PDA

View Full Version : In or Out? Eye can Be Fooled


DoubleDeuce
06-23-2009, 05:35 PM
Interesting piece from NYT:

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/06/24/sports/tennis/24tennis.html?hp


"The researchers identified 83 missed calls during the 2007 Wimbledon tournament. (Some were challenged by players and overruled, and others were later identified as unquestionably wrong through frame-by-frame video.) Seventy of those 83 calls, or 84 percent, were on balls ruled out — essentially, shots that line judges believed had traveled farther than they actually did."

http://www.tennisserver.com/images/Mercantile2005/Mercantile-2005-397.jpg

Serendipitous
06-23-2009, 05:42 PM
Wow! :shock::shock::shock::shock:

Aldi Patron
06-23-2009, 05:46 PM
I feel like I'm missing details from that story. Was it the entire tournament, including boys and girls as well as mixed doubles and wheelchair? Was the study done only on courts with Hawk-Eye?

DoubleDeuce
06-23-2009, 05:49 PM
I feel like I'm missing details from that story. Was it the entire tournament, including boys and girls as well as mixed doubles and wheelchair? Was the study done only on courts with Hawk-Eye?

Yes, otherwise the researchers had no way of deciding whether the call was actually in or out.

Aldi Patron
06-23-2009, 05:54 PM
Yes, otherwise the researchers had no way of deciding whether the call was actually in or out.

Yeah, but isn't the Hawk-Eye only somewhat accurate? Either way, 83 missed calls actually seems somewhat low for an entire tournament.

DoubleDeuce
06-23-2009, 06:28 PM
Yeah, but isn't the Hawk-Eye only somewhat accurate? Either way, 83 missed calls actually seems somewhat low for an entire tournament.

The article does not question the accuracy of the hawk eye.

If you note that in a whole tournament most of the balls are clearly in or out, that percentage becomes significant.

Leublu tennis
06-23-2009, 06:37 PM
Yeah, but isn't the Hawk-Eye only somewhat accurate? Either way, 83 missed calls actually seems somewhat low for an entire tournament.
I think Hawk-Eye is accurate to a few millimeters, but could be wrong on that. However, 83 calls out of, what, 10,000? Thats an incredibly small number. Or were these just calls that were challenged?

ChanceEncounter
06-23-2009, 06:43 PM
I think Hawk-Eye is accurate to a few millimeters, but could be wrong on that. However, 83 calls out of, what, 10,000? Thats an incredibly small number. Or were these just calls that were challenged?
It's not that incredible considering most points aren't borderline calls at all. There's nowhere near "10,000" balls that are ambiguously in or out. 83 is significant considering that.

Jchurch
06-23-2009, 06:46 PM
Yes, otherwise the researchers had no way of deciding whether the call was actually in or out.

Are you sure when they said frame by frame they weren't using normal video?

ChanceEncounter
06-23-2009, 06:51 PM
Are you sure when they said frame by frame they weren't using normal video?
Yeah, I think it's more likely they use on court footage.

DoubleDeuce
06-23-2009, 06:57 PM
Are you sure when they said frame by frame they weren't using normal video?

I am not sure. The article does not specify which courts they used.

Blinkism
06-23-2009, 09:17 PM
I know they totally screwed Safin today, on a very important point, too!

But he was on court 18 where there is no hawkeye.

IvanAndreevich
06-23-2009, 09:47 PM
I know they totally screwed Safin today, on a very important point, too!

But he was on court 18 where there is no hawkeye.

Last year's semifinalist, the guy is retiring this year, and they put him on court 18? Geez..

Blinkism
06-23-2009, 10:12 PM
Last year's semifinalist, the guy is retiring this year, and they put him on court 18? Geez..

They probably put Bartoli or Kuznestova or some other array of choke-artists on better courts.

Where's the respect? I don't even know anymore.