM
No, it's adding a more accurate system on top of an existing not so perfect system. Can you honestly say the human system has a 97% accuracy rate? Why we have MRI machines, blood tests, etc to help doctors to identify an illness. Traditionally, we have doctors looked at and talked to patients to identify the problem, why we need all these technologies to help doctors do the job? Will those machines and tests replace the need for a human doctor? The answer is a big flat NO.
Correct, very well said, Lee. That's my position, too.

Hawkeye isn't accurate sometime. See it at Haas-Safin, 2-2, 30-40 in 4th set. Hawkeye made a mistake, the tv pictures showed the truth.
If you mean Tommy's service game at 2-1 (not 2-2), 4th set, 30-40, I cannot understand how in the hell TV pictures should have shown the truth whether the ball was out or not. They only showed a cheap slomo from the camera behind the other sideline (not the sideline in question). This angle is not very accurate and unless they used high speed cameras, such slomos blur/warp the picture way too much to make such a close call, even more so if fast shots are involved and while the camera is moving.

Apemant
09-15-2006, 10:20 PM
What I don't understand is why use some projected simulations of the ball's flight (hawkeye) and not just high speed camera? I remember several years ago, I think it was like USO '99 or something (forgot really), they tested that high speed camera and from what I've seen, it's superior to this Hawkeye thing. You get to see exactly how the ball squashes on impact with the ground, changes the momentum and regains its spherical form... looks really amazing in a freakish sense of the word. :D

Neely
09-15-2006, 10:30 PM
What I don't understand is why use some projected simulations of the ball's flight (hawkeye) and not just high speed camera? I remember several years ago, I think it was like USO '99 or something (forgot really), they tested that high speed camera and from what I've seen, it's superior to this Hawkeye thing. You get to see exactly how the ball squashes on impact with the ground, changes the momentum and regains its spherical form... looks really amazing in a freakish sense of the word. :D
I remember this too, it was mostly used for the baseline. I only saw a few times a sideline equipped with it.

Problems which I see installing such high speed cameras is that they are as expensive as the Hawkeye System, if not even more so. And if a player is standing in the sight of the camera you don't see where the ball lands (can happen at the baseline at any time if a player is standing close to it, or at the sideline when returning a serve). It would be just up to the human to make the right call based on these pictures.

But basically I agree that such pictures would be more trustful than a calculated animation (although I believe this calculation is pretty close to the reality.)

tennis lover
09-16-2006, 12:24 AM
If a player stops playing in the middle of a point, it's to challenge his opponent's shot that wasn't called out, but that the player believes was out. Obviously, if the ball is determined to have been in, the challenging player LOSES the point. It is not replayed.
Ok, thanks! :) I was just wondering because if not, I thought this could also be used as gamesmanship if a player knows they're not in a good position to win a point. It doesn't matter if they lose the point though.

Apemant
09-16-2006, 08:15 PM
I remember this too, it was mostly used for the baseline. I only saw a few times a sideline equipped with it.


Wasn't it really cool? I was thrilled! :)


Anyway, with the improvements in digital technology I'm sure these kinds of cameras will get cheaper. Imagine having four of such cameras, placed diagonally over all four corners of the field, so if one is blocked by the player, another one most likely isn't. Wouldn't it be great?

musefanatic
09-16-2006, 08:27 PM
I think it's wrong it was only on a few courts at the US open, i think it's good but not accurate enough, nothing will ever be 100% acurate though. It can be a bit farcical though when used cos the player has like 6 or something, i don't think they should be carried over into sets, it should be 3 in one set and then back to 3 in the next set so they don't build up and you get a ridiculous amount in the end.

Action Jackson
09-16-2006, 08:39 PM
I think it's wrong it was only on a few courts at the US open, i think it's good but not accurate enough, nothing will ever be 100% acurate though. It can be a bit farcical though when used cos the player has like 6 or something, i don't think they should be carried over into sets, it should be 3 in one set and then back to 3 in the next set so they don't build up and you get a ridiculous amount in the end.

They don't have carry over challenges at the moment, hence this is why sometimes in a TB at the US Open or other events, where a player hasn't used a challenge, they will do it for the sake of it and in many cases they don't really believe that the call was wrong.

Neely
09-16-2006, 11:15 PM
Wasn't it really cool? I was thrilled! :)
Yes, it was cool :) And there were some great pictures and it's nice to see what forces are acting on the ball at the moment of impact and to see the deformation when it hits the ground or the strings of a player's racket. Such super slomos are usually always great, especially when they study a stroke of a player.


Anyway, with the improvements in digital technology I'm sure these kinds of cameras will get cheaper. Imagine having four of such cameras, placed diagonally over all four corners of the field, so if one is blocked by the player, another one most likely isn't. Wouldn't it be great?
It would be great. I'm not sure if this was ever tested or what other practical problems could be encountered. Probably you would need more than four cameras and a very good position of these (not sure if a diagonal placement would be sufficient; they should better be placed on the imaginary extension of each line to provide a good angle).

But IF this would work really well, it would be a very trustful source of fair line calling. Because such pictures would not be an approximation of the ball trajectory (even though a very good one actually), they would be more exact (maybe?! I'm not sure what margins you can make out by such replays). Only thing which would be up to the umpires: they have to make the call themselves based on what they see. Currently Hawkeye makes the call and does not only show where the ball landed, but also makes the call and says 'in' or 'out'.

Apemant
09-17-2006, 09:01 AM
It would be great. I'm not sure if this was ever tested or what other practical problems could be encountered. Probably you would need more than four cameras and a very good position of these (not sure if a diagonal placement would be sufficient; they should better be placed on the imaginary extension of each line to provide a good angle).

I actually meant ABOVE the four corners of the field and just a little diagonally away from them (high altitute bird's perspective), so that the player standing right over the line doesn't block the view.
Of course, more than four camera would be better still. Anyway, even super slow motion wouldn't be flawless, as the ball sometimes lands so close to the outer edge of the line that you can still argue whether it touched the line or not. So, it would be up to the umpire to decide whether it's in or out, and since the audience also saw it, we would have a good idea how fair the umpire is, and that would force umpires to be really fair.

its.like.that
09-24-2006, 07:47 AM
A real enlightening thread, thanks for this.

Please delete it somebody.

Vass
09-24-2006, 10:32 AM
How about testing Hawkeye on clay?

stebs
09-24-2006, 10:57 AM
How about testing Hawkeye on clay?
What would be the point of that? :confused: