PDA

View Full Version : Federer Right (Again) About The Challenge System


Chopin
09-14-2009, 07:33 PM
The challenge system is a joke. Why are there not more stringent rules about its use (especially today, when it literally decided the match)?

Signaling to your box (as Del Potro was doing) before challenging should not be allowed. Federer was completely right to complain that Del Potro was taking too long. There needs to be a rule regarding how much time can pass before challenging!

The chair and lines officials also did a pretty lousy job. I particularly enjoyed when some guy in the crowd yelled out a call (correctly) that all the on-court officials had missed. The chair allowed Federer to challenge and then decided to give Del Potro a 1st serve despite the ball being out because of the "delay."

Even worse was when Federer hit an ace and Del Potro apparently saw some distraction (though made no motion to play a let) and the chair made them replay the point.

Also, am I the only one who suspects that thw challenge system might not be completely accurate. Wouldn't it be more logical to use it for ALL calls or not to use it at all?

Nonsense.

EDIT: I'm going to present this thread to the Hawkeye creator via e-mail. Math, computer and physics guys please feel free to post some questions regarding the system. If we have doubts about the system, let's try to get some answer!

Jchurch
09-14-2009, 07:44 PM
I also think it might not be accurate. That 4th set tie break call killed me. In my eyes, that literally DECIDED the match. We all know how Federer gets into his funks.

Max G.
09-14-2009, 07:52 PM
Yeah, the challenge system is stupid. It shouldn't be the players' problem - the umpire should himself order a replay viewed whenever he believes the call was close enough to warrant a second look. No input from players needed.

Raphael
09-14-2009, 07:55 PM
IF the technology really does work, then it should be for all points, not just the ones that the players (or their coaches) feel were judged incorrectly.

dh003i
09-14-2009, 07:59 PM
The challenge system is a joke. Why are there not more stringent rules about its use (especially today, when it literally decided the match)?

Signaling to your box (as Del Potro was doing) before challenging should not be allowed. Federer was completely right to complain that Del Potro was taking too long. There needs to be a rule regarding how much time can pass before challenging!

The chair and lines officials also did a pretty lousy job. I particularly enjoyed when some guy in the crowd yelled out a call (correctly) that all the on-court officials had missed. The chair allowed Federer to challenge and then decided to give Del Potro a 1st serve despite the ball being out because of the "delay."

Even worse was when Federer hit an ace and Del Potro apparently saw some distraction (though made no motion to play a let) and the chair made them replay the point.

Also, am I the only one who suspects that challenge system might not be completely accurate. Wouldn't it be more logical to use it for ALL calls or not to use it at all?

Nonsense.

I agree with your post completely. It was really disgusting and unprofessional that the umpire gave Del Potro another first serve "because of the delay". What a spineless coward. The whole point of the challenge was that if it was out, it was a 2nd serve. Isn't there a rule about that?

Asking your box before making a challenge is cheating; it is essentially coaching.

And it is really pathetic that the someone in the crowd got an "out" call (which the replay showed right), when none of the lines people did.

It was really disgusting when Del Potro got to replay a point where he wasn't ready, but he appeared to be ready to Federer, the commentators, and anyone watching. Why not just allow the receiving player to say he isn't ready after the serve has been made at any point? People are supposed to read his mind, I guess.

This was some really awful officiating. Fortunately, I don't think it really decided the outcome of the match, as Federer was serving poorly enough that it didn't really matter (i.e., broken twice last set).

But it was still awful. And I agree, shot-spot ought to maybe be used on every shot. It is instantaneous.

Something seriously needs to be done about improving the officiating in tennis. It is simply awful. Rules ought to be enforced strictly, and the umpire is supposed to enforce the rules, not make them up as he goes along like this guy did (see the above situations). Federer would have been justified in not shaking the umpire's hand.

atac
09-14-2009, 08:11 PM
Yet in the semifinal, Federer doesn't complain when he clearly got aced by Djokovic, the serve was called out, Djokovic challenges, its in and Norm Chryst makes him do a first serve??? After that, I'd say today made it pretty even.

NamRanger
09-14-2009, 08:13 PM
Someone's a little bitter.

atac
09-14-2009, 08:15 PM
^^^ If that was meant for me, then no. I'm pretty happy considering Fed got pwned today.

NamRanger
09-14-2009, 08:17 PM
^^^ If that was meant for me, then no. I'm pretty happy considering Fed got pwned today.


Not you, OP.

pame
09-14-2009, 08:20 PM
^^^ If that was meant for me, then no. I'm pretty happy considering Fed got pwned today.

Hmm.. I would have thought losing in straight sets at low scores would classify as getting "pwned".. losing in 5 sets, with 2 tiebreaks... if that's being pwned, what room do you leave for anything else?

Tony48
09-14-2009, 08:26 PM
The challenge system is a joke. Why are there not more stringent rules about its use (especially today, when it literally decided the match)?


Decided the MATCH? wtf

Federer sucks at Hawkeye. PERIOD.

Chopin
09-14-2009, 08:42 PM
^^Well, the real thing that decided the match was Federer hitting a dropshot by the T serving at 5-4 in the second set when he could have just ripped a forehand. Game over. Set over. Match over.

Federer came out strong and put himself in a position to put Del Potro away before he even knew what was happening, but he took his foot off the gas just a little too much towards the end of the second and eventually Del Potro woke up and Fed's poor serving caught up to him.

Federer should have won the match in straights IMO. He got too cute and too cocky.

Federer will likely dismantle Del Potro next time they play though (in the same way that he's recently crushed both Murray and Djokovic after losing some matches to them).

dh003i
09-14-2009, 08:45 PM
Decided the MATCH? wtf

Federer sucks at Hawkeye. PERIOD.

Right, he does. But why should he have to be good at it? That isn't tennis; it isn't what he trained to do. It isn't his job. The challenge system is unprofessional and awful. It should be the umpire (maybe even commentators) doing he challenges.

And IF Hawkeye really is accurate, it ought to be used on every shot, as it is instantaneous.

I am not convinced on Hawkeye, and neither are a lot of others. I'd like to see it compared to he marks at the FO. I think it fails. But the raw data on it should be made available to the public.

Chopin
09-14-2009, 08:46 PM
Right, he does. But why should he have to be good at it? That isn't tennis; it isn't what he trained to do. It isn't his job. The challenge system is unprofessional and awful. It should be the umpire (maybe even commentators) doing he challenges.

And IF Hawkeye really is accurate, it ought to be used on every shot, as it is instantaneous.

I am not convinced on Hawkeye, and neither are a lot of others. I'd like to see it compared to he marks at the FO. I think it fails. But the raw data on it should be made available to the public.

The sad thing, none of the players seem to know how good t is. It seems like it's just meant to make the game "more exciting" for the fans. Personally, I find it annoying.

NamRanger
09-14-2009, 08:47 PM
Right, he does. But why should he have to be good at it? That isn't tennis; it isn't what he trained to do. It isn't his job. The challenge system is unprofessional and awful. It should be the umpire (maybe even commentators) doing he challenges.

And IF Hawkeye really is accurate, it ought to be used on every shot, as it is instantaneous.

I am not convinced on Hawkeye, and neither are a lot of others. I'd like to see it compared to he marks at the FO. I think it fails. But the raw data on it should be made available to the public.



I am totally convinced that Hawkeye robbed Federer of a point at 30 all I believe (forgot when it was; it was a Del Potro pass to get back into the match). However, you just have to get over it.

dh003i
09-14-2009, 08:47 PM
^^Well, the real thing that decided the match was Federer hitting a dropshot by the T serving at 5-4 in the second set when he could have just ripped a forehand. Game over. Set over. Match over.

Federer came out strong and put himself in a position to put Del Potro away before he even knew what was happening, but he took his foot off the gas just a little too much towards the end of the second and eventually Del Potro woke up and Fed's poor serving caught up to him.

Federer should have won the match in straights IMO. He got too cute and too cocky.

Federer will likely dismantle Del Potro next time they play though (in the same way that he's recently crushed both Murray and Djokovic after losing some matches to them).

It seems like a poor decision in retrospect; but if it worked, it's brilliant. It is part of a strategy of mixing it up, giving the other guy more to think about. I don't think Federer got cocky or cute, I think he just didn't do enough to put away Delpo when he could have. And, as you said, his bad serving caught up to him.

Credit to Delpo, he deserved to win and he hung in there.

penang
09-14-2009, 08:48 PM
As I have said before. The challenge system make the chair umpire and lines person lazy and afraid to call a close shot and sometime an obvious shot.

See what happen next Grand Slam. Who would want to take the pressure like the lines person call on one of the woman foot fault. Take the system away and let the officials do their job. Otherwise install all courts with the Hawkeye or whatever they want to call it. It look like the smaller courts with no camera and those player's aren't play for the championship. Only the few big courts matches with camera are.

And I hate lines person with sunglasses. maybe want to hide themselves.

ArrowSmith
09-14-2009, 08:49 PM
Yeah let's pretend Fed lost because of Hawkeye....

topspin
09-14-2009, 08:51 PM
The challenge system works. It can work for you or against you. So as a player, you have to accept that it will help you at times and hurt you other times. At least it is precise and consistent.

About the person in the crowd who yelled out "OUT" correctly: people tend to yell out line calls a bit too much at matches. They just take guesses if the ball is close to the line.

Chopin
09-14-2009, 08:52 PM
It seems like a poor decision in retrospect; but if it worked, it's brilliant. It is part of a strategy of mixing it up, giving the other guy more to think about. I don't think Federer got cocky or cute, I think he just didn't do enough to put away Delpo when he could have. And, as you said, his bad serving caught up to him.

Credit to Delpo, he deserved to win and he hung in there.

Yeah, of course Del Potro deserved the win, but Federer definitely took his foot of the gas in the second set. It just seemed like he assumed he was going to continue breezing through the set and after blowing it, Del Potro just caught stronger and stronger and Federer let things like Hawkeye start to get to him. IMO, if Djokovic or Murray were across the net in the final, Federer would have never dared take his foot off the gas. At the end of the day, Fed underestimated Del Potro.

Federer was coming to net a lot in the first two sets and he went away from the way too much in the final sets and got into those extended rallies from the baseline towards Del Potro's forehand.

Regardless of how fit the guy is, he's played a LOT more tennis than Del Potro and he's 28--not 20. The longer the match went on, the more it favored Del Potro after playing back to back matches.

iGotServed628
09-14-2009, 08:54 PM
you guys are all aware that hawk-eye does not represent what actually happened in real life right? it uses the cameras to make a prediction of where the ball WOULD land based on the velocity and trajectory of the ball with a very slim margin of error. however, i am not 100% convinced on a lot of the calls that zoom in to show that a ball was in/out by millimeters. in regards to the us open final, delpo came to play and was the better player today, controversial or not. as a fed fan im disappointed, but he just didnt play as well.

dh003i
09-14-2009, 08:55 PM
The challenge system works. It can work for you or against you. So as a player, you have to accept that it will help you at times and hurt you other times. At least it is precise and consistent.

We have no objective evidence hat shot-spot is accurate and consistent. I'd like to see the raw data on it, and a comparison of it vs. the marks at clay tournaments.

In any event, it isn't as simple as "for or against you". Some players are really bad at it, others really good. It is an unfair advantage to the player who's good at second-guessing lines calls. That isn't what these guys train for, and it isn't their job. It is the job of the ump and the lines people to do that. They should do it.

IF shot spot is accurate, it should be used on every shot. Why not? They use an electronic sensor to sense lets.

But I doubt it is accurate. IF the ATP and the company backing shot-spot were so confident, they'd use it during clay-court tournaments and compare it to the marks for real proof.

Chopin
09-14-2009, 08:57 PM
We have no objective evidence hat shot-spot is accurate and consistent. I'd like to see the raw data on it, and a comparison of it vs. the marks at clay tournaments.

In any event, it isn't as simple as "for or against you". Some players are really bad at it, others really good. It is an unfair advantage to the player who's good at second-guessing lines calls. That isn't what these guys train for, and it isn't their job. It is the job of the ump and the lines people to do that. They should do it.

IF shot spot is accurate, it should be used on every shot. Why not? They use an electronic sensor to sense lets.

But I doubt it is accurate. IF the ATP and the company backing shot-spot were so confident, they'd use it during clay-court tournaments and compare it to the marks for real proof.

Exactly. There is really no legitimate counter-argument to your last point. If it's that good, why not use it at all times?

Tony48
09-14-2009, 08:57 PM
1. Federer hates Hawkeye.
2. Federer uses Hawkeye quite a bit
3. Federer has more incorrect challenges than anyone on the ATP

If Hawkeye is a joke, Federer does a terrible job trying to prove it.

Knightmace
09-14-2009, 09:01 PM
The challenege system is not accurate I remember one time it said it was out but showed the ball hit the line.

RalphNYC
09-14-2009, 09:04 PM
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UqRdl9jjNb4

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AYo_0hsvq5s

dh003i
09-14-2009, 09:10 PM
1. Federer hates Hawkeye.
2. Federer uses Hawkeye quite a bit
3. Federer has more incorrect challenges than anyone on the ATP

If Hawkeye is a joke, Federer does a terrible job trying to prove it.

How exactly could Federer "prove it"? He can't.

Hawkeye isn't used at clay-court events, isn't even shown to the public. Why not? Well, it isn't really needed, because there are marks. But it ought to be used anyways, to prove it's accuracy for other events.

Why isn't it? Why isn't the public shown proof that Hawkeye almost always matches the marks on clay?

I suspect the answer is because Hawkeye is really just a guess based on extrapolation. It isn't that accurate. It certainly can't account for wind or cold fronts, for example. (in particular, it can't account for sudden gusts of wind, or random changes in wind, which happened a lot at the USO).

We'd be better off using very high fps videos to see what happened.

dh003i
09-14-2009, 09:12 PM
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UqRdl9jjNb4

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AYo_0hsvq5s

Federer went too far there, but his frustration was understandable. The umpire didn't do his job; he did a miserable job, in fact, and ought to be fired.

Jim A
09-14-2009, 09:14 PM
62 UE's do more damage than a replay

asdfuogh
09-14-2009, 09:32 PM
Marks only show where there is the most impact right? But when the ball hits the surface, it flattens out in a way depending on how it approached the ground.. Then again, hawkeye really needs some improvements because it's just basically a good educated guess.

dh003i
09-14-2009, 09:42 PM
Marks only show where there is the most impact right? But when the ball hits the surface, it flattens out in a way depending on how it approached the ground.. Then again, hawkeye really needs some improvements because it's just basically a good educated guess.

What exactly is the rule? Is it physical contact, or just any part of the ball being over the line? I would think it'd be any part of the ball being over the line, as physical contact is really almost impossible to see.

kkm
09-14-2009, 09:49 PM
I agree with your post completely. It was really disgusting and unprofessional that the umpire gave Del Potro another first serve "because of the delay". What a spineless coward. The whole point of the challenge was that if it was out, it was a 2nd serve. Isn't there a rule about that?

Asking your box before making a challenge is cheating; it is essentially coaching.

And it is really pathetic that the someone in the crowd got an "out" call (which the replay showed right), when none of the lines people did.

It was really disgusting when Del Potro got to replay a point where he wasn't ready, but he appeared to be ready to Federer, the commentators, and anyone watching. Why not just allow the receiving player to say he isn't ready after the serve has been made at any point? People are supposed to read his mind, I guess.

This was some really awful officiating. Fortunately, I don't think it really decided the outcome of the match, as Federer was serving poorly enough that it didn't really matter (i.e., broken twice last set).

But it was still awful. And I agree, shot-spot ought to maybe be used on every shot. It is instantaneous.

Something seriously needs to be done about improving the officiating in tennis. It is simply awful. Rules ought to be enforced strictly, and the umpire is supposed to enforce the rules, not make them up as he goes along like this guy did (see the above situations). Federer would have been justified in not shaking the umpire's hand.

They should actually enforce the no-coaching rules or otherwise get rid of these rules. Now they don't seem to enforce it one bit.

Ultra2HolyGrail
09-14-2009, 10:01 PM
How is it coaching when you look to your box on out calls?

dh003i
09-14-2009, 10:04 PM
How is it coaching when you look to your box on out calls?

This is obvious. It is coaching because you're looking for a visual cue on whether or not to challenge the out call.

Ultra2HolyGrail
09-14-2009, 10:11 PM
This is obvious. It is coaching because you're looking for a visual cue on whether or not to challenge the out call.


I don't consider that coaching. It's not like they are telling them how to play the game.

dh003i
09-14-2009, 10:21 PM
I don't consider that coaching. It's not like they are telling them how to play the game.

The ATP has made that a part of the game, by making challenges up to players. This is wrong, but it is. Hence, asking for advice from one's box on that is asking for coaching, and not within the rules. The commentators also said as much.

That said, Delpo is generally a really nice guy. No-one is perfect, and I blame the ATP for the situation.

Chopin
09-14-2009, 11:06 PM
Q. Seemed like a little turning point in the second set, there was that call on the line that was challenged. Seemed look you thought it was maybe another mark there. Can you talk about that?

ROGER FEDERER: It was only one mark. That mark was out. But apparently in. I mean, I don't know what to say. This thing is so ridiculous anyway. I see the ball landing, I see the ball hanging, and then it's called in.

Chopin
09-14-2009, 11:10 PM
"The mark of the ball was still on court and it was outside. But in the challenge it was in, so that's unbelievable. The Hawk Eye system is not perfect," fumed Nadal.

"I told the chair umpire: 'Look, the ball is out' and he said: 'I know'.

"The truth is that the ball was out. Let them put the Hawk Eye on clay and you will see," Nadal shrugged.

Chopin
09-14-2009, 11:15 PM
http://sports.espn.go.com/sports/tennis/wimbledon08/news/story?id=3452293

Chopin
09-14-2009, 11:21 PM
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8bI7DO0m0W0&NR=1

(K)evin
09-14-2009, 11:21 PM
or I was thinking we could just sack the hawkeye system and isntead install sensors on the lines either a pressure sensor underneath the line itself that can detect balls hitting the line. and if it isn't possible to translate this system to clay and grass than a tiny sensor at the very end of each line and send a beam to te other side and when the ball breaks the beam you know it was in.

Chopin
09-14-2009, 11:22 PM
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ak8GRRFBN54&feature=related

COPEY
09-14-2009, 11:45 PM
62 UE's do more damage than a replay

Best quote in the thread, and speaks volumes.

My thoughts are...

This thread wouldn't exist if the outcome had been different I'm sure. Having said that, it doesn't change the fact that the ATP/WTA need to make a few changes in the challenge system. I personally don't see it going away, although I agree with Carillo in that players shouldn't have to challenge. We have the means to improve the accuracy of every call, but for the sake of infusing drama, which inturn influences fan appeal and ratings, the challenge system will probably be around for a while.

or I was thinking we could just sack the hawkeye system and isntead install sensors on the lines either a pressure sensor underneath the line itself that can detect balls hitting the line.

Already been down that road. Electronic line calling was first tinkered with back in the the 70s, and it was extremely close to being implemented in the '93 US Open, but failed miserably in the final testing period.

The problem as I see it is if they remove any and all sources of human error in tennis, then you're left with the game itself to lure fans in, get high ratings and the like. So even though Shot Spot/Hawk-Eye trump the human eye with respect to discerning the probability of a ball being in or out, the challenge system still leaves room for "mistakes", which can sometimes lead to high drama in tense moments/key points. Translation: higher ratings, more interest from the fans.

Me - I love the game, so I'm all for line calls being as accurate as possible, but I also understand why we're not "there" yet.

topspin
09-15-2009, 08:36 AM
We have no objective evidence hat shot-spot is accurate and consistent. I'd like to see the raw data on it, and a comparison of it vs. the marks at clay tournaments.

In any event, it isn't as simple as "for or against you". Some players are really bad at it, others really good. It is an unfair advantage to the player who's good at second-guessing lines calls. That isn't what these guys train for, and it isn't their job. It is the job of the ump and the lines people to do that. They should do it.

IF shot spot is accurate, it should be used on every shot. Why not? They use an electronic sensor to sense lets.

But I doubt it is accurate. IF the ATP and the company backing shot-spot were so confident, they'd use it during clay-court tournaments and compare it to the marks for real proof.

I have no problem with it being used for every shot. It is a quick process that does not cause much delay. That is something the ITF can consider. I understand that some will say that then players will just ask for a verification every time they need an extra 10 seconds to recover from a point. So the best thing would be to keep the current challenge system and then just leave it up to the ref to verify any close calls for a player that has run out of challenges. That would be very reasonable.

As far as accuracy, there are many many threads about it on here. Visually it appears to be very accurate to me. When I see a review, it is often exactly where I imagined the shot to have landed. Apparently the margin for error is 1/8 of an inch. That's not perfect of course, but very good and, most importantly, it is consistent. A linesperson is not that precise or consistent. But with a 1/8 margin of error, it is possible that some reviews will show the ball to either touch the line or barely miss it. I think the players understand this. That's why I say they know that the system will equally help them or hurt them. The main thing though is to avoid really really bad calls like that against S Williams in a US Open match years ago.

Bud
09-15-2009, 08:40 AM
I am totally convinced that Hawkeye robbed Federer of a point at 30 all I believe (forgot when it was; it was a Del Potro pass to get back into the match). However, you just have to get over it.

Was that the point where Federer kept looking at the mark on the court... for the next 4-5 points? Federer even went over and pointed out the incorrect mark (on the sideline of the ad court). If so, the replay showed the called mark was the correct mark and Delpo's ball did catch the edge of the line.

Gorecki
09-15-2009, 08:43 AM
Yet in the semifinal, Federer doesn't complain when he clearly got aced by Djokovic, the serve was called out, Djokovic challenges, its in and Norm Chryst makes him do a first serve??? After that, I'd say today made it pretty even.

plus the idiot challenges in the replay point after spraying a fh...

the only jokes i see are Fed's eyes and Chopin's opinions...

Bud
09-15-2009, 08:44 AM
plus the idiot challenges in the replay point after spraying a fh...

the only jokes i see are Fed's eyes and Chopin's opinions...

Yep, Federer likes Hawkeye when it works in his favor... and hates it like the dickens when it works against him.

Fedace
09-15-2009, 08:48 AM
I agree that it isn't 100% accurate due to shadow problems and such. but it is FUN. it adds excitement to tennis. so that is what matters, and it stays.

P_Agony
09-15-2009, 08:48 AM
The umpire really annoyed Federer, and Federer was rightfuly annoyed. I think that had part in his game declining during the match.

Stinkdyr
09-15-2009, 08:48 AM
agree that mac-cam would be better. animation=approximation.

Gorecki
09-15-2009, 08:51 AM
The umpire really annoyed Federer, and Federer was rightfuly annoyed. I think that had part in his game declining during the match.

yes.. the umpire and that damn blazing fh... but lets forget the last one ond focus on the first one... its better for your liver pain...!

tennisNoob78
09-15-2009, 09:03 AM
I am totally convinced that Hawkeye robbed Federer of a point at 30 all I believe (forgot when it was; it was a Del Potro pass to get back into the match). However, you just have to get over it.

As much as I like Fed, I absolutely do not like to see him whining about Hawkeye accuracy when the call doesn't go his way. If he hates the system, he should not use it and rely solely on calls from the linesman.

There were a couple of challenges by Fed (serves down the middle) that were called "in" by a whisker (with magnification) - how is he ok with those calls?

rocket
09-15-2009, 09:21 AM
Yeah, of course Del Potro deserved the win, but Federer definitely took his foot of the gas in the second set. It just seemed like he assumed he was going to continue breezing through the set and after blowing it, Del Potro just caught stronger and stronger and Federer let things like Hawkeye start to get to him. IMO, if Djokovic or Murray were across the net in the final, Federer would have never dared take his foot off the gas. At the end of the day, Fed underestimated Del Potro.

I agree, but I think it's a combination of low 1st serve percentage & Delpo's ripping forehands that killed Fed.

Fed did well to hang in there with mostly 2nd serves. He just couldn't find his 1st serve when it mattered.

Delpo played like a champ!

nikdom
09-15-2009, 10:07 AM
Reason for the result: Del Po played a very gutsy match and Roger did not serve well.

Criticism of Hawkeye: The OP is hundred percent correct. No one is saying that is the reason why Roger lost. The top players have time and again criticized the results of the hawk eye system and I agree that it is not used uniformly by umpires in addition to being inaccurate as it predicts trajectories and does not account for wind gusts.

About the USO: I've lost all respect for the USO as a major. I used to think it was the best major. It has the worst tennis stadium , the worst scheduling, worst TV coverage (and pandering to TV's demands rather than celebrating the achievements of a champion), the worst crowd (rowdy, drunk and have no tennis etiquette shouting during serves, calling lines) and worst visitor experience (selling too many grounds passes making the place overcrowded and not being able to manage day/night sessions properly)

ksbh
09-15-2009, 10:09 AM
The Federer lovers out in full force with their bizzare excuses. Reasons for Federer's loss-

1. Hawkeye
2. He was annoyed by the umpire
3. Del Potro taking time on the challenges

and this one takes the crown-

4. Federer got too cute and cocky. ROFL X 1000!

In other words, Federer's loss had nothing to do with the exceptional play that Del Potro brought to the final! Someone should add these to the Federer excuses thread, if they can find it.

Gorecki
09-15-2009, 10:17 AM
The Federer lovers out in full force with their bizzare excuses. Reasons for Federer's loss-

1. Hawkeye
2. He was annoyed by the umpire
3. Del Potro taking time on the challenges

and this one takes the crown-

4. Federer got too cute and cocky. ROFL X 1000!

In other words, Federer's loss had nothing to do with the exceptional play that Del Potro brought to the final! Someone should add these to the Federer excuses thread, if they can find it.

the best one i saw was that even though fed served above 55%, it felt like 15 %...

ksbh
09-15-2009, 10:20 AM
ROFL X 1050! You're a master at stating so much using so few words, Sir Gorecki! I wish I had that skill.

the best one i saw was that even though fed served above 55%, it felt like 15 %...

Ledigs
09-15-2009, 10:23 AM
He doesn't believe it works correctly, so even if he knows a shot it out, on a big point he will challenge, because there is always the hope that the challenge system will make the call for him (wrongly). :)

kkm
09-15-2009, 12:05 PM
Maybe they should stick to humans. Machines make mistakes too, but too often they're seen as infallible.
Federer's fault for not getting his head back into the match.

NamRanger
09-15-2009, 12:45 PM
Was that the point where Federer kept looking at the mark on the court... for the next 4-5 points? Federer even went over and pointed out the incorrect mark (on the sideline of the ad court). If so, the replay showed the called mark was the correct mark and Delpo's ball did catch the edge of the line.


No, it was not the incorrect mark. Hawkeye sees the ball bigger than it really is. The edge that touched that part was most likely the fuzz of the ball.

icazares
09-15-2009, 12:50 PM
Reason for the result:
About the USO: I've lost all respect for the USO as a major. I used to think it was the best major. It has the worst tennis stadium , the worst scheduling, worst TV coverage (and pandering to TV's demands rather than celebrating the achievements of a champion), the worst crowd (rowdy, drunk and have no tennis etiquette shouting during serves, calling lines) and worst visitor experience (selling too many grounds passes making the place overcrowded and not being able to manage day/night sessions properly)

Agreed, especially the TV part. What a ridiculous display. The USTA management should be fired or at a minimum, sent to Wimbledon, Paris or Melbourne to learn how to run one.

Omega_7000
09-15-2009, 03:07 PM
The challenge system is just full of cr*p!

Chopin
09-15-2009, 03:12 PM
As much as I like Fed, I absolutely do not like to see him whining about Hawkeye accuracy when the call doesn't go his way. If he hates the system, he should not use it and rely solely on calls from the linesman.

There were a couple of challenges by Fed (serves down the middle) that were called "in" by a whisker (with magnification) - how is he ok with those calls?

Poor logic.

It's like a test at school which the teacher grades using a curve. Now, the student who did the best on the test might think that the curve is unfair, but it makes sense for him or her to accept that extra point.

Same way with hawkeye, just because Federer does not think Hawkeye is valid does not mean he should not try to use it to his advantage if that's what all his opponents are doing.

Chopin
09-15-2009, 03:14 PM
The Federer lovers out in full force with their bizzare excuses. Reasons for Federer's loss-

1. Hawkeye
2. He was annoyed by the umpire
3. Del Potro taking time on the challenges

and this one takes the crown-

4. Federer got too cute and cocky. ROFL X 1000!

In other words, Federer's loss had nothing to do with the exceptional play that Del Potro brought to the final! Someone should add these to the Federer excuses thread, if they can find it.

No one ever said that. I'm not blaming Hawkeye for Federer's loss.

However, Federer was clearly in control in the second set and indeed took his foot off the gas. After that, Del Potro started to play better.

TennisandMusic
09-15-2009, 03:20 PM
No one ever said that. I'm not blaming Hawkeye for Federer's loss.

However, Federer was clearly in control in the second set and indeed took his foot off the gas. After that, Del Potro started to play better.

But Del Potro played some great shots to even it up in the second...

That said I didn't think either player played great in the final. They played great in moments, but quite bad in a lot of others.

Wait, what was this thread about again? :-P

tennisNoob78
09-15-2009, 03:30 PM
Poor logic.

It's like a test at school which the teacher grades using a curve. Now, the student who did the best on the test might think that the curve is unfair, but it makes sense for him or her to accept that extra point.

Same way with hawkeye, just because Federer does not think Hawkeye is valid does not mean he should not try to use it to his advantage if that's what all his opponents are doing.

Except in your analogy the student does not have the option of picking the grading method. The teacher sets that from day 1 of the class, and it is out of the student's control from that point on.

In Fed case, he has a choice - rely on the linesman if he is convinced that hawkeye is a terrible system.

If Fed is using it to his advantage, then as I mentioned above he gets calls in his favor by that same margin of error. (There were 2 in the match itself).

Is he saying his vision is more accurate than hawkeye when the call is not in his favor??

jstr
09-15-2009, 03:54 PM
Was that the point where Federer kept looking at the mark on the court... for the next 4-5 points? Federer even went over and pointed out the incorrect mark (on the sideline of the ad court). If so, the replay showed the called mark was the correct mark and Delpo's ball did catch the edge of the line.

Should the size of the ball that Hawk-eye represents be changed ? Surely the imprint left by a tennis ball is not as big as that ( the entire diameter of a tennis ball ? ). What could it realistically be: somewhere between the size of a pencil eraser and a "quarter"? Seems like that is the size of the mark that is left on the court when a player physically checks it / contests it; at least on clay. Who determines this "size" ?

Tshooter
09-15-2009, 04:07 PM
"Also, am I the only one who suspects that challenge system might not be completely accurate."

Of course you're not. I do not think even the manufacturer claims the system is completely accurate.

I've never seen any information from an independent third party explaining precisely how and why it works or to what degree we should expect it to be accurate.

Whether it's more or less accurate then linespeople I have no particular confidence on that answer

So long as it doesn't produce egregious errors or someone demonstrates that it's substantially inaccurate I'd say it's here to stay.

It has the advantage of being the definitive word and so the match will roll on. And the crowd seems to like making noise whenever there is a replay. Oooooooooooooooooohhh. So it has entertainment value.

We love technology. And we like "black boxes."

Chopin
09-15-2009, 04:40 PM
But Del Potro played some great shots to even it up in the second...

That said I didn't think either player played great in the final. They played great in moments, but quite bad in a lot of others.

Wait, what was this thread about again? :-P

I've read your posts regarding Federer before and I'm not likely to appreciate your "objective" judgment.

topspin
09-15-2009, 06:17 PM
Maybe they should stick to humans. Machines make mistakes too, but too often they're seen as infallible.
Federer's fault for not getting his head back into the match.

Ridiculous statement.

The call system is quite precise (within 1/8th of an inch) and consistent.

To suggest going back to just using humans is like suggesting we get rid of advances like MRI machines because they could be fallible.

Chadwixx
09-15-2009, 06:28 PM
Even worse was when Federer hit an ace and Del Potro apparently saw some distraction (though made no motion to play a let) and the chair made them replay the point.



Im glad fed fans didnt turn this into another serena vs the hand match. This is much worse and could of easily gone that way. Classy job fed fans.

Imo, fed lost the match due to this one call :)

I agree, fed got the screw job this tournament. How is a fan disrupting play not a let?

I personally dont like the challenge system, too often the generated image isnt close to where the ball actually landed.

Chopin
09-15-2009, 07:10 PM
Except in your analogy the student does not have the option of picking the grading method. The teacher sets that from day 1 of the class, and it is out of the student's control from that point on.

In Fed case, he has a choice - rely on the linesman if he is convinced that hawkeye is a terrible system.

If Fed is using it to his advantage, then as I mentioned above he gets calls in his favor by that same margin of error. (There were 2 in the match itself).

Is he saying his vision is more accurate than hawkeye when the call is not in his favor??

No--Federer did not pick Hawkeye but he still has to have his shots subjected to it by his opponents. Trying to use it to his own advantage is a no-brainer. He's just trying to make the best of a bad system.

Lots of the top guys have criticized it (Roddick and Nadal--see the quote in my signature) but still use it because they're trying to maximize their chances for success.

Anyhow, don't you think it should be used for all calls or not at all?

Chopin
09-15-2009, 07:10 PM
Assuming that it's wrong sometimes--isn't it then a chance to get a call wrong, rather than get it right?

Mkie7
09-15-2009, 07:19 PM
The challenge system is a joke. Why are there not more stringent rules about its use (especially today, when it literally decided the match)?

Signaling to your box (as Del Potro was doing) before challenging should not be allowed. Federer was completely right to complain that Del Potro was taking too long. There needs to be a rule regarding how much time can pass before challenging!

The chair and lines officials also did a pretty lousy job. I particularly enjoyed when some guy in the crowd yelled out a call (correctly) that all the on-court officials had missed. The chair allowed Federer to challenge and then decided to give Del Potro a 1st serve despite the ball being out because of the "delay."

Even worse was when Federer hit an ace and Del Potro apparently saw some distraction (though made no motion to play a let) and the chair made them replay the point.

Also, am I the only one who suspects that challenge system might not be completely accurate. Wouldn't it be more logical to use it for ALL calls or not to use it at all?

Nonsense.


I agree with everything you said. As far as the hawkeye... if its a flawed system... it applies to all players without prejudice. Just like the draws.... its luck sometimes. I don't know what else they can do but to try and perfect this technology.

Agree that the umpire could have done a better job... especially in a GS finals. Fed. let him have it.. and I thought Fed should have let the umpire wear his racquet on his head as well. ( just kidding of cos) :)

Max G.
09-15-2009, 07:54 PM
Assuming that it's wrong sometimes--isn't it then a chance to get a call wrong, rather than get it right?

People are wrong sometimes too, and if Hawkeye is better than the linespeople on average, then on close calls it's more likely to change a wrong call to right rather than the other way around.

lawrence
09-15-2009, 08:40 PM
Rafa's quote/Chopin's sig is too true.

"The truth is that the ball was out. Let them put the Hawk Eye on clay and you will see."--Rafa

I'm confident that if you threw Hawkeye onto the RG courts you'd have so many issues it wouldn't be funny.

Chopin
09-15-2009, 08:45 PM
People are wrong sometimes too, and if Hawkeye is better than the linespeople on average, then on close calls it's more likely to change a wrong call to right rather than the other way around.

OK, fine. I'll assume that's true (though there's no way of knowing if Hawkeye is ever wrong in the context it's used in--as Rafa says, put it on clay and we'll find out).

But OK--should it not be used all the time then? Wouldn't that eliminate more error, by your logic?

Talker
09-15-2009, 09:44 PM
No--Federer did not pick Hawkeye but he still has to have his shots subjected to it by his opponents. Trying to use it to his own advantage is a no-brainer. He's just trying to make the best of a bad system.

Lots of the top guys have criticized it (Roddick and Nadal--see the quote in my signature) but still use it because they're trying to maximize their chances for success.

Anyhow, don't you think it should be used for all calls or not at all?

Quite a few times the result of the system is shown but with no challenge.
And sometimes the wrong call was made by the linesperson but the call stands. Strange that a known mistake on a call is not used.

Max G.
09-16-2009, 05:54 AM
But OK--should it not be used all the time then? Wouldn't that eliminate more error, by your logic?

Yes, it should.

If the worry is that it takes too long, then it should at least automatically review the point-ending shot of each point (the 20 seconds between points should be FAR more than enough time, especially if they don't need to make fancy-looking pictures for the audience.)

Or, at the least, it should be available to the chair umpire to use whenever the chair believes it was a close enough call to warrant review.

(Really, that last option is the best, I think. Educate the chair umpire on Hawkeye's strengths and weaknesses, and then let the chair get a personal look at it whenever he wants, to aid in making the correct call. I would expect this would mean that the chair would basically go with what Hawkeye says all the time, but would leave him the usual discretion to correct "clear errors", such as when Hawkeye looks at the wrong shot or something.)

mandy01
09-16-2009, 06:00 AM
Yes, it should.

If the worry is that it takes too long, then it should at least automatically review the point-ending shot of each point (the 20 seconds between points should be FAR more than enough time, especially if they don't need to make fancy-looking pictures for the audience.)

Or, at the least, it should be available to the chair umpire to use whenever the chair believes it was a close enough call to warrant review.

(Really, that last option is the best, I think. Educate the chair umpire on Hawkeye's strengths and weaknesses, and then let the chair get a personal look at it whenever he wants, to aid in making the correct call. I would expect this would mean that the chair would basically go with what Hawkeye says all the time, but would leave him the usual discretion to correct "clear errors", such as when Hawkeye looks at the wrong shot or something.)
That can be done..Fed said it was pretty much embarrassing to make these calls using the hawkeye when its supposed to be the Chair Umpire's job to do so.

Gorecki
09-16-2009, 07:42 AM
I've read your posts regarding Federer before and I'm not likely to appreciate your "objective" judgment.

go get 'hem Chop's... you are the objectivity police!:twisted::twisted:

tacou
09-16-2009, 08:11 AM
I don't think its the system itself as much as how its used. I'm sure in 2-3 years the technology will be perfected and (though this is my personal and controversial opinion) there will be no need for lines people.

However, the amount of time between call and challenge should be no more than 5 seconds. Secondly, chair umpires can not be ******** with their discretion; there is no need to give Del Potro a first serve because of a "delay" when the Argentine was taking 10-12seconds just to challenge himself.

There was another instance where a serve was struck and seemed like an ace but was overruled as a fault (I don't remember who was serving). Challenge proved it was in, but chair ump said they needed to replay the point, even though the call was made after the ace. No sense.

SerbWhoLovesDelPo
09-16-2009, 08:22 AM
I don't think its the system itself as much as how its used. I'm sure in 2-3 years the technology will be perfected and (though this is my personal and controversial opinion) there will be no need for lines people.

However, the amount of time between call and challenge should be no more than 5 seconds. Secondly, chair umpires can not be ******** with their discretion; there is no need to give Del Potro a first serve because of a "delay" when the Argentine was taking 10-12seconds just to challenge himself.

There was another instance where a serve was struck and seemed like an ace but was overruled as a fault (I don't remember who was serving). Challenge proved it was in, but chair ump said they needed to replay the point, even though the call was made after the ace. No sense.

Yeah, that's what happened when Djokovic was serving against Fed in 1st set. And furthermore, Federer didn't wanna concede the ace.

lordmanji
09-16-2009, 08:24 AM
The challenge system is a joke. Why are there not more stringent rules about its use (especially today, when it literally decided the match)?

Signaling to your box (as Del Potro was doing) before challenging should not be allowed. Federer was completely right to complain that Del Potro was taking too long. There needs to be a rule regarding how much time can pass before challenging!

The chair and lines officials also did a pretty lousy job. I particularly enjoyed when some guy in the crowd yelled out a call (correctly) that all the on-court officials had missed. The chair allowed Federer to challenge and then decided to give Del Potro a 1st serve despite the ball being out because of the "delay."

Even worse was when Federer hit an ace and Del Potro apparently saw some distraction (though made no motion to play a let) and the chair made them replay the point.

Also, am I the only one who suspects that thw challenge system might not be completely accurate. Wouldn't it be more logical to use it for ALL calls or not to use it at all?

Nonsense.

EDIT: I'm going to present this thread to the Hawkeye creator via e-mail. Math, computer and physics guys please feel free to post some questions regarding the system. If we have doubts about the system, let's try to get some answer!

people do not care about players looking up to their boxes because the chances of them being wrong like the player are just as high. this is a non-issue for this reason.

Chopin
09-16-2009, 08:37 AM
people do not care about players looking up to their boxes because the chances of them being wrong like the player are just as high. this is a non-issue for this reason.

OK! Let them consult replays then.

ebm
09-16-2009, 08:50 AM
Although Hawkeye has its faults, the main advantage to using the system is removing the human part of the equation. When a computer makes a bad call players and fans just complain and move on. When a human makes a bad call, players go ballistic (Serena, Mac, etc...) and fans scream for somebody's job.

If the infamous foot fault had been called by a sensor (like bowling), I bet Serena would have complained for a minute and accepted the decision. Machines remove confrontation.

I love the evolution of the game though.
Player vs Player don't trust the calls---get an umpire.
Don't trust the umpire---get lines people.
Don't trust the lines people----get Mac-cam
Don't trust Mac-Cam----get Hawkeye
Don't trust Hawkeye-----?

I don't think everyone will be happy until someone invents a pressure sensitive court connected to a computer.

tacou
09-16-2009, 09:20 AM
Yeah, that's what happened when Djokovic was serving against Fed in 1st set. And furthermore, Federer didn't wanna concede the ace.

oh yes it was the semi final, you are correct. that was outrageous, a clean ace. Fed lunged and made no contact, then the call was made. pretty simple call in my opinion.

vicnan
09-16-2009, 11:39 AM
The challenge system basically estimates where the ball fell using input from different cameras. Most of the time the estimate is correct, but not always. I think the players know this and that is quite possibly the reason why many players challenge calls on key points knowing full well that there is a margin for error in the challenge system. After all, if you are going to lose the game/set and the challenges for that set, why not challenge. They are simply playing with the probabilities as a last resort.

I remember a number of calls when the commentators and the opponent were sure that the call was right, only for them to be completely surprised when the challenge ever so marginally negated the original call.

How does the challenge system work? How does it estimate? What are the specific mathematical equations behind it? The tennis associations are guarding it like a state secret.