Hawk-Eye doubts emerge. [Archive] - MensTennisForums.com

Hawk-Eye doubts emerge.

redda2
01-25-2009, 12:49 PM
Hawk-Eye questions emerge at Open

More questions over the accuracy of the Hawk-Eye electronic line-calling system arose on Sunday at a vital stage of a match at the Australian Open.

The system which simulates ball flight to determine close calls was unable to offer an opinion on a line call during Sunday's quarter-final between Roger Federer and Tomas Berdych.

As a result, the call had to stand.

An angry Berdych questioned the chair umpire over the apparent failure of the system to show a simulation of a ball called out early in the fourth set.

He was told that officials had ruled the original call of "out" would be upheld.

"I don't care about officials, I just want to see my ball," he told the umpire.

The Hawk-Eye simulator is believed to have failed to make the call due to the heavy shadow over the line in question.

The incident raises doubts over the efficiency of a system that can be affected by such vagaries, but is still called on to make decisions which come down to a matter of millimetres.

Federer, a long-time opponent of the system, said the incident had only confirmed his doubts.

"I think it's horrible," he said.

Berdych became a convert to the anti Hawk-Eye push, saying it shouldn't be used if it isn't perfect.

"Why it should be on the courts if it isn't working," he said.

"It should be working all the time."

The International Tennis Federation said Hawk-Eye met their margin-of-error parameters which were 5mm either way.

In the face of earlier questions on the accuracy of the system, Hawk-Eye's developer Dr Paul Hawkins said it had been extensively tested and was yet to have been shown to make a mistake.

"It has undergone thousands of tests and it got every one right," Dr Hawkins said.

"ITF decided that 5mm was an acceptable margin of error and Hawk-Eye's level of accuracy is well under that."

Hawk-Eye is said to have a margin of error of 3.6mm.

The ITF's head of science and technology, Stuart Miller, said he remained satisfied the technology operated within acceptable standards.

"On no occasion have we said that this technology is perfect," Miller said.

Nevertheless, he said the system's reconstructions were only a best guess of what happened and that to fully explain such concepts would only confuse the public.

"All you would be doing would be to create something for people to argue about," Miller said.

"That would make the whole system more complex and lead to more disputes than it resolves."

http://au.sports.yahoo.com/tennis/news/article/-/5281043/hawkeye-questions-emerge-open

Clydey
01-25-2009, 12:59 PM
Not sure why so many people seem to think that this is the first time it has happened. It has happened on a number of occasions during Master Series events.

No point in getting rid of it. Why get rid of technology that removes human error and gets the fans involved? If it doesn't work occasionally, what are they moaning about? If it doesn't work, they revert back to traditional rules and the original call stands. And if a player, like Federer, is so against it they shouldn't use it.

Nidhogg
01-25-2009, 01:07 PM
Funny how people seem to think that if Hawkeye makes a one-millimeter mistake in a thousand calls it shouldn't be used, while the players constantly challenges calls 5-10 centimeters out or in.

Bobby
01-25-2009, 01:13 PM
Hawk-Eye is useless.

FedFan_2007
01-25-2009, 01:16 PM
Hawk-Eye is useless.

Care to give some evidence? :wavey:

TankingTheSet
01-25-2009, 01:25 PM
One argument you can make is that no publicly validated study has been done on the accuracy of Hawkeye with the use of TV cameras/close-ups to see how accurate Hawkeye is. In fact TV camera close-ups of balls near the lines have been aggressively prohibited in guidelines the TV directors since the introduction of Hawkeye. Instead the internal studies of the Hawkeye company have been taken as conclusive evidence on the accuracy and error margins.

I am not saying it isn't accurate or useful, just that there has been a push and strategy to avoid criticism or make it difficult to verify the accuracy for anyone on the outside.

Nacho
01-25-2009, 01:27 PM
I like the system, it prevents further fighting over the line call and the game can move on

FedFan_2007
01-25-2009, 01:28 PM
I'd rather take the computer over human error any day.

Scotso
01-25-2009, 01:28 PM
Funny how people seem to think that if Hawkeye makes a one-millimeter mistake in a thousand calls it shouldn't be used, while the players constantly challenges calls 5-10 centimeters out or in.

Humans making mistakes is typical behavior, computers do what they're programmed to do. The computer doesn't magically know if a call was correct or not, it relies on input from various sources and still operates within a margin of error. The major problem with this system, in my opinion, is that you never see the computer determine that a call falls within that margin of error and cannot be determined. Since I know there must be one, it's obvious that they're letting the system make a guess.

Clydey
01-25-2009, 01:30 PM
One argument you can make is that no publicly validated study has been done on the accuracy of Hawkeye with the use of TV cameras/close-ups to see how accurate Hawkeye is. In fact TV camera close-ups of balls near the lines have been aggressively prohibited in guidelines the TV directors since the introduction of Hawkeye. Instead the internal studies of the Hawkeye company have been taken as conclusive evidence on the accuracy and error margins.

I am not saying it isn't accurate or useful, just that there has been a push and strategy to avoid criticism or make it difficult to verify the accuracy for anyone on the outside.

They wouldn't have adopted the system if there was no real evidence of its accuracy. I doubt the ATP employed it based on the word of the Hawkeye company.

orangehat
01-25-2009, 01:31 PM
Computer > Human 24/7/365. I'd take it any day. Simple as that.

FedFan_2007
01-25-2009, 01:33 PM
I might be biased because I work in software, but I'll take the Hawkeye software which is very targeted over faulty human eyes. Half the time those linespeople are incompetent. I bet half of McEnroe's tantrums could have been avoided with Hawkeye.

Clydey
01-25-2009, 01:34 PM
It's amazing, but since Hawkeye came into use no one realised just how often officials get it wrong. It's scary to think of how many injustices could have been prevented in some of the biggest matches in history.

philosophicalarf
01-25-2009, 01:35 PM
Even if it's nowhere near as accurate as claimed, it'll still be less error prone than human judges.

orangehat
01-25-2009, 01:44 PM
at least there won't be any idiots continuing to rage at the umpire when their shot is obviously out ...

Kolya
01-25-2009, 01:47 PM
Should just play on clay courts :p

shotgun
01-25-2009, 01:51 PM
Mountain out of a molehill.

Mateya
01-25-2009, 02:14 PM
It's amazing, but since Hawkeye came into use no one realised just how often officials get it wrong. It's scary to think of how many injustices could have been prevented in some of the biggest matches in history.

Yeah!
And it's scary to think how many players have been robbed in all kinds of matches over the years (well, except clay where you have a mark).

There were so many tight matches where the winner was decided only by one or two wrong calls on big points (even at 30-30 there can be a big point, not talking about BP, SP, tiebreaks, etc.), which then frustrate the hell out of a player and the match was lost just because (s)he couldn't get over it...
A little bit twisted...even if the hawk-eye is sometimes wrong, you see where the ball landed, you somehow believe it, that makes you calm and peaceful, you forget about that call and continue playing tennis. :) No raquet smashing and umpire cursing anymore.

Hawk-eye on every possible tennis court! :rocker2:

Johnny Groove
01-25-2009, 02:48 PM
A pair of prima donnas bitching about nothing once again

Tutu
01-25-2009, 02:51 PM
"I don't care about officials, I just want to see my ball,"

:sobbing:

Nidhogg
01-25-2009, 04:27 PM
Humans making mistakes is typical behavior, computers do what they're programmed to do. The computer doesn't magically know if a call was correct or not, it relies on input from various sources and still operates within a margin of error.

Well, duh?

The major problem with this system, in my opinion, is that you never see the computer determine that a call falls within that margin of error and cannot be determined. Since I know there must be one, it's obvious that they're letting the system make a guess.

I don't see that as a major problem. All in all those high speed-cameras are way superior to the human eye and judgement.

Bobby
01-25-2009, 04:38 PM
Hawk-Eye is useless.

Hawk-eye is good at one thing. That's making the officials look bad. They should use only technology or actual people. They should never be mixed. Players challenge calls that they know are seen as out for the human eye. But they still know there is a very good chance the Hawk-Eye demonstrates that the ball actually was in by 1mm. In a case like this, the challenge is not made because the player thinks the ball was in. It's made because the players sees that the ball was out by a very little margin and believes that the Hawk-Eye shows that it was in by 1-2 mm.

I wouldn't want to be a line umpire when I know there is a machine constantly proving that I'm wrong. Hawk-Eye is probably a good thing for a casual fan who doesn't really care about the game. It's way to create drama, nothing more.

Venle
01-25-2009, 04:45 PM
I like Hawk-Eye. :awww:

Nidhogg
01-25-2009, 05:11 PM
Hawk-eye is good at one thing. That's making the officials look bad. They should use only technology or actual people. They should never be mixed.

Using the techology all the time in it's current state would take forever, but who knows how it will improve in the future? Not using it right now when it's the most accurate thing we have seems odd to me. I think it's a very suitable mix with the human eye for the calls that are relatively clear and Hawk-eye as a backup if it gets tight.

Players challenge calls that they know are seen as out for the human eye. But they still know there is a very good chance the Hawk-Eye demonstrates that the ball actually was in by 1mm. In a case like this, the challenge is not made because the player thinks the ball was in. It's made because the players sees that the ball was out by a very little margin and believes that the Hawk-Eye shows that it was in by 1-2 mm.

And the problem with this is...?

I wouldn't want to be a line umpire when I know there is a machine constantly proving that I'm wrong.

Ah, so here's the problem.
To me, noone can be asced to perceive things as well as a machinary system designed for one sole purpose. I don't see any shame in such an obvious fact that the human eye have it's limitations.

Hawk-Eye is probably a good thing for a casual fan who doesn't really care about the game. It's way to create drama, nothing more.

It creates drama for some, but that's not all there is to it.

Jackie Stephens
01-25-2009, 05:11 PM
Fed never liked it but I think it's about 99.9% accurate.

exposbabe
01-25-2009, 05:13 PM
I think it's just the opposite.

I think it shows just how good a job the linespeople do, even with their human eyes and even when the serves are travelling at 140 mph and they're trying to duck friendly fire.

Yes, they miss a few.

But the players miss a whole lot more. Imagine if they still called their own lines? And you have to presume they've watched a whole lot more balls hit or miss lines in their careers than many of the lines crew, most of whom are local and only do it at the top level once, maybe twice a year.

You can see even when they miss one, most often it's just by a few hairs - at least according to Hawkeye.

And often then the player is dashing across the court in front of them as they're trying to look. And still they get nearly all of those right.

What are you guys on? There is no such thing as perfection.

Jackie Stephens
01-25-2009, 05:15 PM
I think it's just the opposite.

I think it shows just how good a job the linespeople do, even with their human eyes and even when the serves are travelling at 140 mph and they're trying to duck friendly fire.

Yes, they miss a few.

But the players miss a whole lot more. Imagine if they still called their own lines? And you have to presume they've watched a whole lot more balls hit or miss lines in their careers than many of the lines crew, most of whom are local and only do it at the top level once, maybe twice a year.

You can see even when they miss one, most often it's just by a few hairs - at least according to Hawkeye.

And often then the player is dashing across the court in front of them as they're trying to look. And still they get nearly all of those right.

What are you guys on? There is no such thing as perfection.

Well.. If they called their own lines then we would have many cheaters.

Bobby
01-25-2009, 05:16 PM
You must be an engineer, Nidhogg.

meihaditalab
01-25-2009, 05:17 PM
Hawk eye is f****** crap. its never right. and when the players need it the most it clearly dosn't work! :mad:

CescAndyKimi
01-25-2009, 05:19 PM
Whats so hard about using ultra slow motion, without visual representation? Instead use actual footage in slow mo to see if the ball is out or not? :s

Jackie Stephens
01-25-2009, 05:19 PM
Hawk eye is f****** crap. its never right. and when the players need it the most it clearly dosn't work! :mad:

Actually it works most of the time, watch more tennis :D

Stefanos13
01-25-2009, 05:22 PM
http://au.sports.yahoo.com/tennis/news/article/-/5281043/hawkeye-questions-emerge-open

The initial statement of this thread is not true: the fact is that hawk-eye WORKED for the particular point; the officials simply couldn't link the replay to the big stadium screen for that particular point. And that was explained to Berdych. He wasn't happy but he understood the explanation and got on with it.

Hawk Eye is fantastic. Much better than the naked eye – especially the naked eye at the the US Open where some of the line calling was outrageously wrong.

Jackie Stephens
01-25-2009, 05:23 PM
The initial statement of this thread is not true: the fact was that hawk eye WORKED; they simply couldn't link the replay to the big stadium screen for that particular replay. And that was explained to Berdych. He wasn't happy but he understood the explanation and got on with it.

Hawk Eye is fantastic. Much better than the naked eye – especially the naked eye at the the US Open where some of the line calling was outrageously wrong.

I agree, the hawk eye is the best.

Dougie
01-25-2009, 05:24 PM
Whats so hard about using ultra slow motion, without visual representation? Instead use actual footage in slow mo to see if the ball is out or not? :s

itīs been done for years, and itīs not something you can rely on, it still leaves doubt.

Nidhogg
01-25-2009, 05:24 PM
You must be an engineer, Nidhogg.

Yeah. I'm so cold and show no love for all the linesmen who competes against Hawk-Eye. :lol:

nobama
01-25-2009, 05:27 PM
Hawk eye is f****** crap. its never right. and when the players need it the most it clearly dosn't work! :mad:Do you have some stats to back that comment up?

Cricketics
01-25-2009, 06:18 PM
People who are carrying huge praise for the technology called Hawk-Eye, need to understand that it's not a discovery, it's an invention which isn't created by god that it can be perfect. It has lot of errors which should not be used to decide a conclusion in sports

I follow cricket avidly, and they used the same technology Hawk-Eye to decide a decision/dismissal called "LBW"

It was alredy a controversial decision, and now with this crap and not so good technology Hawk-eye, it has become more controversial.

meihaditalab
01-25-2009, 06:26 PM
Do you have some stats to back that comment up?

Berdych dtl winner? called out and it was clearly in... Pretty sure Fed isn't a big fan of the Hawk eye either......

Cashif
01-25-2009, 06:49 PM
Here is Roger's take on hawk-eye

http://www.australianopen.com/en_AU/news/interviews/2009-01-25/200901251232875119656.html
Q. What do you think about Hawk‑Eye?

ROGER FEDERER: What do I think about it? It's horrible. I don't like it, no.


Q. Why?

ROGER FEDERER: Because Tomas doesn't like it since today. Finally one guy understood. Look, it's there to be used. I don't care. But if I get a good or bad challenge, you know, I'd rather challenge too much and not have them left.

But I don't think you win or lose a match because of them. If it's 9‑All in the fifth set, you know, you got to use it and there's a terrible call because the linesperson was sleeping and the umpire was drinking coffee, of course then it's good you have it.

But, God, you have four eyes looking at every line. You could really mess up. Yeah, the ball Tomas was questioning was out. But still, a system like this is in place it shouldn't happen, right? That could be the crucial moment for Tomas. It wasn't because it was clearly out. Still, it's not so much fun for him, I guess.

Though i do understand what the objection is about, I think hawk-eye is more useful than not. Yes, it may not available or may not be 100% accurate but anyday I'll take computer over humans. Similar kind of argument took place in Cricket(Where it was first introduced) as well but now everyone's happy with it.

Having said that, I do believe it is unfair that it is only available in main courts and not in other courts. That IMO is unfair to lower ranked players, it should be installed and used in all matches at all courts not just the premium one!

Bobby
01-25-2009, 06:56 PM
Here is Roger's take on hawk-eye

http://www.australianopen.com/en_AU/news/interviews/2009-01-25/200901251232875119656.html


Though i do understand what the objection is about, I think hawk-eye is more useful than not. Yes, it may not available or may not be 100% accurate but anyday I'll take computer over humans. Similar kind of argument took place in Cricket(Where it was first introduced) as well but now everyone's happy with it.

Having said that, I do believe it is unfair that it is only available in main courts and not in other courts. That IMO is unfair to lower ranked players, it should be installed and used in all matches at all courts not just the premium one!

Way too expensive system to install on all courts. It would be even more of a waste of money than it is now.

Tsonganator
01-25-2009, 07:16 PM
I see no reason why eventually it can not be used for every call, making a beeping sound in the rally when the ball goes out or at faults etc. It may even be possible now, the only reason it looks slow is because its showing the result to the fans, thats not to say it doesn't do it near instantly. Any Hawkeye call is superior to the human eye, this debate is almost silly to me. It let Tomas down? Well its better than if it wasn't in place the whole match and the players could never challenge. Hawkeye will eventually replace the prestigous jobs of several linespeople/umpire per match just to see if a ball is on a certain side of a line.

RagingLamb
01-25-2009, 07:27 PM
I see no reason why eventually it can not be used for every call, making a beeping sound in the rally when the ball goes out or at faults etc. It may even be possible now, the only reason it looks slow is because its showing the result to the fans, thats not to say it doesn't do it near instantly. Any Hawkeye call is superior to the human eye, this debate is almost silly to me. It let Tomas down? Well its better than if it wasn't in place the whole match and the players could never challenge. Hawkeye will eventually replace the prestigous jobs of several linespeople/umpire per match just to see if a ball is on a certain side of a line.

I agree. I think someday we may have a tournament (or at least a court) with no line judges at all.

MrChopin
01-25-2009, 07:30 PM
Whats so hard about using ultra slow motion, without visual representation? Instead use actual footage in slow mo to see if the ball is out or not? :s

"Slow motion" shows nothing more than what you've already seen... the same pictures just at a slower frequency. A camera can capture a picture only so fast. The ball move by a specific point very quickly. It's incredibly hard to consistently capture a picture right when the ball touches the gound, even when you know where the ball will land. This is why, when they did old slow motion replays playing the film forwards and backwards, you got a "jump" in the balls position and were fortunate to get one frame actually showing the ball in contact with the ground.

When you don't know where the ball will land, it's even worse, pretty much a "set up a camera on the lines and hope for the best." Then you get grainy shots that don't reveal much detail, which will always be open for debate. Further, there is no projection to a 2D surface with such replays. Nevermind that actually capturing a revealing image, then displaying it somewhere that looks "professional" (to maintain faith of players and audience), would take a huge amount of time to implement for each on-demand use, and thus it would slow the game down considerably.

LleytonMonfils
01-25-2009, 07:44 PM
This thread makes you guys look like a bunch of whiney WTA bitches

Dougie
01-25-2009, 07:47 PM
I agree. I think someday we may have a tournament (or at least a court) with no line judges at all.

Technically, it could have been done already. But line judges are an important part of the game, I donīt think anyone wants to get totally rid of them. A controversial call adds way more drama and excitement than a machine whoīs never wrong. I think hawk eye should be kept like it is now, for entertaiment only.

fran70
01-25-2009, 07:52 PM
I believe that the use of the hank eye is really helful. Inspite of the fact of certain situations pretty much like when Almagro claimed his right to ask for it on his match against Monfils and it was deneid for certain reason I don`t understand at all...

Bobby
01-25-2009, 07:55 PM
Technically, it could have been done already. But line judges are an important part of the game, I donīt think anyone wants to get totally rid of them. A controversial call adds way more drama and excitement than a machine whoīs never wrong. I think hawk eye should be kept like it is now, for entertaiment only.


You're missing the big picture. Hawk-Eye should be abandoned completely, nothing more than a big waste of money.

Arhaych
01-25-2009, 07:57 PM
In the future, we will have transparent tennis courts, with touch sensitive pressure pads underneath, which will be extremely sensitive. When a ball lands 'out', the pressure of the ball will leave a hologramic mark for up to 10-15, and will send a sound signal to the umpire's chair in 27 different languages.

Bobby
01-25-2009, 07:58 PM
I believe that the use of the hank eye is really helful. Inspite of the fact of certain situations pretty much like when Almagro claimed his right to ask for it on his match against Monfils and it was deneid for certain reason I don`t understand at all...

I think he wasn't allowed to challenge the call, because he asked from his team whether he should challenge or not. Players need to make the decision indepedently and not ask for coach's opinion on whether a challenge is a good idea.

Dougie
01-25-2009, 08:22 PM
You're missing the big picture. Hawk-Eye should be abandoned completely, nothing more than a big waste of money.

I donīt understand why you hate it so much. It has a big entertainment value, and in the end itīs all about the entertainment. Every hawk-eye moment seems to make the crowd almost ecstatic. Iīm saying it should not replace real linesmen totally, but I donīt see the harm in it the way it is now.
Iīm sure you donīt see the point in it, since your own groundstrokes fly well off the court and the balls have to be collected from the nearby badminton courts with apologies. But in professional matches where the calls are close it has a certain value.

sawan66278
01-25-2009, 08:41 PM
Not sure why so many people seem to think that this is the first time it has happened. It has happened on a number of occasions during Master Series events.

No point in getting rid of it. Why get rid of technology that removes human error and gets the fans involved? If it doesn't work occasionally, what are they moaning about? If it doesn't work, they revert back to traditional rules and the original call stands. And if a player, like Federer, is so against it they shouldn't use it.

Exactly. Federer is so childish when it comes to challenges...and may very well be the worst at challenging on BOTH tours. If you are "so" against it, then keep your yap shut and stop belly-aching about the particular call. Every time he makes a challenge...it usually accompanies a look of incredulity...a look that says "Me, the King, Roger Federer missed that shot/serve? Impossible!" And, almost invariably, he is wrong...and looks like a cur. King Roger needs to realize that each shot he hits does not turn to "gold".

AND...if you hate the system so much: Don't use it at all. The Williams sister almost never do...that's the ONE thing you should emulate.

I might be biased because I work in software, but I'll take the Hawkeye software which is very targeted over faulty human eyes. Half the time those linespeople are incompetent. I bet half of McEnroe's tantrums could have been avoided with Hawkeye.

I've often thought that too about Johnny Mac.

bad gambler
01-25-2009, 08:47 PM
I think the bigger issue is that the chair umpire now is taking a completely different approach in terms of overruling, or in this case lack thereof. Seems to me they are comfortable to let the players just call for hawkeye when I am sure they could just make the overrule call.

MacTheKnife
01-25-2009, 08:48 PM
So the system has a margin for error. What system doesn't? Hawk eye has been a great system for the game and fans. My only complaint about it is it should be expanded to more than two courts.

the graduate
01-25-2009, 08:52 PM
Hawkeye is good especially with biased umpires and linespersons

Commander Data
01-25-2009, 08:54 PM
Computer > Human 24/7/365. I'd take it any day. Simple as that.


Terminator anyone :D

fran70
01-25-2009, 08:54 PM
Exactly. Federer is so childish when it comes to challenges...and may very well be the worst at challenging on BOTH tours. If you are "so" against it, then keep your yap shut and stop belly-aching about the particular call. Every time he makes a challenge...it usually accompanies a look of incredulity...a look that says "Me, the King, Roger Federer missed that shot/serve? Impossible!" And, almost invariably, he is wrong...and looks like a cur. King Roger needs to realize that each shot he hits does not turn to "gold".

AND...if you hate the system so much: Don't use it at all. The Williams sister almost never do...that's the ONE thing you should emulate.



I've often thought that too about Johnny Mac.

Please, don``t be silly! there are many times he call the hawk eye to keep up is breath! nice come back anyway!!!!

Bobby
01-25-2009, 09:04 PM
I donīt understand why you hate it so much. It has a big entertainment value, and in the end itīs all about the entertainment. Every hawk-eye moment seems to make the crowd almost ecstatic. Iīm saying it should not replace real linesmen totally, but I donīt see the harm in it the way it is now.
Iīm sure you donīt see the point in it, since your own groundstrokes fly well off the court and the balls have to be collected from the nearby badminton courts with apologies. But in professional matches where the calls are close it has a certain value.

Well, I must admit that my heavy groundstrokes sometimes lack control. But those chubby badminton players may as well fetch my Slazengers every now and then, shouldn't hurt them too much.

BalkanBoy
01-25-2009, 09:11 PM
Hawk-eye is there to eliminate doubts and most of the time it works very well. How can Federer complain about it when he lost the first set on a wrong decision of the line umpire? If he had a challenge left it could have saved him the set and maybe the entire match if he had lost.

Henry Chinaski
01-25-2009, 09:16 PM
Someone should design some sort of dust-like material that can be applied to the surface of hardcourts so the ball leaves clear marks as on clay. Though obviously the clay mark system isn't flawless either.

MrChopin
01-25-2009, 09:25 PM
Exactly. Federer is so childish when it comes to challenges...and may very well be the worst at challenging on BOTH tours. If you are "so" against it, then keep your yap shut and stop belly-aching about the particular call. Every time he makes a challenge...it usually accompanies a look of incredulity...a look that says "Me, the King, Roger Federer missed that shot/serve? Impossible!" And, almost invariably, he is wrong...and looks like a cur. King Roger needs to realize that each shot he hits does not turn to "gold".

You have a pretty good eye. Can you also tell the difference between when he's had a cheeseburger and when he's had some soup? Is there a slight sneer on his face after a previous night's dinner of not-quite-red-enough steak?

AND...if you hate the system so much: Don't use it at all. The Williams sister almost never do...that's the ONE thing you should emulate.

This is one of his largest complaints against it though, something he's said many times: he now feels accountable for making line calls. The relatively high number and low quality of his challenges is possibly the result his feeling this unwanted responsibility.

I've often thought that too about Johnny Mac.

All of his tantrums could have been avoided without the aid of non-medicinal technology.

***

Hawk Eye should be used. Scientifically, it is an additional measure of accuracy. Sports-wise, it is fair, without personal bias, and only a minimal delay. Entertainment-wise, it provides the fans with an outlet for more interest in the game.

I have two complaints: that is that it is not used on all courts and that it is accepted as universal. The accuracy it purports is applied to the general game, and so it should not be limited to just the top stadiums and (more frequently) the higher ranked players.

It is also accurate only to within 3-5mm? The software should incorporate a shortest-distance-to-closest-line measurement. When said measurement is less than 3-5mm, Hawk Eye should be deemed inconclusive and the umpire's call upheld. Hawk eye generally replaces human err, but in these "close" instances, accepting Hawk Eye's decision is throwing away extra information that was once deemed always-correct for information that we know is unreliable. This is similar to the NFL's "irrefutable" evidence rule with coaches' red flag challenges, only here it makes even more sense. This would also slightly alleviate concerns that umpires are becoming too passive.

nobama
01-25-2009, 09:55 PM
Berdych dtl winner? called out and it was clearly in... Pretty sure Fed isn't a big fan of the Hawk eye either......Ok that's one example. How does one example = hawkeye never being right? Give me some stats to prove that statement. And what does Fed not being a fan have to do with anything. He might not like it but that doesn't mean it's not right or shouldn't be used. :rolleyes:

leng jai
01-25-2009, 10:27 PM
Still waiting for the Hawk-Eye mugs to admit its just some fat disinterested Uni bum hitting a button and saying "ehhh close enough" or "fuck you fakervic, you're not getting this call".

bjurra
01-25-2009, 10:55 PM
It's amazing, but since Hawkeye came into use no one realised just how often officials get it wrong. It's scary to think of how many injustices could have been prevented in some of the biggest matches in history.

Well, since the invention of slowmotion, TV viewers have seen when line judges make a wrong decision. Now consider the fact that the best line judges are allocated to TV courts and you can imagine how bad the line judges on the smaller courts can be.

Yesterday, Dokic hit a bh down the line straight on the side line and it was called wide. I'd say it should be virtually impossible for a person with normal eye sight and attention span to get that call wrong but he/she did.

Federer doesn't like hawkeye because his challenges are worse then Kiefer's and Almagro's combined.

pogotheorist
01-25-2009, 11:41 PM
On the question of umpires becoming lax - if so, it's a straightforward fix: fine them for being caught out by Hawkeye. Creatively, proportion the fine to the distance by which the miscalled ball was actually in or out.

General Suburbia
01-26-2009, 12:53 AM
I might be biased because I work in software, but I'll take the Hawkeye software which is very targeted over faulty human eyes. Half the time those linespeople are incompetent. I bet half of McEnroe's tantrums could have been avoided with Hawkeye.
McEnroe wouldn't be half the player he turned into if Hawkeye had existed in his time. Many of his wins relied on disrupting his opponent's rhythm using his tantrums, kind of like how some players use medical time outs today.

keroni
01-26-2009, 03:00 AM
the thing i don't get is this.

with challenges, very often we see the ball touching the line by less than even 1 mm. the tv commentators often say it was in a by a frizz of the tennis ball.

i understand that hawk-eye is a probabilistic model, and it cannot be sure about 1mm calls. why are the results of those challenges upheld? surely either the original call should be used or the point should be replayed?

Stensland
01-27-2010, 10:21 AM
okay that one lob was easily the most ridiculous hawk-eye display i've seen so far. djokovic should've gone up to the ump. i wonder why he himself didn't step in here anyways as this replay was just way too out there.

Apemant
01-27-2010, 10:42 AM
okay that one lob was easily the most ridiculous hawk-eye display i've seen so far. djokovic should've gone up to the ump. i wonder why he himself didn't step in here anyways as this replay was just way too out there.

It wasn't more ridiculous than that from Murray-Ljubicic somewhere, when the ball was like a full length out but the replay showed it not only touching the line, but actually completely ON the line. Even inside the field, LOL.

This one was nowhere near as far back, but was most likely out anyway. Perhaps that's why Novak didn't complain.

Haelfix
01-27-2010, 11:06 AM
I don't trust Hawk-eye unless the match is fully in the shadows. I've seen way too many head scratchers where the replay clearly shows a position that has nothing to do with where the electronic calls it.

yuiwer
01-27-2010, 11:11 AM
Itīs obviously that the Hawk-eye doesnīt work fine.
Ckeck that in this video.
Roger Vs. Rafa Wimbledon ī07
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=G2py2SlUBeg&feature=PlayList&p=0CE8844632712788&playnext=1&playnext_from=PL&index=9

scoobs
01-27-2010, 11:12 AM
It wasn't more ridiculous than that from Murray-Ljubicic somewhere, when the ball was like a full length out but the replay showed it not only touching the line, but actually completely ON the line. Even inside the field, LOL.

This one was nowhere near as far back, but was most likely out anyway. Perhaps that's why Novak didn't complain.
they explained that Murray one was human error though - the ball bounced twice and the operator accidently showed the second bounce, on the line, not the first one which was wide.

yuiwer
01-27-2010, 02:56 PM
:o

chalkdust
01-27-2010, 04:36 PM
In spite of my user name, I do actually like the Hawkeye system. Obviously it may not be completely accurate but that doesn't really matter as long as these inaccuracies do not systematically favour any particular player, which I would find hard to believe.

I think it's quite cool the way players just use it tactically even when they know the call was good just to annoy their opponent - this is analagous to the good 'ol days of Johnny Mac's chalk dust ravings. For example, in the Murray/Nadal QF, Nadal began by taking ages to decide on challenges, was looking up at his corner etc. for advice, which was pissing Andy off. So later on, when Andy was well on top, I think he had a serve called long and he asked the umpire about it, who confirmed the call, then he walked right up to the net and had a good look - not sure what he was hoping to see - and then made a challenge. I think he knew perfectly well the ball was long but he was just getting a bit of tension out of his system. He's a bit like that - awkward bastard - but I like to see that in a player.

It was also very amusing when, I think in the third set, Andy was completely out of a point and had just pushed a short ball over the net, where Rafa was waiting to put away an easy smash/cross-court winner - but Andy's ball was wrongly called out so Andy challenges the call and gets to replay the point! I actually think this is an area where a savvy line judge could potentially help out a fellow countryman/spread-better in a tight spot. Rather than call out balls "in", just call crappy shots "out" and get your player another go at playing a better point. I have sometimes wondered whether this has been going on.

sammy01
01-27-2010, 06:20 PM
Not sure why so many people seem to think that this is the first time it has happened. It has happened on a number of occasions during Master Series events.

No point in getting rid of it. Why get rid of technology that removes human error and gets the fans involved? If it doesn't work occasionally, what are they moaning about? If it doesn't work, they revert back to traditional rules and the original call stands. And if a player, like Federer, is so against it they shouldn't use it.

this. it is good for the crowds as well. i see nothing wrong with it, as long as it has a better success rate than human eye alls good.

Ivanatis
01-27-2010, 06:25 PM
I really like the HawkEye-introduction. However, if they cannot guarantee it works 100% correct, they shouldn't use it.:shrug:

sammy01
01-27-2010, 06:38 PM
I really like the HawkEye-introduction. However, if they cannot guarantee it works 100% correct, they shouldn't use it.:shrug:

linespeople aren't 100% correct should be get rid of those to? :p

Dougie
01-27-2010, 07:34 PM
Itīs obviously that the Hawk-eye doesnīt work fine.
Ckeck that in this video.
Roger Vs. Rafa Wimbledon ī07
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=G2py2SlUBeg&feature=PlayList&p=0CE8844632712788&playnext=1&playnext_from=PL&index=9

I donīt think thereīs anything in that replay to suggest hawk-eye was wrong. Close call, thatīs all, but the replay doesnīt show that the ball was out without a doubt.

Hawk-eye is entertainment, thatīs all, it shouldnīt be taken too seriously. And so what if it isnīt 100 % sure, it still reduces the margin of error compared to calls made by just human eye.

Ivanatis
01-27-2010, 10:32 PM
linespeople aren't 100% correct should be get rid of those to? :p

why not?

redda2
01-28-2010, 12:42 AM
Even though hawkeye isnt 100% accurate (3mm error), it is still 100 times more accurate than a linesman call.

And its way more consistent as well.

azza
01-28-2010, 02:32 AM
why dont they have video replay like cricket?

Kolya
01-28-2010, 07:48 AM
Slow down tennis... balls are too fast :p