PDA

View Full Version : Fed talks to "hawk-eye"


MasterTS
07-08-2007, 12:36 PM
What did you think when fed yelled at hawkeye: "Was that in too you god damn idiot".. i dont remember the exact phase but I thought fed was going cuckoo.

Then suddenly nadal's knee goes bad and the rest is history.. what a lame day.

bdawg
07-08-2007, 12:46 PM
you could tell he was very ****ed, but i wouldn't say nuts.

MasterTS
07-08-2007, 12:48 PM
you could tell he was very ****ed, but i wouldn't say nuts.

Fed's eyes are messed up.. He dares challenge a system of precision and technologically advancement vesus his human eyes?

CyBorg
07-08-2007, 12:50 PM
I don't trust machines - eventually they will kill us all. Neither should Federer.

bluescreen
07-08-2007, 12:54 PM
dude, did u even listen to the commentary? johnny mac said hawkeye has a 90% accuracy rate, which means 10% of the calls can be wrong. today i really think fed was hooked on some of those calls.

and u think he's nuts? imagine yourself in a wimbledon final going for five straight and tell me u wouldnt get a littled ****ed at moments like that. what a troll man.

MasterTS
07-08-2007, 12:57 PM
dude, did u even listen to the commentary? johnny mac said hawkeye has a 90% accuracy rate, which means 10% of the calls can be wrong. today i really think fed was hooked on some of those calls.

and u think he's nuts? imagine yourself in a wimbledon final going for five straight and tell me u wouldnt get a littled ****ed at moments like that. what a troll man.

Johnny mac said he didn't what the % accuracy is, but if it had 90% accuracy then fed beleives he's in the 10%..

You completely misunderstood johnny mac's commentatary and I recommend you replay it if you have DVR or Tivo.

Also I'm fairly certain the accuracy is in the 99% mark when I read about it last year.

jaded
07-08-2007, 12:59 PM
what set did this happen?

i'm watching the start of the 4th set right now on DVR

MasterTS
07-08-2007, 12:59 PM
what set did this happen?

i'm watching the start of the 4th set right now on DVR

4th set after fed goes double breaker down

tlm
07-08-2007, 01:00 PM
It just shows fed is a baby when all is not going his way.

Adrupert
07-08-2007, 01:01 PM
Fed's eyes are messed up.. He dares challenge a system of precision and technologically advancement vesus his human eyes?

The machine is only accurate within 3 mm, it's possible he was right.

tim8
07-08-2007, 01:02 PM
I don't know the exact accuracy or what exactly J-mac's comments were, but at the French Open there was a ball in the final that Hawk-eye had about a foot of the camera replay.

armand
07-08-2007, 01:02 PM
I don't trust machines - eventually they will kill us all. Neither should Federer.Funny comin consider your user name.

bluescreen
07-08-2007, 01:06 PM
they should make hawkeye an option or something before a match. like each player has to agree to use it or it wont be used that match. or something like that. cuz u know, the proponents r talking about "imagine getting a bad call match point down." with hawkeye, u supposed wouldnt get hooked by a call.

well it works both ways.

BigServer1
07-08-2007, 01:07 PM
It just shows fed is a baby when all is not going his way.

Man, you are relentless. If he wins, he's a baby. If he loses, he's a poor sport. Did you see the Bryan Brother's match today? They called the umpire stupid and wrong on TV. Are you ripping them? Are they babies? I know you're upset that Nadal lost a good chance to win Wimbledon today, but YOU are the one that is being a baby when not all goes your way (AKA Nadal loses). Seriously, you've said this in 3 or 4 different threads today. Let it go.

jaded
07-08-2007, 01:08 PM
I just passed the part where Fed asks for hawk-eye to be switched off for the rest of the match. I know he's never been a huge fan of the hawk-eye challenge system, but it's definitely irritating him today.

jaded
07-08-2007, 01:12 PM
dude, did u even listen to the commentary? johnny mac said hawkeye has a 90% accuracy rate, which means 10% of the calls can be wrong. today i really think fed was hooked on some of those calls.


What John actually said was:

"If it's 90% accurate, which sounds good, 10% of the time it's going to be wrong. Federer clearly thinks he's in that 10%"

princess bossass
07-08-2007, 01:13 PM
they should make hawkeye an option or something before a match. like each player has to agree to use it or it wont be used that match. or something like that. cuz u know, the proponents r talking about "imagine getting a bad call match point down." with hawkeye, u supposed wouldnt get hooked by a call.

well it works both ways.

I agree. I think it's kinda BS that chair umps don't have to overrule line calls any more--if it looks close, they can rely on the players to challenge if they want. The players have enough going on physically and tactically without having to call their own lines. Seriously, this isn't HS junior varsity tennis.

Some players say they like it because when they feel unsure about a call, whether their challenge is successful or not, at least they can put the point behind them and accept it, relieving their frustration. On the other hand, if (like Federer, clearly) you don't trust the technology, it just adds another layer of frustration.

pow
07-08-2007, 01:30 PM
I don't trust machines - eventually they will kill us all. Neither should Federer.

I agree with CyBorg. :-D

dave333
07-08-2007, 01:33 PM
Fed's eyes are messed up.. He dares challenge a system of precision and technologically advancement vesus his human eyes?

Hawkeye is only accurate to 3 mm.

http://www.smh.com.au/media/2005/01/29/1106850119232.html

Big Fed
07-08-2007, 01:45 PM
What did you think when fed yelled at hawkeye: "Was that in too you god damn idiot".. i dont remember the exact phase but I thought fed was going cuckoo.

Then suddenly nadal's knee goes bad and the rest is history.. what a lame day.

Wow ur an ***.

Vision84
07-08-2007, 01:50 PM
Hawkeye is only accurate to 3 mm.

http://www.smh.com.au/media/2005/01/29/1106850119232.html
Exactly and if you look at many of those calls that Hawkeye was used in that match and through the rest of the tournament many of them were within 3mm of the ball being in or out. The OP needs to do his homework better before creating such a thread. Just like his Djokovic thread. :roll:

BigServer1
07-08-2007, 01:52 PM
Woah, someone went Greensalad on this thread. Any reason in particular? tlm and I were just talking, there wasn't name calling, etc...

Anyway, tlm, I agree that sometimes Roger can be a bit boorish, but his talking to himself, the ump, etc today pales in comparison to some rants during this tournament, let alone in a historical context. Is it the best sportsmanship? No, but he could do worse. As for the poor sport thing...I don't know. People either think he is great or terrible. He seems like a genuinely nice guy to me, and that seems to be the general consensus among tour players, including Nadal (who has a TON of class, I love his attitude). I think JMac summed it up the best today: "Both Rafa and Roger are humbly arrogant." You have to think you're the best and despise losing to be that good. It's a skill they both posses. You may disagree, that's fine, I just thought I would give my take on it.

I don't worship players, by the way. At the end of the day it's just a game.

jaded
07-08-2007, 01:52 PM
What did you think when fed yelled at hawkeye: "Was that in too you god damn idiot".. i dont remember the exact phase but I thought fed was going cuckoo.

Then suddenly nadal's knee goes bad and the rest is history.. what a lame day.

Federer sarcastically said "was that in too?"

I'm not sure where you got the "you god damn idiot" part from...

jaykay
07-08-2007, 01:55 PM
I believe that statistically, Hawk-eye is supposed to be APPROXIMATELY 97% accurate. While this statistical percentage cannot be accurate (which is why they deem is APPROXIMATE). The only thing that manufacturers guarantee about Hawk-eye is that it is accurate within 3mm of the line (which cannot, statistically translate to a percentage, with a high degree of accuracy). Thus, Hawk-Eye is NOT accurate ALL the time, as many players will definitely attest to.

Part of the reason why Federer was going nuts was because Nadal was playing out of his mind in the 4th set; and the seemingly inaccurate Hawk-eye ruling made him go bonkers.

Rafa trolls / Fed trolls apart, I thought it was a brilliant final (one of the best that I have seen in the last 5-6 years) and the nail-biting finish ensured that tennis was the victor.

MoFed
07-08-2007, 01:56 PM
Man, you are relentless. If he wins, he's a baby. If he loses, he's a poor sport. Did you see the Bryan Brother's match today? They called the umpire stupid and wrong on TV. Are you ripping them? Are they babies? I know you're upset that Nadal lost a good chance to win Wimbledon today, but YOU are the one that is being a baby when not all goes your way (AKA Nadal loses). Seriously, you've said this in 3 or 4 different threads today. Let it go.
Not to go off the subject, but the Bryans had every right to yell at the umpire. He called a game and set against because he thought they touched the net, but it was the ball. They tried to challenge, but that's not up for challenge.

I can understand Roger's frustration with the machine, but every one of those balls were so close. I was looking at that thinking that it wasn't where the ball landed when I saw the live video.

I think we can all say they both played a really good match.

princess bossass
07-08-2007, 01:57 PM
Woah, someone went Greensalad on this thread.

Greensalad? Help? :confused:

saqdeez
07-08-2007, 01:57 PM
nadal fans = sour grapes

bluescreen
07-08-2007, 02:00 PM
He called a game and set against because he thought they touched the net, but it was the ball.


that break of serve actually cost the bryans the match. now thats tough luck.

BigServer1
07-08-2007, 02:01 PM
Not to go off the subject, but the Bryans had every right to yell at the umpire. He called a game and set against because he thought they touched the net, but it was the ball. They tried to challenge, but that's not up for challenge.

I can understand Roger's frustration with the machine, but every one of those balls were so close. I was looking at that thinking that it wasn't where the ball landed when I saw the live video.

I think we can all say they both played a really good match.

That's a very good point about the Bryans. I think Federer over reacted a bit, but I understand that he was frustrated and we all do dumb things when we're frustrated. You're spot on at the end. It was a great match start to finish and both players deserve worlds of credit.

Too Poor for Grass
07-08-2007, 02:02 PM
If we assume that Hawkeye has a 3mm margin of error, then we must assume that it's essentially infalliable because we're talking about about an eighth of an inch. No human eyes will see it more clearly.

As for Federer, he was very frustrated at that point in the match, and he decided to take it out on hawkeye. My suspicion is that, in quieter moments, Federer will concede that the call was probably right.



my suspicion is that, in quiter moments, he will concede that hawkeye is fine and th

SuperSaiyanSonic
07-08-2007, 02:03 PM
I thought it was funny.

MasterTS
07-08-2007, 02:08 PM
I thought it was funny.

Yep it reminds me of the time when Fed made an outburst, talking to Uncle Tony during one of their clay court matches when fed got super frustrated and lost.

BreakPoint
07-08-2007, 02:09 PM
Bottom line - Hawk-Eye was rigged in Nadal's favor today. It was clear for everyone to see. Even the slo-mo replays showed some of Rafa's shots to be clearly out but Hawk-Eye called them in.

They need to build in some margin of error into the Hawk-Eye's algorithm. I think the Hawk-Eye system should only confirm what the human eye can actually see. A ball that lands only 1% on the line CANNOT be seen by the human eye so therefore Hawk-Eye should adjust for that and also call those shots out. If 100 different linespeople call a shot that lands in the exact same spot out 100 times each, then the ball is out. If it cannot be detected by the human eye, then Hawk-Eye should be programmed not to be able to detect it either. I think in those cases where less than 5% of the ball lands on the outside edge of the line, Hawk-Eye is not CORRECTING the linesperson's call, it is CHANGING the linesperson's call. There's a big difference. It is NOT a wrong call if it cannot be seen by any human eye under any circumstances. This is supposed to be real tennis played by real human beings, NOT some computerized digital tennis video game.

jaykay
07-08-2007, 02:14 PM
Bottom line - Hawk-Eye was rigged in Nadal's favor today. It was clear for everyone to see. Even the slo-mo replays showed some of Rafa's shots to be clearly out but Hawk-Eye called them in.

They need to build in some margin of error into the Hawk-Eye's algorithm. I think the Hawk-Eye system should only confirm what the human eye can actually see. A ball that lands only 1% on the line CANNOT be seen by the human eye so therefore Hawk-Eye should adjust for that and also call those shots out. If 100 different linespeople call a shot that lands in the exact same spot out 100 times each, then the ball is out. If it cannot be detected by the human eye, then Hawk-Eye should be programmed not to be able to detect it either. I think in those cases where less than 5% of the ball lands on the outside edge of the line, Hawk-Eye is not CORRECTING the linesperson's call, it is CHANGING the linesperson's call. There's a big difference. It is NOT a wrong call if it cannot be seen by any human eye under any circumstances. This is supposed to be real tennis played by real human beings, NOT some computerized digital tennis video game.


BP: IMO, Hawkeye defly screwed up once and perhaps twice in today's match between Rafa and Fed. But was it rigged in Rafa's favor? --- C,mon... I don't think so. That is some weird conspiracy theory that I am not willing to buy into...

Breaker
07-08-2007, 02:14 PM
I don't understand how the system can be rigged for one player or not the other. It's easy to understand that with humans since there are favourites who get close calls but an electronic line calling system can not decide whether a ball is in or not based on who is challenging. Fed was being a bit pouty out there but he didn't expect to be down two breaks any set to Rafa on grass. His words on the changeover to himself said it all,
"Look at the score now, it's just killing me today,".

sureshs
07-08-2007, 03:08 PM
Bottom line - Hawk-Eye was rigged in Nadal's favor today. It was clear for everyone to see. Even the slo-mo replays showed some of Rafa's shots to be clearly out but Hawk-Eye called them in.

They need to build in some margin of error into the Hawk-Eye's algorithm. I think the Hawk-Eye system should only confirm what the human eye can actually see. A ball that lands only 1% on the line CANNOT be seen by the human eye so therefore Hawk-Eye should adjust for that and also call those shots out. If 100 different linespeople call a shot that lands in the exact same spot out 100 times each, then the ball is out. If it cannot be detected by the human eye, then Hawk-Eye should be programmed not to be able to detect it either. I think in those cases where less than 5% of the ball lands on the outside edge of the line, Hawk-Eye is not CORRECTING the linesperson's call, it is CHANGING the linesperson's call. There's a big difference. It is NOT a wrong call if it cannot be seen by any human eye under any circumstances. This is supposed to be real tennis played by real human beings, NOT some computerized digital tennis video game.

And automobile accident prevention systems should allow accidents to happen because that is what humans would have done. Air bags should not inflate because humans should be allowed to bump their head into the steering - after all, it is they who should be in control, not a computer. And no radar or GPS on fighter jets either - can't see the enemy with your bare eyes at night? - just say your prayers and prepare to be shot down.

No use of DNA in criminal cases either. I can't see the double strands of DNA - so a lab should not either. They should declare innocence or guilt just like they would have done if there was no DNA evidence.

The Gorilla
07-08-2007, 03:11 PM
what would the point be of having hawkeye then breakpoint?And some people are better than others at seeing whether the ball landed in or out, so how would the machine be set up exactly?

tennishead93
07-08-2007, 03:18 PM
dude fed isnt even human

couch
07-08-2007, 03:23 PM
It just shows fed is a baby when all is not going his way.

No, maybe it's that he cares a lot about winning five straight Wimbledons.

DraGoNoFfiR3
07-08-2007, 03:28 PM
Fed's eyes are messed up.. He dares challenge a system of precision and technologically advancement vesus his human eyes?

hawkeye isnt always right. it's only right 90% of the time, which is pretty bad i think...

poplar
07-08-2007, 03:32 PM
hawkeye isnt always right. it's only right 90% of the time, which is pretty bad i think...

http://www.wimbledon.org/en_GB/news/interviews/2007-07-08/200707081183923732671.html

read the interview before you judge.

many people saw it out. and it was only one of the many mistake by the wimbledon hawkeye.

Vision84
07-08-2007, 03:37 PM
You have to remember that 90% is for the balls that are close to the line and not for every one.

BreakPoint
07-08-2007, 04:10 PM
what would the point be of having hawkeye then breakpoint?And some people are better than others at seeing whether the ball landed in or out, so how would the machine be set up exactly?
The point of Hawk-Eye should be to CORRECT obvious errors by the linespeople, NOT to CHANGE a lineperson's call which he saw correctly up to the limit what's possible for the human eye to see.

They can easily re-program Hawk-Eye so that if less than 5% of the ball is on the outside edge of the line, that it would show the graphic of the ball as being out and also call the ball "OUT". The accuracy of Hawk-Eye should be limited only to what is physically possible for the human eye to see.

If you were calling your own lines, like 99.999% of all tennis matches around the world are, would you be able to call a ball that lands only 1% on the outside edge of the line "IN"? Also, how about all the matches that are played on the outside courts at tournaments which do not have Hawk-Eye? The same exact shots that were called "OUT" are now all of a sudden called "IN" just because you're playing on a different court? Is that fair to everyone in the draw?

Tennis is supposed to a real sport played by human beings with human eyes and not some computer video game. If it's not possible for the human eye to see it, then Hawk-Eye should not be allowed to change it.

FuriousYellow
07-08-2007, 04:17 PM
Nadal also had issues with Hawk-eye when he lost to Youzhny at Dubai earlier this year.

LINK (http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,20867,21312236-5010361,00.html)

I agree with he said. Put Hawk-eye to the test at Roland Garros where the marks are clear.

BreakPoint
07-08-2007, 04:17 PM
And automobile accident prevention systems should allow accidents to happen because that is what humans would have done. Air bags should not inflate because humans should be allowed to bump their head into the steering - after all, it is they who should be in control, not a computer. And no radar or GPS on fighter jets either - can't see the enemy with your bare eyes at night? - just say your prayers and prepare to be shot down.

No use of DNA in criminal cases either. I can't see the double strands of DNA - so a lab should not either. They should declare innocence or guilt just like they would have done if there was no DNA evidence.
What does any of this have to do with a game called tennis? :confused:

A game in which 99.999% of all matches are played with the players calling their own lines and in which even the pros do not have electronic line calling unless you're in the Top 10 and get to play on one of the show courts?

Do you also wish for more accuracy when the IRS audits your tax returns? :roll:

If you want computers to control tennis too then throw away your racquet and get yourself a Playstation.

BreakPoint
07-08-2007, 04:26 PM
Nadal also had issues with Hawk-eye when he lost to Youzhny at Dubai earlier this year.

LINK (http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,20867,21312236-5010361,00.html)
It's very obvious to me that Hawk-Eye is much less than 100% accurate. They say the accuracy is within 3mm. Well, the way the system is currently set-up, with the ball just barely touching the outside edge of the line being called "IN", 3mm could mean the difference between winning Wimbledon or losing it.

It's ridiculous. They need to program in that margin of error so that if only 3mm or less of the ball is touching the outside edge of the line, it is still called "OUT". Right now, shots in which less than 0.5mm of the ball is touching the line are still being called "IN" all the time. That's crazy. No way is the system that accurate.

AAAA
07-08-2007, 04:34 PM
Nadal also had issues with Hawk-eye when he lost to Youzhny at Dubai earlier this year.

LINK (http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,20867,21312236-5010361,00.html)

I agree with he said. Put Hawk-eye to the test at Roland Garros where the marks are clear.

from the link

"I said `look the ball is out'," Nadal said later, "and the umpire said I know. The mark was clearly still there but the challenge said it was in. It's unbelievable.

Federer had a similar incident today when he was staring right along the baseline when a Nadal shot landed on Federer's forehand side.

Note to Nadal fans, this is a comment about the technology and not Nadal.

Polaris
07-08-2007, 04:34 PM
Actually, the umpire also said that he felt it was out. The slowed-down camera replays bore out the fact as well. This was not the first time that Hawk-Eye screwed up and it won't be the last.

This is not to condone Federer's outburst. He should have accepted the decision and moved on, because the umpire's decision is final. It was unsporting to blame the system.

But, it is quite instructive to see that some people don't want to accept that Hawk-Eye can screw up, and the remarks of MasterTS and tlm smack of blind bias more than anything else.

AAAA
07-08-2007, 04:48 PM
But, it is quite instructive to see that some people don't want to accept that Hawk-Eye can screw up, and the remarks of MasterTS and tlm smack of blind bias more than anything else.

It's also telling that the system doesn't show the public the actual video frame that recorded the ball landing in or out at the point of contact. Instead we are treated to a computer image CREATED by the system's ball trajectory mapping computer program.

davey
07-08-2007, 04:52 PM
The point of Hawk-Eye should be to CORRECT obvious errors by the linespeople, NOT to CHANGE a lineperson's call which he saw correctly up to the limit what's possible for the human eye to see.

They can easily re-program Hawk-Eye so that if less than 5% of the ball is on the outside edge of the line, that it would show the graphic of the ball as being out and also call the ball "OUT". The accuracy of Hawk-Eye should be limited only to what is physically possible for the human eye to see.

If you were calling your own lines, like 99.999% of all tennis matches around the world are, would you be able to call a ball that lands only 1% on the outside edge of the line "IN"? Also, how about all the matches that are played on the outside courts at tournaments which do not have Hawk-Eye? The same exact shots that were called "OUT" are now all of a sudden called "IN" just because you're playing on a different court? Is that fair to everyone in the draw?

Tennis is supposed to a real sport played by human beings with human eyes and not some computer video game. If it's not possible for the human eye to see it, then Hawk-Eye should not be allowed to change it.

I agree. The NFL does a better job of using replay. They use actual video and only overturn calls if there is irrefutable evidence that the call is wrong. Tennis should get rid of the computerized line calling and if they really want to allow appeals of calls, then use high speed video and only overturn a call if the video absolutely shows the call was wrong.

Part of the problem with the computerized system, is that it probably makes calls by a combination of video observing the ball something like 20 times a second and using the laws of physics to calculate the full path of the ball. The computer probably doesn't account for all factors in calculating the path of the ball. It doesn't know how fast the ball is spinning or the presence of any wind that can affect the ball. Either wind or spin can affect the ball far more than 3 mm. If neither were a factor, then it would be easy to project the path of the ball but they are and without knowing them it would be much more difficult to project the path of the ball accurately and when you consider how much spin players but on the ball, 3 mm sounds unrealistic. You could probably put some markings on the ball that would allow spin to be observed, but you still have wind.

I know some people would argue that if the computer observes the ball 20 times a second or whatever it is, then the computer should be accurate, well, then just show the video, not what the computer interpreted from the video.

At most, hawk-eye should be used to evaluate the line judges and chair umpire and only the people making the best calls should be calling the final. Baseball uses a video system to evaluate how umpires call balls and strikes but not to actually call balls and strikes.

BreakPoint
07-08-2007, 05:07 PM
oh, breakpoint, 100% seem to think that the reverse forehand exists, I guess that means your wrong

http://tt.tennis-warehouse.com/showthread.php?t=143279
Ask me if I care what anybody calls it. It is still a forehand - just an incredibly ugly one. A "reverse" forehand is a backhand and that's final.

I hereby now refer to Nadal's and Sharapova's forehand as an - "ugly forehand". You see, now the "reverse forehand" no longer exists as now and for all eternity, it will be known as the "ugly forehand". :lol: LOL

themunkee
07-08-2007, 05:26 PM
I have to go with BP on this one... (the line calling system, that is) Either show us the raw Hawkeye video, or just use high-speed video like NFL. 3mm of accuracy is good, but not good enough when the ball is ~3mm in/out.

TENNIS_99
07-08-2007, 05:50 PM
I think Hawk eye is a computer-simulated tool that projects where the ball lands by various vedeo angles. And simulation does have it error. I too like NFL way, that you want to first reduce errors - reviews, and then if error is inevitable - rather it's from humane than machine. Unfortunately I don't see this concept will get accepted globally - and you know what's in the way - humane nature . So use machine is their easy way out.

zapvor
07-08-2007, 05:52 PM
i am not sure what he said, but it wasnt what the OP put.

JW10S
07-08-2007, 05:55 PM
According to Paul Hawkins, who developed Hawk-Eye, the system has a margin of error of +/- 3.6 mm. So it is not infalible. Anyone who thought Hawk-Eye would eliminate all line call controversies was being naive.

AAAA
07-08-2007, 06:02 PM
According to Paul Hawkins, who developed Hawk-Eye, the system has a margin of error of +/- 3.6 mm. So it is not infalible. Anyone who thought Hawk-Eye would eliminate all line call controversies was being naive.

Calling them naive is a very nice way of putting it. ;-)

davey
07-08-2007, 06:20 PM
This is what they should be using instead of hawk-eye

http://www.wired.com/science/discoveries/news/2007/02/72632

The Gorilla
07-08-2007, 06:21 PM
Ask me if I care what anybody calls it. It is still a forehand - just an incredibly ugly one. A "reverse" forehand is a backhand and that's final.

I hereby now refer to Nadal's and Sharapova's forehand as an - "ugly forehand". You see, now the "reverse forehand" no longer exists as now and for all eternity, it will be known as the "ugly forehand". :lol: LOL

no it's not, because if you asked someone to hit a reverse forehand they would understand it to mean a forehand with an over the head finish, not a backhand, so you're wrong.


word (wrd) pronunciation
n.

1. A sound or a combination of sounds, or its representation in writing or printing, that symbolizes and communicates a meaning and may consist of a single morpheme or of a combination of morphemes.

MasterTS
07-08-2007, 06:22 PM
hawkeye isnt always right. it's only right 90% of the time, which is pretty bad i think...


Who said it's only 90% rigght? YOu have misinterpted johnny mac's commentatery..

BreakPoint
07-08-2007, 07:09 PM
no it's not, because if you asked someone to hit a reverse forehand they would understand it to mean a forehand with an over the head finish, not a backhand, so you're wrong.

Maybe only in your own small little world. In the tennis world at large, most people have no idea what a "reverse forehand" is nor have they ever even heard of it. Go to any tennis club in the country and ask every member what a "reverse forehand' is and I'd bet most of them will look at you with a quizzical look and then answer - "you mean a backhand?".

Man, with your "reverse forehand, "Hawaiian" grip, and your spinning torso when you hit your one-handed backhands, you must be quite a sight to see out on the tennis court. :-o

davey
07-08-2007, 07:14 PM
Maybe only in your own small little world. In the tennis world at large, most people have no idea what a "reverse forehand" is nor have they ever even heard of it. Go to any tennis club in the country and ask every member what a "reverse forehand' is and I'd bet most of them will look at you with a quizzical look and then answer - "you mean a backhand?".

Man, with your "reverse forehand, "Hawaiian" grip, and your spinning torso when you hit your one-handed backhands, you must be quite a sight to see out on the tennis court. :-o

I use a reverse backhand with a Hawaiian half knuckle grip but only at the net, from both sides.

FEDEXP
07-08-2007, 07:24 PM
Federer has always been against the Hawkeye system-nothing new there. What I don't like about it is the on court coaching and the near constant refrain from the announcers-well he/she may as well challenge this late in the set. I don't like the potential for gamesmanship.

gdsballer
07-08-2007, 08:25 PM
the balls that he argued about were very close, and as much as i dont like him, he couldve been right...he still won the match anyway though he shouldnt have

WillAlwaysLoveYouTennis
07-08-2007, 08:27 PM
As was said in observation of the incident, Hawkeye is 90% correct, but there is the other 10% that it's wrong. Can question it, but who will overrule the machine?

Federer has always been against the Hawkeye system-nothing new there. What I don't like about it is the on court coaching and the near constant refrain from the announcers-well he/she may as well challenge this late in the set. I don't like the potential for gamesmanship.

Yes, so many players look up to the coach to ask by glance, Should I challenge?? It's coaching in that way, so in that, there is a fault.

JW10S
07-08-2007, 08:30 PM
Maybe only in your own small little world. In the tennis world at large, most people have no idea what a "reverse forehand" is nor have they ever even heard of it. Go to any tennis club in the country and ask every member what a "reverse forehand' is and I'd bet most of them will look at you with a quizzical look and then answer - "you mean a backhand?".

Man, with your "reverse forehand, "Hawaiian" grip, and your spinning torso when you hit your one-handed backhands, you must be quite a sight to see out on the tennis court. :-oJust so everyone knows...an 'inside out forehand' is a slang expression for a 'reverse crosscourt forehand'. A 'reverse forehand' is a term I've not heard in tennis--and tennis has been my life for 30 years. What either one has to do with this thread though is something I don't understand. Some people need to know when to let it go--getting the last word is not that important.

BiGGieStuFF
07-08-2007, 08:34 PM
I don't trust machines - eventually they will kill us all. Neither should Federer.

Ironic coming from you cyborg! - half man half MACHINE!

BreakPoint
07-08-2007, 10:19 PM
Just so everyone knows...an 'inside out forehand' is a slang expression for a 'reverse crosscourt forehand'. A 'reverse forehand' is a term I've not heard in tennis--and tennis has been my life for 30 years. What either one has to do with this thread though is something I don't understand. Some people need to know when to let it go--getting the last word is not that important.
Ask "The Gorilla" what a "reverse forehand" is. It seems he's the only one who knows.

I've also been playing tennis for over 30 years and I have never heard of a "reverse forehand". To me, that would either be a backhand or a forehand stroke in reverse so that all of your shots hit the back fence behind you. Those are the ONLY two things that could possibly be logically called a "reverse forehand".

There is nothing "reverse" about a forehand stroke in which the follow-through ends up over your head rather than across your body. It is STILL a forehand.

superman1
07-08-2007, 10:25 PM
I didn't replay it but it seemed pretty obviously out when I saw it. Shot spot is only 90% accurate, so I don't know why the umpire can't overrule it. 10% error is a lot when you count the number of times it's used.

However, that doesn't excuse Federer's whiny baby act. Very un-Borg-like. Every time he's wrong on the challenge (which is almost every single time) you see the pain in his face.

robin7
07-09-2007, 02:02 AM
A great champion should not yell at the chair umpire. I still recalled what he said, "what the world the ball can be in. Shhit!"

In fact, it was a close call but I think the machine was right. There are a few occasions in the match that the balls are just kissing the lines.

robin7
07-09-2007, 02:03 AM
Luckily, he won, Otherwise, he could have just blamed the machine for the loss.

keithchircop
07-09-2007, 02:08 AM
Fed's eyes are messed up.. He dares challenge a system of precision and technologically advancement vesus his human eyes?

let's see what you're gonna say once you read this:

Nadal also criticised Hawkeye after his semi-final victory over Novak Djokovic. "I think the Hawkeye has mistakes sometimes," he said.

from: http://eurosport.yahoo.com/09072007/58/wimbledon-federer-critical-hawkeye.html

OWNED.

robin7
07-09-2007, 03:43 AM
If Fed thought the machine is rubbish, then why he challenged once in a while. He's happy when the result is in his favor. But when it turned out against him, then he said the machine is useless. What a "true champion" he is!!

I don't remember 4-time singles champion Venus challenged or questioned any calls.

roysid
07-09-2007, 03:47 AM
Yep it reminds me of the time when Fed made an outburst, talking to Uncle Tony during one of their clay court matches when fed got super frustrated and lost.
Hey MasterTS, when someone plays with so much effort and passion, and you see HawkEye saying a ball that was out as in, if you have emotions you're bound to be frustated.

And Uncle Toni was doing courtside coaching which gives Nadal unfair advantage. So Fed protested. And that was Rome final, tough five setter. One or two points make the difference.

BTW, Fed never complains over Nadal taking so much time which some players like Soderling do.

Finally, in Dubai this year Nadal lost the first set tiebreaker to Youzhny on a hawk eye call. Ball clearly landed out. But Hawk-eye showed it in by hairline, just like Wimbledon. Did you found it funny then?

vive le beau jeu !
07-09-2007, 05:35 AM
I don't trust machines - eventually they will kill us all. Neither should Federer.
Funny comin consider your user name.
eheh... indeed. ;)

but he's right... it's only a question of time before the hawk-eye evolves into a terminator.

RedWeb
07-09-2007, 06:02 AM
Fed was just blowing off stream, trying to get his game back on track, and hawkeye happened to be the target.

And, once and for all, Hawkeye is way more than 90% accurate. Everyone is misquoting JMac. He said "IF Hawkeye was 90% accurate then it would be wrong 10% of the time". It would of never been introduced, for $100,000/court, if it were only 90% accurate. Hawkeye is accurate to within 3mm.

To me the advantage of Hawkeye is that you have consistency during the entire match. It will the measure and interpret the same shot the same way everytime. Inconsistency is the #1 complaint of athletes toward referees, umpires and/or linesmans. Hawkeye does away with that human inconsistency.

MasterTS
07-09-2007, 06:06 AM
He said "IF Hawkeye was 90% accurate then it would be wrong 10% of the time"


Thank you... I can't beleive how many zombies we have watching tennis and can't interpet some commentary without distorting it.

slice bh compliment
07-09-2007, 06:15 AM
Ask "The Gorilla" what a "reverse forehand" is. It seems he's the only one who knows.

I've also been playing tennis for over 30 years and I have never heard of a "reverse forehand". To me, that would either be a backhand or a forehand stroke in reverse so that all of your shots hit the back fence behind you. Those are the ONLY two things that could possibly be logically called a "reverse forehand".

There is nothing "reverse" about a forehand stroke in which the follow-through ends up over your head rather than across your body. It is STILL a forehand.

People who read the major instructional sites know what it is. I'm thinking it is one of those words that teaching pros and coaches 'coin' to separate themselves from other coaches.

I agree with you, I think it is a BS expression.
First time I read it I think it was in a piece by Lansdorp on www.TennisPlayer.net (http://www.TennisPlayer.net). I love that detailed tennis stuff, but I think the terminology in our sport is going the way of the self-help industry.