PDA

View Full Version : Why isn't Hawkeye on every court?


SaunderS
06-25-2009, 07:11 AM
Is it really that expensive? Is it to do with the angle/no decent 'stand' to put the cameras on?

Guru
06-25-2009, 07:15 AM
money. i think it costs quite bit
the French don't even have it on there main court.

gj011
06-25-2009, 07:17 AM
French don't have it because it is not needed on clay.

They should have it on all courts here. It is not fair to lower ranked players to play on courts without the hawkeye.

orangettecoleman
06-25-2009, 07:18 AM
The reason the French don't have it is because it's not that accurate in reality, and when the marks on the clay prove Hawkeye wrong repeatedly it will spell the end of Hawkeye and it will be back to the endless arguments with chair umpires and line judges.

SaunderS
06-25-2009, 07:21 AM
I understand on clay courts, but grass, and a Major!

AAAA
06-25-2009, 07:23 AM
The cameras need to be at specific positions and height to be accurate. Smaller courts don't have the mounting points for all six cameras or however many they use.

jrod
06-25-2009, 07:25 AM
The reason the French don't have it is because it's not that accurate in reality, and when the marks on the clay prove Hawkeye wrong repeatedly it will spell the end of Hawkeye and it will be back to the endless arguments with chair umpires and line judges.

Really? Did you watch the FO? They had the system set up with less than the usual number of camera's and I was surprised at how accurate it was on the vast majority of close line calls.

orangettecoleman
06-25-2009, 07:35 AM
I didn't watch much of this last french open so, fair enough. I didn't know they had hawkeye on the outer courts there now. I still stand by my statement that it's not as accurate as a lot of people seem to think, i believe it's computer modeling software that tracks the trajectory of the ball and shows where the ball should have landed based on that trajectory, not a camera that just records where the ball landed. I have seen hawkeye reviews and camera replays show differences of inches, which is a lot when we're talking about line calls.

jrod
06-25-2009, 07:52 AM
I didn't watch much of this last french open so, fair enough. I didn't know they had hawkeye on the outer courts there now. I still stand by my statement that it's not as accurate as a lot of people seem to think, i believe it's computer modeling software that tracks the trajectory of the ball and shows where the ball should have landed based on that trajectory, not a camera that just records where the ball landed. I have seen hawkeye reviews and camera replays show differences of inches, which is a lot when we're talking about line calls.

Actually, the technology is remarkably accurate when you consider what it is doing. There are numerous other threads here that discuss this. The gross errors that occur these days are highly unusual and have more to do with operator error than algorithmic error. The distribution of errors is quite well contained, but Hawkeye manufacturers have yet to provide this information (probably because people will abuse it like they do with most stats).

charliefedererer
06-25-2009, 07:58 AM
Actually, the technology is remarkably accurate when you consider what it is doing. There are numerous other threads here that discuss this. The gross errors that occur these days are highly unusual and have more to do with operator error than algorithmic error. The distribution of errors is quite well contained, but Hawkeye manufacturers have yet to provide this information (probably because people will abuse it like they do with most stats).

From http://www.hawkeyeinnovations.co.uk/?page_id=1011:
"Accurate and Reliable
During ITF testing in 2006 Hawk-Eye made the correct call in 100% of all tests, showing an average error of only 3.6mm. The system recorded 100% of all rallies.

Tests have always been conducted outdoors, encompassing situations that take the following factors into consideration:

Wind (and therefore camera wobble);
Bright sunlight at different times of the day;
Shadows covering part or the majority of the court;
Dark or overcast conditions;
Artifical floodlights.

Indoor venues are obviously easier in which to track because conditions are far less variable. Quite simply, Hawk-Eye can track accurately and reliable in any conditions, on any surface.

Although the accuracy of the existing system has been tried and tested, the company is constantly trying to develop and refine the system. Hawk-Eye listens to feedback from customers and officials to ensure that Hawk-Eye remains the very best in the market."

jrod
06-25-2009, 08:02 AM
^^^ Right, however Hawkeye only provides the average error and not the error distribution which is far more revealing. They don't even provide the sample variance which would also be more informative than the average error.

dh003i
06-25-2009, 08:12 AM
^^^ Right, however Hawkeye only provides the average error and not the error distribution which is far more revealing. They don't even provide the sample variance which would also be more informative than the average error.

Bingo.

But an even bigger problem is that the umpires are supposed to be doing their job. They have become timid, and make the players do their work for them.

The way that it should work is that players get a few challenges, but umpires are also allowed to look at HawkEye quickly to check something they think was objectionable (but for heavens sake, don't display it on big screen when the ump wants to check; just give them the answer). '

It is not the players job to worry about the calls.

jrod
06-25-2009, 08:33 AM
Bingo.

But an even bigger problem is that the umpires are supposed to be doing their job. They have become timid, and make the players do their work for them.

The way that it should work is that players get a few challenges, but umpires are also allowed to look at HawkEye quickly to check something they think was objectionable (but for heavens sake, don't display it on big screen when the ump wants to check; just give them the answer). '

It is not the players job to worry about the calls.

Interesting perspective, but from what I can tell many of the players like the idea of being able to question line calls...

charliefedererer
06-25-2009, 09:03 AM
^^^ Right, however Hawkeye only provides the average error and not the error distribution which is far more revealing. They don't even provide the sample variance which would also be more informative than the average error.

You are absolutely right.
I wonder how many of those really tight calls where they show the ball just a couple of pixels in or out are accurate. The "average" lumps in all the fairly obvious calls with the ones that are are really close.

Commando Tennis Shorts
06-25-2009, 09:38 AM
Instead of that stupid "3, 2, 1 launch" thing, when someone challenges it should go, "Ca Cawwwwwwww!!!!!!"

Get it :)

'Cause it's like a---oh, forget it...

tahiti
06-25-2009, 09:52 AM
It should be. Already Wimby has televised a match where a girl lost an important game and probably helps lose the match with two bad calls at crucial points.