PDA

View Full Version : If Hawkeye not 99% accurate why use it?


christo
07-09-2007, 09:04 AM
I'm starting to think it has some flaws in it. I liked the Mac cam. Also this is letting the Ump completely off the hook and players looking to their entourage for advice is over the top also.

pennc94
07-09-2007, 09:10 AM
Hawkeye's margin of error should be calculated (i.e. +/- 3 mm). Then, a call that is within the margin of error should be a let.

Frankly, I think all the points should be automatically called by Hawkeye (or some other electronic form). Just have a big booming voice say "OUT" whenever the ball is out.

Marius_Hancu
07-09-2007, 09:13 AM
Yes, the system which CBS used 1-2 years ago (high speed filming of the line) is much better, IMO too. I think that is Mac Cam.

That is not "virtual reality" like Hawkeye, it also leaves the responsibility with the umpire.

Hawkeye seems to be only 94% correct, or to a 1/10 inch. I would not use it.

AndyRLacoste
07-09-2007, 09:13 AM
Hawkeye has been used wrongly lately.

AN example would be in one of Roddick's first matches at Wimbledon this year, the opposition challenged a call that he hit, and was called out.

It was obviously out, and you could hear Andy say quietly "It was so far out it won't show up on the screen."

Players are using it as a timeout.

bluetrain4
07-09-2007, 09:16 AM
Because humans are even less accurate.

veritech
07-09-2007, 09:16 AM
Yes, the system which CBS used 1-2 years ago (high speed filming of the line) is much better, IMO too. I think that is Mac Cam.

That is not "virtual reality" like Hawkeye, it also leaves the responsibility with the umpire.

Hawkeye seems to be only 94% correct, or to a 1/10 inch. I would not use it.

what does CBS use? if i can remember, hawkeye is composed of 8 high speed cameras that follow the ball only to be interpreted through virtual reality.

Chopin
07-09-2007, 09:21 AM
I'm undecided on Hawkeye, since I'm not completely convinced of its accuracy on close balls. However, I do believe that one of the primary reasons it's being used now is not only for improved call accuracy, but so that it can help make tennis "more exciting for the fans" (kind of like the new doubles rules).

West Coast Ace
07-09-2007, 09:32 AM
Because humans are even less accurate.Very well said. And I'll add 'have egos that can get in the way' - e.g. chair umps who are just a little too anxious to become part of the match and make overrules on lines on the other side of the court.

what does CBS use? if i can remember, hawkeye is composed of 8 high speed cameras that follow the ball only to be interpreted through virtual reality.The CBS cameras one of the previous posters mentioned were mounted low on the court - one per line - no 'triangulation' - or however you want to describe Hawkeye. A system like this could be set up - you'd have to have cameras on each side in case someone's foot was in the way. But I think Hawkeye is here to stay - Fed is just going to have to accept the fact.

Jasyn19
07-09-2007, 09:56 AM
When Roger attempted to dispute the baseline challenge referred to Hawkeye in the fourth set of the W final yesterday afternoon, I sympathised enormously with him. Yes, I know the line belongs to the opposing player and, according to Hawkeye, the tiniest slice (about 2% of the ball) of the ball was overlapping the line making the ball "in" but... here is a ball:

O

Look at that ball. Only a very small part of it TOUCHES the line at any one time. Sure, it squashes quite a lot as it hits the ground in motion. At that moment of impact a larger part of the ball is in contact with the ground than when it is stationary - say about an eight of the whole surface of the ball.

The Rules of Tennis read: "if a ball touches a line, it is regarded as touching the court bounded by that line."

How can Hawkeye therefore claim that a ball is touching the line if only the smallest sliver of the back edge of the ball is overlapping the line? As I saw it, about 2% of the ball was overlapping the line. The point I am emphasising is that ball was NOT touching the line. The part that was in contact with the ground was beyond the line by some 2cm - just under an inch - and therefore that ball did not touch the line. It touched beyond the line.

Little wonder that Roger saw no sense in that one.

I wonder if Hawkeye shouldn't be modified to include only the centre third of the ball overlapping the line as the part that matters when arbitrating on challenges?

To my way of thinking, if we are going to be so mega-precise in making line calls, the one-third section I propose is a lot more realistic than it currently is.

tricky
07-09-2007, 10:00 AM
As I saw it, about 2% of the ball was overlapping the line.

FWIW, that's why I like Hawkeye. That's touching the line to me. And it gets tennis players to behave a little out there. I mean, 3mm is better than the eye can differentiate.

Federer was just frustrated out there. Long time ago, he used to throw fits like Safin and Roddick, and so it's not unreasonable to think that he let his emotions get the best of him.

Lleyton Hewitt
07-09-2007, 10:02 AM
i think Nadal suggested hawk eye to be used on clay courts so this shall test how accurate hawk eye really is because u can see the marks on the court and plus seeing is believing right? if a ball is clearly out on a clay court and marks show it....then hawk eye shows that it is in then a few questions will be asked.

fastdunn
07-09-2007, 10:13 AM
I think there is room for Hawk Eye to be improved.

Should we still use it ? Oh yes. More accurate, consistent and objective than
human.

AgassiFan12
07-09-2007, 10:19 AM
From what I remember hearing the years leading up to Hawkeye actually being used in the U.S. Open series and U.S. open, the ATP did extensive testing until they got the results to a very small margin of error.


The ATP set the paramaters in which they would be happy with using the Hawkeye system and once the results of the testing came back to their liking they decided to use it.

I don't remember the actual numbers but it is pretty miniscule, as far as it's margin for error. Let's just say that it is far more acurate than a human eye.

Golden Retriever
07-09-2007, 10:43 AM
Even if it was 90% accurate at least it would be the same for both players. Some line judges are clearly biased towards their own countrymen.

beernutz
07-09-2007, 12:31 PM
When Roger attempted to dispute the baseline challenge referred to Hawkeye in the fourth set of the W final yesterday afternoon, I sympathised enormously with him. Yes, I know the line belongs to the opposing player and, according to Hawkeye, the tiniest slice (about 2% of the ball) of the ball was overlapping the line making the ball "in" but... here is a ball:

O

Look at that ball. Only a very small part of it TOUCHES the line at any one time. Sure, it squashes quite a lot as it hits the ground in motion. At that moment of impact a larger part of the ball is in contact with the ground than when it is stationary - say about an eight of the whole surface of the ball.

The Rules of Tennis read: "if a ball touches a line, it is regarded as touching the court bounded by that line."

How can Hawkeye therefore claim that a ball is touching the line if only the smallest sliver of the back edge of the ball is overlapping the line? As I saw it, about 2% of the ball was overlapping the line. The point I am emphasising is that ball was NOT touching the line. The part that was in contact with the ground was beyond the line by some 2cm - just under an inch - and therefore that ball did not touch the line. It touched beyond the line.

Little wonder that Roger saw no sense in that one.

I wonder if Hawkeye shouldn't be modified to include only the centre third of the ball overlapping the line as the part that matters when arbitrating on challenges?

To my way of thinking, if we are going to be so mega-precise in making line calls, the one-third section I propose is a lot more realistic than it currently is.

According to the Hawk-eye website, http://www.hawkeyeinnovations.co.uk/?page_id=1011&PHPSESSID=e46a9f48c12a3b941e5b92bebacb0c10, only the area that the ball actually touches the court is used in making the call. See the very bottom of that webpage.

Personally I think Hawk-eye is great and if it truely is accurate to within 3.6mm in varied conditions as the developers claim then it is leaps and bounds above even the best human lines people. And given the number of HORRIBLE calls I saw made at Wimby those type of lines people are not that common.

edmondsm
07-09-2007, 12:35 PM
Because humans are even less accurate.

Yes, which is shown by how utterly wrong the players are usually.

I hate hawk-eye.