PDA

View Full Version : Hawkeye not as Reliable as it seems to be?


Djokovicfan4life
04-21-2008, 10:48 AM
I'm watching the Ferrero/Llodra match right now and Llodra just hit a clean winner on Ferrero, who acknowledged that the ball was good. They cut to Hawkeye, which showed the ball about a half an inch out or so. :confused:

Thoughts on this?

Moose Malloy
04-21-2008, 11:09 AM
I've noticed this for some time. Nadal made a big fuss last year in Dubai when he played Youzhny & Hawkeye didn't agree with a clear mark on the court.

The creator of Hawkeye had an interesting explanation, saying since hawkeye sees the ball better than linesman, etc, even a mark on a court isn't necessarily an accurate reflection of where the ball actually hits.

So in essence, he's saying marks being used to uphold or overrule calls during claycourt matches may not be accurate.

Let's be honest, the main reason hawkeye is being used in tennis is not to help the players, get it right, etc, but mainly to increase fan interest. The ATP wants tennis to be more about entertainment than sport, & this is part of a concentrated effort to make it happen. If they knew the system was flawed, they'd probably turn an eye to it(heck, they turned a blind eye to gambling issues until last summer, even though they knew how serious it was for many years)

Max G.
04-21-2008, 11:44 AM
Eh, I wouldn't' make too much of that incident. Either Ferrero was actually wrong, or Hawkeye was actually wrong. Both happen. We know that the players are fallible, and we know that Hawkeye isn't perfect either. The question is whether Hawkeye is more or less accurate, on average, than linesmen+chair, and whether it's more accurate than marks on a hardcourt or marks on a claycourt, and isolated incidents don't really help establish that.

Djokovicfan4life
04-21-2008, 11:48 AM
Eh, I wouldn't' make too much of that incident. Either Ferrero was actually wrong, or Hawkeye was actually wrong. Both happen. We know that the players are fallible, and we know that Hawkeye isn't perfect either. The question is whether Hawkeye is more or less accurate, on average, than linesmen+chair, and whether it's more accurate than marks on a hardcourt or marks on a claycourt, and isolated incidents don't really help establish that.
On a hard court I can understand that, but clay? :confused:

baek57
04-21-2008, 12:04 PM
how can it be more accurate than the mark on the court?

Eviscerator
04-21-2008, 12:21 PM
how can it be more accurate than the mark on the court?

It isn't.

The system is not perfect, and I've seen clear examples of how it is inaccurate over the years. For instance, Serena Williams was playing in a match a few years ago before the system was officially used (i.e. no player challenges) Her opponent hit a ball that Serena thought was out, but the line judge called it in. She complained to the chair umpire to no avail. Slow motion shots showed that it was good, but on the outside of the line. The hawk-eye replay (for TV viewers) showed the ball in, but on the inside of the line. Needless to say the line judge got the right call, but the slow motion photography should exactly where it hit, and hawk-eye was off by at least 1/2 an inch.

Ronaldo
04-21-2008, 12:24 PM
Hawkeye is used on clay?

tennisfan_23
04-21-2008, 12:50 PM
Makes me think back to a comment that was made back at least year's Wimbledon final... When JMac and the other commentator was discussing the Hawkeye system...

One of them said that the system is accurate to within something like 10%. That's pretty huge, but they brought up a good point, that the system does usually help take care of human errors... Think about how many bad calls were made before the system was implemented, right?


Hard to say whether it's more beneficial, but I would say the system is fairly accurate most of the time.

Djokovicfan4life
04-21-2008, 12:53 PM
Makes me think back to a comment that was made back at least year's Wimbledon final... When JMac and the other commentator was discussing the Hawkeye system...

One of them said that the system is accurate to within something like 10%. That's pretty huge, but they brought up a good point, that the system does usually help take care of human errors... Think about how many bad calls were made before the system was implemented, right?


Hard to say whether it's more beneficial, but I would say the system is fairly accurate most of the time.

It can help when you have ridiculous Jankovic style challenges with the ball a foot long, but the close calls leave me scratching my head sometimes.

flyer
04-21-2008, 01:00 PM
I think its not nearly as accurate as we are led to beleive, I've seen it make clear mistakes many times and it is most evident on clay....still better than the line judges though, buttttt I believe the chair should be allowed to overrule even hawkeye, like only instances when there is a clear ball mark on the court or when both players agree...

gj011
04-21-2008, 01:01 PM
Makes me think back to a comment that was made back at least year's Wimbledon final... When JMac and the other commentator was discussing the Hawkeye system...

One of them said that the system is accurate to within something like 10%. That's pretty huge, but they brought up a good point, that the system does usually help take care of human errors... Think about how many bad calls were made before the system was implemented, right?


Hard to say whether it's more beneficial, but I would say the system is fairly accurate most of the time.

Right. Hawkeye has its flaws and I don't like the way player challenge system is implemented, but the game is better with Hawkeye then without it.

fastdunn
04-21-2008, 01:04 PM
If the ball makes a clear mark and 100% sure it is the right mark, it should overrule Hawk Eyes.

But sometimes people do not agree on which mark the ball left and two person can interpret the mark same way.


IMHO, marks should be used first on clay and if a player doesn't agree, player challenges.

But I think Hawk Eyes accuracy is even worse on dirts with dirty balls.... it might be actually quite terrible :)

Djokovicfan4life
04-21-2008, 01:05 PM
If the ball makes a clear mark and 100% sure it is the right mark, it should overrule Hawk Eyes.

But sometimes people do not agree on which mark the ball left and two person can interpret the mark same way.

Oh, the shot was good, don't get me wrong, just when they gave a quick look at hawkeye it looked out. It wasn't a real challenge or anything.

edmondsm
04-21-2008, 01:06 PM
Hawkeye is used on clay?

I don't think so. And I think that there are fewer cameras used. They are always saying this at the French Open.

fastdunn
04-21-2008, 01:09 PM
Hawk Eyes were "tested" at French Open last year. So it's still open, my guess is.

deltasun
04-21-2008, 03:39 PM
I've always wondered, how does Hawkeye work? What exactly is the mechanism that allows it to track where a ball hits on the court?

SpinningForehand
04-21-2008, 03:44 PM
I remember a couple of the commentators talking about how the hawkeye system was always within 2 cm of where the ball actually lands. Thats pretty accurate, and I do like the system. It takes away a lot of the disputes between chair umpires and players, and makes sure there is no bias.

Max G.
04-21-2008, 03:55 PM
I've always wondered, how does Hawkeye work? What exactly is the mechanism that allows it to track where a ball hits on the court?

It has, I think six (maybe more?) cameras that take video which gets fed into a computer which then figures out the ball trajectory and the landing spot.

Djokovicfan4life
04-21-2008, 04:13 PM
I remember a couple of the commentators talking about how the hawkeye system was always within 2 cm of where the ball actually lands. Thats pretty accurate, and I do like the system. It takes away a lot of the disputes between chair umpires and players, and makes sure there is no bias.

Commentators have all said their fair share of BS some time or another. We're talking about a ball that missed by at LEAST a half an inch, probably more.

gj011
04-21-2008, 04:19 PM
Commentators have all said their fair share of BS some time or another. We're talking about a ball that missed by at LEAST a half an inch, probably more.

1/2 inch < 2 cm. :)

Anyway, the Hawkeye, with all its flaws is good enough to be used on the tour.

Djokovicfan4life
04-21-2008, 04:22 PM
1/2 inch < 2 cm. :)

Anyway, the Hawkeye, with all its flaws is good enough to be used on the tour.

Sorry, misread your post, I was thinking mm for some reason. :oops:

That seems like a big difference though, certainly not a small enough margin for the pro level.

JMO.

gj011
04-21-2008, 04:30 PM
Sorry, misread your post, I was thinking mm for some reason. :oops:

That seems like a big difference though, certainly not a small enough margin for the pro level.

JMO.

It wasn't my post, but its OK. I would agree that 2 cm is not a small margin, although I read somewhere that the magrin of error is 3mm (which is < 1/2 inch:)).

Also, regardless of margin, I am convinced that Hawkeye is more accurate and correct than any line judge or player so its use is justified in my mind.

I just don't like the challenge system and that decision to challenge and look at the hawkeye is up to players entirely, instead up to the referee if ball is not clear.

Djokovicfan4life
04-21-2008, 04:32 PM
Seriously, Federer may get a lot of crap on here about it, but he may have a point here.

PROTENNIS63
04-21-2008, 05:30 PM
I think it says on the hawkeye website that it is off by a little.

purple-n-gold
04-21-2008, 07:03 PM
At the AUS Open this year i read where they actually turned hawkeye off during part of the day due to shadows on the court.

stormholloway
04-21-2008, 07:33 PM
Hawkeye isn't reliable at all.

In fact, I asked Hawkeye to take out the trash three days ago. Guess what? It's still piled up by the door.

I waited at the airport for an hour for Hawkeye to pick me up. I ended up taking the bus.

(Blank)
04-21-2008, 11:05 PM
Is it not possible to have some strategically placed cameras take real footage and look off of videos of those instead of feeding information into a computer to make a computer graphic?

Like, show real footage of the ball from several different angles to judge whether it's in or out. Can't be more expensive than Hawkeye can it?

Leublu tennis
04-21-2008, 11:37 PM
Hawkeye isn't reliable at all.

In fact, I asked Hawkeye to take out the trash three days ago. Guess what? It's still piled up by the door.

I waited at the airport for an hour for Hawkeye to pick me up. I ended up taking the bus.
Call Hawknose next time. They may be foreign but are more reliable.

caulcano
04-22-2008, 04:08 AM
It wasn't my post, but its OK. I would agree that 2 cm is not a small margin, although I read somewhere that the magrin of error is 3mm (which is < 1/2 inch:)).

Also, regardless of margin, I am convinced that Hawkeye is more accurate and correct than any line judge or player so its use is justified in my mind.

I just don't like the challenge system and that decision to challenge and look at the hawkeye is up to players entirely, instead up to the referee if ball is not clear.

Apparently, there is an error of 3-4mmm.

So let's say a ball is called 'out' by a lineman and 'Hawkeye' calls it in by 2mmm. Stupidly, 'Hawkeye' could have called this ball 'out' as well, according to the margin of error.

pennc94
04-22-2008, 04:49 AM
As I have stated before, the Tour should adopt a rule where a Hawkeye spot within its margin of error should be called a let.

Gimmick
04-22-2008, 04:51 AM
Here we have hit upon the solution. If Hawkeye can't prove beyond it's margin of error that the linesman was wrong, then the call should stand. The image of the "line" should include tolerance brackets for Hawkeye's error margin so people know what they are really looking at.

gj011
04-22-2008, 05:09 AM
Here we have hit upon the solution. If Hawkeye can't prove beyond it's margin of error that the linesman was wrong, then the call should stand. The image of the "line" should include tolerance brackets for Hawkeye's error margin so people know what they are really looking at.


I agree with the showing the error margin on the image, but the call should not stand. If the ball is within couple of mm in or out it is a big chance that line judge got it wrong. They should rather replay the point.

Max G.
04-22-2008, 10:31 AM
Here we have hit upon the solution. If Hawkeye can't prove beyond it's margin of error that the linesman was wrong, then the call should stand. The image of the "line" should include tolerance brackets for Hawkeye's error margin so people know what they are really looking at.

I disagree, because the linesman also has a margin of error. It's just that we can't draw a neat line around it. I would say that if Hawkeye has, on average, a lower margin of error than a linesman, then its call should always trump the linesman's when they disagree.

Nuke
04-22-2008, 11:23 AM
Is it not possible to have some strategically placed cameras take real footage and look off of videos of those instead of feeding information into a computer to make a computer graphic?
Like, show real footage of the ball from several different angles to judge whether it's in or out. Can't be more expensive than Hawkeye can it?
Yes, before Hawkeye came into use, they use to do that at some tournaments. I think they called it "Mac Cam" (because McEnroe was an announcer at the time) and it was a slow-motion close-up camera stationed on some of the lines. It's much more trustworthy to see an actual replay of the point instead of the cartoon computer image from Hawkeye. I'll bet the Mac Cam was too expensive, compared to Hawkeye, as you'd need a different camera for each line. Hawkeye is cheaper because they have fewer cameras and the computer just estimates where the ball landed.

lauras-serve
04-22-2008, 09:43 PM
Here we have hit upon the solution. If Hawkeye can't prove beyond it's margin of error that the linesman was wrong, then the call should stand. The image of the "line" should include tolerance brackets for Hawkeye's error margin so people know what they are really looking at.

How about following the normal tennis rule: If you aren't sure the ball is out, then it is in. In other words, if a ball is within Hawkeye's margin of error of being in, then call it in.

I'll bet the Mac Cam was too expensive, compared to Hawkeye, as you'd need a different camera for each line. Hawkeye is cheaper because they have fewer cameras and the computer just estimates where the ball landed.

I think Hawkeye uses 11 cameras. At the Stanford WTA event last year I counted them. There were four cameras behind the baseline - call them 7 o'clock, 6 o'clock, 5 o'clock, and 4 o'clock. There were four more at the other end of the court - call them 11 o'clock, 12 o'clock, 1 o'clock, and 2 o'clock. There were (I think) three more on the left side - call them 8 o'clock, 9 o'clock, and 10 o'clock. These three cameras were under the canopy over the expen$ive seats and not visible from the rest of the stadium. Because of the stadium layout, the 2 o'clock and 4 o'clock cameras were really far away from the court.