[indianabones]

There are a lot of debateable calls and we see at least 1 per match at a critical point.

Do you think it's time to have Hawkeye on clay?

 

[Mr.Cool]

Absolutely. So many wrong calls, not even talking about the final and the recent mistake.

 

[yesh222]

Hawkeye is also not perfect. There's no real perfect way to do it. Yet.

 

[scarecrows]

BS

for 1-2 close calls per match it's not worth it

 

[Coolio_Jack]

Hawk eye is less accurate on clay because of uneven surface.

 

[Federeros]

i think video replay on clay courts will be a better choice. IT can be used when umpire checks wrong mark or when umpire isn't sure about how close is the mark to the line. Not more than 1-2 video replays should be allowed though.

Hawk Eye doesn't show the reality, it shows computer's assumption basing on the trajectory of the shot, i don't think it can be used on clay courts with it's current specifications

 

[Brit Tennis Fan]

It would be a complete waste of money and more importantly it would cause players to lose faith in hawk eye if it ruled differently to what a player thought the mark showed.

 

[AnnaK_4ever]

On the contrary, this tournament proves what a bullshit technology Hawkeye is.
On numerous occassions Hawkeye was sooooo off it's simply ridiculous. I mean, you could see both chair umpire and the opponent confirming the ball was in, yet Hawkeye showed the ball was out by half a mile—and vice versa.

 

[WawrinkaFan110]

Hawkeye has been tested for clay and it's beyond the acceptable error that tennis has set as good enough to use or better than human umpires.

The raised line and the covering up of the line with clay all play a big factor in why it's not a technology with great use on the surface. On hard courts, grass, surfaces that change way less in terms of height than clay, it works very well.

The French Tennis Federation has also said the same thing before.

 

[blackwell]

Nope..The only reason - nobody will agrue with machine

 

[Juz78]

Check out these slow motion videos... shows how the cushion of air creates a larger spot than the actual contact area:


https://vimeo.com/64875794

https://vimeo.com/64875793

 

[Floki]

Yes absolutely.

If hawkeye was used in RG 2013 Djokovic would have the title now. Leaving it to biased umpires like Pascal Maria to "call" the lines is wrong and unacceptable.

 

[GasquetGulbis]

Check out these slow motion videos... shows how the cushion of air creates a larger spot than the actual contact area:


https://vimeo.com/64875794

https://vimeo.com/64875793

The reason why the mark is bigger is because the ball decompresses when it hits the ground and the circumference gets bigger. This happens on every surface and explains why even though a ball may look out, it is actually in. The same can be said about balls being hit through the court. The naked eye sees where the ball lands, but it actually decompresses and slides for a bit before rebounding.

 

[Juz78]

The reason why the mark is bigger is because the ball decompresses when it hits the ground and the circumference gets bigger. This happens on every surface and explains why even though a ball may look out, it is actually in. The same can be said about balls being hit through the court. The naked eye sees where the ball lands, but it actually decompresses and slides for a bit before rebounding.

You obviously didn't watch the videos, because video 4 shows clearly that the cushion of air extends much further out than where the decompressed ball ends. This cushion of air pushes clay even further out.

 

[mobiwon]

I think it should be used to identify the correct mark; then the umpire can decide from the mark
if it's in or out. Far too often they're checking the wrong mark.

 

[Slade]

Yes of course. We need to put the cave man era behind us.

 

[Uncle Latso]

You obviously didn't watch the videos, because video 4 shows clearly that the cushion of air extends much further out than where the decompressed ball ends. This cushion of air pushes clay even further out.

this is not clay though, just a random red sand in such amount that it would be unplayable.

just a promotional trick for the hawk eye.

Which i'm all for anyway, simply coz the human factor is taken away.

The players would accept if the system is 1mm wrong everytime, coz they'd know it's in nobody's favor, it's a machine, it does the same everytime.

While the ump could mistake in random sequences and adds on the stress on court.

The call on Stan's FH DTL end of first set was absolutely scandalous and could have influenced the final result.

But these vids are annoying as they're pure bs PR for the grand public, which doesn't know much about tennis, to put pressure on organizers to use the system for clay.

 

[Myrre]

Checking the mark is currently more accurate than Hawkeye on clay, so no.
I think there would be more arguments. If a player can clearly see from the mark that the ball is in and the machine calls it out.....

 

[Myrre]

Absolutely. So many wrong calls, not even talking about the final and the recent mistake.

How do you know they are wrong calls? Ever considered that it is Hawkeye that is wrong?

 

[Myrre]

Hawkeye mean error is 3,6 mm and it is worse on clay since the surface is uneven (clay keeps moving around). Reading a mark will therefore be more accurate.

http://www.hawkeyeinnovations.co.uk/page/sports-officiating/tennis