Do you think shot spot is off?

01-31-2004, 07:10 AM
There have been so many "bad calls" at least the last few rounds (barely watched the first week) that I can't help but think that the shot spot may be slightly off this tournament. I can't recall a tournament where there have been so many calls where the technology diagreed.

01-31-2004, 07:38 AM
As there is no detail on the inner-working of this shotspot technology, it is very hard to evaluate the accuracy of it. I feel the extensive using of shotspot on TV without revealing its limitations is a bit irresponsible to the viewers. People tend to think that it's always right even when zoomed in to a matter of a few millimeters. Depend on the method it used to simulate/model the ball's trajectory/impact area, it is entirely possible that it miscaculate the impact spot due to environmental conditions (e.g. wind) or irregular spins. The discrepancy may even be not small at all. So it would be better that the designer of such technology tells a bit of the true story and what's the upper limit of such a discrepancy. Or in another way they should try to model its error behavior and besides the good looking black impact spot they show us a dotted region of '95% confidence region' (i.e. with 95% of probability the ball impact spot falls in this region) as most statistical analysis give us.

01-31-2004, 08:21 AM
or... it could just be the the linesmen suck this year!
and in addition-- the woman who was the chair in the women's final was terrible. she missed overruling a shot by justine that was 2 inches out in the first set, yet at 3-4 break point... she jumps out and overrules her linesamn to give jstine the break... not to mention 7 (yes 7) other calls throughout the night.
shotspot could have been "off" but human perfection is non existant.

watching that match really pissed me off. i didn't really care who won, but to see all those missed calls (a few were obviously bad calls) and to see that f*ing woman pipe up and overrule at all the wrong times was just abysmal.

01-31-2004, 01:22 PM
I think its correct most of the time, when it shows the ball to be out usually it looked out to me on the replay, same if it showed the ball to be in, and usually it confirms my initial reaction about the point.
They showed a little segment about how it worked and it sounded good. It also comes up with other information like speed of shots and trajectory so if it can come up with data like that surely the location of the ball mark cant be that hard.
Its not very hard to believe humans are likely to make a lot of errors.

01-31-2004, 01:27 PM
Btw, we dont call it Shot Spot in Australia, we call it Hawkeye. You are talking about the thing that generates the ball mark, as well as other data such as shot speed arent you? I wonder what the original name was, as I think on that segment they said it was named after the creator David Hawk or something. Maybe its a different thing or just Americans have ripped it off.

01-31-2004, 01:40 PM
I don't understand this: why do they fix this expensive (?) Hawkeye if it is not used for refereeing?
And yes the linesmen suck this year. There were aces which landed 5-10 cm wide, there were "outs" which landed 3 cm in and so on.

01-31-2004, 02:43 PM
Experimentee, I think it's called Hawkeye on a different TV network here (or it used to be called HAwkeye, or something)... but ESPN calls it ShotSpot.

It may not be 100% perfect, but I'm sure it's a lot closer than the human eye. Since it appeared I've wanted it to be used in at least Grand Slam play, and this week of horrible call after horrible call at HUGE points just solidified that for me.

01-31-2004, 02:46 PM
We call it Hawkeye in England too - but whatever it's called I agree there have been some atrocious calls/decisions in this AO.

01-31-2004, 02:53 PM
I think there are two different technologies.

The first one I remember was an actual video of the ball, just way slowed down and way magnified. To me this was even better, because it the actual image of the ball, so the accuracy couldn't really be disputed IMO. The one we have now of course is computer-generated to show exactly where the ball bounced.

I think it's great technology all around. It's funny when players play someone like Agassi and they tell you how much further the opponent is running than he is lol.. or when one of the top women plays a nobody and they hit the ball like 20mph faster than the opponent lol.

01-31-2004, 03:29 PM
i liked mac cam or whatever it was called for you (as in it could have a different name for different country) as well... but some of these really close shots-- shot spot kicks its ass. but the questions about how accurate shot spot is do need to be answered.

01-31-2004, 04:37 PM
Hawkeye is on USA Network...They're the same...

01-31-2004, 05:22 PM
ok thats what I thought ktwtennis.

01-31-2004, 05:39 PM
Does anyone know why exactly the umps will not use ShotSpot (or Hawkeye) to judge line calls? Why won't the powers that be allow it if it would prevent so many bad calls?

01-31-2004, 09:59 PM
Here is an article on it:
"ShotSpot, derived from missile-tracking technology and designed by Hawk-Eye Innovations Ltd. of London, uses four cameras positioned at different angles around the court. The cameras track the ball's flight, then the information from them is combined and added to a three-dimensional trajectory model. It is, according to ESPN, accurate to within 1 millimeter."

01-31-2004, 10:06 PM
Does anyone know why exactly the umps will not use ShotSpot (or Hawkeye) to judge line calls? Why won't the powers that be allow it if it would prevent so many bad calls?

Well I'd say the biggest problem would be how to make it fair. Like at the AO, the only courts with ShotSpot are RLA and MCA.... what about the other 20 whatever courts? They have to get it on every court to be used, and it's pretty expensive I'm sure. If they said something like it will be used only in QF, SF, and Finals or something, that'd be unfair to some people, if they only had it on the main courts, that'd favor people from the home country... see there are a zillion problems, but that doesn't mean people shouldn't be exploring the ways they can be overcome so that this can be used!

01-31-2004, 11:58 PM

theres another article about shot-spot and using instant replay

02-01-2004, 01:01 AM
veryyyyyy interesting, thanks federerfan!

02-01-2004, 01:54 AM
I don't like shot spot. It removed alot of the controversy and the "Was it in or out" excitment of tennis. Bring back old school lines calling.....