PDA

View Full Version : McEnroe overruled?


Mikael
04-16-2008, 06:33 AM
Interesting article on the BBC:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/7348589.stm

martin
04-16-2008, 06:35 AM
Interesting article on the BBC:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/7348589.stm

So what does this prove?

spaceman_spiff
04-16-2008, 06:39 AM
Interesting article on the BBC:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/7348589.stm

But the chalk flew up! :mad:

gj011
04-16-2008, 07:01 AM
The fact is that line-judges make lots of bad calls. The Hawk-eye confirmed that. This article is just a bad spin.

Vision84
04-16-2008, 07:02 AM
Officials may be right in most of the cases but when they are wrong the players can often see it.

kingdaddy41788
04-16-2008, 07:09 AM
This is pretty stupid.

"In the majority of close calls - 60.7% - Hawk-Eye affirmed the line-judge's decision, but a significant proportion of calls (39.3%) turned out to be wrong."

"Using a computer model based on the Hawk-Eye challenge data, he predicted that line-judges will only get "close calls" wrong 8.2% of the time."

There seems to be a pretty HUGE disagreement in these two statements, both of which are from the same section of that article. They were either wrong 39.3% of the time, or they will only be wrong 8.2% of the time. NOT BOTH.

Mikael
04-16-2008, 07:12 AM
This is pretty stupid.

"In the majority of close calls - 60.7% - Hawk-Eye affirmed the line-judge's decision, but a significant proportion of calls (39.3%) turned out to be wrong."

"Using a computer model based on the Hawk-Eye challenge data, he predicted that line-judges will only get "close calls" wrong 8.2% of the time."

There seems to be a pretty HUGE disagreement in these two statements, both of which are from the same section of that article. They were either wrong 39.3% of the time, or they will only be wrong 8.2% of the time. NOT BOTH.

Yep, I saw the same thing!

Not too sure what to make of it.

IanRichardson
04-16-2008, 07:15 AM
werent some of the line judges when mac played at wimbledon not even professionals, but instead just players at the club? I remember seeing that on espn classic about a year ago.

At any rate it is good that there is now a technology that can help players when 'bad' calls are made, I wish they would make it cheaper so every pro tournament/ every court could have it, although that will be a while I am afraid.

gj011
04-16-2008, 07:16 AM
This is pretty stupid.

"In the majority of close calls - 60.7% - Hawk-Eye affirmed the line-judge's decision, but a significant proportion of calls (39.3%) turned out to be wrong."

"Using a computer model based on the Hawk-Eye challenge data, he predicted that line-judges will only get "close calls" wrong 8.2% of the time."

There seems to be a pretty HUGE disagreement in these two statements, both of which are from the same section of that article. They were either wrong 39.3% of the time, or they will only be wrong 8.2% of the time. NOT BOTH.

Good one :)

So far they were wrong in 39% of the close calls, but a "scientific computer model", based on the same data, predicted that they will be wrong in only 8.2% of the close calls in the future. :shock:

Beacon Hill
04-16-2008, 07:33 AM
This is pretty stupid.

"In the majority of close calls - 60.7% - Hawk-Eye affirmed the line-judge's decision, but a significant proportion of calls (39.3%) turned out to be wrong."

"Using a computer model based on the Hawk-Eye challenge data, he predicted that line-judges will only get "close calls" wrong 8.2% of the time."

There seems to be a pretty HUGE disagreement in these two statements, both of which are from the same section of that article. They were either wrong 39.3% of the time, or they will only be wrong 8.2% of the time. NOT BOTH.
The reason both these statements can be true is that the researcher defined close call as being any ball within 100 mm of a line. 100 mm from the line is not really a close call. Most of the disputes involve balls within 25 mm of the line.

scineram
04-16-2008, 08:04 AM
No, you got it wrong.

Djokovicfan4life
04-16-2008, 08:19 AM
Typical scientific mumbo jumbo numbers supposedly explaining why the players are usually wrong. It proves nothing, it's totally Batsu Sertified.

daddy
04-16-2008, 08:39 AM
This is pretty stupid.

"In the majority of close calls - 60.7% - Hawk-Eye affirmed the line-judge's decision, but a significant proportion of calls (39.3%) turned out to be wrong."

"Using a computer model based on the Hawk-Eye challenge data, he predicted that line-judges will only get "close calls" wrong 8.2% of the time."

There seems to be a pretty HUGE disagreement in these two statements, both of which are from the same section of that article. They were either wrong 39.3% of the time, or they will only be wrong 8.2% of the time. NOT BOTH.

Actually you are quite wrong. Anyways here is how - in 39% of the challanges made umpires are overruled by the hawk eye. Of course not all of the close calls are challanged thus leaving a possibility of the ratio of 8% mistakes overall. Judges make calls even if challange is not called for, not a big surprise.

martin
04-16-2008, 10:10 AM
What if you consider that players make challenges because they are allowed to do this even when they know the ball is out but they still have a few challenges left so why not use it.
Or they challenge because it is an important point in a tie break. They take the risk because of a crucial situation.

beernutz
04-16-2008, 06:17 PM
The fact is that line-judges make lots of bad calls. The Hawk-eye confirmed that. This article is just a bad spin.

Ditto. That article is moronic. I quote, "In the majority of close calls - 60.7% - Hawk-Eye affirmed the line-judge's decision, but a significant proportion of calls (39.3%) turned out to be wrong."

Well, duh, I guess JMac wasn't overruled after all.

gj011
04-16-2008, 08:11 PM
Actually you are quite wrong. Anyways here is how - in 39% of the challanges made umpires are overruled by the hawk eye. Of course not all of the close calls are challanged thus leaving a possibility of the ratio of 8% mistakes overall. Judges make calls even if challange is not called for, not a big surprise.

Well, you get a good point here, but I would still argue about 8% figure, 100mm "close calls" and that this article is bad attempt to spin the facts.

Deuce
04-16-2008, 11:55 PM
Who appointed 'Hawk-Eye' the standard by which everything should be judged?
All 'Hawk-Eye' is is an animated, computer generated guess that they market the hell out of in order to give the impression of progress.

Seems to me that the only remotely valid standard of measurement would be an actual video image of a high speed camera of some sort, showing reality rather than a cartoon guess.

TennisandMusic
04-17-2008, 12:09 AM
Who appointed 'Hawk-Eye' the standard by which everything should be judged?
All 'Hawk-Eye' is is an animated, computer generated guess that they market the hell out of.

Seems to me that the only remotely valid standard of measurement would be a high speed camera of some sort, showing reality rather than an animated guess.

I was under the impression the "computer animation" is a result of the actual high speed cameras tracking the ball...it's not a "guess."

Deuce
04-17-2008, 12:24 AM
I was under the impression the "computer animation" is a result of the actual high speed cameras tracking the ball...it's not a "guess."
The end result of 'Hawk-Eye' is an "estimation".

Otherwise known as a guess.

ninman
04-17-2008, 01:41 AM
The end result of 'Hawk-Eye' is an "estimation".

Otherwise known as a guess.

Yep, and in the case of Federer Hawkeye said the ball was in by 1mm, but the system has an error of about 3mm, meaning that the ball could still have been out. In cases like that either the original call should stand, or they should replay the point.

Djokovicfan4life
04-17-2008, 03:52 AM
No such thing as a perfect system. There will always be disagreements and someone's going to be unhappy with it, that's life.

Deuce
04-17-2008, 07:38 PM
Yep, and in the case of Federer Hawkeye said the ball was in by 1mm, but the system has an error of about 3mm, meaning that the ball could still have been out. In cases like that either the original call should stand, or they should replay the point.
I think that the error margin for 'Hawk-Eye' is significantly greater than 3mm, and that it is also inconsistent. The 3mm claim is part of the marketing hype - they know damn well that we have no way of verifying the truth of such a claim.

I believe that the ATP and WTA are using 'Hawk-Eye' as a marketing tool to increase fan interest in the game. TV announcers talk of 'Hawk-Eye' as if it's infallible.
It's a slick visual tool - and we all know how that impresses the majority of people, and how addicted they are to video tools today - as well as to anything marketed as an 'improvement'.
'Hawk-Eye' is far more 'slick' than is a mere simple real video from a high speed camera.
The administrations of professional tennis are fully aware of this, and are using it to attract fans to tennis. But for the wrong reasons.

Beacon Hill
04-17-2008, 09:23 PM
Actually you are quite wrong. Anyways here is how - in 39% of the challanges made umpires are overruled by the hawk eye. Of course not all of the close calls are challanged thus leaving a possibility of the ratio of 8% mistakes overall. Judges make calls even if challange is not called for, not a big surprise.
Exactly. If close call was defined as a call that got challenged, the numbers would mesh. A linesperson should not make an error when the ball is 100 mm in or out. That's not really a close call.

Defcon
04-17-2008, 09:52 PM
Hawkeye is the greatest scam perpetrated on an unsuspecting public since the dawn of paintjobs! I have yet to see a commentator or player publicly comment on its true evil - are they even aware of the massive deception and conspiracy. How much money does the company that invented Hawkeye make off it - millions at the very least.

Ironically, MacCam was and is the best judge - its a pity its not used anymore.

Deuce
04-17-2008, 10:06 PM
MacCam was and is the best judge - its a pity its not used anymore.
I agree.
Unfortunately, the cartoon-based, slick 'Hawk-Eye' presentation is more marketable to a public who values slick visuals above basic reality.

superstition
04-19-2008, 04:49 PM
Hawkeye is the greatest scam perpetrated on an unsuspecting public since the dawn of paintjobs! I have yet to see a commentator or player publicly comment on its true evil - are they even aware of the massive deception and conspiracy. How much money does the company that invented Hawkeye make off it - millions at the very least.

Ironically, MacCam was and is the best judge - its a pity its not used anymore.
Federer has complained about it more than once and some commentators noted that.