PDA

View Full Version : Was it IN or OUT? (Roger's complaint at Wimbledon.)


MasterTS
07-10-2007, 08:09 PM
Crucial point that FED cried about: Is this IN or is this OUT?

http://img399.imageshack.us/img399/2963/hawkeyecj1.jpg

AlpineCadet
07-10-2007, 08:10 PM
If the ball and the line have NO space in between them, then the ball is considered IN.

nikdom
07-10-2007, 08:11 PM
OUT! The umpire called it out too..... At that precision, barely the fuzz of the ball may be touching the line. To call that IN is ridiculous.

saram
07-10-2007, 08:13 PM
Disclaimer: I'm a Rafa fan.

The ball was out...pure and simply out.

AlpineCadet
07-10-2007, 08:15 PM
Crucial point that FED cried about: Is this IN or is this OUT?

BTW, I'm downloading this match ATM, since I missed watching it. I heard the spoiler of who won from a friend; it kind of ruined things a little bit since the match was so close, lol.

AlpineCadet
07-10-2007, 08:17 PM
Disclaimer: I'm a Rafa fan.

The ball was out...pure and simply out.

There's clearly no space in between the ball and the baseline. How is that ball "pure and simply out?" This question also goes for all those who considered this ball out.

saram
07-10-2007, 08:18 PM
BTW, I'm downloading this match ATM, since I missed watching it. I heard the spoiler of who won from a friend; it kind of ruined things a little bit since the match was so close, lol.

You will enjoy it--regardless of the outcome. Pretty good drama and emtion throughout. Enjoy!!!

slice bh compliment
07-10-2007, 08:27 PM
Nobody knows for sure. SO I just got back from London. I had to conduct a few interviews. The grass itself, or as the French call it, l'herbe, was the only one with anything quotable. I knew something was up when he referred me to the chalk because, ''the chalk would know best''.

But the chalk was silent. Ghost white, in fact.

So I hit up the grass again (no, not literally). Herb admitted, though still very young and designed to be hearty, he was still recovering from the onslaught. He contends that the Spanish kid hits the ball with such weight, his shots have a deeper and larger impact on the grass. SO the ball was probably in, despite what Federer's superhuman eyes saw. The grass went on to say that he prefers the way Bjorkman, Pozzi and the senior guys hit the ball. Particularly enjoyed Nastase and Hingis' considerate and gentle brand of tennis.

So there you have it. The ball probably hit some line. The grass felt pain. The grass is rooting for players other than Rafa next year.

End of interview.

herosol
07-10-2007, 08:51 PM
okay hawkeye is good. but to the last 1000th of a millimeter. nope.

that was out.

saram
07-10-2007, 08:54 PM
There's clearly no space in between the ball and the baseline. How is that ball "pure and simply out?" This question also goes for all those who considered this ball out.


show us a shot taken down the line. not with the line behind the ball. the ball in this image would have to be 6 or 7 inches behind the baseline for us to see a space between the two. show a shot down the line and i'll show you the space....

iamke55
07-10-2007, 09:01 PM
From the angle of the photo, Hawkeye was wrong. But we would need to see it from a different angle to tell for sure.

Hot Sauce
07-10-2007, 09:03 PM
Looks out to me.

JW10S
07-10-2007, 09:04 PM
Who cares, the match is over.

tangoll
07-10-2007, 09:04 PM
If what is shown by this hawkeye system is the outer circumference of the ball, then the part of the ball actually touching the ground, ie the footprint, has to be of a smaller circumference than the outer circumference. In that case, the ball is out because the footprint can't be touching the chalk.

Hawkeye has to be tracking the maximum circumference of the ball; no way it can track the footprint. So there must be this flaw in hawkeye.

Hot Sauce
07-10-2007, 09:06 PM
If the ball and the line have NO space in between them, then the ball is considered IN.

But Hawkeye has an error margin of 1mm, so.. it could go either way. Correct?

saram
07-10-2007, 09:06 PM
Who cares, the match is over.

good point. very good point. and the fed won--so there is no crying fowl....

crazylevity
07-10-2007, 09:07 PM
you'd need a high speed camera looking on the baseline from the side to tell.

My first reaction was that it was out; was really surprised that Hawkeye called it in...looking at the slow mo replays (not hawkeye) I'm fairly convinced it was out.

saram
07-10-2007, 09:08 PM
But Hawkeye has an error margin of 1mm, so.. it could go either way. Correct?


i honestly don't think hawkeye was in top form on sunday. the ball that rafa challened in the first set breaker was clearly out and hawkeye called it in. rafa, roger, and everyone else was shocked that they continued further in the breaker.

tangoll
07-10-2007, 09:10 PM
Looking at the actual image of the ball again, the ball looks out, but you can't say for sure exactly when that image was taken; it may have been taken a milli-micro-second after the ball had bounced, but when it bounced the ball bounced on part of the line. So it's not possible to tell for sure by looking at just the image.

AlpineCadet
07-10-2007, 09:11 PM
show us a shot taken down the line. not with the line behind the ball. the ball in this image would have to be 6 or 7 inches behind the baseline for us to see a space between the two. show a shot down the line and i'll show you the space....
Not true at all. With hawk-eye, they can zoom in on the ball in question. It's very hard to tell because we don't really know how precise the program was written, but judging by the PICTURE from hawkeye, the ball OBVIOUSLY was called IN because it hit the line, PERIOD.

i honestly don't think hawkeye was in top form on sunday.

Hawk-eye isn't a person, it's a program.

crazylevity
07-10-2007, 09:11 PM
i honestly don't think hawkeye was in top form on sunday. the ball that rafa challened in the first set breaker was clearly out and hawkeye called it in. rafa, roger, and everyone else was shocked that they continued further in the breaker.

precisely. i wonder if the calibration of the cameras was off...do they calibrate it before every match, or just once in the tournament?

Duzza
07-10-2007, 09:12 PM
It's in, but just. It looks out to the eye, but I trust Hawkeye

EliteNinja
07-10-2007, 09:14 PM
Looks to be a good centimeter out to me.
Zoom in and look at that shadow.

AlpineCadet
07-10-2007, 09:15 PM
But Hawkeye has an error margin of 1mm, so.. it could go either way. Correct?

Judging by Federer's reaction, I'm sure it's debatable. But if you go by the picture of that shot taken by Hawk-eye, which was probably shown on the JumboTron, I'm sure all the Nadal fans would have gone nuts if that ball was called out. According to that picture, there's no space in between the ball and the line...

xie_419
07-10-2007, 09:17 PM
BTW, I'm downloading this match ATM, since I missed watching it. I heard the spoiler of who won from a friend; it kind of ruined things a little bit since the match was so close, lol.

I also want to dl the match - can you give me a link for it?
IMO - hawkeye is there for a reason and if it says in - you just have to live with it.

JW10S
07-10-2007, 09:20 PM
But Hawkeye has an error margin of 1mm, so.. it could go either way. Correct?Actually according to Paul Hawkins who developed Hawk Eye the system has a margin of error of + or - 3.6 mm--it is not infallible.

tennis_hand
07-10-2007, 09:25 PM
from that camera angle and its image touching the line, the ball is clearly out.

AlpineCadet
07-10-2007, 09:29 PM
from that camera angle and its image touching the line, the ball is clearly out.

^ the picture from hawk-eye is a still picture, while the image behind it is of the ball in motion. at that moment in time, the ball already passed the baseline.

edberg505
07-10-2007, 09:40 PM
Actually Nadal got jacked on a call just like that in Dubai against Youhzny. The ball looked clearly out, but Youhzny challenged and hawkeye saw the ball in. Nadal was livid. I think hawkeye is good for the game but on calls like that, I think it's sort of BS.

InvisibleSoul
07-10-2007, 09:45 PM
A single stray thread of felt touched the line.

TheNatural
07-10-2007, 09:45 PM
5th set 1st game, Fed serving at 15-0. Nadal hits a shot on Feds right sideline. He challenged it and Hawkeye showed it was out by a mm. IT looked to clip the edge of the line. I think hawkeye may have made a mistake there due to its 3mm margin for error.

Nadal also got ripped off on another call earlier. Fed hit a nothing shot that landed on Nadal's left sideline, half way up the sideline. Nadal Had an easy put away on it. It was called out incorrectly. Fed challenged, it was in and point was replayed with Fed getting a first serve.

crazylevity
07-10-2007, 09:55 PM
As I mentioned, there were a number of really strange calls by Hawkeye in the final. I suspect the system may have been calibrated wrongly or not calibrated properly. It has otherwise been proven fairly reliable thus far.

Alex132
07-10-2007, 10:02 PM
99% out = 100% in....it was in.

Eviscerator
07-10-2007, 10:32 PM
Who cares, the match is over.

"It matters not for this game, but the future games it will."

Yoda

BreakPoint
07-10-2007, 10:37 PM
If 100 out of 100 line judges call a ball out, which in this case I think all 100 would have, then the ball is out. It's as simple as that. Hawk-Eye should not be allowed to exceed the limits of human vision. If no human can possibly see it in, then it's out. This is real tennis played by real human beings, and NOT a computerized tennis video game.

If you were calling your own lines, is there anyone that would have called that shot in? I doubt it.

The margin of error for Hawk-Eye is 3mm. That's more than enough for Hawk-Eye to show the edge of the ball touching the outside edge of the the line and calling a ball in when it was in fact out. They need to reprogram Hawk-Eye so that if the ball is in by less than 3mm, then it shows the ball graphic as not touching the line and calls the shot out.

BreakPoint
07-10-2007, 10:44 PM
But Hawkeye has an error margin of 1mm, so.. it could go either way. Correct?
Actually the margin of error for Hawk-Eye is 3mm. That is quite a lot considering the sidelines on a tennis court could be as thin as 25mm, which means an out ball could be shown by Hawk-Eye as touching 12% of the line.

In the above pic, it looks like the ball is only touching less than 1% of the line.

AJK1
07-10-2007, 10:49 PM
It was out, and i agree with Fed, they should not use hawkeye. Leave it up to the officials.

Mark J
07-11-2007, 12:31 AM
At that precision, barely the fuzz of the ball may be touching the line. To call that IN is ridiculous.

The rules state that if ANY part of the ball is touching the line the ball is IN. So even if its only the "fuzz" thats still part of the ball, therefore.. IN.

If the ball and the line have NO space in between them, then the ball is considered IN.

Thank you

FarFed
07-11-2007, 01:28 AM
A very candid article, a little funny and presumptuous at times.

I found the technicalities of Hawk-eye much more interesting than the harping on Federer's whining.

http://www.sun-sentinel.com/sports/tennis/sfl-flspbricker11nbjul11,0,2493083.story

goforgold99
07-11-2007, 01:50 AM
Idiot who wrote this article.

First of all the Hawk-Eye system is NOT always right. It has an accuracy of 3 millimeters, so the decision of which Fed was complaining that could have been 3 millimiters very well, so the ball was indeed probably out.

Second of all the way Fed played in this final isn't his "maxed out" game as this guy writes. Has he ever heared anything about dayform???!

Chrystal
07-11-2007, 01:56 AM
http://www.hawkeyeinnovations.co.uk/UserFiles/File/Hawk-Eye%20Line%20call%20explained.pdf

FarFed
07-11-2007, 01:57 AM
Haha, the writer really is funny. lol.

Read his future predictions, on Bartoli, Krajicek etc. He's so outspoken.:D

FarFed
07-11-2007, 02:03 AM
Excellent, that's just an excellent article.

The key is that after the bounce, the "rolling" or skidding gives the impression that its "out", but the fact is that is has "traveled" a bit after it bounced.

Great stuff.
http://www.hawkeyeinnovations.co.uk/UserFiles/File/Hawk-Eye%20Line%20call%20explained.pdf

AAAA
07-11-2007, 02:31 AM
A very candid article, a little funny and presumptuous at times.

I found the technicalities of Hawk-eye much more interesting than the harping on Federer's whining.

http://www.sun-sentinel.com/sports/tennis/sfl-flspbricker11nbjul11,0,2493083.story

quote:

But on the other computer was the picture of the Hawk-Eye camera free-framing the ball at the moment it touched the line. It was flush on the line. Not seven-eighths out. Not half-out, half-in. Flush.


Then why not show the video if Hawkins is so sure the system is fool proof.



Also the Hawkinsinnivation link doesn't quote the margin of error to be 3.6mm. It said the AVERAGE margin of error is 3.6mm. That means some errors are less than the 3.6mm average and some are more than 3.6mm. Since the machine is inherently imperfect how does Hawkins know that the call that gave Federer so much anguish wasn't an error that was greater than the 3.6mm average. What if it was 10mm, a clear 1cm out.

Why doesn't Hawkins tell us what the maximum recorded error was from all the tests? Is he hiding something like some tests record error margins of
say 20mm which is clearly out?

Also how is the margin of error determined without a CORRECT reeading to compare it to? Why don't we see the correct reading?

Edit: There are too many unanswered questions for me.

goforgold99
07-11-2007, 02:40 AM
quote:

But on the other computer was the picture of the Hawk-Eye camera free-framing the ball at the moment it touched the line. It was flush on the line. Not seven-eighths out. Not half-out, half-in. Flush.


Then why not show the video if Hawkins is so sure the system is fool proof.



Also the Hawkinsinnivation link doesn't quote the margin of error to be 3.6mm. It said the AVERAGE margin of error is 3.6mm. That means some errors are less than the 3.6mm average and some are more than 3.6mm. Since the machine is inherently imperfect how does Hawkins know that the call that gave Federer so much anguish wasn't an error that was greater than the 3.6mm average. What if it was 10mm, a clear 1cm out.

Why doesn't Hawkins tell us what the maximum recorded error was from all the tests? Is he hiding something like some tests record error margins of
say 20mm which is clearly out?

Also how is the margin of error determined without a CORRECT reeading to compare it to? Why don't we see the correct reading?

Edit: There are too many unanswered questions for me.
exactly! that's what i'm saying

poplar
07-11-2007, 05:05 AM
quote:

But on the other computer was the picture of the Hawk-Eye camera free-framing the ball at the moment it touched the line. It was flush on the line. Not seven-eighths out. Not half-out, half-in. Flush.


Then why not show the video if Hawkins is so sure the system is fool proof.



Also the Hawkinsinnivation link doesn't quote the margin of error to be 3.6mm. It said the AVERAGE margin of error is 3.6mm. That means some errors are less than the 3.6mm average and some are more than 3.6mm. Since the machine is inherently imperfect how does Hawkins know that the call that gave Federer so much anguish wasn't an error that was greater than the 3.6mm average. What if it was 10mm, a clear 1cm out.

Why doesn't Hawkins tell us what the maximum recorded error was from all the tests? Is he hiding something like some tests record error margins of
say 20mm which is clearly out?

Also how is the margin of error determined without a CORRECT reeading to compare it to? Why don't we see the correct reading?

Edit: There are too many unanswered questions for me.

I am glad that finally someone understands statistics.
When the margin of error is 3.6mm, it's only statistically speaking that most errors are within 3.6mm. and some of the errors are bigger than that. and there are even chances that the error in one instance is way bigger than that.

to use a flawed system(hawkeye) to supposedly "correct" another flawed system(linemen) is so very flawed mathematically.

poplar
07-11-2007, 05:07 AM
I am glad that finally someone understands statistics.
When the margin of error is 3.6mm, it's only statistically speaking that most errors are within 3.6mm. and some of the errors are bigger than that. and there are even chances that the error in one instance is way bigger than that.

to use a flawed system(hawkeye) to supposedly "correct" another flawed system(linemen) is so very flawed mathematically.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=G2py2SlUBeg

it looks out even from this angle. imagine how "out" it would look from the other side.

JWin
07-11-2007, 06:39 AM
In one of Vic Braden's books, he says the testing, using high speed cameras proves the human eye can't capture an event such as the ball actually landing, the event lasts roughly half as long as it takes the eye to register it.

So margin of error is not just a machine/mechanical issue, Federer could be wrong too, right?

Kalin
07-11-2007, 06:39 AM
Man, Fed goes once to 5 sets in a GS final and all kinds of wannabe experts start crawling out of the woodwork criticizing him or predicting his demise. Goodness forbids he actually loses a GS final apart from RG, someone will claim he's the biggest failure in history...

(JWin, don't mean you but the author of this and the other article quoted on these pages)

sureshs
07-11-2007, 06:51 AM
I am glad that finally someone understands statistics.
When the margin of error is 3.6mm, it's only statistically speaking that most errors are within 3.6mm. and some of the errors are bigger than that. and there are even chances that the error in one instance is way bigger than that.

to use a flawed system(hawkeye) to supposedly "correct" another flawed system(linemen) is so very flawed mathematically.

It is OK if the system is much better most of the time.

People wear glasses, don't they? It improves vision, but doesn't guarantee 100% accuracy. Should they stop wearing glasses? (or do laser surgery or whatever).

A computer can give wrong results, if there is a hardware or software bug (e.g., the notorious Pentium floating point bug). But no one has stopped using computers because of that small probability of error.

When you transfer a file, there are multiple levels of error detection and coding, from the lowest communication level to the highest level at the file contents themselves. There is still a very small probability that the file downloaded was not exactly the same. But it is much better than a human copying the file by hand.

TheNatural
07-11-2007, 07:22 AM
Fed is often wrong. In the AO he was also a disaster with the challenges. Mabe Feds eye sight is worse than average?

If I was an umpire up in the chair Id think the ball was out if it only touched the back of the line by a few mm, at the speeds nadal hits the ball.

I'd rather trust a machine that was accurate within 3mm.

In one of Vic Braden's books, he says the testing, using high speed cameras proves the human eye can't capture an event such as the ball actually landing, the event lasts roughly half as long as it takes the eye to register it.

So margin of error is not just a machine/mechanical issue, Federer could be wrong too, right?

BobFL
07-11-2007, 07:27 AM
Actually the margin of error for Hawk-Eye is 3mm. That is quite a lot considering the sidelines on a tennis court could be as thin as 25mm, which means an out ball could be shown by Hawk-Eye as touching 12% of the line.

In the above pic, it looks like the ball is only touching less than 1% of the line.

No it is not that simple.
According to specs that I have found the margin error is +-3.6mm.
If we want to interpret this properly it should be like this:
Margin error is 3.6 left and right from mean and in this case mean is indefinitely thin line on a outside border of white stripe line.
Now, 3.6mm in absolute value is 3 sigma away from mean and that is far away and it is considered as an outlier (outlier is an observation that is numerically distant from the rest of the data).

The crucial question is: what is the probability that hawkeye will hit 3 sigma (n times in a row and in favour of just one player which is basically impossible)? It is very very low.

I do not know if Gauss curve for hawkeye is narrow or wide and I do not know std. deviation but I know one thing: it is much better than human eye. I would say that in this case benefits outweigh the weaknesses.

dave333
07-11-2007, 07:38 AM
Hawkeye is only accurate within 3 mm.

Impossible to determine, so it was it.

Robbie_1988
07-11-2007, 09:04 AM
Crucial point that FED cried about: Is this IN or is this OUT?

Who gives a damn. Despite all these questionable calls you so vigorously whine about, Roger still won. The match is over. Go and play some tennis. Get some vitamin for your skin.

malakas
07-11-2007, 09:12 AM
I was suprised it was called in.It looks clearly out to me.

sapient007
07-11-2007, 09:21 AM
there were 2 times (at least i can recall) that the hawkeye's replay was no where close to how the point played out. I think the tv commentator even jokingly asked the machine to be reset.. something like that.

anyhow, i think hawkeye is flawed that it can't really judge spin, ground surface friction upon ball impact, ball compression very well.

Hot Sauce
07-11-2007, 09:24 AM
A 3.6mm margin of error is disgusting, in my opinion. I voted for out.

slice bh compliment
07-11-2007, 09:26 AM
Again, a little frstrated and whiny.....and arrogant of Roger to ask for the Hawkeye to be turned off.

But I can't help but think what Lendl or Connors would have said.

veritech
07-11-2007, 09:33 AM
they should've called a let. :P

clearly this falls in hawkeye's margin of error.

Robbie_1988
07-11-2007, 09:40 AM
Again, a little frstrated and whiny.....and arrogant of Roger to ask for the Hawkeye to be turned off.

But I can't help but think what Lendl or Connors would have said.

Probably wouldn't have said anything. I can imagine McEnroe going over to the machine and destroying it.

poplar
07-11-2007, 09:42 AM
from that camera angle and its image touching the line, the ball is clearly out.

and out by much more than 3.6mm, hawkeye's margin of error. if this were from another camera angle, it would look further out.

I am amazed by how blind people can be .

harry2110
07-11-2007, 10:13 AM
if you enlarge the pic 10x you will see that the ball is in

naffi
07-11-2007, 10:35 AM
It's not in by the fuzz. When the ball lands, it squooshes (for lack of better word) down and gets flatter, so that's not ridiculous, it's in. You have to take that factor into account as well.

http://www.******************.blogspot.com

OUT! The umpire called it out too..... At that precision, barely the fuzz of the ball may be touching the line. To call that IN is ridiculous.

johnny ballgame
07-11-2007, 10:43 AM
OUT! The umpire called it out too..... At that precision, barely the fuzz of the ball may be touching the line. To call that IN is ridiculous.

If a long stray piece of fuzz is barely touching a fading section of stray paint... THE BALL IS IN!

Mercedes
07-11-2007, 10:58 AM
I froze the image on a very large TV and the ball clipped the edge of the line. NO Question. If it was out I would say say. BUT it was in by a faction.

Heavy Metal Tennis Star
07-11-2007, 11:12 AM
it was definitely in. but it was so funny when roger was ****ed about it.

betterer
07-11-2007, 11:22 AM
read the comments.. even funnier.
"hey bricker, the headline should read "note to bricker:stop whining about federer"

BreakPoint
07-11-2007, 01:26 PM
But the real question is - How many of you would have called that ball in if you were calling your own lines?

Polaris
07-11-2007, 01:31 PM
read the comments.. even funnier.
"hey bricker, the headline should read "note to bricker:stop whining about federer"

Yep, the comments are most interesting.

Unbelievably, each and every one of the first 30 comments is chastising Bricker for being an anti-Fed tool. For anyone who follows Bricker's articles, he hasn't written a single positive article on Federer over the last year. Bricker makes Peter Bodo look like a genius.

War, Safin!
07-11-2007, 01:34 PM
20 years ago, McEnroe or Nastase would have smashed the umpire and line-judge for this call.
Badly.

:D

Janne
07-11-2007, 01:38 PM
Looks out to me. Would it have touched the line there should've atleast be some kind of white smoke coming up.

jelle v
07-11-2007, 01:47 PM
HAHAHA look at the shape the ball takes when it bounces and then look at the shap of the ballbounce that hawk-eye showes, they don't match whatsoever.

It was out imo...

TheHuntor
07-11-2007, 01:50 PM
There's two debatable sides to this story. In favor of the out call, there was a time at the French that Hawkeye misjudged a call by about 6 inches or so. It was a big fluke. However, from all I saw at Wimble, it was spot on.

First of all, Hawk-eye uses 9 cameras to compile the result, not just one. Second, the ball compresses somewhat upon impact, and skids a little on grass.
The ball in the picture looks like it's returned to it's normal shape, and suggests maybe that the pic was taken just after the ball decompressed. When I say just after, though, I mean barely, teeny, minimally, right after the ball left the grass. However, Hawk-eye works on these bare minimums so I agree with the in call. Combining the slight skid factor, the ball could have skidded across that last mm of the line without any chalk disturbance.

I'd go with the in call. Seriously though, look at the difference in shape from the Hawk-eye pic and the shape in the real life pic. The Hawk-eye said it was barely in, not by a lot.

Forehand Forever
07-11-2007, 01:53 PM
There's two debatable sides to this story. In favor of the out call, there was a time at the French that Hawkeye misjudged a call by about 6 inches or so. It was a big fluke. However, from all I saw at Wimble, it was spot on.

First of all, Hawk-eye uses 9 cameras to compile the result, not just one. Second, the ball compresses somewhat upon impact, and skids a little on grass.
The ball in the picture looks like it's returned to it's normal shape, and suggests maybe that the pic was taken just after the ball decompressed. When I say just after, though, I mean barely, teeny, minimally, right after the ball left the grass. However, Hawk-eye works on these bare minimums so I agree with the in call. Combining the slight skid factor, the ball could have skidded across that last mm of the line without any chalk disturbance.

I'd go with the in call. Seriously though, look at the difference in shape from the Hawk-eye pic and the shape in the real life pic. The Hawk-eye said it was barely in, not by a lot.

The French Open doesn't use Hawkeye.

I think that ball was in. I don't see any space between the line and the ball.

InvisibleSoul
07-11-2007, 02:19 PM
Excellent PDF. I can see where the disparity would come from. Nobody with the naked eye would determine the ball "landed" on frame 1 of the slow motion camera. For me, it wouldn't be until frame 6 where I would call the ball as "landed".

sondraj
07-11-2007, 02:29 PM
quote:

But on the other computer was the picture of the Hawk-Eye camera free-framing the ball at the moment it touched the line. It was flush on the line. Not seven-eighths out. Not half-out, half-in. Flush.


Then why not show the video if Hawkins is so sure the system is fool proof.



Also the Hawkinsinnivation link doesn't quote the margin of error to be 3.6mm. It said the AVERAGE margin of error is 3.6mm. That means some errors are less than the 3.6mm average and some are more than 3.6mm. Since the machine is inherently imperfect how does Hawkins know that the call that gave Federer so much anguish wasn't an error that was greater than the 3.6mm average. What if it was 10mm, a clear 1cm out.

Why doesn't Hawkins tell us what the maximum recorded error was from all the tests? Is he hiding something like some tests record error margins of
say 20mm which is clearly out?

Also how is the margin of error determined without a CORRECT reeading to compare it to? Why don't we see the correct reading?

Edit: There are too many unanswered questions for me.

As opposed to the human eye which is soo much more accurate.

soyizgood
07-11-2007, 02:32 PM
Even the whiniest, pickiest line caller would have called it out. I can't believe Nadal challenged it. If I was Federer, I'd be mad about that too.

Hawkeye should only be used if the linecaller and umpire disagree. Hawkeye is not perfect. For all we know, the wind or debris could have affected the trajectory Hawkeye used in determining the spot of that ball.

TheHuntor
07-11-2007, 02:39 PM
The French Open doesn't use Hawkeye.

I think that ball was in. I don't see any space between the line and the ball.

I know that. If you had watched the last one you would have seen they still had it set up for TV purposes only. NBC used it multiple times.

iamke55
07-11-2007, 02:41 PM
But the real question is - How many of you would have called that ball in if you were calling your own lines?

You seem like the type of player I would hate to play tennis with. Ever heard of the idea that any ball that you are not 100% is out should be called in? If you can't clearly see space between the line and the ball, it's in. I've had plenty opponents not call out on my serves that looked like, from my view, that they landed slightly long. And for the record, I am 90% sure the shot in question is out, and I'm certain that Hawkeye is the only reason that anyone would vote the top option in this poll.

bsandy
07-11-2007, 02:41 PM
http://www.hawkeyeinnovations.co.uk/UserFiles/File/Hawk-Eye%20Line%20call%20explained.pdf

Did this say projects using trajectory.

What about spin (topspin will dirve a ball down, more), nap (fluffy ball), ball pressure (old v. new ball), straightness of the line (they are some sort of chalk, right).

I though this system used real pictures, and cartoonized them.

Maybe these are the factors in the 3.6mm margin of error.

BUT . . . I do agree it's better than what Serena got at the open, a few years back.

. . . Bud

quest01
07-11-2007, 02:43 PM
The ball was out and the reason i know this is because when the ball hits the line you can see chalk fly.

JMS
07-11-2007, 02:46 PM
The ball was out and the reason i know this is because when the ball hits the line you can see chalk fly.

http://www.hawkeyeinnovations.co.uk/...0explained.pdf

AAAA
07-11-2007, 02:53 PM
As opposed to the human eye which is soo much more accurate.

It can be especially when the machine produces one of it's worst errors. Was that the case with Roger? Who knows. And that is the point rather than your machine vs human comparison.

Incidently machines are tested for accuracy by humans or tested by other machines built by humans.

Polaris
07-11-2007, 03:00 PM
http://www.hawkeyeinnovations.co.uk/...0explained.pdf
From the PDF file, on page 4,

"The following images are not from the particular line call, but helps to show what happens. Each frame of video in the next sequence is at 1000 frames per second – the above broadcast footage is at 150 frames per second."

Ouch. Still inconclusive, given the 3 mm margin for error. Face it. Federer got a bad call, and knew it.

As someone who works in video processing, I like this technology and would love to claim that Hawk-Eye is always right, but can't. There are many places where the computation of the trajectory can go wrong. A 3 mm margin of error is not enough in close situations like these, but it is pretty darn amazing that Hawkins got it to work in the first place.

The controversial Federer call seems to have been one of Hawk-Eye's embarrassments. People with all sorts of vested interests and trolling intent are desperate to prove otherwise.

JMS
07-11-2007, 03:01 PM
with all of the contraversy lately do you think they will keep it?

Polaris
07-11-2007, 03:02 PM
with all of the contraversy lately do you think they will keep it?

Of course, they will keep it.

A.T.S.
07-11-2007, 03:04 PM
That picture was taken half a millisecond after the ball made contact with the ground and "skidded" of the line. In the pic it is out bout if that pic was taken a half a millisecond earlier it would have looked in IMO.

GhettoDragon
07-11-2007, 03:22 PM
http://youtube.com/watch?v=_KW7VmWwqrw

Video of the point in question, second time I heard Fed swear...

first time
http://youtube.com/watch?v=X1BIe35skSU

AJK1
07-11-2007, 03:34 PM
As Breakpoint cleverly pointed out, if we were calling our own baseline in a match, NONE OF US would have called it in.

NamRanger
07-11-2007, 03:59 PM
As opposed to the human eye which is soo much more accurate.



A human eye which can track the direction a 140 mph serve is going. We're talking about Roger Federer here, not some Granny with glasses on.

slice bh compliment
07-11-2007, 04:02 PM
...
People wear glasses, don't they? It improves vision,...

Dude, don't even get me started on glasses. And nose jobs. And cellphones. ANd toothbrushes!?

My main man Charlie Darwin is ****ED!

They jumped the gun on falling in love with Hawkeye. It is nice. It's what they've got, which is better than a bunch of human beings. But I agree with whoever asked, ''why not show the video?''

AAAA
07-11-2007, 04:08 PM
Excellent PDF. I can see where the disparity would come from. Nobody with the naked eye would determine the ball "landed" on frame 1 of the slow motion camera. For me, it wouldn't be until frame 6 where I would call the ball as "landed".

The PDF shows what can happen to a ball as it flattens out and rolls along the court. However it didn't show what happened to the ball Federer was complaining about.

It begs the question why does Hawkins or his reps defend the Federer call by showing us what can happen? Why not show what did happen with the actual camera frames taken of the call in question.

AAAA
07-11-2007, 04:20 PM
This is too funny. The PDF hosted on Hawkinsinovation.co.uk has been changed so that it no longer states the average error is 3.6mm. In fact I can't find any mention of the average error any more.






Also the Hawkinsinnivation link doesn't quote the margin of error to be 3.6mm. It said the AVERAGE margin of error is 3.6mm. That means some errors are less than the 3.6mm average and some are more than 3.6mm. Since the machine is inherently imperfect how does Hawkins know that the call that gave Federer so much anguish wasn't an error that was greater than the 3.6mm average. What if it was 10mm, a clear 1cm out.

Why doesn't Hawkins tell us what the maximum recorded error was from all the tests? Is he hiding something like some tests record error margins of
say 20mm which is clearly out?

NamRanger
07-11-2007, 05:41 PM
This is too funny. The PDF hosted on Hawkinsinovation.co.uk has been changed so that it no longer states the average error is 3.6mm. In fact I can't find any mention of the average error any more.


The system is flawed because the balls it's supposed to make sure that are in or out have too high of a percentage for error, because the USTA measured that in most cases, Hawk-eye is off about 3 mm. Most of the balls that are questioned are usually around those specifications.



We have seen Hawk Eye go wacko also at times, I.E. The French Open where it was a whole foot off.

InvisibleSoul
07-11-2007, 05:46 PM
It begs the question why does Hawkins or his reps defend the Federer call by showing us what can happen? Why not show what did happen with the actual camera frames taken of the call in question.
In the PDF, I think it was saying something like it does the stuff real-time, and it doesn't save any of the video.

AAAA
07-11-2007, 06:06 PM
In the PDF, I think it was saying something like it does the stuff real-time, and it doesn't save any of the video.

Massive amounts of data are generated by systems like this so sure maybe not it's not practical to store the video for a whole match. However they should store the video for the last point and reply it for the crowd because the ATP keeps selling the 'fan entertainment' value of the action replay.

Andy Hewitt
07-11-2007, 06:09 PM
Thank you, that was a very good article. Good to hear the creator's take on it.

AlpineCadet
07-11-2007, 08:41 PM
As Breakpoint cleverly pointed out, if we were calling our own baseline in a match, NONE OF US would have called it in.
If I was playing a match and CANNOT see a space between the ball and the line, I would have called that EXACT ball IN.

inquisitive
07-11-2007, 09:07 PM
I'm a Fed fan.The ball was in.

psamp14
07-11-2007, 09:22 PM
to the naked eyes...that looks to be out....the hawkeye picture makes the ball look like one tiny strand caught the bare edge of the line, but the call certainly should have been argued

AJK1
07-11-2007, 09:32 PM
If I was playing a match and CANNOT see a space between the ball and the line, I would have called that EXACT ball IN.

I like playing guys like you

Swingin Richard
07-11-2007, 09:40 PM
Throw in a bit of a grass skid and that shot was porbably in. What I am sure about is that I was embarassed for Roger when he whined like a baby to the ump. Didn't sound like a champ to me.

kingdaddy41788
07-11-2007, 09:41 PM
Hawkeye isn't even good within 3 mm (according to tv commentating, not exactly reliable) and it's only 97% accurate (according to an article I read that I'm far too tired to google and find). Until it's 100% accurate to within at least 1 mm, I don't think it should be used. Just my two cents. That being said, I think it's far too close for hawkeye to call in which case the umpire's call stands. That being said, I don't think Federer cried about anything but winning Wimbledon again.

MoFed
07-11-2007, 09:46 PM
It's amazing to hear all these people talk about Roger "whining" about the call. The line calls were horribly close and that ball does look out on the real time play of the match. It looks well long on the shot that plays in motion. But from the look of Hawk-eye, who really doesn't seem to hawk eyes, it's in.
The umpire saw it out, the linesperson saw it out, Roger saw it out and we believe Hawk-eye because "it's a well calibrated machine?" I'll take the three people over the machine any day.

It's not like this was the first time in the match that Hawk-eye called a really close ball in that looked out. It's understandable that he would upset and want to vent his frustrations. None of you can claim that if you were in position you wouldn't have felt the same. I know I would have.

BreakPoint
07-11-2007, 10:22 PM
If I was playing a match and CANNOT see a space between the ball and the line, I would have called that EXACT ball IN.
You cannot see a space between the ball and the line because of the camera location and angle from which that pic was taken. The camera is in front of the ball and the ball is in front of the line, blocking it from the camera. If you were standing where Federer is to the side of where the ball landed, you probably would have seen a space between the ball and the line.

fed_the_savior
07-11-2007, 11:06 PM
People, people, you just don't want to play by the rules. If there is ANY uncertainty at all, if there is .00000000001% uncertainty, the ball is GOOD, PERIOD. If you don't play like that, then you are not playing honest, PERIOD.

This ball was IN.

crazylevity
07-11-2007, 11:29 PM
People, people, you just don't want to play by the rules. If there is ANY uncertainty at all, if there is .00000000001% uncertainty, the ball is GOOD, PERIOD. If you don't play like that, then you are not playing honest, PERIOD.

This ball was IN.

The chair umpire, linesperson and Federer ALL had NO DOUBT that it was out.

dukemunson
07-11-2007, 11:32 PM
As Breakpoint cleverly pointed out, if we were calling our own baseline in a match, NONE OF US would have called it in.

That sucks...it's too bad people like you play tennis...

AlpineCadet
07-11-2007, 11:40 PM
That sucks...it's too bad people like you play tennis...

I agree. People like AKJ1 just bring nothing but hate and contempt to the sport. Or should I just say "I'm kidding" at the end of my sentences so someone won't accuse me of trolling?

InvisibleSoul
07-11-2007, 11:43 PM
That sucks...it's too bad people like you play tennis...
The point AJK1 is trying to make is not that he would call it in because he can get away with it, it's that to the human eye, EVERYONE's eyes, the ball WILL truly look out. Hawk-eye may prove otherwise, and be correct, but it doesn't change the fact that our human eyes will see it as OUT.

fed_the_savior
07-11-2007, 11:44 PM
The chair umpire, linesperson and Federer ALL had NO DOUBT that it was out.

I'll give you the linesperson. Federer would have reason to not be objective, plus his challenge record is not so good. I don't think there's any way you know the umpire had NO doubt—he merely gave Fed his opinion. Nadal certainly thought it could have been in, he was not trying to cheat.

TECHNOLOGY has cast doubt upon the call, thus rendering close enough to be good.

AlpineCadet
07-11-2007, 11:49 PM
The point AJK1 is trying to make is not that he would call it in because he can get away with it, it's that to the human eye, EVERYONE's eyes, the ball WILL truly look out. Hawk-eye may prove otherwise, and be correct, but it doesn't change the fact that our human eyes will see it as OUT.

Case in point, how does that make any sense when the human eye will see NO SPACE IN BETWEEN THE BALL AND LINE?? :confused:

THE USTA RULES STATES THAT "A ball must be 100% outside of the lines to be out. If a ball barely hits the edge of the line then it is considered 100% in."

Basically, if you can not see space between the ball and the line then you should call it in. You should try to give the benefit of the doubt. If everyone does this, the calls will even out and it will help avoid arguments.

crazylevity
07-11-2007, 11:51 PM
Case in point, how does that make any sense when the human eye will see NO SPACE IN BETWEEN THE BALL AND LINE?? :confused:

THE USTA RULES STATES THAT "A ball must be 100% outside of the lines to be out. If a ball barely hits the edge of the line then it is considered 100% in."

Basically, if you can not see space between the ball and the line then you should call it in. You should try to give the benefit of the doubt. If everyone does this, the calls will even out and it will help avoid arguments.

Are you sure? :) Obviously the linesperson saw some space.

Semaj
07-11-2007, 11:52 PM
The ball ofcourse 'skidds' over the line (more so on grass), ofcourse hawkeye takes this into account but I don't know how far the ball is through it's 'skidd' in that picture. Also, from that angle you can't really tell.

Semaj
07-11-2007, 11:55 PM
1 question:
If you are a lines person and you are'nt 100% sure when calling that ball- do you give the benefit of the doubt to Nadal or Fed?

onkystomper
07-11-2007, 11:56 PM
Case in point, how does that make any sense when the human eye will see NO SPACE IN BETWEEN THE BALL AND LINE?? :confused:

THE USTA RULES STATES THAT "A ball must be 100% outside of the lines to be out. If a ball barely hits the edge of the line then it is considered 100% in."

Basically, if you can not see space between the ball and the line then you should call it in. You should try to give the benefit of the doubt. If everyone does this, the calls will even out and it will help avoid arguments.

yes BUT listen to whgat others have said, 3 out of 3 PEOPLE saw it out. FED, LINESPERSON & UMPIRE so for AJK1 to say we would call it out is not unreasonable as we are PEOPLE. As for him bringing contempt to the game etc, really?? bit strong isn't it?

BreakPoint
07-12-2007, 12:17 AM
If this was a clay or hard court, the mark would have shown that ball to be out. Just look at where the ball is bouncing! And the last time I checked, umpires make line calls based upon the ball marks (on clay).

BreakPoint
07-12-2007, 12:21 AM
Case in point, how does that make any sense when the human eye will see NO SPACE IN BETWEEN THE BALL AND LINE?? :confused:

How can you be so sure there was no space? Were you there standing next to the side of the ball when it bounced as Federer was? :confused:

You cannot see a space from that angle. That's why the linespeople sit to the side of the baseline and not behind the baseline.

dukemunson
07-12-2007, 09:25 AM
Case in point, how does that make any sense when the human eye will see NO SPACE IN BETWEEN THE BALL AND LINE?? :confused:

THE USTA RULES STATES THAT "A ball must be 100% outside of the lines to be out. If a ball barely hits the edge of the line then it is considered 100% in."

Basically, if you can not see space between the ball and the line then you should call it in. You should try to give the benefit of the doubt. If everyone does this, the calls will even out and it will help avoid arguments.

AlpineCadet is talking more about calls in general then this specific call I think, and is making a good point...it's always disheartening to see bad calls made at any level...I guess thats the fun with playing in a mostly self governed sport...

MacKenzie
07-12-2007, 09:34 AM
It doesn't matter what you saw or think you saw. You're just a human being. ;)

WildVolley
07-12-2007, 09:44 AM
Hawkeye is here to stay. It catches some egregious calls, one in which the ball skids across the line and the linesman calls it out. Also, the fans enjoy it.

That still image doesn't tell us enough. Slow motion video of balls on hardcourt show that they can slide. I assume the same can happen on grass.

r2473
07-12-2007, 09:46 AM
But Hawkeye has an error margin of 1mm, so.. it could go either way. Correct?

According to their (Hawkeye's) website, the margin is 3.6 mm (about 1/7th of an inch). This ball is therefore "too close to call". However, under the rules, Hawkeye gets the last word. So, by definition, the ball is "IN".

Tanner77
07-12-2007, 09:50 AM
ok, this ball looks in on hawkeye, but the error is still like 5% chance or something. and if you look at the real picture, it is out because the only way the ball could touch the line is if it was hit flat and in the picture it doesn't look flat and it was out. (i'm glad it was called in though lol cause nadal owns, too bad he lost)

Nautilus1982
07-12-2007, 09:53 AM
There is definitely a small overlapping between the ball and the line, if you look closely enough. So 100% in, no problem about that.

AAAA
07-12-2007, 10:06 AM
There is definitely a small overlapping between the ball and the line, if you look closely enough. So 100% in, no problem about that.

THe picture shows it's 100% in but the picture there isn't 100% certainty that the picture is 100% accurate.

AAAA
07-12-2007, 10:11 AM
It will be potentially amusing to see what some of you guys post if Nadal ever loses match point on a call like this in a slam final.

Pete.Sampras.
07-12-2007, 10:20 AM
I really don't want to make a decision but I know it would have been "out" without the hawkeye... ;)

InvisibleSoul
07-12-2007, 02:26 PM
Massive amounts of data are generated by systems like this so sure maybe not it's not practical to store the video for a whole match. However they should store the video for the last point and reply it for the crowd because the ATP keeps selling the 'fan entertainment' value of the action replay.
I think they're saying they don't store video, PERIOD. So once it happens, the data is analyzed real-time and that's it. So it's not like they can pick and choose the parts to save.

InvisibleSoul
07-12-2007, 02:27 PM
Case in point, how does that make any sense when the human eye will see NO SPACE IN BETWEEN THE BALL AND LINE?? :confused:

THE USTA RULES STATES THAT "A ball must be 100% outside of the lines to be out. If a ball barely hits the edge of the line then it is considered 100% in."

Basically, if you can not see space between the ball and the line then you should call it in. You should try to give the benefit of the doubt. If everyone does this, the calls will even out and it will help avoid arguments.
You're CLEARLY not understanding what I'm saying.

If you were to stand directly perpendicular at the baseline, what I'm saying is that when we determine the ball to have landed, the human eye will NOT SEE SPACE between the ball and line.

If you look at the other thread where it has slow motion photographs of an example of this, it will be very clear what I'm trying to say.

This is the other thread: http://tt.tennis-warehouse.com/showthread.php?t=143899

Take a look at the PDF, and then look at what I said in my reply there.

AJK1
07-12-2007, 03:08 PM
Alpinecadet, thanks for the unwarranted attacks, you accuse me of inciting hate etc in tennis, because i agree with another poster that most, if not all of us, if calling our own lines, would call it out. You my friend are the one causing the hate.
Invisiblesoul correctly stated he understood my position on why i said we as players would call it out, you on the other hand are either too stupid or too immature to understand my post.
Think twice before posting rubbish again.

Cindysphinx
07-12-2007, 03:28 PM
I would have called it in. 'Cause I wouldn't have seen it because it was going too fast. :)

I think the ball was in. Hey, Nadal from his vantage point thought it was in, so the idea isn't inconceivable.

I think some Hawkeye detractors have *very* short memories. Just in this last Wimbledon, how many times did a linesperson blow it? Countless times the linesperson said nothing when a ball flew long and either the chair or instant replay showed the linesperson asleep at the switch. Or the linesperson called an obviously in ball out.

I think one thing we should take away from this is that 3 challenges is too many. Hawkeye isn't reliable enough to use it more than absolutely necessary. Players should be encouraged to use it only when the linesperson error is grotesque and obvious but the chair didn't see it. You give them three challenges and they can start challenging on a wing and a prayer, which isn't good.

Does anyone think Nadal would have used his last challenge on that call?

fed_the_savior
07-12-2007, 04:04 PM
I would have called it in. 'Cause I wouldn't have seen it because it was going too fast. :)

I think the ball was in. Hey, Nadal from his vantage point thought it was in, so the idea isn't inconceivable.

I think some Hawkeye detractors have *very* short memories. Just in this last Wimbledon, how many times did a linesperson blow it? Countless times the linesperson said nothing when a ball flew long and either the chair or instant replay showed the linesperson asleep at the switch. Or the linesperson called an obviously in ball out.

I think one thing we should take away from this is that 3 challenges is too many. Hawkeye isn't reliable enough to use it more than absolutely necessary. Players should be encouraged to use it only when the linesperson error is grotesque and obvious but the chair didn't see it. You give them three challenges and they can start challenging on a wing and a prayer, which isn't good.

Does anyone think Nadal would have used his last challenge on that call?

You think the ball was good... yet you don't want Nadal to be able to challenge it and get the rightful call? Am I missing something here... :confused: :confused: :confused:

raiden031
07-12-2007, 04:07 PM
Why do so many people think it was OUT when it was CLEARLY touching the line??? IN IN IN IN IN!! I love Roger Federer and I think it was IN! Sorry Rog!

Cindysphinx
07-12-2007, 04:08 PM
I think the ball was good (because I can't be 100% sure it was out). I can't be sure; I had a bad angle.

I think Nadal should be able to challenge it *if and only if* he is so convinced the call was wrong that he is willing to risk wasting 50% of his challenges.

Challenges should be rare, I think.

AAAA
07-12-2007, 04:15 PM
I think they're saying they don't store video, PERIOD. So once it happens, the data is analyzed real-time and that's it. So it's not like they can pick and choose the parts to save.

Not storing the video is like destroying the evidence. I've seen it used on tv often enough to see a notable number of calls where the ball position in the graphic doesn't even come close to tallying with what was seen.

Mercedes
07-12-2007, 04:43 PM
If you have the match still on DVR like I do. Slow motion then FREEZE the image when it hits the line. The ball clips the line. IT WAS IN PERIOD.
I have a huge TV and it is clear.
I don't care what haweye said.

If the question had been on Rogers ball then I would be fair also.

What is right is right.

TheKingOfClay
07-12-2007, 04:44 PM
it was IN... sorry... but it was...

Hot Sauce
07-12-2007, 04:53 PM
it was IN... sorry... but it was...

You didn't have you post and we'd already know your opinion by your name.

jlambertou
07-12-2007, 04:55 PM
I can't tell if it was in or out. I do think Hawkeye should save the raw camera data for as long as possible though, and the whole replay system should be gradually improved as technology advances.

One thing I learned from that PDF is that the ball rolls for a significant distance even as it is compressed and bouncing. There may be cases where we would almost all "see space" because our eye looks for that moment when the ball is in the middle of its bounce/compression, but we missed the first millisecond when the back edge of the footprint just barely caught the line. That's probably what happened to Fed.

By the way, I never heard of this "space" thing until recently; back in high school they just told me to "when it doubt, call it out!"

(just kidding) ;)

AJK1
07-12-2007, 06:10 PM
I'm a Fed fan, so i'm glad they called it in, it got Fed psyched up and he went out and kicked Nads butt. Well done. As they say, beware an annoyed bee.

Polaris
07-12-2007, 06:54 PM
I'm a Fed fan, so i'm glad they called it in, it got Fed psyched up and he went out and kicked Nads butt. Well done. As they say, beware an annoyed bee.
Huh? We must have watched a different match. The call didn't psych Federer up at all; it visibly rattled him. There is a distinct possibility that he might have finished the job in 4 sets.

K!ck5w3rvE
07-12-2007, 06:56 PM
I said it when tournaments first started using hawkeye, shotspot etc...and I'll say it again...the programs attempt to simulate the ball's landing by tracking it through the air, so it is clearly going to make mistakes.
ie. picture this. federer standing at the net on one of the singles lines waiting to hit a smash. the ball bounces 20cm his side of the net, he leans over and smashes it straight down into the court as hard as he can, with the ball bouncing only 1m on the other side of the net, just on the outside of the singles line, making the ball out. how are a couple of cameras up in the stands going to track this shot and calulate the exact area where the ball bounced? there was such a small amount of time when the ball was in the air that it creates too many unexplained variables, as opposed to regular groundstrokes where trajectory and spin etc can be tracked and it is therefore easier to simulate the area the ball bounced on.

why get rid of the human element (because these programs really make linemen and umpires quite redundant, as their jobs can be done by a machine), when the human element does the same thing; views the shot and makes a decision as to where it bounced. if the system was flawless then it would have a strong case, but the fact that there is obviously areas where it wont be able to judge perfectly (like the example above), and that it makes obvious errors like the fed-nadal example, mean that it just creates more problems than it solves.

AJK1
07-12-2007, 07:47 PM
After that, he knew the set was over, so he readied himself for the demo job on Nadal in the 5th!!

rfprse
07-12-2007, 09:01 PM
Finally, people realize that using hawkeye for a close call is just for the show (and not really about the accuracy). Anyone who's familiar with the metric system knows that even the average margin for error (3.6mm?) is not good enough to decide a close line call, apart from the more severe cases of errors (a case like this, or the case like in the french open this year as someone mentioned).

According to this press question, it's not like the three (Federe, the linesman, the umpire) on the court were the only ones who saw the ball out.
Q. When you were serving at Love‑2, 30‑All in the fourth set, Nadal hit a ball that was inches long. You, Carlos Ramos, the umpire, and I saw the ball clearly long. Nadal challenged it, and the Hawk‑Eye simulation showed the mark touching the line. Have you changed your mind as to whether Hawk‑Eye is accurate since you told me last week that you think that it is?
Btw, it's always funny to see some posters do not even understand what is at debate. The issue is not whether the ball is in according to the picture hawkeye genertated but whether the ball was in/out in reality.

Solat
07-12-2007, 09:08 PM
the ball was called IN so it is IN, how is there a 7 page debate over it?

what about the calls that weren't challenged but were wrong, no-one cares, no-one is arguing those.

Kobble
07-12-2007, 10:16 PM
It looks within the error range. I say it was likely out, but like any human can do better on a regular basis. Two milimeters is not even visible from that distance.

35ft6
07-12-2007, 10:30 PM
That picture is inconclusive, but IMO it could have been in. Hawkeye's image of where the ball landed is a composite of every part of the court that was touched by the bouncing, skidding, squishing ball. Not sure how fast that camera was, but it shows a ball that's relatively round/not deformed, you could easily lead somebody to believe it was just a ball sitting there not moving. Leads me to believe it's already flattened and skidded and is in the beginnings of bouncing up. Not impossible in my mind that when the ball was flatter upon impact, and before the slight skid, it was touching part of the line.