Both Fed and Nadal had issues with the hawk-eye system [Archive] - MensTennisForums.com

Both Fed and Nadal had issues with the hawk-eye system

alexbayen
03-01-2007, 09:32 PM
Nadal had a great suggestion too. Use the hawk-eye on clay to see how effective it really is (though I am sure they must have done it while testing the system)

What do you guys think? Hawk eye rather flawed? or was this a case of sour grapes?

FluffyYellowBall
03-01-2007, 09:39 PM
Nadal suggested that? Good suggestion i think. Ive always had doubts about hawk eye and there were too many flaws in todays match especaially but thats the way it goes. Its great when shows most of the ball to be in but definately flawed. How can the mark of the ball on the screen be as big as the diameter of the ball? Marks left on clay arent that bag. Maybe they should install censors on the lines and that would be more accurate i think.

rosamunda
03-01-2007, 09:43 PM
Nadal had a great suggestion too. Use the hawk-eye on clay to see how effective it really is (though I am sure they must have done it while testing the system)

What do you guys think? Hawk eye rather flawed? or was this a case of sour grapes?

The commentators on Eurosport today were saying (before any of these incidents occurred) that the Hawkeye system had been really minutely tested and was now at optimum accuracy - cameras all over the place tracking the ball from all angles. I'm sure it IS flawed in the sense that nothing can be totally 100%, but I'd trust it over the 20/20 vision of the average stressed linesperson.

A touch of sour grapes, I think, but it was on a pretty vital point.

Rogiman
03-01-2007, 09:43 PM
Any Nadal fan that supports such a silly idea must be a serious tard.

FluffyYellowBall
03-01-2007, 09:46 PM
Any Nadal fan that supports such a silly idea must be a serious tard.


U mean the idea of testing it on clay??
Its not 100% accurate but that doesnt mean it shouldnt be used...

Peacemaster
03-01-2007, 10:01 PM
My suggestion to Mr. Nadal would be the same one he himself doled out after Rome last year: learn how to lose better.

zicofirol
03-01-2007, 10:02 PM
Nadal had a great suggestion too. Use the hawk-eye on clay to see how effective it really is (though I am sure they must have done it while testing the system)

What do you guys think? Hawk eye rather flawed? or was this a case of sour grapes?

they have, and unless I am imaging stuff I remember ESPn had hawk eye for last years RG...

2moretogo
03-01-2007, 10:09 PM
they have, and unless I am imaging stuff I remember ESPn had hawk eye for last years RG...

They called it "hawk-eye" but it was only using one camera to track the ball, instead of the several they have now. That is why there were discrepencies bet. many of the "hawk-eye" calls and those with the linesman and player looking.

Additionally, players still argue marks on the clay. If it isn't one thing it is another. Totally on the "players are big babies" bandwagon.

Finally, Rafa you need to learn how to lose graciously. Jeesh, thing is he had opportunities in the second up 15-40 on Misha's serve, or other bp that he completely wasted away.

Neely
03-03-2007, 02:14 PM
I'm sure it IS flawed in the sense that nothing can be totally 100%, but I'd trust it over the 20/20 vision of the average stressed linesperson.

A touch of sour grapes, I think, but it was on a pretty vital point.
Both, Federer and Nadal, like to use the Hawk Eye and they would gladly take the point if they are not sure that a ball was in, but if the Hawk Eye rules it as "in".

The bolded sentence of yours is exactly my position and very well said that some other people share this point of view.

Nadal suggested that? Good suggestion i think. Ive always had doubts about hawk eye and there were too many flaws in todays match especaially but thats the way it goes. Its great when shows most of the ball to be in but definately flawed. How can the mark of the ball on the screen be as big as the diameter of the ball? Marks left on clay arent that bag. Maybe they should install censors on the lines and that would be more accurate i think.
Do you know any of these highspeed slomo cameras that show, for example, a table tennis ball at the time of impact on the table or the racket? The deformation of it is quite huge despite the ball's surface is stiff and very round. For a tennis ball, something like this applies, too. I can't say if the approach of Hawkeye is to estimate this in any kind or if this is just random, or an error, or whatever. But my goal is only to say that the overall area of where the ball (in reality) touches the court is in nearly all cases really bigger than the mark you see in the clay. Because to leave a mark, the ball needs a sufficient momentum on the clay which not every part of the ball's surface acquires (but it still may touch it). Plus you have little natural unevennesses in the court anyway which makes such exact levels of precision useless anyway, the mark you see in the clay is good enough.

Deboogle!.
03-03-2007, 02:27 PM
Am I supposed to feel badly for these guys? :lol: If Rafa thinks it's inaccurate, well fine, maybe sour grapes but at least it's a legitimate concern (however, does he honestly not think it was tested a LOT before they started implementing it? I mean for what, 2 years or something, we heard about them testing it and it not being accurate enough and then finally being accurate enough). but Roger's "issue" is that it gave him the result on match point that he didn't like and as a result he went on to lose the set. I mean, his shot was out, boo-frickin-hoo.

NicoFan
03-03-2007, 02:57 PM
I know that more players than Rafa and Roger have complained about the accuracy. Easy enough to find out. Just like Rafa said - put it on a clay court and see what happens. If there is a problem with accuracy, fix it.

I also think that it's totally unfair to have hawkeye on only the main courts - the guys higher up don't need any more advantages - they get enough. The guys out on court 10, 11, 12, etc. should have the same playing field as everyone else. I've said from the beginning that until they can get it on all courts - it shouldn't be on any court at all.

With that said - I really like hawkeye and I love the challenge system. Fix the problems and get it on all courts. Tennis is supposed to be a professional sport - they have to live up to that.

jacobhiggins
03-03-2007, 03:02 PM
I know that more players than Rafa and Roger have complained about the accuracy. Easy enough to find out. Just like Rafa said - put it on a clay court and see what happens. If there is a problem with accuracy, fix it.

I also think that it's totally unfair to have hawkeye on only the main courts - the guys higher up don't need any more advantages - they get enough. The guys out on court 10, 11, 12, etc. should have the same playing field as everyone else. I've said from the beginning that until they can get it on all courts - it shouldn't be on any court at all.

With that said - I really like hawkeye and I love the challenge system. Fix the problems and get it on all courts. Tennis is supposed to be a professional sport - they have to live up to that.


Federer never complained about the accuracy, he had othe issues with it.

nobama
03-03-2007, 04:17 PM
Maybe the original poster was wrong to say that Roger had an "issue" - I thought Roger had said that he was well aware that everyone has to live with the decisions Hawkeye gives and that if anything/anyone was to be blamed it was actually him for placing himself in that position.Yes, he said something like that.

mangoes
03-03-2007, 04:32 PM
Am I supposed to feel badly for these guys? :lol: If Rafa thinks it's inaccurate, well fine, maybe sour grapes but at least it's a legitimate concern (however, does he honestly not think it was tested a LOT before they started implementing it? I mean for what, 2 years or something, we heard about them testing it and it not being accurate enough and then finally being accurate enough). but Roger's "issue" is that it gave him the result on match point that he didn't like and as a result he went on to lose the set. I mean, his shot was out, boo-frickin-hoo.

I don't recall Roger complaining about the Hawkeye being inaccurate. I don't know why this original poster included Roger in this thread. It's Nadal that is whining about the system because it gave him a call he didn't like.......and he needs to get over it. If the hawkeye had been in his favor, I'm quite sure Nadal wouldn't be complaining about it.

Aphex
03-03-2007, 04:33 PM
I still don't understand why they can't have those slow-mo cameras they used to have at the USO. Actual footage of when the ball hits the court must be better than the current computerized system based on calculations.:confused:

Castafiore
03-03-2007, 04:39 PM
Both Roger and Rafa were "whining" about the system at some point but they were talking about different issues about it. However, both use the system to their advantage when they have the possibility. They're human.
Then again, people always feel the need to make a Federer vs Nadal thread about everything.

As far as I can tell, Rafa is not against the system (but that's just a guess based on his post-match interview).
He even said that Hawkeye is liked by the public and good for the show, even after that match this week. However, he is questioning the accuracy and suggesting that it could be tested on clay (if only to improve the system or the rules around it perhaps?).
Rafa was more pissed off when the set point went to Youzhny even though the umpire seemed to have agreed with him on it.
Sure, sometimes a bad decision works for the player and sometimes it works in his advantage and most players (except the saints perhaps) only complain when it's to their disadvantage. However, what's wrong with questioning the lack of total accuracy of a system when you've seen its flaws on a crucial point?

NicoFan
03-03-2007, 05:29 PM
I don't recall Roger complaining about the Hawkeye being inaccurate. I don't know why this original poster included Roger in this thread. It's Nadal that is whining about the system because it gave him a call he didn't like.......and he needs to get over it. If the hawkeye had been in his favor, I'm quite sure Nadal wouldn't be complaining about it.

:wavey: mangoes - becuase Roger did complain about it. Same day - it was in an article in Eurosport:

"Federer was also frustrated by Hawkeye in the second set tiebreak when Djokovic challenged an in call with Federer leading 6-5. Hawkeye showed the ball was wide, and to add to Federer's frustration Djokovic went on to take the tiebreak 8-6 when the ball hit the net cord.

"The ball was out, but it's hard to accept, match point," said Federer.

"It was a bit of a pity it went three and it had a bitter taste at the end with the netcord and Hawkeye.

"Maybe I should have closed it out earlier and not got to that position.""

BgStallion
03-03-2007, 05:34 PM
What would be the point of testing it on clay - it's probably been completely tested before it was put in :)

NicoFan
03-03-2007, 05:46 PM
What would be the point of testing it on clay - it's probably been completely tested before it was put in :)

We're being sarcastic.

Obviously on clay, you can see the mark clearly.

No need for Hawkeye.

But it would be funny to put Hawkeye in and see if the marks and Hawkeye match. :lol:

DrJules
03-03-2007, 05:48 PM
The commentators on Eurosport today were saying (before any of these incidents occurred) that the Hawkeye system had been really minutely tested and was now at optimum accuracy - cameras all over the place tracking the ball from all angles. I'm sure it IS flawed in the sense that nothing can be totally 100%, but I'd trust it over the 20/20 vision of the average stressed linesperson.

A touch of sour grapes, I think, but it was on a pretty vital point.

Certainly agree.

DrJules
03-03-2007, 05:52 PM
Federer has consistently not approved of its introduction. However, once a rule is in place you naturally will use the opportunities offered by it.

nobama
03-03-2007, 06:51 PM
:wavey: mangoes - becuase Roger did complain about it. Same day - it was in an article in Eurosport:

"Federer was also frustrated by Hawkeye in the second set tiebreak when Djokovic challenged an in call with Federer leading 6-5. Hawkeye showed the ball was wide, and to add to Federer's frustration Djokovic went on to take the tiebreak 8-6 when the ball hit the net cord.

"The ball was out, but it's hard to accept, match point," said Federer.

"It was a bit of a pity it went three and it had a bitter taste at the end with the netcord and Hawkeye.

"Maybe I should have closed it out earlier and not got to that position.""At least he said this: "Maybe I should have closed it out earlier and not got to that position." Although I would remove the word 'maybe'.